|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 15, 2017 22:23:05 GMT
IDK, I'm not buying it. Fury doesn't make the pay off film? I'll believe that when the credits roll on Avengers 4 and he hasn't shown up yet. Well he should have been in Civil War but wasn't. This doesn't surprise me. I don't see why he needed to be in Civil War necessarily, so I'm not sure I would say "he should have." He could have been, but it comes down to, What would he have done? What would he have added to the story? I think the answer was not much.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 15, 2017 22:27:01 GMT
maybe, just maybe MCU finally has a main character bite the dust, and keep him that way (dead that is). I heard this occasionally happens in war scenarios...I still am pissed about the cheap dying stunts they pulled with Fury (and Bucky) in Cap2. But really I fear that they will rather let the MCU die before any of its main protagonists. If the MCU is not prepared to kill Cap in what became Captain America: Civil Skirmish, any deaths are too little, too late. Well that's complete crap. They didn't need to kill him, and his death will mean 1000x more dying against thanos than it ever was going to in the middle of the series. Seriously try imagining that you get to Infinity War, the biggest movie in the series, and Cap has already died 6 films ago. That's silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 22:33:05 GMT
If the MCU is not prepared to kill Cap in what became Captain America: Civil Skirmish, any deaths are too little, too late. Well that's complete crap. They didn't need to kill him, and his death will mean 1000x more dying against thanos than it ever was going to in the middle of the series. Seriously try imagining that you get to Infinity War, the biggest movie in the series, and Cap has already died 6 films ago. That's silly. I guess, but someone should have died. Rhodey getting paralysed is not enough. The MCU is too risk-averse.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 15, 2017 22:38:25 GMT
Well that's complete crap. They didn't need to kill him, and his death will mean 1000x more dying against thanos than it ever was going to in the middle of the series. Seriously try imagining that you get to Infinity War, the biggest movie in the series, and Cap has already died 6 films ago. That's silly. I guess, but someone should have died. Rhodey getting paralysed is not enough. The MCU is too risk-averse. Nobody needed to die to get the point across. I don't know if you've heard the Russo's discuss this or not, but they said the choice was done because if a character had died it would have immediately united the team, not kept them divided, so it has absolutely nothing to do with being risk-averse. Have you taken any time to think about this stuff? I don't want this to sound mean, but saying a character needed to die, just seems like a very superficial shallow understanding of what happened, or why these decisions were made. Why wasn't Rhodey being injured enough? Enough for what? What does him dying gain? Have you considered how that would have played out?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 1:04:43 GMT
Well that's complete crap. They didn't need to kill him, and his death will mean 1000x more dying against thanos than it ever was going to in the middle of the series. Seriously try imagining that you get to Infinity War, the biggest movie in the series, and Cap has already died 6 films ago. That's silly. I guess, but someone should have died. Rhodey getting paralysed is not enough. The MCU is too risk-averse. Risk-averse? If they were risk-averse, they never would have made an Ant-Man or Doctor Strange film. Not killing someone in the middle of the story is not about being risk-averse. It's about knowing to save that for a better time.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 16, 2017 8:05:03 GMT
maybe, just maybe MCU finally has a main character bite the dust, and keep him that way (dead that is). I heard this occasionally happens in war scenarios...I still am pissed about the cheap dying stunts they pulled with Fury (and Bucky) in Cap2. But really I fear that they will rather let the MCU die before any of its main protagonists. If the MCU is not prepared to kill Cap in what became Captain America: Civil Skirmish, any deaths are too little, too late. yeah, after being burnt by the previous films I remember the fanboys gushing and swooning at my skepticism: Cap diez, heee diiiezzz! Sounds dramatic enough I thought, a “civil war”, how could it not be that? So I gave it a chance.
Imagine my utter disappointment when the "Civil War" turned out to be about a funny airport ballet-brawl introducing new character without any stakes in the fight like Spider-kid and Black Catman. Not to forget Cap and IM clobbering because of mommy issues (I don't care, he killed my mom!).
Now, as a Norse mythology fan, imagine my growing scepticism when we are facing a film titled Ragnarok (ie, twilight of the gods: total annihilation everybody diez in the source materials!). Will it be true to the source this time? Bet it will really turn out Fragglerock in the end.
But it's MCU after all, they do not even get their name right, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 9:24:41 GMT
I guess, but someone should have died. Rhodey getting paralysed is not enough. The MCU is too risk-averse. Nobody needed to die to get the point across. I don't know if you've heard the Russo's discuss this or not, but they said the choice was done because if a character had died it would have immediately united the team, not kept them divided, so it has absolutely nothing to do with being risk-averse. Have you taken any time to think about this stuff? I don't want this to sound mean, but saying a character needed to die, just seems like a very superficial shallow understanding of what happened, or why these decisions were made. Why wasn't Rhodey being injured enough? Enough for what? What does him dying gain? Have you considered how that would have played out? Tragedy is a fundamental element of drama. One guy becoming paralysed is not enough tragedy for me, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 16, 2017 10:40:11 GMT
Nobody needed to die to get the point across. I don't know if you've heard the Russo's discuss this or not, but they said the choice was done because if a character had died it would have immediately united the team, not kept them divided, so it has absolutely nothing to do with being risk-averse. Have you taken any time to think about this stuff? I don't want this to sound mean, but saying a character needed to die, just seems like a very superficial shallow understanding of what happened, or why these decisions were made. Why wasn't Rhodey being injured enough? Enough for what? What does him dying gain? Have you considered how that would have played out? Tragedy is a fundamental element of drama. One guy becoming paralysed is not enough tragedy for me, sorry. I asked how a guy dying would help that particular story. Let's say Rhodey died instead. How would that play out and benefit the story in your view? What I'm trying to find out is if you've thought the idea through or if you just have a knee jerk reaction that somebody dying must mean more by default? Because the writers have stated that it would have brought the team together instead of splitting them up.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Aug 16, 2017 15:29:09 GMT
That's odd, and considering Samuel L. Jackson only has 2 movies left in his contract, and I thought those 2 would be it. So if not both Avengers sequels, what will be the 2 films Nick Fury will appear in?
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Aug 16, 2017 19:37:03 GMT
That's odd, and considering Samuel L. Jackson only has 2 movies left in his contract, and I thought those 2 would be it. So if not both Avengers sequels, what will be the 2 films Nick Fury will appear in? Captain Marvel and some other movie.
|
|