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

    • I appreciate the measured tone, truly. Hopefully we're at a point where we can dive a little deeper into the discussion. The observation about his footwork is fair in theory, but I'd also counter with 6'1" Brock Purdy recently admitting that he can't see his target on 40% of his throws due to the linemen in front of him. He just inked a massive deal, and while a lot of fans are understandably wondering what he's going to do with reduced weapons, "not seeing over the line" just doesn't seem to be that big of a disqualifier with his understanding of timing, leverage, and pre-snap reads (Aaron Rodgers is 6'2"... bet he's dealt with the same). Bryce is likely dealing with similar challenges due to his size, but it clearly doesn't mean it can't be managed at a high level. Also, I'm not convinced that "prototypical footwork" should be the end goal for a QB that isn't built like the prototype. What matters more is timing and rhythm with his receivers... which, as we've both noted, has been evolving as the WR room flips from vet stopgaps to rookies. He will need to improve there. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is the impact that footwork is having on his ability to process and execute. The earlier suggestion that he's “hopping around” to see the field implies a frantic or panicked visual search, which just isn’t something we’ve seen reflected in either the film or any reliable breakdown. If it were as exaggerated as described, it would’ve become a meme-worthy moment (or at least been on SportsCenter's Not Top 10). Instead, we've seen a QB who, like many young passers, occasionally loses platform stability under pressure. That is something that's common and correctable, and again, not something that shows up with enough frequency to suggest it's an endemic flaw. It’s worth continuing to track, but to argue it's a defining issue requires stronger proof than anecdote. As for the "investments" made in the offense after drafting Bryce, I think that might be stretched a bit. Yes, we've used back-to-back firsts on WRs and signed guards to big contracts. But beyond that? Mingo (2nd) and Diontae (FA) are gone. Zavala (4th) was the worst-rated OL in the league his rookie year Sanders (4th) and Evans (5th) are mid-round TEs. Tremble was given a small contract extension but is said here to be at best a blocking TE2. Jimmy Horn Jr (6th) and Coker (UDFA) are the other WR investments Corbett + BC got one-year deals coming off of injury Cade Mays was tendered, but he was cut to start last season That's not some overwhelming infusion of elite talent. It's better, sure... but acting like it's some embarrassment of riches feels overstated. Expecting instant chemistry and impact from rookies and second-year guys while simultaneously mocking the idea of contending this year also feels a little... off? So far, what I've heard as your criteria boils down to red zone efficiency and intermediate passing to the sidelines? You mentioned moving the ball inside the 20s... I'd recommend 3rd down conversion rate, big-time throws, and turnover-worthy plays. For red zone play specifically, we could look at turnovers inside the 20. Incompletions in the red zone as well as intermediate sideline incompletions could provide an interesting starting point for film study. Hell, any of these would give us a more objective framework to work from if you're open to using them. Do any of them work for you?
    • I honestly can't stand the knee jerk emotional fans on both sides be they critical or homers, very much a wait and see try to remain objective as long as possible type fan.
    • See you guys had me wrong the other day I'm not a blind homer I just like more than a game sample size, that and with Morrow at fault for 4 goals i wanted to see if they could adjust and if rod the dud would play Boom. Well we got the answer.
×
×
  • Create New...