|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 24, 2017 21:22:53 GMT
The point was, why is it so difficult to accept a different actor is the same character? What is this problem? It happened with Dumbledore mid series. We're about to get a new Han Solo. I tend to truly appreciate the different versions, so I don't know why you would look at it as some sort of an issue. because its all supposed to be PART OF THE SAME WORLD you butthole! I guess that means The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises aren't sequels to Batman Begins. The replaced Katie Holmes in The Dark Knight with Maggie Gyllenhaal and even stuck with it in Rises when they showed a picture of Rachel's character as Gyllenhaal and not Holmes.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Sept 24, 2017 21:52:52 GMT
Jacqueline MacInnes Wood played her originally but she was recast with Caity Lotz. Jacqueline MacInnes Wood played Sara Lance in a flashback scene in the pilot episode. That flashback scene took place in the past so she was a younger Sara Lance. It's not a continuity fuck-up to have a different actor/actress play a younger version of a character. Supergirl has different actresses playing younger versions of Kara and Alex. Superman: The Movie had a different actor playing a younger version of Clark Kent. MoS also had different actor playing a younger version of Clark Kent (i.e. the kid who pushed the school bus out of the water). And Wonder Woman had 3 different actresses playing Diana - 10-year-old Lily Aspell, 14-year-old Emily Carey, and Gal Gadot.
According to this timeline posted by MCU fans, i.stack.imgur.com/bu1LW.jpg, The Incredible Hulk takes place in 2009 and The Avengers takes place in 2010. So they should've been played by the same actor. To replace a major character after the actor was in just 1 movie and his next movie is supposed to take place just 1 year later destroys their biggest selling point.
So what is Marvel supposed to do? Not have the Hulk in The Avengers simply because Ed Norton wouldn't commit to The Avengers?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 24, 2017 22:30:00 GMT
Jacqueline MacInnes Wood played her originally but she was recast with Caity Lotz. Jacqueline MacInnes Wood played Sara Lance in a flashback scene in the pilot episode. That flashback scene took place in the past so she was a younger Sara Lance. It's not a continuity fuck-up to have a different actor/actress play a younger version of a character. Supergirl has different actresses playing younger versions of Kara and Alex. Superman: The Movie had a different actor playing a younger version of Clark Kent. MoS also had different actor playing a younger version of Clark Kent (i.e. the kid who pushed the school bus out of the water). And Wonder Woman had 3 different actresses playing Diana - 10-year-old Lily Aspell, 14-year-old Emily Carey, and Gal Gadot.
According to this timeline posted by MCU fans, i.stack.imgur.com/bu1LW.jpg, The Incredible Hulk takes place in 2009 and The Avengers takes place in 2010. So they should've been played by the same actor. To replace a major character after the actor was in just 1 movie and his next movie is supposed to take place just 1 year later destroys their biggest selling point.
Yet Caity Lotz has played Sara IN flashbacks that date DURING and BEFORE the pilot to Arrow... Blame Norton for not being professional, had he been he'd still be The Hulk.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 24, 2017 22:34:25 GMT
No, if continuity is broken or not it lies solely on the writing, not the performer. But if its that big of an issue for you then blame Norton and Howard for not being professional and agreeing to play ball, otherwise they'd still be playing those characters. Why should Howard agree to play ball when he's underpaid? Howard isn't in movies for free. He has bills to pay too and acting is how he makes money to pay his bills. If MCU is underpaying him, then why should he agree to play ball and work for less than what he deserves?
Look at the DCEU. Patty Jenkins wanted a raise for Wonder Woman II so WB gave her a raise. Howard just wanted a raise too. It's not like MCU couldn't afford to give him a raise. But MCU, which not only put a bad TV show in theaters but made people pay IMAX money to see that bad TV show in theaters, was too greedy to give Howard a reasonable raise.
Howard was the most paid for the first Iron Man and was asked for take a pay cut for the second like some of the others which was still a reasonable amount and a goldmine to the majority of actors working in the industry today, if he truly loved the material and was willing to put the art first he would've accepted it and continue playing Rhodes for more movies, but he didn't and said "F--- you guys, I'm done..." The Patty Jenkins situation is different, she's a director and she worked her ass off on Wonder Woman, she cared about the material and requested a raise, she didn't get paid crazy high like Howard was on the first Iron Man and wanted the same amount next time even if it was already pretty high.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 24, 2017 23:35:36 GMT
Why should Howard agree to play ball when he's underpaid? Howard isn't in movies for free. He has bills to pay too and acting is how he makes money to pay his bills. If MCU is underpaying him, then why should he agree to play ball and work for less than what he deserves?
Look at the DCEU. Patty Jenkins wanted a raise for Wonder Woman II so WB gave her a raise. Howard just wanted a raise too. It's not like MCU couldn't afford to give him a raise. But MCU, which not only put a bad TV show in theaters but made people pay IMAX money to see that bad TV show in theaters, was too greedy to give Howard a reasonable raise.
Howard was the most paid for the first Iron Man and was asked for take a pay cut for the second like some of the others which was still a reasonable amount and a goldmine to the majority of actors working in the industry today, if he truly loved the material and was willing to put the art first he would've accepted it and continue playing Rhodes for more movies, but he didn't and said "F--- you guys, I'm done..." They wanted him to take a pay cut? Wow! Forcing an employee to take a pay cut is even worse than refusing to give an employee a pay raise. Also, unless you're Howard's accountant or financial advisor, you can't say what is a "reasonable" pay cut for Howard.
Most people set their budgets based on their salary. Howard was being paid "Y" amount of money so he would've set his budget according to that. Forcing Howard to accept a pay cut to "X" amount of money might cause his income to be too low to cover his expenses, and that would certainly not be "reasonable" to Howard. So you can't say that MCU asked Howard to take a "reasonable" pay cut. The pay cut that MCU wanted Howard to take might have caused Howard extreme financial hardship.
And you also can't say Howard should be happy with his pay cut to "X" amount of money because the majority of actors in the industry would be happy with it. A guy who has no children might be happy to make "X" amount of money, but a guy who has 5 children (like Howard has) might think that "X" amount of money isn't enough. So again, you can't say that MCU asked Howard to take a "reasonable" pay cut. The pay cut that MCU wanted Howard to take might have caused Howard extreme financial hardship.
As for putting art first, that's just a bunch of baloney. Making movies is a business. Howard has a family to support and bills to pay, and acting is how he makes money to support his family and pay his bills. Is putting art first going to put food in the mouths of Howard's children or put a roof over their heads? Why should Howard take a pay cut when MCU is making billions of dollars from their movies?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 24, 2017 23:57:50 GMT
Howard was the most paid for the first Iron Man and was asked for take a pay cut for the second like some of the others which was still a reasonable amount and a goldmine to the majority of actors working in the industry today, if he truly loved the material and was willing to put the art first he would've accepted it and continue playing Rhodes for more movies, but he didn't and said "F--- you guys, I'm done..." They wanted him to take a pay cut? Wow! Forcing an employee to take a pay cut is even worse than refusing to give an employee a pay raise. Also, unless you're Howard's accountant or financial advisor, you can't say what is a "reasonable" pay cut for Howard.
Most people set their budgets based on their salary. Howard was being paid "Y" amount of money so he would've set his budget according to that. Forcing Howard to accept a pay cut to "X" amount of money might cause his income to be too low to cover his expenses, and that would certainly not be "reasonable" to Howard. So you can't say that MCU asked Howard to take a "reasonable" pay cut. The pay cut that MCU wanted Howard to take might have caused Howard extreme financial hardship.
And you also can't say Howard should be happy with his pay cut to "X" amount of money because the majority of actors in the industry would be happy with it. A guy who has no children might be happy to make "X" amount of money, but a guy who has 5 children (like Howard has) might think that "X" amount of money isn't enough. So again, you can't say that MCU asked Howard to take a "reasonable" pay cut. The pay cut that MCU wanted Howard to take might have caused Howard extreme financial hardship.
As for putting art first, that's just a bunch of baloney. Making movies is a business. Howard has a family to support and bills to pay, and acting is how he makes money to support his family and pay his bills. Is putting art first going to put food in the mouths of Howard's children or put a roof over their heads? Why should Howard take a pay cut when MCU is making billions of dollars from their movies?
You act like Howard was in desperate need of the money and was the only person asked to take a pay cut, newsflash - other actors and filmmakers were asked to take a pay cut too, its not uncommon with major studio releases and the sequels to them. If you actually did your research into the matter you'd learn that Howard wasn't in "need" for any money, he and his family wouldn't have been in any better or worse shape if he had or had not gotten the money he requested. So please, stop with the whole "oh, poor Howard!" the guy was making millions then and still making millions now, he and his family have enough to get them past several lifetimes at least. He was also under the impression that Rhodey was going to be the lead in Iron Man 2, riiiiight...Pretty sure Tony Stark is gonna be the lead of that, not James Rhodes. The only one Howard can blame is himself, the guy is a great actor but he has a huge ego.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 25, 2017 0:45:28 GMT
You act like Howard was in desperate need of the money and was the only person asked to take a pay cut stop with the whole "oh, poor Howard!" And you act like MCU couldn't afford to pay Howard more money. "Oh poor MCU! Paying Howard more money is going to make them go bankrupt!"
And just because other employees were asked to take a pay cut doesn't make it any more right to make Howard take a pay cut. It would be like if a school asked all their teachers to take a pay cut and only 1 teacher objected, are you going to say that teacher is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut? Or if a hospital asked all their nurses to take a pay cut and only 1 nurse objected, are you going to say that nurse is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut?
None of them, including Howard, should've had to take a pay cut, especially when MCU is profiting billions from their movies.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 25, 2017 1:08:08 GMT
They shot a lot more footage for the movie--practically an entire origin story.
And in the version I watched, the Tony Stark General Ross bar scene was before the credits. Why was it included before the credits?
Anyway-Norton wasn't wimpy enough. He wouldnt even let himself get his ass kicked like Bill Bixby. But I find Ruffalo bland as hell too.
Tim Blake Nelson was the most energetic cast member.
But the film is still better than Ang Lee's train wreck.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 25, 2017 4:01:38 GMT
You act like Howard was in desperate need of the money and was the only person asked to take a pay cut stop with the whole "oh, poor Howard!" And you act like MCU couldn't afford to pay Howard more money. "Oh poor MCU! Paying Howard more money is going to make them go bankrupt!"
And just because other employees were asked to take a pay cut doesn't make it any more right to make Howard take a pay cut. It would be like if a school asked all their teachers to take a pay cut and only 1 teacher objected, are you going to say that teacher is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut? Or if a hospital asked all their nurses to take a pay cut and only 1 nurse objected, are you going to say that nurse is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut?
None of them, including Howard, should've had to take a pay cut, especially when MCU is profiting billions from their movies. Howard getting more money than RDJ( the real lead of the film) and the rest of the supporting cast isn't fair to them. Marvel is not gonna cough up money that is larger than their entire production budget so an actor is happy, why should they sacrifice all the money that could go into what is needed for its execution of its story just so a guy can probably afford a trip to a large mansion in an exotic country, which very few regular people would actually get the chance to afford on their regular salaries? Difference is that Howard is not a school teacher and not a nurse, he's an actor. His job doesn't affect people's lives, all he has to do is pretend to be somebody else in front of the camera. He isn't educating or saving anybody, so don't pull that and paint him as some kind of Oliver Twist type, the guy already was rolling in the millions and still is now, and his ego hasn't gotten deflated much since the whole situation occurred in 2009. Admit it, if this happened in a DC movie, you'd defend their decision.
|
|
|
Post by sandwichclegane on Sept 25, 2017 7:19:48 GMT
because its all supposed to be PART OF THE SAME WORLD you butthole! if you went to bed with ur wife one night and woke up next to a completey different woman but she acted the same as your wife and your kids treated her as their mom without any question, how would u feel holmes? look, the point is, your wife is not who she says she is. Ok, come back when you aren't 12 alright. yeah go back to ur fake wife u fraud
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 25, 2017 9:16:45 GMT
The point was, why is it so difficult to accept a different actor is the same character? What is this problem? It happened with Dumbledore mid series. We're about to get a new Han Solo. I tend to truly appreciate the different versions, so I don't know why you would look at it as some sort of an issue. because its all supposed to be PART OF THE SAME WORLD you butthole! if you went to bed with ur wife one night and woke up next to a completey different woman but she acted the same as your wife and your kids treated her as their mom without any question, how would u feel holmes? look, the point is, your wife is not who she says she is. ^^ BRILLIANT point that. The only thing is: ArchStanton would feel great about that and count on his cannon, but he just can't biologically (fatty foods, excessive porn watching and reading MCU comics will do that to you). He calls his cannon "eloi" btw and it's his instrument of hate.
But that actor change should really render the Terrible Hulk movie out of canon (with one "n"). What a stinker of a green zucchini that film was.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Sept 25, 2017 15:22:39 GMT
It's canon whether you count it or not.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 25, 2017 16:25:39 GMT
You act like Howard was in desperate need of the money and was the only person asked to take a pay cut stop with the whole "oh, poor Howard!" And you act like MCU couldn't afford to pay Howard more money. "Oh poor MCU! Paying Howard more money is going to make them go bankrupt!"
And just because other employees were asked to take a pay cut doesn't make it any more right to make Howard take a pay cut. It would be like if a school asked all their teachers to take a pay cut and only 1 teacher objected, are you going to say that teacher is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut? Or if a hospital asked all their nurses to take a pay cut and only 1 nurse objected, are you going to say that nurse is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut?
None of them, including Howard, should've had to take a pay cut, especially when MCU is profiting billions from their movies. You do realise Marvel back then weren't making billions right? first Iron Man was the only real big hit until Avengers, secondly Marvel weren't keeping the cash like they do now, back then Marvel paid the actors and paid the cost to make the films, Paramount paid the advertising and they distributed the films, so Marvel was splitting their profits with Paramount or Universal depending on which studio was distributing, so they didn't have the cash to throw around like they do now firstly.
Also your point is flawed because what your mistaking is a reduced pay for the same work, Howard's role was being scaled back so he was asked to take a cut from what was his proposed deal where he was expected to be a second lead in the series, a reduction which had he gone along with would have earned him more in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 25, 2017 18:01:07 GMT
Howard getting more money than RDJ( the real lead of the film) and the rest of the supporting cast isn't fair to them.
MCU forcing the entire cast, including Howard, to take a pay cut isn't fair. Like I said, most people set their budget based on their income. Forcing someone to take a pay cut could cause their income to be not enough to cover their expenses anymore and cause them extreme financial hardship.
Imagine if you had a mortgage payment to make every month and suddenly your boss wants you to take a pay cut. If you can't afford to pay your mortgage anymore because of the pay cut, you'd be extremely upset as well.
Marvel is not gonna cough up money that is larger than their entire production budget so an actor is happy, why should they sacrifice all the money that could go into what is needed for its execution of its story Because MCU signed a contract with Howard. So MCU should've honored their contract. If MCU can't honor their debts, then they should declare bankruptcy instead of refusing to honor their contracts. if this happened in a DC movie, you'd defend their decision. That's the same lame argument that idiot formersamhmd tries to use and it's just as lame. formersamhmd tries to defend Captain America spitting on the US Constitution and on the American legal justice system by aiding and abetting a double-murderer to escape from the authorities by claiming that if Superman did that, "you'd defend that." That's as stupid as saying "Americans are appalled that terrorists use children as suicide bombers, but if America did that, Americans would defend it too." America doesn't use children as suicide bombers and would never do that. Likewise, Superman doesn't aid and abet double-murderers to escape from the authorities. And DC wouldn't force the entire cast and crew of a movie to take a pay cut. So your argument and formersamhmd's argument is stupid and lame.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 25, 2017 18:07:08 GMT
And you act like MCU couldn't afford to pay Howard more money. "Oh poor MCU! Paying Howard more money is going to make them go bankrupt!"
And just because other employees were asked to take a pay cut doesn't make it any more right to make Howard take a pay cut. It would be like if a school asked all their teachers to take a pay cut and only 1 teacher objected, are you going to say that teacher is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut? Or if a hospital asked all their nurses to take a pay cut and only 1 nurse objected, are you going to say that nurse is a jerk for not wanting to take a pay cut?
None of them, including Howard, should've had to take a pay cut, especially when MCU is profiting billions from their movies. You do realise Marvel back then weren't making billions right? first Iron Man was the only real big hit until Avengers, secondly Marvel weren't keeping the cash like they do now, back then Marvel paid the actors and paid the cost to make the films, Paramount paid the advertising and they distributed the films, so Marvel was splitting their profits with Paramount or Universal depending on which studio was distributing, so they didn't have the cash to throw around like they do now firstly. How MCU split their profits is irrelevant to Howard. MCU signed a contract with Howard so they should've honored it. If MCU couldn't pay their debts, then they should've declared bankruptcy instead of refusing to honor their contracts. [/p] Also your point is flawed because what your mistaking is a reduced pay for the same work, Howard's role was being scaled back so he was asked to take a cut from what was his proposed deal where he was expected to be a second lead in the series, a reduction which had he gone along with would have earned him more in the long term. [/quote] The "Reduced role" argument is weak. If an NFL running back signs a 2-year contract and the 1st year he gets 22 rushes per game, but the start of the 2nd year the coach decides they're going to change their offense to throw the ball more and run the ball less so the running back is only going to get 12 rushes per game, they can't force the running back to take a pay cut just because they want to reduce his role. They signed a contract and they have to honor it. MCU signed a contract with Howard. They should honor it. If MCU couldn't pay their debts, then they should've declared bankruptcy instead of refusing to honor their contracts.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 25, 2017 18:18:44 GMT
Howard getting more money than RDJ( the real lead of the film) and the rest of the supporting cast isn't fair to them. MCU forcing the entire cast, including Howard, to take a pay cut isn't fair. Marvel is not gonna cough up money that is larger than their entire production budget so an actor is happy, why should they sacrifice all the money that could go into what is needed for its execution of its story Because MCU signed a contract with Howard. So MCU should've honored their contract. If MCU can't honor their debts, then they should declare bankruptcy. Well they did, you see they use this thing called an option, this gives the studios leeway to use or not use an actor at a certain price if they so choose, they do this because the amount they agree to depends on expectations, such as MArvel expecting to use Howard as a 2nd lead in the future of the series, but in reality figuring out Howard and his character were less important and that RDJ as Stark could carry the franchise himself.
It's why they have variations of contracts such pay or play deals where an actor sign up for X amount of money for up to X amount of films or shows, this is the type that benefits the actor because they get the money even if they don't do the films, whilst the type Howard signed is the one that benefits the studios because it allows them the ability to alter things to suit them best, Howard's problem is he signed the type of deal that benefits the studio not the actor.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 25, 2017 18:29:46 GMT
That because they have different deals, NFL and all sports teams don't just sign guys to have them they also do so to stop others from having them, this is also why athlete's sign more complex contracts with bonus's factored in which reflect how well they play, even in your analogy the played is not getting the hours he puts in reduced, he still has to practise everyday regardless the importance he plays in their gameplay, he still plays the same amount of minutes he just gets less yards per game to his stat sheet, Howards role was going from co-lead to supporting character, this meant he'd have less screen time and also do less press when the film came out so his commitment to the film was reduced and so should his pay.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 25, 2017 18:33:50 GMT
Howard getting more money than RDJ( the real lead of the film) and the rest of the supporting cast isn't fair to them. MCU forcing the entire cast, including Howard, to take a pay cut isn't fair. Marvel is not gonna cough up money that is larger than their entire production budget so an actor is happy, why should they sacrifice all the money that could go into what is needed for its execution of its story Because MCU signed a contract with Howard. So MCU should've honored their contract. If MCU can't honor their debts, then they should declare bankruptcy. if this happened in a DC movie, you'd defend their decision. That's the same lame argument that idiot formersamhmd tries to use and it's just as lame. formersamhmd tries to defend Captain America spitting on the US Constitution and on the American legal justice system by aiding and abetting a double-murderer to escape from the authorities by claiming that if Superman did that, "you'd defend that." That's as stupid as saying "Americans are appalled that terrorists use children as suicide bombers, but if America did that, Americans would defend it too." America doesn't use children as suicide bombers and would never do that. Likewise, Superman doesn't aid and abet double-murderers to escape from the authorities. And DC wouldn't force the entire cast and crew of a movie to take a pay cut. So your argument and formersamhmd's argument is stupid and lame. Actually it is fair, they need to put more money into other production areas that can effectively bring the story to life which include special and visual effects, lighting equipment, sound equipment, clothing, hair stylists, make-up, trainers, caterers, gaffers, choreographers, set design, music, etc. And as somebody else pointed out, their multi-film contracts allow them to make more than enough money in the long haul, Howard wanted it all then and there which to everybody involved was viewed as being greedy and selfish. If you were in charge of production and one actor wanted a stupid amount of money and the number of people opposing the idea came up to you with valid reasons why it wouldn't be a good decision for the entire production would you dismiss them all outright? All that money can hinder the importance of providing very important resources for filming. Would you actually sacrifice costs for stunt choreography and sound just so a guy can pay can feel more "powerful" on set? It was in Howard's contract that, like every other actor in the franchise, would end up having to take a pay cut down the road for production payment purposes but given that they'd appear in several other films down the road they'd still be paid the same amount and when you double and triple that over time the total is pretty solid, Howard just became greedy and selfish. No, if anyone's argument is lame its yours. We all know if DC did the same thing with one of its actors and directors you'd support their decision making. Patty Jenkins exited Thor: The Dark World? Marvel Studios are a group of money sucking, soul sucking deviants who are unprofessional monsters who represent the very worst of the industry and should be destroyed! Seth Grahame Smith exits The Flash over creative differences? Oh well, it happens. Rick Famuyiwa exits The Flash over creative differences? Oh well, it happens, everything still good at DC. Justice League going thru a long period of reshoots? Movie will still be a masterpiece! DC developing a stand alone Joker film set in the 1980s and Jared Leto is expressing confusion at the whole ordeal? Leto's a good man, he's just playing it up for marketing purposes is all. I'm not going to get into your whole "CAPTAIN AMERICA IS A BLOODTHIRSTY, DIGUSTING TYRANT!" trap again, because its stupid as hell and you're clearly desperate to shift the discussion to something else because you are clearly failing here. Grow up. Where's your evidence that DC wouldn't do the same thing? The industry is not black and white, its very complicated and things just don't magically happen.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Sept 25, 2017 19:04:53 GMT
Jacqueline MacInnes Wood played Sara Lance in a flashback scene in the pilot episode. That flashback scene took place in the past so she was a younger Sara Lance. It's not a continuity fuck-up to have a different actor/actress play a younger version of a character. Supergirl has different actresses playing younger versions of Kara and Alex. Superman: The Movie had a different actor playing a younger version of Clark Kent. MoS also had different actor playing a younger version of Clark Kent (i.e. the kid who pushed the school bus out of the water). And Wonder Woman had 3 different actresses playing Diana - 10-year-old Lily Aspell, 14-year-old Emily Carey, and Gal Gadot.
According to this timeline posted by MCU fans, i.stack.imgur.com/bu1LW.jpg, The Incredible Hulk takes place in 2009 and The Avengers takes place in 2010. So they should've been played by the same actor. To replace a major character after the actor was in just 1 movie and his next movie is supposed to take place just 1 year later destroys their biggest selling point.
Yet Caity Lotz has played Sara IN flashbacks that date DURING and BEFORE the pilot to Arrow... Blame Norton for not being professional, had he been he'd still be The Hulk. Lets not forget that Norton is a prententious snob who's unwilling to stay attached to a franchise. That's the entire reason he didn't want to come back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 20:24:48 GMT
I count the EVENTS as cannon, Hulk destroying NY and stuff, but not the movie its self. This is because of the actor change ( i HATE it when that shit happens ) before IW P1 airs in cinemas i may have an epic binge of MCU movies in the correct timeline ( starting with cap america the 1st avenger ) and i will skip the hulk in that binge. The only reason im not gunna skip fellow actor - change headach film Iron man 1 is because its Iron mans origin story and really important to the MCU but yeah the hulk can go fuck himself, and u Edward Norton if ur reading this. What the hell? Hulk is no. 1 in my eyes so not counting his movie as canon is a no go in my book.
|
|