| Posted: 24 Oct 2009 01:21 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1616
Join Date: May 2007
|
Captain America script interview...
'Nuff said
I want Burger King
Here's the link:
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/10/21/captain-america-movies-scrip ...
|
| Posted: 24 Oct 2009 02:32 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
But what does "unexpected" mean??? I expect a great movie...does that mean this will stink? I doubt that's what he means. Perhaps he means the doubters...they may expect a jingoistic boyscout...and Cap may be portrayed more as a tough-as-nails soldier with uncompromising ideals.
For many, Spider-man was 'unexpected.' I remember an older woman telling me she took her grandson and was "surprised" by the movie because there was such a story to it.
On to the "list of actors" I was looking at a poll and Mark Valley certainly has the look. He's a little older, but with make-up they could pass him off as a younger man. I suspect he always had a slightly older look to his face. I don't know his acting prowess, though.
__________________
|
| Posted: 24 Oct 2009 02:53 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 576
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
"Unexpected" probably to becuase most Marvel movies now are based on present day, while the Cap movie will be set back in WWII.
Maybe....?
|
| Posted: 24 Oct 2009 13:17 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 267
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
|
Unexpected might just mean that they will stick entirely to the original book story line. Instead of wandering off track like the X-Mens costumes or the tweeks in Iron Man.One can only hope.
|
| Posted: 24 Oct 2009 15:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
I would say Joe is likely refering to the story structure. I am going to give a WAG and say that the story will be set in both the present and the past, so as to give the connection to the Avengers Movie.
Or, it could be that the story doesn't follow the typical story structure for super hero movies (origin, introduction of villain, epic battle) and perhaps starts with the villain, get's right to the punching, and sprinkles the origin in little bits through out the film.
Eitherway, Joe is hardly an impartial observer, and even if the script starts with Beefy Steve Rogers driving down the california coast in his tricked out Van, he'd say it was the best thing since sliced adamantium.
It's possible that Joe thinks it's really good, and that what is unexpected is how much depth and breadth they give to Steve, given how difficult it has been for marvel to give steve a great story.
I still say it would be great to have young artist steve rogers working in the Timely Bullpen, but that might be a hard thing to work into an already croweded story.
|
| Posted: 24 Oct 2009 22:48 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
I like the possibility that the "unexpected" is that it starts in the present. Perhaps they will start it with his discovery by the Avengers. They should have Thor finished shooting by the time Cap starts and Iron Man is all set. They would have to cast a couple others, but they could have them cameo to discovery cap and then have him flash back to his origin and have the rest of the movie set in WWII.
Or they could start with the villain--Red Skull--killing to get Dr. Erskine and then catch up with Steve a year later lamenting his desire to fight in the war and his moral obligations to his ailing mother. Then, he is offered a chance to join a secret project, but refuses because of his need to take care of his widow mother. When she passes, he joins the experiment just before they leave town.
That would follow the mythic structure (much like the original Star Wars) and would give Steve an emotional core that a broad audience would relate to.
__________________
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2009 01:15 Last Edited By: Pole805 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1616
Join Date: May 2007
|
Exactly..."Unexpected" to me, is like the X-Men, you have all the costumes from the comics and stories, and the script sort of just trails off.
What I'm most worried about is the status of loooking like an idiot like in '91 or looking awesome like Spider-Man suit.
Second is the story.
If you half to tweek then fine, but trail off in your little story from your little world, NO. Personally, if we can't find a story, then stick the original one. You don't like that? We half to, if the writer is out of ideas. Then scroll threw pictures of Captain America threw out the ages.
OR (What I want) to it REALLY unexpected by using all of the different suit versions of WWII for Captain America.
Ultimates: Air Drops
Brubaker: Water (D-Day)
Simon: Secret missions...
Or hhave for certain dates.
That's what I think the script should be if it is unexpected. You can really have an unexpected story, because Captain America has so many comics.
You see what I'm getting at?
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2009 03:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
I like the different costume idea, but they're likely to do something like Spider-man and Iron Man where he makes his own costume, but then gets the official one to use for the rest of the movie. Of course, I'd expect that, so.....
__________________
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2009 18:09 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1616
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Only 2 (Almost 1) to see what they mean by "Unexpected". I'll be waiting...
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2009 20:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
I think what Matches said is pretty accurate: Joe would rave about anything. He certainly wouldn't come out and say, "I've seen the script and the outline and we have a way to go before it is in good shape." That would hardly stoke buzz.
Same with his comments about Raimi. He said he LOVES Raimi and knows Spider-man 4 will be fantastic. Well, he wouldn't come out before the movie and say, "Raimi had his ideas and is now all washed up. We're going to replace him after this one." Just wouldn't make good press.
In the end, the fact that they're releasing Cap in July is enough for them to make sure it really is top quality. It's going to be squaring off against a Harry Potter and a Transformers sequel. It will also be going against the Green Lantern (no problem there). I suspect it will look the most fresh of all of them and the most appealing.
__________________
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2009 23:09 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
As far as costume design, I always thought the best way to introduce the character of Captain America would be to have a young Steve Rogers toiling away as a copy artist for Timely comics, and being told his stuff is just too political, haivng a red white and blue hero punching out hitler, and all.
Obviously there's an issue if you suggest that Kirby's iconic art was actually Steve's but I think that's forgivable in this instance.
You'd have a scene like that in the begining, showing young Steve Rogers as a man committed to the antifacist cause, being dispondent at being shot down by his editor, after being rejected by the army. It is then that he's approached by some shadowy figures who ask if he's still interested in doing what ever he can to stop the evil that's engulphing the world. He's the first to receive the Super Soldier serum, and then after Dr. Erskine is shot is now the only to recieve the serum. Not sure what to do with thier six million dollar man, perhaps it's steve that suggests the Hero angle, and then cap is born. Later, the shadowy men show up at Timely, informing the publication that the U.S. government would like them to serialize the adventures of this hero. Perhaps some even recognize the artwork they're given.
You know one thing that would be "unexpected" is if they focus a great deal on the supporting cast, and keep Cap in the shadows of the story. Focusing on Erskine, Agent 13, perhaps even Bucky, and keep Cap for the most part a mystery, might make for a good build to the Avengers movie with the reveal of cap as a man out of time then.
Anyway, that's my ideas, we'll see if the writers think of any of the same things.
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2009 23:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
|
Oh by the way, I am thinking they may be working the Avengers as Cap, Hulk, Ironman and Thor. The Pyms may have gotten shifted to the side, since I haven't heard anything about them recently.
|
| Posted: 26 Oct 2009 22:29 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1616
Join Date: May 2007
|
UPDATE:
"Rock Your Socks Off"
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a183015/captain-america-fil ...
|
| Posted: 27 Oct 2009 00:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 501
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
I'm hoping that the Cap movie is going to be 'Unexpecting'. This year, Wolverine and Watchmen were basically fight fest. Wolvie and Sabletooth vs Deadpool on that reactor; Watchmen fighting that Ozymodus guy in the climax. Like Daredevil, DD fights Elektra, Elektra fights Bullseye, DD fights BE then finishes with DD fights Kingpin. Spidey movies, Iron Man vs Iron Monger, etc.
Like Western, a shootout in every movies, the public recognized it, saw it hundreds of time and then moved on.
With some tweeks or creative ideas or some innovative story telling, westerns can be interesting movies like Unforgiven.
Xmen escaping that Dam in Xmen2, MJ discovering Spidey's ID in Spiderman2, Downey Jrs' performance, Joker's wild crazy scheme, ... they all add something to what would be a routine fight movie.
Yes, it's going to be Cap vs Red Skull, but add in soldiers, planes, tanks, explosions, or maybe include the cosmic cube to mess things up.
As long as it's a good movie, watchable, cool action scenes, great twists, likeable actors and decent lines, it can be enjoyed and get that 'favorable word of mouth' (even with bad critic's reviews).
As for Cap's success overseas, I believe lots of people love America overseas, but won't voice it, and a movie about a WW2 superhero fighting terrorist, I think they'll enjoy watching (Maybe secretely).
|
| Posted: 27 Oct 2009 18:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Actually, at the moment the U.S. is once again the most popular country in the world by most polls.
So long as Cap is representing the ideals of America people will love Cap.
I think it would be very much counter the character to have Cap say torture a villain, even a Nazi, so, as long as they don't turn Cap into Jack Bauer, I think the film will be popular overseas.
Heck even the Germans like a movie wher Nazi's get beat up. =o)
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2009 05:48 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
I see Cap very much like Jack Bauer. Minus the torturing, but being willing to go that far if absolutely necessary. I think Jack is more of the prototype for Nomad.
__________________
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2009 17:46 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Yeah, Jack is very much in the Nomad mold...remember that's the Bucky from the 50's whose brains have been fairly well scrambled.
No, I don't see Cap being willing to go that far. Nick Fury, definatly, but not Cap. Cap is an idealist, and is the kind of guy to defend others rights, even when it is detrimental to himself and his cause.
Really, if that was the guy cap was, wouldn't he have put a cap in the Red Skull by now? In a theater of war, certainly, cap did what he needed to do, but that wouldn't have included torture (torture is not something done on the battlefield) nor would it have included summary execution.
Cap believes in the rules of engagement and the rules of war. Cap is a warrior in the mold of Athena not Ares (if you've seen the recent Dark Avengers Ares story) and that makes him a better warrior.
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2009 20:59 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 501
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
|
Always thought Cap was a Nice guy, a soldier you can talk to, befriend, discuss or argue with, ... and yet capable of doing underhanded things or sneaky, unexpected stragedies to win a fight.
|
| Posted: 29 Oct 2009 10:56 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 88
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
Part of Marine Corp training is the necessity of being able to sneak up on an enemy who might be sitting looking at a photo of their girlfriend or something like that and be able to kill them unawares.
Efficient capable soldiers they are, boy scouts they are not.
|
| Posted: 29 Oct 2009 16:33 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Killing a soldier from behind is a very differnt thing than torturing a prisoner.
I believe part of military training is also a recognition of the rules of war and treatment of prisoners.
No torture, no executions. An ambush isn't an execution, it's strategy, an execution is when a soldier is held captive and rather than imprison them you kill them. Torture, aside from being completely ineffective, is likewise unacceptable according to the rules of war.
Now, I will not say that enhanced interogation is unacceptable, there is too wide a swath of things that fall under the rubrik, I do think such techniques (and virtually all professional interogators agree) are ineffective, and are mostly fodder for movie villains and ignorant dictators than real efforts to defeat an enemy.
So, no, Cap would not torture. He is a warrior, not a torturer.
|
| Posted: 29 Oct 2009 21:12 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 501
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
I Figure Cap's strong and smart enough not to resort to torture and using a gun to beat up or gain info from a bad guy. The Bucky/Cap had an uphill battle to reach Steve Rogers status and I thought that would be cool to read for awhile.
Back to Captain America movie script: Wizard magazine's interview with Bendis on 'Siege', the finale of Dark Reign and reassembling the Avengers, a 7 years plan:
His comment on reading the Cap movie first draft:
"Captain America." It's a very, very strong first draft. I mean, first drafts can sometimes be maddening, like, almost hard to read. And this one you went, "Ooh! I would like to see this movie. That one could end up being my favorite."
I like Bendis' treatment of Cap in the Avengers books. He said he likens Cap to King Arthur, smart, heroic, just stuck with a lot problems and issues with teams (Back in the 90s, Xmen editor Harris tried to spotlight other Avengers characters like Black Knight, Crystal, Widow, Herc, etc, ...and downplayed Cap's role, see why Avengers wasn't doing well before Heroes Reborn.).
|
| Posted: 30 Oct 2009 04:06 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
In regard to comments from Matches, torture, like breaking someone's fingers one-by-one, would not be Cap's style, I agree. I do think, from past stories, that he would engage in enhanced interrogation techniques, ones that employ a degree of trickery to cause the person to think he better cooperate, or else.
And for the record, every CIA interrogator who has been brave enough to opine on the alleged "torture" that they used (i.e. making prisoners uncomfortable) would attest that it DOES work quite well. In fact, waterboarding (which involves making a captive THINK he is drowning) prevented another 9/11-scale attack.
I believe that someone of Cap's ideals would go to the brink of torture if it meant saving countless innocent lives. I am a man of ideals, but you better believe I would have no pity on someone who possessed info that could prevent the deaths of 3,000 innocents. In fact, I might start breaking fingers. They'd heal, anyway. People stay dead.
__________________
|
| Posted: 30 Oct 2009 21:43 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
I do not know of any CIA interrogators who have actually come forward. I do know of many Military Intelegence interogators who have been quite adamant about the failure of the CIA's enhanced interogation techniques.
That could be interagency fighting, but I have to say the bottom line is, a person being tortured will say what ever they need to say to get you to stop. The accuracy of the infromation is beside the point, to both the torturee and torturer. So for example, let us say you are torturing a guy and asking him where Bin Laden is hiding. Let's say he's hiding in Las Vegas Nevada. The torturee might break and say this, but if the torturer thinks he's lying he'll go right on torturing until the torturee says something that is more believable to the Torturer.
Yes, Torture works to make people talk, the question is if what they say has any real value.
Given that information gotten from water boarding occured only after dozens of attempts, a ticking time bomb scenerio ceases to be applicable.
If there is a ticking time bomb, torture is actually less effective as the person in question knows exactly how long they have to hold out to be a hero, and can use that knowledge to gird their resolve.
For more general informaion there is no need for torture as historically more passive (good cop) methods have proven far better at getting accurate information. I am not one inclined to think terroists are in any way more evil than Nazi's and are in any way less suseptable to passive coersion than the methods we used in WWII to break the reich.
|
| Posted: 31 Oct 2009 05:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
First of all, no US interrogator has used "torture" to get information. The techniques used were persuasive, but pale in comparison to torture. None of the detainees were ever in danger of losing life or limb. They put a guy afraid of bugs in a room with a caterpillar in a box! They pushed some of them against a wall made with springs and cushions only after they secured the detainees neck with a brace to prevent injury. Wow. I don't know how they survived. Oh, and the most terrible thing..they played Celine Dion albums to them!
I do wonder if Cap would sink to such depraved levels of coercion.
And yes, these techniques DID work and the folks in intelligence and CIA have confirmed they worked. No one was torturing anyone. The whole "torture" issue was manufactured by the Obama/Leftist crowd as an anti-bush propaganda technique.
__________________
|
| Posted: 05 Nov 2009 04:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1616
Join Date: May 2007
|
UPDATE:
Gamers:
http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/134094.20091105.Thor-and-Captain ...
|
| Posted: 05 Nov 2009 16:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Actually SuperAmerica waterboarding which has been used has been classified as torture since we prosecuted the Japanese for doing it to our soldiers in WWII.
That someone has redefined torture to no longer include water boarding is kind of like my reclassification of Chunky Monkey Icecream as my daily serving of Fruit.
That being said the information gained from waterboarding has been small at best, and there is no evidence to suggest that the same information couldn't have been aquired form the suspect without use of torture.
What's interesting when you actually bother to read up on the topic is that the techniques being used are NOT interogation techniques. These are techniques we subject our soldiers to as part of escape and evasion training, and while questions are asked of the subjets while they are being tortured by captors, the purpose of the questioning is not to gain information, but to break down the will of a prisioner so as to use them for propaganda purposes.
Oh, and before you jump up on "if we use these techniques on our soldiers as part of training how can it be torture" please consider that those who enter escape and evasion training are volunteers, that differentiation in status alters the nature of the procedure immeasurably.
Now, as I said, not all aspects of enhanced interogation are torture, but water boarding, which was used and has been said to have gained some information from (the value of which is highly suspect), is unequivically torture, at least it has been as I said for decades before having a moral directive became inconvenient and was jetisoned.
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2009 03:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Matches, there is a clear difference between the waterboarding used by the Japanese in WWII and what they did 2x to detainees. The waterboarding used by the U.S. involved pouring water down a man's face while in the presence of medical personnel. Again, our people didn't engage in torture.
It is also odd to hear you declare with certainty that no valuable info was obtained. Since I doubt either of us has need-to-know classification, I think we're not in a position to state one way or the other. Those who have spoken, claim valuable info was obtained. I'm inclined to give our side the benefit of the doubt and believe that is the case.
You are more than entitled to your point of view and I'll fight for you to have it. But I'd caution you to jump on the political bandwagon with those who wish to tear down America and tarnish our morals by claiming we engaged in torture without a shred of evidence. Rather, they seek to force our side to prove they didn't, which is a cowardly tactic.
__________________
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2009 17:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
SuperAmerica, firstly, water boarding wasn't done twice, it was done multiple times to two detainees whom we know of, it likely was done to others as well but this information has not at this time been released.
Secondly the pressance of medicla personell seems to be of little merit to the person being water boarded. I am sure the Japanese (or any torturer) wanted their subjects not to die. Dead men tell no tales, and are of little use for propaganda, so I don't see how having someone there to revive the torturee once the torture goes to far makes the quality of the activity any less severe.
As to the information aquired, you are right, I have no knowledge of it, just as neither do you. Based on what we know of the effectivness of the techniques however it is highly unlikely any usable information was garnered. Likewise no after the fact eveidence of an instence of water boardning producing actionable intelegence has been produced to justify it. The only person I know of who has spoken has been Dick Cheney, and the evidence he has profered in his defense has been weak at best. It is possible we gained usable information, just as a broken clock is right twice a day. The evidence related to the effectivness of the techniques, however, is well established in the interogation community. Ask any military interogator and they will tell you that the techniques used, regardless of whether you want to classify them as torture are simply ineffective for gaining actionable intelegence. What you get is ocasionally a truthful answer, and a great deal of gobbeldy gook and sometimes what you want to hear, and you have no way to actually differentiate between the three.
So, based on the fact that research into the procedure says that it is not good for aquireing intelegence as the victim will say what ever is needed to end the interogation when it is effective, and what will end the interogation isn't necessarily the truth, since the interogators wouldn't be asking the question if they already knew the answer.
Likewise, what is usually given as justification for torture, the ticking time bomb scenerio has been shown repeatedly to be completely ineffective. What gives soldiers the most ability to resist torture is having a timeline in their head for how long they have to hold out. If for example you know an attack is going to take place in three weeks, the soldier will be more likely to be able to resist any coercive interogation by focusing on that time line. They know they only have to hold out for three weeks, so they use that to maintain focus and not to break. The same is true for a terrorist. If they know they only have to wait four weeks before what they know becomes public knowledge it is much easier for them to resist.
Since we have admitted we have waterboarded suspects, and as has been established, waterboarding is torture, it is fair to say the U.S. tortured. Trying to say, it wasn't torture only further tarnishes America's moral standing.
The only way to get beyond what we've done in the past is to aknowledge it. To ignore it just sanctions the actions again in the future, until we have no moral standing at all in the world.
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 04:21 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 134
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Matches, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't buy the premise that if you ask nicely people will cough up the details, but if you apply discomfort they'll simply hold out because they have a goal in mind. Otherwise the police wouldn't change the temperature of interrogation rooms and there wouldn't be a "good cop" "bad cop" routine. The idea is you throw people off balance. I seriously doubt any of the "waterboarding" was even close to the torture done by the Japanese or other cultures. I do know that psychological pressure will work. While I don't work in the secret service or the CIA, I did interviews and investigations for auto claims. I applied some tricks to get people who where committing fraud to back out by asking questions that made them uncomfortable. While that type of questioning is no doubt the most used style, in certain instances, like a ticking time bomb, stronger methods need to be used, and I believe they are successful. Sure, there are those who are strong willed and tough and don't give the info. But one never knows unless they try--and if lives depended on it for me, I would try. But we'll have to agree to disagree on this, I suppose.
__________________
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 22:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 350
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
See this is what you're missing.
Good Cop Bad Cop works really well.
The reason, the Good Cop gets on the criminals side, and asks nicely, and the criminal says, "yeah sure I killed him, but you know he had it comming."
No water boarding no stress positions required.
Likewise looking at how we broke Nazi's in WWII, the same principle, get these guys to think yo are a fellow traveler, and they spill their guts.
So the best way to get radical islamofacists to break. Give them a comfortable cell, give them access to what ever they need to practice their religion, put in an islamic interogator who speaks to them about the weakness of America and how they will surely fall to the will of Allah eventually, and these people will start singing to their good cop.
That's how we broke the Nazis, that's how the Japanese didn't break us.
Nothing succeeds like succes. So, the Japanese and Nazi's use torture, and get little to no actionable intelegence. We apply guile and compassion and get enough intelegence to win the war.
Think about that for a minute. But yeah, we'll disagree, though I for one see no point to agreeing to it.
|
|
|
