Export thread

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-...rica-offers-sprawling-sincere-superhero-story

This reviewer thinks so! And has some really encouraging things to say about it. This guy isn't one of my top/favorite movie critics, but still, everything he's saying is making me hopeful this will break the malaise of Iron Man/Hulk/Thor and be something really good.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-07-20/film/captain-america-movie-ignores-its-roots-for-easy-money/

But wait. This reviewer, I usually like, but this review seems like....a lot of plot description(mild spoilers) and just general problems with the whole Avengers thing and not really this movie specifically. I dunno, it's not very convincing.

There should be more reviews coming today and tomorrow. I'm slightly on the fence on seeing this in theaters, and probably not going to see it in 3D.

That second review is as pretentious as it gets. They didn't set out to make fucking Schindler's List.

More reviews I'm checking seem to be kind of negative too. And it seems my worst fears about this being another cookie cutter prequel to Avengers are true. I'll just skip it and watch Avengers, I guess.

I'm going on Saturday as part of a birthday party. I haven't been to a movie for a birthday since I was like... eleven. But I get to finally see what this UltraAVX buzz everyone is talking about is.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

More reviews I'm checking seem to be kind of negative too. And it seems my worst fears about this being another cookie cutter prequel to Avengers are true. I'll just skip it and watch Avengers, I guess.

Click to expand...

That's cool, as long as the complaints are about it's merits as a movie and now about how it doesn't deal with the ramifications on the holocausts if there were nazis with laser guns.

I like him overall but McWeeny is... pretty hit or miss for me. CA looks far more interesting to me than Thor did but my movie going time is limited so this one might wait till Blu-Ray.

Yeah, hence my minor reservations in the OP. I am more interested in hearing what AO Scott and Ebert have to say

Charlie Don't Surf said:

And it seems my worst fears about this being another cookie cutter prequel to Avengers are true.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what are the others?

Vagabond said:

Just out of curiosity, what are the others?

Click to expand...

Ironman, Hulk, and Thor have been exactly alike... I guess, somehow...

It's Charlie, they're all the same!

Loved IM1&2, Thor and Hulk. Can't wait for this too! It's going to make so much money it's ridiculous! Avengers here we come!

You know, I never go with reviewer when I want to watch a movie. I see a preview, if it interest me, then I go see it.
Then again, I have the luxury of actually having a NICE theater that does 3.50$ for matinee showing and 5.50$ for evening shows (2$ extra for 3D)

Yeah, I don't get the "cookie cutter Avengers prequel" concept. Iron Man 2 is absolutely the most guilty of that, where most of it was basically a two-hour movie shouting "Avengers! Avengers! Tease! Tease!" Thor and Incredible Hulk, though, were pretty standalone movies. The SHIELD stuff in Thor wasn't as spoon-fed as it was in Iron Man 2. You could have had that as any government agency, but for the Marvel Universe, it works.

Fuck! I hate how these new boards delete your old post when you add a new one close to one another. I have to re write what I wrote and argle blargle blargle.

I think Charlie means "not that good" and is just typing fast. And if he does, then I mostly agree. Of the previous ones, only Iron Man could be considered a generally all-around good movie (but I did enjoy them all).

I think I'm just more comfortable with the idea of "bad movies I still like" than he is.

SpecialKO said:

I think Charlie means "not that good" and is just typing fast. And if he does, then I mostly agree. Of the previous ones, only Iron Man could be considered a generally all-around good movie (but I did enjoy them all).

I think I'm just more comfortable with the idea of "bad movies I still like" than he is.

Click to expand...

That's because Charlie doesn't know what a dictionary is, and equates "like" to "good" and "favorite" to "best".

OK!

So what I originally wrote was that the recent marvel movies tend to follow a similar structure or formula. While this doesn't lead to being good cinema, as nothing new is added to the art form, that doesn't disqualify it from being a good movie.

Post-production 3D. My entertainment dollars are going elsewhere.

I love Ironman. Hulk and Thor were better than I thought they'd be for a different reasons. Ironman 2 was okay and is actually growing on me.

I'm looking forward to Captain America and will be seeing it tomorrow night.

Seriously though. it's got Hugo Weaving. SOLD.

FYI, Ebert kind of liked it. He gave it 3 stars.

As for the usual 3D blsorglflerg, as usual, you don't have to watch it in 3D, I certainly plan not to.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110720/REVIEWS/110729997

Of course, he also liked Iron Man, but according to this thread it's "cookie cutter" so your milage may vary.

No fucking way am I going to see this in 3D. I've been eager for this movie since '09 and I have no intention of ruining it.

I'm hoping this is good because Joe Johnston's previous best film had Nazis in it (even though that was two decades ago and, uh, his track record hasn't been stellar since).

I reject, REJECT the cop out of "just watch it in 2D". No. If they hosed it down in 3D juice just to hose it down in in 3D juice, I will not enable them in any D. Let them find some other sucker to take money from.

DarkAudit said:

I reject, REJECT the cop out of "just watch it in 2D". No. If they hosed it down in 3D juice just to hose it down in in 3D juice, I will not enable them in any D. Let them find some other sucker to take money from.

Click to expand...

That is hands down the most retarded argument I've ever heard. That's like saying that you refuse to watch a black and white movie because there's a colorized version of it. Either way, you're passing on a movie for a completely arbitrary reason.

Bowielee said:

That is hands down the most retarded argument I've ever heard. That's like saying that you refuse to watch a black and white movie because there's a colorized version of it. Either way, you're passing on a movie for a completely arbitrary reason.

Click to expand...

That's not at all the same. Colorizing is a dead idea, anyway. Hollywood will continue to hose down movies in pointless 3D juice until it becomes unprofitable to do so. Movie houses will continue to be lazy and forget to uninstall the 3D gear when 3D films finish their runs, ruining the experience for 2D films.

They will come up with something even more stupid, like 4D (I'm looking at YOU, Spy Kids!).

I refuse to give my entertainment money to the 3D fad. I'm spending it on video games and baseball instead. Michael McKenry's home run vs Chicago had far more emotional impact around here than any explosion from Michael Bay.

So somehow you think the movie companies will see that the 2D sales trump the 3D sales and say "This 3D thing is really working out!" ?

Frankly, you're shooting yourself in the foot if your intent is to show how unprofitable 3D movies are. By passing on the movie entirely, you're dollor voting not against 3D, but the movie itself. If you really want to show how much you don't want to see 3D movies all over the place, going to see it in 2D is casting your dollar vote. So, again, it's still a completely arbitrary reason to not see a movie. Also, colorization is only dead because all movies are already in color. Who's to say the same thing won't happen to 3D in 20 years.

The first trick is finding a theater that will show the film in 2D. Good luck with that, especially around here.

By sticking to my guns and just not bothering, I can buy an extra game during a Steam sale or an extra seat to this Saturday's baseball game.

You completely sidestepped the point of the argument, so I'll assume you're just trolling, then.

DarkAudit said:

The first trick is finding a theater that will show the film in 2D. Good luck with that, especially around here.

Click to expand...

Sorry your location is shitty, sucks for you.

I'll enjoy seeing it in 2D, at one of the multiple theaters around here that offer it in 2D.

Bowielee said:

You completely sidestepped the point of the argument, so I'll assume you're just trolling, then.

Click to expand...

No. I am dollar voting against the movie itself, because the studio decided to 3D-ify it.

It doesn't matter what D it's in, because all the news reports will say "X movie took in $Y million at the box office this weekend." You won't see it broken down into what D made the most money, and even if it did, 3D would likely come out ahead even if it sold fewer tickets than the 2D version.

I don't just dollar vote against 3D, I dollar vote against the studios that do it. I dollar vote against the crap theaters that can't be bothered to reset their auditoriums properly after a 3D film has left. I dollar vote against the crap theaters that can't set up their auditoriums correctly for 3D in the first place.

Actually they have been separating the money made via 3D and 2D. I've seen a dozen articles about the recent decline in 3D viewership over 2D.

Frankie Williamson said:

Actually they have been separating the money made via 3D and 2D. I've seen a dozen articles about the recent decline in 3D viewership over 2D.

Click to expand...

You might as well not be saying anything, because he's not going to understand. I saw that article too. I laughed. Stupid 3D.

Frankie Williamson said:

Actually they have been separating the money made via 3D and 2D. I've seen a dozen articles about the recent decline in 3D viewership over 2D.

Click to expand...

Of course they have! Do you have any idea how much demographic data they can pull on stuff like this? To say that "they're not gonna look at 2D vs. 3D sales, only overall sales of a film available in 3D" is completely asinine.

Gusto said:

Of course they have! Do you have any idea how much demographic data they can pull on stuff like this? To say that "they're not gonna look at 2D vs. 3D sales, only overall sales of a film available in 3D" is completely asinine.

Click to expand...

I stand by my statement. When CNN, MSNBC, or TMZ reports grosses on Sunday nights, the headline is just X made $Y.

You guys seem to be taking my not wanting to go see it awfully personally. How does my not seeing it detract from your enjoyment of the movie? Do you have a stake in the studio or something?

I'm not taking your not wanting to see it personally. I just don't understand your reasons and some of what you're saying is wrong. They are reporting on the decline of 3D movies.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/17/boxoffice.ew/index.html?iref=allsearch

They literally talk about the decline of 3D performance when talking about how well Harry Potter did. I even found it on CNN.

mr_thehun said:

ugggghghghgh you really don't know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

What does it matter to you? I'm not going to see the movie, and I don't have to validate my reasons to you or anyone else. And you don't need me to get your own enjoyment out of the movie. If you do, that's your problem, not mine.

I just saw it. It is a really fun, old-fashioned action movie. I highly recommend it.

DarkAudit said:

No. I am dollar voting against the movie itself, because the studio decided to 3D-ify it.

It doesn't matter what D it's in, because all the news reports will say "X movie took in $Y million at the box office this weekend." You won't see it broken down into what D made the most money, and even if it did, 3D would likely come out ahead even if it sold fewer tickets than the 2D version.

I don't just dollar vote against 3D, I dollar vote against the studios that do it. I dollar vote against the crap theaters that can't be bothered to reset their auditoriums properly after a 3D film has left. I dollar vote against the crap theaters that can't set up their auditoriums correctly for 3D in the first place.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're railing against crappy theaters than the movies themselves. It's already been pointed out by other people that grosses are split out by which version is making the most money, so that negates the bulk of your argument. As for your local theaters sucking, well that hardly has anything to do with the studios, now does it?

DarkAudit said:

I stand by my statement. When CNN, MSNBC, or TMZ reports grosses on Sunday nights, the headline is just X made $Y.

You guys seem to be taking my not wanting to go see it awfully personally. How does my not seeing it detract from your enjoyment of the movie? Do you have a stake in the studio or something?

Click to expand...

I'm actually Hugo Weaving. Why don't you want to see me play a nazi supervillain? I thought we were bros.

I agree that it's not broken out into 2D vs 3D in the papers the next morning.

But I guarantee the studio heads/accountants/people that fucking matter and make decisions see that info Monday morning.

Saw it last night. It was great. Like the other Marvel Studios movies they touch on what makes the character a hero beyond their suit/super-power. Some great nods to the books, Human torch is in the movie, and they remember that Steve likes to draw. Nothing groundbreaking, setting out to change movies forever or anything, but another solid super-hero action movie that fans and non-fans can enjoy.

fun nod, that most people here will catch so I included it in a spoiler.

Consistently putting out ok super-hero movies is groundbreaking...

I suppose. Let's just say its nothing the cinema snobs or hipsters will go crazy over.

My favorite hipster cinema snob movie reviewer actually liked it: http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/movies/captain-america-with-chris-evans-review.htm

I really liked it. Saw it in 2D. Be sure to stay for the end of the credits.
SQEEEEE! and I am not a real Marvel fan.

I loved it. Saw it in 2D as well.

I will say, if you weren't a fan of Iron Man, and you were hoping this would be an improvement, you can probably go ahead and skip it. Same tone, same pacing, similar art direction... very much the same sort of film, except cheesier.

But for me, it was awesome.

I have seen it and verily I did enjoy.

DarkAudit said:

What does it matter to you? I'm not going to see the movie, and I don't have to validate my reasons to you or anyone else. And you don't need me to get your own enjoyment out of the movie. If you do, that's your problem, not mine.

Click to expand...

Then why get into a discussion about it in the first place?

EDIT: I was being naive; I know what's going on. It's the "they were right and I was wrong, but this is the internet so be damned if I'll say it, so I'm backing the fuck out and saying my true reason is a SECRET and they'll never comprehend it!"

I SAW THIS IN 2D AND LIKED IT A LOT.

TO BE FAIR I WILL ALSO POST THIS IN THE DRUNK/HIGH THREAD.

CAPITAL LETTERS.

:|

Don't give me that face, mister. This was a good movie.

Giving face to the all caps. I'm psyched for this; just don't have time to see it until next weekend.

I just came back from 3D IMax of Harry Potter. 3D movies are actually pretty cool.

H P in 3D was pretty baller, I must admit.

Was it? Other than one or two moments I didn't feel like it was even noticeable. Certainly not Avatar level anyway, where it felt immersive imo.

I loved it. The only thing that bugged me is that they never seemed to mention the individual Howler's names on screen. Or call them The Howling Commandos. Or have anyone say "Wa-Hoo!" besides Dum-Dum. Or have him say it more than once. Which sucks, because I predict an internet meme around Dum-Dum Dugan because he's just that badass.

That poster makes me jizz my pants.

So everyone looks exactly as they do in the comics.... except Hawkeye.... scuse me?

Shegokigo said:

So everyone looks exactly as they do in the comics.... except Hawkeye.... scuse me?

Click to expand...

Hawkeye's look comes from the Ultimate Marvel Universe version of the character.

Uhhh
http://marvel.com/universe/Hawkeye_(Ultimate)

What?

Shegokigo said:

Uhhh
http://marvel.com/universe/Hawkeye_(Ultimate)

What?

Click to expand...

I'd seen a few drawings of the Ultimate version in the Ultimates series that were closer to what you're seeing in the Avengers poster. I'm just saying what I saw.

Yeah, a few.



The majority though?

Weird. I've never seen a Hawkeye with guns before. I haven't looked at an Avengers comic since the 90s, though.

You guys know the drill. Another inept vlog from yours truly!

Hawkeye pretty much stopped being drawn with the masked uniform post Ultimatum.

And here I thought everyone would notice that's the wrong Iron-Man armor.

Shegokigo said:

Yeah, a few.

Click to expand...

More than a few, actually. Ultimate Hawkeye wore the uniform(s, I think there was some variation) that inspired the movie costume from 2002 (The Ultimates #1) to 2008 (The Ultimates 3 #1). He wore it in a total of roughly 61 issues (very rough, because I don't think he appeared every time The Ultimates did) across numerous limited series. He's worn the current purple suit (which has a couple variants) for roughly 39 issues across a few different series since 2008. With August's Ultimate Comics Hawkeye #1, he goes back to the original look. So yeah.

MindDetective said:

Weird. I've never seen a Hawkeye with guns before. I haven't looked at an Avengers comic since the 90s, though.

Click to expand...

It's only in the Ultimate Universe that Hawkeye uses guns. It was one of Jeph Loeb's brilliant ideas. Mark Millar ran with it when he got his hands on the character again (to the surprise of no one) but Jonathan Hickman will be restoring the character to being a more traditional Hawkeye very soon.

Vagabond said:

And here I thought everyone would notice that's the wrong Iron-Man armor.

Click to expand...

I noticed. I just didn't care.

Yet to see Captain America, but I hope to get a trip in next weekend or the one after.

As for the Avengers, the thing that still bothers me is that we will NOT be having Ant-Man or Wasp. It does not feel right without them. At LEAST get Wasp in there, so Black Window does not have to be the only female on the team.

Also, I think I am going to miss the "younger" Hulk from the last movie. The one in the poster seems a bit more aged and has less hair.

Shegokigo said:

Yeah, a few.

Click to expand...

No, what you mean to say "all of them from when Ultimates was actually worth reading".

Considering Millar has a credit in the Avengers movie I'm shooting in the dark here and guessing they're drawing more than a little inspiration from the first two Ultimates series. Hawkeye included. Also, hopefully they're willfully ignoring anything Jeph Loeb has ever written in the Ultimates universe.

Ultimates 3 may be the worst comic ever made.

Saw it in 2D on Friday. It was pretty awesome. I love it.

Saw the movie yesterday, in 2D. Really, really enjoyed it. Made me wish we had gotten a period-piece for the Wolverine movie instead of the piece of crap that we *did* get.

I'd stick this one just below the first Iron Man. I go "squeeeeeee!" for WW2-era stuff, but RDJr kicked so much ass in Iron Man, he clearly tipped the scales. Plus, it was a *leeeeetle* too obvious that they were going through Captain America quickly in order to set up the next film.

I dug a few of the easter eggs (original human torch and the like) but man, I was pretty disappointed. Though much of that negativity that could be attributed to the dude sitting next to me who thought every slight joke and quip in the movie was the funniest thing ever and caused him to go completely apeshit laughing louder than the entire packed theater combined. This loud scream laughing worked up the handicapped fellow sitting behind me so he would start howling too and his parent would have to calm him down. Funzies.

Anyways, the movie wasn't bad, but it was super middle of the road I thought. The bad guys weren't threatening in the least (again, always my main problem in movies like this) and the good guys seemed to have zero issue trouncing Red Skulls guys. Hugo Weaving was the best part of the movie as the Skull too but I just couldn't bring myself to care about the whole thing.

Frankie Williamson said:

I dug a few of the easter eggs (original human torch and the like) but man, I was pretty disappointed. Though much of that negativity that could be attributed to the dude sitting next to me who thought every slight joke and quip in the movie was the funniest thing ever and caused him to go completely apeshit laughing louder than the entire packed theater combined. This loud scream laughing worked up the handicapped fellow sitting behind me so he would start howling too and his parent would have to calm him down. Funzies.

Anyways, the movie wasn't bad, but it was super middle of the road I thought. The bad guys weren't threatening in the least (again, always my main problem in movies like this) and the good guys seemed to have zero issue trouncing Red Skulls guys. Hugo Weaving was the best part of the movie as the Skull too but I just couldn't bring myself to care about the whole thing.

Click to expand...

ScytheRexx said:

Yet to see Captain America, but I hope to get a trip in next weekend or the one after.

As for the Avengers, the thing that still bothers me is that we will NOT be having Ant-Man or Wasp. It does not feel right without them. At LEAST get Wasp in there, so Black Window does not have to be the only female on the team.

Also, I think I am going to miss the "younger" Hulk from the last movie. The one in the poster seems a bit more aged and has less hair.

Click to expand...

If it makes you feel better, Edgar Wright will be making an Ant-Man film.

ScytheRexx said:

Also, I think I am going to miss the "younger" Hulk from the last movie. The one in the poster seems a bit more aged and has less hair.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, Mark Ruffalo is only two years older than Edward Norton. But he does look a bit more...distinguished by age than Norton.

filmfanatic said:

If it makes you feel better, Edgar Wright will be making an Ant-Man film.

Click to expand...

Allegedly. It's been well over four years since that was announced and there still isn't a final script yet.

Saw Captain America in 2D this weekend. Went in feeling kinda meh about it and came out loving it. Totally dug the period feel (which helped break the Iron Man mode of the current super hero movies).

Yeah the art direction of Cap was great, really felt like a period piece.

Which is why I enjoy the phrase I've heard a couple times, "Captain America is the best Indiana Jones movie in 20 years."

Gusto said:

Yeah the art direction of Cap was great, really felt like a period piece.

Which is why I enjoy the phrase I've heard a couple times, "Captain America is the best Indiana Jones movie in 20 years."

Click to expand...

it's strange how similar they are. probably why they had Red Skull make the Raiders reference.

I went and saw it last night, and I totally loved it, and I did stick around for the Avengers trailer at the end. After Iron Man 2's Nick Fury appearence, I was worried that RDJ wouldn't be reprising the role of Tony Stark, but he was there in the trailer.

Norris said:

More than a few, actually. Ultimate Hawkeye wore the uniform(s, I think there was some variation) that inspired the movie costume from 2002 (The Ultimates #1) to 2008 (The Ultimates 3 #1). He wore it in a total of roughly 61 issues (very rough, because I don't think he appeared every time The Ultimates did) across numerous limited series. He's worn the current purple suit (which has a couple variants) for roughly 39 issues across a few different series since 2008. With August's Ultimate Comics Hawkeye #1, he goes back to the original look. So yeah.

Click to expand...

He also looked like:

for like 1 billion issues. Your point?

He's still the only one that isn't in a recognizable "costume".

And thank god for that because that is one stupid looking costume.

Shegokigo said:

He also looked like:
*classic Hawkeye*
for like 1 billion issues. Your point?

He's still the only one that isn't in a recognizable "costume".

Click to expand...

You're right on his classic look being the more well known, but my point about his Ultimates costume was emphatically not that is is more recognizable than his classic duds. You said he wore it a little. I'm saying he wore it for about six years and is about to again. No Hawkeye costume is going to be all that recognizable to the general public and they're going for an Ultimates-influenced version of character (just by nature of him being a SHIELD agent), so I don't see it as a "thing".

As a total aside, I was kind of bummed when they made him take up the Hawkeye name and uniform again. I'm one of the five comic fans in existence who are happy with growth and change of characters. I wish they'd blended elements of his Hawkeye costumes and his Ronin costume, let him keep the nunchaku and katanna in addition to taking up a bow more prominently, and kept calling him Ronin.

No thanks on the new name... the suit and weapons would be fine though...

Watched CA last night, enjoyed it. The ending was a bit abrupt and could have used more of a coda. The button after the credits certainly tantalized.

Loved the fact that Cap had his own recognizable theme - I miss that in movies nowadays! Sure, everyone has a theme, but this one was spectacular.

Overall, probably around a 7 out of 10 on the Adammon movie scale.

Noticed in the credits that it was Disney animated movie song writer Alan Menken who did the Captain America song.

Just got back and LOVED IT. It was everything I'd wanted since hearing about it--another film of The Rocketeer's like, but much better. In fact, I have almost nothing to criticize.

Avengers preview was a little too spastically edited for my tastes, but I caught shots of Loki, green glow that I assume was gamma rays, other stuff. I have a feeling this will be 2008 again, as Iron Man to The Dark Knight--Marvel will come out with a very good, fun movie, and then Batman will awe audiences and steal its thunder.

Yeah, I went with some friend's who hadn't had a chance to see it and saw it a second time. I loved the shit out it the second time, I think it was the crowd in the first viewing that wrecked the movie for me.

Very much enjoyed it. Loved the cast.

Norris said:

Oddly enough, Mark Ruffalo is only two years older than Edward Norton. But he does look a bit more...distinguished by age than Norton.

Allegedly. It's been well over four years since that was announced and there still isn't a final script yet.

Click to expand...

Well, he WAS writing, directing and editing Scott Pilgrim, to be fair. That production took him years, even though actual production and post was only a year or so, it was held up in pre-production for forever.

I seem to remember reading on edgarwrighthere.com that he was only writing it, wasn't sure if he wanted to direct it at all, and more importantly, that he wanted to take a year hiatus after finishing with Scott Pilgrim.

Still, I would love to hear some actual news on it. I have no interest in an Ant Man movie, unless Edgar Wright is attached. His approach to the character actually had me interested.

checkeredhat said:

Well, he WAS writing, directing and editing Scott Pilgrim, to be fair. That production took him years, even though actual production and post was only a year or so, it was held up in pre-production for forever.

I seem to remember reading on edgarwrighthere.com that he was only writing it, wasn't sure if he wanted to direct it at all, and more importantly, that he wanted to take a year hiatus after finishing with Scott Pilgrim.

Still, I would love to hear some actual news on it. I have no interest in an Ant Man movie, unless Edgar Wright is attached. His approach to the character actually had me interested.

Click to expand...

I've heard that he recently turned in a fully-polished final draft of the script by him and Joe Cornish. Word is that, while they aren't necessarily using the character Eric O'Grady (the most recent person to suit up as Ant-Man), they are drawing inspiration from the Irredeemable Ant-Man series.

In truth, my only experience with Ant-Man comes from the Ultimates, so I don't know what you're talking about.

But I remember Edgar Wright saying he was trying to use Ant-Man's shrinking powers in more interesting ways, because Ant-Man is often kind of just scoffed at as silly, so he was going to write it as kind of a spy-thriller type thing, using his powers for espionage. It had me intrigued.

Does that sound about right?

Ant-Man is the Aquaman of the Marvel universe. A movie would be so incredibly lame.

checkeredhat said:

In truth, my only experience with Ant-Man comes from the Ultimates, so I don't know what you're talking about.

But I remember Edgar Wright saying he was trying to use Ant-Man's shrinking powers in more interesting ways, because Ant-Man is often kind of just scoffed at as silly, so he was going to write it as kind of a spy-thriller type thing, using his powers for espionage. It had me intrigued.

Does that sound about right?

Click to expand...

Sounds sort of right. The Eric O'Grady character was a former SHIELD agent, though his time as Ant-Man had him see-sawing between being a hero (which he wants to be) and being a criminal (which he used to be and still enjoys).

Maybe we'll have Hank Pym recruited to SHIELD and he'll serve as a spy with his shrinking tech.

checkeredhat said:

In truth, my only experience with Ant-Man comes from the Ultimates, so I don't know what you're talking about.

But I remember Edgar Wright saying he was trying to use Ant-Man's shrinking powers in mroe interesting ways, because Ant-Man is often kind of just scoffed at as silly, so he was going to write it as kind of a spy-thriller type thing, using his powers for espionage. It had me interested.

Does that sound about right?

Click to expand...

The Irredeemable Ant-Man was a SHIELD agent under Nick Fury, was later a member of Norman Osborn's black ops hit squad, and is currently with Captain America's personal team of espionage Avengers. So...yes.

Tress said:

Ant-Man is the Aquaman of the Marvel universe. A movie would be so incredibly lame.

Click to expand...

Aquaman is the king of a magic and weird technology using fantasy kingdom. He can breathe underwater, swim at 1oK Feet Per Second, is impervious to everything up to and including machine gun fire, has superhuman strength, and can summon an army of sharks and giant squids to wreck your boat and eat the survivors. He fights high tech pirates, ancient sea demons, his evil sorcerer brother, his evil rebel army-leading sister-in-law, and at least one humanoid shark. His "family" includes his wife (who has all his abilities save for communication with sea life, instead able to create solid water constructs), a sorcerer whose most basic ability is control over water (including boiling it, spouting it at you, freezing it, and vortexes), the son of pirate nemesis (who has the solid water powers and electric eel abilities), and a bad-ass mercenary genetically altered to be live underwater.

Aquaman isn't fucking lame. Super Friends is fucking lame.

That said, I think the recent "Wasp" incarnation of Hank Pym would make the best movie version. Call him Yellowjacket (to leave the Wasp name free), but the "lightning gun wielding science adventurer who happens to be able to shrink and sprout wings" is just win. Laboratory housed in a parallel dimension, Pocket Tool that keeps an entire lab of Reed Richards-level equipment shrunken in his pocket, awesome leather-labcoat costume, cool goggles, and a fucking lightning gun. One of the few things about Dark Reign I was sad to see go.

It's funny what a person will and won't accept in fiction. Aquaman can telepathically summon an army of aquatic monsters? No problem. Aquaman can travel 9x the speed of sound underwater? Waaait a minute...

Namor could still kick his ass...

Bowielee said:

Namor could still kick his ass...

Click to expand...

But he didn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_vs._Marvel

Oh man, they included the artist angle, there was a Human Torch reference, and the Zola thing was awesome, even if i was the only one in the theatre who got it...

Hydra's tech was a bit too SF though... i would have preferred some old timey looking gauss rifles instead...

Gryfter said:

But he didn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_vs._Marvel

Click to expand...

It's been established in previous threads that DC vs Marvel had nothing to do with who would actually win, but the popularity of the character

They still fought in the comics and won/lost.

sixpackshaker said:

Spoiler

Sam Jackson Nick, is a WWII vet. So they could not do that.

Click to expand...

In the ultimate comics maybe, but i don't remember anything about it in the films (and i really hope they don't make him another attempt at using the super soldier formula like in the comics). And seeing how he's active 70 years after WW2 he'd have to be over 85...

@Li3n said:

In the ultimate comics maybe, but i don't remember anything about it in the films (and i really hope they don't make him another attempt at using the super soldier formula like in the comics). And seeing how he's active 70 years after WW2 he'd have to be over 85...

Click to expand...

But he aged slowly like a good whine... (I know wine...)

If Sam Jack Nick just turns out to be a Gov't Douche without the ability to whip Ironman's ass... I'd rather not watch.

Bowielee said:

It's been established in previous threads that DC vs Marvel had nothing to do with who would actually win, but the popularity of the character

Click to expand...

Actually, only four of the matches were decided by popular vote (meaning fans called in and voted for their favorite) and Namor vs Aquaman wasn't one of them.

sixpackshaker said:

But he aged slowly like a good whine... (I know wine...).

Click to expand...

Heh...

Gryfter said:

Actually, only four of the matches were decided by popular vote (meaning fans called in and voted for their favorite) and Namor vs Aquaman wasn't one of them.

Click to expand...

That's because no one likes Namor or Aquaman.

That said? The fucking fan-vote fights had Wolverine beat Lobo. The Main Man held his own against SUPERMAN while drunk out of his gourd. Wolverine'd be a pushover for him.

Lobo's just a giant joke anyway. Besides neither Marvel or DC are going to let their A-listers get beat by a D-lister like Lobo.

I like Lobo. Hellava lot more than Wolverine.

Wolverines problem is he's become Flanderized over the past ten years or so. What's amusing is people have been almost reverse flanderizing Lobo over the years. Still a genocidal baby killer though, and a bit to much of a one-note villain for my taste.

Covar said:

Lobo's just a giant joke anyway. Besides neither Marvel or DC are going to let their A-listers get beat by a D-lister like Lobo.

Click to expand...

Lack of tone on the web and all, so I don't know if this is what you're saying, but he was quite literally. He was introduced partly as a gag version of Wolverine.

Lobo is worlds more powerful than Wolverine. That was a case of popularity vs actual outcome. Yes, I'm a total Lobo fan as well, go figure right?

Any other Lobo fans excited he got a Red Power Ring recently?

Until WW Hulk, it was pretty safe to say that DC characters in general were worlds more powerful than Marvel. Which always made the Superman v. Hulk argument seem moot to me. Hulk not angry is rated at 100 tons super strength. Anger increases that, but how much? A few times (again before the absolutely ridiculous strength levels in WWH)? Superman, according to my admittedly older DC RPG manual was rated at 50,000 tons. That's 500 times stronger. Oops. Sorry about that. Got off topic.

Ahhhh the Superman vs Hulk thread. That was legendary.

I wonder who would've won between Superman and fullblown Sentry. I was probably one of the only people that dug Sentry. I liked his whole mentally disturbed ultimate being thing.

Frankie Williamson said:

I wonder who would've won between Superman and fullblown Sentry. I was probably one of the only people that dug Sentry. I liked his whole mentally disturbed ultimate being thing.

Click to expand...

Isn't Sentry basically the Marvel Superman? Powered by the Sun and all that jazz.

Yep. It's be sun-powered dude vs. sun-powered dude. They'd be stalemating 'til the cows come home. That said, Superman still has a lot more emotional control over the situation, so he'd figure something out long before Sentry did.

fade said:

Hulk not angry is rated at 100 tons super strength. Anger increases that, but how much? A few times (again before the absolutely ridiculous strength levels in WWH)?

Click to expand...

Actually Hulk went into Silver Age Supes ridiculous strength levels plenty of times before WWH... and i don't know when the first time they said it was, but it's been established that he has no upper strength limit plenty of times...

ThatNickGuy said:

That's because no one likes Namor or Aquaman.

Click to expand...

Namor is awesome... in his 1st appearance he crushes to death 2 divers in those old timey suits and doesn't even bother to try to figure out if they where humans in suits or robots...

@Li3n said:

Actually Hulk went into Silver Age Supes ridiculous strength levels plenty of times before WWH... and i don't know when the first time they said it was, but it's been established that he has no upper strength limit plenty of times...

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, anyone defined solely by one power is going to be able to do that one thing better than anyone else (unless they go up against someone similarly defined), possibly to unbelievable levels. This is why the Flash can outrun Superman, why the Hulk is the strongest of all characters and why the Thing can take hits like no one else... it's because these abilities are their defining traits.

Shegokigo said:

Lobo is worlds more powerful than Wolverine. That was a case of popularity vs actual outcome. Yes, I'm a total Lobo fan as well, go figure right?

Click to expand...

Isn't implied in some other comics later down the line that Wolverine (or someone else) actual paid Lobo to take a dive during that fight? It makes a lot of sense in retrospect and is perfectly in character for Lobo.

AshburnerX said:

Generally speaking, anyone defined solely by one power is going to be able to do that one thing better than anyone else (unless they go up against someone similarly defined), possibly to unbelievable levels. This is why the Flash can outrun Superman, why the Hulk is the strongest of all characters and why the Thing can take hits like no one else... it's because these abilities are their defining traits.

Click to expand...

Too bad it took DC decades to realise that and allow others to out-do Superman at something...

"Those where for charity, Clark!" was awesome for that reason.

@Li3n said:

Too bad it took DC decades to realise that and allow others to out-do Superman at something...

"Those where for charity, Clark!" was awesome for that reason.

Click to expand...

That's because they were focusing on his powers... when the core of Superman's identity is actually his virtue. Sure, Superman is one of the most formidable forces in the DC universe, but that's not what makes him amazing. What makes him amazing is that he's able to use his talents for the public good, without a thought towards using them for self-gain. Even Batman (who spends millions, if not billions, of dollars on charity) still uses his vast intelligence to make money for his personal use.

There ain't enough likes in the universe for that post, Ashster.

Not Golden Age Supes, unless it's okay to throw gangsters hundreds of feet into the air, presumably to their grisly deaths!

Y-y-you mean it's not?

Um. I'll be right back.

AshburnerX said:

That's because they were focusing on his powers... when the core of Superman's identity is actually his virtue. Sure, Superman is one of the most formidable forces in the DC universe, but that's not what makes him amazing. What makes him amazing is that he's able to use his talents for the public good, without a thought towards using them for self-gain. Even Batman (who spends millions, if not billions, of dollars on charity) still uses his vast intelligence to make money for his personal use.

Click to expand...

I think that's what makes him boring myself. Another reason I dug Sentry, who was his own worst enemy. Though Marvel being seemingly unable to decide what was what with Sentry really hurt him in the long run until his outright death at the hands of Thor.

Frankie Williamson said:

I think that's what makes him boring myself. Another reason I dug Sentry, who was his own worst enemy. Though Marvel being seemingly unable to decide what was what with Sentry really hurt him in the long run until his outright death at the hands of Thor.

Click to expand...

Everyone universe needs a boyscout... a measure by which to judge what is right and what is wrong. Marvel has Spiderman, who toils in his city despite the fact that a lot of the public thinks he's a criminal himself and knowing that he will never be rewarded for his actions. It's essentially the same thing, except Peter knows the costs of giving into temptation and doesn't get all the parades that Superman does... mainly because the cops are after him.

I'd even argue that Spidey isn't even as good an example, mainly because he uses his own alter ego to make a living. He's a brilliant chemist and fucking makes his living as a photographer? Worse, he can only unload pictures of himself? At least Superman's day job doesn't involve him using his own powers or cashing in on his own image.

(And FUCK One Day More. That was Quesada ruining 50+ years of development for personal reasons. That deal with the Devil doesn't count.)

I'd say Cap's more boyscout than Spidey. But it's hard to say.

ThatNickGuy said:

I'd say Cap's more boyscout than Spidey. But it's hard to say.

Click to expand...

Cap tends to waver too much to be a good barometer. For one thing, he's willing to kill. For another, he's done some questionable things in the line of duty (though he usually understands that what he's doing is wrong).

AshburnerX said:

Cap tends to waver too much to be a good barometer. For one thing, he's willing to kill. For another, he's done some questionable things in the line of duty (though he usually understands that what he's doing is wrong).

Click to expand...

The thing is that when it comes to killing. I have some thought on pro and cons. I can see how Batman doesn't kill, but the villians doesn't seem to want to redeem themselves (continue their evil ways) There are some villians who will always be villians and never redeem. Should we keep them alive? what is the purpose?

Chibibar said:

The thing is that when it comes to killing. I have some thought on pro and cons. I can see how Batman doesn't kill, but the villians doesn't seem to want to redeem themselves (continue their evil ways) There are some villians who will always be villians and never redeem. Should we keep them alive? what is the purpose?

Click to expand...

It's about not sinking to their level and about proving whose philosophy is ultimately correct. Almost every one of Batman's Rogue's Gallery is defined by a viewpoint that isn't exactly contrary to Batman, but is a step further than he'd go...

- Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze: That the Ends justify the Means.
- Two-Face: That there is no such thing as Justice, only Chance.
- Catwoman: You should take what you want, even if its not yours.
- The Red Hood: That the guilty aren't ever punished enough.
- The Joker: That rules are meaningless if they can't protect you.
- Scarecrow: That people are driven by Fear and Fear alone.
- Scarface: That Delusions are just as real as Reality.

For him, each of Batman's foes represents what he could be if ever gave in. In other words, Batman can't kill them (or let them be killed through inaction) because if he ever did, he would become just as bad as they are. He can't kill them, even if it would make things easier for him.

AshburnerX said:

That's because they were focusing on his powers... when the core of Superman's identity is actually his virtue.

Click to expand...

Bah, post-crisis Supes still ain't older then pre-crisis Supes... and they still Marty Stu him way too often. But it's better the superdickery i guess.

AshburnerX said:

I'd even argue that Spidey isn't even as good an example, mainly because he uses his own alter ego to make a living. He's a brilliant chemist and fucking makes his living as a photographer? Worse, he can only unload pictures of himself? At least Superman's day job doesn't involve him using his own powers or cashing in on his own image.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he just lets Lois report on him and just shares a byline with her from time to time...

@Li3n said:

Bah, post-crisis Supes still ain't older then pre-crisis Supes... and they still Marty Stu him way too often. But it's better the superdickery i guess.

Click to expand...

He's barely any older during the Batman Beyond series as well. All he has is a streak of grey and a few wrinkles... while Bruce looks like the fucking Crypt Keeper. I think it's because of his Kryptonian DNA or the yellow sun or some shit. It's never really explained but yes, Superman does seem to age very well.

@Li3n said:

Yeah, he just lets Lois report on him and just shares a byline with her from time to time...

Click to expand...

I think it's pretty well established that only Lois Lane and Jimmy write Superman articles for the Daily Planet. Clark certainly doesn't, mainly because he's "never around" whenever Superman is doing stuff. If he's sharing a byline with Lois, it's because they were both covering the event.

AshburnerX said:

He's barely any older during the Batman Beyond series as well. All he has is a streak of grey and a few wrinkles... while Bruce looks like the fucking Crypt Keeper. I think it's because of his Kryptonian DNA or the yellow sun or some shit. It's never really explained but yes, Superman does seem to age very well.

Click to expand...

Ehhh... i think you missed something... i was talking in real life terms... 1940's - 1980's = over 40 years... 1980's - today = less then 20 years...

AshburnerX said:

I think it's pretty well established that only Lois Lane and Jimmy write Superman articles for the Daily Planet. Clark certainly doesn't, mainly because he's "never around" whenever Superman is doing stuff. If he's sharing a byline with Lois, it's because they were both covering the event.

Click to expand...

And when that event happens to include Supes he's technically profiting from his own heroics...

... You declared Spider-Man Superman's Marvel equal, and then immediately went into why he's not as good at it. Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit messed up?
(Marvel's boyscout is Cap)

@Li3n said:

And when that event happens to include Supes he's technically profiting from his own heroics...

Click to expand...

I'm willing to give him a pass if it's a situation where he kinda needs to go along with it. If the choice is to take the money or raise questions about his identity, it's clear which is the safer choice.

checkeredhat said:

... You declared Spider-Man Superman's Marvel equal, and then immediately went into why he's not as good at it. Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit messed up?
(Marvel's boyscout is Cap)

Click to expand...

I didn't use Cap because he kills people (something Superman never does and Spidey has never done intentionally) and because the US Government has made him do some rather questionable things. Plus there is the whole Civil War thing... but I guess it does seem a bit messed up.

Are there any other choices besides the those two?

Marvel's characters are generally too flawed to be considered an equal when it comes to Superman's true blue virtue stuff. Even Cyclops who was always called boyscout by everyone had his own murder squad recently.

AshburnerX said:

I'm willing to give him a pass if it's a situation where he kinda needs to go along with it. If the choice is to take the money or raise questions about his identity, it's clear which is the safer choice.

Click to expand...

But you're not willing to give Spidey one as he clearly needs to money to finance his crime fighting?

Seriously, being a Marvel character makes Spidey no where near Supes "perfection", but making money off pictures of himself is like the last argument i'd use to show the difference...

checkeredhat said:

... You declared Spider-Man Superman's Marvel equal, and then immediately went into why he's not as good at it. Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit messed up?

Click to expand...

No, because that's exactly what separated Marvel from DC and why a lot of people see the Silver Age starting with FF instead of Barry Allen's Flash...

So it being ingrained in a fans psyche is to be expected...

@Li3n said:

But you're not willing to give Spidey one as he clearly needs to money to finance his crime fighting?

Seriously, being a Marvel character makes Spidey no where near Supes "perfection", but making money off pictures of himself is like the last argument i'd use to show the difference...

Click to expand...

Except that Peter is a brilliant chemist and inventor whose been shown to make his own web fluid, web shooters, and making new things when needed. He could clearly be making a more honest living on his own.

In a world where Reed Richards is useless some sticky fluid that evaporates after an hour might not be that much of a hot commodity...

But you have to remember, it made much more sense when he was still on school... now it's just a left over they're afraid to change...

@Li3n said:

In a world where Reed Richards is useless some sticky fluid that evaporates after an hour might not be that much of a hot commodity...

But you have to remember, it made much more sense when he was still on school... now it's just a left over they're afraid to change...

Click to expand...

It's actually implied that the main reason Reed Richards is useless is because he essentially extorts money from companies by making a better version of their product for less and then he gets them to buy the rights to it. Basically, the world isn't a Super Science paradise because it would ruin the economy.

AshburnerX said:

It's actually implied that the main reason Reed Richards is useless is because he essentially extorts money from companies by making a better version of their product for less and then he gets them to buy the rights to it. Basically, the world isn't a Super Science paradise because it would ruin the economy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm sure all that unlimited energy and instant transport of food and other goods would totally suck for the poor...

Uhhhh, guys? Presently Peter Parker works for Horizon Labs (imagine Google, Apple, DC's Star Labs rolled into one workplace) developing whatever the hell he feels like. As I recall, he has already made the company tidy profits on noise canceling ear buds based on a stealth suit he built to fight Hobgoblin III, and something else that escapes me.

Of course, this only in the last few months or so (thought since ASM comes out thrice monthly, its likely been in the equivalent a year's worth of issues for any other book) and it won't last, but he is making the exact kind of more "honest" living right now.

Marvel doesn't have a person with the morals of Superman, for two reasons. 1) Their whole schtick, since the earliest days, has been people with flaws. 2) Not even Thor approaches the same god like levels of power that Superman has, thus negating the need to be that incredibly virtuous. The only Marvel characters I can think of who do/did have that level of power are The Sentry (nice guy, but mentally ill all to hell), Molecule Man (a villain, but a guy who just wants to be left alone), and Silver Surfer (who is a good man, though somewhat detached from "mortals").

@Li3n said:

Yeah, i'm sure all that unlimited energy and instant transport of food and other goods would totally suck for the poor...

Click to expand...

I never said it was a GOOD reason. Besides, knowing Reed Richards, his perpetual motion machine probably runs on bullshittium and that's why he's never brought it to market.

Norris said:

Uhhhh, guys? Presently Peter Parker works for Horizon Labs (imagine Google, Apple, DC's Star Labs rolled into one workplace) developing whatever the hell he feels like. As I recall, he has already made the company tidy profits on noise canceling ear buds based on a stealth suit he built to fight Hobgoblin III, and something else that escapes me.

Of course, this only in the last few months or so (thought since ASM comes out thrice monthly, its likely been in the equivalent a year's worth of issues for any other book) and it won't last, but he is making the exact kind of more "honest" living right now.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Well that's good to know. That actually does kind of raise my opinion of Peter Park quite a bit, because he's now demonstratively NOT an idiot.

AshburnerX said:

Seriously? Well that's good to know. That actually does kind of raise my opinion of Peter Park quite a bit, because he's now demonstratively NOT an idiot.

Click to expand...

Yup. J. Jonah Jameson's late wife got him the job. However, it is explicitly stated in story that the only reason Peter is able to hold down this position is that Horizon gives its researchers a crazy amount of freedom - private labs (only they and the owner have the keys), even privater storage spaces (only the researcher has the key), no set hours (you may work at whatever hour of the day inspiration strikes you0, and is totally results based (build something useful and they will find a way to sell it, whether it be modified web-shooters for rescue work, noise canceling earbuds, or a new type of body armor). Which is perfect for Peter, since his scientific processes typically goes 1) Fight supervillain in broad daylight and do poorly, 2) return to lab to design new costume or web fluid that counters supervillain, 3) beat supervillain, and 4) modify design for consumer use.

Additionally Spidey's boss Max Modell is completely aware that Peter and Spider-Man have a connection. He simply believes Pete to be a personal gadget designer for the super-hero, rather than the hero himself. He's Ok with this so long as Peter keeps producing results for Horizon as well.

I also think Spidey gets paid as a member of the Future Foundation (formerly known as the Fantastic Four).

See, I thought Peter's perfect place in the world would be teaching. J. Michael Strazynski established him as a High School science teacher. Which I always I thought was brilliant because it put Pete back in school without de-aging him.

Man his teaching profession was genius. What was stupid is the same arguments that people used to not let him continue teaching are the same ones that destroy the entire super-hero genre.

Covar said:

Man his teaching profession was genius. What was stupid is the same arguments that people used to not let him continue teaching are the same ones that destroy the entire super-hero genre.

Click to expand...

I wonder if that's why early heroes often had jobs that allowed them to vanish for hours at a time and such time away could be easily explained?

- Detective: "I had a lead to follow."
- Photographer: "I went to snap some pictures."
- Reporter: "I also had a lead to follow."
- Rich, Billionaire Playboy: "I'm sorry, but I was trapped underneath my pile of super models!"

AshburnerX said:

I wonder if that's why early heroes often had jobs that allowed them to vanish for hours at a time and such time away could be easily explained?

- Detective: "I had a lead to follow."
- Photographer: "I went to snap some pictures."
- Reporter: "I also had a lead to follow."
- Rich, Billionaire Playboy: "I'm sorry, but I was trapped underneath my pile of super models!"

Click to expand...

Yeah, why weren't any of them consultants??

Adammon said:

Yeah, why weren't any of them consultants??

Click to expand...

I need to expense some Spandex dry-cleaning.

(I pooped myself when I saw Dr. Nefarious's latest monster.)

Indiana Jones is a professor, but in his movie, it is ok to "disappear" for weeks at a time

Chibibar said:

Indiana Jones is a professor, but in his movie, it is ok to "disappear" for weeks at a time

Click to expand...

What the hell else are T.A.'s for?

Chibibar said:

Indiana Jones is a professor, but in his movie, it is ok to "disappear" for weeks at a time

Click to expand...

Tenure is a good thing.

I thought his excavation lifestyle was common knowledge? He's constantly donating priceless artifacts to the museums quite openly (not using a secret company/identity). I wouldn't put him in the same list.

Shegokigo said:

I thought his excavation lifestyle was common knowledge? He's constantly donating priceless artifacts to the museums quite openly (not using a secret company/identity). I wouldn't put him in the same list.

Click to expand...

He probably attracts lots of endowments to the college, considering his fame and lifestyle. This is likely the only reason he gets away with it.

One of my friends was an adjunct in Beijing for a year. Things are a little different there from what I hear. He was telling me that once, a perpetually drunk professor screwed up a grad student's work really badly and even hit him and berated him in front of the others. The student lost his cool and yelled at the prof, who was incompetent. He said the kids parents ended up apologizing and buying the prof gifts.

mr_thehun said:

Im from Vancouver, I went to UBC.

Click to expand...

Did the prof say, "Sorry Eh?" afterward?

To be fair, it was hockey night.

mr_thehun said:

Im from Vancouver, I went to UBC.

Click to expand...

Well, okay. Your location says Beijing. Hence my confusion. In that case, I really am surprised. Tenure doesn't protect against things like that. Tenure is only supposed to really protect against firing due to lack of publication or grant support, not disciplinary stuff. Maybe it's different at that university than what I'm used to.

My sister had a Political Science professor once who, in the first class of every year, would say, "Would all the women in the room please cross your legs. Now that the Gates of Hell have been closed, we can begin."

He had tenure. And yeah, from what I understand, he didn't last long after that.

AshburnerX said:

He probably attracts lots of endowments to the college, considering his fame and lifestyle. This is likely the only reason he gets away with it.

Click to expand...

It's true. His presence made sure the college remained well endowed.

Norris said:

Uhhhh, guys? Presently Peter Parker works for Horizon Labs (imagine Google, Apple, DC's Star Labs rolled into one workplace) developing whatever the hell he feels like.

Click to expand...

The less said about soldmarriagetodevilpeter the better...

Just saw it.

Good: Excellent visuals. Nice fan nods. Good (if generic) score. Hugo friggin Weaving.
Bad: Weak plot, overlong

So does that mean you like it or you don't like it?

I actually watched it recently too. I loved how they included the part where he basically becomes a shill for the US Armed Forces. It's an important job, but it was still hilarious.

My favorite nod was Zola's face in the green glass at his first introduction.

Can someone explain the Zola stuff? Everyone's gone wild over it and I'm left out of the joke/reference.

Quotemander Prime said:

Can someone explain the Zola stuff? Everyone's gone wild over it and I'm left out of the joke/reference.

Click to expand...

In the comics, he survived the war by transferring his mind to a robot. Now living in the robot's body, his face is present on a monitor built into the robot's chest. Zola's introduction in the film with his face on a monitor is a reference to that.

filmfanatic said:

In the comics, he survived the war by transferring his mind to a robot. Now living in the robot's body, his face is present on a monitor built into the robot's chest. Zola's introduction in the film with his face on a monitor is a reference to that.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

There were a bunch of things that seemed like references that I didn't get at all, not being a Marvel fan.

The reference I was most surprised to see was the Golden Age Human Torch.

Favorite reference they got in? Cap punching Hitler.

Dum Dum Dugan was perfectly cast.

Classic:


Modern:

Is it just me or...

AshburnerX said:

Is it just me or...

Spoiler

... did the whole death of Bucky thing leave it open for him to come back as Winter Soldier?

Click to expand...

Not just you. I think that was the idea, actually.

Tress said:

Not just you. I think that was the idea, actually.

Click to expand...

I wasn't sure if he had an Ultimates equivalent, as I'm pretty sure the movies are set in the Ultimates universe. There's certainly enough differences to think it anyway.

AshburnerX said:

I wasn't sure if he had an Ultimates equivalent, as I'm pretty sure the movies are set in the Ultimates universe. There's certainly enough differences to think it anyway.

Click to expand...

I think the movies are set in the "Let's Do Whatever the Hell Makes Us Money" universe.

Tress said:

I think the movies are set in the "Let's Do Whatever the Hell Makes Us Money" universe.

Click to expand...

Probably that too. No one can deny that Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is awesome and that he had better be a star in the Avengers movie.

fade said:

My favorite nod was Zola's face in the green glass at his first introduction.

Click to expand...

Man, i was the only one in the theatre that got that... being the only one laughing was the awkwards...