Is this where Solid Snake points out the rapey nature of ducks?

Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin!

People who use the word poser, instead of poseur, are poseurs of using the word poseur as a slam...

Posuer looks too french.

I am not sure who I need to feel sorry for here...the one that got called the poser or the one that used the word poser…

If it means anything... I'm still pissed Hokeyboy doesn't look like his avatar. Such a tease.

They love rape so much that they at times try to rape in mid flight. Amazing rapists.

They spelled poser wrong. It's POSEUR.

Get it right, hipsters.

Maybe I wouldn't come off as such a poseur if I changed my avatar to Luis Guzman...

DON'T fucking do that...

Unless it is from Out of Sight...

Is Brett Ratner available?

Actually this is like the fourth time, Favreau left because of Marvel's tight time table and wasn't happy with IM2, but he stayed on as a producer and actor in IM3, Joe Johnston split over direction of CA2 and was replaced with the Russo Brothers not sure of he's still a producer, and Patty Jenkins and Edgar Wright. So Marvel must have some sort of control issues.

If IMDb trivia is to be believed (I know, I know), same reason Kenneth Branagh didn't return for Thor 2.

And wasn't the guy who directed Thor 2 shut out of editing?

According to Kevin Smith (on his weekly podcast), Marvel doesn't allow most of their directors any leeway in how they present both the story and the characters - they have a plan and they don't want you deviating from it. I guess Chris Evans has even said they don't let him ad lib or improvise ANYTHING on the set - you're a slave to the script.

Reportedly, the only one Marvel has allowed some freedom to is Joss Whedon and Jon Favreau. I suspect that Robert Downey and Sam Jackson are given some freedom as actors as well, but they're probably the only ones.

Makes sense. The producers have to keep strict control when basically financing a really big movie that's costing billions to produce. One or two turds and Hollywood isn't going to want to be part of things anymore.

Otherwise, you're DC at WB. And, you know: fuck those guys.

If Marvel wasn't going to give *anyway* leeway do you really think they would have done this dance with Edgar Wright for so long? Most likely they tried to give Wright some wiggle room, Wright tried to get his Ant-Man into the MCU and the end they just couldn't make it work.

This doesn't surprise me in the least bit and it shows in the product. Marvel hit on a formula with Iron Man and they're going to stick with that formula until it stops making money. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all of these films, but for the most part they are all slight variations on a theme. Some are better than others, and the best ones are lots of fun, but none of them will ever venture too far outside the box. They exist solely to promote/extend the brand. There's no real desire on Marvel's part to do anything interesting.

Why mess with a formula that's proving to be so financially successful? Obviously, it's going to be creatively stifling sooner or later, if it hasn't already, but why let some iconoclast shake things up and risk a lower box office recipient. Let's be honest, films with budgets this size aren't knowing for being artistic risk-takers.

I couldn't help but shake the feeling that that's why they got someone from the TV world in the first place-shoot fast and do as you're told.

You don't think guardians of the galaxy is a different beast than the other MCU movies? You don't think that is a risk?

And how similar is Winter Soldier compared to the other MCU movies? That felt more like a Bourne/political thriller than it did a comic book movie.

Yeah. Cap 2 and GotG are very different from the norm. Especially the latter.

And the very fact that Marvel is sticking with its planned release date, means that they are not going to do a major overhaul on the script, which means for the most part everything Wright and Cornish put in will stay in, and then again, will be different from your typical MCU film

Well, none of us have actually seen Guardians of the Galaxy, so it's hard to comment. Sure the space thing is new, but that's just the concept/setting for this particular property. Just like Iron Man revolves around techno nonsense, Thor deals in Norse mythology and Cap has a political/military bent. Does anyone really think that this is going to be that huge a departure from the rest of the Marvel franchise? The only real difference is that it features a bunch of characters no one's ever heard of.

As far as Cap 2 goes, it may be more of a political thriller, but it's a political thriller very much within the established world of the MCU. The look, tone, and general sense that nothing really changes for these characters (despite the changes to SHIELD) is still there. At the end of the day, the primary goal is still to make sure everything is in place for Avengers 2. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I don't begrudge any of this. These movies are fun and I see them all. When I say that they'll never do anything interesting, what I mean is that they'll never try to stretch the boundaries of the brand either narratively or cinematically. In that regard they very much resemble their printed counterparts. Maybe someday the Hollywood equivalent of Alan Moore or Grant Morrison will step in and turn the genre upside down and give us something fresh, but as long as the MCU keeps bringing in the dollars, that's not going to happen.

Other than the (alleged) major overhaul they've already performed that significantly alters or ditches much of what Wright and Cornish put in. Allegedly.