PDA

View Full Version : So the trailer for the new JOSS WHEDON film has been leaked!!!!!


Cliffjumper
2014-10-23, 07:15 AM
Looks like cinema's last great auteur has finally scraped together the funding to do that Secret Defenders sequel to follow up the cult hit fro a few years ago. Bet Marvel are relieved, mind, without the Whedon name involved it could have been a major, major bomb.

So many questions!
- Will Iron Man be slightly sardonic?
- Will Hulk smash things?
- Will Captain America get any lines?
- Are they going to let Chris Hemsworth try any acting?
- Will they be brave enough to do any references to Agents of SHIELD?
- Which Buffy/Angel alumni will have really demeaning tiny roles (apart from Whedon, obviously)?

And hay, that shitpipe off Kick-Ass is going to play Pietro - that'll be awesome! And if it isn't there'll be loads of explosions and derivative one-liners!!!!!!

When the **** is the Chronicle sequel out?

Brendocon 2.0
2014-10-23, 07:54 AM
When the **** is the Chronicle sequel out?

End of next year. It's called "Fox's Fantastic 4."

If it makes you feel better, apparently they're giving Avengers 3 to the Russo Brothers off of Community.

inflatable dalek
2014-10-23, 03:24 PM
Looks like cinema's last great auteur has finally scraped together the funding to do that Secret Defenders sequel to follow up the cult hit fro a few years ago. Bet Marvel are relieved, mind, without the Whedon name involved it could have been a major, major bomb.


I don't know, I think the complete collapse of Sony's announced "One film every year set in the Amazing Spider-Man Universe" plan almost immediately thanks to the relatively underwhelming performance of the second film shows that it's not just the case you can throw any reasonably competent yes man director at these big name characters and expect big bucks every time.

One thing I've found interesting amidst the stuff about how Cap and Avengers 3 will be Civil War based, is people complaining that it'll be impossible to do because none of the Marvel Universe heroes actually have secret identities that need protecting (with the possible exception of the rumour that what Sony are going to do to make time to sort out the Spider-Man mess is to loan whatever recast and/or rebooted version they come up with back to Marvel for use in Civil War in exchange for an extension of their rights).

This is where I need the help of people who've read that storyline- How essential is the "Hero registration" thing to it as opposed to the conflict between Cap and Stark (and their two sides) being the actual heart of the story? Considering the use of the original material has always been rather fluid would it not be easier to just make what puts them against each other something else and still keep the stuff that matters?

Quicksilver should be interesting as well because he was so brilliant in Days of Future Past it's hard to see how he's not going to come over as a pale shadow of the Singer version (and for folks who don't follow the comics or pay attention to the names, a complete rip off the X-Men guy).

Cliffjumper
2014-10-23, 03:53 PM
Sony's big problem with Spider-Man is just that no-one's interested with a reboot that early and that the Spider-Man section of the MU is very low on depth - Felicia for example would never be able to carry a film. Sony will say and do anything just to cockblock Marvel/Disney on Spider-Man (with Fox doing the same with X-Men), though - the Amazing films are just expensive ashcans to keep the rights in their hands. If they're a profitable success, great. If not they're prepared to keep making them to keep the properties out of rival hands. It's kind-of amusing to see Avengers getting the big push from Marvel when the title group's always been behind X-Men and Spider-Man in the company's portfolio.

Civil War was just an excuse for a ****-ton of hero on hero fights; the registration thing was just window dressing an a chance to get public reveals for Tony Stark etc. out there, whereas obviously the films stole from the Ultimates rather than the MU. Even if the comics retconned it because Quesada's a twat Civil War's one plus point - that Stark got to be a genuine arsehole - will never happen when Disney want the audience on-side for Iron Man 7, so the whole thing will be faintly pathetic.

Neuronutter
2014-10-23, 07:54 PM
That's an enjoyable trailer right there! I was already looking forward to Avengers 2 and now I'm even more intrigued. Ultron's quite creepy.

Looks like cinema's last great auteur has finally scraped together the funding to do that Secret Defenders sequel to follow up the cult hit fro a few years ago. Bet Marvel are relieved, mind, without the Whedon name involved it could have been a major, major bomb.

So many questions!
- Will Iron Man be slightly sardonic?
- Will Hulk smash things?
- Will Captain America get any lines?
- Are they going to let Chris Hemsworth try any acting?
- Will they be brave enough to do any references to Agents of SHIELD?
- Which Buffy/Angel alumni will have really demeaning tiny roles (apart from Whedon, obviously)?


No spoilers please!

I never saw an announcement that Whedon wouldn't be directing Avengers 3, rather that the Russo brothers might be doing Avengers 3 and 4. I wonder if Whedon wants off the treadmill for a bit.

I don't know, I think the complete collapse of Sony's announced "One film every year set in the Amazing Spider-Man Universe" plan almost immediately thanks to the relatively underwhelming performance of the second film shows that it's not just the case you can throw any reasonably competent yes man director at these big name characters and expect big bucks every time.

Well, ASM2 was a pile of crap so there's that.

Quicksilver should be interesting as well because he was so brilliant in Days of Future Past it's hard to see how he's not going to come over as a pale shadow of the Singer version (and for folks who don't follow the comics or pay attention to the names, a complete rip off the X-Men guy).

I still find it surprising that the rights allow for him to be in both movies. But it's nice to see Elizabeth Olsen as the Scarlet Witch. She's been great in the movies I've seen her in.

Now they just need to announce the Black Widow movie they set up at the end of Winter Soldier.

Dead Man Wade
2014-10-24, 01:42 PM
Even if the comics retconned it because Quesada's a twat Civil War's one plus point - that Stark got to be a genuine arsehole - will never happen when Disney want the audience on-side for Iron Man 7, so the whole thing will be faintly pathetic.

That was my major issue, really. It's kind of hard to keep people on-board when the character that drew them in to begin with starts locking up his friends, sending villains after his allies, and inadvertantly killing people.

Really, though, Civil War falls apart the most because it's meant to be this "Ooh, gray areas! Who's right? Who's wrong?" thing, but it becomes pretty clear early on who Millar is rooting for. Cap couldn't have gotten any more saintly if he'd risen again three days later.

Cliffjumper
2014-10-24, 03:37 PM
Agreed... I did *like* the Stark thing because it unintentionally touched on the same area as Irredeemable - what if this great hero suddenly decided he'd get more done as a villain but the side-choosing angle screwed it and by then Marvel were retconning everything every 12 months; bit of a shame as Stark had form from Galactic Storm - though IIRC that was also retconned before the retcon was retconned in Heroes Reborn, which was soon retconned by Heroes Return.

But I don't think the films would have the guts to even do that, at least not for more than an hour or so of a movie. The first film already filed just about any edges off the Ultimates template by removing the challenging bits from Millar's work.

Cliffjumper
2014-10-24, 03:40 PM
With regards to Spider-Man I do think the character's limited from a cinematic point of view, in that there's only so much spectacle the guy can realistically deal with. Spider-Man can't, say, take on a Skrull battlefleet or anything solo which means it's never going to match the brain damage opportunities Avengers can put forward and basically restricts him to "monster of the movie" territory.

Dead Man Wade
2014-10-24, 04:26 PM
I did *like* the Stark thing because it unintentionally touched on the same area as Irredeemable - what if this great hero suddenly decided he'd get more done as a villain but the side-choosing angle screwed it and by then Marvel were retconning everything every 12 months

Absolutely. I was on board with Civil War, because I totally got where Iron Man was coming from (initially) and was looking forward to where they were going with it. Until, that is, Stark and Richards inexplicably loosed an untested cyborg with god-like power on the anti-reg forces, and were shocked when somebody got killed. From there on, it was just Stark trying to take gold in the Loss of ****ing Perspective Olympics.

And it only got worse from there. His handling during Siege was positively hideous, what with the memory deleting and all. I honestly thought having him revealed to be a Skrull would have been the biggest cop out possible; leave it to Marvel to prove me wrong.

But I don't think the films would have the guts to even do that, at least not for more than an hour or so of a movie.

Oh, there's no way. The most they'd do is have Stark brush up against his behavior in CW, then recoil in horror and do the heroic thing. Truthfully, I could easily see it playing out kind of like Ultimate Alliance 2: The SHRA gets passed, things get bad, then something worse comes along and we all have to put aside our differences and work together. Hooray.

There's a twisted part of me that wants the movies to degenerate into navel-gazing crap like the comics did, just to see what people do.

With regards to Spider-Man I do think the character's limited from a cinematic point of view, in that there's only so much spectacle the guy can realistically deal with.

That's why one of my favorite bits from the comics was the issue where some Giant Cosmic Thing was happening, and Spider-man and Daredevil decide they don't have anything worthwhile to add. So, they just sit on a roof and watch it all go down.

inflatable dalek
2014-10-25, 01:22 PM
Mind, Batman is arguably equally limited and they've found a path for his films that makes the "Small scale" villainy work for audiences, doing the same for Spider-Man shouldn't be that hard should it?

With Civil War, how did the explanation/retcon for Tony work out in the comics then? IIRC, at the time everyone reading was just assuming he wasn't really evil and there was some sort of secret plan and/or evil alien mind control even as it was happening.

Dead Man Wade
2014-10-25, 02:31 PM
Mind, Batman is arguably equally limited and they've found a path for his films that makes the "Small scale" villainy work for audiences, doing the same for Spider-Man shouldn't be that hard should it?

Yeah, but his villains usually don't need as much of an origin. Batman's villains tend to be "Guy with mental problems buys a flashy suit". Even someone like Killer Croc tends to be nothing more than "He was born kind of scaly."

However, Spider-man's villains tend to have to be a little more involved (given Spidey's suite of powers). They have to establish the villain's mental problems, then go about the contrivances of giving them superpowers big enough to give Pete a bit of a go of it, by which point we've long since left "small scale" at a rest stop three towns back.

With Civil War, how did the explanation/retcon for Tony work out in the comics then? IIRC, at the time everyone reading was just assuming he was really evil and there was some sort of secret plan and/or evil alien mind control even as it was happening.

As I recall, he was ousted as head of SHIELD after Norman Osborn killed the Skrull Queen. Eventually, his mind got wiped due to a slap fight with Osborn, so they restored his memory from a backup that (wouldn't you know) was made before Civil War. He sits down to catch up with what had happened, and is horrified by the stuff he did (despite being in his right mind the entire time, ostensibly).

It was at this point that I realized that they just didn't want me to read Iron Man ever again.

inflatable dalek
2014-10-25, 02:39 PM
I'm not sure Spidey's villains are that much more involved, most of the main ones are either "I have a terrible accident" or "I'm a genius who made a technobabble costume" (or in a few cases a genius who made a technobabble costume and then had a terrible accident).

That Civil War stuff... well, hats off to them for not having some sort of twist and his actions being entirely face value, but the cop out in him going back to his old good ways is pretty bad.

Another reason I doubt the filmed Civil War will be based around hero registration is that's arguably a bit too close to mutant registration, which is very much the X-Men thing (which, IIRC was another complaint a lot of people had about Civil War at the time).

Dead Man Wade
2014-10-25, 02:57 PM
I'm not sure Spidey's villains are that much more involved, most of the main ones are either "I have a terrible accident" or "I'm a genius who made a technobabble costume" (or in a few cases a genius who made a technobabble costume and then had a terrible accident).

Right, but the transition to film means they have to have some underlying reason in additon to their terrible accident/costume. Doc Ock can't just be some asshole, even though comics fans just always accepted that, because the general populace is not going to accept certain things at face value. So instead, he has to be a caring teacher whose accident causes him to lose perspective and get lost in his work. The metal arms are sort of ancillary to that; if they weren't there, he'd have put on sunglass and run around shirtless anyway.

Gotham, on the other hand, has more mentally-ill people per capita (including the hero), so being mental is just assumed.

That Civil War stuff... well, hats off to them for not having some sort of twist and his actions being entirely face value, but the cop out in him going back to his old good ways is pretty bad.

Well, in a general sense, I get it. They needed all the major characters back on good terms in time for the Heroic Age because movie movie movie. But it was probably the absolute worst way to have handled it. Had he been a Skrull, it would have been obvious and disappointing, but it wouldn't have been such a giant middle finger.

As for the SHRA, I agree that that's always kind of been an X-book thing, but that's something I never really understood. How people in the Marvel U can look at two people with terrifying superpowers and say, "Your powers are okay 'cause you're a roided-up guinea pig. But your's are the result of a quirk of your DNA, and I hate you for it."

Truthfully, Superhuman Registration makes far more sense than Mutant Registration.

Skyquake87
2014-10-26, 08:07 AM
D'yknow, I actually enjoyed the Stark memory deletion thing. I think that's cos Matt Fraction made such a good job of writing that arc, IMO. Stark is basically on the run from the US government, and Norman Osborn wants the SHRA data held in Stark's noggin (which is a fair point - Osborn wouldn't do anything good with that kind of information and would just use at as leverage and/ or to eliminate his enemies).

I think where the whole Stark/ Civil War thing fell down was Marvel's total lack of balls in allowing this new status quo to stand (naieve though it was of me to think anything in comics would stay the same). The stuff that was done to Spider-Man off the back of Civil War was just horrible and pales next to Stark's slightly more plausible technology based ret-con. What I find funny about CW now is that in its pages, it had the same sort of right to remain anonymous debates as we have with technology and the internet in the real world. Its a bit like the way Google tries to be all cuddly and friendly with all the data it holds on everything and everyone, but various world powers are falling over themselves to get hold of that information for "security" and more and more people are totally fine with that (the "I've got nothing to hide" argument).

As for big screen Spidey, I think Wade is right. The big thing that keeps Spidey popular is his humanity and that's reflected in how his comic is always quite soapy and accessible. The villains are never just bad guy in a suit (well, some are but...) , but have clearly mapped out stories about the choices they made that led them to where they are and translating that to the big screen means you have to have these lengthy backstory jaunts.

One reason ASM 2 doesn't quite work is that, having spent a lot of time building up to Electro, we suddenly jump to Harry Osborn being Peter's best mate and his descent into becoming the Green Goblin in less than an hour, which just falls flat. Just because in this new reboot we haven't seen Harry before and I couldn't totally buy into Peter and Harry's friendship (although the actors do a bloody good job to paper over this). It basically falls into the trap of a lot of superhero sequels - trying to cram too much in and getting carried away with itself instead of focussing on telling a good solid story about hero vs villain (which is arguably why the three Iron Man films work so well - there's no attempt to over-egg the pudding with hundreds of villains).

Spidey could be brilliant, if they just kept the scale down and remembered he's mainly a street based hero. He could be more as he is actually pretty powerful (that's one of things that has saved the cluster f**K of the Doc Ock brain swap in the comics - Ock realising that Parker has always held back in his fights with his enemies), but chooses to keep things as low key as he can. His villains reflect this sort of street based drama - they're all usually small time crooks or gangbangers, with the occasional mad-science experiment goes awry type chucked in.

On topic, I'm quite looking forward to Avengers 2. If it's as good as the first one , I'll be happy.

Cliffjumper
2014-10-27, 12:20 AM
Yeh, Spidey's big problem is that his power level isn't particularly high and therefore his bad guys tend to be, well, wimps - if Doc Ock went up against Iron Man he'd last about a minute, which is why he has this sort-of sealed-off rogues' gallery. Which means while it's possible to do a very good Spider-Man film you're never going to be able to level cities in a movie about him and that's what people want to see...

Spider-Man's format is quite repetitive when you're doing films - guy gets superpowers, blames it on Peter or Spidey, fights Spidey, loses. Which is why it's always beefed up by character stuff, and do you really think anyone who watches Avengers cares about character stuff?

If they were brave they'd go for an adult Parker (which I'm betting will be Marvel's USP if/when they get the licence back), but the problem is Spider-Man works better with the sort of character-driven long-term arc which really doesn't suit films.

For Batman the big draw is the dark stuff - he's always, always been the comic character it's cool to like, even 10-15 years ago when Comicon attendance got you beaten up. It really can't be underestimated how much the Burton films added to the visibility of the character, plus having Nolan on board (plus Bale, Oldman etc.) means you're pulling in cinema fans rather than just people who want to see CGI explosions.

Clay
2014-10-27, 03:30 AM
Civil War was just an excuse for a ****-ton of hero on hero fights; the registration thing was just window dressing an a chance to get public reveals for Tony Stark etc. out there, whereas obviously the films stole from the Ultimates rather than the MU. Even if the comics retconned it because Quesada's a twat Civil War's one plus point - that Stark got to be a genuine arsehole - will never happen when Disney want the audience on-side for Iron Man 7, so the whole thing will be faintly pathetic.

It took a while to percolate, but I think (speaking as someone who admittedly knows nothing about these story arcs) that the idea of having the heroes fight each other has more to do with not having a credible threat to justifying them fighting together. But seeing them fight each other could be compelling. This article on Cracked (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-ugly-lessons-hiding-in-every-superhero-movie_p2/) had a great point for number one: none of these characters are underdogs. While I thought the Avengers movie was great fun, it obviously had problems creating dramatic tension because, well, a bunch of superheroes teamed up together shouldn't have any problems dealing with the sorts of things that crop up in action movies. As that article rightly says, most of the drama came from them fighting amongst themselves, not Loki. A movie more predicated on the heroes versus each other might have more dramatic traction.

Just a thought from a relative outside voice. :)

Dead Man Wade
2014-10-27, 05:09 PM
D'yknow, I actually enjoyed the Stark memory deletion thing. I think that's cos Matt Fraction made such a good job of writing that arc, IMO.

To be clear, I didn't have an issue with the restoration itself. My issue is the fact that Stark, who was in his right mind during the events of Civil War and after and acted according to what was happening, looks at it post-restore and is immediately horrified. Stark, who never admitted to any actual wrongdoing, who only ever said that he was sorry the way things worked, looks at his actions and realizes (apropos of nothing) that he's wrong just in time for the Avengers movie to come out? No.

Even when Goliath was killed, even when Cap was killed, even when Aunt May was on the verge of death, Stark stood by his principles. Suddenly, he's a different person? No.

I think where the whole Stark/ Civil War thing fell down was Marvel's total lack of balls in allowing this new status quo to stand (naieve though it was of me to think anything in comics would stay the same).

For me, where Civil War fell apart was when, mid story arc, they were all "Nitro was using MGH! It wasn't actually the New Warriors' fault! Just kidding!". Saying that something happened because a team was untrained, basing your whole storyline on that notion, then saying that that wasn't actually the case and Cap or Iron Man would have run in to the same problem, all kind of kills the momentum.

But that's just Civil War. Great idea, shoddy execution, shitty fallout.

One reason ASM 2 doesn't quite work is that, having spent a lot of time building up to Electro, we suddenly jump to Harry Osborn being Peter's best mate and his descent into becoming the Green Goblin in less than an hour, which just falls flat.

Kind of the same problem with Spider-man 3. I'm not going to attempt to defend the dancing, or the KD Lang hair, but there is a lot that could have worked if it had its own movie. However, Harry in that film had several movies' worth of exposition, in addition to Sandman, in addition to Venom, in addition to shut up shut up shut up shut up.

On topic, I'm quite looking forward to Avengers 2. If it's as good as the first one , I'll be happy.

There was a topic?

If they were brave they'd go for an adult Parker (which I'm betting will be Marvel's USP if/when they get the licence back), but the problem is Spider-Man works better with the sort of character-driven long-term arc which really doesn't suit films.

Definitely. Given that most action movie fans complain if the runtime steps over 90 minutes (not that they can't or shouldn't), most of the Spider-man movies have had to give themselves over to the origins, motivations, and vendettas. As a result, Peter winds up largely reactionary, rather than the driving force for the movie like he should be.

It really can't be underestimated how much the Burton films added to the visibility of the character, plus having Nolan on board (plus Bale, Oldman etc.) means you're pulling in cinema fans rather than just people who want to see CGI explosions.

Yeah. Unfortunately, that led to the uber-gritty crap DC is doing now with Man of Steel, et al. The success of the Nolan trilogy means that every movie is going to be handled with that same "Grrr, I live in moral ambiguity!" attitude that reared its ugly head in MoS, whether it fits the character or not.

The lesson in BB/DK/DKR is that if you put in the effort and turn out a thoughtful character piece that deconstructs a hero's motivations and place in society, you can have a successful franchise without appealing to the lowest common denominator. The lesson DC took away is Murder+Depressing Color Pallette (which Batman didn't even have)=Realism, meaning they couldn't find the point if it was a cheeseburger and they were piloting a fat guy.

A movie more predicated on the heroes versus each other might have more dramatic traction.

This issue can be resolved by getting better villains or creating worthwhile drama, though. Having the heroes fight just because isn't going to fix what's wrong there.

Loki isn't a bad villain, and it's a nice sort of homage to the origin issue, but his only real use is in setting up bigger baddies (same with Hector Hammond in GL). The threat is ultimately the alien army, and even that is fairly low-level. Having a reasonably powerful villain, or an alien army that takes more than fifteen minutes to deal with, would have made for a much better movie than contriving to have the heroes get all up in each other's faces. Again.

angloconvoy
2014-11-10, 03:10 PM
To be clear, I didn't have an issue with the restoration itself. My issue is the fact that Stark, who was in his right mind during the events of Civil War and after and acted according to what was happening, looks at it post-restore and is immediately horrified. Stark, who never admitted to any actual wrongdoing, who only ever said that he was sorry the way things worked, looks at his actions and realizes (apropos of nothing) that he's wrong just in time for the Avengers movie to come out? No.

Even when Goliath was killed, even when Cap was killed, even when Aunt May was on the verge of death, Stark stood by his principles. Suddenly, he's a different person? No.


Though I agree that the timing was clearly to fit around the movie as have a lot of the unfortunate forced changes that the Marvel Universe has seen to fall halfway in line with movies, it didn't seem at all unbelieveable that a person who'd been through a rough time, and then undergone a reset would be horrified by what they'd done. There've been times in my life where if I suddenly lost half a year and with the benefit of hindsight was shown, "this is the person you became" I would have been quite horrified, and I've never done anything particularly out of the ordinary horrific. It's all about the benefit of hindsight.

The SRA isn't too integral to Civil War. It could easily be replaced with something connected to the Hydra Shield fiasco that you'd expect Cap to side with except he doesn't. I loved how they used the Hydra thing, by the way, totally unexpected since that story mostly ran in the very B-List Secret Warriors.

There's a lot to agree and disagree with about the points that people have made about Spider-Man. That point about getting past the adolescent Spider-Man and dealing with the grown up version was spot on. It would work so much better in the context of the Marvel Cinematic universe. Or in any version, actually. It'd be nice if sony just did a massive time skip for Spider-Man 3. Probably the best way to get away from treading the same old tired ground. Maybe get in a bit about the souped up Spider-powers that he never uses on account of the fact he's actually an overpowered killing machine who constantly holds himself back because he's so riddled with guilt.

Notabot
2014-11-10, 05:50 PM
I'm coming to realize that I'm kind of in a nice "sweet spot" of knowledge with regard to the Marvel movies. I know enough about the characters and some of the back stories that I can appreciate and understand some of the things not totally spelled out, but I don't know enough that I'm put off by changes that are necessary to make the movie work. My wife enjoys the movies, but knowing nothing about Iron Man, Professor X, Venom, etc. leaves her wondering about a number of things that make perfect sense to me.

inflatable dalek
2014-11-10, 08:21 PM
For Batman the big draw is the dark stuff - he's always, always been the comic character it's cool to like, even 10-15 years ago when Comicon attendance got you beaten up. It really can't be underestimated how much the Burton films added to the visibility of the character, plus having Nolan on board (plus Bale, Oldman etc.) means you're pulling in cinema fans rather than just people who want to see CGI explosions.

Thinking on this as the blu ray set arrived today (more on this in the latest purchases thread!), but in terms of Batman's "Respectability" the importance of the '60's show can't be underestimated either. As much as Serious Comic Fans may moan about the camp it was a huge cultural phenomenon (it's single handedly the reason the films have a much easier time picking villains people have heard of than, say, Superman does) and was watched and loved by pretty much everyone of all ages at the time.

It was a lot more influential on the Burton stuff that its often given credit for as well, one of the meandering plots in Batman Returns is a straight up rehash of the One Where The Penguin Runs for Mayor.

In other news, we all missed the announcement that Civil War will be Captain America 3, whilst Avengers 3 and 4 will be Infinity War. With Captain Marvel (the girl one) and Black Panther (the black one) along the way as well.

Dead Man Wade
2014-11-13, 02:59 PM
I wouldn't say "missed" it. Personally, I just didn't think it was worth commenting on, as there weren't really a lot of surprises. It's nice that they're finally doing something other than "White male overcoming impossible odds and the occasional minority", but it's not really shocking. The only big surprise for me was Inhumans, as that's not really a book I think of when the phrase "mainstream appeal" comes up, but as surprises go, it's a pleasant one.

I do agree with the Quick Fix on Cracked recently that said that it kind of ruins the effect when they flat out tell you what the next few batches of movies are going to be. But either way, it's better than DC announcing twenty-odd years of movies building on the strength of Man of Steel.

There've been times in my life where if I suddenly lost half a year and with the benefit of hindsight was shown, "this is the person you became" I would have been quite horrified, and I've never done anything particularly out of the ordinary horrific. It's all about the benefit of hindsight.

And that may be the case, but in the context of the story, it didn't come across that way. It came across as a shallow and crass attempt to restore the status quo in advance of the movie.

The SRA isn't too integral to Civil War. It could easily be replaced with something connected to the Hydra Shield fiasco that you'd expect Cap to side with except he doesn't. I loved how they used the Hydra thing, by the way, totally unexpected since that story mostly ran in the very B-List Secret Warriors.

Granted. The SHRA is a macguffin, and nothing more. Ideally, though, it's one that carries with it a lot of gray areas that the Hydra thing doesn't.

With the SHRA, there are valid reasons for both sides (provided Mark Millar isn't indiscriminately killing people for no reason). The Hydra storyline, on the other hand, destabilizes SHIELD, sure; but it was stopped by costumed heroes. If HYDRA has been exposed, and those in on it are ostensibly either captured or (in the case of Agent Manjaw from AoS) on the run, what reason does the government have for gunning for Cap? Other than, you know, being the government.

That point about getting past the adolescent Spider-Man and dealing with the grown up version was spot on. *SNIP* Probably the best way to get away from treading the same old tired ground.

But if there's one thing that's been proven time and again in the last few years, it's that Spider-man will never again be allowed to mature. If he should, by some ungodly accident, manage to make it all the way through puberty, we're gonna hit the reset button on that shit long before he takes his first, trembling steps into adulthood. Spider-man has to remain exactly the way he was when some neckbeard was a teenager, or what's the point? [/rant]

Maybe get in a bit about the souped up Spider-powers that he never uses on account of the fact he's actually an overpowered killing machine who constantly holds himself back because he's so riddled with guilt.

This was actually one of the most interesting things to come out of Superior Spider-man. It was nice to see folks getting a taste of what happens when Peter isn't holding back.