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!

     

Captain America: Civil War


scpanther22

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, CCS said:

I was excited for this. It just looks like another Marvel faux epic at this point though. I'm glad Marvel is creating new franchises because their classic formula just doesn't cut it for me anymore.

Seriously guy? You are honestly going to tell me you are LESS excited after seeing this trailer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

To me, too. I mean, Bucky? Bucky is the reason for The Civil War???? I knew Marvel and Disney would water down the story arc for a movie adaptation but I hate this angle.

That's not the only reason for the civil war. We only saw the trailer but clearly they are still doing the philsofical differences between Tony and Steve. I mean I take your opinion with a grain of salt anyway. I'd bet my entire life savings you are the first person to make a thread bashing this movie regardless if it is good or bad just cause it's marvel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

Well, I comprehend that Marvel can't use the 'mutant' angle because Fox apparently owns those rights but this Civil War is a direct result of Rogers disagreeing with how out government views him and Bucky now. However, at the same time, Tony Stark goes from 'Screw you, big brother! You can't have my suit or my services!" to "Yes sir. Captain America and Bucky are a threat to National Security".

Sorry, your BS excuse for why I can't stand Disney's/Marvel conservative, cookie cutter formula is laughable. Odds are I'm a bigger Marvel fan than you.

You do realize Tony's characterization has been pretty consistent on this issue since the end of Avengers 1 right? Dude straight looked at the brink of all human life ending and thought he was going to die to by the end of that movie. That changes a person.  His actions haven't just appeared out of no where. But I wouldn't expect a DC fanboy who uses bullshit like "cookie-cutter" and "watered down" to describe the most successful expanded universe in cinematic history.

 

just save your posts for when DC FINALLY drops a movie trying to cash in on that marvel money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

Tony Stark's story arc in the MCU has been consistent? Ha! And ironically you're calling me a fanboy. Sorry, just because I don't agree every film Marvel Studios releases/produces is a smashing success (quality wise) doesn't make me a 'hater'. You, on the other hand, are a pompous nuthugger who can't handle criticism towards Age of Ultron, Ant Man, Thor: TDW, Iron Man 3, etc. You're probably one of those idiots who actually believes Spider-Man 3 was 10x better than Watchmen just because Spider-Man is a Marvel property.

Yep, I'm a DC fanboy who just happens to have Captain America: TWS, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, Blade and and X2 in his Top 10 CBMs of all time, and values underrated titles like The Punisher with Thomas Jane. 

If you have anything to refute that claim present your evidence now or walk away shamed. No one is praising every marvel movie. You just swing into every marvel thread spewing the same poo. We get it, you are an emo who likes dark comic book movies. You aren't cool for trying to poo on movies everyone else enjoys because you have built in bias.

 

"Sorry, just because I don't agree every film Marvel Studios releases/produces is a smashing success (quality wise) doesn't make me a 'hater'."

um you haven't liked any. From your posts you've gone out of your way to trot out the same shitty catch phrases to INSANELY successful movies because you can't handle how WB/DC has dropped the ball in every conceivable way until Chris Nolan brought them back to relevance. And this comes from a guy who ONLY owns DC comics. I'm no Marvel nuthugger. I'm a realist and you are a hater. 

The reason those marvel movies in your top 10 is because Marvel has simply been better at making comic book movies. That's the simple truth, facts, reason, and logic support this. and I know that hurts your little heart.

also you look dumb for trying to bring in a Sony movie has if that has any relevance on how Marvel studios makes better movies than WB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CarolinaCoolin said:

You tried Francis. maybe go back to try to change the post you DIDNT respond to next instead of following me into other threads like a lost puppy?

Settle down Beavis.

Have a laugh every once in a while, you might enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah they couldn't use mutants, and maybe they could use Inhumans but they only have had a part on Agents of Shield and the viewers aren't invested in those characters yet, so they have to use what we've seen.

We're going to get Black Panther and the new Spider-Man for the first time in this movie and we don't know exactly their roles.  It's still early and it was just a trailer.  Stark obviously wants to register EVERY "special" person so it's going to affect more than Bucky, but that just hits home with Cap obviously.  You think Stark wants Scarlet Witch just walking around unwatched? 

It's any important movie, I don't think Stark and Cap ever have the same relationship again after this.

 

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...