Do you regret direction of current Captain America film?

[sprytel]

With the first movie, they made a stylistic decision to show much of the war against Hydra in montage. I doubt they would set another movie in WWII, but it gives them breathing room if they need to go back to that period to introduce a character's origin or a plot point. Quite honestly, I'm just pleasantly surprised we got one movie set in that era.

[ubermanx]

So far I have been very fortunate in that I have kept my New Year's resolution to avoid all Trailers, Spoilers and new articles about upcoming movies.

So I'll either leave the theatre ****ed that I wasted the money or happy.

- Marty

[samurainoir]

Agreed, the ending to get him to the present day seemed rushed. I don't know if they would do any more WW2 stuff though, but a web series or such would be cool.
I'm more concerned over Cap being all blue & gray... Why is the red white & blue gone?

I'm feeling there is a bit of a Captain America vs the United States Government/Nomad vibe in the trailers. Which might explain the subdued costume... and yeah overseas ticket sales (First Avenger 2: The Winter Soldier) and Toys also seem like good explanations to me. Also: remember Cap first put on THAT particular version of his costume when he became head of SHIELD in the comics, for a less flashy, more "covert" look. There is a line in the trailer somewhere about him being "in charge".

Love Brubaker's run, love the Winter Soldier, and really dig that they are using this as source material.

I have no doubt we are going to see Flashbacks galore... if not here then on web series and DVD extras and maybe even Agents of Shield or if there is an Agent Carter series. They will need to explain how Bucky survived WW2 and bring him through the Cold War (Winter Soldier) up through present day.

I'm also suspecting that Marvel has long term plans and having Bucky/Winter Soldier around would allow for a soft-reboot of the franchise in Captain America 4 or whatever by doing the Bucky-Cap storyline (which might also mean Civil War on Avengers 3).

Hopefully the focus will remain firmly on Steve Rogers/Captain America in Winter Soldier, despite the fact that all the pieces seem to be falling in place for a "Secret Avengers" potential spinoff movie with the cover ops Avengers like Black Widow, Falcon and Winter Soldier populating this film.

[samurainoir]

How can we regret anything if the movie isn't out yet? We don't know what all the scenes are about. Yes, Hollywood shows WAAAAAAY to much in the trailers but you don't get all of it. I stay away from all that stuff anymore. I no longer want to know anything before I see it.

I'm hoping we get the best of both worlds, with plenty of flashbacks that highlight Bucky and Steve's friendship and relationship during the war, and as mentioned before, scenes from the last 75 years depicting how Bucky survived WW2 and his journey to the present day.

With that in mind, I don't think they would show any WW2 scenes (if there are any) in the trailer without giving away the significance of who the Winter Soldier is to the general non-comics reading public.

[WannabeMego]

I'm also suspecting that Marvel has long term plans and having Bucky/Winter Soldier around would allow for a soft-reboot of the franchise in Captain America 4 or whatever by doing the Bucky-Cap storyline (which might also mean Civil War on Avengers 3).

"Civil War"...Oh God...I Hope NOT!!!

They have an opportunity here to do 'One Off' Movies (James Bond) instead of going down the Trilogy path (Star Wars)...

None of the main characters (Iron man, Thor, Capt. America, & even the Hulk) have to be tied down to a Trilogy...there are way too many self-contained story lines that would make GREAT Movies then having to commit to all the negativity a Trilogy brings with it.

Plus by the time this is all over you'll have the reformed Avengers (Vision, Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, Wasp, Hawk-Eye) in place and other story lines to tell (GrimReaper/WonderMan/Vision)...which can tie in Ultron again as well.

[thunderbolt]

Actually Hydra is represented exactly as it was in the comics back in the 60's and 70's except for the red skull connection, it was not a movie marketing decision, but even in the 60's it was easy to market anyone beating up on germans there were whole genres of tv (combat, hogan's heroes, rat patrol, 12 oclock high) and film (guns of navarone, kelly's heroes, dirty dozen, Hell is for heroes etc) in the 60's driven by retelling ww2

Try marketing something these days with Nazi imagery, especially in Europe. So of course Marvel/Disney had to do something like this, in the movie Hydra basically was the Nazis.

[samurainoir]

None of the main characters (Iron man, Thor, Capt. America, & even the Hulk) have to be tied down to a Trilogy...there are way too many self-contained story lines that would make GREAT Movies then having to commit to all the negativity a Trilogy brings with it.

Marvel has shown that they are willing to recast ala Bond (Hulk and War Machine/Rhodey), but putting the Winter Soldier in place does suggest another path if they want to take it. I guess it depends on how long Chris Evans is committed/wants to keep wearing the star spangled uniform. I think "trilogy" these days can generally refer to how many they can contractually obligate someone to commit before it becomes too expensive (like Spider-man). Although Robert Downey seems to be pushing the envelope with five trips to the box office and increasing pay checks as Tony Stark. Although it might be worth it for them for now since he's their anchorman. Not sure if Avengers 3 and 4 can sustain three paychecks that large though as Chris Helmsworth and Chris Evans also start to clock in at five movies with similar increasing paydays. Even Scarlett Johansson is clocking in at three movies as of Winter Soldier.

Plus by the time this is all over you'll have the reformed Avengers (Vision, Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, Wasp, Hawk-Eye) in place and other story lines to tell (GrimReaper/WonderMan/Vision)...which can tie in Ultron again as well.

My own pet theory right now is that Ultron will have less to do with Ant-Man and much more to do with the Jarvis the AI and Tony Stark. I guess we'll see once it comes out if they are going towards Cap's Kooky Quartet et al or not.

[jds1911a1]

Thunderbolt
I am pretty sure that as villians it could be done if they chose to (There were plenty of Nazi figures in the recent hasbro indiana Jones toy lines, it was the actual 4th ,movie figures no one seemed to want).
And as I said in the comics Hydra were always basically Nazi's and were led by a former Nazi (at least they were through the Bronze age when i stopped reading Cap)

[thunderbolt]

There was a decision made by someone involved with the movie to rewrite WW2 history. It was more than likely a marketing decision plain and simple. It was covered in the Avengers EMH episodes, too, same thing. More than likely can't get it past TV sensors. One swastika and a buffoon Hitler actor was it as far as historical reference to the real world menace. There are bans on using that imagery in advertising and liscensing in a lot of European countries.

[sprytel]

There was a decision made by someone involved with the movie to rewrite WW2 history. It was more than likely a marketing decision plain and simple. It was covered in the Avengers EMH episodes, too, same thing. More than likely can't get it past TV sensors. One swastika and a buffoon Hitler actor was it as far as historical reference to the real world menace. There are bans on using that imagery in advertising and liscensing in a lot of European countries.

This is correct. In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, many usages of Nazi imagery are banned.

I don't see how this is "rewriting history", though. They explicitly mention Hitler and the Germany. We know these are Nazis. I think the focus on Hyrda, and making that something ultimately distinct from Hitler's Third Reich, was more of a creative decision than a result of censorship.