Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, DVD - Page 12

davejames · July 25 2011, 05:43 PM

Valar wrote:

Actually Johnston, the director, stated that cap takes place over a three year period of WW2 , so it takes a few months to get steve rogers geared up into cap mode, and then the montage covers a few years of time, then the finale.

I wish the movie did a better job getting that idea across. Because at the most, it felt like the montage covered maybe a few months, not years.

Especially considering that Rogers doesn't seem all that terribly different or more mature from when he started.

Captain Craig · July 25 2011, 06:41 PM

^^^^
Agreed. Perhaps one of those "calendar flipping" moments that also would've fit with the time period. Something that showed a more obvious amount of time passing. I think we all agree some weeks if not months passed. But years?

Stone_Cold_Sisko · July 25 2011, 07:35 PM

I saw the movie this weekend. It was fun, entertaining, and ultimately forgettable.

These Marvel movies aren't very ambitious are they?

Creatively, I mean, not in terms of setting up a franchise (Avengers, which is pretty ambitious).

Thor was the same way. Fun movie, entertaining enough, barely memorable a few days later.

It's fun to see these guys on the big screen, and it's nice not to have sh-t movies, but it's kind of hard to 'go crazy' over movies that feel so generic and "lightweight".

Tyberius · July 25 2011, 07:49 PM

FPAlpha wrote:

...good thing they opted not to include Fury since that would have been very odd in that reality...

You know, I thought they would, and still hope that they do, reveal Gabe to be Fury.

flemm · July 25 2011, 07:55 PM

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

It's fun to see these guys on the big screen, and it's nice not to have sh-t movies, but it's kind of hard to 'go crazy' over movies that feel so generic and "lightweight".

I basically agree with this assessment. These are solid, entertaining movies, and I'm cool with that. They aren't amazing, though.

Marvel studios will have to raise the bar for Avengers in order for that film to not seem underwhelming, and I'm sure they know that.

It will interesting to see where the studio goes from there, however, in movies like IM3, Thor 2 and Cap 2, whether it's more of the same, or whether they try to be a bit more ambitious creatively within each individual film.

Captain Craig · July 25 2011, 08:50 PM

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

I saw the movie this weekend. It was fun, entertaining, and ultimately forgettable.

These Marvel movies aren't very ambitious are they?

To each is own.
I can't quote a single line from Inception, Avatar, Black Swan, Kings Speech or No Country for Old Men(all movies I've seen). Movies that I guess are seen as ambitious by some. However, I can Marvel Movies/comic book films.

CaptainCanada · July 25 2011, 09:03 PM

flemm wrote:

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

It's fun to see these guys on the big screen, and it's nice not to have sh-t movies, but it's kind of hard to 'go crazy' over movies that feel so generic and "lightweight".

I basically agree with this assessment. These are solid, entertaining movies, and I'm cool with that. They aren't amazing, though.

Marvel studios will have to raise the bar for Avengers in order for that film to not seem underwhelming, and I'm sure they know that.

It will interesting to see where the studio goes from there, however, in movies like IM3, Thor 2 and Cap 2, whether it's more of the same, or whether they try to be a bit more ambitious creatively within each individual film.

I think Marvel Studios is trying to establish a consistent brand for its films; they're all fairly similar in feel, they've got good casts, good focus on their main characters, generally solid production values. Of course, the Avengers franchise concept is a fairly risky creative endeavour on its own, so I can see why they're adopting this approach.

davejames · July 25 2011, 09:15 PM

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

These Marvel movies aren't very ambitious are they?

I agree a lot of these Marvel movies HAVE felt a bit bland and safe, but I thought Captain America was a few steps higher in quality than those.

It's no great work of art, but it's the first one since Iron Man that felt to me like it could have stood on it's OWN, without being part of some larger universe.

The Wormhole · July 25 2011, 10:47 PM

I'll agree with many of the above sentiments, a solid, entertaining and enjoyable movie. Definately helps an afternoon go by, but not really very memorable. Although there were a lot of great one-liners, especially from Tommy Lee Jones. Also, I thought they did a pretty good job with making Howard Stark resemble Robert Downey Jr enough that you would almost think the actors are related. Nick Fury's cameo was also fun.

I thought it kind of cool that Red Skull had a mixture of 1940s tech (particular his digital clocks) and modern day. Sepia-toned CCTV is also kind of neat.

One thing troubling me, so this drug turns Steve Rogers from scrawny tigman into buff and muscular Captain America, but where does he get the training to do ahlf the stuff he does. Fighting is not as easy as it looks, and if you're used to having your ass handed to you all the time, you aren't going to suddenly be able to beat a trained enemy soldier just because you've suddenly grown muscles. Likewise, riding a zipline and jumping onto a moving train takes a lot of skill. Do we seriously believe that a nobody who has done nothing physical in his life is going to know how to do that after magically obtaining muscles?

I know, it's a silly thing to nitpick, and probably not the movie's fault. This could easily have been something from the comics that's just been made part of the movie. But it bothered me all the same.

od0_ital · July 25 2011, 10:51 PM

^

Steve was in basic trainin' as part of the program before gettin' the treatment to become Captain America. He wasn't very good at it, obviously, but he was still there.

The Wormhole · July 25 2011, 11:23 PM

od0_ital wrote:

^

Steve was in basic trainin' as part of the program before gettin' the treatment to become Captain America. He wasn't very good at it, obviously, but he was still there.

I was under the impression that he basically failed basic training and would have been discharged had he not been The One. Therefore, his capabilities should be questionable.

But even so, it takes time to develop the skills he had after becoming Captain America. Just because you've instantly grown muscles doesn't instantly make you an asskicking invincible unstoppable force.

Yeah, I know, realism and movies isn't a good mix, but still.

od0_ital · July 25 2011, 11:24 PM

^

He was failin' - he hadn't failed.

davejames · July 25 2011, 11:29 PM

Well I think we're meant to believe that somewhere in that 3-year montage, he got the extra training he needed.

I agree it would have been nice to see that on screen though.

Trevacious · July 25 2011, 11:34 PM

The Wormhole wrote:

I know, it's a silly thing to nitpick, and probably not the movie's fault. This could easily have been something from the comics that's just been made part of the movie. But it bothered me all the same.

In the comics, after he got his new body, Steve underwent extensive training in all forms of hand to hand combat and military tactics.

The problem for the movie's story there is that they initially didn't wanna use him as a soldier in the field. That changed only after the successful rescue of Bucky and the rest. After lucking out on that one, then I could imagine them having him back in training to expand his skills if he was gonna be a full-time field agent.

But I just filled in the blank and gave the movie a break there. They did point out that his brain seems to be enhanced as well as his body, so I could presume he would've picked up on these things very quickly.

LaxScrutiny · July 26 2011, 01:42 AM

Basic training during WWII was 10 weeks. However it involved a lot of rifle cleaning, marching and running that Steve wouldn't have needed.

Read about Camp X, the training camp for OSS (pre CIA) agents, training there was 1 month in duration. Ian Flemming was trained there and it's claimed he based James Bond on Sir William Stephenson whom he met there.

The scene in the movie where Steve is designing his uniform from Howard's carbon fibre and getting the vibranium shield, we can presume that there was few weeks there of preparation where he could be trained, possibly by Peggy.

Let's also not forget Steve was always a scrapper, he got beat up because he didn't have the muscle to back up his moves, that doesn't mean he didn't pick up any experience.

However I agree, overall a glimpse or a reference to him getting some hand-to-hand training would have been nice, and taken about 12 seconds.

View Poll Results: How do you rate Captain America: The First Avenger?
A+	34	19.21%
A	51	28.81%
A-	34	19.21%
B+	27	15.25%
B	15	8.47%
B-	5	2.82%
C+	5	2.82%
C	4	2.26%
C-	1	0.56%
D+	0	0%
D	0	0%
D-	0	0%
F	1	0.56%
Voters: 177. You may not vote on this poll

July 25 2011, 06:41 PM	#167
Captain Craig Vice Admiral Location: Nashville,TN	Re: Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, ^^^^ Agreed. Perhaps one of those "calendar flipping" moments that also would've fit with the time period. Something that showed a more obvious amount of time passing. I think we all agree some weeks if not months passed. But years? __________________ "Picard never hit me." Q-Less(DS9) "Freedom is the Right of All Sentient Beings" Optimus Prime Twitter:http://twitter.com/#!/CaptainCraig1

July 25 2011, 07:35 PM	#168
Stone_Cold_Sisko Vice Admiral	Re: Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, I saw the movie this weekend. It was fun, entertaining, and ultimately forgettable. These Marvel movies aren't very ambitious are they? Creatively, I mean, not in terms of setting up a franchise (Avengers, which is pretty ambitious). Thor was the same way. Fun movie, entertaining enough, barely memorable a few days later. It's fun to see these guys on the big screen, and it's nice not to have sh-t movies, but it's kind of hard to 'go crazy' over movies that feel so generic and "lightweight".

July 25 2011, 10:47 PM	#174
The Wormhole Admiral	Re: Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, I'll agree with many of the above sentiments, a solid, entertaining and enjoyable movie. Definately helps an afternoon go by, but not really very memorable. Although there were a lot of great one-liners, especially from Tommy Lee Jones. Also, I thought they did a pretty good job with making Howard Stark resemble Robert Downey Jr enough that you would almost think the actors are related. Nick Fury's cameo was also fun. I thought it kind of cool that Red Skull had a mixture of 1940s tech (particular his digital clocks) and modern day. Sepia-toned CCTV is also kind of neat. One thing troubling me, so this drug turns Steve Rogers from scrawny tigman into buff and muscular Captain America, but where does he get the training to do ahlf the stuff he does. Fighting is not as easy as it looks, and if you're used to having your ass handed to you all the time, you aren't going to suddenly be able to beat a trained enemy soldier just because you've suddenly grown muscles. Likewise, riding a zipline and jumping onto a moving train takes a lot of skill. Do we seriously believe that a nobody who has done nothing physical in his life is going to know how to do that after magically obtaining muscles? I know, it's a silly thing to nitpick, and probably not the movie's fault. This could easily have been something from the comics that's just been made part of the movie. But it bothered me all the same. __________________ "Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.

July 25 2011, 10:51 PM	#175
od0_ital Admiral Location: Austin, Texas	Re: Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, ^ Steve was in basic trainin' as part of the program before gettin' the treatment to become Captain America. He wasn't very good at it, obviously, but he was still there. __________________ od0's bucket od0's facebook

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

July 25 2011, 11:24 PM	#177
od0_ital Admiral Location: Austin, Texas	Re: Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, ^ He was failin' - he hadn't failed. __________________ od0's bucket od0's facebook

July 25 2011, 11:29 PM	#178
davejames Vice Admiral Location: Sac, Ca	Re: Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, Well I think we're meant to believe that somewhere in that 3-year montage, he got the extra training he needed. I agree it would have been nice to see that on screen though.

July 26 2011, 01:42 AM	#180
LaxScrutiny Commodore Location: Toronto, Canada	Re: Captain America: The First Avenger-Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, Basic training during WWII was 10 weeks. However it involved a lot of rifle cleaning, marching and running that Steve wouldn't have needed. Read about Camp X, the training camp for OSS (pre CIA) agents, training there was 1 month in duration. Ian Flemming was trained there and it's claimed he based James Bond on Sir William Stephenson whom he met there. The scene in the movie where Steve is designing his uniform from Howard's carbon fibre and getting the vibranium shield, we can presume that there was few weeks there of preparation where he could be trained, possibly by Peggy. Let's also not forget Steve was always a scrapper, he got beat up because he didn't have the muscle to back up his moves, that doesn't mean he didn't pick up any experience. However I agree, overall a glimpse or a reference to him getting some hand-to-hand training would have been nice, and taken about 12 seconds.