And they didn’t have him magically become toned again at the end–he was finally comfortable with himself in an honest way, which has been his whole arc. I heard someone else mention that he ends up, physically, looking more like his father Odin and I think that may have been intentional also.
(I’m assuming we’re beyond spoiler tags by now–anyone barging into this thread without seeing the film only has themselves to blame.)
I know what is wrong with this movie. I know.
I haven’t yet seen it, I will, sometime…
But the problem, I know what it is.
It’s Josh Brolin.
There it is you people… problem solved, no need for further discussion.
The STUDIO doesn’t care, but if we are framing things in terms of “records”, you can’t compare this years’ movies to last years’ movies if tickets cost a dollar more every year. Not to mention movies from 10, 20, 50 years ago. A “record” makes no sense if the meterstick you are using to measure it changes length. It’s obvious that what people INTEND the record to mean is a proxy for popularity, and the dollar figure is a bad measure of that.
How many people go to see it is the only reasonable measure of success that makes sense as a “record” that compares movies across many years, which is what a “record” means.
So I guess record profits, positive critical and moviegoer reception, and stories that movie theaters can barely handle the customer traffic aren’t an indicator that lots and lots of people are seeing this and enjoying it? I don’t get why you’re so angry about this.
There are also more people alive today than there were 50 years ago, so does that mean we also need to factor in population growth when we talk about “record ticket sales?” Or do we just take it on faith that people are smart enough to understand inflation exists?
Let’s not forget actual data showing record ticket sales, posted above. The movie’s sold a butt-ton of tickets and made a butt-ton of money by any metric.
Roger that.
Especially in this day and age, when there are so many other non-trivial real life detrimental issues that one can be rightfully enraged about.
I think that’s that’s actually a bit of the root cause (maybe not for @doctordave in particular, but like in a broad sense). So much of our daily life is saturated with anger that it has become difficult for a lot of people to direct all of it. I’ve seen with almost all of my favorite fandoms an up tick in the vitriol. It’s like the world is on fire, and that’s way too much, but being angry about comic book movies is a manageable release value.
That’s a good point; there certainly is a massive surplus of animosity and negativity in play that’s affecting so many aspects of human interaction.
Still, whenever I see such outrageous hyperbole, I cannot help but mock it.
In another sign of how apparently baffling it is to the old guard to conceive of the massiveness of 22 well-reviewed Oscar-winning interconnected blockbuster films leading up to a multi-billion-dollar-earing six-hour finale, we have this essay by the editor of RogerEbert dot com, which tries to draw a wobbly-handed line between “content” and “cinema”, declaring that the Marvel films aren’t actually movies at all but basically just television shows on the big screen, and determining that the massive critical and financial success of Endgame means that “cinema” is dead. It’s some seriously get-off-my-lawn discourse.
Curmudgeons forget that the biggest hits of Hollywood’s “Golden Age” were similarly big-budget adaptations of already-popular branded content. 1939’s The Wizard of Oz was just the latest film adaptation of a story that had already been a bestselling series of books which in turn had been adapted into stage musicals.
Oh, i did. Enjoyed it immensely, i just think it’s fair to criticise it’s lack of consistency.
Do you mean the just stones just magically fly off to wherever they were once he’s in the correct time? Well i guess because why not, right?
Oh and i didn’t realise you couldn’t quote spoilers, that makes it awkward.
Don’t forget that it was also the second remake, following the 1910 and 1925 films. That’s approaching Spider-Man reboot frequency.
My main issue is with two Steve Rogers existing in the same timeline for 70+ years; in all that time, Cap2023 never once slipped up, never made a single mistake, never inadvertently changed anything that was definitely supposed to happen, ie, Fixed Points in time?
I mean I’m happy for Steve and all, but I just find that whole scenario really implausible.
That is my second biggest gripe. I’ve detailed my first one already.
But the very idea that Captain america would sit on the sidelines and do nothing is simply put so antithetical to his character I find it beyond impossible.
It’s fine as a final nod to this version and give a happy ending. I just don’t like it.
Spider-Man: There’s No Place Like Home
Yeah, i don’t like the idea that steve would sit back knowing bucky is being tortured and shield has been infiltrated by hydra and a bunch of other things, that’s just not the steve i know from the films. Unless of course he lived in the alt timeline he created by going back, prevented all these things from happening and with hank pym’s tech in this glorious, peaceful new timeline jumped over to the original timeline to give his shield to sam. Any writers thinking of doing time travel plots… just don’t.
There’s that, for sure.
But even more likely is Steve2023 accidentally slipping up and saying or doing something that changes the future, regardless to all the timey-whimey hand waving away they did that ‘this is all okay’ because they used the quantum realm.
Steve2023 still got revived in 2011, and has lived in our present reality for 12 years.
He possesses knowledge of the future that no one else in 1945 has. And even more than that, despite all the super serum powers and being worthy to wield Mjolnir, Steve Rogers is still human… and therefore, fallible; and prone to fuck up at some point.
Are spoilers now fair game without being blurred? Would make things easier!
