Avengers: Endgame [** SPOILERS FROM POST 613 **]

pixelburp

I get what's being said, Sam isn't himself super-powered, so while physics and consistency of violence isn't the MCUs strong point, he'll need a super-suit otherwise I won't buy the idea of him going toe-to-toe with certain adversaries. Though given even Spider-Man has a high-tech plot convenient suit, I doubt this will be a problem.

Looking forward to the inevitable Twitter meltdown from the easily outraged the moment Anthony Mackie shows off his Captain America uniform.

micks_address

pixelburp wrote: »

I get what's being said, Sam isn't himself super-powered, so while physics and consistency of violence isn't the MCUs strong point, he'll need a super-suit otherwise I won't buy the idea of him going toe-to-toe with certain adversaries. Though given even Spider-Man has a high-tech plot convenient suit, I doubt this will be a problem.

Looking forward to the inevitable Twitter meltdown from the easily outraged the moment Anthony Mackie shows off his Captain America uniform.

Does he stop being falcon now he's captain America? Or is he both?

Tazzimus

micks_address wrote: »

Does he stop being falcon now he's captain America? Or is he both?

Captain Falcon?

I reckon the wings will be utilised to help make up for the lack of super soldier serum when he's fighting enhanced people.

ManOfMystery

micks_address wrote: »

Picked up my 4k hdr uhd copy in best buy last nght. I know whats going to be on my tv over the weekend. I've actually watched it about 4 times now.. since the cinema on various mediums. I would say it stacks up pretty well to repeat viewings.. it sort of drags after thanos killing at the start for a while.. but once the time travel kicks in its a lot of fun.. ok its a cheap way to relive pretty much all the other movies from various perspectives but it works well and ive picked up few extra things each time i watch.. the falcons 'on your left' as they all re appear and tony last lines are still pretty epic.. his lines bookend perfectly with the end of iron man.. i still feel the Cap ending is a little off.. i know they had little choice with evans wanting out but Sam doesnt seem to be cap to me.. he has no super serum like cap had.. anyone with enough training and money could be batman.. but how to you substitute super strength? it might have worked with bucky but his cv was just far to shady to be cap america..

as far as black widow it would have been a lot easier to let hawkeye die.. i doubt he has nearly as much franchise potental as black widow and i feel like he could have probably died in ultron as they pretty much teased it at every turn.

ah well it sure be interesting to see where they go with it.

Get where you're coming from but I think they're going down the Nolan Batman trilogy route here, where 'Captain America' is the embodiment of certain ideals (a 'symbol'), and any physical attributes are a bonus and not a prerequisite. After all, Steve Rogers was every bit as earnest and determined when he was 4 foot nothing, as when he got the super serum and became the Cap we know - it was his character that made him Cap.

Personally I would agree that Cap should have some form of superpowers, but I understand their approach.

Calhoun

It's still a fairly big depowering had they not overpowered Rogers so much it wouldn't have been an issue.

Steve Rogers becoming Captain America was more than just about symbolism or ideals it was about his powers matching up to his fight and being able to do something about it.

One of the original ideals is about not taking power for granted and respecting it.

Foxtrol

I don't think him being depowered is too much of an issue, as I'm not expecting him to face anything close to 'Avengers level' threats in his show and when they do appear he'll revert to being backup/support team, like War-machine.

He's taking the mantle of Captain America, which they'll dig into during their show, but that doesn't mean he'll be slotted into Steve's role or the expectations which that brings.

ManOfMystery

Calhoun wrote: »

It's still a fairly big depowering had they not overpowered Rogers so much it wouldn't have been an issue.

Steve Rogers becoming Captain America was more than just about symbolism or ideals it was about his powers matching up to his fight and being able to do something about it.

One of the original ideals is about not taking power for granted and respecting it.

True.

I've never been a fan of some characters taking on the mantle of others, which has become somewhat popular in the comics. E.g. Jane Foster as Thor, etc. I never really understood how they could adopt the name if it isn't theirs, and surely by swapping that character's background for another it renders their entire characterisation meaningless?

By all means, give them similar powers and so on - but give them a new name. It's just confusing otherwise.

Even with Nolan's approach at the end of the The Dark Knight Rises, which made perfect sense metaphorically, you're swapping Bruce Wayne for a guy who doesn't necessarily have the same detective skills, martial arts abilities, and definitely doesn't have the same funds to continue with Batman's array of tech.

Calhoun

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't think him being depowered is too much of an issue, as I'm not expecting him to face anything close to 'Avengers level' threats in his show and when they do appear he'll revert to being backup/support team, like War-machine.

He's taking the mantle of Captain America, which they'll dig into during their show, but that doesn't mean he'll be slotted into Steve's role or the expectations which that brings.

Is he not getting a film ? Ok then it makes sense but I'm a little disappointed there is no film

Calhoun

ManOfMystery wrote: »

True.

I've never been a fan of some characters taking on the mantle of others, which has become somewhat popular in the comics. E.g. Jane Foster as Thor, etc. I never really understood how they could adopt the name if it isn't theirs, and surely by swapping that character's background for another it renders their entire characterisation meaningless?

By all means, give them similar powers and so on - but give them a new name. It's just confusing otherwise.

Even with Nolan's approach at the end of the The Dark Knight Rises, which made perfect sense metaphorically, you're swapping Bruce Wayne for a guy who doesn't necessarily have the same detective skills, martial arts abilities, and definitely doesn't have the same funds to continue with Batman's array of tech.

Agreed completely, very valid points. What makes it worse in Marvel's case is that the changing of the mantle from one cap to another was done very badly. They missed allot of necessary story telling to make it more natural. It just feels so disjointed as is, I understand time was a factor.

Foxtrol

Calhoun wrote: »

Is he not getting a film ? Ok then it makes sense but I'm a little disappointed there is no film

No plan for a film as out yet, just a show with Bucky. Between the movies already announced, big names that are due sequels, and F4/mutants to be introduced I don't see him ever getting his own standalone.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's never really referred to as Captain America in the broader scheme of things. He'll carry the shield, add more red, white, and blue to his suit, and probably deal with the name coming from the media/bad guy etc as part of the narrative of the show but that'll be about it. It won't be like what I've seen from the marketing of the comics.

EagererBeaver

Hungsponge wrote: »

Tazzimus wrote: »

Captain Falcon?

I reckon the wings will be utilised to help make up for the lack of super soldier serum when he's fighting enhanced people.

Why doesn't everyone just get an iron man suit?

Absolutely, sure Pepper rocked up for the final set piece in Endgame showing anybody can master one

ManOfMystery

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Absolutely, sure Pepper rocked up for the final set piece in Endgame showing anybody can master one

And whilst I loved Endgame overall, that was one of the worse pieces of CGi in the movie. Gwyneth Paltrow's superhero pout/angry look doesn't really come across very well either :eek:

Stop moaning ffs

The floating head of banner in the hulk Ironman suit in infinity war was one of the most confusingly awful uses of cgi in all cinema. HOW did they not fix that before release?

Tazzimus

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The floating head of banner in the hulk Ironman suit in infinity war was one of the most confusingly awful uses of cgi in all cinema. HOW did they not fix that before release?

We can only assume it was a rush/last minute job, considering how good their CGI normally is.
It looked almost as bad as Steppenwolf or Supermans upper lip

EagererBeaver

ManOfMystery wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Absolutely, sure Pepper rocked up for the final set piece in Endgame showing anybody can master one

And whilst I loved Endgame overall, that was one of the worse pieces of CGi in the movie. Gwyneth Paltrow's superhero pout/angry look doesn't really come across very well either :eek:

Worse was Hope rocking up with her Shania Twain let's go girls little gauntlet adjustment look left and right to a bunch of women she's never met before for the female empowerment moment (which I've no issue with other than the fact it was done terribly).

Watching the 4K, one thing that really came to prominence for me was the panning shot before "Avengers! Assemble!" and everybody does a little hey themselves ready, signature motion, e.g. Spidey sits back down into a pose, starlord swivels his gun etc. Mantis the useless bint just kind of puts her hands up in a bad boxer pose. Unintentionally hilarious.

EagererBeaver

Have a good friend who is as equally gay for Marvel as I am, whilst both being able to criticise it when needs so. We're diametrically opposed on the version of Hulk/Banner in both IW and Endgame. He thinks they perfected it, the best of both worlds. I wish they'd just used Ragnarok Hulk as he was brilliant. He was sort of there in the NY 2012 flashback but the whole "banner has mastered the Hulk" thing annoyed me, albeit it had a few funny moments. Especially as he was smaller and had Banner's face rather than the Hulk's.

Thoughts?

Tazzimus

Liked Professor Hulk to a degree, but I prefer actual Hulk.

Midnight_EG

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Have a good friend who is as equally gay for Marvel as I am, whilst both being able to criticise it when needs so. We're diametrically opposed on the version of Hulk/Banner in both IW and Endgame. He thinks they perfected it, the best of both worlds. I wish they'd just used Ragnarok Hulk as he was brilliant. He was sort of there in the NY 2012 flashback but the whole "banner has mastered the Hulk" thing annoyed me, albeit it had a few funny moments. Especially as he was smaller and had Banner's face rather than the Hulk's.

Thoughts?

It was 5 years later, of course he changed and is now the best of both Worlds

SureYWouldntYa

Tazzimus wrote: »

We can only assume it was a rush/last minute job, considering how good their CGI normally is.
It looked almost as bad as Steppenwolf or Supermans upper lip

At least Banners floating head isnt on screen too long

The final battle in Black Panther is bloody awful the whole way through, but i remember reading somewhere they only had something like 6 weeks to work with

GreeBo

At least with the Captain America handover we (hopefully!) don't have to deal with crappy Falcon any more.

Stop moaning ffs

People still using ‘gay for’ is telling.

Ethereal Cereal

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Worse was Hope rocking up with her Shania Twain let's go girls little gauntlet adjustment look left and right to a bunch of women she's never met before for the female empowerment moment (which I've no issue with other than the fact it was done terribly).

I liked that scene, thought the effects were done really well. There was no preshot of Hope as Wasp, so it took a second to comprehend that she was returning to her regular size, and when she did, she took in who was flanking her, indicating to the audience that this was an ensemble shot. I do not get the hate for this scene, and I think there is plenty else wrong with this movie.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Watching the 4K, one thing that really came to prominence for me was the panning shot before "Avengers! Assemble!" and everybody does a little hey themselves ready, signature motion, e.g. Spidey sits back down into a pose, starlord swivels his gun etc. Mantis the useless bint just kind of puts her hands up in a bad boxer pose. Unintentionally hilarious.

The Mantis actress, Pom Klementieff, is actually a really good martial arts choreographer, as per her role in the excellent Black Mirror episode, Striking Vipers. I really hope they can bring some of this into the MCU.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Have a good friend who is as equally gay for Marvel as I am, whilst both being able to criticise it when needs so. We're diametrically opposed on the version of Hulk/Banner in both IW and Endgame. He thinks they perfected it, the best of both worlds. I wish they'd just used Ragnarok Hulk as he was brilliant. He was sort of there in the NY 2012 flashback but the whole "banner has mastered the Hulk" thing annoyed me, albeit it had a few funny moments. Especially as he was smaller and had Banner's face rather than the Hulk's.

Thoughts?

Aside from the slightly wince inducing term "really gay for", I didn't really like professor hulk in this movie. As a comic fan, I wanted to see him on screen, but this didnt feel earned. I know there was a 5 year interlude, but I would have liked to have seen the hulks personal conflict built up over the last 5ish movies resolved onscreen. It feels like he evolved for comedic purposes. I thought maybe it should have been guilt or grief that allowed Banner and Hulk to merge. But then again, I thought the overall tone of this movie was too light.

pjohnson

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Worse was Hope rocking up with her Shania Twain let's go girls little gauntlet adjustment look left and right to a bunch of women she's never met before for the female empowerment moment (which I've no issue with other than the fact it was done terribly).

Watching the 4K, one thing that really came to prominence for me was the panning shot before "Avengers! Assemble!" and everybody does a little hey themselves ready, signature motion, e.g. Spidey sits back down into a pose, starlord swivels his gun etc. Mantis the useless bint just kind of puts her hands up in a bad boxer pose. Unintentionally hilarious.

I think Mantis was supposed to be basically awkward the whole time. She is completely useless in that type fight situation. I assumed her presence was actually meant to be a joke.

TherapyBoy

She’s here to kick names & take ass!

Calhoun

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Worse was Hope rocking up with her Shania Twain let's go girls little gauntlet adjustment look left and right to a bunch of women she's never met before for the female empowerment moment (which I've no issue with other than the fact it was done terribly).

Watching the 4K, one thing that really came to prominence for me was the panning shot before "Avengers! Assemble!" and everybody does a little hey themselves ready, signature motion, e.g. Spidey sits back down into a pose, starlord swivels his gun etc. Mantis the useless bint just kind of puts her hands up in a bad boxer pose. Unintentionally hilarious.

The problem with the female hero scene was unlike infinity war where it made sense and had a sense of humor, it was out of place. Additionally it missed black widow as in my mind she should have been the defacto lead focus.

However because of the storyline that wasn't possible, the storyline also overshadowed it because if your looking for strong female moments in the film I think the black widow sacrifice stole the show.

Again I think it was just marvel not having the time to do all they wanted to.

Also I loved professor hulk and the character development they did with him. Would have loved a film even more to actually show it but they said that was not possible.

ManOfMystery

I didn't mind the psyche of 'Professor Hulk', but don't like how they changed him physically. He was substantially smaller than previous films.

It's particularly noticeable in the final battle just after Cap says "Avengers..... assemble!" and they start running. Hulk doesn't look that much bigger (both in height and overall bulk) than those around him, when he should in fact be ................... well, a Hulk! Thor is standing in front of him here looking only a few inches smaller -



Contrast that with the difference between them in Ragnarok



With that said, I understand why they had to do it - the bigger he physically is, the harder it is to sell the idea of him now being Professor Hulk and placing him in more normalised situations like sitting in a cafeteria. Personally though I'd have left him big.

I'd also love to know why the Hulks wears glasses, ever.

EagererBeaver

Midnight_EG wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Have a good friend who is as equally gay for Marvel as I am, whilst both being able to criticise it when needs so. We're diametrically opposed on the version of Hulk/Banner in both IW and Endgame. He thinks they perfected it, the best of both worlds. I wish they'd just used Ragnarok Hulk as he was brilliant. He was sort of there in the NY 2012 flashback but the whole "banner has mastered the Hulk" thing annoyed me, albeit it had a few funny moments. Especially as he was smaller and had Banner's face rather than the Hulk's.

Thoughts?

It was 5 years later, of course he changed and is now the best of both Worlds

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for an explanation of what happened. I was stating my opinion and preferences as a result of how I enjoyed the film and asking for the opinion of others on the same subject.

Foxtrol

ManOfMystery wrote: »

I didn't mind the psyche of 'Professor Hulk', but don't like how they changed him physically. He was substantially smaller than previous films.

It's particularly noticeable in the final battle just after Cap says "Avengers..... assemble!" and they start running. Hulk doesn't look that much bigger (both in height and overall bulk) than those around him, when he should in fact be ................... well, a Hulk! Thor is standing in front of him here looking only a few inches smaller -

I think that scene doesn't really relate to how he is shown through the rest of the movie. Throughout he is definitely smaller than previous movies but not as noticable compared to other characters as the image you used. They probably wanted to show him weakened post click or the CGI guys didn't want him to distract attention from the rest of the ensemble shot.

SureYWouldntYa

I fully admit I might be blindly defending here

But isn't Hulk's size related to how angry he is, the more angry he is the bigger he gets. Could you explain the size discrepancies above along similar lines for Smart Hulk?

Mr Crispy

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

I fully admit I might be blindly defending here

But isn't Hulk's size related to how angry he is, the more angry he is the bigger he gets. Could you explain the size discrepancies above along similar lines for Smart Hulk?

IIRC, and I'm probably not, that was only in the Ang Lee movie, so not related to the MCU at all. In the comics, his strength was related to his rage alright, but not his size.