|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 26, 2017 14:43:56 GMT
Keyword in your post is "implies". Nobody ever brought this up until today and only by you. You made this up or in best case scenario misunderstood what was happening but since you long lost all credibillity you are just lying sack of dog poo. You complain about things in movies that you made up and than call people stupid if they disagree with your delusions. You really are just a fuckfault arent you? It isn't "implied". AoU clearly shows Captain America striking an unarmed Strucker on the head with his shield and Strcuker going down.
Hitting him in the head with the shield doesn't mean he's dead.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 26, 2017 15:06:29 GMT
If that's their logic, that that's bad filmmaking because AoU contradicts The Avengers. How about that? A shared universe where the sequel contradicts the previous movie! That shows how lame MCU is! What contradiction? Explain. And what has it to do with you not believing that a comic book universe contains the concept of being knocked unconscious Because Strucker didn't take any super PED like Steve Rogers did. Strucker is a normal human being. And when a normal human being gets struck on the head with Captain America's shield, he isn't unconscious, he's dead.
The contradiction is that The First Avenger established that Captain America's shield is made from the hardest metal on Earth and The Avengers established that Captain America's shield is hard enough to stop Thor's hammer. So when a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer is smashed against the skull of a normal human being, that human being isn't unconscious, that human being is as dead as if he was shot in the back of the head by a gun.
When a movie shows a normal human being getting shot in the back of the head by a gun, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead". Likewise, when a normal human being is smashed in the skull by a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead."
So yes, Captain America killed an unarmed Strucker in cold blood. No trial, no jury, no judge. Just a cold-blooded execution. Then later in the movie, they pretended it didn't happen and retconned it to say that Ultron killed Strucker when it was clear that Captain America already killed Strucker earlier in the movie.
For Strucker to have survived a strike to his skull by a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer, either Strucker must have a skull that's as strong as a tank or Thor's hammer must be as soft as a pillow.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 26, 2017 15:07:38 GMT
It isn't "implied". AoU clearly shows Captain America striking an unarmed Strucker on the head with his shield and Strcuker going down.
Hitting him in the head with the shield doesn't mean he's dead. Yes it does. Strucker didn't take any super PED like Steve Rogers did. Strucker is a normal human being.
When a movie shows a normal human being getting shot in the back of the head by a gun, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead". Likewise, when a normal human being is smashed in the skull by a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead."
So yes, Captain America killed an unarmed Strucker in cold blood. No trial, no jury, no judge. Just a cold-blooded execution. Then later in the movie, they pretended it didn't happen and retconned it to say that Ultron killed Strucker when it was clear that Captain America already killed Strucker earlier in the movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 15:17:38 GMT
People, move along. Nothing to see here. Its only Red Fonts full of made up crap.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 26, 2017 15:39:13 GMT
Hitting him in the head with the shield doesn't mean he's dead. Yes it does. Strucker didn't take any super PED like Steve Rogers did. Strucker is a normal human being.
When a movie shows a normal human being getting shot in the back of the head by a gun, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead". Likewise, when a normal human being is smashed in the skull by a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead."
So yes, Captain America killed an unarmed Strucker in cold blood. No trial, no jury, no judge. Just a cold-blooded execution. Then later in the movie, they pretended it didn't happen and retconned it to say that Ultron killed Strucker when it was clear that Captain America already killed Strucker earlier in the movie.
You're really reaching right now. Grasping straws because you can't make a compelling argument against Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 26, 2017 15:46:55 GMT
Yes it does. Strucker didn't take any super PED like Steve Rogers did. Strucker is a normal human being.
When a movie shows a normal human being getting shot in the back of the head by a gun, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead". Likewise, when a normal human being is smashed in the skull by a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead."
So yes, Captain America killed an unarmed Strucker in cold blood. No trial, no jury, no judge. Just a cold-blooded execution. Then later in the movie, they pretended it didn't happen and retconned it to say that Ultron killed Strucker when it was clear that Captain America already killed Strucker earlier in the movie.
You're really reaching right now. Grasping straws because you can't make a compelling argument against Marvel. Nope, I'm just applying common sense. You're the 1 who's grasping at straws because you have no argument and no defense for MCU retconning Strucker's execution by Captain America's hands.
But try to answer these 2 questions HONESTLY:
1. When you see a movie where a normal human being gets shot in the back of the head, do you think that he's just unconscious unless someone in the movie explicitly says "He's dead" or do you think that he's dead?
2. Do you think that a normal human being can survive getting smashed in the head by a shield that's harder than Thor's hammer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 16:21:14 GMT
You're really reaching right now. Grasping straws because you can't make a compelling argument against Marvel. Nope, I'm just applying common sense. You're the 1 who's grasping at straws because you have no argument and no defense for MCU retconning Strucker's execution by Captain America's hands.
But try to answer these 2 questions HONESTLY:
1. When you see a movie where a normal human being gets shot in the back of the head, do you think that he's just unconscious unless someone in the movie explicitly says "He's dead" or do you think that he's dead?
2. Do you think that a normal human being can survive getting smashed in the head by a shield that's harder than Thor's hammer?
Again he didnt die. YOU assume he dies. But he didnt. And than you claim you use common sense? How about Wonder Woman liberating a villlage with a Dutch name in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium where no-one speaks proper Dutch? Talk about a major flaw that makes a whole movie ridiculous!! Or that the Germans speak English amongst each other? If you cant get those fact right it makes the whole movie total bull shit right? Wonder Woman is more crap than the whole Strucker gets hit by a shield and doesnt die scene.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 26, 2017 16:33:51 GMT
Again he didnt die. YOU assume he dies. But he didnt. It was clearly shown that Captain America smashed Strucker's skull with his shield. So yes, Strucker did die the same way that the 2 Jewish women who were shot in the back of the head by Nazis in The Zookeeper's Wife died, even though the movie didn't have the Nazis explicitly say "They're dead". We know they're dead because we know that normal human beings don't survive being shot in the back of the head. And we also know that Captain America killed Strucker with his shield because we know that normal human beings don't survive being struck in the head with a shield that's harder than a large hammer. I see that you didn't answer my 2 questions, obciouslt because you're afraid to admit the fact that I'm 100% right that Captain America executed Strucker in cold blood without a trial. I know you won't answer these 2 questions but I'll post them again. Try to answer these 2 questions HONESTLY: 1. When you see a movie where a normal human being gets shot in the back of the head, do you think that he's just unconscious unless someone in the movie explicitly says "He's dead" or do you think that he's dead? 2. Do you think that a normal human being can survive getting smashed in the head by a shield that's harder than Thor's hammer? How about Wonder Woman liberating a villlage with a Dutch name in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium where no-one speaks proper Dutch? Talk about a major flaw that makes a whole movie ridiculous!! Or that the Germans speak English amongst each other? If you cant get those fact right it makes the whole movie total bull shit right? Nope. If you go to Belgium and watch the movie, it'll probably be dubbed in perfect Dutch. But if you watch the movie in an English-speaking country, they'll speak English so that you can understand the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. Why do Klingons and Romulans speak perfect English in Star Trek movies? So that you can understand the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. If you watch the movie in China, it'll probably be dubbed in Chinese. If you watch the movie in an English-speaking country, they'll speak English. That's how movies are made so viewers don't have to constantly read subtitles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 16:56:56 GMT
I do wonder what specifically about Wright's movie Marvel didn't like. It's not like Reed's version ties into any overarching storyline in the MCU. It stands alone so I doubt it has to do with universe building as so many have speculated. It probably had more to do with Marvel wanting an easily marketable movie that was readily accessible to a general audience. Wright's version would've probably been miles better but made way less money. That was probably the bottom line. But who can ever say for sure... You overrate Wright way too much. From what I understand, Wright didn't want to have his Ant-Man film to be connected to the larger universe in any way, shape, or form, but instead of replacing him right away, Marvel TRIED to negotiate with him for ten straight years while Phase 1 and much of Phase 2 passed them by until they finally just fired his ass, and rightfully so. But the finished Ant Man didn't really tie in either. Aside from the Falcon cameo, which was Rudd's idea btw not Marvel, there was really no universe building in the movie. Also Wright doesn't cite that as his problem. He said Marvel wanted to basically rewrite his script, which probably had more to do with creative direction than the MCU universe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 17:15:25 GMT
Again he didnt die. YOU assume he dies. But he didnt. It was clearly shown that Captain America smashed Strucker's skull with his shield. So yes, Strucker did die the same way that the 2 Jewish women who were shot in the back of the head by Nazis in The Zookeeper's Wife died, even though the movie didn't have the Nazis explicitly say "They're dead". We know they're dead because we know that normal human beings don't survive being shot in the back of the head. And we also know that Captain America killed Strucker with his shield because we know that normal human beings don't survive being struck in the head with a shield that's harder than a large hammer. I see that you didn't answer my 2 questions, obciouslt because you're afraid to admit the fact that I'm 100% right that Captain America executed Strucker in cold blood without a trial. I know you won't answer these 2 questions but I'll post them again. Try to answer these 2 questions HONESTLY: 1. When you see a movie where a normal human being gets shot in the back of the head, do you think that he's just unconscious unless someone in the movie explicitly says "He's dead" or do you think that he's dead? 2. Do you think that a normal human being can survive getting smashed in the head by a shield that's harder than Thor's hammer? How about Wonder Woman liberating a villlage with a Dutch name in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium where no-one speaks proper Dutch? Talk about a major flaw that makes a whole movie ridiculous!! Or that the Germans speak English amongst each other? If you cant get those fact right it makes the whole movie total bull shit right? Nope. If you go to Belgium and watch the movie, it'll probably be dubbed in perfect Dutch. But if you watch the movie in an English-speaking country, they'll speak English so that you can understand the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. Why do Klingons and Romulans speak perfect English in Star Trek movies? So that you can understand the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. If you watch the movie in China, it'll probably be dubbed in Chinese. If you watch the movie in an English-speaking country, they'll speak English. That's how movies are made so viewers don't have to constantly read subtitles. You idiot!! I watched the movie in The Netherlands. You know the country that speaks Dutch. I am a native speaker. The people in the theatre laughed. They even subtitled the dutch in dutch and we still couldnt make it out. It was embarrassing and insulting. If Wonder Woman gets a nomination for anything its a direct insult to The Netherlands and a major embarresment to the Academy. Btw why would a young Diana speak English. Wouldnt she use Ancient Greek. Especially when there are only Amazonions around? Beside that when Diana was young (befathered by Zeus so at least 2500 years ago) she also spoke English. A language that didnt exsist back then. Another major flaw. You drag the Klingons and Romulans into this? You know that those species doesnt exsist right? Well Dutch people do. Belgian people also and for an occasional word here and there we understand each other perfectly. You scored Wonder Woman 10/10. How can you do that when you are so honoust and these flaws are quite obviously in there? And these flaws havent been made up. They're totally real. Btw you call Cap a murderer? How about Batman? He kills people. Shoots them right in the back. So if you call Cap a murderer ,which he isnt because you made that up, you have to call Batman a murderer because thats actually in the movie and a coward btw because he does it from a far and in the back. Yes you heard it. Batman is a murdering coward!!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 26, 2017 17:23:14 GMT
Zach Synder came up with the story but a story is basically a synopsis that's a just a few pages. It's the Director of the movie who's responsible for filling in the details to turn that synopsis into a movie. It's like someone writing an outline for a thesis or research paper and then someone else actually writing the thesis or research paper based on the outline. The scene of Diana and Steve talking on the boat ride to London. That wasn't in Synder's story or the script. In fact, that whole scene wasn't even scripted. Patty Jenkins had Gal Gadot and Chris Pine ad-lib the dialogue for that scene. Even some of the battle scenes. For example, the beach battle between the German soldiers and the Amazons. The script may indicate a beach battle but that scene involved dozens and dozens of actors and actresses and the script isn't going to describe in detail what each of those dozens and dozens of actors and actress do during that scene. It's the Director's job to fill in the details of exactly how that scene goes and what each of the dozens and dozens of actors and actresses do during that scene and which actors and actresses the camera is following during that scene. Yes Snyder may have come up with synopsis and story, but there was a Screenplay and it was written Allan Heinberg NOT Patty Jenkins. I don't give a damn about the boat scene or the battle scenes...I am responding to your claim that she "adapted elements from Greek mythology" when they were already in the comic books and the screenplay. It's not an angle she introduced, which is somehow your defence that turning Thor into Romeo & Juliet would have been a success. You MCU fans really don't know anything about how movies are made. Regardless of who wrote the story or the script, it's ultimately the Director's job to turn that script from pages of paper that can only be read and imagined (like a book) into a movie that can be seen on a large theater screen.
When I read The Da Vinci Code (long before the movie was made), I had an idea of what the book would look like if it were a real story. The movie is Ron Howard's idea of what the book looks like if it were a real story. A movie is the Director's imagination of the script from pages of paper into a motion picture. And part of the Director's job of turning that script from pages of paper into a movie is getting the actors and actresses to "see" how the Director "imagines" the scenes and then perform the scenes the way the Director "imagines" the scene. And some Directors are obviously better than other Directors at "imagining" the same script.
For example, one year MGM was producing this big-budget movie, which the Director was struggling to get right. So MGM replaced the Director with another Director who had made some of MGM's best movies in the past. The new Director was able to get the movie going on the right track, but the script wasn't changed, only the Director's "imagining" of the scenes changed.
Then later that same year, MGM was producing another big-budget movie, which the Director of that movie was struggling to get right. So MGM replaced the Director of that movie with the same Director who had came on and gotten the 1st movie going on the right track. The new Director also got the 2nd movie going on the right track. Again, the script wasn't changed, only the Director's "imagining" of the scenes changed.
Both of those movies that the new Director came on and got things going on the right track were nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture in the same year. The Director was Victor Fleming and the 1st movie he got going on the right track was The Wizard of Oz and the 2nd movie he got going on the right track was Gone with the Wind (which won the Best Picture Oscar).
How did Victor Fleming get The Wizard of Oz going on the right track? Well, the previous Director wanted Judy Garland to look more glamorus so he had her wear a blonde wig and try to act more glamorous. But the test footage that they shot didn't look very good. Victor Fleming took the blonde wig away and told Judy Garland "You're playing a Kansas farmgirl. You don't have to act glamorous. Just be yourself." And that changed everything and got the movie going on the right track.
So the Director's "imagination" of the script into actual scenes and the Director getting the actors and actresses to "see" how the Director "imagines" the scenes and to perform the scenes the way the Director "imagines" the scenes is a major part of movie-making. And some Directors are better than other Directors at doing that.
MCU has made plenty of awful movies. Patty Jenkins has never made a bad movie so she would've made a much better Thor: Dark World if MCU dictator Kevin Feige had given her more creative freedom like WB gave her on Wonder Woman. But MCU dictator Kevin Feige is a control freak so he refused to give Jenkins the creative freedom to make a better Thor movie and as a result, Thor: The Dark World turned out to be another awful movie and Wonder Woman turned out to be a great movie and much better than all of MCU's movies.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 26, 2017 17:26:21 GMT
With Phil Lord and Christopher Miller ousted from the Untitled Han Solo movie (as well as the behind the scenes of Rouge One), it is obvious that an executive committee is behind all of Disney's productions, increasingly taking over the role of directors. This is also the reason Marvel hire mostly less well known directors; as the directors are in name only, the executive committee can take charge of the entire production easily. Example: While Doctor Strange is "directed and written by Scott Derrickson", think of how many script notes it got (the mandatory "funny lines", and an Iron Man-like character) and how many shots were pre-made without Derrickson's involvement. It is not really different from parents doing homework for their kid and the kid really thinks he did it. Kathleen Kennedy made the call to fire Lord and Miller from Han Solo, she is to Star Wars what Kevin Feige is to Marvel Studios. The reasons why they got fired from Han Solo was because they were not delivering the type of film Kennedy and screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan had imagined and that spawned enough creative differences that the pair got the boot. Your argument that Disney is seeking lesser known directors to easily control them is a load of baloney given that Ron Howard is taking over Han Solo and is far more well known than Miller and Lord are and ever will be. Scott Derrickson wasn't the only writer on Doctor Strange and the marketing never made it that he was such.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 26, 2017 17:27:49 GMT
the finished Ant Man didn't really tie in either. Aside from the Falcon cameo, which was Rudd's idea btw not Marvel, there was really no universe building in the movie. MCU fans think that Tony Stark's 5-second cameo at the end of The Incredible Hulk ties that to the rest of MCU movies (despite the fact that they have a different actor playing the Hulk in subsequent movies). Wright doesn't cite that as his problem. He said Marvel wanted to basically rewrite his script, which probably had more to do with creative direction than the MCU universe. Yep, MCU dictator Kevin Feige is a control freak. That's why he refused to give Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins the creative freedom to make better movies. As a result, Ant-Man and Thor: Dark World turned out to be awful movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 17:38:18 GMT
Again he didnt die. YOU assume he dies. But he didnt. It was clearly shown that Captain America smashed Strucker's skull with his shield. So yes, Strucker did die the same way that the 2 Jewish women who were shot in the back of the head by Nazis in The Zookeeper's Wife died, even though the movie didn't have the Nazis explicitly say "They're dead". We know they're dead because we know that normal human beings don't survive being shot in the back of the head. And we also know that Captain America killed Strucker with his shield because we know that normal human beings don't survive being struck in the head with a shield that's harder than a large hammer. I see that you didn't answer my 2 questions, obciouslt because you're afraid to admit the fact that I'm 100% right that Captain America executed Strucker in cold blood without a trial. I know you won't answer these 2 questions but I'll post them again. Try to answer these 2 questions HONESTLY: 1. When you see a movie where a normal human being gets shot in the back of the head, do you think that he's just unconscious unless someone in the movie explicitly says "He's dead" or do you think that he's dead? 2. Do you think that a normal human being can survive getting smashed in the head by a shield that's harder than Thor's hammer? How about Wonder Woman liberating a villlage with a Dutch name in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium where no-one speaks proper Dutch? Talk about a major flaw that makes a whole movie ridiculous!! Or that the Germans speak English amongst each other? If you cant get those fact right it makes the whole movie total bull shit right? Nope. If you go to Belgium and watch the movie, it'll probably be dubbed in perfect Dutch. But if you watch the movie in an English-speaking country, they'll speak English so that you can understand the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. Why do Klingons and Romulans speak perfect English in Star Trek movies? So that you can understand the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. If you watch the movie in China, it'll probably be dubbed in Chinese. If you watch the movie in an English-speaking country, they'll speak English. That's how movies are made so viewers don't have to constantly read subtitles. Coming back for more!! Strucker didnt die. No matter how many times you repeat it, he just didnt die. Its a made up lie by you. Nobody ever claimed Strucker died until you did. Its bullshit. Being shot in the head and being hit on your head are two different things. If you dont understand the difference ask any Texas hillbilly to first hit you and than shoot you. I didnt answer your questions because they were not directed at me you Red Fontspraying imbecile. 1. If people get shot in the head yes I think they are dead. 2. That depends how hard the hit was. You use smashed but the hit wasnt that hard actually. In fact if the whole world beside you never assumed Strucker's death than its probably you that is wrong. I have watched movies in several countries. Belgium is among them. They show the original movie with subtitles. In Singapore and Malaysia they show the original movie with subtitles. In The Netherlandz the same. The dubbing does happen. Germany and France for instance. But your assumptions are wrong. Again. As usual. So its not how movies are made. Not everywhere. You know nothing John Snow.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 26, 2017 17:52:05 GMT
Yes Snyder may have come up with synopsis and story, but there was a Screenplay and it was written Allan Heinberg NOT Patty Jenkins. I don't give a damn about the boat scene or the battle scenes...I am responding to your claim that she "adapted elements from Greek mythology" when they were already in the comic books and the screenplay. It's not an angle she introduced, which is somehow your defence that turning Thor into Romeo & Juliet would have been a success. You MCU fans really don't know anything about how movies are made. Regardless of who wrote the story or the script, it's ultimately the Director's job to turn that script from pages of paper that can only be read and imagined (like a book) into a movie that can be seen on a large theater screen.
When I read The Da Vinci Code (long before the movie was made), I had an idea of what the book would look like if it were a real story. The movie is Ron Howard's idea of what the book looks like if it were a real story. A movie is the Director's imagination of the script from pages of paper into a motion picture. And part of the Director's job of turning that script from pages of paper into a movie is getting the actors and actresses to "see" how the Director "imagines" the scenes and then perform the scenes the way the Director "imagines" the scene. And some Directors are obviously better than other Directors at "imagining" the same script.
For example, one year MGM was producing this big-budget movie, which the Director was struggling to get right. So MGM replaced the Director with another Director who had made some of the best movies in the past. The new Director was able to get the movie going on the right track, but the script wasn't changed, only the Director's "imagining" of the scenes changed.
Then later that same year, MGM was producing another big-budget movie, which the Director of that movie was struggling to get right. So MGM replaced the that movie with the same Director who had came on and gotten the 1st movie going on the right track. The new Director also got the 2nd movie going on the right track. Again, the script wasn't changed, only the Director's "imagining" of the scenes changed.
Both of those movies that the new Director came on and got things going on the right track were nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture in the same year. The Director was Victor Fleming and the 1st movie he got going on the right track was The Wizard of Oz and the 2nd movie he got going on the right track was Gone with the Wind (which won the Best Picture Oscar).
How did Victor Fleming get The Wizard of Oz going on the right track? Well, the previous Director wanted Judy Garland to look more glamorus so he had her wear a blonde wig and try to act more glamorous. But the test footage that they shot didn't look very good. Victor Fleming took the blonde wig away and told Judy Garland "You're playing a Kansas farmgirl. You don't have to act glamorous. Just be yourself." And that changed everything and got the movie going on the right track.
So the Director's "imagination" of the script into actual scenes and the Director getting the actors and actresses to "see" how the Director "imagines" the scenes and to perform the scenes the way the Director "imagines" the scenes is a major part of movie-making. And some Directors are better than other Directors at doing that.
MCU has made plenty of awful movies. Patty Jenkins has never made a bad movie so she would've made a much better Thor: Dark World if MCU dictator Kevin Feige had given her more creative freedom like WB gave her on Wonder Woman. But MCU dictator Kevin Feige is a control freak so he refused to give Jenkins the creative freedom to make a better Thor movie and as a result, Thor: The Dark World turned out to be another awful movie and Wonder Woman turned out to be a great movie and much better than all of MCU's movies.
So much in response, and very little relevant. I repeat... "I am responding to your claim that she "adapted elements from Greek mythology" when they were already in the comic books and the screenplay. It's not an angle she introduced, which is somehow your defence that turning Thor into Romeo & Juliet would have been a success." Greek myth wasn't adapted by Jenkins...it has been part of the comics for decades and was in the screenplay...she didn't think "wouldn't it be great if I adapted elements of Greek myth and integrated into the story". She put it on screen, but it was always there and wasn't her idea.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 26, 2017 17:56:07 GMT
why would a young Diana speak English. Because Amazons speak hundreds of different languages. Wouldnt she use Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek is just 1 of the many languages that she speaks. Amazons speak hundreds of different languages. Especially when there are only Amazonions around? When I took Spanish in high school, the teacher made us always speak Spanish only in the classroom even though everyone in the class spoke English as their 1st language. The best way to learn a language is to practice speaking that language constantly to others around you who can also speak that language. The best way for Diana to learn to speak English when she was a child was to speak English constantly to others around her who can also speak English. And since all the Amazons on the island can speak English, Diana could learn English by speaking English to all the other Amazons. And when Diana learned Spanish, she probably spoke Spanish to all the other Amazons since all the Amazons on the island can speak Spanish too. But there was no need to show child Diana learning to speak Spanish since adult Diana explained to Steve Trevor that the Amazons spoke hundreds of different languages. Beside that when Diana was young (befathered by Zeus so at least 2500 years ago) she also spoke English. A language that didnt exsist back then. Another major flaw. You don't know when Diana was young and started speaking English. She could've started speaking English 1500 years ago or 1000 years ago or 500 years ago or even just 250 years ago. We know that Diana is the daughter of Zeus but the movie doesn't indicate what year (or years, since Amazons obviously don't age at the same rate as normal humans) Diana was a child or Diana was a teen or Diana was an adult. You drag the Klingons and Romulans into this? How about Romans? Didn't Romans exist? From what I remember, Connie Neilsen and the rest of the cast spoke perfect English and not Roman in Gladiator. Again, that's a convention used in movie-making so that people in English-speaking countries can watch the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. You scored Wonder Woman 10/10. Yes, because it's 1 of the best CBMs ever made and definitely better than any of MCU's movies. How can you do that when you are so honoust and these flaws are quite obviously in there? And these flaws havent been made up. They're totally real. No, your hissy fits about "speaking English" aren't flaws because those are just standard conventions used in almost all movies so that people in English-speaking countries can watch the movie without having to constantly read subtitles. you call Cap a murderer ,which he isnt because you made that up I didn't make that up. Cap is a murderer. AoU clearly showed Cap smashing Strucker's head with his shield, which is harder than Thor's hammer. I see you still haven't answered my questions, but it's true that no normal human being can survive having their head smashed by a shield that's harder than a large hammer. So Strucker did die, that's a fact that's clearly shown in the movie. The only question is was Cap justified in killing Strucker (like Superman was justified in killing Zod because Zod was threatening to kill a family of civilians). Well, Strucker was unarmed and Strucker had no hostages and Strucker wasn't a threat to Cap or anyone else. So Cap basically killed an unarmed man in cold blood without any justification. There was no trial, no jury, no judge. Just a cold-blooded execution by Cap.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 26, 2017 17:56:56 GMT
What contradiction? Explain. And what has it to do with you not believing that a comic book universe contains the concept of being knocked unconscious Because Strucker didn't take any super PED like Steve Rogers did. Strucker is a normal human being. And when a normal human being gets struck on the head with Captain America's shield, he isn't unconscious, he's dead.
The contradiction is that The First Avenger established that Captain America's shield is made from the hardest metal on Earth and The Avengers established that Captain America's shield is hard enough to stop Thor's hammer. So when a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer is smashed against the skull of a normal human being, that human being isn't unconscious, that human being is as dead as if he was shot in the back of the head by a gun.
When a movie shows a normal human being getting shot in the back of the head by a gun, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead". Likewise, when a normal human being is smashed in the skull by a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer, we don't say "Well, he must be unconscious", we say "He's dead."
So yes, Captain America killed an unarmed Strucker in cold blood. No trial, no jury, no judge. Just a cold-blooded execution. Then later in the movie, they pretended it didn't happen and retconned it to say that Ultron killed Strucker when it was clear that Captain America already killed Strucker earlier in the movie.
For Strucker to have survived a strike to his skull by a shield that's made of the hardest metal on Earth and that's hard enough to stop Thor's hammer, either Strucker must have a skull that's as strong as a tank or Thor's hammer must be as soft as a pillow.
Again, a lengthy response that explains nothing. There is no contradiction. If in any earlier film they said or indicated that being struck by the shield would cause certain death, then yes that is a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 26, 2017 18:04:50 GMT
The only question is was Cap justified in killing Strucker (like Superman was justified in killing Zod because Zod was threatening to kill a family of civilians). Well, Strucker was unarmed and Strucker had no hostages and Strucker wasn't a threat to Cap or anyone else. So Cap basically killed an unarmed man in cold blood without any justification. There was no trial, no jury, no judge. Just a cold-blooded execution by Cap. Except he didn't kill him did he. That's already established...BECAUSE HE WAS LATER KILLED BY ULTRON WHILE IN A PRISON CELL!!!! I wonder how many people died as a result of Superman's fight with Zod?
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 26, 2017 18:07:27 GMT
You overrate Wright way too much. From what I understand, Wright didn't want to have his Ant-Man film to be connected to the larger universe in any way, shape, or form, but instead of replacing him right away, Marvel TRIED to negotiate with him for ten straight years while Phase 1 and much of Phase 2 passed them by until they finally just fired his ass, and rightfully so. But the finished Ant Man didn't really tie in either. Aside from the Falcon cameo, which was Rudd's idea btw not Marvel, there was really no universe building in the movie. Also Wright doesn't cite that as his problem. He said Marvel wanted to basically rewrite his script, which probably had more to do with creative direction than the MCU universe. Not just Falcon. I know not all are major appearances but SHIELD, Peggy Carter and Tony Stark are also in there. Also it touches on Pyms disdain for Stark Industries. Most of all, a major part of the story is about keeping Pym's technology out of Hydra's (and SHIELDs) hands
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 18:14:45 GMT
You overrate Wright way too much. From what I understand, Wright didn't want to have his Ant-Man film to be connected to the larger universe in any way, shape, or form, but instead of replacing him right away, Marvel TRIED to negotiate with him for ten straight years while Phase 1 and much of Phase 2 passed them by until they finally just fired his ass, and rightfully so. But the finished Ant Man didn't really tie in either. Aside from the Falcon cameo, which was Rudd's idea btw not Marvel, there was really no universe building in the movie. Also Wright doesn't cite that as his problem. He said Marvel wanted to basically rewrite his script, which probably had more to do with creative direction than the MCU universe. It also shows us that Hydra is operating despite Black Widow's data dump, which was also an ongoing plot-thread in Agents of SHIELD at the time. Plus, the Quantum Zone is a clever way to visually foreshadow the weirdness to come in Doctor Strange. While Ant-Man might not tie in majorly, it finds little ways to do it.
|
|