Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

New Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer


PandaPancake

Recommended Posts

Just to be clear...one of the guardians is a raccoon?

(question from my 7 year old)

For your seven year old: Rocket Raccoon was experimented on by bad men and that's why he's so angry. He's the only one of his kind. His attitude is bad but deep down he's a good guy

Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

almost did last night when i saw the fandango ad at the end of the trailer... then my wife reminded me that her sister and brother-in-law are coming that weekend and we'll need to figure out when we can go :(

 

They'll do an early Thursday showing at 8 or 9. Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's going to be way more adult than the others. But Avengers first cut got an R rating.

Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

 

that was just because of Coulson getting stabbed tho, although i do agree about it being more adult.  all the other films have had to pander to the kids a bit for toy/clothes/costume sales.  gotg will already pull in that crowd due to the fact there's a talking raccoon and living tree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that was just because of Coulson getting stabbed tho, although i do agree about it being more adult. all the other films have had to pander to the kids a bit for toy/clothes/costume sales. gotg will already pull in that crowd due to the fact there's a talking raccoon and living tree

I like how people that have already seen it tell me how great Rocket is. Of course he's great he's a talking raccoon

Sent from my Nexus 7 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...