Wasn't the guy Cap fought at the beginning a comic character too? The leaper guy.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah. But very minor. And dumb. His specialty is a French fighting style, so he's like Meg Griffin in that episode where the Griffins get super powers....

His name is Georges Batroc, and in the comics he goes by Batroc the Leaper. He's a fairly comical character with a Snidely Whiplash mustache and who constantly speaks in a deliberately over-the-top French accent ("Sacre bleu!"). Beyond that, though, he not only commands his own legion of mercenaries (Batroc's Brigade), but is a legitimately dangerous hand-to-hand opponent, being a master of the French martial art of savate, or foot-boxing. That's more or less the discipline they had Georges St-Pierre use in the movie for that amazing fight scene he was in.

is the 3D worth it. Probably will still do 2D but I am curious.

Yes. I saw it in 3D Imax. It was amazing. It's subtle, but in a GREAT way. They don't exploit any 3D tricks. Just adds depth and immersion.

The kid I am taking doesn't like 3d unless they are throwing crap in your face so it may not be worth it for him. heh

I prefer the 3d that isn't in your face though.

My daughter went to see it in the new AMC Prime Theater in Barrywoods. Said it was amazing, the film and the new theater.

3D is the bomb, I wouldn't want to see it any other way after seeing it in 3D.

I'm just not a big fan of 3D. If a film is good, it doesn't need that gimmick IMO.

This is a great film on its own terms.

I don't ever watch 3D unless I have no choice, and I've never felt like I was missing anything by watching a movie in 2D.

I pretty much agree with this review. 3D isn't really needed for this movie.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or...ket-42391.html

Of course a good movie doesn't NEED 3D, but it does nothing but enhance the enjoyment IMO... it makes everything more visceral, tangible, pick a descriptor.

You're IMMERSED even further into an already enjoyable experience... I'd watch damn near everything besides the nightly news in 3D if I could.

Thats cool....just not my thing i guess. The gimmick wears off about 10-15 minutes in for me.

Id rather save my money. Plus, i wear glasses and wearing the 3D glasses on top of my normal pair gets uncomfortable at times.

my problem with 3D is that I tend to forget I am even watching in 3D. When that happens I feel like it was a waste of money Avatar is about the only movie that truly never let me forget it was 3D.

To be honest, Cap was only my second 3D movie, but I really don't foresee me getting tired of it, it just looks too damn cool... action scenes, static shots... they all just jump out at you in ways standard viewing doesn't.

In the near future almost all movies are 3D I'd bet, personally I will gladly pay a few extra bucks to watch most movies in it.

Sure, the big budget action movies. But who needs to see "12 years a slave" or "Argo" in 3D?

Like I said, a good movie is still good without it... but its even better with 3D, I love it, I will bet any casino money, sig etc that we will soon see movies you wouldn't traditionally associate with needing it, using it.

IMO either one of those would be even better with 3D... vhs tapes look good enough on a decent tv, it wont stop you from enjoying a good movie... so why are people increasingly going for blu-ray dvd?

Because it just looks much better, that's why.

My experience with 3D is that most movies aren't shot in it, but rather converted to it later on, and that makes it just fuzzy and dim. It's not really worth having a few shots of shattering glass or a thrown knife coming FLYIN' AT YA.

LMAO whatever all you too cool to enjoy it "snobs".

In any other facet of your lives, you'd upgrade if you could do it cheaply... movies are no different IMO, the richer my experience the more I'm entertained.

But the movies that ARE shot in 3D are amazing.

I have a 3D projector at home, and I enjoy it more at home than I do in the theater. That has mainly to do with the glasses, which can view the screen from any angle, even laying down. Can't do that in a theater with those passive glasses. The ones I have at home also don't hurt your eyes because they don't make you go crosseyed to get the 3D effect.

I will definitely be purchasing Cap 2 in 3D. I only own like 3 other ones in 3D, mostly because many of them just aren't worth it. This one definitely is, as was the first Avengers.

3D is worth it due to the action shots and the helicarriers.

Why does that make anyone snobs. What a dim approach. Some people just don't see the point of it. Its an opinion. The only movie I feel that used 3D well is Avatar. Gravity would be the next best one but I hate, hate, hate paying premium prices for 90 minutes movies.

to be honest, I would probably watch more 3D movies IF Topeka priced them like KC does. We get kind of screwed here. No early shows at reduced prices. You know, the 10am showing that only costs 6 bucks for regular or 9 bucks for 3D. Not to mention much smaller screens here as well.

"Avatar", "The Avengers", and "Gravity" were all much better in IMAX 3D. I think "Godzilla" will also be a must-see.

I put snobs in quotes to denote that I was using it jokingly, not in a mean way.

You dont count. You have a vested interest in encouraging the public to pay extra for 3D. : )

I saw it in 3D. I thought the 3D was good, but I would have been okay with no 3D. A friend of mine took me for my birthday...and he wanted 3D. Saw it at Ward Parkway with the comfy recliiners..very nice.

Movie was awesome.

Holy. ****ing. Awesome.

Just now remembered my only real gripe with this movie... he REALLY put that ultra sensitive, the whole shebang hinges on it piece of evidence in a candy machine?

I thought the same thing. LMAO Anybody with $4 could get evidence and 3 packs of bubble gum.

Makes you wonder where Black Widow keeps that much change.

Yeah, it just made absolutely no sense at all... oh well, atleast Scarlett had his back.

I'd like to find out...

:thumb:

Just saw it today.

I'll agree with Nazi Truman Capote being stupid as well as useless. Other than that I think this is probably only 2nd to the Avengers as far as the marvel movies. Cap is finally the same badass he is in the comix and put a lot of effort in to making this an A list film.

While IM3 pissed me off Cap surprised and entertained.

And Hawkeye is all about SHIELD. Leaving him out, or at least not explaining where he was, was silly.

Oh, and when the Hydra guy lists the two "other targets" I went full nerd-rection.

A lot of people want to see him. If he's not the most prominent Marvel character who has not yet appeared in the movies, he's in the top three.

I'd love a Depp or Hugh Laurie in that role...

Dear God, not Johnny Depp.

I'd rather Viggo Mortensen, Daniel Day-Lewis, or even Benedict "I'm In Everything" Cumberbatch.

No, Depp needs to stay away from anything comics..

The role is made for Liam..

But I would be fine with Orlando or Cusack.

There was a rumor a while ago that they already signed Jon Hamm to play Dr. Strange, but it's been so long that I'd think more about it would have come out if it was true. I like the idea though.

And about Hawkeye, maybe he quit SHIELD after New York or something. I know it's unlikely, but personally I'd love to see an adaptation of the recent Hawkeye solo comic as a miniseries on Netflix.

ewwwww.

I really want to say Andrew Lincoln would make an awesome Strange, but I've only seen him play small town cop.

Hugh Laurie...Wow.

That could be cool.

I was watching Love Actually the other night (british rom-com from 2003) and was surprised to see a much younger-looking him onscreen quite a bit.

There seems to be quite the debate raging on whether they will dumb down Dr. Strange and change his biggest source of power away from the "dark arts" which will be very taboo.
With all of the stand alone movies basically being a different genre, I'm hoping DS will stick to his roots and be a spooky mysticism film.

Bro. Seriously, bro.

Finally saw it and thought it was very good.

Cap was a badass, Winter Soldier maybe even moreso, and Falcon was pretty cool too.

I haven't asked this yet because I figured someone else already would have... but in the closing credits, it shows a guy who sure LOOKS to be Sam Jackson, walk into a shipping container loaded with gear...

It then shows what appears to be white skin on the back of the neck beneath what appears to be a black mask just as the character rips it off while facing the other way.

Have I missed a post or am I the only one to have noticed this?

It's called Arrow, and it's on the CW.

Not really. The Hawkeye comic is very street level, and is more about what Hawkeye does when he's not being Hawkeye. The writer has said his basic idea for the series was Hawkeye as Jim Rockford.

Tell me you at least have Tron Legacy in 3D for your at home collection.

I've been wondering with the appearance of Crossbones (and Sharon Carter) if they're going to go the death of captain america route in the next couple of films. It'll give them an easy out or a way to find a replacement as Chris Evans approaches 40 (or gets uber expensive contractually, the cheap bastards).

Can't wait to see A Walk In The Woods. Maybe Gary Busey will play Katz.

Not too excited for this.

They could just use it as a way to move the Winter Solider over into the role of the new Captain America.

I was under the impression that Evans was locked into a VERY high number picture deal when first offered the part.
I'm talking over 10 pictures. There will be no repeats of Downey - whose made sums in rival of the wealth of entire small nations.

Going forward they know they have the leverage and will simply find someone else if actors try making demands due to their appeal.
Anyone hear from Terrace Howard lately? His Q rating went down faster than a junkie sloot on some guy holding her next fix.

Not yet. It's on my list to get. I just never think about it until it's too late.

Regarding who is from a certain state:

Good point.

Evans was signed for six pictures (he's three movies into it), Stan was signed for nine (he's two into that one).

That information may or may not reveal where they intend to go with the Cap storyline.

Gotcha. It's a shame if Evans gets bounced. I think he's done well a Cap. He's not going to be back for F4 reboot as far as I've heard everyone will be recast for whenever they get around to shooting a new one.

One of those could be a Black Widow movie. They seem to be really working on the relationship between Black Widow and Winter Soldier in the comics. This cover is for July:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/...2013008cvr.jpg

It's already been cast. Johnny Storm is going to be played by Michael B. Jordan, which caused somewhat of an uproar a couple months back.

I thought they announced it but wasn't sure. I'm not following it much till I see a trailer that doesn't look like dogshit.

From everything I'm seeing, it looks like it's going to be dogshit.

Until Marvel gets everyone back, all the standalone movies by other studios will be garbage.

Just got out of this movie.. It was excellent, almost as good as Avengers, probably 2nd fave Marvel movie. Really liked it.

Sony isn't looking to give anything back and I believe the contract doesn't have an end date so long as they are commercially active in the franchise. Part of the reason why they quickly greenlit Amazing Spider-Man and fast tracked its release was to avoid the franchise rights reverting back to Marvel.
Now, they're going full boar with the expanded Spidey universe films. Sinister 6 stand alone and Venom movies. At least 1 is confirmed to be released before Spidey 3- maybe 2?

Garfield seems pretty resolute in 3 being his last. I wonder how much the events of 2 and if you know anything about his personal life pushed his decision about remaining with the role?

Just read: Before this year's release, Spider Man has made 3.3 billion - by far Sony's biggest cash cow. That's just for 4 films.

Counterpoint I read that's a good point. Marvel only has a budget and ability to do X number of films on their universe. If he returned in house it would kill any chance they would ever option to make a full feature movie like they are going to for Antman, Dr. Strange, Black Panther, GotGalaxy, etc.

And yet Spider Man 2 will open with 100milly this weekend. that's why Sony won't ever let it go.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sony is confident it'll very likely top a billion by their estimations.

Superman, Batman and Spiderman are probably the top A List of Superheroes. They will always "open" no matter how good or bad the movie.
Posted via Mobile Device

Batman was probably the cream of the crop after the 2nd and 3rd Nolan films. The bar was definitely raised there.

Superman has never been done well on film. I thought the last reboot was the best but what I liked about it is exactly what purist fanboys hated.

I'm a Marvel guy but I was always underwhelmed by the Spidey flicks. I never cared much for Toby's Spidey and it seemed the writing/direction got worse with each flick.

I think the success of Marvel has to do with their goal. Marvel wants to create a universe - it seems like DC wants to make movies that make money...

Yea pretty much.

That's the difference between a huge conglomerate like WB and Marvel. Marvel was basically an independent film company before Disney took them over. Hopefully the Disney oversight doesn't hurt their product, but so far it hasn't.
Posted via Mobile Device

So far, I'd say it's done nothing but enhance it. Disney gets Marvel, and Agents of Shield is on ABC and ties in brilliantly with the newest movies being released.

Meanwhile, the ****ing WB gets ****ing Green Arrow and a Batman-less Batman series and it has nothing to do with anything more than itself.

There've been discussions about tying the TV series in with Justice League. Doubt they go anywhere, but they have had them.

They should. Part of the cool aspect of Agents is that Coulson is the star. Not some rando you've never seen before.

My main problem with the Spiderman films is that they always try to include multiple villains in each movie. It always ends up watered down and rushed.

That is my biggest gripe about most superhero movies.

This latest Spider Man I felt like each of the villains barely had much screen time. I liked it but upon reflection it was something when you mentioned it- but we already knew Rhino had more of a cameo from the interviews, and I assumed you'd see mostly Harry before the transformation for this film. ill I'll have to see it again, but Foxx sure seems like he had a light filming schedule unless they edited a lot of scenes of his out?