|
Post by Brainstem on May 24, 2011 20:17:22 GMT -5
See, I haven't seen Chris Evans in enough to say that I think he'd do a bad job as Cap, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Rather than think he can only play the type that I've seen him as, I prefer to go in thinking that I've only had the opportunity to see him in those types of roles. I'm not going to be surprised if he sucks, but I'm not going to go in with that impression, either.
And, yes, it's good we're on the same page with what makes Cap, Cap. Many a-time, I've mentioned that I don't read comics, nor have I ever really gotten into them, but I do appreciate nice use of symbolism and, while I think the current portrayal of Cap armed with guns is appropriate to the general political commentary that I understand is being thrown into modern comics, I don't think it should be in a period piece. If you want Cap to represent modern America, then make the film set in modern America.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 25, 2011 6:29:37 GMT -5
All I know is that the Thor trailers looked pretty terrible to me, but the movie turned out okay. Now I don't know what to think about Cap.
I like that Cap is a period piece. I think the issues he'll be facing back then aren't actually that different from what he'd be facing in the present, and he'll be in the present by the Avengers movie anyway. I think we'll just have to see how it plays out.
As for the gun, my biggest complaint is that it doesn't go at all with his costume/look/theme. I don't care as much about the symbolism (honestly, there are few things more American than guns and shooting people with guns; I suppose he could throw apple pies at people..). It just feels like giving Dick Tracy a katana or Super Man a utility belt or Spider Man a powered armor suit, or... wait, they actually did that last one. *shudder*
He has a friggin' indestructible shield that he can throw with deadly accuracy in such a manner that it returns to him every time. It is one of the coolest, most iconic items in comic book history. Why does he need an M1911? What the hell?
Let's keep going with this trend! Let's give Thor a machine gun - he can one-hand it while he holds the mighty Mjolnir uselessly in his left hand. Let's take Iron Man out of his suit and just give him a flame thrower. Those are cool, right? Let's give Hulk a really cool James Bond-style car with lots of buttons in it. Fire the Hulk Missiles! Deploy the Hulk Oil Slick! You know what Spider Man needs? A lasso.
Anyway, point made a few too many times, but you still get it. ^__^
As for Chris Evans, I'm going to wait to see what the director has done with him, and how they've written the script. He looks like a pretty different guy in the trailer, but again... can't trust the trailers anymore.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 25, 2011 6:35:51 GMT -5
When exactly could you trust trailers? The trailer for 2001 made it look like epic + awesome. When you actually see it, what you get is 2+ hours of boring-as-hell followed by 15 minutes of acid trip.
I also should throw in something about Americans, guns, and shooting people with guns, but I'm too tired to argue with a liberal right now.
I actually have to say; Cap having and using a gun in WWII has been "in the mix"... well, as long as I've been reading comic books anyway. One of the first comic books I ever owned showed a flashback to Cap in WWII, and he had a Tommy Gun in his right hand, and his old-style shield on his left arm.
I guess what I'm saying is this; Cap using a gun in a war is really the least of my potential problems with this movie. I'm far more concerned about it being drenched in childish political statements and carefully politically correct moments.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 25, 2011 6:47:07 GMT -5
Well, this was my experience with Marvel trailers so far:
Spider Man: Looked pretty good, movie was pretty good. Sequels looked.. less good, generally were so. (Spidey 2 was okay.)
X-Men: First trailer looked good, movie was okay. Third movie's trailer in particular could not hide the terrible, but the movie was even worse than it seemed.
Hulk: (The Ed Norton one.) Trailer seemed okay, movie was okay. Didn't get me excited to see it, but it didn't look like a clusterf@#% of awful, either.
Iron Man: Trailer was so sweet it gave me chills. Movie turned out to be really enjoyable.
Wolverine: Trailer looked pretty dumb, movie was horrendously bad.
Thor: Trailer looked awful, but the movie was actually pretty good. Confusion and surprise.
Up until Thor, the trailers hadn't led me astray. When there was a discrepancy between my opinion of the trailer and how the movie actually turned out, it was the movie that was much worse than I even anticipated. Thor turned that around completely. We had a good streak going there..
And hee hee, sorry about the gun comment. I couldn't resist teasing. ^___^ (If you want to argue with me via PMs when you feel better, though, you can try. Guns make for interesting conversation.)
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 25, 2011 7:23:18 GMT -5
You're going to talk about movie trailers and not bring up Iron Man 2? That trailer had EVERYTHING. Race cars. Explosions. AC/DC music. A huge American flag. Mickey Rourke was in it, talking about blood!
Debating guns with you is no fun. You're too reasonable. I prefer the insanity of the "no guns for anybody, ever!" extremists.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 25, 2011 8:05:08 GMT -5
Heh, yeah, I guess we did the guns thing once.
Iron Man 2 didn't look that great to me, but you're right, it was better than the movie appeared to be. What I didn't like about it, and ultimately what I didn't like about the movie, was that I didn't understand what Tony Stark's struggle was.
*SPOILERS*
I guess he was afraid of dying, but that didn't come across in the trailer at all, and it was a pretty weak point in the movie and was brushed aside fairly easily somewhere before the end. It didn't have a very natural arc, which was disappointing, as I loved the arc(s) of the first movie. In the first one you sort of have a mini-movie in which Stark breaks out of his prison, where you get to see that there is real genius, determination, and ingenuity behind the wealthy playboy exterior; then, in the remainder of the film, you almost get a sequel built into your ticket, where we get to see him express what he learned in that cave, and see how it changed him. We get to see what effect it had on the course of his life.
The second one... had War Machine. Sort of. Mickey Rourke was too good for that movie. He nailed his part, but the scenes without him were fairly boring. There were some good scenes between Pepper and Tony, as those two have good on-screen chemistry,and the deposition scene was fun, but otherwise, meh. Lots of explosions and flying and shooting, but none of it meant anything. And that's basically what the trailer looked like to me.
EDIT: And I could go on for ages about how Justin Hammer was disappointing as a credible threat. He was goofy and established as a failure right from the start. He was only dangerous in that he was a desperate man willing to do some unspeakable things to get Tony, yet he never really felt desperate enough.. we don't see him snap or cross a particularly heinous line. And Whiplash had inferior equipment for the majority of the film, which put him in more of an underdog role, which is where you typically put the hero, not the villain. I felt little to no tension at any point because of this.
EDIT EDIT: Somehow, this post became a big long criticism of Iron Man 2, and not the trailer. lol Sorry.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 25, 2011 8:09:50 GMT -5
I don't think I would have worded it that way before I read your post, but I do think part of my disappointment with IM 2 was that we were promised (not by the trailer, admittedly) a deep internal struggle for Tony. Comparisons to "demon in the bottle" were made, but not delivered. Tony was kind of obnoxious, but really in the kind of way you'd expect anyone who thought they were dying and didn't feel like they could tell anyone would be. There just wasn't a lot of depth to the way the whole thing was handled.
I gotta disagree on Rourke though. I think the guy is a great actor, but his part in that movie left me bored to tears. I actually found Sam Rockwell more entertaining.
|
|