The Shawarma Initiative *SPOILERS* AVENGERS DISCUSSION *SPOILERS*


Acemace

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang View Post
I think the movie alludes to their being bits of Banner and Hulk influencing each other. When Hulk falls off the jet, Banner says he was lucky he didn't hurt anyone when he crash-landed, but the old man says, "Or it was just good aim," which implies Hulk wanted to land somewhere with the least collateral damage. Not to mention he couldn't easily squished Black Widow or the pilot of the fighter jet and didn't.
That scene about the guy saying "Or just good aim" is I think a nod to recent comics that showed that for all the years the Hulk was on his rampages, that deep inside his head Banner was "running the numbers" to help Hulk avoid killing people either deliberately or accidentally. Hulk's body count is rather low despite all the rampages he's been on in the comics.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
I believe that's because the Hulk is "a bit of Banner" in terms of being a piece of Banner's subconscious in the first place. But I don't think Banner's literal conscious mind was in a fuzzy sense lurking in the Hulk. I don't see the Hulk and Banner as two different people where one is in the foreground and the other in the background alternatingly. I think the Hulk is a part of Banner he suppresses when he's not the Hulk. Another way of putting it is I think Banner is a different person when he's the Hulk like a drunk person is a different person when intoxicated, only to a much higher degree.
When Banner becomes the Hulk I see it as that due to the fact that he is so overloaded with gamma energy and the power of the HULK that his mind gets a little clouded. Now throw in the fact that he was traumatized by an abusive father and that he watched as his father killed his mother when he was a kid and it gets easy to see why he has control issues.

As to whether Banner and Hulk are truly separate personalities, the comic has gone back and forth on that for years. I think they are truly one being, just with a lot of internal rage augmented by the gamma power and that Banner secretly has the attitude of "who's puny now?" when he's the HULK.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid View Post
This actually explains a lot. I have no memory of that specific pair-off (I need to see this movie again, ARGH!) so that jives with an interview comment I read from Joss that was talking about how you don't want him to be transforming into the Hulk at that point, because he's actually mad at her (prior to your comment, I was like "why was he mad at her?").

I'm still not sure about the bit with the Jet pilot though. I just was thinking, maybe he grabs him in anger, realizes he shouldn't kill him, and then tosses him away in anger.
It's also possible that Hulk grabbed the pilot as he ejected and threw him in a direction to avoid hitting the helicarrier and any plane debris.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samothrake View Post
I'm not so sure about this, though it could be true.

What a lot of people are either forgetting, or just plain don’t realize is that the Howard Stark in Captain America’s movie is not Tony’s father. The Howard Stark in Captain America is Tony’s grandfather – Howard Stark Senior. Tony’s father is actually Howard Anthony Stark. I know, having two Howard Starks in the line before Tony was confusing to me to for a short time.

Now according to IM1, Howard Anthony and Obadia Stane built the Arc Reactor in the Stark building. According to Stane, it was a ‘publicity stunt to shut up the hippies’. Now it’s possible that with what we saw IM2, that what Howard Anthony left to Tony that led to his inspiration to create the more stable element that powers his newest chest reactor could have come from Howard Senior’s notes from his work on the Tesseract. On the other hand, any work Howard Senior did on the Tesseract would likely have been for the US government and not something he could talk about to his son, nor could he likely leave notes for Howard Anthony to inspire him. According to IM2, what Howard Anthony left for Tony was not something about the tesseract, but related directly to the new element that Tony comes up with because Howard Anthony didn’t have the tech in his time to actually create. That’s why he left it to Tony.
Iron Man 1 states that Howard Stark helped develop the atomic bomb to fight the nazi's. The Howard in Captain America was Tony's father.

I need to dig up my IM2 DVD because I think in the notebook from his father was the word "tesseract". Also in Avengers when Tony gets the data from Coulson in the beginning notice how he picks up the hologram of the tesseract and stares at it.

In Captain America, Howard Stark is studying that tesseract ammunition that Cap gave him and then basically splits the atom with explosive results. Love how he tries to sit up and says "Write that down!"

So thanks to that as well as studying some of the other weapons that Cap and the troops brought back, Howard knows that the Skull can wipe out the Eastern seaboard. Howard later retrieves the tesseract from the ocean. He knows it is a vast energy supply but he can't tap into it safely and I'll guess that Zola didn't help him with that. So along with helping on the Manhattan Project, he's also studying the tesseract and then tries to artificially recreate the tesseract or at least a piece of it as part of his energy research. Fury told Tony in IM2 that Howard was very close to making a breakthrough that would have made the nuclear reactors look like batteries by comparison but was limited by the technology of the times. Tony studies the notebook, figures out the clues and finishes his father's work. He creates the new element and it powers the arc reactor in his chest and now he expands it in Avengers to power Stark Tower. Tony clearly has changed in terms of being a weapons builder and now wants to help the world by finishing his father's work.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
I believe that's because the Hulk is "a bit of Banner" in terms of being a piece of Banner's subconscious in the first place. But I don't think Banner's literal conscious mind was in a fuzzy sense lurking in the Hulk. I don't see the Hulk and Banner as two different people where one is in the foreground and the other in the background alternatingly. I think the Hulk is a part of Banner he suppresses when he's not the Hulk. Another way of putting it is I think Banner is a different person when he's the Hulk like a drunk person is a different person when intoxicated, only to a much higher degree.
Instant ---hole, just add gamma radiation?


Too many alts to list.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nericus View Post
It's also possible that Hulk grabbed the pilot as he ejected and threw him in a direction to avoid hitting the helicarrier and any plane debris.
I took it more of a reflex action as he was in the middle of smash mode. Something pops out near him, he catches it, realizes there's a person and tosses him away without care as his anger was being directed at the plane.

This was the Hulk in full rage mode, he had been about to seriously lay the smash down on Black Widow. This wasn't the Hulk simly let out by Banner that we see later, where the Hulk shows a sense of reason, even caring in his actions. When he's attacking the plane, the pilot was insignificant, I doubt he even realized that the pilot would have a chute to use.


 

Posted

I agree with Tannim222, above, about Hulk's reaction in grabbing the pilot. An instinctive grab and then a toss of disinterest, as the jet needs to be beaten to dust, hehehe...



Also... Enough really can't be said about Robert Downey Jr.
Everyone pretty much knows that his talent and work is masterful, but the way he strides in as Tony Stark and delivers all of the techno-babble with such confidence, personality, style and that insanely-genius-gifted plus exceedingly-arrogant manner is rather impressive (when we remember it is an actor delivering lines).

That also reminds me of another one of my favorite lines/exchanges (if I remember it correctly):
Iron Man: (To Dr. Banner) Ah, finally someone else who speaks English!
Captain America: Is that what just happened??


@Zethustra
"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"
-Dylan

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight View Post
Very true! Not only the lack of slow motion... but I personally dislike the super high shutterspeed style that's been a tired staple (mostly since the success of Gladiator... blech!).
It was great to see the action in such a "natural" way, yet (no surprise here) you could still make it all out! It just takes good work... seems like people these days skip the good work part and rely on techniques they think (or are taught) are necessary.
I'm a huge Superman fan, I want to see a great Superman film, but I dread the thought of Zach Snyder and his obsessive over-under-overcrank action sequences.

I can only recall one instance of slow-motion in Avengers, during the Thor vs. Hulk fight on the hellicarrier. It was short, subtle, but emphesized the power that those to guys brought to bear.


Global name: @k26dp

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. DJ View Post
Some people are just looking for reasons to be offended, IMO.

Loki wasn't bad because he was adopted, he was bad because a) he was lied to about his provenance; b) he was a miniature Frost Giant; and c) he was a gigantic *******.



 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark One View Post
Some people are just looking for reasons to be offended, IMO.

Loki wasn't bad because he was adopted, he was bad because a) he was lied to about his provenance; b) he was a miniature Frost Giant; and c) he was a gigantic *******.
Yeah. The "he's adopted" line wasn't mean to imply "...and that's why he's evil." It was meant to imply "... so he's not REALLY my brother." It was Thor's way of backing out of defending the guy.


@Quasadu

"We must prepare for DOOM and hope for FREEM." - SirFrederick

 

Posted

It's MSNBC. Really, what did you expect?


The Paladin
Steel Canyon, Virtue
Exalted

@Paladin

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
It's MSNBC. Really, what did you expect?
A Fox headline would say something like "Hollywood pagans mock the adopted!"


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazzmatazz View Post
A Fox headline would say something like "Hollywood pagans mock the adopted!"
Great, I laughed so loud at this that my coworkers know I'm goofing off. Hilarious headline though.

Has anyone seen the film again recently? Are the theaters still pretty full?


The Paladin
Steel Canyon, Virtue
Exalted

@Paladin

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasadu View Post
Yeah. The "he's adopted" line wasn't mean to imply "...and that's why he's evil." It was meant to imply "... so he's not REALLY my brother." It was Thor's way of backing out of defending the guy.
Actually it also means he's not really an Asgardian.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nericus View Post
Banner seemed to remember the Hulk out on the helicarrier when he apologized to Black Widow when she said "I've seen worse". Banner and the Hulk definitely rattled her composure to say the least.
I think Banner would have said that whether he remembered or not, since his last memories are probably being on the Shield Helicarrier, and then sitting in a crater on the ground; I think he'd have put two and two together.

Although in the Incredible Hulk movie Banner does say that he sometimes gets flashes and impressions of his time as the Hulk, but no details, maybe like a dream you can't quite remember.


[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nericus View Post
Iron Man 1 states that Howard Stark helped develop the atomic bomb to fight the nazi's. The Howard in Captain America was Tony's father.

I need to dig up my IM2 DVD because I think in the notebook from his father was the word "tesseract". Also in Avengers when Tony gets the data from Coulson in the beginning notice how he picks up the hologram of the tesseract and stares at it.

In Captain America, Howard Stark is studying that tesseract ammunition that Cap gave him and then basically splits the atom with explosive results. Love how he tries to sit up and says "Write that down!"

So thanks to that as well as studying some of the other weapons that Cap and the troops brought back, Howard knows that the Skull can wipe out the Eastern seaboard. Howard later retrieves the tesseract from the ocean. He knows it is a vast energy supply but he can't tap into it safely and I'll guess that Zola didn't help him with that. So along with helping on the Manhattan Project, he's also studying the tesseract and then tries to artificially recreate the tesseract or at least a piece of it as part of his energy research. Fury told Tony in IM2 that Howard was very close to making a breakthrough that would have made the nuclear reactors look like batteries by comparison but was limited by the technology of the times. Tony studies the notebook, figures out the clues and finishes his father's work. He creates the new element and it powers the arc reactor in his chest and now he expands it in Avengers to power Stark Tower. Tony clearly has changed in terms of being a weapons builder and now wants to help the world by finishing his father's work.
I know what the two IM movies say, but that is clearly a continuity gaffe. Think of how much time has passes in the world since the events of Captain America which takes place in 1942/1943. In that movie we have a Howard Stark who looks to be late twenties-early thirties in age. Fast forward to 2008 when the IM1 movie took place. That’s close to 65 years. Now take Tony, who is clearly supposed to be in his early, perhaps mid-30s (even if RJD is almost 50). The magazine coves we’re shown in IM1 with a young Tony are clearly from the late 70s.

Take Obadiah Stane. The character is supposed to be late 50s/early 60s in 2008. Which means Obadiah was born in in the late 40s or early 50s. This works well with the ‘publicity stunt to shut up the hippies’ in the 70s. And Obadiah Stane is said to be a ‘lifelong friend and ally.’ (Incidentally, Jeff Bridges was 59 when the movie was filmed, making him and the character’s ages fit together perfectly).

Even if we take a modest estimate of Howard Stark in CA as being 25 in 1942, then by the70s, the Howard Stark in CA would be in 50s. Pushing his age forward in 1942, just makes him older by the 70’s.

We have very few solid dates in the IM1 and IM2 movies, but we do have a newspaper article and front page from the time of Howard Stark’s death. It is listed as December 17, 1991, and Marvel tells me that Tony’s father died on the Ides of March (the 15th). Which means that if Howard was 25 in 1942, he was 74 when he died.

Now going back to Stane. If he was 60 in 2008, that of course means he was born in 1948 – well after the events in Captain America. For him to be a ‘lifelong friend and ally’ to Howard, he really could not have been born in 1948. And if he wasn’t that pushes his age upward to where he has to be over 80 by the time of the events in IM1. And that clearly isn’t the case. If Stane is born in 1948, that means he couldn’t have met Howard until at least the late 60s, and by that time Howard is nearly 50, with Obadiah only in his early 20s. I find it difficult to believe that Obadiah and Howard would be called ‘lifelong friends’ with a 30 year age difference. If you look at the picture with Howard and Obadiah that flashes by in IM1, you can see another movie gaffe – on the left side we see a commemorative plaque for some sort of Air Force/base anniversary with the year 1997! This photo couldn’t have been taken, as Howard is supposed to be dead in 1991, and he looks younger in this photo than in the Washington Times photo with the story of his death.

We see with the magazine covers that Tony is not yet 21 at the time of his father’s death, which means that the year of his birth is later than 1970. The narration and magazines show Tony at 21 taking over the company, and the closest thing we have for a date here is the term “information superhighway,” which when we take into account Howard’s death in 1991, leads to a date of around 1993 (perhaps a bit later) for Tony to be 21 and take over the company. Which means that he is 36(?) when the first movie takes place. So if Howard was 25 in 1942, and Tony was 21 in 1993, that means Tony was born in 1972, making Howard 55 when Tony was born. Which also means that unlike the vast majority of the US that got on with making babies after WWII was finished (that whole Baby Boom thing), Howard didn’t settle down and have a child for almost thirty more years? Seems a little far fetched to me.

Now on the other hand, if we take Howard Stark in Captain America as Howard Stark Senior, we can say he found a wife after WWII and they had Howard Anthony Stark in the late 40’s. Which would push back many of the other dates. If Howard Anthony is born in the late 40s, then his ‘lifelong friendship’ with Obadiah clicks with Stane’s evident age in IM1. It also means he was only in his mid-40s when he dies in the car crash, not 74 as he has to be if he is Howard Stark Senior. This also gives Howard Anthony time to marry Maria and have Tony in the early 70s, thereby having Tony be 21 in 1993 (or a bit later) to take over the company.

I realize that many people want Howard Stark in Captain America be Tony’s father. And even that the comics and a few bits that flow by in IM1 and IM2 have this as true, but with the war that Tony is injured in (thus necessitating his chest piece) going from Vietnam to Gulf War to Afghanistan over the years, we really have to have Howard Anthony Stark stop being involved in WWII so that he isn’t totally old and decrepit by the time he has Tony. And with another Howard Stark in the family tree (Senior), this can be accomplished with little difficulty.

Also, I just took a good look over the notebook that is shown in IM2 with Howard's notes. I see Hypecube (and illustrations) mentioned, but I can not make out anything about the tesseract.


 

Posted

Sorry, man, according to Kevin Feige, Marvel's President of film Production, it's Tony's father, and that is indeed supposed to be the Tesseract in his notes:

Quote:
In Iron Man II there’s a scene where Tony is flipping through his father’s old notebook. I told Jon that we thought the young version of Howard Stark was going to be a character in Captain America, because we need a gadget guy, sort of a Q for SHIELD. I said, “What if the prop guy just draws a little cube on this page of this notebook? You never have to mention it, never even talk about it, it’s just there.” Jon said, “Sure, whatever.” The trick is, the Easter eggs have to enhance the experience for those who know what they are, but not detract from the experience for those who don’t.
And while there are some obvious date errors in there, there's really nothing that surprising about a rich eccentric playboy not settling down and having kids until 55 years of age.


Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samothrake View Post
We see with the magazine covers that Tony is not yet 21 at the time of his father’s death, which means that the year of his birth is later than 1970. The narration and magazines show Tony at 21 taking over the company, and the closest thing we have for a date here is the term “information superhighway,” which when we take into account Howard’s death in 1991, leads to a date of around 1993 (perhaps a bit later) for Tony to be 21 and take over the company. Which means that he is 36(?) when the first movie takes place. So if Howard was 25 in 1942, and Tony was 21 in 1993, that means Tony was born in 1972, making Howard 55 when Tony was born. Which also means that unlike the vast majority of the US that got on with making babies after WWII was finished (that whole Baby Boom thing), Howard didn’t settle down and have a child for almost thirty more years? Seems a little far fetched to me.
Both Tony Stark and Howard Stark were partially inspired by Howard Hughes. Howard Hughes married Jean Peters in 1957 when Hughes was 52 and Peters was 31.

Hughes' life also provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for Tony being born in 1971. Hughes' first wife divorced him in 1929, and he was a known partier and womanizer throughout the 30s and 40s. Also, while Hughes met Peters in 1947, it was Peters who put off a relationship with Hughes because of her career as an actress. An analogous thing could easily have happened to Stark: many failed relationships and attempts at relationships before finally finding the right woman in the late 60s, after he had settled down a bit himself.

(Hughes did not have children with Peters, but the timing is the critical element here).


[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

 

Posted

I thought that was Thor's way of saying "Well, he's not a true asgardian" backstep type of deal, when he they said his brother killed 80 people.

I don't think he ever considered Loki less of a brother, even at the end of it all.

The adopted joke was funny, and those who boycott anything due to a joke will end up boycotting anything.


BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandX View Post
I thought that was Thor's way of saying "Well, he's not a true asgardian" backstep type of deal, when he they said his brother killed 80 people.

I don't think he ever considered Loki less of a brother, even at the end of it all.

The adopted joke was funny, and those who boycott anything due to a joke will end up boycotting anything.
Agreed, anyone that boycotts this over the adopted joke will boycott anything.

Also which is the greater test of Asgardian immortality limitations: THOR dropping 30,000 feet at terminal velocity in a Hulk Rage Cage, or Hulk turning Loki into a ragdoll?


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samothrake View Post
I know what the two IM movies say, but that is clearly a continuity gaffe. Think of how much time has passes in the world since the events of Captain America which takes place in 1942/1943. In that movie we have a Howard Stark who looks to be late twenties-early thirties in age. Fast forward to 2008 when the IM1 movie took place. That’s close to 65 years. Now take Tony, who is clearly supposed to be in his early, perhaps mid-30s (even if RJD is almost 50). The magazine coves we’re shown in IM1 with a young Tony are clearly from the late 70s.

Take Obadiah Stane. The character is supposed to be late 50s/early 60s in 2008. Which means Obadiah was born in in the late 40s or early 50s. This works well with the ‘publicity stunt to shut up the hippies’ in the 70s. And Obadiah Stane is said to be a ‘lifelong friend and ally.’ (Incidentally, Jeff Bridges was 59 when the movie was filmed, making him and the character’s ages fit together perfectly).

Even if we take a modest estimate of Howard Stark in CA as being 25 in 1942, then by the70s, the Howard Stark in CA would be in 50s. Pushing his age forward in 1942, just makes him older by the 70’s.

We have very few solid dates in the IM1 and IM2 movies, but we do have a newspaper article and front page from the time of Howard Stark’s death. It is listed as December 17, 1991, and Marvel tells me that Tony’s father died on the Ides of March (the 15th). Which means that if Howard was 25 in 1942, he was 74 when he died.

Now going back to Stane. If he was 60 in 2008, that of course means he was born in 1948 – well after the events in Captain America. For him to be a ‘lifelong friend and ally’ to Howard, he really could not have been born in 1948. And if he wasn’t that pushes his age upward to where he has to be over 80 by the time of the events in IM1. And that clearly isn’t the case. If Stane is born in 1948, that means he couldn’t have met Howard until at least the late 60s, and by that time Howard is nearly 50, with Obadiah only in his early 20s. I find it difficult to believe that Obadiah and Howard would be called ‘lifelong friends’ with a 30 year age difference. If you look at the picture with Howard and Obadiah that flashes by in IM1, you can see another movie gaffe – on the left side we see a commemorative plaque for some sort of Air Force/base anniversary with the year 1997! This photo couldn’t have been taken, as Howard is supposed to be dead in 1991, and he looks younger in this photo than in the Washington Times photo with the story of his death.

We see with the magazine covers that Tony is not yet 21 at the time of his father’s death, which means that the year of his birth is later than 1970. The narration and magazines show Tony at 21 taking over the company, and the closest thing we have for a date here is the term “information superhighway,” which when we take into account Howard’s death in 1991, leads to a date of around 1993 (perhaps a bit later) for Tony to be 21 and take over the company. Which means that he is 36(?) when the first movie takes place. So if Howard was 25 in 1942, and Tony was 21 in 1993, that means Tony was born in 1972, making Howard 55 when Tony was born. Which also means that unlike the vast majority of the US that got on with making babies after WWII was finished (that whole Baby Boom thing), Howard didn’t settle down and have a child for almost thirty more years? Seems a little far fetched to me.

Now on the other hand, if we take Howard Stark in Captain America as Howard Stark Senior, we can say he found a wife after WWII and they had Howard Anthony Stark in the late 40’s. Which would push back many of the other dates. If Howard Anthony is born in the late 40s, then his ‘lifelong friendship’ with Obadiah clicks with Stane’s evident age in IM1. It also means he was only in his mid-40s when he dies in the car crash, not 74 as he has to be if he is Howard Stark Senior. This also gives Howard Anthony time to marry Maria and have Tony in the early 70s, thereby having Tony be 21 in 1993 (or a bit later) to take over the company.

I realize that many people want Howard Stark in Captain America be Tony’s father. And even that the comics and a few bits that flow by in IM1 and IM2 have this as true, but with the war that Tony is injured in (thus necessitating his chest piece) going from Vietnam to Gulf War to Afghanistan over the years, we really have to have Howard Anthony Stark stop being involved in WWII so that he isn’t totally old and decrepit by the time he has Tony. And with another Howard Stark in the family tree (Senior), this can be accomplished with little difficulty.

Also, I just took a good look over the notebook that is shown in IM2 with Howard's notes. I see Hypecube (and illustrations) mentioned, but I can not make out anything about the tesseract.
Continuity time gaffes not withstanding, that is Tony's father in Captain america, we are also talking about a comic book universe where the Hulk's pants stay on when Banner transforms, just roll with it.


 

Posted

I always got the feeling Tony's dad, who says he fought the Nazi's, was just really old when he had Tony.

I work with someone who's in her mid 50's with a toddler. It's not like this doesn't happen.


BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandX View Post
I always got the feeling Tony's dad, who says he fought the Nazi's, was just really old when he had Tony.

I work with someone who's in her mid 50's with a toddler. It's not like this doesn't happen.
Agreed, also in IM 1 when Pepper is watching the financial guy clowning around on his TV show, stating that Stark is now a weapons company that doesn't make weapons; if you listen closely when Stark calls Pepper to the lab you can hear him say "Howard, nazi killer Stark must be rolling in his grave" or something close to that.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Has anyone seen the film again recently? Are the theaters still pretty full?
I just saw it for the first time earlier tonight (5/11) The Theater was almost full for an evening showing in 2D, many left as the credits started, most of the rest left after the mid credits scene, a Few die hards Stayed for the Sawarma (which I found out was inspired by a food run during the Cleveland part of the filming)


On Justice
Global @Desi Nova Twitter: @desi_nova Steam: Desi_nova. I don't do Xbox or PS3