theCapraAegagrus

I'd be interested in what you think. If you have a good memory of the theatrical cut, you should easily notice how coherent the story is in comparison. There's also a good 3-part yet lengthy series on YouTube called, "Why You're Wrong About Batman v Superman", that highlights some of the required thinking points to truly love the movie. It's not a brainless piece of entertainment like GotG Vol 2. It's not flawless, but I do love Snyder's Cut. Which is why I swoon at the idea of a Justice League Snyder Cut.

Yeah, Falcon and Fury aren't special. The others are, though, so I don't see how you come to the conclusion that they're equal to the weak ones. White Wolf is borderline useful only because he's Cap + a vibranium arm. Her skills were useful in The Avengers, yet. Now that the universe has expanded with greatly powerful villains and heroes? Not so much.

WB wanted a 2.5 hour run-time so that they could have more showings. Problem is: People would've spread the good word, and saw it more than once, if it was good. That = more money. Since the word of mouth was "meh", or "bad", less people were interested. They cut 25+ minutes of pure storytelling. A few action clips that IMO made the action scenes more coherent. The movie is about a realistic mid-trilogy Superman and a realistic coming out of retirement Batman. If you're set in stone on how you wanna view these characters, then you may not even enjoy the UE. It's a great movie, though.

If you didn't see the Ultimate Edition, then you're not judging the correct movie. Snyder's cut of the film is great.

Lies. Worlds of DC screwed up Suicide Squad, but the onus is on Warner Bros for limiting Justice League's (and Dawn of Justice's) success.

That's purely conjecture. There's no evidence to support this. Coulson being able to "override" JARVIS in The Avengers is a matter of computer programming and nothing else. Claiming that SHIELD somehow knows what JARVIS even is is more conjecture. JARVIS is simply a program that knows how to program. A human that knows how to program is 99.99% more likely to successfully control an engineered electrical device such as a phone or elevator. "It's science". No, I think that you're missing the entire point. That is that Gamora is a superior physical specimen, and not a "weak" character in the cosmic MCU. Barton and Romanoff are the weakest "hero" characters that rely on human psychology to even have a purpose. Outside of Earth - they're basically useless. Gamora is useful to the Guardians and the Avengers because of her ability to traverse and succeed among much more than 1 planet in the galaxy. She already has that function does not need to adapt to be useful outside of Earth. She's not a "weak one". The only way the weak ones are going to survive Endgame is probably because of the Iron Man and Ant-Man technologies. Not based on purely their own merits. Which is why they're weak and IMO need to go.

I think this works as a teaser trailer. It just teases that there's a story. I'll need to see a little more Joker stuff in the next one. I think this is a good start. I thought that Phoenix would be a perfect casting choice, and this appears to confirm that.

Considering that it's comic book material, and not the MCU, this can't be considered "clear examples". They're not one and the same. Very far from it. If you don't acknowledge and apply that then we can't have an even discussion, because I, and the court of public opinion, cannot accept that as a valid talking point. We can only accept concrete evidence within the context of the MCU. Howard Stark's involvement with SHIELD ended 20 years prior to Iron Man. That gap pretty much entirely eliminates all connections between the brands for 2 decades. But, again, this discussion is completely meaningless to the Avengers' "weak ones". Gamora has strength and power, and galactic knowledge, that Barton and Nat do not. Using human accomplishments to fluff either weak one is nothing close to the capabilities that a galactic traveler such as Gamora has. Gamora has power and skills useful to the Guardians and Avengers. The weak ones, at this point, don't. War Machine trumps them both, even with wobbly legs. "Teasing" doesn't really work over the internet. I've tried it on Facebook, and it's never worked. Obviously, it isn't working in this discussion right now...

I'm intrigued.

Lol what!? You're so emotionally invested in this discussion that not refuting the videos is tantamount to disregard..? Consider my mind blown. Also - I'm moving that discussion completely aside as it has literally nothing to do with the close-worthlessness of Barton and Romanoff. Gamora is "the fiercest woman in the galaxy" and on a completely different level than the 2 "weak ones". That's an Age of Ultron quote. The Avengers enemies know they have "weak ones".

I've looked at that one before, and it doesn't interest me at all. Outside of very rare instances - I don't like variants. It's one thing that pre-modern books have a huge draw to me. I like not having to look at, or choose, between multiple covers.

Good - laugh it off. You literally did. I told the OP what his kids will have. $4 books in $50 pieces of plastic. If he's looking for "what his kids will have", then what other inference is there to make, other than that he expects his kids to have some "valuable" modern drek? He's encapsulating brand new books for spec value. That's all that's going on.

How did I belittle you? If you're taking it personally, then I suggest separating your emotions from your stance. I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument, which is exactly how a debate works. You can't present Marvel Comics data as a source for your information. It doesn't fly when discussing the MCU. This is just factual information. "Limited thinking"? You're applying, singularly, Earth psychology to a debate about cosmic spying. I would call that "limited thinking. It would take Barton or Nat decades to be able to apply their human-based spying acumen to another planet's and species' infrastructure. Their value as an Avenger in the MCU is limited and continues to dwindle.

Don't create a strawman argument. You're literally putting words in my mouth. If you're looking for an extended argument - go elsewhere. In case you forgot, what I did say, is that "there are exceptions to every rule". The 'Tec 1000's will not be worth this much for long.

I'm waiting for the ball to drop - and it will. Sell 'em while they're 'hot'.

"my kids will know what they have." If his kids aren't into them now, then there's really no other conclusion to draw. He could just leave raw books to them if he wants them to read them (which is really all most modern are good for anyways).

Like I said; Stock up on the DC 1000's, then. One outlier does not make a 'rule'.

Haven't we learned by now that Marvel Comics and the MCU are far from one and the same..? Everything after that basis is purely conjecture or speculation. For me, it's not worth debating something not supported by concrete evidence. IMO it is delusional to form such a seemingly believed argument with inconclusive or irrelevant information. This all being a tangent far off from the discussion of Barton or Nat's value to the MCU (which is close to nil). So, you seriously think that Barton, with an Earth-based family, or Nat, are capable of being useful intergalactic spies on potential planets that they know literally nothing about..? Spies are valuable because if their ability to adapt among Earth psychology. The application elsewhere requires a lifetime of training. It doesn't require a lifetime on Earth because your formative years are spent here. It's asinine.

Never.

LMK what about my post is disrespectful - because there's nothing to be found there. I'm personally sick of the "woe is thee, if you disagree, you're not respecting me" shtick. "If you disagree, you're a troll". That's not how it works. If you think modern variants are gonna fetch you $$$$$ then load up on the 80 DC #1000s.

7.0 IMO.

Lol you think intergalactic systems will fall for human spies? IMO that's really delusional. I'm also not convinced that Howard Stark would help build infrastructure that can be easily accessed by a loophole for a super-secret organization. He had no knowledge that his son would grow up to be a technological genius. That would also leave a Death Star hole-sized weakness for any interested parties to attack. JARVIS was also developed by Tony, and not Howard, so JARVIS didn't have any pre-determined knowledge of SHIELD's programming infrastructure. This, of course, also doesn't account for the fact that when Howard died in the 90's, the programming language differences between the 20 years of his death and The Avengers isn't accounted for. Human spies worked in a human world. In a world where HYDRA was already found to have corrupted a super-secret organization, they don't work anymore. They most certainly won't work in a cosmic world, either.

Not sure where the information from your first paragraph comes from. AFAIK, Tony Stark never did anything for SHIELD pre-Avengers. The first ever mention of him being involved with them was in The Winter Soldier. Rocket has elite predictive-combat skills, similar to Stark's Iron Man ingenuity, as evidence in GotG Vol 2. That genius is something that sets them apart from characters like Barton and Romanoff. Engineering and scientific understanding is more valuable than spying, in a universe with villains that have power. The time of spies is in the past.

Tony Stark was able to hack SHIELD, though. They have their uses, and I suspect that in Endgame, their truly bare-bones human sides will bring a lot of 'feels' to the audience. Going forward, the more-cosmic the MCU scales, the less useful they'll be.

44.5