Avengers Costume Redesigns (Particularly Captain America)

[Crimson King]

There was the battle between the haters of classic costume elements and the common sensical people. And the haters that like the Ultimates costume trash.

I love how people you agree with are the common sense people.

I'm with PW though. It wasn't a battle. I was involved in at least one of those drawn-out discussions and it wasn't as acrimonious as you're making it out. We actually ended up agreeing in principle at the end.

[Wade Garrett]

There was the battle between the haters of classic costume elements and the common sensical people. And the haters that like the Ultimates costume trash.

Wouldn't they be considered likers then?:hehe:

[TheVileOne]

No because they like something that is horrible.

The fact of the matter is this. No wings and we riot.

[Whiskey Tango]

Seems like the argument was more "Wings are fine if they can make them work without looking fruity" than "nobody wants those stupid wings anywhere near live action"

but don't let silly things like the facts get in your way

[TheVileOne]

No people said the wings were stupid and shouldn't be anywhere near live action and the costume should be more like his Ultimates duds.

I think the poster image validates my claims. Exposed ears, wings, and mask = w1n.

[Whiskey Tango]

No people said the wings were stupid and shouldn't be anywhere near live action

Since the wings on the Avengers suit aren't actually little wings like in the comics it looks to me like they still aren't anywhere near live action. Just like the pirate boots. Compromises.

and the costume should be more like his Ultimates duds.

Looks like a mix to me, albeit weighted in 616's direction. Everybody wins!

I think the poster image validates my claims. Exposed ears, wings, and mask = w1n.

I think it's all in your hugely oversized head.

[JB-the-Hunter]

The ultimates costume is pretty much the same as 616. The only big difference is the absence of wings, and maybe the shoulder stars.

[Saint]

I really like that white chevron/badge on Cap's shoulder, I think that's a cool touch.

[peterparker0077]

Do we have any military folks on here? Isn't that Chevron the symbol for "Captain" in certain military branches?

[Spider-Vader]

I'm glad the shoulder stars are gone. I hate those things.

[BrlntDsgse]

There was the battle between the haters of classic costume elements and the common sensical people. And the haters that like the Ultimates costume trash.

Not that I dislike the Avengers movie suit(I think it's great), but the fact is that if you stuck wings on the Ultimate costume it would look closer to the 616 than the movie version(in fact it even looks closer AS IS, without the wings). Don't get me wrong , I DESPISE Ultimate Cap as a character, but his look is a pretty faithful modernizing of the 616 costume, other than the lack of wings.

[wobbly]

Do we have any military folks on here? Isn't that Chevron the symbol for "Captain" in certain military branches?

Afaik the standard symbol/insignia for Captain in the US military is 2 thick vertical bars, joined at the top and bottom by thinner bars.

A single chevron (curved) would be the lowest rank: Pointing up for the Army, and pointing down (but with a star in the middle) for the Air Force.

[TheVileOne]

Haters are simply in denial about the costume debates now.

[Rock Sexton]

Haters are simply in denial about the costume debates now.

We got the wings and that's all that matters. :woot:

[Ryo Jin]

Do we have any military folks on here? Isn't that Chevron the symbol for "Captain" in certain military branches?


You will see Steve Rogers with this rank in the movie. A Captain (O-3) in the Army/Air Force/Marines looks like this:

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa42/REALRyoJin/125px-US-O3_insigniasvg.png

However, a Navy Captain is the equivalent of a Colonel in the Army/Air Force/Marines (O-6). The single chevron he has in the updated outfit means nothing. If it did, it would be one of the lowest enlisted ranks. Single chevron in the Army is a Private (E-2). Officers in the Army (which Captain America is) will always have their shiny ranks on their collars and hats, whereas enlisted ranks have chevrons only on the middle part of their upper arms (traditionally anyway, all kinds of different uniform customs now).

[Whiskey Tango]

Haters are simply in denial about the costume debates now.

Jesus you're a ****ing child.

We got the wings and that's all that matters. :woot:

Headwings don't make a movie but the art for it looks good anyway.

[Parker Wayne]

I love how people you agree with are the common sense people.

I'm with PW though. It wasn't a battle. I was involved in at least one of those drawn-out discussions and it wasn't as acrimonious as you're making it out. We actually ended up agreeing in principle at the end.

Yes, we did. We all wanted the Wings for The Avengers and we all wanted at least stencilled wings for WWII cap. We disagree about one thing and one thing only:

1. Full on 3D wings for Cap in WWII

VileOne, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Rock Sexton]

Headwings don't make a movie but the art for it looks good anyway.

Never said they did. However they're paying a more true homage to the original design and that is why I am ecstatic. Whedon definiteyl earned major respect from me.

[TheVileOne]

I have every idea what I am talking about. Like I said, no wings and we riot.

The people that don't know what they are talking about are the idiots that started the redhead to heaven 2007 campaign in 2004. That wasn't me. That was haters.

[Whiskey Tango]

I have every idea what I am talking about. Like I said, no wings and we riot.

The people that don't know what they are talking about are the idiots that started the redhead to heaven 2007 campaign in 2004. That wasn't me. That was haters.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you drunk?

[TheVileOne]

Haters in denial about the truth on the Hype forums.

[Whiskey Tango]

Never said they did. However they're paying a more true homage to the original design and that is why I am ecstatic.

Which is exactly what a lot of us were saying they'd do once Avengers rolled around. Some of ya'll must have too busy raging against the WWII outfit to notice.

[Whiskey Tango]

Haters in denial about the truth on the Hype forums.

Whatever brah. Carry on.

[wobbly]

Was there a number of posters who argued the wings would look stupid?
I didn't follow all of the discussions so I don't know.

[TheVileOne]

Was there a number of posters who argued the wings would look stupid?
I didn't follow all of the discussions so I don't know.
Yes.

[Whiskey Tango]

Was there a number of posters who argued the wings would look stupid?
I didn't follow all of the discussions so I don't know.

There were some who felt the wings as presented in the comics would look weird and out of place in WW2. Ones painted on the helmet, or even wing-shaped studs like in the new Avengers art were suggested as alternatives.

[Vartha]

Jesus you're a ****ing child.



Headwings don't make a movie but the art for it looks good anyway.
heh I thought of Harry Potter's owl just then but that's Hedwig. lol Same color tho. :D

[wobbly]

There were some who felt the wings as presented in the comics would look weird and out of place in WW2. Ones painted on the helmet, or even wing-shaped studs like in the new Avengers art were suggested as alternatives.

Ah, well I'm the camp that thinks literal versions of comics temple wings would be hard to do well, either in WW2 or now. The embossed look of the new poster art, less like an actual wing like in design and more a stylised logo, is an ideal compromise (imo).
If anyone was saying any form of wings would look stupid then they were over stating their case somewhat.

[Rock Sexton]

Which is exactly what a lot of us were saying they'd do once Avengers rolled around. Some of ya'll must have too busy raging against the WWII outfit to notice.

Because that costume is an eye sore. Just sayin' ....

[peterparker0077]

thanks guys for the info on military rank symbols :)

[Parker Wayne]

There were some who felt the wings as presented in the comics would look weird and out of place in WW2. Ones painted on the helmet, or even wing-shaped studs like in the new Avengers art were suggested as alternatives.

This.

And I, for one, have no idea what Vile One is even saying. I wasn't even around in 2007. :funny:

Because that costume is an eye sore. Just sayin' ....

It's fine for that era but I didn't want it for The Avengers and I knew that was that the concept art was only for WWII. I was the one telling everyone that he would have a different costume when the Avengers roll around

[TheVileOne]

The wings in Avengers clearly aren't painted on. They are raised symbols so they are more than just painted logos. It's like saying the spider emblem on Spider-Man's movie costume was painted. It was like a separate raised piece like his webbing design.

[Quasimod0]

i wouldnt have been upset if he just had a slightly updated suit for the avengers. idk if im in the minority, but i love the first avenger costume

[captainrogers]

i wouldnt have been upset if he just had a slightly updated suit for the avengers. idk if im in the minority, but i love the first avenger costume
As do I.
I was worried at first when I heard the descriptions, but as soon as I saw it, I loved it.
I'm glad they are moving closer to the traditional superhero look for Avengers. Story-wise, it fits for me. Dressed as A 'Super Soldier' in WW2, and looking the part of a SuperHero for a group of them in modern times.

[GoldGoblin]

Black Widow and Hawk Eye are crappy characters compared to Iron Man,Captain America,Hulk,and Thor.They should of used Giant Man and Spider-Man instead.

[Whiskey Tango]

The wings in Avengers clearly aren't painted on. They are raised symbols so they are more than just painted logos. It's like saying the spider emblem on Spider-Man's movie costume was painted. It was like a separate raised piece like his webbing design.

That's why I said 'wing-shaped studs like in the new Avengers art'. Try and keep up, Vile.

[Vartha]

Black Widow and Hawk Eye are crappy characters compared to Iron Man,Captain America,Hulk,and Thor.They should of used Giant Man and Spider-Man instead.
Well this IS the original Avengers Spidey was never in Avengers because back when they started he wanted to be PAID. He approached the FF too. Not to mention SONY still has the Rights
The reason we're not seeing Giant-Man or Wasp is because there's supposed to be an Antman Movie. Marvel decided not to use them until Antman was out.

[Dark Raven]

Spider-Man should never be in an Avengers movie. Nor should Wolverine.

[Spider-Vader]

By the time Marvel gets the Spidey rights back, Spider-Man will hopefully be an Avenger who's been on the team during some iconic stories...aka when Bendis is done with Avengers.

I like the idea of Spidey as an Avenger, but he's done nothing iconic with the team due to Bendis's mediocre writing for Avengers. I think once he's on the team when someone good is writing the series, everyone will accept his presence on the team more. Same goes for Wolverine, but I'd only like him on the team if he wasn't an X-Men at the time.

[TheVileOne]

Hard to keep up with your hating Whiskey Tango.

I'm happy the crew on Avengers aren't as close-minded as the one on First Avenger. And I am happy we will finally see a great Captain America costume on screen.

It also looks like Iron Man has gone back to a circular arc reactor piece.

[Vartha]

Supposed to be two suits of Armour in Avengers Vile :D

[Whiskey Tango]

Hard to keep up with your hating Whiskey Tango

Go away. Stop fabricating conflict where none exists.

[Quasimod0]

Wonder why he stays with the triangle arc and then goes back to the round one

[wobbly]

Wonder why he stays with the triangle arc and then goes back to the round one


The Arc reactor itself always remained round, it's just the new element Tony created is triangular. There's no reason the outer chest plates on the armors has to be one or the other.

[Vartha]

Yeah I couldn't figure that out either unless there was some technical difference it the suit's chest beam that we didn't see.

[WildcatNC]

I think the filmmakers have nailed it on both counts with Caps costume. The one in FA is perfect for the setting and time period.

Like many others I was incredibly confident that they would give him a faithful modern costume for Avengers. Its common sense.

[Van Petrol]

I hope we see more of this...

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee8/saveus_y2j/thorhelmet.jpg

[Parker Wayne]

Meh

[peterparker0077]

I hope they redesign Thor's Helm, the one in the movie was cool, but it did not look on him, which is why I believe they didn't use it that much. They need to tweek it to highlight his features better.

[BrlntDsgse]

I hope we see more of this...

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee8/saveus_y2j/thorhelmet.jpg

Sadly, I wouldn't count on it if I were you. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see it at all in Avengers, or maybe at best one scene, just as in Thor. It's really too bad that we didn't see it at least a little more, like when Thor gets his powers and armor back, the helmet should have been there too, so he could have worn it in AT LEAST the Destroyer battle.

[JB-the-Hunter]

I hope they redesign Thor's Helm, the one in the movie was cool, but it did not look on him, which is why I believe they didn't use it that much. They need to tweek it to highlight his features better.
No need to redesign, it just needs to go lower on his head.

[Ponyboy]

I think the helmet looks great by itself, but it hid too much of Hemsworths face

[BrlntDsgse]

The Arc reactor itself always remained round, it's just the new element Tony created is triangular. There's no reason the outer chest plates on the armors has to be one or the other.

Yeah, I always assumed that the triangular chest beam was strictly a cosmetic, not functional, change by Tony just because of the triangular piece of "element". Speaking of that element, I know it wasn't specifically stated in the movie, but many people were referring to it as Vibranium.....does anyone know if anyone from Marvel Studios ever confirmed that in interviews or anything? Or should we just come up with our own name for it....

Starkium?

Tonium?

Ironium? :woot:

[Van Petrol]

Sadly, I wouldn't count on it if I were you. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see it at all in Avengers, or maybe at best one scene, just as in Thor. It's really too bad that we didn't see it at least a little more, like when Thor gets his powers and armor back, the helmet should have been there too, so he could have worn it in AT LEAST the Destroyer battle.

That's a shame.

[wobbly]

Yeah, I always assumed that the triangular chest beam was strictly a cosmetic, not functional, change by Tony just because of the triangular piece of "element". Speaking of that element, I know it wasn't specifically stated in the movie, but many people were referring to it as Vibranium.....does anyone know if anyone from Marvel Studios ever confirmed that in interviews or anything? Or should we just come up with our own name for it....

Starkium?

Tonium?

Ironium? :woot:

In the novelization they did call Tony's new element Vibranium.

[BrlntDsgse]

In the novelization they did call Tony's new element Vibranium.

Well then, to be honest, I hope they don't verify that in the films, since it would take away a big chunk of Black Panther's mythos if they ever get around to introducing him in the movieverse.

[peterparker0077]

No need to redesign, it just needs to go lower on his head.

I think it needs a redesign. It made his head look very round.. and his face is not round at all, but very square-ish, strong jaw line... the helm needs to compliment this or else it looks silly in my opinion. :)

[uchiha_itachi]

Well then, to be honest, I hope they don't verify that in the films, since it would take away a big chunk of Black Panther's mythos if they ever get around to introducing him in the movieverse.

Not really because Vibranium is in the Captain america film and Howard uses it.

[BrlntDsgse]

Not really because Vibranium is in the Captain america film and Howard uses it.

Yeah, but given Howard's message to Tony in IM2, it seemed that he wanted Tony to create something NEW, that Howard himself knew HOW to do, but lacked the technology/physical means at the time to make happen. Jarvis even tells Tony that he has created a NEW element, not that he has synthesized an already existing one. Of course, as you said, we know that Vibranium is also featured in CA, because of the shield. But I'd have to imagine that means that Howard himself will be shown creating this new element through a one-in-a-million fluke that he can't recreate again, thus passing that work on to Tony via his filmed message to him.

In the comics, Vibranium is an already existing metal, that can only be found in the Panther's home country of Wakanda, due to a large meteor containing it that fell there many thousands of years ago. It is the major reason why Wakanda, even though it is dead smack in the center of the "third world" is so much more technologically advanced than it's neighboring African countries, to the point of being equal to all the industrialized nations of the world. This is a MAJOR part of Black Panther's mythos.

Thus, if in the movie-verse, Vibranium is portrayed as being a NEW element that is created "from scratch", once by Howard, and then many years later by Tony, how can it also be an already existing element?

[chris moore]

The vibranium used in Cap could well have been the only sample ever discovered. And Howard deemed its most appropriate use to be in the making of Cap's shield - much the same as Byron Maclain did when he had a single sample of molten vibranium/steel alloy.

Howard Stark therefore could have tried again and again to create this new substance, but the technology of his time limited him. Tony took it to the next step and actually made vibranium as opposed to discovered a sample of it and tried to make more. It may well exist "extra terrestrially" as an element, and as with Wakandan vibranium, a meteorite hit (though much smaller), and Howard found this to be what he termed vibranium. Having discovered a new element therefore means that Tony created something by changing the nucleus and electron shells of an existing element to create on not currently listed on the periodic table - it is thus deemed a "new element" as far as current science is concerned. Much in the same way radioactive elements are discovered. It is not bound to anything to make it something - the atom itself is altered to create one with a completely different structure to any other "element"

Vibranium is a good crossover substance for both Cap and Tony, as it's energy absorbing properties make it perfect for his shield (adamantium as the oft-mistaken second component to his shield would not get damaged, but he would still be knocked back by explosions hitting it etc, and it would not retain all its kinetic energy after striking something to effectively ricochet back). And for Tony, vibranium being able to absorb the excess energy output of the arc reactor does indeed create a stable substance for him.

[Vartha]

No need to redesign, it just needs to go lower on his head.
I wouldn't even say that. For a Lord Thor look I think the current Helmet looks fine.
I love the Coipel Helmet. It doesn't have that Spike.
The ever so slight edge that comes to a point at the top the way the movie helm does, is fine. I say take Coipel's design and do something similar with the wings as they did with the Lord Thor desgin. Coipel's desgin the wings are smaller on his design.

[Vartha]

Yeah, I always assumed that the triangular chest beam was strictly a cosmetic, not functional, change by Tony just because of the triangular piece of "element". Speaking of that element, I know it wasn't specifically stated in the movie, but many people were referring to it as Vibranium.....does anyone know if anyone from Marvel Studios ever confirmed that in interviews or anything? Or should we just come up with our own name for it....

Starkium?

Tonium?

Ironium? :woot:

Nuclium

[GhostPoet]

I think the helmet looks great by itself, but it hid too much of Hemsworths face

I agree. I thought the helmet looked great...but to be honest, I thought he looked better without it.

[Atomicchuck3k]

Why is Hawkeye aiming at Caps head?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/b8myshlong/Heroes/CapsHead.jpg


:lmao:

[TheVileOne]

So much better than those ugly photoshop painted GL movie costumes.

[Hotwire]

Why is Hawkeye aiming at Caps head?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/b8myshlong/Heroes/CapsHead.jpg


:lmao:

Funny. But this really points out Hulk's nakedness.

[Crimson King]

:dry:

[Vartha]

Funny. But this really points out Hulk's nakedness.
What nekkid? look under Cap's left arm and next to his head. Hulk's wearing purple pants

[Vartha]

Why is Hawkeye aiming at Caps head?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/b8myshlong/Heroes/CapsHead.jpg


:lmao:
....because he's not wearing a mask maybe? looks like he's really trying to focus. :D

[Vartha]

:dry:
indeed :doh:

[Parker Wayne]

There are aestetic errors with The Avengers picture but it's meant to be a masterpieces. This was only for a licensing convention, I should remind some people.

[Hotwire]

What nekkid? look under Cap's left arm and next to his head. Hulk's wearing purple pants

Hulk's abbs stop at Thor's cape. This is where his pants should start. However, between Thor's cape and Hawkeye's body, its all green. You should see his pants here.

[Whiskey Tango]

between Thor's cape and Hawkeye's body, its all green. You should see his pants here.

That's his knee

[Hotwire]

That's his knee

Than its poorly drawn.

[Whiskey Tango]

Than its poorly drawn.

Well I didn't draw the ****ing thing.

Acording to wobbly it's individual pics photoshopped together, here's his explanation - http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=20620725&postcount=204

I cannot believe people over the age of 8 seriously think he's naked. :dry:

[Vartha]

Hulk's abbs stop at Thor's cape. This is where his pants should start. However, between Thor's cape and Hawkeye's body, its all green. You should see his pants here.
it's two different colors and you CAN see where the wrinkles are stressing for the knee and crotch area. what is under Caps left arm isn't Thor's cape.
Both Wobbly and I are artists we know what we're talking about.

[Ponyboy]

Than its poorly drawn.

Well, if we're gonna be ridiculous... I think you meant "Then, it's poorly drawn."

[cryptic name]

Why is Hawkeye aiming at Caps head?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/b8myshlong/Heroes/CapsHead.jpg


:lmao:

Skrull! :wow:

[Vartha]

Skrull! :wow:
....Cap or Hawkeye?

[cryptic name]

....Cap or Hawkeye?

The twist is...both.

[HUMANIMAL]

someone is making a joke that hulk looks like if he is naked and people start seeing this and think it is like that....do i really have to play a certain madonna song to explain what i think about?


i dont even like madonna;-)

[JAK®]

Than its poorly drawn.
No the drawing is fine, the problem is the fans who are crazy enough to think that Marvel is going to put a giant naked man on merchandising for children's toys.

[Brian Braddock]

Had to laugh at the 'poorly drawn' comment; makes you wonder about the level of artistic talent the person who made that comment must have to be able to make such a derisory and dissmissive remark.

I bet the Sistine Chapel is crap and was painted by a hack too?

[samsnee]

It's not poorly drawn, just a little confusing because the musculature of the knee and the abdominal area. I can see it now, but when you first see it, he does look naked.

[Brian Braddock]

So much better than those ugly photoshop painted GL movie costumes.

Which is no doubt the fault of Ryan Reynolds and Ryan Reynolds alone, eh Vile?

[JAK®]

"Ryan Reynolds reminds me of the jocks that beat me up in High School! He sucks!"

[Brian Braddock]

Ha - in a nutshell.

[wobbly]

Just to offer a little more opinion the art...

It is not badly drawn at all, the artist is clearly very talented.

What is though is not put together in the best way possible (and the artist who painted the original figures may not have even been the one putting them together for the 2 team pictures we have seen). That we have seen 2 pics with the figures arranged a little differently does show the figures were all drawn separately, then 'avengers assembled' for the poster afterwards.

Whoever put them together though should have avoided the naked/knee problem. Just move the Hulk over a little to show the right legs upper thigh and we'd have none of the mistaken assumption the Hulk will have his tackle out in the film. They could also have positioned Hawkeye better, so it doesn't look like he is aiming right at the back of Cap's head (I'd have to see the seperate pics but I'd guess just moving Hawkeye to the left hand side by about 20mm would solve both issues).

[JAK®]

Bad composition.

[Hotwire]

Ugh! I don't think Marvel is going to have Hulk run around naked. Although, Abomination did. I'm just saying that the composition makes him look naked. I can see the pant leg under Cap's arm. It's kind of like the cover of Goldeneye.Had to laugh at the 'poorly drawn' comment; makes you wonder about the level of artistic talent the person who made that comment must have to be able to make such a derisory and dissmissive remark.

I bet the Sistine Chapel is crap and was painted by a hack too?
No worse than the people here who bash directors and costume designers.

[Vartha]

How is it a bad comparison?
It's clear to us that the highers res pic is different from the poster that was at Vegas.
I'm sure each Character have been done separately simply for different Product placement.

[Vartha]

Ugh! I don't think Marvel is going to have Hulk run around naked. Although, Abomination did. I'm just saying that the composition makes him look naked. I can see the pant leg under Cap's arm. It's kind of like the cover of Goldeneye.
No worse than the people here who bash directors and costume designers.
I haven't bashed anyone HW.
But yes, they could have placed each character just a bit differently.



Edit: I have bashed Critics but that's not related to this convo. lol

[sgaana]

Just to offer a little more opinion the art...

It is not badly drawn at all, the artist is clearly very talented.

What is though is not put together in the best way possible (and the artist who painted the original figures may not have even been the one putting them together for the 2 team pictures we have seen). That we have seen 2 pics with the figures arranged a little differently does show the figures were all drawn separately, then 'avengers assembled' for the poster afterwards.

Whoever put them together though should have avoided the naked/knee problem. Just move the Hulk over a little to show the right legs upper thigh and we'd have none of the mistaken assumption the Hulk will have his tackle out in the film. They could also have positioned Hawkeye better, so it doesn't look like he is aiming right at the back of Cap's head (I'd have to see the seperate pics but I'd guess just moving Hawkeye to the left hand side by about 20mm would solve both issues).

Agreed; although, I think it also would have been simpler if, when doing the Hulk figure, the artist had shown more of the fabric of his pants over the knee. The pants are clearly covering almost the entire knee of his left leg. If you saw more fabric on the thigh and knee of his right leg, with a smaller rip showing through the green skin of the knee, it would "read" better no matter how the other figures were arranged in front of it.

My guess is that the artist who drew/painted the figures is not the artist who ARRANGED the figures for the various layouts we've seen. Several of us here have guessed that the figures are all separate so that they can be shifted slightly, to adjust the layout of the group to fit whatever package they're meant to be put on (or, at a guess, so that you can just use individual figures from the group if a specific package calls for it).

I think that the problem is that the person who is shifting the figures around in Photoshop (or what-have-you) to create these slightly-different layouts can, of course, see what each full figure looks like. Therefore, s/he knows very well that's Hulk's knee, and s/he can kind of continue to "see" that even when Hawkeye and Cap and Thor are places in front of Hulk so that the lines are obscured.

I've kind of made that mistake as an artist as well, especially when composing a piece out of solo elements like this; it sometimes takes a completely fresh eye to point out things like, "um, you know it looks like Hawkeye is shooting Cap in the back of the head, yes?" I think the people involved in creating these pics know the Hulk isn't naked -- duh -- so their eyes/brains can't process the image to "see" how someone new could get that impression. I'm surprised there wasn't someone in the sign-off process for these images who could have given that feedback, though.

I feel like we ought to keep bumping Wobbly's "this is what Hulk probably looks like solo" piece for each page, as well. Once you see that, it's a lot easier to see what's going on.

[Vartha]

I'm wondering if the Avengers Movie site will have each Character set up like that where they rotate toward the front to view each Character Bio.

[Vartha]

Agreed; although, I think it also would have been simpler if, when doing the Hulk figure, the artist had shown more of the fabric of his pants over the knee. The pants are clearly covering almost the entire knee of his left leg. If you saw more fabric on the thigh and knee of his right leg, with a smaller rip showing through the green skin of the knee, it would "read" better no matter how the other figures were arranged in front of it.

My guess is that the artist who drew/painted the figures is not the artist who ARRANGED the figures for the various layouts we've seen. Several of us here have guessed that the figures are all separate so that they can be shifted slightly, to adjust the layout of the group to fit whatever package they're meant to be put on (or, at a guess, so that you can just use individual figures from the group if a specific package calls for it).

I think that the problem is that the person who is shifting the figures around in Photoshop (or what-have-you) to create these slightly-different layouts can, of course, see what each full figure looks like. Therefore, s/he knows very well that's Hulk's knee, and s/he can kind of continue to "see" that even when Hawkeye and Cap and Thor are places in front of Hulk so that the lines are obscured.

I've kind of made that mistake as an artist as well, especially when composing a piece out of solo elements like this; it sometimes takes a completely fresh eye to point out things like, "um, you know it looks like Hawkeye is shooting Cap in the back of the head, yes?" I think the people involved in creating these pics know the Hulk isn't naked -- duh -- so their eyes/brains can't process the image to "see" how someone new could get that impression. I'm surprised there wasn't someone in the sign-off process for these images who could have given that feedback, though.

I feel like we ought to keep bumping Wobbly's "this is what Hulk probably looks like solo" piece for each page, as well. Once you see that, it's a lot easier to see what's going on.

Yeah but as soon as we say it's Wob's art SOME people may actually Still want proof.
I really wish they would release the Concept art for them all like they had for the First Avenger and Thor.

[Hotwire]

I haven't bashed anyone HW.
But yes, they could have placed each character just a bit differently.



Edit: I have bashed Critics but that's not related to this convo. lol

Didn't say you based anyine, but you know the people I'm referring to. They are all over these boards.

[Vartha]

Didn't say you based anyine, but you know the people I'm referring to. They are all over these boards.
yes they are. lol
here's Wobbly's Hulk art/manip from that poster
http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z321/Vartha2/Avengers%20movie/AvengersHulk_MK1.jpg

[JB-the-Hunter]

One thing I'd like to point out is that his pants aren't purple. I saved the image on paint and used the pick color tool, or whatever it's called, and the color is tan/pale brown.

[Vartha]

Well my printed version shows a faded purple too. :D

[Excelsior.]

Had to laugh at the 'poorly drawn' comment; makes you wonder about the level of artistic talent the person who made that comment must have to be able to make such a derisory and dissmissive remark.

I bet the Sistine Chapel is crap and was painted by a hack too?
You don't need to do any field of art "better" to criticize it.


or don't tell me you can do everything you ever criticized better?

[BoredGuy]

Ugggghhh

This thread may be even more sad than the Cap/Nazis thread

[Vartha]

DON'T get THAT started HERE lol

[BoredGuy]

ohhh not at all my intention, lol
although its slightly more relevant than "OMG hulk peeeeniisssss!"

[peterparker0077]

Dude! Hulk is TOTALLY naked in that pic...


:oldrazz:

[Vartha]

heh yeah there was enough of that With Ang's Hulk. STILL can't figure out how those pants stayed on when he got so huge....um...big....um TALL! :D

You'd think if he got so tall that there WOULD be some binding going on that would be painful even for Hulk. Surprised it took DOGS to rip them off too. lol

[Kokomo29]

...I guess we know why they call him The Incredible Hulk.

:awesome:

[Brian Braddock]

You don't need to do any field of art "better" to criticize it.


or don't tell me you can do everything you ever criticized better?

By all means, please show me were I said anything about having to be able to do anything 'better' in order to be able to make a well-reasoned critique.

Please.

FYI, it's very easy to simply say something sucks. It's harder to actually say why you think it does so when I see someone doing as much I will call them on it to elaborate.

It's normally the done thing when offering an opinion that flies in the face of reasonable thought to be able to show how that conclusion was arrived at, [I]if you want your viewpoint to be taken seriously - just simply saying something is 'poorly drawn' does not constitute as a well-reasoned critique and is likely to be treated with the derision that it deserves.

Unless of course that person is able to establish that they have some level of expertise in the medium [thereby proving that they have a certain knowledge base and authority on the subject], then that would carry some weight in the absence of being able to provide said well-reasoned critique.

[Troy_Parker]

The problem with that poster is that obviously, it wasn't drawn as a group poster.

[Hotwire]

By all means, please show me were I said anything about having to be able to do anything 'better' in order to be able to make a well-reasoned critique.

Please.

FYI, it's very easy to simply say something sucks. It's harder to actually say why you think it does so when I see someone doing as much I will call them on it to elaborate.

It's normally the done thing when offering an opinion that flies in the face of reasonable thought to be able to show how that conclusion was arrived at, [I]if you want your viewpoint to be taken seriously - just simply saying something is 'poorly drawn' does not constitute as a well-reasoned critique and is likely to be treated with the derision that it deserves.

Unless of course that person is able to establish that they have some level of expertise in the medium [thereby proving that they have a certain knowledge base and authority on the subject], then that would carry some weight in the absence of being able to provide said well-reasoned critique.
Ok, I'll explain my critique. I feel that the way the poster is put together, with that large area of green between Hawkeye Nd Thor's cape, creates the illusion that what is actually Hulk's knee, is part of his pelvis, thus making him look naked. This, to me, says that the image was poorly drawn, since the artist wasn't paying attention to how he knee looked. Now, it has been explained that these are most likely separate images put together. In that case, its just poorly composed.

Still care to laugh at my opinion?

[Brian Braddock]

If you still think it's poorly drawn then yes, it is laughable because there's a paricular level of skill applied to that piece that elevates it from being 'poor'. However iIf it is indeed because you feel it was poorly composed then that's an entirely reasonable judgement as there are issues with the composition.

To be honest, if you'd have said that it was the composition in the 1st place there wouldnt have been any of this; composition does not equate to 'how it's drawn', it's just one part of the overall process.

[JAK®]

I never thought the Hulk looked naked until I found out people were complaining about it.

[Brian Braddock]

And let me guess - it's now all you can think about when you look at it - or is that just me? :D

Christ, I didnt just say that.

[wobbly]

The problem with that poster is that obviously, it wasn't drawn as a group poster.

I think it was originally. My guess is the artist drew each character as a whole on seperate layers with the layout for the positioning of each character probably intended to be on a wider format (landscape rather than portrait).

My thinking for this is the characters are all 'aimed' in about the same direction, and all lit from roughly the same source (brightest highlights to the right of each) and they are also all 'floated' (in the first picture we can see Hawkeye's leg is raised so he is in a jumping pose too).
If they were not drawn together (for the same 'whole' pic) I'd expect to see more obvious divergences in each.

As already covered the reason for doing the pic like this would be so it can be easilly adapated for the multiple formats the merchandising will require (can be used for the team shots and individual character stuff too). Would imagine the knee thing will likely be addressed before they slap this on any toys mind you.

[Vartha]

And let me guess - it's now all you can think about when you look at it - or is that just me? :D

Christ, I didnt just say that.
hehe no you TYPED it where everyone can SEE. lol

[WildcatNC]

I never thought the Hulk looked naked until I found out people were complaining about it.



Many people subconsciously want to see a giant green shlong apparently. :dry:

[Vartha]

Well you'd think with something like Gamma poisoning Certain "things" would shrink....may not be too much to see.

[Dark Raven]

I wish this debate were about She-Hulk instead.

[BrlntDsgse]

Well you'd think with something like Gamma poisoning Certain "things" would shrink....may not be too much to see.

So THAT'S why he's always angry :woot:

[WildcatNC]

Well you'd think with something like Gamma poisoning Certain "things" would shrink....may not be too much to see.


I think I remember a panel in a "What the !!" with Hulk in a doctors office with a robe on. The doc was like, "now put your clothes on before I get a complex".

[wobbly]

I think I remember a panel in a "What the !!" with Hulk in a doctors office with a robe on. The doc was like, "now put your clothes on before I get a complex".

They did that in the books as well: When the merged Hulk joined the Pantheon he fought the U-Foes (who were in league with the Leader) and Vector literally strips half the flesh from his bones before the mangled looking hulk knocks him out. It takes him a few seconds to heal and he is completely naked. The Leader looks at him and says something like "Please put some some clothes on, not only are you giving some of us a complex, but there are lady's present".

One of the lady's comments "Don't hurry on My account".

[Brian Braddock]

I wish this debate were about She-Hulk instead.

With pictures, preferably.

[JAK®]

With pictures, preferably.
And the annoying people will be the ones that insist that she is actually fully clothed.

[Vartha]

If I could I'd have unclothed as well but rules is rules. lol

[marcvader]

Thankfully

[Vartha]

heh in some cases yes. lol

[Dark Raven]

heh in some cases yes. lol

Just not in She-Hulk's case lol.

[not_a_victim]

Why is Hawkeye aiming at Caps head?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/b8myshlong/Heroes/CapsHead.jpg


:lmao:

More importantly, he is holding the bowbackwards, and when he releases the bowstring, it is coing to cut the top of his hand off...
Honestly, would it have too difficult for the photochop artist to actually look as some pics of people firing bows so this kind of crap doesn't happen?

[sgaana]

More importantly, he is holding the bowbackwards, and when he releases the bowstring, it is coing to cut the top of his hand off...
Honestly, would it have too difficult for the photochop artist to actually look as some pics of people firing bows so this kind of crap doesn't happen?

Hah! Good catch. When I first saw the pic, my first thought about Hawkeye was, "what, he's a leftie now?" Then I just concluded, "He's Hawkeye, he's AWESOME, therefore, he must be able to shoot ambidextrously" (since in Thor, he shoots righthanded). To be honest, I never looked at him that closely. Now that I do, I notice he uses a 1-finger draw, as well? Really? A 1-finger draw (with no apparent finger protection) using a bow that has got to be at least a 75 lb. draw, or more?

But yes. Nobody shoots like that. You could do it, but it would be stupid and not only hurt your hand, but mess up the shot. The above is just a mistake, not something explainable through Awesome Archery Skillz.

[marcvader]

That's hilarious, talk about dropping the ball. I hadn't looked at the image that closely.

[chris moore]

Pretty much every depiction of archers in both DC and Marvel has the arrow resting on the wrong side of the riser too. On release of the string, the arrow would just be whipped off to the side. This guy at least has that right. But the 1 finger draw and crazy grip are just funny as!

[wobbly]

That's hilarious, talk about dropping the ball. I hadn't looked at the image that closely.

Lol :yay: Same here.

Think they might wanna go fix that before they go slapping it on all the toys...

[sgaana]

Pretty much every depiction of archers in both DC and Marvel has the arrow resting on the wrong side of the riser too. On release of the string, the arrow would just be whipped off to the side. This guy at least has that right. But the 1 finger draw and crazy grip are just funny as!

Now I REALLY want a compilation of DC/Marvel "Archery, You're Doing It Wrong" images. :D Because I don't remember when I last noticed a problem.

I wonder if it's just the case where, unless the artist has actually done some archery, they don't notice those details. Meaning that even if they look at a photographic reference of an archer, they don't notice key things or realize that they can't vary those things without calling the feasibility of their depiction into question.

Hawkeye above could work if the bow was tilted more diagonally, giving room for the string to go under his right arm. And then get rid of the line of the string going in front of his middle finger, to at least imply a 2-finger draw.

(Renner wore gloves in the Thor cameo, didn't he? Fingerless gloves, but still, enough to protect his draw fingers. I really expect Hawkeye's Avengers outfit to have some kind of hand protection. But then, I also expect him to be wearing something on his face, goggles at least.)

[marcvader]

What's the point if using references if its not for the details, I think most people have a rudimentary idea of how a bow and arrow is used.

[Vartha]

More importantly, he is holding the bowbackwards, and when he releases the bowstring, it is coing to cut the top of his hand off...
Honestly, would it have too difficult for the photochop artist to actually look as some pics of people firing bows so this kind of crap doesn't happen?
hahahaha GOOD eye!!! I didn't see that. lol

[Vartha]

Hah! Good catch. When I first saw the pic, my first thought about Hawkeye was, "what, he's a leftie now?" Then I just concluded, "He's Hawkeye, he's AWESOME, therefore, he must be able to shoot ambidextrously" (since in Thor, he shoots righthanded). To be honest, I never looked at him that closely. Now that I do, I notice he uses a 1-finger draw, as well? Really? A 1-finger draw (with no apparent finger protection) using a bow that has got to be at least a 75 lb. draw, or more?

But yes. Nobody shoots like that. You could do it, but it would be stupid and not only hurt your hand, but mess up the shot. The above is just a mistake, not something explainable through Awesome Archery Skillz.
Methinks the whole picture is backwards.
Isn't Cap's shield NORMALLY on HIS left arm?

[Vartha]

Just not in She-Hulk's case lol.
hahahaha INDEED!!!!

[chris moore]

Now I REALLY want a compilation of DC/Marvel "Archery, You're Doing It Wrong" images. :D Because I don't remember when I last noticed a problem.

Couple examples:
Bottom panel closeup http://www.comicbookresources.com/assets/images/preview/750a23di5322/prv5322_pg3.jpg
In fact pretty much every instance of David Lopez drawing Hawkeye, which is a shame as the series was great and aside from the archery mistakes his art was great: http://www.comicbookresources.com/assets/images/preview/750a23di5322/prv5322_pg4.jpg
Hitch: http://www.interney.net/blogs/media/mdm/heroicage5.jpg
Plus the cover of Ultimates Vol2 #1

GA Cover: http://www.comicbookresources.com/assets/images/preview/9efefe6i8199/prv8199_pg1.jpg

Young Avengers: http://i.newsarama.com/preview_images/marvelnew/june09/32_dark_reign__young_avengers_2.jpg

Bit of a nit pick in a world of flying people and wallcrawlers. But at least get the non-powered stuff right.

[Spider-Vader]

Speaking of her, I wonder if Mockingbird will ever appear on the big-screen? Perhaps in the SHIELD or Hawkeye movie?

[sgaana]

What's the point if using references if its not for the details, I think most people have a rudimentary idea of how a bow and arrow is used.

See, you would think that. But if you haven't actually done archery, I can sort of imagine that you don't appreciate what the difference is between whether the arrow rests on the "inside" or "outside" of the bow. And even if you're looking at a photo reference, if you don't realize that what you're seeing is an important detail, then when you draw it yourself, you may feel free to vary it because you think it "looks better" (or looks "clearer"), without realizing you've just made a change that is nonsensical.

Same with, if you haven't shot a bow, you may not have a sensory appreciation for "how do you keep the arrow nocked to the string if you're only drawing it with one finger?", let alone, "how much is that bow's draw-weight and could you really pull it with just one finger? would you really?"

I'm not defending these artists for these mistakes, mind you. I'm just trying to guess how they could make the mistake in the first place. And I've certainly seen amateur artists draw bows that were physically impossible before, even when they were looking at refs. (Since, I assume, they have little practical knowledge or appreciation for how and where a bowstring attaches to a bow.)

"Bows that can't work" and "harps that can't work" have always been two of my pet peeves for fantasy artwork. :cwink:

[sgaana]

GA Cover: http://www.comicbookresources.com/assets/images/preview/9efefe6i8199/prv8199_pg1.jpg



I particularly like how this one is kind of the mirror image of the Hawkeye thing -- trying to do the "cool" "bow held horizontally" shot, and he's holding it fine for that, and the string is in the right place... and, how is the arrow staying up, again? :cwink: I'm picturing actually doing that and the arrow kind of flopping down.

[chris moore]

Another really really minor, so minor you really wouldn't notice if you weren't an archer - is how the majority of the time, GA and Hawkeye are fully gripping the string right down to the proximal end of the fingers. In archery you only hold with the first segment of the fingers; otherwise when you release, it's going to fishtail the string and send your arrow all over the place.

Anyway - difficult to do that in live action and not mess up the shot, so not a real worry for the Avengers. But I would like to see Clint with gloves that only have the middle three fingers. Kind of a cool visual that personalises his uniform a bit

[sgaana]

Another really really minor, so minor you really wouldn't notice if you weren't an archer - is how the majority of the time, GA and Hawkeye are fully gripping the string right down to the proximal end of the fingers. In archery you only hold with the first segment of the fingers; otherwise when you release, it's going to fishtail the string and send your arrow all over the place.

YES! At least in that first Hawkeye example you posted above, the artist seems to get that right. And they have him using his forefinger as a shelf for the arrow, which is nice... pity the arrow's not on the correct side of the bow...

Anyway - difficult to do that in live action and not mess up the shot, so not a real worry for the Avengers. But I would like to see Clint with gloves that only have the middle three fingers. Kind of a cool visual that personalises his uniform a bit

I have this memory that in his scene in Thor, the glove he was wearing on his right hand left his thumb mostly bare. I remember seeing him line his thumb up on the point of his jaw, and admired that a bit. :) But I don't recall what was going on with the rest of the hand/glove. (*makes note to look it up*)

[BoredGuy]

I'm confident the movie will get it right, I mean they kinda have to...


The saddest thing about the first examples above is that the artist has the scope on the correct side of Hawkeye's bow, but then he puts the arrow on the wrong side... What would be the damn point of a scope then?! lol (not to mention hawkeye shouldn't need a scope, shows he's more badass that way)

[Brian Braddock]

The bow thing reminds me of my pet hates in Hollywood - whoever came up with the idea 'ooooh, wouldnt it be so much cooler visually to hold the gun sideways?' needs a slap.

[Vartha]

No idea BB, but if you're a master of your chosen weapon the no matter what Direction you hold it you should be able to use it.


Tho I couldn't imagine the Rifle man from years ago doing that. :D

[sgaana]

The bow thing reminds me of my pet hates in Hollywood - whoever came up with the idea 'ooooh, wouldnt it be so much cooler visually to hold the gun sideways?' needs a slap.

I've often wondered -- is that something that Hollywood pioneered in movies/tv, or is it something that some young criminals were starting to do, that Hollywood picked up on? Do we know?

[marcvader]

Ask Sagal.

[Brian Braddock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_grip

Hate it with a passion;

has no function whatsoever rendering its use redundant so its basically just a giant emphatic ''look at me, I'm trying too hard to be cool'' statement.

So, so lame.

[Dark Raven]

Why is Mockingbird using guns in that pic? What happened to her battle staves?

[sgaana]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_grip

Hate it with a passion;

has no function whatsoever rendering its use redundant so its basically just a giant emphatic ''look at me, I'm trying too hard to be cool'' statement.

So, so lame.

Thanks for that link; I wouldn't have guessed it went back that far. It's really interesting that that one filmmaker chose to use it because it looked "sloppy", and thus it would seem like he meant to convey something negative about the character using it; yet it gets picked up anyway as something that looks "cool".

[Vartha]

Why is Mockingbird using guns in that pic? What happened to her battle staves?
She has them under her forearms. Look at the straight on drawing

[KalMart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_grip

Hate it with a passion;

has no function whatsoever rendering its use redundant so its basically just a giant emphatic ''look at me, I'm trying too hard to be cool'' statement.

So, so lame.
Yeah, there really is no practical advantage to shooting a pistol like that. As a long-time legal gun owner, it's also one of my pet peeves to see that in movies as anything but a sign of criminal naivite.

[TikkiEXX]

seeing people dual weilding pistols is starting to be one of my pet peeves. apparantly in real life its fairly useless unless youre just trying to lay down cover fire or something like that. it reduces acuuracy so much its almost pointless. thanks a lot John Woo. lol

[KalMart]

seeing people dual weilding pistols is starting to be one of my pet peeves. apparantly in real life its fairly useless unless youre just trying to lay down cover fire or something like that. it reduces acuuracy so much its almost pointless. thanks a lot John Woo. lol

If you're talking about shooting both at once rapidly with any real accuracy, probably only some trick shooters can do that in a very controlled situation. Generally, it's good to practice with your 'off' hand, but with two pistols you're better off shooting one pistol in one hand until dry, then following with the other. The John Woo-style dual-guns-a-blazin' is little more than spraying/wasting a lot of bullets in a general area. Certainly not more effective than controlling recoil and maintaining point-of-aim with multiple shots from proper one-gun technique.

[Whiskey Tango]

Yes but it looks awesome especially if you're in the middle of a slow-motion dive, or doing that shoot to the left and right while spinning in a crouch thing that Chow Yun Fat does so well.

[Adamantium Man]

If you're talking about shooting both at once rapidly with any real accuracy, probably only some trick shooters can do that in a very controlled situation. Generally, it's good to practice with your 'off' hand, but with two pistols you're better off shooting one pistol in one hand until dry, then following with the other. The John Woo-style dual-guns-a-blazin' is little more than spraying/wasting a lot of bullets in a general area. Certainly not more effective than controlling recoil and maintaining point-of-aim with multiple shots from proper one-gun technique.

Good place to invoke the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool).

[KalMart]

Yes but it looks awesome especially if you're in the middle of a slow-motion dive, or doing that shoot to the left and right while spinning in a crouch thing that Chow Yun Fat does so well.

It's the firearms equivalent of stylized Kung Fu as opposed to real fighting. If it sells tickets, then there you go.

[TikkiEXX]

yeah John Woos pretty much the only person that can get away with it. always looks so cool in his movies. looked cool in Equilibrium too. but looks pretty corny in most movies.

[KalMart]

And in video games. :O

[not_a_victim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_grip

Hate it with a passion;

has no function whatsoever rendering its use redundant so its basically just a giant emphatic ''look at me, I'm trying too hard to be cool'' statement.

So, so lame.

Well, there are some times it can be used in actual combat shooting. Like the Wiki article stated, if you are cross-eye dominant (like mysefl), you can tilt the gun a little towards your dominant eye, and shoot that way. You can also use it to "slice the pie" when slow-clearing a room, to avoid having your whole body clear cover before you get a sight picture. I've also used it on combat courses when using my right hand on right-side barricades, same principle as "slicing the pie", just stationary.
Sight alignment is sight alignment, no matter how those three points (rrear sight, front sight, and target) come together. If those three points are ina straight line, the round will hit its mark. I've even done wounded officer drills where we fire holding the gun upside down, in your weak hand, pulling the trigger with your pinky finger. That one is tough, as if you dont' have a proper grip, the slide will come back and bite the underside of your wrist.
The biggest issue with holding a handgun at 90 degrees horizontal is the ejected HOT cases will fly right back into your face.

[not_a_victim]

Not to completely derail the thread, but I've often fantasized about going to H'Wood after I retire, and being a technical consultant for police movies.
I see so many FUNDAMENTAL errors in weapon handling, equipment use, etc, that it completely takes me out of some movies...
Like the escape scene "Silence of the Lambs" movie. Whe the cops/guards are running around with their guns, I have to skip forward, or change the chanel for a few minutes. THey do such a poor job of handling their guns it ruins the scene for me, even though the scene is one of the best, drama wise, in the whole movie.

[WarBlade]

Not to completely derail the thread, but I've often fantasized about going to H'Wood after I retire, and being a technical consultant

That pretty much covers most of us in our own way. My father served with UN peacekeepers back in the day moans about how movies have soldiers dangerously bunched up, or the never ending ammunition expenditure that would normally force frequent barrel changes.

Mum can't watch medical dramas.

For me, I'm spared most of that, but Fight Club has a few WTF moments ("cigarette burns" WTF?) and I've done enough training with long blades to find daft content in numerous sword-waving films. :lmao:

[KalMart]

Not to completely derail the thread, but I've often fantasized about going to H'Wood after I retire, and being a technical consultant for police movies.
I see so many FUNDAMENTAL errors in weapon handling, equipment use, etc, that it completely takes me out of some movies...
Like the escape scene "Silence of the Lambs" movie. Whe the cops/guards are running around with their guns, I have to skip forward, or change the chanel for a few minutes. THey do such a poor job of handling their guns it ruins the scene for me, even though the scene is one of the best, drama wise, in the whole movie.

Or just how people constantly keep their finger on the trigger when handling a gun while not actually shooting. Especially when it's characters that are supposed to be in law enforcement.

But then, the same can be aid for a lot of things when it comes to movies. With firearms, though, the worry is that it'll instill bad habits which can be very dangerous...as if proper gun handling didn't take enough care and practice to begin with.

[Iron_Stark]

So noone's going to post that pic that shows Caps suit for the Avengers?

Or are we not allowed to?

[chris moore]

Its on the last page (some of it), and a few more pages back

[Vartha]

Yeah we probably won't see a full version as those people who have it probably signed something not to show it until they're told to.

[Godzilla2014]

The bow thing reminds me of my pet hates in Hollywood - whoever came up with the idea 'ooooh, wouldnt it be so much cooler visually to hold the gun sideways?' needs a slap.

Me too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_grip

Hate it with a passion;

has no function whatsoever rendering its use redundant so its basically just a giant emphatic ''look at me, I'm trying too hard to be cool'' statement.

So, so lame.

Exactly.

Thanks for that link; I wouldn't have guessed it went back that far. It's really interesting that that one filmmaker chose to use it because it looked "sloppy", and thus it would seem like he meant to convey something negative about the character using it; yet it gets picked up anyway as something that looks "cool".

:lmao:

Yes but it looks awesome especially if you're in the middle of a slow-motion dive, or doing that shoot to the left and right while spinning in a crouch thing that Chow Yun Fat does so well.

No, it doesn't. It just looks lame.

[Whiskey Tango]

No, it doesn't. It just looks lame.

No it doesn't. It looks awesome.

We can probably do this all night.

[Roughneck]

Yeah, there really is no practical advantage to shooting a pistol like that. As a long-time legal gun owner, it's also one of my pet peeves to see that in movies as anything but a sign of criminal naivite.

"They put the sights on top for a reason"

The Punisher

[The Morningstar]

People are criticising "gun ballet"?!? Go watch Hard Boiled you silly people!

[Whiskey Tango]

People are criticising "gun ballet"?!? Go watch Hard Boiled you silly people!

Exactly. Or The Killer. :up:

[Godzilla2014]

No it doesn't. It looks awesome.

We can probably do this all night.

It just looks stupid. If you really want to look cool, hold the gun correctly and hit something. That's far more awesome than making yourself look like a retard with the horizontal grip technique.

"They put the sights on top for a reason"

The Punisher

Exactly.

[Whiskey Tango]

It just looks stupid. If you really want to look cool, hold the gun correctly and hit something. That's far more awesome than making yourself look like a retard with the horizontal grip technique.

I'm not talking about a real life J. Random Thug holding the thing sideways while he mugs somebody. I specifically called out John Woo movies, if you don't like that, take it up with him.

[Godzilla2014]

I'm not talking about a real life J. Random Thug holding the thing sideways while he mugs somebody. I specifically called out John Woo movies, if you don't like that, take it up with him.

I'm sick of it in general, real life or fiction. Tilting your gun sideways is not cool, it makes you look like a retard who doesn't know how to handle a gun, and has no business doing so.

[Whiskey Tango]

internet = serious business

[Hypestyle]

i hope any costume redesigns look cool.. I supect Hulk will just be shorts.. maybe a black tank top.. we'll see..

[not_a_victim]

"They put the sights on top for a reason"

The Punisher
They put the sights on top because generally, your eyes are abov your hands.

Guys, it doesn't matter if you hold the gun upright, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, or completely upside down.
Two points define a line. If the two points are the front and rear sight, then the round will hit the target. There are combat specific uses for turning the gun sideways.
Those instances are not generally represented in movies, but they do exist. I realize there may be many gun owners and shooters on here, but that doesn't equate to combat experience.
12 years of combat experience here.

[WildcatNC]

They put the sights on top because generally, your eyes are abov your hands.

Guys, it doesn't matter if you hold the gun upright, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, or completely upside down.
Two points define a line. If the two points are the front and rear sight, then the round will hit the target. There are combat specific uses for turning the gun sideways.
Those instances are not generally represented in movies, but they do exist. I realize there may be many gun owners and shooters on here, but that doesn't equate to combat experience.
12 years of combat experience here.


I've always considered there could be an advantage to having the recoil kick the gun horizontally instead of vertically when quickly firing off multiple shots depending on the situation and the grouping of targets, like when laying spread fire on a group of people with an upper caliber pistol.

[Godzilla2014]

I've always considered there could be an advantage to having the recoil kick the gun horizontally instead of vertically when quickly firing off multiple shots depending on the situation and the grouping of targets, like when laying spread fire on a group of people with an upper caliber pistol.

Here's the thing: If the recoil kicks the gun vertically, then gravity will offset the recoil. When holding the gun sideways, no such effect takes place. In the situation you propose, who's to say that the rotation of the gun will equal the rotation necessary to hit the next target? Who's to say that you don't need to hit a target multiple times to take him/her down?

[KalMart]

They put the sights on top because generally, your eyes are abov your hands.

Guys, it doesn't matter if you hold the gun upright, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, or completely upside down.
Two points define a line. If the two points are the front and rear sight, then the round will hit the target. There are combat specific uses for turning the gun sideways.
Those instances are not generally represented in movies, but they do exist. I realize there may be many gun owners and shooters on here, but that doesn't equate to combat experience.
12 years of combat experience here.
It's more about being able to put more than just that first shot on target accurately and consistently. Obviously, the bullet will always leave the barrel in a straight line no matter how the gun is oriented. But if you're talking follow-up shots and the way a pistol will recoil, or a full-auto, and sight re-acquisition/counter-leverage, in situations other than shooting from behind a harrier or what have you...ideally, you'd like to keep it perpendicular to the ground...especially while moving. Sure, if someone has trained/practiced so that a 'canted' hold offers them the most consistent recovery for whatever reason, then that may very well work better for them than a weaver/iso or whatever with the pistol upright. But as you also alluded, that's not how it's represented in movies, and probably not how it's practiced by many who try it in real life for the heck of it.

[KalMart]

Here's the thing: If the recoil kicks the gun vertically, then gravity will offset the recoil. When holding the gun sideways, no such effect takes place. In the situation you propose, who's to say that the rotation of the gun will equal the rotation necessary to hit the next target? Who's to say that you don't need to hit a target multiple times to take him/her down?

A lot of it is also keeping the majority of forces acting upon and against in one 'axis', a la up and down, aside from the rearward kick of the firearm. If something is pushing/kicking it to the side, you're more prone to 'search' for the target more on followup shots as you counter both left/right and up/down. And especially with a full-auto or tri-burst, it'll be pushing the weapon up, so you naturally lean your weight forward and down to counter. If you throw in some sideways stuff into that, it becomes even less controllable.

But again, we're talking movies...just like some balletic spinning punch isn't as effective as a less-dramatic straight right. It's done under the umbrella of creative license. There are a plethora of areas that are just as, if not more, 'unrealistic' as the gangsta-gun-grip.

[Godzilla2014]

A lot of it is also keeping the majority of forces acting upon and against in one 'axis', a la up and down, aside from the rearward kick of the firearm. If something is pushing/kicking it to the side, you're more prone to 'search' for the target more on followup shots as you counter both left/right and up/down. And especially with a full-auto or tri-burst, it'll be pushing the weapon up, so you naturally lean your weight forward and down to counter. If you throw in some sideways stuff into that, it becomes even less controllable.

But again, we're talking movies...just like some balletic spinning punch isn't as effective as a less-dramatic straight right. It's done under the umbrella of creative license. There are a plethora of areas that are just as, if not more, 'unrealistic' as the gangsta-gun-grip.

Personally, I don't find the kung-fu dance style of fighting with flashy and elaborate moves and wire-fu very cool or impressive or as impressive as simple, brutal fighting styles in movies. It removes the threat from the violence, and I was so happy that the Nolan Batman films just went with a pragmatic fighting style, without the dancing and showy moves.

[not_a_victim]

Here's the thing: If the recoil kicks the gun vertically, then gravity will offset the recoil. When holding the gun sideways, no such effect takes place. In the situation you propose, who's to say that the rotation of the gun will equal the rotation necessary to hit the next target? Who's to say that you don't need to hit a target multiple times to take him/her down?

Gravity does nothing to counteract recoil. Recoil attempts to move the gun straight back, but but because of the hand gripping it, it winds up attempting to spin on it's horizontal axis, usually a point slightly behind the trigger.
Your analogy of the targets lined up doesn't equate.
Most targets would be humans, humans are oriented vertically. If taking out a line of vertical targets, you would want the sights to be on target as much time as possible. The weapon moving "up and down" during recoil would provide additional time for the weapon to be on target.

[Godzilla2014]

Gravity does nothing to counteract recoil. Recoil attempts to move the gun straight back, but but because of the hand gripping it, it winds up attempting to spin on it's horizontal axis, usually a point slightly behind the trigger.
Your analogy of the targets lined up doesn't equate.
Most targets would be humans, humans are oriented vertically. If taking out a line of vertical targets, you would want the sights to be on target as much time as possible. The weapon moving "up and down" during recoil would provide additional time for the weapon to be on target.

Gravity does act against the muzzle climb caused by recoil, last time I checked. Other than that, I agree with you. I think the situation in question was a bunch of assailants standing together and holding the gun sideways to use the recoil impulse to move the firearm in question horizontally across the targets.

[KalMart]

Gravity does act against the muzzle climb caused by recoil, last time I checked. Other than that, I agree with you. I think the situation in question was a bunch of assailants standing together and holding the gun sideways to use the recoil impulse to move the firearm in question horizontally across the targets.

This guy doesn't need it.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI


:O

[Godzilla2014]

This guy doesn't need it.....


uisHfKj2JiI


:O

Damn, that's fast!

[KalMart]

Damn, that's fast!

I've seen him shoot in person a few times. It's mind-blowing.....and with a double-action revolver, to boot!

And we're not talking little .22-LR rounds either, those are full-load .45 ACP.

[Godzilla2014]

I've seen him shoot in person a few times. It's mind-blowing.....and with a double-action revolver, to boot!

And we're not talking little .22-LR rounds either, those are full-load .45 ACP.

:awesome:

[KalMart]

:awesome:

And he puts them into a 3-inch group, too. :eek:

He's not just a trick shooter, he's been one of the top competition shooters for quite a while.

[Vartha]

Holy CRAP I'm impressed!

[storyteller]

Thor has at the very least removed his sleeves. I would say he looks like the 616 original costume Thor when he's sleeveless and sporting the red cape. Sans cape he comes off 100% as Ultiimate Thor.


Banner is sporting a nice brown jacket, no Hulk shown.

Captain America suit is pretty form fitting. The silver shoulders thing is sorta weird right now probably just because its new.

Widows hair is slightly shorter and redder(Peter Parker needs to upgrade redheads)

Contrary to the poster. Iron man is indeed rocking the triangular torso.

Hawkeye- yeah poster is wrong again. He shoots it the safe way.

[antonydelfini]

Ultimate Thor looks awesome. For Thor 2, I hope he goes wears the cape and the helmet

[jpbijos]

thor look awesome! but he does have a cape in this movie too...I guess he can take it off whenever he wants to...

[storyteller]

It probably doesn't make much sense for him to drag his cape around in the HQ.

[storyteller]

It probably doesn't make much sense for him to drag his cape around in the HQ.

[Superhero 101]

I like the ultimate look except for the hair I can't wait for the official images looks like iron man is the same and caps costume looked ok looked kind of bulky but maybe that's because of the bootleg quality

[galmando]

I like the ultimate look except for the hair I can't wait for the official images looks like iron man is the same and caps costume looked ok looked kind of bulky but maybe that's because of the bootleg quality

yeah, i know what you man about the hair

it seems very shaggy, it actually looks like a wig (i know it is) whereas in Thor it didn't

god i geeked out watching that though

bring on Cap so i can see this bad boy in high quality! (gotta wait over a week here in the UK!)

[JB-the-Hunter]

I love the hair.

[cryptic name]

someone may have mentioned this already, but from the hypothetically leaked teaser, it's clear that the new cap costume in the licensing poster art was right on the money, and those who said the undersides of Cap's upper arms were white were right.

[jacobed]

I love Thor's new look and Cap looked freakin great in his new suit. I'd like to chime in quickly on the talk about Hawkeye holding his bow sideways. I have an archery buddy who uses a long bow and shoots it sideways and he is pretty damn accurate with it. Every time we see Hawkeye whether it be Thor or the teaser so far he is holding it the right way. I'm assuming for the promo its just sideways so you can see his face.

[Vartha]

Thor new look really isn't new and not just Ulty Thor was sleeveless. Most of the 616 stories of Classic Thor were sleeveless Thor's. Heck even Lord Thor from the Future had no sleeves.

[herolee10]

I'm still kind of surprised that everyone got a upgraded look from the last time we saw them. I was so sure that Black Widow and Thor especially would remain the same in regards to their looks.

[Brian Braddock]

Just saw it - looks so friggin' awesome it's unreal.

[Wafflehat]

Maybe Thor rips of the armoured arms to prove how freakin' awesome he is. Kinda like the todd on scrubs. Also a tattoo that says 'jane' :D

[dark_b]

lets not forget this official concept art

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4530/thor4554uiuiuziuz.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/thor4554uiuiuziuz.jpg/)

[Artistsean]

Probably wasn't sure if he could pull of getting that big so they covered his arms, luckily the comic had a design for that already, but now he is huge and they didn't need that.
Not sure why they had to change it though really, they set up his costume in the Thor movie, why not keep that. Or at least the cape and helmet.
Still, looks awesome, and I cannot wait to see them all together, especially the big three (Thor, Iron Man, Cap) in a scene together.

[Kirmit]

Looking at that concept art I wouldn't of minded if they'd tried shaven Thor for the Avengers.

[BoredGuy]

Thor looks total metal with the beard and his new longer hair

Thor and Zakk Wylde are twins!

[DarkKnight88]

I'm still kind of surprised that everyone got a upgraded look from the last time we saw them. I was so sure that Black Widow and Thor especially would remain the same in regards to their looks.

Different directors. Different visions.

[Project862006]

i love thor's new look he looks even more bad ass than he was in Thor

[Superhero 101]

Makes me wonder what other differences there will be from this artwork maybe Hawkeye will actually have his cowl?

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1028/1860478a2super.jpg

[marcvader]

I'm thinking Thor will have sleeves when needed. He's chilling in most of the teaser.

[herolee10]

The major and permanent difference from the actual film and the poster above is that Thor's hair is longer than what's shown in the poster and BW's hair is shorter.

[Quasimod0]

http://legendscrazy.net/hasbro/movie_figpics/thor_movie/003_battle_hammer_thor.jpg
here's a sleeveless thor from the toy line

[misjuevos]

lets not forget this official concept art

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4530/thor4554uiuiuziuz.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/thor4554uiuiuziuz.jpg/)

that concept art looks awesome. the beardless thor looks really cool as well. the first thor on the left sort of looks like chris evans for some reason, just from the face, really weird. but the suits looks very cool.

[herolee10]

http://legendscrazy.net/hasbro/movie_figpics/thor_movie/003_battle_hammer_thor.jpg
here's a sleeveless thor from the toy line

The bootleg teaser is too blurry to tell of course on how Thor's new look is like..but I hope it's very similar to this. The look posted above is definitely something that I would like seeing Thor wear in the Avengers.

[Superhero 101]

i thought the armor in the trailer looked more goldish

[ALC0RT3Z]

In the end u see Thor with a cape.. Or is that scene from his movie.

[marcvader]

The bottom portion of the sleevless armor in the teaser where he has his arms crossed looks identical to the armor in the promo pick minus sleeves of course.

[FABSN13]

http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/thor_poster-535x791.jpg

I really hope that we´re gonna see thor also like this.

[kieron39]

Thor new look really isn't new and not just Ulty Thor was sleeveless. Most of the 616 stories of Classic Thor were sleeveless Thor's. Heck even Lord Thor from the Future had no sleeves.

That look is mostly Ultimate Thor i'm sure..Yea original 616 was sleeveless, but he also wore the helmet, and was cleanly shaven.. This Thoy got that brute going on! lol.
i hope though that the screen time is equally shared for plot and character progression... i just have a feeling though that Black widow and Hawkeye and their just as fillers.. myabe because they haven't had their own movies! ha

[The Infernal]

That look is mostly Ultimate Thor i'm sure..Yea original 616 was sleeveless, but he also wore the helmet, and was cleanly shaven.. This Thoy got that brute going on! lol.
i hope though that the screen time is equally shared for plot and character progression... i just have a feeling though that Black widow and Hawkeye and their just as fillers.. myabe because they haven't had their own movies! ha

I don't think his beard and helmet are great arguments here. He had the beard in Thor and the helmet barely featured at all. Plus having seen the trailer I would say he appears more like the concept art shown a few posters above rather than Ultimate.

[kieron39]

I don't think his beard and helmet are great arguments here. He had the beard in Thor and the helmet barely featured at all. Plus having seen the trailer I would say he appears more like the concept art shown a few posters above rather than Ultimate.

Was y reffering to his look. the character we already know is not being portrayed as he was in the Ultimates. Ultimate Thor was no where as cocky.

[The Infernal]

Was y reffering to his look. the character we already know is not being portrayed as he was in the Ultimates. Ultimate Thor was no where as cocky.

Yes, you did refer to his look. You referenced his look whilst quoting another poster debating the Ultimate Thor look.

Also, where is it confirmed that the characterisation is drawn from Ultimate Thor? I may have missed that piece of news.

[Wafflehat]

We've already got our Thor characterized. Hes probably not gonna behave any differently. I little homage to the ultimates look is not gonna be anything more than than that. Im guessing that based on the concept poster that hes gonna be rockin' the original suit at some point too. Best of both worlds. Besides, a little more skin is only gonna help convince my girlfriend to come see it with me.:oldrazz:

[Godzilla2014]

*Puts on flak vest*
I'm glad they didn't use Hawkeye's 616 costume. I have always thought the Ultimate incarnation looked much cooler, and it made more sense to me.

[sgaana]

We've already got our Thor characterized. Hes probably not gonna behave any differently. I little homage to the ultimates look is not gonna be anything more than than that. Im guessing that based on the concept poster that hes gonna be rockin' the original suit at some point too. Best of both worlds. Besides, a little more skin is only gonna help convince my girlfriend to come see it with me.:oldrazz:

I'm honestly not sure I even see it as that much of an homage to the Ultimates look, given that the roundels don't glow brightly, and he has bracers on his arms, rather than the fingerless gloves (which now that I think about it, I'm not sure how often Ult!Thor wears those, either; I'd have to check).

However, big :up::up::up: from me for the sleeveless look. And the longer hair is juuuust fine. I am very very happy they're keeping the beard, though. That's important.

[Raiden]

I like the sleeveless look for the new Thor, but I hope they will keep the red cape and not go completely Ultimates with the God of Thunder. Unfortunatley, it seems like they ditched the red cape, though.

[herolee10]

I like the sleeveless look for the new Thor, but I hope they will keep the red cape and not go completely Ultimates with the God of Thunder. Unfortunatley, it seems like they ditched the red cape, though.


Well i do recall seeing the red cape on Thor at the end of the trailer, just as he threw the hammer.

[Son of Coul]

I didn't watch the trailer yet, but recall Evans in a recent interview talking about the Avengers set and saying, "Hemsworth's there with the cape..."

So it seems it'll be there mostly. I'm not a fan of the Ultimate look at all but it could actually be cool for Thor's casual wear on Earth. Then full-on cape and everything during battle.

[Rock Sexton]

I like the sleeveless look for the new Thor, but I hope they will keep the red cape and not go completely Ultimates with the God of Thunder. Unfortunatley, it seems like they ditched the red cape, though.

Please watch the teaser again. It's right there at the end when he's throwing his hammer.

[PumpkinBombxXx]

Please watch the teaser again. It's right there at the end when he's throwing his hammer.
I think thats an FX shot they used from his own movie just like the one of Iron Man flying was from IM1. I doubt they have any FX shots ready for the teaser. In the poster released awhile back with all of them on it thor is in his classic movie costume, I think just to avoid confusion with people not super familer with the character. that way people just get hte idea that they are finally all together
I loved how close thors costume was to modern comics thor but it seemed to ceramonial with the way the cape came off the shoulders. This looks more practical and makes him feel like a part of the team of course taking the color away from his costume makes cap stand out. Caps the only one with an actual mask too. Tony is wearing armor so its like Cap is the only one trying to be a "super hero" imo not bashing at all just taking note

[Spider-Vader]

Not a big fan of Thor's new costume, I hope the old one returns in his sequel.

[Godzilla2014]

What is this teaser trailer everyone's talking about? God, this is the release of the TDKR teaser all over again.

[Gamma Ra]

What you're asking for is trouble buddy. :yay: Don't get banned.

To everyone concerned, Thor has the cape on when he throws the hammer.

[Rock Sexton]

I think thats an FX shot they used from his own movie just like the one of Iron Man flying was from IM1. I doubt they have any FX shots ready for the teaser. In the poster released awhile back with all of them on it thor is in his classic movie costume, I think just to avoid confusion with people not super familer with the character. that way people just get hte idea that they are finally all together
I loved how close thors costume was to modern comics thor but it seemed to ceramonial with the way the cape came off the shoulders. This looks more practical and makes him feel like a part of the team of course taking the color away from his costume makes cap stand out. Caps the only one with an actual mask too. Tony is wearing armor so its like Cap is the only one trying to be a "super hero" imo not bashing at all just taking note

It's not an EFX shot. Nice try though. He's sleeveless in it (something he never was in the first one) and has his cape. It's plain for the eye to see.

[hame4479]

When thor throws his hammer at the end he has his costume on from this summers flick, cape and mail, so maybe he will kinda go back and forth.

[TikkiEXX]

well i will say this Thor looks very intimidating from what i can see in that crappy quality teaser. looked like he was bout ready to backhand Tony when he put his hand on his shoulder. lol

[Rock Sexton]

When thor throws his hammer at the end he has his costume on from this summers flick, cape and mail, so maybe he will kinda go back and forth.

For the last time, he does not. I've watched the teaser frame by frame and he's not wearing his chain mail. I don't know why any of you continue to insists on having seen it. They show two different outfits in the film, neither of which are the one from his solo film (not saying it won't show up though).

[chris moore]

Personally I want to see the trailer and know about its contents for the first time at the end of Cap in all of a week's time (for the UK). Not by conflicting descriptions about a cellphone vid ripped from a very generous early screening. Crap like that and fans won't get early screening opportunities like that any more - very different from an employee nicking something from where they work and uploading it.

So as this is a speculative thread about what we think characters SHOULD have, do you think the bootleg chat could at least be blacked out if not banned?

[kieron39]

Yes, you did refer to his look. You referenced his look whilst quoting another poster debating the Ultimate Thor look.

Also, where is it confirmed that the characterisation is drawn from Ultimate Thor? I may have missed that piece of news.

I said he is not, and we know this because we all saw the Thor stand alone movie already.

[Godzilla2014]

Personally I want to see the trailer and know about its contents for the first time at the end of Cap in all of a week's time (for the UK). Not by conflicting descriptions about a cellphone vid ripped from a very generous early screening. Crap like that and fans won't get early screening opportunities like that any more - very different from an employee nicking something from where they work and uploading it.

So as this is a speculative thread about what we think characters SHOULD have, do you think the bootleg chat could at least be blacked out if not banned?

I completely agree. I actually waited until I saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 to see the The Dark Knight Rises teaser, and I never seriously (if at all) considered watching a bootleg online, because I wanted to see the teaser as it was meant to be seen (and I like Harry Potter).

[TheVileOne]

Regarding the Ed Norton getting all his credit busines, to me I think that is the problem with Ed Norton. I think that is why he was the worst choice to play the new Banner. Norton is a great performer, but he is a control freak. When he works on a project like this it has to be his vision and everyone else has to follow it. Umm, the movie has a director and his name is Louis Leterrier. It didn't surprise me when we started hearing rumors of disagreements and bad blood between Marvel and Norton.

Now regardless of what was said, I think Norton chances are probably would've had some specific views on Avengers and I think it was for the better he was cut out of the equation. Now I would've liked Norton to come back for the sake of continuity but what is done is done. I wish Norton hadn't been cast in the first place so the whole thing could've been avoided.

It sounded like with Hulk, Norton wanted it to be his movie. At Comic-Con it came off like he was running the show. Bad idea.

[The Infernal]

I said he is not, and we know this because we all saw the Thor stand alone movie already.

You're right. I misread your second post.

[kieron39]

Regarding the Ed Norton getting all his credit busines, to me I think that is the problem with Ed Norton. I think that is why he was the worst choice to play the new Banner. Norton is a great performer, but he is a control freak. When he works on a project like this it has to be his vision and everyone else has to follow it. Umm, the movie has a director and his name is Louis Leterrier. It didn't surprise me when we started hearing rumors of disagreements and bad blood between Marvel and Norton.

Now regardless of what was said, I think Norton chances are probably would've had some specific views on Avengers and I think it was for the better he was cut out of the equation. Now I would've liked Norton to come back for the sake of continuity but what is done is done. I wish Norton hadn't been cast in the first place so the whole thing could've been avoided.

It sounded like with Hulk, Norton wanted it to be his movie. At Comic-Con it came off like he was running the show. Bad idea.



I don't believe everything i read dude, unless u worked on the set of the movie everyday and saw their relationship take that turn i would understand and take in that opinion, i don't know the actor personally or marvel execs personally, but Norton played Banner great, and so did Eric Bana, and i'm sure Ruffalo will also bring somthing good to the table.

But i 'personally' feel that marvel is trying to keep control of their property, and enforcing it, which is why probably Ed felt he had no freedom, and maybe same for Kenneth Branagh, whos now left the project of thor, and previously Favreau of iron man.

[TheVileOne]

Dude it was pretty obvious. Norton was sort of acting like the ringmaster at Comic-Con. He had views on how the movie should be edited and cut, but Marvel wanted a more action paced, faster paced and shorter cut.

I mean why should Ed have freedom? This isn't exactly his baby.

I don't know what happened with Favreau, but I mean it is pretty clear he had a lot of freedom to create his world in Iron Man and probably had a little too much in Iron Man 2. He and Downey brought on Justin Theroux who I thought they wanted. Favreau said he didn't want to do Demon In A Bottle, they didn't.

The Avengers stuff I mean how is that any different from the first movie? All that is in the first movie? We've known about the Avengers deal since 2006 and Iron Man was the start of it. I mean Favreau created a whole character around SHIELD and worked him into the first Iron Man movie. All that could've been cut from the movie and it wouldn't have lost really much but for us as fans that excited us.

[BigThor]

I loved Thor's outfit in his film, I wish they would've kept it the same or just made some minor changes to it.

I'm NOT digging the "Ultimates" look, I've always prefered Thor's Coipel costume.

[Vartha]

BT I'm not worried, sending you a pm why here in a minute

[kieron39]

I see where you're coming from, but i never watched the comic con panel for TIH, but I’m saying you don't sign a contract until you're 100% happy with the agreement, and whether it was Ed's input or the director being pushed aside, it was what was agreed before filming commenced, and marvel has a habit (IMO) of saying we want it this way! like i said with the other directors, and even actors being replaced, (i didn’t like the first interpretation of Rhodey either), and i like marvel for that, maybe the way they do it isn't great (IMO) but i like it non the less, because they are taking care of the property they do own, unlike X-men and Fantastic Four, which is good because they don't want what they have ownership of to end up in a mess much like the FF movies and the last few X men films.
Don’t get me wrong i liked first class, but the continuity is now messed up and the only way we would get a proper X-men movie again is if it was owned by Marvel Studios, and that will not happen until Fox bleeds that franchise dry.

So my point being is that Marvel want to control their property with an iron fist (pun intended), they try to make the crew happy, as long as their happy, which is how it should be, but I never assume what happened behind closed doors, we don’t know how their business works exactly, and I don’t take sides, but it comes down to a good movie, and TIH was a good movie, and Avenger will be great, as much as I wish they kept Norton, it will be good to see some one else as Banner. Looking forward to Summer 2012.

[herolee10]

I'm still surprised that Thor got such a revamped look for this film.lol

I mean, out of all of the Avengers present, Thor was like one of the few that i was somewhat confident that his look would stay relatively the same.

The one thing that I'll need to definitely adjust to is the new length of his hair. Call me strange but I preferred of how long Thor's and even Black Widow's hair was in previous films.lol I thought those looks commented well with them.