Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (57 users) | |
|
| Jojo131 Philippines. April 29 2012 02:12. Posts 1312 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 01:59 Protossking wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:55 amd098 wrote: On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: I actually agree with AUFKLARUNG, I came out of the movie thinking a few things..
1) Why was Captain America the leader? Well you guys seem to have summed this up pretty well, but I don't think it was made that obvious in the movie. Sure if you look real hard you can see that he is a viable leader, but I really really really believe that Iron Man is more viable, he is way smarter in every aspect and he is stronger. He has a big ego sure, but towards the end there were multiple things that demonstrated he is now playing on a team, as demonstrated when he risks his life for earth.
2) How did Thor come down when the gateway was broken? This is just a question it was probably shown and I just missed it but I would appreciate an explanation.
3) How did the human Hulk just suddenly gain control over himself when he turned into the monster Hulk?
Last but not least, this movie was a mega-disappointment for me. I have a huge passion for marvel films and get so excited and hyped when they're released but there was no real storyline here, there was no character relationships and there was just no connection built with the audience. I wasn't "rooting" for anybody, I just didn't feel that involved, where-as with something like X-Men wow that was just a great movie (the latest one). The thing I liked about the movie was the funny bits, they were good, like when Iron Man says oh are we speaking shakespearian now? XD.
1) Because that is how the avengers roster has been set for the past 50 years? Because he has the most experience in leading soldiers into battle? He knows his limits and understands the limits of everyone else? He is judged worth of lifting mjolnir (Fear Itself, he smacks the Red Skull around with Thor's Hammer). He's also the most self sacrificing of any of the avengers, he won't give an order he wouldn't do himself, unless he had a very good reason for it. 2) Destructible debris. EVERYWHERE. Also mjolnir can transport people across dimensions 3) Banner is always somewhere in the hulk, subconciously. Also, is it Banner that turns into the hulk, or the hulk that turns into banner at times? Banner is also not right in the head, it could be argued that the hulk is the more sane one of the two. the hulk's rage burns him out as well, and he will revert to banner, he cant stay in hulk form forever. also different parts of banner's personality have different hulks [grey, joe fixit, green, worldbreaker etc]
Eh... 1) Just because it has been like this for 50 years I don't really understand your point, I think Iron Man would be more suitable whilst I agree with all your points I think the smarter and stronger man would be more viable. 2) But in the movie "Thor" he got stuck. So how did he find this new mjolnir power? Was this all explained in Avengers? I don't remember it. Also why didn't he go see the girl that he loves in earth. 3) Then why did the Hulk lash out in the carrier? Why couldn't he control himself then? I don't need to argue number 1 with you, we obviously have different perspectives. But your answers to my questions were quite vague o.O
+ Show Spoiler +Regarding your question about the Hulk, my friends and I were talking about that too. We guessed that since the first incident was provoked/unintentional while the second incident was triggered/initiated by Bruce Banner, he can probably therefor control his anger up to a certain point where he can still maintain his mentality while also being in a lesser form of the Hulk. Especially when you consider that Bruce says his "tip" for controlling the Hulk is that he's just always angry ( it was right before he transforms again), it kinda makes sense that he can control it to that extent. Last edit: 2012-04-29 02:14:13 |
|

|
| AUFKLARUNG Germany. April 29 2012 02:14. Posts 211 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 02:09 xelnaga_empire wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:55 amd098 wrote:
1) Because that is how the avengers roster has been set for the past 50 years? Because he has the most experience in leading soldiers into battle? He knows his limits and understands the limits of everyone else? He is judged worth of lifting mjolnir (Fear Itself, he smacks the Red Skull around with Thor's Hammer). He's also the most self sacrificing of any of the avengers, he won't give an order he wouldn't do himself, unless he had a very good reason for it.
But based on the Ironman 1 and Ironman 2 movies, there is no way Stark would fall in line behind Captain America without a fight. Stark is already the leader of his company - he is the CEO. Plus, Stark is quite smart himself and based on the Ironman 1 and Ironman 2 movies, is quite good at planning, strategy, and tactics. In addition, Stark seems older and more experienced whereas Captain America is only 20 to 30 years old if you take out the 70 years he has been sleeping. The problem isn't the comics, + Show Spoiler +it's how the script writers didn't resolve this leadership issue within the movies leading up to the Avengers and within the Avengers movie itself.
I concur. But maybe it was a production decision. Too much argument on egos between men would drag the movie. But maybe as amd said they could have included a scene where Capt. America was able to use the Mjolnir when someone else (was it Hulk? I forget now) was not, if only to establish his gravitas. This part was missing. |
|

|
| Eishi_Ki Korea (South). April 29 2012 02:19. Posts 1318 | Profile # |
On April 28 2012 21:44 Celial wrote: PUNY GOD!
This, coupled with the ragdoll moment just prior to, was fucking awesome.
Really enjoyed this movie. If you're a nerd (what a silly condition here), you should watch this movie. Period. |
|
|
| AUFKLARUNG Germany. April 29 2012 02:20. Posts 211 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 02:12 Jojo131 wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:59 Protossking wrote: On April 29 2012 01:55 amd098 wrote: On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: I actually agree with AUFKLARUNG, I came out of the movie thinking a few things..
1) Why was Captain America the leader? Well you guys seem to have summed this up pretty well, but I don't think it was made that obvious in the movie. Sure if you look real hard you can see that he is a viable leader, but I really really really believe that Iron Man is more viable, he is way smarter in every aspect and he is stronger. He has a big ego sure, but towards the end there were multiple things that demonstrated he is now playing on a team, as demonstrated when he risks his life for earth.
2) How did Thor come down when the gateway was broken? This is just a question it was probably shown and I just missed it but I would appreciate an explanation.
3) How did the human Hulk just suddenly gain control over himself when he turned into the monster Hulk?
Last but not least, this movie was a mega-disappointment for me. I have a huge passion for marvel films and get so excited and hyped when they're released but there was no real storyline here, there was no character relationships and there was just no connection built with the audience. I wasn't "rooting" for anybody, I just didn't feel that involved, where-as with something like X-Men wow that was just a great movie (the latest one). The thing I liked about the movie was the funny bits, they were good, like when Iron Man says oh are we speaking shakespearian now? XD.
1) Because that is how the avengers roster has been set for the past 50 years? Because he has the most experience in leading soldiers into battle? He knows his limits and understands the limits of everyone else? He is judged worth of lifting mjolnir (Fear Itself, he smacks the Red Skull around with Thor's Hammer). He's also the most self sacrificing of any of the avengers, he won't give an order he wouldn't do himself, unless he had a very good reason for it. 2) Destructible debris. EVERYWHERE. Also mjolnir can transport people across dimensions 3) Banner is always somewhere in the hulk, subconciously. Also, is it Banner that turns into the hulk, or the hulk that turns into banner at times? Banner is also not right in the head, it could be argued that the hulk is the more sane one of the two. the hulk's rage burns him out as well, and he will revert to banner, he cant stay in hulk form forever. also different parts of banner's personality have different hulks [grey, joe fixit, green, worldbreaker etc]
Eh... 1) Just because it has been like this for 50 years I don't really understand your point, I think Iron Man would be more suitable whilst I agree with all your points I think the smarter and stronger man would be more viable. 2) But in the movie "Thor" he got stuck. So how did he find this new mjolnir power? Was this all explained in Avengers? I don't remember it. Also why didn't he go see the girl that he loves in earth. 3) Then why did the Hulk lash out in the carrier? Why couldn't he control himself then? I don't need to argue number 1 with you, we obviously have different perspectives. But your answers to my questions were quite vague o.O
+ Show Spoiler +Regarding your question about the Hulk, my friends and I were talking about that too. We guessed that since the first incident was provoked/unintentional while the second incident was triggered/initiated by Bruce Banner, he can probably therefor control his anger up to a certain point where he can still maintain his mentality while also being in a lesser form of the Hulk. Especially when you consider that Bruce says his "tip" for controlling the Hulk is that he's just always angry ( it was right before he transforms again), it kinda makes sense that he can control it to that extent.
I respectfully disagree. Banner has been winking at us all movie long. Recall that dialoge between him and Stark on how Hulk saved him, his reply was brilliant. We should have picked up by then that he was in full contol all along already. And on the last scene before the battle, he turns to widow and says "The secret is I am always angry" or something like that. Very good character treatment if there is ever one, and totally sublime too. And Mark Ruffalo's attack is just magnificent.
|
|

|
| Jojo131 Philippines. April 29 2012 02:24. Posts 1312 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 02:20 AUFKLARUNG wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:12 Jojo131 wrote: On April 29 2012 01:59 Protossking wrote: On April 29 2012 01:55 amd098 wrote: On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: I actually agree with AUFKLARUNG, I came out of the movie thinking a few things..
1) Why was Captain America the leader? Well you guys seem to have summed this up pretty well, but I don't think it was made that obvious in the movie. Sure if you look real hard you can see that he is a viable leader, but I really really really believe that Iron Man is more viable, he is way smarter in every aspect and he is stronger. He has a big ego sure, but towards the end there were multiple things that demonstrated he is now playing on a team, as demonstrated when he risks his life for earth.
2) How did Thor come down when the gateway was broken? This is just a question it was probably shown and I just missed it but I would appreciate an explanation.
3) How did the human Hulk just suddenly gain control over himself when he turned into the monster Hulk?
Last but not least, this movie was a mega-disappointment for me. I have a huge passion for marvel films and get so excited and hyped when they're released but there was no real storyline here, there was no character relationships and there was just no connection built with the audience. I wasn't "rooting" for anybody, I just didn't feel that involved, where-as with something like X-Men wow that was just a great movie (the latest one). The thing I liked about the movie was the funny bits, they were good, like when Iron Man says oh are we speaking shakespearian now? XD.
1) Because that is how the avengers roster has been set for the past 50 years? Because he has the most experience in leading soldiers into battle? He knows his limits and understands the limits of everyone else? He is judged worth of lifting mjolnir (Fear Itself, he smacks the Red Skull around with Thor's Hammer). He's also the most self sacrificing of any of the avengers, he won't give an order he wouldn't do himself, unless he had a very good reason for it. 2) Destructible debris. EVERYWHERE. Also mjolnir can transport people across dimensions 3) Banner is always somewhere in the hulk, subconciously. Also, is it Banner that turns into the hulk, or the hulk that turns into banner at times? Banner is also not right in the head, it could be argued that the hulk is the more sane one of the two. the hulk's rage burns him out as well, and he will revert to banner, he cant stay in hulk form forever. also different parts of banner's personality have different hulks [grey, joe fixit, green, worldbreaker etc]
Eh... 1) Just because it has been like this for 50 years I don't really understand your point, I think Iron Man would be more suitable whilst I agree with all your points I think the smarter and stronger man would be more viable. 2) But in the movie "Thor" he got stuck. So how did he find this new mjolnir power? Was this all explained in Avengers? I don't remember it. Also why didn't he go see the girl that he loves in earth. 3) Then why did the Hulk lash out in the carrier? Why couldn't he control himself then? I don't need to argue number 1 with you, we obviously have different perspectives. But your answers to my questions were quite vague o.O
+ Show Spoiler +Regarding your question about the Hulk, my friends and I were talking about that too. We guessed that since the first incident was provoked/unintentional while the second incident was triggered/initiated by Bruce Banner, he can probably therefor control his anger up to a certain point where he can still maintain his mentality while also being in a lesser form of the Hulk. Especially when you consider that Bruce says his "tip" for controlling the Hulk is that he's just always angry ( it was right before he transforms again), it kinda makes sense that he can control it to that extent.
I respectfully disagree. Banner has been winking at us all movie long. Recall that dialoge between him and Stark on how Hulk saved him, his reply was brilliant. We should have picked up by then that he was in full contol all along already. And on the last scene before the battle, he turns to widow and says "The secret is I am always angry" or something like that. Very good character treatment if there is ever one, and totally sublime too. And Mark Ruffalo's attack is just magnificent.
The first incident didn't seem like Banner was in control though. You mentioned trying to metagame Loki or something, but at the time it seemed like he was really going to kill Black Widow/Thor and crash the ship.
|
|

|
| kwizach April 29 2012 02:48. Posts 1209 | Profile # |
Erm, is nobody bothered with avoiding spoilers anymore? The following post is a reply to two posts by AUFKLARUNG.
+ Show Spoiler + On April 29 2012 01:35 AUFKLARUNG wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:18 kwizach wrote: This entire post is a reply to AUFKLARUNG.
1. Being the strongest has literally nothing to do with leadership capability in a human context. Nothing. 2. The same thing applies to being booksmart - nothing to do with leadership capability. Do you think Einstein would have been a great asset as the leader of a combat squad during WWII? Iron Man is clearly depicted as individualistic, like I already explained - an argument you failed to address (unsurprisingly, since it clearly removes Iron Man as a possible leader). Banner is, in his Hulk form, clearly unable to lead, like I also explained. 3. Being a God has nothing to do with leadership capability. 4. Being a warrior has nothing to do with leadership capability. 5. How does Thor have a more tactical mind than Capt. America, who is actually directly pictured in the movie as a tactical leader?
Give it a rest, at this point you're deliberately ignoring all the movie elements which go against your view.
I happen to view it precisely on the very merits of the movie itself, which most of you seem to ignore and base your assumption that he is Capt. America so he should lead.
That criticism certainly does not apply to me, since I provided a list of both positive reasons why Capt. America and negative reasons why the others shouldn't. This exchange is between you and me. On April 29 2012 01:35 AUFKLARUNG wrote: Show nested quote +1. Being the strongest has literally nothing to do with leadership capability in a human context. Nothing.
Most juvenile cases establish leadership through strength, even in adults. So what you are saying is wrong,
No, what I am saying is not wrong since I said "leadership capability". Being strong is NOT a characteristic relevant for leadership capability, i.e. being an apt leader. It simply isn't. On April 29 2012 01:35 AUFKLARUNG wrote: Show nested quote +2. The same thing applies to being booksmart - nothing to do with leadership capability. Do you think Einstein would have been a great asset as the leader of a combat squad during WWII? Iron Man is clearly depicted as individualistic, like I already explained - an argument you failed to address (unsurprisingly, since it clearly removes Iron Man as a possible leader). Banner is, in his Hulk form, clearly unable to lead, like I also explained.
Since we are in this business of movies, what about Professor X?
Did I say that being booksmart was detrimental to being a good leader? No, I said that in itself it was unrelated to being able to be a good combat leader. On April 29 2012 01:35 AUFKLARUNG wrote: LOL at Einstein example. Context dude, context, Is Einstein in the field of military?
Exactly "dude", context. Being an expert in gamma radiation (Banner) is irrelevant when it comes to tactical/leadership knowledge. Being a genius engineer (Stark) is irrelevant when it comes to tactical/leadership knowledge (especially since the technology he's worked on is used by nobody in the fight except himself). Being booksmart in military science and tactical combat would be relevant - it is the case of neither Stark nor Banner. On April 29 2012 01:35 AUFKLARUNG wrote: Moreover, now that we have moved to it, wars are being won purely on the merit of knowledge. The physical part is merely the execution, but it is thorough, bookish knowledge that decides whether a war is won or lost.
To reiterate, neither Banner nor Stark have "bookish knowledge" about war and combat. What's more, you're confusing knowledge about strategy, tactics and combat. They were in a combat situation. On April 29 2012 01:35 AUFKLARUNG wrote: On Hulk, clearly you did not understand the movie. Banner, in Hulk form, is controlled and deliberate, with all the qualities of Dr. Banner, plus the super human strength. Go beyond the physical appearance.
I understood the movie perfectly fine - apparently, you didn't. Hulk is not perfectly controlled, and he does not have all the qualities of Dr. Banner. For example, he is not shown as having the ability to form complex sentences. The Hulk is definitely not capable of communicating with others as well as Banner, and he does not control his emotions as well as Banner (even though apparently when Banner deliberately transforms into Hulk, he can "drive" him far better than when the transformation isn't voluntary). Since Banner did not have any leadership qualities to begin with, this makes Hulk a terrible, terrible candidate for leadership. On April 29 2012 01:35 AUFKLARUNG wrote: Show nested quote +3. Being a God has nothing to do with leadership capability. 4. Being a warrior has nothing to do with leadership capability. 5. How does Thor have a more tactical mind than Capt. America, who is actually directly pictured in the movie as a tactical leader?
Thor is the annointed guardian of the realms of human, the commander of Asgard armies, one who has lead his army in many battles.
I did not dispute this. Being a God shows that he is physically, if not mentally, more than sufficient.
I did not dispute this, I pointed out that his physical prowess was irrelevant in this context. Being a warrior means he has led his army to many battles and won.
You are repeating yourself instead of addressing the arguments I put forward to disqualify Thor. And all that has to count for something. I conceded earlier that he can be emotional and that's a huge disadvantage, but it is wrong to totally say he is unqualified to lead.
I certainly did not say he was unqualified to lead, in fact it's not an opinion I share. Instead of using straw men, again, start addressing the actual arguments I put forward to disqualify Thor. On April 29 2012 01:42 AUFKLARUNG wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:28 kwizach wrote: On April 29 2012 01:23 AUFKLARUNG wrote: I think this is a cultural thing where mostly Americans are so focused on the Capt. America character that they do not see the whole picture, aggravated by the stereotype of Hulk as a smashing marauding brainless maniac. But if we judge the movie by its own merits, certainly things are not that simple.
I think it's the exact opposite - because the character is called Capt. America, you are unable to see past the name to look at his objective merits as a leader. I have a hard time believing you're seriously considering Hulk as a potential leader capable of giving precise orders to the members of the team when he's not even capable of articulating complex sentences.
LOL. This is it. You say you enjoy the movie but I fear only on the superficial level. There is so much in Hulk here that meets the eye, it's like a Shakespearean character study, torn between anger and control. Go rewatch the Avengers, and track all the subtle hint Banner develops his character. Its poignant. You saying this is giving me cramps from laughing how someone could seriously say this after claiming he liked the movie. Catching a class to catch now. Good one dude, thanks for the laugh, made my day.
Do you lack confidence in your arguments that badly to rely that much on personal attacks? None of what you just said is relevant to the discussion we're having, namely the capacity of characters (in this case, Hulk) to be apt leaders. I very much enjoyed and am aware of the subtleties of the Banner/Hulk persona, thank you very much. This does not change the fact that Hulk is certainly not able to communicate with others as well as other characters, and being capable to communicate with others is vital as leader. Last edit: 2012-04-29 02:51:51 |
|

|
| amd098 Korea (North). April 29 2012 02:59. Posts 1191 | Profile Blog # |
On April 29 2012 02:07 AUFKLARUNG wrote:I was already running to class but I saw this, had to log in and reply. Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:55 amd098 wrote: 1) Because that is how the avengers roster has been set for the past 50 years? Because he has the most experience in leading soldiers into battle? He knows his limits and understands the limits of everyone else? He is judged worth of lifting mjolnir (Fear Itself, he smacks the Red Skull around with Thor's Hammer). He's also the most self sacrificing of any of the avengers, he won't give an order he wouldn't do himself, unless he had a very good reason for it.
Ok. If it is in the comics canon, I accept it. What you are illustrating is a vivid display of Capt. America's pedigree as a leader, than all the wolf/strength/intelligence arguments in the last few pages. I concede, for the reasons you state, though I reserve comment on the way Capt. America was developed in teh early part of the movie. Protossking, I had the same question on the Hulk in the carrier incident, and had a speculative answer around page 13, before this leadership argument emerged. To summarize, it could be either or both reasons: 1. As a narrative device to dislodge the audience 2. As a metagame by Hulk to fool Loki into believing his plans are working. (Tell you something about Hulk's intelligence.) But like I said, these are mere speculations on my part. THere might be details in the literature that is not available to me which explains this. Please share ahead if so.
In the comics, the avengers were founded when the group [iron man, wasp, giant man, came together to stop the hulk when he was being manipulated by loki
Yes cap is only about 20 or so, but he's got years of wartime experience that only thor can match. but unlike thor, cap fights at the same level, there are few in the 9 realms that are on thor's level.
put it this way, to a terran thor, a single roach is nothing. to a marine, its deadly. you dont want the most powerful guy as your leader as he has to be able to judge what threats are, and not to underestimate them, thor is exceedingly powerful, and the majority of things he has faced in his life, are weaker opponents. So for him to face something stronger, it will be a challenge and he will not be sure how to face such a battle.
by contrast, cap is the basic unit, he's doesn't underestimate anything, and he always faces things stronger than him. he's got the experience in fighting those stronger than him, and winning
stark realizes whats at stake, and he cant get a roster of avengers to follow him the way others would follow cap. cap's already established as the guy who won WWII in the marvel univ, and his experience in combat and leadership skills are legendary
cap used thor's hammer vs the red skull in fear itself, cul shattered caps shield and cap picked up thor's hammer and smacked the skull around
as proof + Show Spoiler + |
| | North Korea is best Korea! |
|

|
| xelnaga_empire April 29 2012 03:00. Posts 100 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 02:48 kwizach wrote:+ Show Spoiler +To reiterate, neither Banner nor Stark have "bookish knowledge" about war and combat. What's more, you're confusing knowledge about strategy, tactics and combat. They were in a combat situation. [
+ Show Spoiler +But Stark/Ironman demonstrated he is very good at combat tactics/strategy in Ironman 1 and Ironman 2. Stark is also the CEO of a large company - a leadership position in itself. Plus it is implied that Stark has more life experience than Captain America (Stark looks to be in his 30s or 40s while Captain America is only 20 to 30 years old if you take out the time Captain America was asleep). Last edit: 2012-04-29 03:01:09 |
|
|
| Elzar Germany. April 29 2012 03:03. Posts 203 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 02:48 kwizach wrote: Erm, is nobody bothered with avoiding spoilers anymore?
I think if you don't want to get spoilered, you shouldn't read a topic about the avengers movie. |
|
|
| kwizach April 29 2012 03:05. Posts 1209 | Profile # |
This is a reply to Protossking's three questions, which contain spoilers. + Show Spoiler + On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: I actually agree with AUFKLARUNG, I came out of the movie thinking a few things..
1) Why was Captain America the leader? Well you guys seem to have summed this up pretty well, but I don't think it was made that obvious in the movie. Sure if you look real hard you can see that he is a viable leader, but I really really really believe that Iron Man is more viable, he is way smarter in every aspect and he is stronger. He has a big ego sure, but towards the end there were multiple things that demonstrated he is now playing on a team, as demonstrated when he risks his life for earth.
I explained in this thread why Capt. America was both a good option for leader and a better option than everyone else based on only movie elements. Regarding Iron Man, there is no way he would have been a better leader - he has been repeatedly portrayed as extremely individualistic - in fact, S.H.I.E.L.D. assessment of him is that he "doesn't play well with others". He does not exhibit any combat leadership quality - he does his thing, and he does it extremely well. On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: 2) How did Thor come down when the gateway was broken? This is just a question it was probably shown and I just missed it but I would appreciate an explanation.
It is explained by Loki, who mentions that it is Odin who used something alone the lines of "dark energy" or "dark powers" to send Thor back to Earth. On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: 3) How did the human Hulk just suddenly gain control over himself when he turned into the monster Hulk?
It is apparently because it was a voluntary transformation, not a transformation caused by external - negative - factors like on the carrier. Notice that he does not have absolute control either, it's not like he keeps talking normally with only a different appearance. On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: Last but not least, this movie was a mega-disappointment for me. I have a huge passion for marvel films and get so excited and hyped when they're released but there was no real storyline here, there was no character relationships and there was just no connection built with the audience.
I disagree on all accounts. There was a storyline (revolving around the Tesseract), there were character relationships and the characters themselves evolved, and there was a connection built with the audience (everyone rooting for the team and wanting Loki to be defeated - that's one of the reasons the "puny god" moment worked so well, since Loki was interrupted as he was starting another "I'm a god you're a worthless creatures" speech). On April 29 2012 01:38 Protossking wrote: I wasn't "rooting" for anybody, I just didn't feel that involved, where-as with something like X-Men wow that was just a great movie (the latest one). The thing I liked about the movie was the funny bits, they were good, like when Iron Man says oh are we speaking shakespearian now? XD.
I liked X-Men: First class as well. You have to consider that just because you felt no connection with the movie doesn't mean others (so far the overwhelming majority of spectators) felt the same way. Last edit: 2012-04-29 03:05:57 |
|

|
| xelnaga_empire April 29 2012 03:06. Posts 100 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 02:59 amd098 wrote:In the comics, the avengers were founded when the group [iron man, wasp, giant man, came together to stop the hulk when he was being manipulated by loki Yes cap is only about 20 or so, but he's got years of wartime experience that only thor can match. but unlike thor, cap fights at the same level, there are few in the 9 realms that are on thor's level. put it this way, to a terran thor, a single roach is nothing. to a marine, its deadly. you dont want the most powerful guy as your leader as he has to be able to judge what threats are, and not to underestimate them, thor is exceedingly powerful, and the majority of things he has faced in his life, are weaker opponents. So for him to face something stronger, it will be a challenge and he will not be sure how to face such a battle. by contrast, cap is the basic unit, he's doesn't underestimate anything, and he always faces things stronger than him. he's got the experience in fighting those stronger than him, and winning stark realizes whats at stake, and he cant get a roster of avengers to follow him the way others would follow cap. cap's already established as the guy who won WWII in the marvel univ, and his experience in combat and leadership skills are legendary cap used thor's hammer vs the red skull in fear itself, cul shattered caps shield and cap picked up thor's hammer and smacked the skull around as proof + Show Spoiler +
No offense, but I think the discussion about leadership is based on the merits and scripts of the movies, and not the comics.
A good movie script/adaptaion should be self explanatory - the viewers shouldn't have to dig through the original novels and comics.
As an example, Lord of the Rings was a great script because everything was self-explanatory in the movies. All the questions in Lord of the Rings are answered in the movie itself, and the viewers don't have to dig through the novels to figure out why things happened in the movie they way it happened.
|
|

|
| kwizach April 29 2012 03:07. Posts 1209 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 03:03 Elzar wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:48 kwizach wrote: Erm, is nobody bothered with avoiding spoilers anymore?
I think if you don't want to get spoilered, you shouldn't read a topic about the avengers movie.
I agree, but it's kind of a tradition to use spoiler tags to make sure people who want to read only general feedback (it's good/it's not good) do not get spoilered. |
|
|
| EdSlyB Portugal. April 29 2012 03:10. Posts 1620 | Profile Blog # |
On April 29 2012 03:03 Elzar wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:48 kwizach wrote: Erm, is nobody bothered with avoiding spoilers anymore?
I think if you don't want to get spoilered, you shouldn't read a topic about the avengers movie.
I think it is good etiquette to avoid spoilers (at least without a spoiler tag) until a week after the movie gets the worldwide release. Because people that come to read thread mostly want to see if the movie is worth to watch and if people had a good time. They don't want details only to get hyped (or not).
edit- About the Cap issue: + Show Spoiler +I know to a certain extent the story in the comics. Cap is the leader because he is one of the older (original) members, excelent tactitian, works well in a group using the best qualities of each person and alot of field experience. So far so good. In the movie, that isn't well exploited. Despite not being the smartest or the strongest, he is put in the command because he is an inspiration to others. He represents the some of the best human qualities like loyalty, bravery and altruism. The problem is that this isn't firmly stated to the rest of the group (nor the viewers that not share the same knowledge of the Avengers lore). Only to Iron Man because the exchange some arguments about it. All the others don't have any good reason to follow Captain's lead.
I think the movie is very well done. My biggest complaint is that there wasn't any scene or chain of events that would make, to the eyes of the team and the viewers, Rogers as the natural leader he was showned to be.
Last edit: 2012-04-29 03:28:41 |
| |

|
| kwizach April 29 2012 03:10. Posts 1209 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 03:00 xelnaga_empire wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:48 kwizach wrote:+ Show Spoiler +To reiterate, neither Banner nor Stark have "bookish knowledge" about war and combat. What's more, you're confusing knowledge about strategy, tactics and combat. They were in a combat situation. [
+ Show Spoiler +But Stark/Ironman demonstrated he is very good at combat tactics/strategy in Ironman 1 and Ironman 2. Stark is also the CEO of a large company - a leadership position in itself. Plus it is implied that Stark has more life experience than Captain America (Stark looks to be in his 30s or 40s while Captain America is only 20 to 30 years old if you take out the time Captain America was asleep).
+ Show Spoiler +He's good at fighting. That's not tactics or strategy. Being the leader of a company is a general leadership position, combat leadership is very different in nature. Capt. America is trained in combat leadership, not Stark. Also, again, Stark is shown as being individualistic in nature, something which isn't necessary a problem to lead a company but which definitely is one when it comes to leading a small team. Finally, life experience is unrelated to combat leadership experience, of which once again Capt. America has plenty more than Stark. |
|

|
| ETisME Hong Kong. April 29 2012 03:11. Posts 4896 | Profile Blog # |
On April 29 2012 02:09 xelnaga_empire wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:55 amd098 wrote:
1) Because that is how the avengers roster has been set for the past 50 years? Because he has the most experience in leading soldiers into battle? He knows his limits and understands the limits of everyone else? He is judged worth of lifting mjolnir (Fear Itself, he smacks the Red Skull around with Thor's Hammer). He's also the most self sacrificing of any of the avengers, he won't give an order he wouldn't do himself, unless he had a very good reason for it.
But based on the Ironman 1 and Ironman 2 movies, there is no way Stark would fall in line behind Captain America without a fight. Stark is already the leader of his company - he is the CEO. Plus, Stark is quite smart himself and based on the Ironman 1 and Ironman 2 movies, is quite good at planning, strategy, and tactics. In addition, Stark seems older and more experienced whereas Captain America is only 20 to 30 years old if you take out the 70 years he has been sleeping. The problem isn't the comics, + Show Spoiler +it's how the script writers didn't resolve this leadership issue within the movies leading up to the Avengers and within the Avengers movie itself.
+ Show Spoiler +smart doesn't make him the best leader out of all. Hulk is fricking smart as well, Spiderman (who would eventually join avenger) is also really smart. Right now, Tony is just a play boy with playful mind, but later on in marvel universe he would get mature and + Show Spoiler + He became the director of SHIELD in the civil war comic, fighting against captain america and his team, which Tony eventually won So obviously, both are good leaders but the comic version of Tony is a lot more determined and less fooling around Last edit: 2012-04-29 03:11:56 |
|

|
| kwizach April 29 2012 03:14. Posts 1209 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 03:06 xelnaga_empire wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:59 amd098 wrote:In the comics, the avengers were founded when the group [iron man, wasp, giant man, came together to stop the hulk when he was being manipulated by loki Yes cap is only about 20 or so, but he's got years of wartime experience that only thor can match. but unlike thor, cap fights at the same level, there are few in the 9 realms that are on thor's level. put it this way, to a terran thor, a single roach is nothing. to a marine, its deadly. you dont want the most powerful guy as your leader as he has to be able to judge what threats are, and not to underestimate them, thor is exceedingly powerful, and the majority of things he has faced in his life, are weaker opponents. So for him to face something stronger, it will be a challenge and he will not be sure how to face such a battle. by contrast, cap is the basic unit, he's doesn't underestimate anything, and he always faces things stronger than him. he's got the experience in fighting those stronger than him, and winning stark realizes whats at stake, and he cant get a roster of avengers to follow him the way others would follow cap. cap's already established as the guy who won WWII in the marvel univ, and his experience in combat and leadership skills are legendary cap used thor's hammer vs the red skull in fear itself, cul shattered caps shield and cap picked up thor's hammer and smacked the skull around as proof + Show Spoiler +
No offense, but I think the discussion about leadership is based on the merits and scripts of the movies, and not the comics. A good movie script/adaptaion should be self explanatory - the viewers shouldn't have to dig through the original novels and comics. As an example, Lord of the Rings was a great script because everything was self-explanatory in the movies. All the questions in Lord of the Rings are answered in the movie itself, and the viewers don't have to dig through the novels to figure out why things happened in the movie they way it happened.
The same goes for Avengers - the movies themselves are self-explanatory (except for a few "winks" to the comics). That some people here are invoking the comics for explanations does not mean the explanations contained in the movies are not sufficient. |
|

|
| Ghostcom Denmark. April 29 2012 03:47. Posts 2477 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 03:06 xelnaga_empire wrote: Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:59 amd098 wrote:In the comics, the avengers were founded when the group [iron man, wasp, giant man, came together to stop the hulk when he was being manipulated by loki Yes cap is only about 20 or so, but he's got years of wartime experience that only thor can match. but unlike thor, cap fights at the same level, there are few in the 9 realms that are on thor's level. put it this way, to a terran thor, a single roach is nothing. to a marine, its deadly. you dont want the most powerful guy as your leader as he has to be able to judge what threats are, and not to underestimate them, thor is exceedingly powerful, and the majority of things he has faced in his life, are weaker opponents. So for him to face something stronger, it will be a challenge and he will not be sure how to face such a battle. by contrast, cap is the basic unit, he's doesn't underestimate anything, and he always faces things stronger than him. he's got the experience in fighting those stronger than him, and winning stark realizes whats at stake, and he cant get a roster of avengers to follow him the way others would follow cap. cap's already established as the guy who won WWII in the marvel univ, and his experience in combat and leadership skills are legendary cap used thor's hammer vs the red skull in fear itself, cul shattered caps shield and cap picked up thor's hammer and smacked the skull around as proof + Show Spoiler +
No offense, but I think the discussion about leadership is based on the merits and scripts of the movies, and not the comics. A good movie script/adaptaion should be self explanatory - the viewers shouldn't have to dig through the original novels and comics. As an example, Lord of the Rings was a great script because everything was self-explanatory in the movies. All the questions in Lord of the Rings are answered in the movie itself, and the viewers don't have to dig through the novels to figure out why things happened in the movie they way it happened.
Actually there are quite a few plotholes in LotR if you only watch the movie (for instance, why is it that the eagle doesn't just fly in and drop the ring off in Mount Doom? What did Legolas actually allude to when he said something along the lines of "I fear that you kin won't have to go to war, war will come to them" to Gimli? - the list goes on). So if I were you I wouldn't use that as an example.
+ Show Spoiler +Personally it didn't disturb me all that much that cap. america took charge and I actually think there was some buildup to him doing so. For instance, he only did it after Stark encouraged him to do so. But I do agree that if there was a weak spot in the script it was this and why the Hulk suddenly can coorperate (to a degree, let's not forget that he punches Thor midfight) |
|

|
| xelnaga_empire April 29 2012 04:46. Posts 100 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 03:11 ETisME wrote: smart doesn't make him the best leader out of all. Hulk is fricking smart as well, Spiderman (who would eventually join avenger) is also really smart.
I think you mean Dr. Banner may be a candidate to lead, but Hulk cannot. The problem is, on the battlefield, it's usually Hulk and not Dr. Banner.Last edit: 2012-04-29 04:52:13 |
|
|
| Pantythief Denmark. April 29 2012 05:05. Posts 657 | Profile # |
| It would seem that you guys discussing "leadership" have totally missed the point of this movie. The Avengers is not about "leadership", it's about working together. |
| |
|
| xelnaga_empire April 29 2012 05:09. Posts 100 | Profile # |
On April 29 2012 03:10 kwizach wrote:+ Show Spoiler +He's good at fighting. That's not tactics or strategy. Being the leader of a company is a general leadership position, combat leadership is very different in nature. Capt. America is trained in combat leadership, not Stark. Also, again, Stark is shown as being individualistic in nature, something which isn't necessary a problem to lead a company but which definitely is one when it comes to leading a small team. Finally, life experience is unrelated to combat leadership experience, of which once again Capt. America has plenty more than Stark.
+ Show Spoiler +Stark demonstrated combat leadership with War Machine when they fought together in Iron Man 2. Also, it doesn't matter that Captain America is trained in combat leadership - what matters is whether Stark respects Captain America to lead the team when they meet. You may be right that over time, Stark would respect Captain America's ability as a combat leader, but they had not worked together for too long up to the point Stark started taking commands from Captain America on the street in New York.
What confuses this issue further is that in the scene to fix the propeller so that the aircraft carrier could stay afloat in the air, it was entirely Stark that lead that scene, with Captain America as the sidekick. |
|

|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next All | | |
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...

|