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!

     

Avengers Villain?

o803oVaDeR

By o803oVaDeR,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

o803oVaDeR Newbie

o803oVaDeR

Posted
Posted

So who do you think will be the main Villain in the Avengers movie?

Rumors so far have been Hulk, Loki, Thanos, Skrulls, Ultron, Dr. Doom, and The Mandarin.

I think Hulk would suck, maybe spend a little time on them chasing and fighting him to convince him to join, but other than that no thanks.

Loki is already the main baddie in Thor, and he is signed to be in the movie, but I think if Thor handles him on his own it would be a hard sell that he would be a threat all by his self against the whole Avengers team.

Thanos would be my #1 or #2 choice. I think he is the baddest of baddies, and with the Infinity Gauntlet being confirmed in Thor, I think it would make for a great story.

I think the Skrulls could be cool, but I have never been a huge fan of shape shifting aliens. From what I hear this is the most likely candidate.

Ultron, I dont know much about, but he sounds ok. He just needs a good deal of back story, so I think he would be better for a sequel.

Dr. Doom Would be my other #1 or #2 choice. I think he is one of the greatest villains. He was misused so bad in the Fantastic 4 movies. I think Fox owns the rights to him though, so not likely. Marvel is trying to buy the Fantastic 4 back though, so there is still hope for Dr. Doom to at least be in a future sequel.

The Mandarin is rumored to be in the next Iron Man movie, but isn't the next Iron Man movie the Avengers. It could be him, but I think he needs a big back story as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
×
×
  • Create New...