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

[LaxScrutiny]

Yminale wrote:

---

Eventually yes but the point is he can always be brought in later. As for Leader and Strategist, you have Nick Fury.

Ummm, you don't see the irony in complaining that Captain America wasn't a founder, and then suggesting Nick Fury covers the role?

As for Moral Compass, Iron Man and Thor have decent working compass so you don't need a shinning light like Cap right now.

Tony Stark, as depicted in the films, is a narcissist. As depicted in the comics, he's lately been well written and interesting, but hardly with a clear moral compass.

Thor's moral compass was first born in his movie, his lack of one was why Odin banished him. Whether it's fully matured is open to debate.

[CaptainCanada]

Yminale wrote:

---

My only criticism is that there should be 3 movies of Cap fighting in WWII instead of one. Honestly Cap didn't help found the Avengers in the comic book so why the rush to have him join.

Exploring the "man out of time" angle is one of the most important parts of his character; no way would it make sense to do three movies in World War II.

[Yminale]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

Its in what they published. When they show the statue of the Avengers founders in comics Cap is usually front and center. Think of Avengers 1-4 as an origin arc if you must.

Well you can make up any lame excuse you want but it states explicitly that Avengers was founded in issue #1 and Cap is not there.

I think they'll figure it out. There's a time gap between Cap's rescue of the Howlers and his being frozen. Most folks will not care that he was shown waking up in the present at the end of CA: TFA. That kind of thinking is the province of nitpickers, who are not the bulk of any movies' audience.

The problem is the next movie Cap is shown is The Avengers not Cap 2 so even if you decide to do a period piece people will still notice it. People are dumb but not that dumb.

[Gov Kodos]

Yminale wrote:

---

Well you can make up any lame excuse you want but it states explicitly that Avengers was founded in issue #1 and Cap is not there.

The problem is the next movie Cap is shown is The Avengers not Cap 2 so even if you decide to do a period piece people will still notice it. People are dumb but not that dumb.

There's no reason for the general audience to notice or care about either of these points. The movie says Cap is 'The First Avenger' that's all they'll care about- Cap, Ironman and Thor and whomever else they cast will be the founding Avengers.

[lurok]

First superhero movie enjoyed since IM. Nice pacing and balance of humour and action, great production design. They should make all future tyro directors watch this before they let them loose on set.

[Yminale]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Tony Stark as a moral compass? Did you watch the two "Iron Man" movies Yminale?

Yes there was the whole character arc about Tony learning to be a better person. Honestly Marvel isn't going to expose the characters to huge moral conundrum like Civil War where you need Cap's clear eyed view of things.

Anyways having THREE Captain America period piece films would be fine theoretically but I very much doubt you would be able to hold your audience through all three of those films.

You've got to be kidding me. WWII lasted 4 yrs for the US. You seriously think you can't find plots for 3 movies over those 4 years. Mind you, Band of Brothers had 10 75 minute episodes and that's a real unit in ONE theater of the war. Cap served in both theaters. Plus he was running around with the original Human Torch and the Sub-mariner.

You could maybe get away with doing two period piece films before they got bored.

Wow you must find the original trilogy of Star Wars boring because it's one group of rebels fighting in one war.

You need Captain America in your first "Avengers" film no matter what publication history and continuity dictate in 616.

No ones has given me a good reason outside of "we want to see him there". He can still be in the Avengers but just not in the first one. Cap has such a rich back story before the Avengers, it's a shame not to explore it.

[Yminale]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

Exploring the "man out of time" angle is one of the most important parts of his character; no way would it make sense to do three movies in World War II.

First Cap has a rich back story before Avengers. Just because it's relatively unknown doesn't mean it isn't important.

Second how much exploring the "man out of time" angle is going to be done in an ensemble piece like The Avengers (plus it's funnier and more effective when it was done with Thor).

Third original Cap (not Ultimate Cap) was always shown to be ahead of the curve (plus he was exposed to all that super Nazis science) he's not going to be a total fish out water.

[Admiral_Young]

I never said that you couldn't find plots for three World War II films. Comparing a trilogy to a mini-series like Band of Brothers doesn't work in this case. A television series has a lot more latitude for plot points and character development. You are on a tight leash (for lack of a better term) with the structure of a feature film.

Secondly you are factoring in the comics way too much with your argument. We all know that film adaptions restrain themselves with how much source material they are able to use for the reasons I stated above: plot points, time restraints, etc.

Thirdly, I love the Star Wars trilogy and that is not the same thing as what Marvel Studios is doing and you know it.

I don't know why you bring up Civil War with your argument about Tony. They're introducing the character the start of his career as Iron Man. This has nothing to do with Marvel not wanting to explore the issues that Civil War explored. I don't get what you were trying to say.

Overall having three Captain America movies in theory sounds like a good idea but for the strategy that Marvel Studios has employed with launching their single shared film continuity that culminates with the "Avengers" is just not practical. They want Cap for their film. Dismissing what Marvel wants is not a logical reason for arguing that they should have gone with a trilogy before introducing him in "Avengers 2" or whatever.

[Yminale]

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

There's no reason for the general audience to notice or care about either of these points. The movie says Cap is 'The First Avenger' that's all they'll care about- Cap, Ironman and Thor and whomever else they cast will be the founding Avengers.

"First" implies he was active before everybody else which is true.

Second I doubt most people know who the Avengers are and their back story. Outside of Marvel's marketing, there was no expectation that Cap be in the Avengers.

[Gov Kodos]

Yminale wrote:

---

"First" implies he was active before everybody else which is true.

Second I doubt most people know who the Avengers are and their back story. Outside of Marvel's marketing, there was no expectation that Cap be in the Avengers.

Nor any expectation that he wouldn't. It's Marvel's playground, so unless you've got the money to buy Marvel from Disney or both together he's going to be a founding member of the Avengers.

[Yminale]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

A television series has a lot more latitude for plot points and character development. You are on a tight leash (for lack of a better term) with the structure of a feature film.

Cap is a comic book hero. You have nothing but latitude. I mean you can literally have Cap going to the Moon to fight the Evil Nazis Gerbil and his flatulence ray. As for character development, that's the whole point. It was rushed in the movie and very little will be done in The Avengers.

Secondly you are factoring in the comics way too much with your argument. We all know that film adaptions restrain themselves with how much source material they are able to use for the reasons I stated above: plot points, time restraints, etc.

I'm just using the comics to shows that it was done differently and there was no ill effects.

I don't know why you bring up Civil War with your argument about Tony.

My point is that Tony and Thor are more than capable of discerning Right and Wrong at this point with the basic plot Marvel has set up. Cap is really important when there is moral ambiguity (you know Civil War) and I doubt Marvel will ever get that far.

Dismissing what Marvel wants is not a logical reason for arguing that they should have gone with a trilogy before introducing him in "Avengers 2" or whatever.

But one can criticize Marvel for missing a golden opportunity. Like I said, their plan for Avengers was just too inflexible. I think Cap (and you can also apply this to Thor) would benefit from the extra development a sequel can bring.

[Vendikarr]

Yminale wrote:

---

You could argue that Cap help make the Avengers popular but making him a founder is just wrong. He was not in issue #1. By your logic that would make Abraham Lincoln a Founding Father. Also the Hulk leaves after the first issue, which also by your logic means he shouldn't even be in the Avengers.

You can still have Cap in a later Avengers movie but the point is more Cap movies set in WWII which I think would be better than him in the Avengers. I'm beginning to agree with people that Marvel is being too strict with their plans for the Avengers. They could easily wait and have a few more sequels for Iron Man, Cap and Thor and maybe bring in Ant man and Wasp. No one is exactly screaming out for an Avengers movie RIGHT NOW.

Well it's a good thing that these movies are only based on the comics, and aren't required to follow them to the letter. Changes get made for movies all the time. This is a change I agree with. The Avengers without Cap is like your morning cereal without milk.

And perhaps in the movie it will be shown that the Avengers have been on one or two missions before Cap shows up, and they were disasters. It's not like Nick Fury was waiting 70 years in the event Captain America could show up.

[Yminale]

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

Nor any expectation that he wouldn't. It's Marvel's playground,

So what ?! That doesn't make them immune to criticism. I wouldn't be surprised that some in Marvel are face palming right now since they may have a lost another franchise like Spider-man.

[Gov Kodos]

Yminale wrote:

---

So what ?! That doesn't make them immune to criticism. I wouldn't be surprised that some in Marvel are face palming right now since they may have a lost another franchise like Spider-man.

You say that like they couldn't do another movie. Fortunately, they can.

[CaptainCanada]

Yminale wrote:

---

First Cap has a rich back story before Avengers. Just because it's relatively unknown doesn't mean it isn't important.

Hence, why it got a full movie before putting him in the the modern day, where 50+ years of his stories have been primarily set.

Second how much exploring the "man out of time" angle is going to be done in an ensemble piece like The Avengers

Probably not a huge amount; hence, why Cap sequels will be very useful for that.