RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Captain America Movie Rumours

hahaha its because i like batman!!

this is probably as non-gay-yet-faithful as a captain america suit can get. plus, you have to figure, like the batman begins and x-men movie preview shots, these are shown with lighting and technique we'll not see in the films. throw on the grainy screen, back lighting, noir tones, war damage, etc. and he'll look proper

Yeah, for a modern suit it looks good.

But I'm a little surprised at just how modern it looks and I kind of wonder if this isn't going to turn out to be a "near the end of the movie" version of the suit with a more retro-looking costume for earlier in the film.

If anything, I would have predicted something a little more like the Affleck DD costume, with a leather tunic.

I think it looks good, and they even have a reasonable explanation for why a grown man would wear something like that: he dresses like that for a USO show to boost morale, but then they're attacked or something and he has to go into combat like that.

Yeah, I think the explanation I've read makes sense. But that's also part of the reason I could see a different (yet similar) suit early on.

Also: yes, I can't see many people here going to a movie called Captain America. It's not just that we hate Freedom (although we do), it's also that the character isn't that well known here and "Captain" anything sounds like a silly name. If I saw a movie called Major New Zealand I'd assume it's an animation film or a Rob Schneider parody.

Rob Schneider is about to find out that being New Zealand is not that easy.

I dont think a film called Captain America would do too badly here as I do think the character is well enough known to at least do reasonably well, but as you say, those that havent heard of him, may very well think its some kind of comedy, much the same as the Team America movie.
I'd say out of all the superheroes out there, Cap has gotta be one of the toughest sells outside his native country.

<insert joke about sheep sex here>

For that reason, I'm a little surprised they didn't just do an "Ultimates" or "Avengers" movie, have them recruit Cap and then spin his own film out of that.

As I said to Pro earlier, I think the Avengers is also gonna be a tougher to sell name, mainly because a lot of people will relate it to the other version of The Avengers with Steed and Emma Peel etc, which is probably why they are doing a bunch of solo films initially, and have tagged the Cap movie with the First Avenger tag.
Iron Man was probably lesser known than Cap, but obviously the name Iron Man is a whole lot cooler and Superheroish than Captain America, plus it had all the special effects hype.

The one thing Cap has going for it by releasing it as a solo movie, is that there is a lot of hype for superhero movies at the moment, so a solo movie is less risky right now.

If nothing else, we have seen that launching characters out of team movies, doesnt necessarily work.
Other than Wolverine, who in the X-Men movies did people want in a solo film?
Probably nobody.

The problem with team movies is theres too much of a chance of one or two characters getting all the screen time, and everyone else ends up looking like Lois Lane or Alfred.

Oh, and you could also look at it another way.
Remember the days before Wolverine and Spiderman had been members of every team ever, what did you find more of a thrill:
A team book of new characters ending up with spin off books
or
A bunch of well known heroes all teaming up for the first time

Good point. In fact, I had suspected that was part of the reason we got "the Ultimates" in the first place, to wit, that it was more sellable name. I wonder why Marvel went back to "the Avengers."



Yeah, but other than Wolverine, who in the X-men comics has even had a successful solo book either. And if it worked for Wolvie, why not Cap?



Yeah, but that's a problem no matter what. In fact, I suspect that any Avengers movie will probably (if Downey wants it to be) turn into "Iron Man and his sidekicks."

Thats pretty much my point though.
One of the key reasons to do the solo films first is that at least they then have established characters in the movie, and that they dont risk ruining a characters chance of a spin off by having them seem weakened by Downey.

It really depends on how they portray Cap in the movie as to whether he could spin off.
If he has any of the character traits that Evans showed in his Torch portrayal, then it could work, but if we end up with a moralistic Cyclops style dullard, then nobody is gonna wanna see it.
Who is to say whether we wouldnt have gotten more spin offs from X-Men if the other characters were made more likeable and interesting, and Wolverine was given less screen time (and yes, I know that means the franchise might have died earlier, but is that a bad thing if it meant saving us from X3?).

That said, going on the dialogue between Stark and Fury in IM2, its looking likely that Downey and Iron Man will only have a small role in the Avengers movie.
I'd hazard a guess that War Machine will be a member though.

Dera-Doo Derpa-Derpa-diddly-doo Rob Schneider is Derpe-Zealand-Doo-Doo-Diddly...

Understood. I think we agree more than disagree in fact.



I think the problem was less Wolverine and more when Halle Berry won that Oscar and suddenly became the "big name" in the cast. As a result, I think some of the better characters were shunted aside for more useless Storm scenes (sorry, Pro).

You could be right. I think a lot depends on behind the scenes maneuvering and how much Downey wants to do (and how much the studio wants to pay him).

Storm was probably the least engaging of the characters (hell, I always hated her in the comics as well), but I really dont think they invested anything in what was essentially a bunch of supporting characters.

They should have spent more time on fleshing everyone out, but they didnt.

The big actors characters like Prof, Magneto and Storm obviously made sure they got their share of the limelight, but the films certainly revolved around Wolverine, and credit to the then unknown Jackman, for out doing all of them.

I have to give credit to Anna Paquin for at least having some presence, but who even noticed that the likes of Cyclops and Iceman were even in the movie as heroes?

No way they'll fuck us like that. I'm betting it's more that Stark will remain an adviser until The Avengers movie, when he, Cap, and Thor meet and form the Avengers trinity. That's when he'll suit-up and go full swing Iron Man mode.

So, as for the whole "First Avengers" bit, you're thinking the rest of the world thinks of Peel and Steed when they hear "Avengers"? Because I doubt the average American even knows the old show or those characters. But, either way, the rationality for the "FA" tag is to try and sell it to the foreign market? I hope it doesn't tank like G.I. Joe, then....

As for the concept art, I didn't think about it at first, but having read the other comments, I agree that this is (a) probably the modern suit, and (b) the lighting will make all the difference. When Bob mentioned that, I remembered seeing Bale's DK outfit for the first time in that exact same concept lighting and shot. It looked horrible. But, in the movie, it's awesome. So, I guess I'll have to wait and see.

However, they need to go Ultimates and have him with the helmet and half-mask from WWII. Where the mask went up to his forehead, brown leather goggles, and the matching, strapped-in helmet covered his hair? THAT'S the most believable headdress for Cap I've ever seen. Also, for WWII, the outfit needs to be a chainmail layer over specialized WWII-era Army fatigues. That would be the most logical and believable choice in my opinion...

Have you forgotten there was a big budget movie more recently?
Granted it wasnt a huge success, but its a hell of a lot more well known than a comic book.

Recently? That was twelve years ago...

And in America, I disagree. I would wager there are more grown-up comic fans who remember The Avengers than a seriously crappy Sean Connery/Uma Thurman movie from 1998...

Just as a random idea, what do people think of the chances that they will have Howard Stark or his father be responsible for creating the Cap shield/costume in WWII?

12 years ago is a lot more recent in peoples minds than you think.
And once again, selling a movie in todays day and age isnt just about selling it to Americans.
I'll wager that the 60s tv show is more well known worldwide than a comic book.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with that one. But, then, Comic Books is an American artform, so I can totally see the name resonating for Americans in that way, while the Europeans had their "Avengers" in the form of Steed and Peel.



Again, agreed. I think that was the hint in Iron Man 2, where we see the prototype shield, and the fact that Howard Stark created "S.H.I.E.L.D."

He will most definitely have something to do with Cap. Or, maybe it was Stark's grandfather? Would Howard have been old enough to have been involved in WWII and still be the guy we saw in the 60's films from IM2?

From what I understand, this guy (Jeremy Renner) from The Hurt Locker is up for Hawkeye...

Weren't they at one time talking about having Ant-Man in these films? Think he'll be introduced in The Avengers movie?

I was thinking along the same lines with regards to Howard, which was why I said it may be his father, but I guess we would have to accept some leeway on ages etc if they used Howard.

If you put Stark down as 45 (Downeys real age) and was born in 65, and say that the video of Howard was around 1969 or so, where he was maybe of a similar age, then that would put him in his late teens or early 20s in WWII.
Its workable.

Last I heard Antman was gonna have his own film and it was gonna be a comedy.

That was Steve Rogers testing out his future costume, before he got injected with the super soldier serum.

I heard Josh Holloway was up for that part as well.

I'd love that! Of course, Hollaway works even better...for me...as Oliver Queen/Green Arrow. But, I could easily take him as Hawkeye.



The idea is so cool, either way, I'd be willing to give them some serious leeway on the ages, and stuff. Those kind of details I can ignore if the concept is sound and executed in a fresh manner.

Speaking of freshness, I have heard that War Machine will be in the Avengers, as well. Is he being included for quota purposes? If so, that sucks. I love the character....and Cheadle is a superior actor in ways guys like Denzel could never understand....and I have no real problem with him showing up in the Avengers. But, I hope the reasoning for it is story and not based on a PC-kneejerkery...

I'd say pretty close to one hundred percent

Me too. But I think at this point Renner is confirmed.



Yeah. I seriously doubt they could ever find a better actor for Ollie than Holloway.

I just got the impression that Downey was not confirmed as agreeing to the Avengers movie, hence the creation of War Machine.
I cant see anyone accepting an Iron Man that wasnt Downey, but we have already seen that Rhodey could be played by anyone (and maybe he will take over the Iron Man armour...another possibility).

I'd also say that War Machine makes more sense from a government/military perspective if SHIELD is putting the team together.
With War Machine & Black Widow, you have two military based characters.
Add in a warrior like Thor and a soldier like Captain America, and it starts to look more like War Machine is the better fit than Iron Man anyway if they go that route.
Antman and Hawkeye would also be characters that could be adapted to be military types.

Fuck you, baldy!

I hope they preserve the wife-beating aspect of Pym, since that's what made him a role model for me.

By wife, you really mean 'penis'.

Fuck you, baldy face!