|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 20, 2017 2:43:15 GMT
The excuse for making the team was that there needed to be a precautionary measure in case someone like Superman came to earth and was bad. They also wanted a task force that could "do some good" while Superman was "dead". It's essentially a direct follow-up to BvS. There are people selling Superman memorial T-Shirts and what not in one scene. Batman can be seen trying to make a team after Superman's death, which he had no interest in before. I just realized something... Isn't that the reason the Avengers were brought together and the reason for the weapons? Ya, pretty much. Except instead of a hero being killed they used the fact that Thor destroyed a whole town while fighting the Destroyer. Same basic concept, though. People die, precautionary measures are set. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 2:57:31 GMT
I just realized something... Isn't that the reason the Avengers were brought together and the reason for the weapons? Ya, pretty much. Except instead of a hero being killed they used the fact that Thor destroyed a whole town while fighting the Destroyer. Same basic concept, though. People die, precautionary measures are set. Except when the MCU did it, it wasn't eyeroll inducing. Okay... so if the SS was a countermeasure against another Superman... why was anyone except Enchantress on that team? What did they think Captain Boomerang was going to do against another Person of Steel? |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 20, 2017 3:17:40 GMT
The excuse for making the team was that there needed to be a precautionary measure in case someone like Superman came to earth and was bad. They also wanted a task force that could "do some good" while Superman was "dead". It's essentially a direct follow-up to BvS. There are people selling Superman memorial T-Shirts and what not in one scene. Batman can be seen trying to make a team after Superman's death, which he had no interest in before. I just realized something... Isn't that the reason the Avengers were brought together and the reason for the weapons? No, the reason the Avengers were brought together was so that SHIELD could have a group of mercenaries on their payroll that they could command to go on covert and illegal missions, such as invading foreign countries without provocation. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 20, 2017 10:35:42 GMT
I just realized something... Isn't that the reason the Avengers were brought together and the reason for the weapons? No, the reason the Avengers were brought together was so that SHIELD could have a group of mercenaries on their payroll that they could command to go on covert and illegal missions, such as invading foreign countries without provocation. Housing the leadership of a worldwide terrorist organization that subverted the US Government (and God knows who else) and recently tried to kill Millions seems like a pretty good provocation. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 20, 2017 16:59:48 GMT
I just realized something... Isn't that the reason the Avengers were brought together and the reason for the weapons? No, the reason the Avengers were brought together was so that SHIELD could have a group of mercenaries on their payroll that they could command to go on covert and illegal missions, such as invading foreign countries without provocation. So you are saying that Suicide Squad copied that too? Oh and I don't think you know what provocation means. You just randomly found a word starting in "P." I think you heard him say it as the reason in the movie, when you clearly see they had provocation to go there. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 20, 2017 23:41:14 GMT
No, the reason the Avengers were brought together was so that SHIELD could have a group of mercenaries on their payroll that they could command to go on covert and illegal missions, such as invading foreign countries without provocation. So you are saying that Suicide Squad copied that too? Oh and I don't think you know what provocation means. You just randomly found a word starting in "P." I think you heard him say it as the reason in the movie, when you clearly see they had provocation to go there. No, provocation requires some act of aggression by the foreign country for you to invade it and attack their citizens. For example, Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. That's provocation for the US to declare war against the Axis.
In the case of the Avengers, Sokovia didn't attack the US, Sokovia didn't attack the Avengers. The Avengers invaded Sokovia, violating their sovereign rights as an independent nation. The Avengers were the aggressors, not Sokovia.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 20, 2017 23:47:31 GMT
So you are saying that Suicide Squad copied that too? Oh and I don't think you know what provocation means. You just randomly found a word starting in "P." I think you heard him say it as the reason in the movie, when you clearly see they had provocation to go there. No, provocation requires some act of aggression by the foreign country for you to invade it and attack their citizens. For example, Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. That's provocation for the US to declare war against the Axis.
In the case of the Avengers, Sokovia didn't attack the US, Sokovia didn't attack the Avengers. The Avengers invaded Sokovia, violating their sovereign rights as an independent nation. The Avengers were the aggressors, not Sokovia.
The Avengers didn't attack Sokovia or its citizens. They were blamed for it because the guilty party blew himself up. Someone had to be accountable. And your analogy of using Japan and Pearl Harbor is a little faulty. It would be the same if Japan was trying to stop someone from blowing up Pearl Harbor. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 23, 2017 17:11:57 GMT
No, the reason the Avengers were brought together was so that SHIELD could have a group of mercenaries on their payroll that they could command to go on covert and illegal missions, such as invading foreign countries without provocation. Housing the leadership of a worldwide terrorist organization that subverted the US Government (and God knows who else) and recently tried to kill Millions seems like a pretty good provocation. And if Sokovia had granted them asylum, that makes the Avengers violation of Sokovia's sovereign rights as an independent nation an illegal act of aggression. It's no different that Snowden. Snowden is considered a traitor and is wanted for treason by the US government. But Russia has granted Snowden asylum. If the US invaded Russia to get Snowden, the US would be illegally violating Russia's sovereign rights as an independent nation.
Same with the Avengers' illegal invasion of Sokovia. The Avengers illegally violated the sovereign rights of an independent nation without provocation.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 23, 2017 20:46:55 GMT
Housing the leadership of a worldwide terrorist organization that subverted the US Government (and God knows who else) and recently tried to kill Millions seems like a pretty good provocation. And if Sokovia had granted them asylum, that makes the Avengers violation of Sokovia's sovereign rights as an independent nation an illegal act of aggression.
Like US has never been willing to do this sort of thing before? Get real. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 23:25:47 GMT
And if Sokovia had granted them asylum, that makes the Avengers violation of Sokovia's sovereign rights as an independent nation an illegal act of aggression.
Like US has never been willing to do this sort of thing before? Get real. I do love that DC-Fan would rather side with Hydra agents over The Avengers. |
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
 
|
Post by Peter B. Parker on Sept 25, 2017 6:33:52 GMT
Look dude, the more times you say this, the less times it's going to be right. It was never right to begin with. DC-Fan is just getting salty that Kevin Feige has a successful Cinematic Universe going while DC hasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 25, 2017 8:27:16 GMT
Look dude, the more times you say this, the less times it's going to be right. It was never right to begin with. DC-Fan is just getting salty that Kevin Feige has a successful Cinematic Universe going while DC hasn't.
oh oh has it not...? Let's fairly compare the first 4 outputs respectively, shall we?
- DCEU after only 3 (three!) movies has already been awarded an Oscar and is discussed to become nominated as first CBM for best film/director this very year; MCU after 16+ movies has NADA (zero, null), not even talk, lol.
- the 4 DCEU films made far more money than the first 4 MCU movies (money making is the only thing MCU really does...); this despite the fact that MCU is milking the super lucrative children/BabyGroot market with it's dumbed down formulaic movies - and thus should always have a natural commercial advantage over DC!
- DCEU has nothing that has a 0%-10% critical rating failure with the lowest viewer ratings ever, i.e,. an abominable pattern of super flops and media embarrassments. DC has very successful shows, but smartly outsourced them to accomodate its more creative, varied, less formulaic output, thereby being able to create different versions of its heroes,
- DCEU has the first super-successful female-led CMB in direction and lead after decades of discrimination (under MCU too, just see Patty Jenkins)– and has created an unprecedented media sensation everybody even ppl who never have seen a CBM are aware of (that is what makes MCU boys soo very yealous, lol). Uh, poor MCU after 16+ still prefers to dabble in raccoon turd and to re-rehash spider poo-poo heads for Sony, and only now tries to copy DCEU's approach after DC cleared the way - sad;
- DCEU is the first with two black leads (female and male) and a female antagonist; MCU after 16+ movies is announcing a male lead after DC successfully did it, sad!
- Talk about bad continuity in MCU, you do not need the movies for that: MCU is not even able to get it's own name right, the term "Cinematic" does not entail crummy TV shows and unsellable comics - even though everybody will understand that MCU wants people to forget about that stinker TV dreck it produces LOLOLLOL
Last but not least, MCU will never claw back the Fox-Men, and that is a unrelated yet encouraging parting gift. You have the right to accept your defeat and embarrassment by remaining silent....
 
|
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Sept 25, 2017 12:18:26 GMT
It was never right to begin with. DC-Fan is just getting salty that Kevin Feige has a successful Cinematic Universe going while DC hasn't.
oh oh has it not...? Let's fairly compare the first 4 outputs respectively, shall we?
- DCEU after only 3 (three!) movies has already been awarded an Oscar and is discussed to become nominated as first CBM for best film/director this very year; MCU after 16+ movies has NADA (zero, null), not even talk, lol.
- the 4 DCEU films made far more money than the first 4 MCU movies (money making is the only thing MCU really does...); this despite the fact that MCU is milking the super lucrative children/BabyGroot market with it's dumbed down formulaic movies - and thus should always have a natural commercial advantage over DC!
- DCEU has nothing that has a 0%-10% critical rating failure with the lowest viewer ratings ever, i.e,. an abominable pattern of super flops and media embarrassments. DC has very successful shows, but smartly outsourced them to accomodate its more creative, varied, less formulaic output, thereby being able to create different versions of its heroes,
- DCEU has the first super-successful female-led CMB in direction and lead after decades of discrimination (under MCU too, just see Patty Jenkins)– and has created an unprecedented media sensation everybody even ppl who never have seen a CBM are aware of (that is what makes MCU boys soo very yealous, lol). Uh, poor MCU after 16+ still prefers to dabble in raccoon turd and to re-rehash spider poo-poo heads for Sony, and only now tries to copy DCEU's approach after DC cleared the way - sad;
- DCEU is the first with two black leads (female and male) and a female antagonist; MCU after 16+ movies is announcing a male lead after DC successfully did it, sad!
- Talk about bad continuity in MCU, you do not need the movies for that: MCU is not even able to get it's own name right, the term "Cinematic" does not entail crummy TV shows and unsellable comics - even though everybody will understand that MCU wants people to forget about that stinker TV dreck it produces LOLOLLOL
Last but not least, MCU will never claw back the Fox-Men, and that is a unrelated yet encouraging parting gift. You have the right to accept your defeat and embarrassment by remaining silent....
Yeah I was going to say, wether or not you like the DCEU movies, they are making money. So in that sense, yeah they're successful! |
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
|
Post by Peter B. Parker on Sept 25, 2017 14:56:35 GMT
It was never right to begin with. DC-Fan is just getting salty that Kevin Feige has a successful Cinematic Universe going while DC hasn't.
- DCEU after only 3 (three!) movies has already been awarded an Oscar and is discussed to become nominated as first CBM for best film/director this very year; MCU after 16+ movies has NADA (zero, null), not even talk, lol.
At least DCEU wasn't nominated for 4 razzies. Oh wait, it was . MCU, meanwhile, has no razzie nominations to its name. Come back to me when MCU gets nominated for 4 razzies, which it won't. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 25, 2017 15:11:09 GMT
- DCEU after only 3 (three!) movies has already been awarded an Oscar and is discussed to become nominated as first CBM for best film/director this very year; MCU after 16+ movies has NADA (zero, null), not even talk, lol.
At least DCEU wasn't nominated for 4 razzies. Oh wait, it was . MCU, meanwhile, has no razzie nominations to its name. Come back to me when MCU gets nominated for 4 razzies, which it won't. That's your response for me kicking your MCU ass royally? Btw I want my boot back, it still sticks in your fanboy ass. It's mine, or do you think you just got owned entirely by it?
|
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Sept 25, 2017 15:29:05 GMT
It was never right to begin with. DC-Fan is just getting salty that Kevin Feige has a successful Cinematic Universe going while DC hasn't.
oh oh has it not...? Let's fairly compare the first 4 outputs respectively, shall we?
- DCEU after only 3 (three!) movies has already been awarded an Oscar and is discussed to become nominated as first CBM for best film/director this very year; MCU after 16+ movies has NADA (zero, null), not even talk, lol.
- the 4 DCEU films made far more money than the first 4 MCU movies (money making is the only thing MCU really does...); this despite the fact that MCU is milking the super lucrative children/BabyGroot market with it's dumbed down formulaic movies - and thus should always have a natural commercial advantage over DC!
- DCEU has nothing that has a 0%-10% critical rating failure with the lowest viewer ratings ever, i.e,. an abominable pattern of super flops and media embarrassments. DC has very successful shows, but smartly outsourced them to accomodate its more creative, varied, less formulaic output, thereby being able to create different versions of its heroes,
- DCEU has the first super-successful female-led CMB in direction and lead after decades of discrimination (under MCU too, just see Patty Jenkins)– and has created an unprecedented media sensation everybody even ppl who never have seen a CBM are aware of (that is what makes MCU boys soo very yealous, lol). Uh, poor MCU after 16+ still prefers to dabble in raccoon turd and to re-rehash spider poo-poo heads for Sony, and only now tries to copy DCEU's approach after DC cleared the way - sad;
- DCEU is the first with two black leads (female and male) and a female antagonist; MCU after 16+ movies is announcing a male lead after DC successfully did it, sad!
- Talk about bad continuity in MCU, you do not need the movies for that: MCU is not even able to get it's own name right, the term "Cinematic" does not entail crummy TV shows and unsellable comics - even though everybody will understand that MCU wants people to forget about that stinker TV dreck it produces LOLOLLOL
Last but not least, MCU will never claw back the Fox-Men, and that is a unrelated yet encouraging parting gift. You have the right to accept your defeat and embarrassment by remaining silent....
1. It's just an Oscar for hair/makeup, and the MCU has far more Oscar nominations than X-Men 2. You're comparing the first 4 films from 2008-2011 to 2013-2017? The comic book movie genre boom started in 2012 when The Avengers hit theaters. 3. But MCU still hasn't produced a film under 60%. 4. And I'm pretty sure MCU will have the first successful black led CBM in direction and lead next year 5. Who? Harley and Deadshot? and what female antagonist? Faora? She's not even the main antagonist in Man of Steel. unlike Hela in Thor: Ragnarok, who will be the main antagonist. Also the MCU has female and black members (Black Widow, Falcon for example) 6. A). There is no bad continuity in the MCU and B). Kevin Feige has absolutely no say what goes on in the MTVU. 7. That sounds more like a problem for X-Men, not MCU. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 25, 2017 22:01:41 GMT
It was never right to begin with. DC-Fan is just getting salty that Kevin Feige has a successful Cinematic Universe going while DC hasn't.
oh oh has it not...? Let's fairly compare the first 4 outputs respectively, shall we?
- DCEU after only 3 (three!) movies has already been awarded an Oscar and is discussed to become nominated as first CBM for best film/director this very year; MCU after 16+ movies has NADA (zero, null), not even talk, lol.
- the 4 DCEU films made far more money than the first 4 MCU movies (money making is the only thing MCU really does...); this despite the fact that MCU is milking the super lucrative children/BabyGroot market with it's dumbed down formulaic movies - and thus should always have a natural commercial advantage over DC!
- DCEU has nothing that has a 0%-10% critical rating failure with the lowest viewer ratings ever, i.e,. an abominable pattern of super flops and media embarrassments. DC has very successful shows, but smartly outsourced them to accomodate its more creative, varied, less formulaic output, thereby being able to create different versions of its heroes,
- DCEU has the first super-successful female-led CMB in direction and lead after decades of discrimination (under MCU too, just see Patty Jenkins)– and has created an unprecedented media sensation everybody even ppl who never have seen a CBM are aware of (that is what makes MCU boys soo very yealous, lol). Uh, poor MCU after 16+ still prefers to dabble in raccoon turd and to re-rehash spider poo-poo heads for Sony, and only now tries to copy DCEU's approach after DC cleared the way - sad;
- DCEU is the first with two black leads (female and male) and a female antagonist; MCU after 16+ movies is announcing a male lead after DC successfully did it, sad!
- Talk about bad continuity in MCU, you do not need the movies for that: MCU is not even able to get it's own name right, the term "Cinematic" does not entail crummy TV shows and unsellable comics - even though everybody will understand that MCU wants people to forget about that stinker TV dreck it produces LOLOLLOL
Last but not least, MCU will never claw back the Fox-Men, and that is a unrelated yet encouraging parting gift. You have the right to accept your defeat and embarrassment by remaining silent....
They won an Oscar for makeup, that's no claim to fame. And WW won't be nominated for anything, it only got the reception it did because of the artificial boosters. The DCEU movies cost more to make and were using DC's big guns, while MCU used lesser known characters and spent less to make. And there is no Marvel formula except "success". DC is too lazy to try and creative a cohesive universe because they're too lazy. WW only got it's reception due to its artificial boosters. Plus MCU did female led shows before DC's current crop did. Having a black and female lead doesn't mean much if the movie was crap, like SS was. Black Panther will show how it's done. And Ragnarok will show how its done with a real female villain. MCU doesn't need the X-Men, considering overreliance on the X-Men is what nearly destroyed Marvel in the 90s. The only thing the FoX-Men movies do is provide a last bastion for viewers ashamed of comic books. Easy. And the name of "MCU" started out with just the movies. When they moved onto TV shows, they figured there was no real reason to change a good name. And I'm also sorry you're so obsessed with words like "turd" or "nipple" or "penis" to ignore poignant stuff like Drax talking to Mantis about the nature of beauty. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 12, 2017 4:31:18 GMT
Everyone else seems to have figured it out. Easily. Why can't you? Newspaper in Daredevil puts the "Battle of New York" in 2012. SMH says "8 Years Later".
2012 + 8 Years = 2020. Everyone else is able to add 2012 + 8. Easily. Why can't you?
Like I said, "8 Years Later" was a MAJOR FUCK-UP by MCU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 4:37:40 GMT
So DC-Fan revived my old topic to put how terrible the DCEU really is on display. Thank, man.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 12, 2017 10:18:57 GMT
Everyone else seems to have figured it out. Easily. Why can't you? Newspaper in Daredevil puts the "Battle of New York" in 2012. SMH says "8 Years Later".
2012 + 8 Years = 2020. Everyone else is able to add 2012 + 8. Easily. Why can't you?
Like I said, "8 Years Later" was a MAJOR FUCK-UP by MCU.
If one minor numerical error is all you got, MCU's doing pretty good. |
|
