I missed it (twice) but some people here saw it by his bed in the hospital.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier SPOILER THREAD | ...does anyone want to get out?
- Thread starter Replicant
- Start date
I missed it (twice) but some people here saw it by his bed in the hospital.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Kevin Fiege brought up the dreaded Q word: "quantum". What if someone could harness it? He asks.
There's your Marvel magic.
Mega Spooky
Member
I didn't even think about Dormammu in the MCU. Now they owe me this.
Saw it again last night and noticed a few things. ( I need the bridge sequence on loop.) When they go back Shield HQ and before cap makes his speech the two techs are talking about Hawkeye being in Afghanistan. The old lady world counsel member talked about not enjoying the ride from the airport. Nice tease that it was Black Widow I didn't catch on first viewing. Zola was so creepy. Really interesting that WS killed the starks. Probably solidified my feeling that this is the best Marvel movie. The doom boots in this movie are great too.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Grantland had a movie podcast discussing this and while I actually like the movie and don't all out hate it the way they did, they bring up some interesting points. First is that Marvel has a in-house team of action directors and guys like the Russo Bros. and Joss Whedon just handle the character scenes. Is this true? Is it common? If so I wonder if this would explain a lot of the scenes having a sort of redundant feel across the movies. It's starting to become a negative for me. The action scenes in Winter Soldier are way too similar to something like the Avengers for my taste.
Another thing they bring up is how having this extended universe is sort of a detriment because in a movie like Winter Soldier there is nothing really at stake. We know they are all going to be back for Avengers 2. I think they kind of have a point, I mean, when Nick Fury "dies" did anyone honestly believe it? I mean, the moment it happened didn't we all just assume he was going to come back later in the movie? Of course. It was a given. That said, maybe they will actually have some crazy shit happen in Avengers 2 and 3 so it's fair to give Marvel more time to make the universe more compelling in that way.
Overall I really liked the movie but I have to admit it didn't live up to the build up and hype. I was hoping there would be a lot more content about Cap and Bucky's relationship (in fairness, that could happen in 3) and just more on the Winter Soldier in general. More backstory. The stuff about where he came from and a lot about how Hydra infiltrated Shield didn't feel heavy as I thought it could have been. People talking about how it could pass for a 70s espionage thriller...I have no idea where that came from. It still suffers from a lot of the same tropes and hokey-ness you'd come to expect from a super hero movie.
edit: from above, I forgot about them showing that Winter Soldier killed the Starks....I wonder if that means we will see WS in Avengers 2? They can't set that up and not have a Tony/WS showdown...
Another thing they bring up is how having this extended universe is sort of a detriment because in a movie like Winter Soldier there is nothing really at stake. We know they are all going to be back for Avengers 2. I think they kind of have a point, I mean, when Nick Fury "dies" did anyone honestly believe it? I mean, the moment it happened didn't we all just assume he was going to come back later in the movie? Of course. It was a given. That said, maybe they will actually have some crazy shit happen in Avengers 2 and 3 so it's fair to give Marvel more time to make the universe more compelling in that way.
Overall I really liked the movie but I have to admit it didn't live up to the build up and hype. I was hoping there would be a lot more content about Cap and Bucky's relationship (in fairness, that could happen in 3) and just more on the Winter Soldier in general. More backstory. The stuff about where he came from and a lot about how Hydra infiltrated Shield didn't feel heavy as I thought it could have been. People talking about how it could pass for a 70s espionage thriller...I have no idea where that came from. It still suffers from a lot of the same tropes and hokey-ness you'd come to expect from a super hero movie.
edit: from above, I forgot about them showing that Winter Soldier killed the Starks....I wonder if that means we will see WS in Avengers 2? They can't set that up and not have a Tony/WS showdown...
Similar how?
And about nothing being at stake -- SHIELD was at stake. WS changes the landscape of the MCU in some pretty profound ways.
Ninja Scooter
Member
But the only people we cared about in Shield (Fury, BW, Colby Smulders) remained good guys and are still around and there was never any question as to their standing. Will it really mean anything that a bunch of faceless execs and suits that we didn't care about are now out of the picture?
As for the action scenes, the helicarrier fight was just too similar to the one in Avengers. I was just wanting them to hurry up and end so that we can get some more hand to hand stuff with WS and Cap. That stuff was great. I'm just not feeling the big set piece action scenes anymore. I find myself wanting them to be over.
No the fights were cool. I actually really liked the ones in WS. It was the set-piece stuff that I don't really care for. As for the directors, like I said, that's just what they mentioned. Don't know how true it is but it'll be interesting if it's true. They made it sound like Marvel basically tells Joss Whedon "Hey don't worry about that big New York battle scene, we already got it covered". Is that fairly common in big AAA action movies in general?
Err, you could just look at a lot of the fight choreography across the movies and see that they aren't all the same. But at the very least, the Russos did the action on Winter Soldier. If anything, it's just the opposite of what you're claiming: the Russos were the ones who pitched the action, while the character/story beats in the script already existed (in some form) before they were hired.
It's not really the execs I care about. It's about logistics and how the team and individual heroes will handle big events without the support of an organization as big as SHIELD. I assume funding at least will be handled by Stark. But that's just my guess. That's a big shakeup alone, even if no big names were really crossed out in WS.
The helicarrier sequences in the Avengers and WS were completely different (and there were more of them in the latter). I don't know. I feel like a complaint like this is akin to criticizing the Terminator movies for doing the same chase formula again and again.
Ninja Scooter
Member
To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of long, extended big action scenes in general in any movie, so I'm not exactly impartial I will admit that lol.
I don't see how the Helicarrier scene is anything like Avengers other than they both happen on Helicarriers.
In TA, Hulk fights Thor and both get thrown off the ship, Widow fights Hawkeye who used just 2 arrows to bring it down. Cap and Iron Man are repairing the thing and barely fight anyone.
In TWS Falcon has his own extended flight scene that involves missiles and AA guns, then jumps out and helps Cap get to the next carrier, then they encounter TWS who cuts Falcon's wings, singlehandedly grounds about 5 jets and steals one to catch Cap and fight him 1 on 1.
The notion that there are action directors who do everything in every movie sounds frankly ridiculous, considering how different is the action between films. There may be shared stunt coordinators or people who help design the encounters or s B unit who handles extra stuff, but if TWS demonstrates anything is that directors actually have a heavy input on the action and that is why TWS stands out in that department.
If the same people directed the action in all films, then they took their sweet time to show Cap's hand to hand combat abilities.
In TA, Hulk fights Thor and both get thrown off the ship, Widow fights Hawkeye who used just 2 arrows to bring it down. Cap and Iron Man are repairing the thing and barely fight anyone.
In TWS Falcon has his own extended flight scene that involves missiles and AA guns, then jumps out and helps Cap get to the next carrier, then they encounter TWS who cuts Falcon's wings, singlehandedly grounds about 5 jets and steals one to catch Cap and fight him 1 on 1.
The notion that there are action directors who do everything in every movie sounds frankly ridiculous, considering how different is the action between films. There may be shared stunt coordinators or people who help design the encounters or s B unit who handles extra stuff, but if TWS demonstrates anything is that directors actually have a heavy input on the action and that is why TWS stands out in that department.
If the same people directed the action in all films, then they took their sweet time to show Cap's hand to hand combat abilities.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
So what will happen to the badly burned/crashed SHIELD guy?
Crossbones will be back, they showed him in the hospital.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Yeah, I know. That's why I asked. So he is Crossbones, interesting.
Grantland actually claimed that this is how Marvel does it? This is 100% false. Each movie has different directors/action directors/stunt coordinators, and, frankly, it shows. I think Cap2 is the biggest example of this, as it's action is completely different from the previous films.
Huh? OK, putting aside the final set piece for a moment, is there anything in Avengers that is similar stylistically and tonally to the attack on Fury, the raid on the tanker, or the mid-traffic attack? Heck, is there anything in Thor or Thor2 or Ironman? I'm really not seeing basis for redundancy.
The final set piece (the attacks on the carriers) is what it is. In any action film, the final action sequence will be big, brash, and over the top. However, what was distinctly different about Cap2 was that the story didn't come to a halt for the action to happen. The story was carried through the final piece, with everyone on the team having a specific task that needed to be achieved, and that task was NEVER 'kill the bad guy' (all too often, big final action sequences are solely fueled by that goal...which makes them feel hollow).
This I am more inclined to agree with....sort of. I agree that Marvel needs to do something that screams "noone is safe". Killing Thor would do it (as well as lead into some potentially awesome Asgardian stories). As for Fury, going into the film, I had only two things spoiled for me:
1. That what occurs in the movie changes the MCU in some drastic fashion
2. That there was something on Fury's tombstone
Now, it's Nick Fury. He dies pretty often, but doesn't die, that's pretty much law. However, it still made the attack on him and the assassination attempt very dramatic for me (especially when they didn't show his tombstone immediately after).
That said, what you're criticizing seems more to be the format of movies and the desire to reach a happy ending. The thing about a film is that, though you are an outside viewer, you should also be empathizing with the characters. While YOU know Gandalf isn't falling to his death at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, the scene is still emotionally effective because you share in the loss the fellowship feels at that moment. There are a few movies that break this mold (Rocky, No Country for Old Men, etc) but, ultimately, we know going in that Sarah Connor will get away.
brandonh83
Banned
fuck now I'm going to want every comic film to feel this raw and practical and intense...
man Whedon please let's have more grit and intensity instead of super huge CGI shots. those are fine, I like CGI actually and get that its necessary and a tool for bringing imagination to life, but this film seriously made a great case for mixing that and practicality.
man Whedon please let's have more grit and intensity instead of super huge CGI shots. those are fine, I like CGI actually and get that its necessary and a tool for bringing imagination to life, but this film seriously made a great case for mixing that and practicality.
brandonh83
Banned
I think they're just really different. My only expectation for Amazing Spider-man 2 is that it's a good follow up to the first movie, which I happened to like quite a bit. I won't be watching it and comparing it to Winter Soldier because it wouldn't make much sense. I don't watch films to compare them to something else but rather take them on their own accord.
What do you think they should call them instead?
Amazing spiderman 1 was horrid and even more so after seeing the Avengers before. Part of me thinks Sony is just milking off the success off the marvel films when they schedule the release date for the amazing spiderman 1 and 2.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Probably at first, but then Hawkeye will show up and be all like "Yo babes, I'm a here to rescue yo fine asses" and then it'll be a really weird threesome and they'll be heroic and healed by the power of Renner's arrow.
Agreed. It works great in the context of the Baron saying it, but out of that context it's not a great name.
Freaks. Supers. Metahumans.
Manmademan
Member
They can't call them mutants, Fox owns those. "inhumans" will probably end up being the route they go. Marvel has been pushing them hard lately.
brandonh83
Banned
I guess I've just seen so many horrid movies over the years that I don't consider Amazing Spider-man one of them, not by a long shot.
They already confirmed they will not be called inHumans.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I'm fine with calling MCU 'mutants' miracles. I kind of have a suspicion they're going to tie Doctor Strange into it all - use various miracle people (a few have shown up in Agents of SHIELD already) with truly unexplained powers to seed the idea that there's another force at work. Then bring in Strange as the master of unexplained forces, to demonstrate there was something going on all along.
Affeinvasion
Member
I agree with this but it's still very weirdly executed in parts. Uncle been is still alive 45 minutes in, and Peter does such weird out of character things that hurt his ability to keep his identity secret. It's like a weird mirror version of man of steel where the secret identity stuff comes in.
I would love to have them introduce a secret identity character into mcu. It's a great combination with heroes who have nothing to hide.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Scarlet Witch's powers are mystical in the comics anyways.
her actual Mutant powers are almost never used, in fact I cant remember when I've even seen it. I think its latent.
The Broken Ska Record
Member
Who could they introduce that has a secret identity? Carol maybe? Jennifer Walters?
NotMyRealName
Banned
Where did flight dude get his fly gear from? Did the military just let him keep his wings when he was discharged?
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
They skipped over the heist bit.
Callibretto
Member
Daredevil
Affeinvasion
Member
I'm talking avengers level people, though...I doubt they'll ever do it because they'd have to hide the actor's face frequently which they aren't keen to do, but I think it would add a really interesting team dynamic to the Avengers films. Someone who comes and goes as they please, that nobody else on the team really trusts, but who saves the day anyway. But I don't know who would make any sense in that role since Spider-Man is the quintessential secret identity character on the Avengers.
The more I watch this, the more hype I get for Avengers 2.
Hours Left
Member
Stephen is so hot, the whole universe is feeling him up.Cause he's a fucking bad ass motherfucker and brings a whole new angle to the MCU.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
I thought that was a great omission. It was just a few security guards, fences, and concrete vaults. No biggie for them to get.
For the shit they do on a basis that'll be like going for a slurpee
Exactly.
