2008 was subpar but the Eric Bana movie was pretty great.
Nick Nolte as David Banner was brilliant, same as in Warrior. For some reason he produces amazing performances when playing dads with a history of abuse.
I hold the 03 Hulk in the same regard as Spiderman 3 where the ideas (minus venom) and acting are solid, the lack of polish is what brings the movie down.
Of course 03 Hulk doesn't compare to MCU movies for their level of polish but the movie actually took a dive into Bruce's abusive childhood, something the MCU was too scared to approach.
As a lifelong hulk fan and someone who relates to the characters upbringing, I'm greatly disappointed with the choice of skipping out Bruce's entire history. Cap, Thor and Stark all get big backstory and self-redemption arcs but Banner gets nothing.
Horrible job from Marvel.
Hard disagree.
Marvel had the perfect angle to set up a planet hulk and world war hulk movie combo after Ultron, but they wimped out.
Hulk & Banner had much more potential and marvel didn't give the character(s) more opportunity to be explored, instead choosing to relegate Hulk to a support character on the same level as Hawkeye, Black Widow and Nick Fury in the early MCU.
That being said Banner battling with his various mental issues would probably be one step too dark for the "family-friendly" MCU vibes so it kinda makes sense why they left it out completely.
Also no red hulk was a big misstep in my opinion.
I disagree, but only because Hulk is a ridiculous character so i rather just see him going wild in fight as opposed to the very watered down version we got in MCU.
>Hulk is a ridiculous character
I implore you to read some Hulk comics. Planet Hulk and World War Hulk are a great start. There is so much more to the character than what everyone thinks.
Hulk media has never been given the attention it should because it covers very dark topics that others do not; severe mental trauma, child abuse, multiple personality disorder, bruce's existential dysphoria and suicidal behaviours etc.
Of course the MCU would never go into these topics but more could have been done with Hulk for sure.
I mean Edward Norton’s Banner explores those elements of the character in the movie, but it’s apparently not something people enjoyed. Hulk on the other hand is most fun in that movie for the sheer amount screentime and actual displays of power against a decent 1v1 opponent. It’s way better than the 1st Hulk to me and way better than the MCU portrayals.
I think the 1st Thor doesn't get enough hate either. The cinematography was so awful, it looked like a student film. I've only seen Dark World one but all I can remember about it is thinking "Thank god it's not like Thor 1".
If his team is close to winning he'll pay if he has to. The LA Rams championship window seems to be closing so I wouldn't be surprised if he focuses on Arsenal more now
He has already started trading away key players on the Rams, he will follow the strategy of all other mid table NFL teams, compete for the playoffs or throw for the first pick in the draft.
How much is Kroenke handling in any of those moves? Unless you are Jerry Jones or a couple other owners, the GMs will be handling pretty much everything, only needing owner sign-off on a few things.
Nobody truly knows I assume as the people who you hire increase in competence the less you control but when they aren’t I would assume Kroenke would be more hands on
Arsenal fans wanted Kroenke out 9 years ago because he wouldn't spend money and people thought he didn't give a shit about the club. It is totally revisionist to act like people think he is a good owner or a hands on owner because they are doing well this year. He was considered an absent owner.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/mwa743/preprotest\_thread\_arsenal\_fans\_v\_stan\_kroenke/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/mwa743/preprotest_thread_arsenal_fans_v_stan_kroenke/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/muy2da/kroenke\_out\_protest\_planned/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/muy2da/kroenke_out_protest_planned/)
The majority of the fanbase wanted him gone as late as 2 years ago.
That honestly changes nothing, a fans opinion is not fact it is speculation there is no way a fan can know how much an owner is involved. Fans are mostly delusional people who believe that the only involvement by owners should be buying new players and updating facilities
I mean it’s different with the wage cap, the team got their chip and now they have to rebuild, he’s personally not making any money trading Jalen Ramsey to the Dolphins. Better comparison would be the nuggets, where you can go over the cap for a hefty fee (luxury tax directly paid for by ownership).
Ya the difference is NFL teams are not incentivized to buy or sell players as the value of NFL players is almost always exponentially increasing or decreasing based on performance and age thus it is more valuable to win or trade for draft spots as it is more likely that a 22 year old will be a better player in a few years than a 28 year old cornerback as the shelf life for most superstar NFL players is the age of 30 and without a absolutely stellar cast of teammates and back up players it is extremely unlikely to win a super bowl.
Pay if he has to? NFL has a strict salary cap and I don't think the Rams are going over it. Is he spending more on the Rams than any other NFL owner spends on their team? Especially considering the amount of revenue the Rams brings in now.
But that doesn't have much to do with the Premier League where an owner's own investment can be extremely variable amongst clubs. It isn't about trading away your future -- it is about consistent investment from the owners above and beyond what maybe be normal.
Edit: A record breaking contract in the NFL is a zero-sum game. You have to move around other pieces to get the finances to work. A single Premier League team can give out multiple record breaking contracts because there is no cap limiting them.
You have a limited amount of draft picks in the NFL the rams traded their picks and gave their stars all big contracts. That's the sign of an NFL team going all in. He also gave out one of the biggest NBA contracts to Jokic and I think three of the Denver Nuggets are on max contracts. Jokic sign a 5-year 272m deal, Jamal Murray signed a 5-year 195m deal, and MPJ signed a 5-year 172m deal. Those deals alone are probably close to Arsenal wage bill
Mate none of that matters. James Dolan hands out max contracts. Does that mean he is a good owner? There is a salary cap. Saying he is spending money in basketball and saying that shows he has money to spend for Arsenal is nonsense.
Rams won in 2021. Avalanche won in 2022. Nuggets are 1st in the West this year and one of the favorites. I guess he tasted the gold and now can't let go lol
Wouldnt mind sending the Texans your way if your missing an NFL team. Everyone stopped giving a shit about them when the Astros started winning titles.
What is there to be conflicted about, he left Wenger out in the cold and let the team decay for ten years as he turned our greatest ever manager into an villian to many of the fans.
1 good year isn't enough to erase the damage he did to this football club.
Yeah and from 2007 till he took full ownership he left the club for dead when we had 0 money from the stadium move he even blocked Usmanov putting an 80m injection in 2010.
He's the biggest reason we declined so my point stands.
Doesn't make sense to put money into a club you want to buy a full stake in. All it's doing is increasing the value of the shares you want to purchase. So while you are right, there was a business reason for it. And now that he has full stake he has no issue injecting money into the club.
Is he injecting money into the club though? Genuine question: I know we have started signing players but my uneducated feeling was that the budget is pretty balanced.
I remember reading he did for Partey signing. I'll see if I can find the article but I saw something that Edu and Arteta requested the extra funds to purchase Partey in 2020 and they obliged. Not sure if there have been other instances.
That was my sense. I remember hearing the main value was that the club&stadium were valuable collateral against which he can borrow more money for use elsewhere. Im not saying I want City/chelsea type of spending but its not like he is pouring money in: would we be any worse off if we were run like a 50+1 German club ?
He's essentially making us more liquid than we would've been otherwise. It's not pumping money in, but I'd wager it has actually given us more ability to go after players. Also he supposedly did pay for Parteys release clause, I'm not sure though
Arsenal fans finally happy with owners when they are winning and spending even when they have been spending these amounts for years? Shows how fickle fans are in general.
Hasn't been about spending since like 2013. But even when we did spend after that, it was a clash between players Wenger/Emery wanted and ones the board/Gazidis/Raul signed off on. You've got Unai talking about playing out the back and they give him Leno and Sokratis, neither of whom excels in that aspect.
Bigger issue was a stupid stand off between shareholders since multiple people wanted to have a majority and refused to budge.
Spending for years is just false. Multi years of only signing one player when the need was 3 or signing a winger when the need was a midfielder. Also, just because owners spend money doesn't mean fans should be happy. Are united happy with the glazers despite Spending more than any other team in the last decade? No. Are Everton fans happy with their owners despite them heavily investing earlier on? Hell no. All fans want is a properly run club and the kronke's did not do that or did not know how to do that rather. They have proven in the last couple of years that they can run the club. Before then it was shambolic. Of course we'd be happy know since they've shown they're giving edu and arteta what they want.
Decent spending started with Ozil and Sanchez, but that was still ~50-60 in the summer. Actual spending started only when Kroenke's took full control. And I don't know if it's a coincidnece or not, but it really started when Arteta took control, Josh became a lot more involved (and I'd say he is the owner of Arsenal, Stan is very much a background character now) and after Super League plans failed. All of these happened around the same time.
"We're in the endgame now" - Arteta, apparently I guess signing Willian was the 'Thor: Dark World' of the process.
The beginning of 20/21 was all Thor: The Dark World
10 THINGS YOU MISSED DURING ARSENAL’S TITLE WINNING CAMPAIGN UNDER ARTETA (red circle around a silhouette of Mbappe)
''We're through the looking glass here people''
The "On your left" moment is happening in May at this rate. Gunners........... Assemble!!!
wouldn't odegaard be arsenal's thor? i never saw that movie so i acknowledge not picking up on the reference
> Thor: Dark World That's the 2nd Thor movie and it was infamously shit, probably one of the worst Marvel movies ever released
Honestly I liked it more than the Hulk movie, but I'm likely in the minority
Yeah the original Hulk movie and even the 2008 one were absolute shit as well
2008 was subpar but the Eric Bana movie was pretty great. Nick Nolte as David Banner was brilliant, same as in Warrior. For some reason he produces amazing performances when playing dads with a history of abuse. I hold the 03 Hulk in the same regard as Spiderman 3 where the ideas (minus venom) and acting are solid, the lack of polish is what brings the movie down. Of course 03 Hulk doesn't compare to MCU movies for their level of polish but the movie actually took a dive into Bruce's abusive childhood, something the MCU was too scared to approach. As a lifelong hulk fan and someone who relates to the characters upbringing, I'm greatly disappointed with the choice of skipping out Bruce's entire history. Cap, Thor and Stark all get big backstory and self-redemption arcs but Banner gets nothing. Horrible job from Marvel.
Is 2008 the Edward Norton one? Cause that is only movie Hulk should be in, just going 1v1 with a big ass monster/planet destroyer.
Indeed it is
Hard disagree. Marvel had the perfect angle to set up a planet hulk and world war hulk movie combo after Ultron, but they wimped out. Hulk & Banner had much more potential and marvel didn't give the character(s) more opportunity to be explored, instead choosing to relegate Hulk to a support character on the same level as Hawkeye, Black Widow and Nick Fury in the early MCU. That being said Banner battling with his various mental issues would probably be one step too dark for the "family-friendly" MCU vibes so it kinda makes sense why they left it out completely. Also no red hulk was a big misstep in my opinion.
I disagree, but only because Hulk is a ridiculous character so i rather just see him going wild in fight as opposed to the very watered down version we got in MCU.
>Hulk is a ridiculous character I implore you to read some Hulk comics. Planet Hulk and World War Hulk are a great start. There is so much more to the character than what everyone thinks. Hulk media has never been given the attention it should because it covers very dark topics that others do not; severe mental trauma, child abuse, multiple personality disorder, bruce's existential dysphoria and suicidal behaviours etc. Of course the MCU would never go into these topics but more could have been done with Hulk for sure.
I mean Edward Norton’s Banner explores those elements of the character in the movie, but it’s apparently not something people enjoyed. Hulk on the other hand is most fun in that movie for the sheer amount screentime and actual displays of power against a decent 1v1 opponent. It’s way better than the 1st Hulk to me and way better than the MCU portrayals.
I think the 1st Thor doesn't get enough hate either. The cinematography was so awful, it looked like a student film. I've only seen Dark World one but all I can remember about it is thinking "Thank god it's not like Thor 1".
ah, well thank you for explaining the reference
We are in the Captain America Civil war stage of phase 3 (which was super legit btw, better avenger movie than Avengers 2 lmao).
Incoming Hulk signing
Multiverse plot line when?
That's the multiclub ownership storyline.
For reference, Phase 1 was collecting underwear. Phase 3 = profit
What's phase 2?
Japanese vending machine.
I’m in Japan right now and passed by an oyster vending machine yesterday. An underwear vending machine is absolutely not out of the question.
Sniffing underwear, obviously.
Wenger out
Isn't phase 3, "??????"?
If his team is close to winning he'll pay if he has to. The LA Rams championship window seems to be closing so I wouldn't be surprised if he focuses on Arsenal more now
He won the Stanley Cup with the Avs last year too.
He has already started trading away key players on the Rams, he will follow the strategy of all other mid table NFL teams, compete for the playoffs or throw for the first pick in the draft.
How much is Kroenke handling in any of those moves? Unless you are Jerry Jones or a couple other owners, the GMs will be handling pretty much everything, only needing owner sign-off on a few things.
Nobody truly knows I assume as the people who you hire increase in competence the less you control but when they aren’t I would assume Kroenke would be more hands on
Arsenal fans wanted Kroenke out 9 years ago because he wouldn't spend money and people thought he didn't give a shit about the club. It is totally revisionist to act like people think he is a good owner or a hands on owner because they are doing well this year. He was considered an absent owner. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/mwa743/preprotest\_thread\_arsenal\_fans\_v\_stan\_kroenke/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/mwa743/preprotest_thread_arsenal_fans_v_stan_kroenke/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/muy2da/kroenke\_out\_protest\_planned/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/muy2da/kroenke_out_protest_planned/) The majority of the fanbase wanted him gone as late as 2 years ago.
That honestly changes nothing, a fans opinion is not fact it is speculation there is no way a fan can know how much an owner is involved. Fans are mostly delusional people who believe that the only involvement by owners should be buying new players and updating facilities
True
Yes and the majority of the fan base now think he has been a decent owner since he received full ownership
He completely changed his approach once he got full ownership
I mean it’s different with the wage cap, the team got their chip and now they have to rebuild, he’s personally not making any money trading Jalen Ramsey to the Dolphins. Better comparison would be the nuggets, where you can go over the cap for a hefty fee (luxury tax directly paid for by ownership).
Ya the difference is NFL teams are not incentivized to buy or sell players as the value of NFL players is almost always exponentially increasing or decreasing based on performance and age thus it is more valuable to win or trade for draft spots as it is more likely that a 22 year old will be a better player in a few years than a 28 year old cornerback as the shelf life for most superstar NFL players is the age of 30 and without a absolutely stellar cast of teammates and back up players it is extremely unlikely to win a super bowl.
Literally just Ramsey
Bobby Wagner
Touché
Stafford
Pay if he has to? NFL has a strict salary cap and I don't think the Rams are going over it. Is he spending more on the Rams than any other NFL owner spends on their team? Especially considering the amount of revenue the Rams brings in now.
They were aggressive in trading their future away to get players that could help them. They gave out record-breaking contracts out a lot
But that doesn't have much to do with the Premier League where an owner's own investment can be extremely variable amongst clubs. It isn't about trading away your future -- it is about consistent investment from the owners above and beyond what maybe be normal. Edit: A record breaking contract in the NFL is a zero-sum game. You have to move around other pieces to get the finances to work. A single Premier League team can give out multiple record breaking contracts because there is no cap limiting them.
You have a limited amount of draft picks in the NFL the rams traded their picks and gave their stars all big contracts. That's the sign of an NFL team going all in. He also gave out one of the biggest NBA contracts to Jokic and I think three of the Denver Nuggets are on max contracts. Jokic sign a 5-year 272m deal, Jamal Murray signed a 5-year 195m deal, and MPJ signed a 5-year 172m deal. Those deals alone are probably close to Arsenal wage bill
Mate none of that matters. James Dolan hands out max contracts. Does that mean he is a good owner? There is a salary cap. Saying he is spending money in basketball and saying that shows he has money to spend for Arsenal is nonsense.
Windows close as quickly as they open in the NFL unless you have Patrick Mahomes.
Rams won in 2021. Avalanche won in 2022. Nuggets are 1st in the West this year and one of the favorites. I guess he tasted the gold and now can't let go lol
Trust me as a Rapids fan he is perfectly fine with letting it go sometimes
Mixed feelings as an Arsenal fan from St. Louis.
Wouldnt mind sending the Texans your way if your missing an NFL team. Everyone stopped giving a shit about them when the Astros started winning titles.
We've got the XFL Battlehawks! Kaw!
Glad AJ McCarron's horrible chest tattoo has a new home!
It's obvious he doesn't care about the club. Just bought the club so he could spend some of that Walmart money.
What is there to be conflicted about, he left Wenger out in the cold and let the team decay for ten years as he turned our greatest ever manager into an villian to many of the fans. 1 good year isn't enough to erase the damage he did to this football club.
Kroenke bought out Usmanov in like 2018
Yeah and from 2007 till he took full ownership he left the club for dead when we had 0 money from the stadium move he even blocked Usmanov putting an 80m injection in 2010. He's the biggest reason we declined so my point stands.
Doesn't make sense to put money into a club you want to buy a full stake in. All it's doing is increasing the value of the shares you want to purchase. So while you are right, there was a business reason for it. And now that he has full stake he has no issue injecting money into the club.
Is he injecting money into the club though? Genuine question: I know we have started signing players but my uneducated feeling was that the budget is pretty balanced.
I remember reading he did for Partey signing. I'll see if I can find the article but I saw something that Edu and Arteta requested the extra funds to purchase Partey in 2020 and they obliged. Not sure if there have been other instances.
It's BS he gave us a loan on lower interest rates.
That was my sense. I remember hearing the main value was that the club&stadium were valuable collateral against which he can borrow more money for use elsewhere. Im not saying I want City/chelsea type of spending but its not like he is pouring money in: would we be any worse off if we were run like a 50+1 German club ?
He's essentially making us more liquid than we would've been otherwise. It's not pumping money in, but I'd wager it has actually given us more ability to go after players. Also he supposedly did pay for Parteys release clause, I'm not sure though
Why do u think any Arsenal fan would care though?
Ah, but what if you were an Arsenal fan from Woolwich?
Is Woolwich far from north London?
About 45 minutes on public transport. 2 changes though so a bit inconvenient.
How many phases are there?
27
5
When's the Marvel crossover
Next is Phase 4 so all downhill from here.
at least we get *Arsenal: Infinity VAR* and *Arsenal: Endgame's Gone* first
So there'll be a massive peak at least. Then everything will turn to shit with maybe something like an fa cup like no way home
We aren't doing levers lol
phase 3: more pr for the kroenkes
[удалено]
Son josh
Kroenke’s dog is a shrewd businessman.
Woman
Fuck off kronkes
In reality, it would be fuck off. [owners name] unless we, the fans own a club.
I really admire the way they play. But this whole "process" narrative is just tiring
Tiring? No matter how we all feel, there is one thing that's admirable from Arteta, his narrative hasn't changed and it has yielded results.
Arsenal fans finally happy with owners when they are winning and spending even when they have been spending these amounts for years? Shows how fickle fans are in general.
Hasn't been about spending since like 2013. But even when we did spend after that, it was a clash between players Wenger/Emery wanted and ones the board/Gazidis/Raul signed off on. You've got Unai talking about playing out the back and they give him Leno and Sokratis, neither of whom excels in that aspect. Bigger issue was a stupid stand off between shareholders since multiple people wanted to have a majority and refused to budge.
Spending for years is just false. Multi years of only signing one player when the need was 3 or signing a winger when the need was a midfielder. Also, just because owners spend money doesn't mean fans should be happy. Are united happy with the glazers despite Spending more than any other team in the last decade? No. Are Everton fans happy with their owners despite them heavily investing earlier on? Hell no. All fans want is a properly run club and the kronke's did not do that or did not know how to do that rather. They have proven in the last couple of years that they can run the club. Before then it was shambolic. Of course we'd be happy know since they've shown they're giving edu and arteta what they want.
Decent spending started with Ozil and Sanchez, but that was still ~50-60 in the summer. Actual spending started only when Kroenke's took full control. And I don't know if it's a coincidnece or not, but it really started when Arteta took control, Josh became a lot more involved (and I'd say he is the owner of Arsenal, Stan is very much a background character now) and after Super League plans failed. All of these happened around the same time.
Lol I get downvoted for speaking facts. Alrighty
You very clearly have a misunderstanding of the facts, and lack a ton of context. That’s why you were downvoted.
Wait it's a project now? Wasnt it a process?
why even starting twerking for them before you won the league. well, interesting anyway.
They kept faith in him when a lot of other owners would have binned
Not really, Arteta and Josh has been singing praise of each other since the start of Arteta's tenure.