|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 13, 2017 20:10:21 GMT
Thank you. There they are again putting "Captain America" right in the title. All they had to do was call it "Avengers: Civil War". But they didn't do that...and there is a reason for it. yeah, they should have better titled it: "The New Avengers & Iron Man meet Spiderman & Black Catman, and Cap is somewhere in there too". Would have been a less misleading title, I wish we had seen a final Cap solo film resolving his storyline. With Hydra and stuff and maybe someone dying. Not this bloated empty nonsense with an idiotic clobber-ballet on an airport, and Cap coming to blows with Iron Boy because of mommy issues. I felt insulted by the lowbrow writing in this.  |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 13, 2017 20:22:20 GMT
Thank you. There they are again putting "Captain America" right in the title. All they had to do was call it "Avengers: Civil War". But they didn't do that...and there is a reason for it. yeah, they should have better titled it: "The New Avengers & Iron Man meet Spiderman & Black Catman, and Cap is somewhere in there too". Would have been a less misleading title, I wish we had seen a final Cap solo film resolving his storyline. With Hydra and stuff and maybe someone dying. Not this bloated empty nonsense with an idiotic clobber-ballet on an airport, and Cap coming to blows with Iron Boy because of mommy issues. I felt insulted by the lowbrow writing in this. So NOW Marvel is trying to mislead the public that it's a Cap film? I like that one. Now Marvel is trying to hurt the box office of an "Avengers movie" by calling it a Cap movie. You didn't think that one through very well, did you? |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 13, 2017 20:34:54 GMT
yeah, they should have better titled it: "The New Avengers & Iron Man meet Spiderman & Black Catman, and Cap is somewhere in there too". Would have been a less misleading title, I wish we had seen a final Cap solo film resolving his storyline. With Hydra and stuff and maybe someone dying. Not this bloated empty nonsense with an idiotic clobber-ballet on an airport, and Cap coming to blows with Iron Boy because of mommy issues. I felt insulted by the lowbrow writing in this. So NOW Marvel is trying to mislead the public that it's a Cap film? I like that one. Now Marvel is trying to hurt the box office of an "Avengers movie" by calling it a Cap movie. You didn't think that one through very well, did you? glad you like it, and as you say, it's misleading. We can only speculate as to why they were doing that. Maybe to oppose BvS? Or maybe bc they did not have faith in Cap as a solo character anymore or his silly Hail Hydra storyline. Similar to Hulk btw, who became a parody of himself in Fragglerock mocking the franchise and the mythological source materials, but at least Thor's storyline was not totally wrecked and abandoned. Think you watch Empire strikes Back and then you go watch Jedi,...but the Empire is suddenly gone and Luke is just a supporting character, and it's really about a bunch of rebel factions coming to funny blows because of whiny mommy issues. Embarrassing really.  |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 13, 2017 20:42:39 GMT
So NOW Marvel is trying to mislead the public that it's a Cap film? I like that one. Now Marvel is trying to hurt the box office of an "Avengers movie" by calling it a Cap movie. You didn't think that one through very well, did you? glad you like it, and as you say, it's misleading. We can only speculate as to why they were doing that. Maybe to oppose BvS? Or maybe bc they did not have faith in Cap as a solo character anymore or his silly Hail Hydra storyline. Nice...you try to play it from both directions in the same post! Most people use a double standard in separate posts at least. So in the first paragraph Marvel is trying to misled the public into thinking an Avengers movie is a Cap movie. That of course makes no sense so you can't offer up any reason why they would do that. Then in the next paragraph you are back to claiming Marvel "did not have faith in Cap" and instead wanted to make people think it was an Avengers film to compete with BvS. Oh that's good stuff. Can't make up your mind on which way you want to go, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 13, 2017 20:52:47 GMT
glad you like it, and as you say, it's misleading. We can only speculate as to why they were doing that. Maybe to oppose BvS? Or maybe bc they did not have faith in Cap as a solo character anymore or his silly Hail Hydra storyline. Nice...you try to play it from both directions in the same post! Most people use a double standard in separate posts at least. So in the first paragraph Marvel is trying to misled the public into thinking an Avengers movie is a Cap movie. That of course makes no sense so you can't offer up any reason why they would do that. Then in the next paragraph you are back to claiming Marvel "did not have faith in Cap" and instead wanted to make people think it was an Avengers film to compete with BvS. Oh that's good stuff. Can't make up your mind on which way you want to go, eh? thanks, but I don't think it's good stuff. You shouldn't either, dude. In fact it's quite shameful writing that should always live on in infamy. Ok, Cap is not a big money maker and pretty boring, but why treat him so disrespectfully by degrading him to a supporting character in his own movie and make a quasi Avengers+ movie...? Because of money, stupid, that's why. Having no faith in your hero and sidelining him and leaving a walking corpse in his name only is that bankrupt and ungrounded artificial booster approach MCU stands for. Shame Shame Shame you know it to be true |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 13, 2017 21:03:01 GMT
yeah, they should have better titled it: "The New Avengers & Iron Man meet Spiderman & Black Catman, and Cap is somewhere in there too".
So you hate that they care about worldbuilding and foreshadowing instead of operating in a vacuum and ignoring that the rest of the Universe exists.
Cap: Civil War merely chose to not take the lazy way out and act like Cap existed in a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 13, 2017 21:33:20 GMT
Uh, yeah. They do.  Thank you. There they are again putting "Captain America" right in the title. All they had to do was call it "Avengers: Civil War". But they didn't do that...and there is a reason for it. It's like an issue of Capt America with Iron Man as the guest star and one page featuring a big fight with other characters.It's like a poster clearly predicting the marketing of the film based on the inclusion of the other characters. Cap is distinguished in no way, and his name is almost illegibly hidden in the title. But go ahead and embarrass yourself by insisting the opposite because it's all you know how to do. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 13, 2017 21:50:09 GMT
Thank you. There they are again putting "Captain America" right in the title. All they had to do was call it "Avengers: Civil War". But they didn't do that...and there is a reason for it. It's like an issue of Capt America with Iron Man as the guest star and one page featuring a big fight with other characters.It's like a poster clearly predicting the marketing of the film based on the inclusion of the other characters. Cap is distinguished in no way, and his name is almost illegibly hidden in the title. Except for being one of the two most prominent profiles. And the coloring making his name impossible to miss. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 13, 2017 22:04:58 GMT
It's like a poster clearly predicting the marketing of the film based on the inclusion of the other characters. Cap is distinguished in no way, and his name is almost illegibly hidden in the title. Except for being one of the two most prominent profiles. And the coloring making his name impossible to miss. he's brutally sidelined; I read the Cap actor cried when he first read the script. OT: How come you have a DC avatar, that is the alternative Justice League, ie Batman, Supes and WonderWoman. I just saw an animated movie last week (JL: Gods and Monsters): weird bizzaro universe stuff that. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 13, 2017 22:23:56 GMT
If being the lead still means you're being sidelined... Gods and Monsters, yes. I liked the movie because it's drive by internal conflict and has flawed leads. Like Marvel. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 14, 2017 5:46:33 GMT
Nice...you try to play it from both directions in the same post! Most people use a double standard in separate posts at least. So in the first paragraph Marvel is trying to misled the public into thinking an Avengers movie is a Cap movie. That of course makes no sense so you can't offer up any reason why they would do that. Then in the next paragraph you are back to claiming Marvel "did not have faith in Cap" and instead wanted to make people think it was an Avengers film to compete with BvS. Oh that's good stuff. Can't make up your mind on which way you want to go, eh? thanks, but I don't think it's good stuff. You shouldn't either, dude. In fact it's quite shameful writing that should always live on in infamy. Ok, Cap is not a big money maker and pretty boring, but why treat him so disrespectfully by degrading him to a supporting character in his own movie and make a quasi Avengers+ movie...? Because of money, stupid, that's why. Having no faith in your hero and sidelining him and leaving a walking corpse in his name only is that bankrupt and ungrounded artificial booster approach MCU stands for. Shame Shame Shame you know it to be true So are you going with "Marvel tried to fool everyone into thinking it's an Avengers movie" or "they were misleading the public by calling it a Capt America movie"? I'm not going to just forget what you did in that post if that's what you are hoping for.  |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 14, 2017 5:47:57 GMT
Thank you. There they are again putting "Captain America" right in the title. All they had to do was call it "Avengers: Civil War". But they didn't do that...and there is a reason for it. It's like an issue of Capt America with Iron Man as the guest star and one page featuring a big fight with other characters.It's like a poster clearly predicting the marketing of the film based on the inclusion of the other characters. Cap is distinguished in no way, and his name is almost illegibly hidden in the title. But go ahead and embarrass yourself by insisting the opposite because it's all you know how to do. You mean the Capt America that is right up front with Iron Man....the biggest pictures on the poster? Is that the character who is "distinguished in now way"? ...And who's name is in the title...as you freely admit? |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 14, 2017 5:49:43 GMT
Except for being one of the two most prominent profiles. And the coloring making his name impossible to miss. he's brutally sidelined Oh...I thought I was talking with someone who saw the movie. That explains a lot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 6:17:51 GMT
Oh...I thought I was talking with someone who saw the movie. That explains a lot. Well, you are talking to the guy who thinks a couple of lines spoken during the chase sequence in Guardians Vol. 2 near the beginning represent the whole movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 14, 2017 6:23:26 GMT
Oh...I thought I was talking with someone who saw the movie. That explains a lot. if you didn't see it yet, don't bother man, its hurtful. If you did, you owe it to yourself to finally admit it. Stop the denial, they raped Cap. Total artificial downer. You should cry like Crissy Evans did when he read the script. It helps to heal man.  |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 14, 2017 11:40:34 GMT
Oh...I thought I was talking with someone who saw the movie. That explains a lot. if you didn't see it yet, don't bother man, its hurtful. For DC fans, it totally put BvS to shame.  |
|
