Apr 05 2014

Captain America 2…

Published by at 2:09 pm under Writing Articles

My expectations were far too high — with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of ~90% at the time I saw it, I was expecting a really excellent movie. There were a lot of competent moments but personally I wouldn’t recommend rushing out to theaters to see it.

In Scott Pilgrim, there’s a scene where Chris Evans (Captain America’s actor) parodies a really bad action star. Captain America 2 gave him so little to work with that I feel he came off like the bad action star.

Some notable issues with the movie:

  • In terms of genre, the first CA movie was an unusually fun summer action movie. I found it very exciting, although the level of seriousness was not notably high (i.e. it’s mainly a movie about stopping Nazi/Hydra researchers from taking over the world). This movie took itself far more seriously than the characters were able to support. Iron Man or James Bond might possibly have been able to make a conspiracy/thriller movie work without it feeling silly. With Captain America, it was like a pretty goofy take on Person of Interest.
  • Generally, I think the key factors separating a good superhero movie from a great one are almost always comedy and character development. (There are exceptions, most notably Dark Knight, but I don’t think we’re looking at one here). Unlike the first Captain America movie, this movie had virtually no humor and I found the characters less interesting.
  • I felt the villain selection was unusually ineffective. Personally, I would have recommended using a different enemy team than Hydra and taken out the Winter Soldier altogether. (Everything about the Winter Soldier felt overly like a comic book, which is probably not the best fit for a thriller with political aspirations).

39 responses so far

39 Responses to “Captain America 2…”

  1. Rawle Nyanzion 05 Apr 2014 at 5:28 pm

    You’re back!

    I’ll just wait for this one to come out on home video.

  2. Jed/Elecon 11 Apr 2014 at 5:25 am

    Personally, I disagree with your opinion, but that’s okay, because it’s a free country :). I felt that there was a justifiable amount of humour (nowhere near the post-apocalyptic-esque lack of humour in the latest Superman) and that the plot was an interesting, more realistic take on the Winter Soldier storyline of the comic books. I do agree with your point about the lack of character development in the case of the Black Widow, who seemed to have no sense of progression from start to finish.

    Also, Is it okay if I publish some of your writing articles on an online magazine website? I won’t use them to make any profit and I’ll obviously credit them to superhero nation and also include a link. The website: http://aubaderising.wordpress.com/.

  3. B. McKenzieon 11 Apr 2014 at 4:28 pm

    “Also, Is it okay if I publish some of your writing articles on an online magazine website?” Sure.



    “I felt that there was a justifiable amount of humour (nowhere near the post-apocalyptic-esque lack of humour in the latest Superman) and that the plot was an interesting, more realistic take on the Winter Soldier storyline of the comic books.” I agree that it was funnier than Superman Returns and the fight scenes were noticeably less tedious. I thought it was a pretty good movie (but my expectations were set too high by Rotten Tomatoes).

  4. Glamtronon 18 Apr 2014 at 12:23 am

    i’m yet to watch it anyway, so i’d reserve my judgements for now

  5. Glamtronon 18 Apr 2014 at 4:43 am

    I know this is not the right forum for this but i need help anyway.

    I’ve onced posted a stuff about my story in which a boy turns into the characters in his hand held console made by his scientist uncle. Actually the issue here is about villains. I’ve got some already but i need a little more villains within the concept. I mean, Superman is alien, so most his villains like Zod, Doomsday, Darksied are aliens right? Same with Spideman having cross-species villains like Electro or Lizard.
    So since my own has to do with science, techs and stuffs, i need a lil help coming up with villains within this range.(they can be exceptions though) i just need characters that could fit in.

  6. Kevin Holsingeron 19 Apr 2014 at 6:54 am

    Good morning, Glamtron.

    I vaguely recall you talking about this. What about evil game characters from the console itself (or one like it)? On the tech theme, you could also go with sentient computer viruses.

    Enjoy your day.

  7. B. McKenzieon 19 Apr 2014 at 11:49 am

    “I’ve onced posted a stuff about my story in which a boy turns into the characters in his hand held console made by his scientist uncle. Actually the issue here is about villains. I’ve got some already but i need a little more villains within the concept.”

    How many villains do you need? (E.g. for a novel, 1-3 is generally adequate… Do you need more? If so, what do you have in mind?)

  8. Glamtronon 20 Apr 2014 at 8:12 am

    @B.mac

    Not a bunch of mutiple villains though. I already got a few.(open to corrections here.) The 1st is his uncle from whom he stole the video hand game. The uncle needs his stuff back and is ready to go any length to get it back unknown to him that its his own nephew.

    The second is a head of a criminal group. He’s hired for some contracts and his boys make the runs. He’s engaged in stuffs like drugs trafficking, robberies, assassinations and stuffs. Sometimes they use extra tech-power.he believes that for some, life doesn’t has to be the good/easy way.
    Well the third,(i’m still thinking about this one) he’s some sorta, religious, occultic, something like that. He believes the city should go back to the old beliefs.and believe someone to restore them needs to be in power. He disturbs the city’s peace with bomb blasts in public places. (help! I know this looks somehow) kinda this terrorist thingie. Towards the ending he plans to destroy the city with flood(like God).kind of an Artificial sunami through a device, since the city’s in a sea side.
    Those are the major villains. I’m not too certain if they fit in and i need a little more.
    And.. Its a comic story.
    Thanks for the feedback in advance:D

  9. B. McKenzieon 21 Apr 2014 at 9:57 pm

    “Those are the major villains. I’m not too certain if they fit in and I need a little more. And… it’s a comic story.”

    I have the same impression that these villains (particularly the religious cultist and secondarily the criminal mastermind) may not be a great fit, unless there’s something REALLY unusual about what you’re doing with the video game background that leads to interesting interactions between the hero and antagonist(s). Generally, I feel a character with an origin and/or background more similar to the hero would likely be able to have more interesting interactions with him (e.g. Batman and Harvey Dent are both lawmen of a sort and react very differently to a shared tragedy, Spider-Man and most of his villains receive powers from a similar source and many come from scientific backgrounds, Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty are both alienated masterminds, etc). In contrast, a villain like Moriarty would probably be a relatively boring fit for a brawn-only hero like the Hulk. (Although, to be fair, I think prolonged exposure to the Hulk would make anyone boring).

    Also, these villains sound disconnected enough that I’m guessing they mainly do their own thing without any major villain-villain interactions. In contrast, two villains with similar backgrounds would probably have more reason to interact (e.g. two characters with scientific backgrounds might have worked together or one might have developed powers through the other’s experiment a la OsCorp). If the villains don’t tie together very much, I think developing multiple villains independently would be very challenging given space restrictions. In a comic book arc of (say) 3-6 issues each 22 pages long, spending even 5 pages developing each of your 3 villains would take a quarter of your story. Personally, I suspect that this space would be better spent developing protagonists…

  10. crescon 27 Apr 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Cap is a dated, insubstantial, silly character, that happens to have one of the best costumes ever. This movie managed to pull off the concept pretty well by making him a James Bond type rather than a super patriot.

    I am mainly annoyed that Hollywood keeps giving us these “original scripts” instead of comic book adaptations. I’m generally much happier with the loosely related cartoons, (All-Star Superman is wonderful by the way.) than I am with the live action movies.

    That said I thought Cap 2 was among the better Marvel Universe movies. Still out distanced by Iron Man 1 and 3.

  11. B. McKenzieon 28 Apr 2014 at 7:44 pm

    “I am mainly annoyed that Hollywood keeps giving us these “original scripts” instead of comic book adaptations.” If I could play devil’s advocate, I would argue that most cinematic versions of comic heroes tend to draw heavily upon their source material, probably more so than most novels* (especially when comparing modestly-selling comics and modestly-selling novels). Off the top of my head, the biggest cinematic deviations from comic book source material over the last ~10 years have been fairly minor.
    –The second-most important hero in the first Hellboy movie was not from the source material.
    –The Watchmen movie used a more believable doomsday MacGuffin and removed the Black Freighter comic-within-a-comic.
    –The Iron Man movies skipped over Tony’s alcoholism and even use alcohol to create fun scenes, retconned Jarvis as an AI, and took serious liberties with the Mandarin.
    –Nolan’s Batman movies created Rachel Dawes.

    These are pretty minor changes compared to how Hollywood has adapted the plots and characterization of many novel series (even a few that have sold tens of millions of copies). For example, on Game of Thrones, a few characters have been turned into rapists, the likable characters are more consistently heroic* and the unlikable characters are more consistently villainous, character motivations tend to be clearer*, and in general the amount of sex has been increased so much it’s ridiculous**, etc).

    *Which I think are probably an improvement in this case.

    **They’re not even good sex scenes.



    Personally, I think I’ve only seen one comic book movie over the last 10 years that really worsened the story by being unfaithful to the source material. (In Green Lantern, Hal Jordan is uncharacteristically immature/incompetent. But even that isn’t completely out of question for the franchise — see Kyle Rayner).

    (/devil’s advocate)
    Hmm… what do you think?

  12. strctly_assassinon 30 Apr 2014 at 6:36 am

    I agree and disagree. The Avengers did such a piss-poor job when it came to Captain America, and this movie completely reverses the image I had of him in my mind. It made him look so badass, but human and relatable and likable at the same time. I think that this Captain is leagues better than the Avengers one (not better than one from the first CA movie because that one had so much character). However, Captain America has been in three movies now and we still have not seen his true form: a great leader (didn’t do shit in Avengers), a good man (not enough down-to-Earth scenes to show this off), and the best soldier stuck in a time that’s not his. And I don’t mean the single line where Nick Fury is like, “Times have changed.” They really haven’t made a huge effort to tie Captain America’s comic book roots character-wise into his movie personality. After Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier, what we are left with is simply “an action star,” although I think it’s a pretty good one and is a pretty good start for developing the character’s on-screen persona more.

    B Mac, have to agree about the Winter Soldier. They should’ve scrapped him. When I saw that he was Bucky I was like, “Oh my god. Really? Seriously?” I think that the Winter Soldier is an action scene-excuse, a writer’s convience that was poorly utilized, and by making Bucky the Winter Soldier they added a little bit of “gasp! It been him the whole time?!” convolution.

  13. B. McKenzieon 30 Apr 2014 at 7:57 pm

    “By making Bucky the Winter Soldier they added a little bit of ‘gasp! It been him the whole time?!’ convolution.” I’d be surprised if most CA2 viewers remembered who Bucky was from the previous film… it’s sort of hard to care much about a character that didn’t get any memorable moments.

  14. strctly_assassinon 02 May 2014 at 7:27 am

    You’re definitely right there, but I think that for comic fans that really know the character, that twist ended up being more disappointing than anything. Bucky/The Winter Soldier was swept aside quickly in the first movie and poorly acted and barely plot relevant – let alone integral – in CA2.

  15. strctly_assassinon 02 May 2014 at 7:28 am

    I had to remind my sister who Bucky was and how he “died” when he was de-masked in CA2.

  16. strctly_assassinon 02 May 2014 at 7:39 am

    I think that Captain America 2 is just a sequel to the Avengers and not to the first CA, which had its own, different set of strengths and weakness and was a pretty good movie. CA2 has more in common with the Avengers than it does with the first CA, and I think that unlike Iron Man 3, it doesn’t do a good job trying to connect it with both the Avengers storyline and the first movie’s storyline. Like I said, they should have left his past in the past and focused on him being stuck in the future. More scenes with Peggy and with him reminiscing in the CA museum while looking at a “Howling Commandos” poster.

  17. Nayanon 14 May 2014 at 1:34 am

    Actually, The Dark Knight has raised the bar for superhero movies so high that now every superhero movie feels average. For me, TDK is the only great superhero movie. Others are bad, average or good. CA-2 would have been a good superhero movie in pre-TDK era. Now, before watching a superhero movie I tell myself, “This will not be another TDK.” That way I lower my expectations.

  18. Scarecrowon 18 May 2014 at 1:13 pm

    …I’m actually really surprised at the level of negativity in relation to this movie. After watching it, and weighing all the pros and cons, it generally ranks to me at the very top of the MCU movies, only after Avengers and Iron Man. In comparison with the bland Amazing Spider-Man 2, Captain America: The Winter Soldier has been the shining light of superhero films this year.

    Going to try and address the general comments here:

    “Generally, I think the key factors separating a good superhero movie from a great one are almost always comedy and character development. (There are exceptions, most notably Dark Knight, but I don’t think we’re looking at one here). Unlike the first Captain America movie, this movie had virtually no humor and I found the characters less interesting.”

    I would completely disagree with this, here, both in regards to the lack of humour (I mean, come on, Anthony Mackie had so many great lines, and the cinema I was in erupted at the Apple guy regarding Cap as a “specimen”). But ultimately, it wasn’t intended to be a humourous movie, it was a serious one, and that was what really paid off for me. Cap needs a certain level of seriousness to it – he can’t be the Iron Man of his own film, he has to be himself. I felt that Black Widow was actually finally developed, and that Cap’s transition was actually handled well, rather than glossed over as it was in the Avengers. The real triumph there for the Russo brothers was that they didn’t push the development in your face, they allowed the actors to portray this in a way that suited their characters – Natasha crying by Fury’s dead body, the dead eyed stare of the Winter Soldier as he hollowly intones “But I knew him” and the easy, snarky banter between Cap and Falcon that flowed easily, unlike the relationships between many of the Avengers and their side characters.

    “I felt the villain selection was unusually ineffective. Personally, I would have recommended using a different enemy team than Hydra and taken out the Winter Soldier altogether. (Everything about the Winter Soldier felt overly like a comic book, which is probably not the best fit for a thriller with political aspirations).”

    I think, B-Mac, that you’re missing the point here. The Winter Soldier wasn’t the main antagonist here, and his selection was an inevitability once you take on a Captain America franchise. Alexander Pierce was the main villain, actually succeeding where Iron Man 3 failed to take a risk on, in making the main villain a normal, non superpowered human, without an Iron-Man suit or supersoldier serum and yet still making him an antagonist who can challenge the heroes. Also, I would argue that CA:TWS wasn’t a thriller with political aspiration, but a comic book adaptation, with political aspirations. And as a comic book adaptation, going for a comic book feel is hardly a condemnation.

    “I think that the Winter Soldier is an action scene-excuse, a writer’s convience that was poorly utilized, and by making Bucky the Winter Soldier they added a little bit of “gasp! It been him the whole time?!” convolution.”

    They…they didn’t make Bucky the Winter Soldier, Bucky IS the Winter Soldier. He’s a comic book character who has been nigh-synonymous with Captain America, and indeed taking on the mantle of Captain America at one point. The “revelation” was no surprise to anyone, except those with a very negligible interest in superheroes. If anything, this was a far more acceptable twist than the “He’s the Mandarin! No, the business dude’s the Mandarin! No, there’s another, real Mandarin!” fiasco of Iron Man 3 (though I really enjoyed that movie also).

    “Like I said, they should have left his past in the past and focused on him being stuck in the future. More scenes with Peggy and with him reminiscing in the CA museum while looking at a “Howling Commandos” poster.”

    You…you do realise how boring this would have been, right? Like what, we ignore his history – no more Red Skull, no more Bucky, no more Hydra (and therefore no more Baron Zemo, Baron Strucker, Crossbones, Sin, Arnim Zola…oh wait…what other villains does Cap actually have?). Sure, Peggy was underused, as was her niece Sharon, but given that Atwell’s getting her own TV series, and will be in Age of Ultron, I don’t think they’re anyway near done with her yet.

  19. strctly_assassinon 21 May 2014 at 1:46 pm

    @Scarecrow “The ‘revelation’ was no surprise to anyone, except those with a very negligible interest in superheroes.” Jeez dude. Sorry if I like DC comic books better than Marvel. I spend most of my days writing superhero stories, which is why I’m on the damn website, so I can’t help but feel a little insulted by your condescending remark.

    I’m going to compare CA:The Winter Soldier to Iron Man 2: the winter soldier and the guy with the whips play the same role, while Alexander Peirce and Justin Hammer play the same role. Most people consider Iron Man 2 the worst out of the three movies by the way.

    Like I said, I spend most of my days writing superhero stories, and there’s no way around it: the revelation of both the Winter Soldier as Bucky and Alexander Pierce as the main enemy were dumb, the repetition of HYDRA was boring, and you don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you?

    I’m not saying ignore his history. In fact, I’m saying the opposite. His past and his present have become intertwined in a very interesting way; they work hand-in-hand with each other to create Captain America. However, this movie had a particular lack of focus on the “soldier stuck in time” aspect, and the character suffered for it. I mean, if you think about it, you could have really inserted any hero and two villains in the roles of CA and Bucky and Pierce.

    And it wouldn’t have been boring. The fight scenes in the movie were top notch, and more of the “stuck in time” stuff could have really driven home the fact that this is a great comic book movie about Captain America. They really had so many opportunities with the character. @Scarecrow Your statement makes you sound like someone who thinks comic book movies should drop the more hardcore story elements and focus solely on source material, graphics, and fighting. I bet you thought Man of Steel was the shit; the best superhero movie to come out of 2013 and one of the best period.

    On a level closer to the surface, Captain America 2 should not have taken two things from CA1 (Bucky’s death and Hydra), and implemented them in the direct sequel. They should’ve waited for CA3 at least. That would’ve been so cool; in CA2, they could’ve hinted at a return of HYDRA or a Winter Soldier appearance for CA3. However, they didn’t do that, and I’m disappointed about seeing them again so soon. CA2 should have used a different set of villains from the CA lore, my particular favorite being the Everyman and Dr. Faustus, and their shared storyline (how’s that for comic knowledge?). I think that that would have really fit well with the rest of Marvels projects, such as the Avengers, etc.

  20. strctly_assassinon 21 May 2014 at 1:48 pm

    This is one of my favorite superhero movies btw.

  21. B. McKenzieon 21 May 2014 at 10:33 pm

    “I mean, if you think about it, you could have really inserted any hero and two villains in the roles of CA and Bucky and Pierce.” I speculate that Iron Man would probably have made Pierce more interesting. For one thing, Tony Stark would probably have had more opportunities to interact with Pierce (e.g. Tony Stark is a brilliant humanitarian and weapons designer… a warlord posing as a humanitarian would definitely have reasons to proactively interact with him). In contrast, I think CA only shared one scene with the villain, which I think is generally not ideal.

    I’d also speculate that Tony Stark would probably have made Falcon more interesting. Falcon’s personality was uncomfortably similar to CA’s, and (ahem) he’s basically a slower version of Captain America. In contrast, I think the Stark – Rhodes relationship is more interesting because they have very different personalities, different backgrounds, and more potential for friction.

  22. strctly_assassinon 23 May 2014 at 12:29 pm

    @B.Mac. Agreed on all fronts.

    I think that political thriller-type movies are really plot-point and event based and characters are less important (not unimportant, people, less important). I think that because Captain America tried so hard to add that political intrigue, the characters were unable to really show themselves. @Scarecrow was right when he said that this is not a political thriller, it’s a comic book movie with some political aspirations. Comic book movies should always be character based because that’s what we really care about, but this movie (which really needed to be character based) was not character based, and that’s why every criticism I’ve heard about the movie has stemmed specifically from one of the characters.

  23. CCXon 23 May 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Even though I totally knew the winter soldier was Bucky (marvel geek for you) I still went to see it. It wasn’t bad if you over looked some faults.

  24. Scarecrowon 31 May 2014 at 9:43 am

    @strctly_assassin I realise that this reply is coming pretty late, but hadn’t had a chance to do so before now. I’m sorry if you felt insulted, and i realise now that my original statement was too wide sweeping and general. What I should have said, rather than a negligible interest in superheroes (which was clearly just influenced by my mood at the time, and I apologise for that), was a lack of Captain America knowledge. Bucky being the Winter Soldier is one of the fundamentals of Cap’s lore, along with Dr Erskine being murdered and leaving no notes, making Cap the only super-soldier, and Cap’s death (I’d be very, very surprised if we don’t see that in Cap 3 or Avengers 3).

    Think of it this way – are you surprised when Bruce Wayne’s parents die, or when Uncle Ben dies in Spider-Man, or when Krypton blows up in a Superman film? Of course not, because the films are only establishing what has already been established in the comic books that they are adapting.

    I don’t think you can compare this movie to Iron Man 2, because they are very, very different films. Pierce is nothing like Hammer – he is efficient, in control, and manipulative, whereas many people were dissatisfied with how Hammer became a stock comic villain, despite being played by the fantastic Sam Rockwell. As for Whiplash and the Winter Soldier, the two couldn’t be more different. Vanko had an intelligence to rival Stark, and he was the real villain of Iron Man 2, rather than the hapless Hammer. Bucky, on the other hand, was just brainwashed and manipulated, rather than being the manipulator. I’m not sure what your point is here. i could compare The Dark Knight to Godzilla, but it doesn’t make it Godzilla.

    As to what @BMac said, that Tony Stark would have contributed more to the film, I can definitely see where you’re coming from. Unfortunately, not every Marvel film can star Robert Downey Jr, and fore me, along with everyone I know who follow the MCU, felt that this was the first film where Cap’s involvement in the MCU actually meant anything to the viewer. For the first time, I thought he actually shone. Also, I’d like to suggest that Iron Man 2 would have been a far more interesting film if Cap had been there instead of Tony: rather than the trivial squabbles between Stark and Hammer, which essentially boiled down to a popularity contest, interaction between Cap and Hammer could have gone anywhere. Perhaps, like the conflict between Stark and Cap in The Avengers, the conflict could have come over Hammer’s status as weapons manufacturer, but without Tony’s morals. And as Cap can’t fly, Whiplash’s plan would have worked, and the fallout from that would have been interesting to see (if a little TDK-reminiscent). Given that villains in the MCU haven’t been very successful, it would have been interesting to see one actually trump the hero.

    “Like I said, I spend most of my days writing superhero stories, and there’s no way around it: the revelation of both the Winter Soldier as Bucky and Alexander Pierce as the main enemy were dumb, the repetition of HYDRA was boring, and you don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you?”

    I’m going to assume that this was said in the heat of the moment, or else this is possible one of the most ignorant and big-headed statements that i have ever read, and I don’t mean that as an insult, that’s just how it comes across. Using the fact that you write superhero stories has little to no validity until you’ve been published. For example, as a science fiction writer, I COULD criticise Margaret Atwood on some points of Oryx and Crake, but the only people who would care would be those who respect my opinions as MY opinions, not as my opinions as an unpublished science fiction writer. If I decided to spend most of my days writing superhero stories, does that mean that I can now make sweeping statements without attempting to justify them? As for the reveals being boring, how so? How do you back up this statement? As for the repetition of HYDRA being boring, did that mean that you felt the inclusion of Loki as the villain in The Avengers was boring?

    Also, do I know what I’m talking about?

    Sure I do, we’re talking about our opinions on Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

    Then, you bring up Man of Steel, in an attempt to criticise, among other things, the fact that I like movies to be faithful to the comics. As a self-proclaimed DC comics fan, you should know that Man of steel wasn’t all that faithful to the character. Forgetting what it did to Zod (which I didn’t mind that much, except that the family could have totally gotten up and walked away), I think the biggest problem with that film was the amount of destruction Superman willfully caused, despite other options being available. But if you check out the Rooster Teeth Podcast, they actually discuss the film quite fairly, stating that while it’s, at best, just a mediocre superhero film, but that it handled some elements really interestingly. For example, it actually treated Superman as an alien, which is an aspect of the film that I really applaud. Similarly, the way it dealt with superspeed – birdlike, rapid, unconnected movements, was cool, and really showed how incapable humanity was to deal with these aliens. However, it had far more flaws than positive aspects.

    I’m in favour of good plot as much as the next man, but in my opinion the plot of CA:TWS WAS good, something that you evidently disagree with. Can i ask what you, as a superhero story writer, would have done in its place?

    Using Everyman and Doctor Faustus would certainly have been an interesting twist, but they would have appealed to a far smaller fanbase. The Winter Soldier is far more central to Cap’s history, and we’re not going to get more than three CA films, so centering a film on traditionally more minor characters would not be the way to go. For example, I highly doubt that we’re going to see a Batman film with Firefly or The Mad Hatter as the primary villain anytime soon.

    Ultimately, the movie’s role was to pave the way for Age of Ultron. They needed SHIELD down, and the return of HYDRA (Baron Strucker will return as a villain, you’ll be happy to hear), so until that comes out, we won’t know which parts were unnecessary, but that’s one of the drawbacks to a connected film universe. But I trust that Kevin Feige and co know what they’re doing, and I’ve enjoyed it all so far.

    Of course, that’s just my opinion and you’re entitled to your own. But please back it up first before posting it.

  25. strctly_assassinon 06 Jun 2014 at 8:28 am

    @Scarecrow Um, I think you’re an idiot, and I don’t mean that as an insult, that’s just how you come across. I’m gonna address everything you said through respective paragraphs, starting with your second.

    All of the things you mentioned are pieces of backstory. Honestly, none of those things are that important because, while important to the character, they are not important to the plot. The Winter Soldier however, is in the title and a main villain, and that’s why he needed to be done better.

    Iron Man 2 and Cap2 are actually not that different. Pierce and Hammer play the same ROLE, while the Winter Soldier and Whiplash play the same ROLE. Pierce and Hammer are both the organizers of the movies’ main conflict, while the Winter Soldier and Whiplash are the actual perpetrators. How the films were executed was different however, and the characters were definitely not the same. I think that Cap2 actually did it better than Iron Man 2 in that regard, however in both movies all of the villains fell flat. I liked Pierce, but his reveal was done poorly. I liked the Winter Solider, but his reveal was done to soon after Cap1. Nobody liked Hammer. Whiplash was disgustingly underutilized and how they showed Whiplash becoming angry and vengeful at Stark was poorly done.

    Captain America and Justin Hammer? Yeah…no. That definitely wouldn’t have worked. That doesn’t even make sense. Why would the movie’s staff put themselves in such an extremely difficult position as to make Cap and Hammer work? Stupid idea.

    I don’t think in opinions. When I say certain things should or shouldn’t be done, it’s because I think in terms of maximum success. There’s a way things should been done: there are and have always been rules and guidelines for everything. I give my stories a theme and mix that with a couple of smaller ideas I want present, and then I color inside of those lines, attempting to achieve maximum success in what I’m trying to do. If the writers of Cap2 did everything perfectly and I didn’t notice, then good for them. However, I bet you they weren’t trying to half-ass Pierce’s reveal as a villain. And before you say that people liked it and that means its okay, ask those people whether or not they thought it (Pierce’s reveal) could have been done better. I bet you almost everybody would say that it could have been. At that point, success has not been maximized.

    In addition, spending a lot of time writing allows you to hone your skills and gives you a better understanding of how to write to achieve maximum success. It’s not about being published or not, because many published superhero works suck. This is knowledge and skill based, buddy.

    I have more of a problem with Pierce’s reveal than with Bucky’s. Pierce kind of just plopped out as a villain, and he wasn’t given the screen-time needed to build himself as a character. By the time Pierce was revealed I had almost forgotten who he was. Plus his reveal scene was just not as good as it could have been. My main problem with Bucky is that he was done to soon after Cap1. They should have done a smaller villain for Cap2, made it the best movie it could be, and then blow it up with Cap3. Winter Soldier would have been a much better fit for Cap3.

    As for Loki and the Avengers, I think that they probably could have found a replacement for Loki. He had just been in the first Thor, and I think that brought him back in too soon, just like with Bucky. However, my main problem with Loki is that I don’t like his character. Was he boring? Not exactly. There were other problems, but boring wasn’t one of them.

    You’re actually wrong about why I brought up Man of Steel. I wasn’t criticizing you for wanting comic-based movies to remain faithful to the comics. Hell, we all want that. I was criticizing you for wanting comic-based movies to dumb themselves down, removing some of the more emotional and human parts of the story and replacing them with big villains and huge setpieces, keeping the story at kind of a minimum. Now, I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve seen enough action scenes to last a lifetime. When I go to see a superhero movie, I want it to be the best that it can be. A great superhero movie is one that can use it’s source material to combine amazing action with strong emotional moments and characters. An ok blockbuster is Man of Steel, which had a story structure that you’ve practically said you’re okay with.

    Dude, I already said Cap2 is one of my favorite superhero movies ever. “…the plot of CA:TWS was good, something that you evidently disagree with.” Why are you trying to break my balls? The real problem I have with it is that it didn’t do enough for Cap as a human character, and it used HYDRA and Bucky too soon after the first. The Cap movies are a trilogy. What I would have done is origin story for the first movie (they did that, and the characters origin allowed them to put one of Cap’s biggest villains in there which is a huge bonus. For some characters, it wouldn’t make sense to have a big villain in an origin story), a smaller villain and a plot more focused on Cap for the second entry, and a huge, gigantic, atom bomb sized explosion as a final movie. The final movie would wrap up the HYDRA and Bucky storylines from the first, and answer Cap’s unanswered internal questions from the second.

    @Scarecrow, I know I already said that you’re an idiot, but you’re also like a passive-aggressive jackass too. You’re kind of arrogant, but who am I to talk, right? Lol.

  26. B. McKenzieon 06 Jun 2014 at 7:19 pm

    strictly_assassin: “Um, I think you’re an idiot, and I don’t mean that as an insult, that’s just how you come across.” I strongly recommend giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially on the Internet. If that’s not possible, this probably isn’t the ideal website for you. Something like 30% of SN’s readers are 16 or younger, so there’s a reasonable chance that you may be getting in a pissing contest with someone that is not old enough to drive a car.

    Scarecrow, you too.

  27. Janeton 06 Jun 2014 at 9:21 pm

    I liked it a lot, but I did not like the characterization of Black Widow. She seemed different from Avengers in a lot of ways. And I didn’t understand all of the Wikileaks parody… Though I am quite stupid when it comes to things like this.
    And please, what person who has ever read a comic or seen a cartoon thought that Fury was actually dead?

  28. Anonymouson 06 Jun 2014 at 9:45 pm

    @BMac I literally copied and pasted that comment from Scarecrow’s post and changed like one word. Also, I’ve only just turned sixteen this past March.

  29. strctly_assassinon 06 Jun 2014 at 9:46 pm

    Sorry. That “anonymous” comment above is me.

  30. B. McKenzieon 07 Jun 2014 at 9:18 am

    “I literally copied and pasted that comment from Scarecrow’s post and changed like one word. Also, I’ve only just turned sixteen this past March.” I expect everybody on SN to act maturely, regardless of their age. I would recommend working on it.

  31. B. McKenzieon 07 Jun 2014 at 9:42 am

    “What person who has ever seen a comic or seen a cartoon thought that Fury was actually dead?” Until about the last year, I believe Marvel’s movies/shows have been very consistent on NOT unkilling characters or playing parlor tricks with “wait, he was secretly alive the whole time!” In the last year, we’ve had Agents of SHIELD unkilling Coulson, Days of Future Past unkilling several characters killed in previous movies, and CA 2 having Nick Fury pointlessly hide his own death for (I believe) no reason except to be dramatic*. I think that undoing deaths tends to make the prospect of character deaths less interesting and lowers the stakes on combat/danger.

    *I believe the explanation Fury gave was that he let everybody (including Captain America) think he was dead because his enemies might have tried again if they had known otherwise. 1) I don’t think this passes the smell test — he trusts Captain America, and I don’t think there’s any reason he’d keep Captain America out of the loop on this except to surprise viewers. 2) Arguably it isn’t in character for Fury, who is so badass/fearless that he once secretly put out an assassination contract on himself to draw out an assassin that didn’t know it was a trap. I’m not very familiar with Fury, but in at least the stories I’ve seen him in, he doesn’t strike me as the sort of guy who would go into hiding out of fear.

  32. Anonymouson 16 Jun 2014 at 5:52 am

    @strctly_assassin Ok, first off, when you’re quoting someone it helps to put their words in the helpfully named quotation marks, e.g. “I’m gonna address everything you said through respective paragraphs, starting with your second.” It’ll help make what you’re saying clearer, and it’ll help with your writing too! 🙂

    As Bmac pointed out, I was being a bit strong with my insults there. Obviously you’re not an idiot, your posts are coherent a generally correct in spelling and grammar, which is more than can be said for a lot of content over the internet. What I should have said is that you’re statement reeked of arrogance, and as you’ve said, you’re just sixteen. You say that “This is knowledge and skill based, buddy”, but any experience that you’ve had is probably negligible due to your age. But that’s a GOOD thing, it means that in five years time, you’ll look back on your work now, and be able to go “Wow, I’ve really developed my skills since then”.

    “All of the things you mentioned are pieces of backstory. Honestly, none of those things are that important because, while important to the character, they are not important to the plot. The Winter Soldier however, is in the title and a main villain, and that’s why he needed to be done better.”

    The fact that you think character doesn’t affect plot displays your lack of experience. Backstory develops character, character drives plot. Things shouldn’t just happen because the scriptwriters want it to, it has to make sense in regards of what has been established so far, how the character would react to the events that precede it, etc. Also, you’ve made the fairly common mistake of labelling a character such as the Winter Soldier as villain. The Winter Soldier is more correctly an anti-villain, like Magneto, or Ozymandias in Watchmen, due to his brainwashing and his past connection with Captain America. Also, the fact that The Winter Soldier is in the title does not just solely reference, but also the storyline of “The Winter Soldier”, in which the film is fairly true to, with the obvious replacement of Communist Russia as HYDRA, which fits the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s continuity.

    “Iron Man 2 and Cap2 are actually not that different. Pierce and Hammer play the same ROLE, while the Winter Soldier and Whiplash play the same ROLE. Pierce and Hammer are both the organizers of the movies’ main conflict, while the Winter Soldier and Whiplash are the actual perpetrators.”

    While I can agree that the Winter Soldier and Whiplash serve the same role in the two films, or at least, a similar one, I can’t agree that Hammer is the organiser of the main conflict in Iron Man 2, because that would suggest that having a few Hammer drones revealed at the Stark Expo is the main conflict within the film, which it certainly isn’t. Hammer is a supporting villain, whose role is more akin to Arnim Zola in Cap 2, in that he aids the more important villain, but nothing more. Whiplash is the one who exposes the weakness behind relying on Stark having the only power armour out there, who challenges him physically and mentally, who manipulates Hammer into giving him what he wants. Hammer’s control is merely the illusion of control, and his involvement is merely to break Vanko out of prison, and supply him with tools and money.

    “Captain America and Justin Hammer? Yeah…no. That definitely wouldn’t have worked. That doesn’t even make sense. Why would the movie’s staff put themselves in such an extremely difficult position as to make Cap and Hammer work? Stupid idea.”

    Oh, I agree. I was just comparing it to Bmac’s idea of Iron Man in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which also would have not been the best idea. While the Pierce/Stark interactions might have been more interesting, a lot of what made Cap 2 really enjoyable would have been lost, as would the further development to Cap’s character.

    “I don’t think in opinions.”

    Yes, you do. Any film review is an opinion, there is NO argument to claim that it’s fact, because you can’t prove any of the points you make. This is back to the arrogance thing, dude! All we have is our opinions, don’t make unsupportable statements like this.

    “When I say certain things should or shouldn’t be done, it’s because I think in terms of maximum success. There’s a way things should been done: there are and have always been rules and guidelines for everything. I give my stories a theme and mix that with a couple of smaller ideas I want present, and then I color inside of those lines, attempting to achieve maximum success in what I’m trying to do.”

    I’d like to know what your definition for maximum success is, here, because Captain America: The Winter Soldier has been pretty much universally acclaimed, with an 89% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes from 222 reviews, and almost doubling the worldwide takings of the first Captain America movie, becoming the third most profitable MCU movie to date, only after The Avengers and Iron Man 3. I would, personally, considered that, if not maximum success, very close to it.

    “It’s not about being published or not, because many published superhero works suck.”

    Oh, that’s certainly true, but I would argue that the ones that are turned away and not published generally have a higher chance to “suck”.

    “My main problem with Bucky is that he was done to soon after Cap1.”

    You’ve previously stated on this page that Bucky was pretty much swept away in the first Captain America film. Do you not think that if we have to wait another two years, they mightn’t have run a very real risk of everyone forgetting about Bucky? Other people here have mentioned that they felt one of the weaknesses of the film was that they barely remembered who Bucky was. Do you think that waiting two more years would have helped that? And actually, going through your own posts, I find “I had to remind my sister who Bucky was and how he “died” when he was de-masked in CA2.” Would those two years have helped her?

    Also, they seem to think, and I’d wholeheartedly agree with them, that the Winter Soldier’s story is too much to fit into one film, because it ties so well into the Secret Avengers, and the Death of Captain America storylines. One film would not have been enough to develop the Winter Soldier, Crossbones and Sharon Carter, along with the reintroduction of HYDRA. As I’ve said again and again, the Winter Soldier is integral to Captain America’s publication history, and I think the way Marvel and Disney have approached treating their storylines have been as good as they could have possibly been.

    “As for Loki and the Avengers, I think that they probably could have found a replacement for Loki. He had just been in the first Thor, and I think that brought him back in too soon, just like with Bucky.”

    What I’d disagree with your thinking there is that villains are, essentially, disposable. Loki, like the Winter Soldier to Captain America, is an integral aspect of the Thor franchise, and the development that he received in the Avengers and Thor led to Thor 2, in which one of the main criticisms that I read was that he outshined the hero. There is nothing wrong with developing a reintroducing a villain (or anti-villain), if there’s nothing wrong with the reintroduction of a hero in consecutive movies, as long as they do something new with them. In that regard, you could criticise the Avengers, but not Cap 2 or Thor 2. But the Avengers was a film about the gathering of heroes, and spending time developing and introducing a new character would have been detrimental, and less in line with comics, where a Loki-controlled Hulk causes the team to form, who then free the Hulk, who joins them, and they defeat Loki.

    “You’re actually wrong about why I brought up Man of Steel. I wasn’t criticizing you for wanting comic-based movies to remain faithful to the comics.”

    I’m now going to take the opportunity to quote your exact words. Quotation marks used, you see. 😉

    “Your statement makes you sound like someone who thinks comic book movies should drop the more hardcore story elements and focus solely on source material, graphics, and fighting. I bet you thought Man of Steel was the shit”

    I would like to draw your attention to “source material”. Aaaaand rebuttal. For the record, graphics are very important to me too. I was glad to see that the Hulk in the Avengers was a far, far superior version visually to either the Eric Bana or Edward Norton versions, and I’ve continually been frustrated at how CGI’d everything in the Hobbit films have looked so far. When Legolas rode off on a clearly CGI horse in The Desolation of Smaug I was more than a little annoyed. It’s not like Orlando Bloom hadn’t had any experience in horse riding from LOTR, is it? And I’ve addressed the fighting aspects previously, and your assumptions over Man of Steel, so feel free to look back through those.

    “I was criticizing you for wanting comic-based movies to dumb themselves down, removing some of the more emotional and human parts of the story and replacing them with big villains and huge setpieces, keeping the story at kind of a minimum.”

    I’ve never claimed that I want comic-based movies to dumb themselves down. In fact, I would argue that Captain America: The Winter Soldier, in how it addresses the current affairs, such as the Wikileaks scandal, how the NSA monitors American internet and telephone usage, and older ones such as Operation Paperclip, which tie it into history, actually is a scale up from the standard fare of superhero villainy, where the plot is generally to either kill everyone, kill one person in revenge or to rule everyone.

    “Now, I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve seen enough action scenes to last a lifetime.”

    That’s strange, because I seem to remember you stating that “The fight scenes in the movie were top notch”. Seems like a strange compliment to give, if you’re fed up of them. Also, what you’re talking about is essentially integral to any, no, EVERY superhero film. If you’re fed up of actions scenes, maybe this genre isn’t for you, because that sounds like going into a monster movie like Godzilla and not wanting to see rampant destruction, or going into a comedy movie and expecting a serious discussion on family values. It’s an inevitability. Even Watchmen had them, and that was about as character-driven a superhero film can ever and will ever be.

    “An ok blockbuster is Man of Steel, which had a story structure that you’ve practically said you’re okay with.”

    I will go one step further and say that I was okay with the story structure of this film. I didn’t consider it the weakness, but instead I disliked the fact that Superman deliberately endangered human lives, that Henry Cavill and Amy Adams had chemistry comparable to that between Chris Helmsworth and Natalie Portman, that Superman wnet to a random priest instead of the holographic memories of his father for advice on what to do about Zod, that they went a little overboard with the Christ-imagery, that the musical score was too dark and turgid for my tastes (I appreciate that some people might think differently there, as taste in music is purely a matter of opinion), that Zod never said “Kneel before Zod!”, and finally (at least, that I can think of at the moment) that wearing glasses do not change how you look that drastically to disguise your secret identity, but that’s more the fault of the comics than the film. But I think that the list of what Man of Steel did right outweighs what it did wrong, but just not to the same extent as Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, or the MCU to this point. But it was far superior than the Fantastic Four films, Daredevil, Elektra, the Ghost Rider films, Blade Trinity, Catwoman and Batman & Robin, for example.

    “Dude, I already said Cap2 is one of my favorite superhero movies ever.”

    Yes, you have. But you’ve also criticised the plotline, labelled HYDRA, Bucky and Pierce as “boring”, disliked the use of political intrigue, the lack of character development, particularly for Cap, the reveals of Bucky as the Winter Soldier and Pierce as a villain, along with the presence of HYDRA, lack of focus on the “soldier stuck in time” element and the acting of Sebastian Stan. You’ve also agreed with BMac’s criticism of Falcon. What I’m struggling with here is what you did like? The soundtrack? Or do you just not like superhero films in general, so this one, despite all of its “flaws”, rises to the top?

    This is what I was talking about when I said you need to support and justify your statements, because otherwise it makes it very difficult to understand your point of view. I’ll give an example:

    “the revelation of both the Winter Soldier as Bucky and Alexander Pierce as the main enemy were dumb.”

    You don’t support this, you just state your opinion and stop. What would better support your argument is to spend some time developing your point. For example:

    “I felt the revelation of the Winter Soldier as Bucky and Alexander Pierce as the main villain was uninspired and uninteresting because Bucky was brought back into the film too soon after Captain America: The First Avenger, and Pierce’s character wasn’t developed to the point that the reveal had any impact on the viewer. Perhaps if the Winter Soldier had made his entrance in the post-credits scene, and another villain had filled his role in the film, a more comic book accurate Crossbones, for example, and that Pierce had been given the chance to do something heroic and make us care about him, it would have been more effective”

    ^ This is an example of a well reasoned and supported argument, although not one that I would entirely agree with, but one that I could respect as the opinion of the person speaking. Just look into it when you’re arguing a point, your opinion will be much more respected then.

    @B. McKenzie Well…technically they didn’t “unkill” Coulson, at least not in the same way as Nick Fury, but I get your point. I would argue though that Fury didn’t go into hiding “out of fear”, but because he was suffering from a near fatal bullet wound. He wasn’t in the best shape to deal with potential attackers. It also served to remove him as a potential threat to HYDRA, giving them a level of overconfidence that led to their failure.

    However, I do think someone will die in the next Avengers film (probably War Machine, in my opinion), and this time it’ll be for good. And we’re definitely going to see a Death of Captain America storyline in Cap 3 or Avengers 3, one way or the other. Actually, thinking about it, I wouldn’t be at all surprised for Cap to go out in Cap 3, his position taken by Bucky in Avengers 3, only to return in Avengers 4 which will be based on the Civil War storyline. Of course, that would involve unkilling him, and it would be a bit of a long shot, but to be honest I’ve been okay with how both unkillings were handled, even if Coulson’s hasn’t been fully developed yet.

    At the end of the day, it is somewhat of a trope for this kind of genre, from Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, to Smallville, to Agents of SHIELD (not just Coulson, read Dr Franklin Hall), to Dragonball: Evolution (maybe not quite superheroes, but similar), to Watchmen etc. If it continues, it’ll become a problem, but at least Marvel have been very thorough about killing supervillains. Iron Man does not take any prisoners!

  33. Scarecrowon 16 Jun 2014 at 5:54 am

    Ah, and that post was mine. Home laptop normally puts it up automatically, but not the college computers, alas.

  34. strctly_assassinon 17 Jun 2014 at 2:18 am

    @Scarecrow I don’t understand how, when responding to a comment, quoting the person respectively before each paragraph will help my writing in general.

    Arrogance is subjective. You may perceive me as being arrogant, but that is not a characteristic that I possess. Am I condescending? Yes. Am I nice? Not particularly. Am I arrogant? Well, I’ve never transcended the boundaries of my limits, nor do I think of myself as particularly superior or able to do something that I can’t, so that would be a definite no. I know it’s hard for people, especially adult males, to admit when a challenger is able to come close or surpass them in ability, and that turns into the word “arrogance” being tossed around like a hot potato, but you should probably swallow your pride. Your comments are generally well-spoken and well-spelled (which is more than I can say for a lot of content on the internet), and I don’t know you well enough to know whether or not you’re arrogant, but you’re word choice and sentence structure has condescension leaking out of every single pore. You haven’t proven yourself to be better than me in anything. In fact, judging by age, grammatical skill, and knowledge of writing, I’m proportionately better than you. We’re on equal ground here.

    “…any experience that you’ve had is probably negligible due to your age.” The weight of experience, knowledge, and skill all fluctuate based off of each other’s measurements. If you possess a great deal in two of the categories, what’s the third? The balance each other.

    I didn’t say character doesn’t affect plot, and I don’t need a lesson in the two. But what happens when you don’t blur the lines correctly between them? You get something that looks blurry. The two terms above (character and plot) plus backstory are clearly not synonymous with each other; they are separate things. Backstory is just that, backstory. It’s a jump-starter for the plot. You don’t try to incorporate it specifically as a plot device. How would you like a Batman movie that can’t shut up about how Bruce’s parents died? And I mean never stopped mentioning it, like it didn’t happen twenty years ago. Like you said, backstories are the fundamentals of characters. Nobody builds the actual house with wood and structural steel, which are both what the frame is made out of. Backstory creates character, character drives plot, plot happens. You don’t force them into a relationship in which they can’t preform their specific duties.

    The Winter Soldier was not an anti-hero in Cap2. He played the role of a villain. Jason Todd from Batman: Under the Red Hood is an anti-hero. The Winter Soldier, whatever his backstory, was clearly meant to serve a villain role in this movie. There were no anti-hero causes to justify him as an anti-hero, and everything he did leaned him towards the villain category. REGARDLESS of comic book story, The Winter Soldier was only the opposition for Cap in Cap2; the villain.

    Hammer and Pierce played the same role with similar resources and opportunities. Yes, their characters played their roles out very differently, but that does not change the fact.

    Dude, don’t tell me how I think. I lack insecurities or doubts about myself, which is unusual for someone my age. For better or for worse, I’m objective and concise in almost everything, especially writing. Also, I explained what I meant by “I don’t think in opinions,” but you seem to have just disregarded that.

    Do you know what the word “maximum” means? No matter what, there’s always room for improvement. I love comics book characters and stories. Why would I or you or anybody else who likes comic books be cool with a B+ when an A+ is still out there? Maybe you’re not that into comic books and its related forms of media. Like I said, the point of all things in life is to achieve MAXIMUM success. Doing less than your best and being cool with it is a sign that you don’t really care about what you’re doing. How little you care relates to how little you did.

    Advice: You should always be pushing for improvement. It’ll help your writing. 🙂

    People who don’t know who Bucky is (mainly people who don’t read comic books) aren’t going to know who Bucky is, regardless of whether it’s been two years or four years since they last saw him. People who do know who Bucky is (mainly people who do read comic books) are always going to know. Time is irrelevant. Again, an issue of maximum success. We’re trying to please comic book fans here, so the best option would be to wait to bring Bucky back.

    And, with a story more focused around Bucky and Cap in Cap3, you could do the two characters and their relationship more justice than you could’ve in Cap2’s borderline cluttered storyline. Waiting is the best option. I know Winter Soldier is integral to Cap. That’s exactly the reason why you don’t rush anything. Fans would rather wait than see one of their favorite characters f’ed up on screen (i.e Superman, many times).

    I understand your point about the Avengers and it’s a good one (your only good one) (I still think there was a better option that Loki) but you are absolutely dead wrong in suggesting that villains are disposable. Some of people’s favorite characters are villains. Are you saying that those characters are just tissues, used and soiled by heroes to make heroes seem cool, and then thrown away? That’s kind of insulting. Villains are deeply rooted in comic book stories. They are just as important as heroes, and just as beloved. In fact, what’s a hero with no villains to do? Nothing. He’s not a hero if he’s not saving people from the bad guys.

    My problem was never that they used Bucky or HYDRA a second time. I’ve said about a hundred times now that I would have loved to see both in Cap3. They needed time for us to kind of forget about them, so they could be brought back with flames and sparks. There’s a difference between repeating something and having something become repetitive. I could eat a cheeseburger everyday. I couldn’t eat a cheeseburger for every meal.

    You’ve implied (now twice, I think) that you’re okay with a story that is able to consistently ride on the surface; a product that is of high quality, but is not particularly deep. You saying that you’re okay with the story structure of Man of Steel is exactly what I was trying to say about you. Man of Steel did very little right. There were so many missed opportunities and plot holes and little stupid things, and at the end of the day, the story wasn’t even that good and there wasn’t that much of it. But that’s the kind of superhero movie you’re okay with: a movie that focuses on action and action-buildup 70% of the time, and on story the remainder. I’m saying comic book movies can be so much more, and they can explore so many other themes. (And if you think that Cap2 actually addressed that stuff that you were talking about, then you are desperately confused.)

    “…the Fantastic Four films, Daredevil, Elektra, the Ghost Rider films, Blade Trinity, Catwoman and Batman & Robin…” I feel like I have to start off this paragraph by saying that Batman and Robin wasn’t that bad (at least my faint memory of it), and Catwoman (the Halle Berry film) is literally the worst decision ever made by DC. Anyway, Man of Steel actually did less right than the FIRST Fantastic Four, which I really liked and thought did a great job representing the team. Go back and watch that movie.

    About fighting scenes, I was only commenting on how many we’ve all seen. If I was fed up with them, I would’ve said that I was fed up with them. God! you’re a pr*ck, aren’t you? The irony of the fact that you could, with a clear conscience, call me arrogant is overwhelming.

    “What I’m struggling with here is what you did like? The soundtrack?” That was really funny. It made me laugh. What I liked is everything. Cap2 was a very enjoyable movie. Doesn’t mean that the things I liked were perfect. Just commenting on what I thought could be improved.

    I explained my arguments fairly well, you just didn’t read it that well. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. Oh wait, yes I do.

    This whole conversation is just funny. You’re a freakin joke, dude. At some points, you sounded younger and less mature than me. In the other parts, well your subtly definitely isn’t lost on me. Your initiation and continuation of the passive-aggressiveness of this conversation reflects poorly on you, and poorer on you than on me. Remember that.

    Try to keep your response short this time. I tend to read these things at night, and your responses are always long-winded and overbearing.

  35. B. McKenzieon 17 Jun 2014 at 7:26 am

    No pissing contests. Next violation = ban.

    If you have any questions about what constitutes a pissing contest, please let me know.

  36. Scarecrowon 27 Jun 2014 at 4:51 pm

    @B. McKenzie Actually, if you could give a definition of a pissing contest, that would actually be a great help. I have one last reply I’d like to make, and in it, I want to make sure that I don’t commit any violations, because I find this site very helpful and certainly don’t wish to be banned. Just in your own time though, there’s no rush. I’ll need some time to cool down, I think.

  37. B. McKenzieon 27 Jun 2014 at 5:49 pm

    “Actually, if you could give a definition of a pissing contest, that would actually be a great help.”

    Arguing with someone mainly to establish dominance and/or superiority. I think SN is generally very solid at friendliness and professionalism and, as much as possible, I’d recommend against interacting with people that are insulting and/or unhelpful. There’s nothing you can do to help them and they aren’t trying to help you.

  38. strctly_assassinon 29 Jun 2014 at 11:25 am

    @Scarecrow This is a pissing contest, but my goals aren’t to prove dominance nor superiority, because neither of those things matter to me, let alone matter., let alone exist.

    @B. McKenzie I really like this site, and I understand if you’re going to ban me, but I’m tired of people like you @Scarecrow, with your “holier-than-thou” nonsense.

    That was my last post on the subject. Hopefully, it’s the last one period.

  39. Created to Writeon 15 Jan 2015 at 4:09 pm

    I loved that movie. It was awesome!!! Cap is my favorite superhero, btw.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply