Do you really have to ask?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1680-A-Nightmare-on-Elm-Street
"Intermission" looks back at the earlier Freddy movies: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7489-Old-Nightmares
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thor looks like Thor
Thought they'd wait for AFTER "Iron Man 2" for this, but here we are: Yahoo has the first still of Chris Hemsworth in costume as The Mighty Thor:
http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-stills/gallery/2588/thor-stills#photo0
(there's no copy-n-paste-able version yet)
The chief advantage that Marvel Films has over anyone else making superhero movies is that Marvel has been doing NOTHING BUT selling superheroes to people for almost SEVEN DECADES now, meaning that they know "what you need to get right" like the back of their hand. Q: "What does Iron Man need to look like?" A: "Red and yellow, with Gradnov's mecha-design but retro-fitted to more-closely resemble the 70s/80s armor." Bingo. Q: "What does Hulk NEED to have?" A: "Purple pants, the green eyes and sad walking away music from the TV Show and another monster to fight."
Q: "What will tell fans that Thor is going to be THOR?" A: "Red cape, circular metal plates on the tunic, the beard from Simonson's run, the plated-mail on the arms from Stracyzinski's run." Done. (betcha beard/no-beard is how they distinguish between Thor/Donald Blake, too.)
What's cool is, Thor is the superhero for whom costume-accuracy matters LEAST - a Viking flying around in modern times hitting stuff with a magic hammer is going to look like Thor regardless of the details... so it's really something that in this pic Chris Hemsworth basically looks like he's wearing the world's most expensive Comic-Con Cosplay. Well done.
http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-stills/gallery/2588/thor-stills#photo0
(there's no copy-n-paste-able version yet)
The chief advantage that Marvel Films has over anyone else making superhero movies is that Marvel has been doing NOTHING BUT selling superheroes to people for almost SEVEN DECADES now, meaning that they know "what you need to get right" like the back of their hand. Q: "What does Iron Man need to look like?" A: "Red and yellow, with Gradnov's mecha-design but retro-fitted to more-closely resemble the 70s/80s armor." Bingo. Q: "What does Hulk NEED to have?" A: "Purple pants, the green eyes and sad walking away music from the TV Show and another monster to fight."
Q: "What will tell fans that Thor is going to be THOR?" A: "Red cape, circular metal plates on the tunic, the beard from Simonson's run, the plated-mail on the arms from Stracyzinski's run." Done. (betcha beard/no-beard is how they distinguish between Thor/Donald Blake, too.)
What's cool is, Thor is the superhero for whom costume-accuracy matters LEAST - a Viking flying around in modern times hitting stuff with a magic hammer is going to look like Thor regardless of the details... so it's really something that in this pic Chris Hemsworth basically looks like he's wearing the world's most expensive Comic-Con Cosplay. Well done.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Iron Man Easter Egg (NOT a spoiler)
(The following does not contain spoilers for Iron Man 2, but those being extra careful should probably skip it anyway.)
EDIT: It's also come to my attention that inconsiderate people are spoiling in the comments, so think twice before you click THAT, too.
Apparently Marvel hasn't been as johnny-on-the-spot at keeping the actual content of the "stay through the credits" tag of Iron Man 2 secret as opposed to the first one, and people should be aware that some sites are being less than diligent about spoiler warnings. (Though I'm also hearing that the movie-proper, which I've not seen yet, may actually have so much other-franchise-referencing in it's actual plot that spoiler-proofing may be impossible - the words "feature-length Avengers trailer" have been used more than once.)
For the record, as of last night there were at least 2 pirated snaps of it floating around (I'm sure the whole thing is on the youtubes by now) one of which is (supposedly) innocuous i.e. "that could be anything" and one that gives it all away.
I saw the first one before clicking away RIGHT away last night, I reccomend you don't go looking at all in case there's something in there more obvious that I missed. For what it's worth, what (I think) I saw could reasonably be one of about three things, at least two of which would be RIDICULOUSLY ballsy, game-changing stuff.
Are you excited? I'm excited.
EDIT: It's also come to my attention that inconsiderate people are spoiling in the comments, so think twice before you click THAT, too.
Apparently Marvel hasn't been as johnny-on-the-spot at keeping the actual content of the "stay through the credits" tag of Iron Man 2 secret as opposed to the first one, and people should be aware that some sites are being less than diligent about spoiler warnings. (Though I'm also hearing that the movie-proper, which I've not seen yet, may actually have so much other-franchise-referencing in it's actual plot that spoiler-proofing may be impossible - the words "feature-length Avengers trailer" have been used more than once.)
For the record, as of last night there were at least 2 pirated snaps of it floating around (I'm sure the whole thing is on the youtubes by now) one of which is (supposedly) innocuous i.e. "that could be anything" and one that gives it all away.
I saw the first one before clicking away RIGHT away last night, I reccomend you don't go looking at all in case there's something in there more obvious that I missed. For what it's worth, what (I think) I saw could reasonably be one of about three things, at least two of which would be RIDICULOUSLY ballsy, game-changing stuff.
Are you excited? I'm excited.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
POLL: What Will Spidey's Fanservice Be?
Let's do another one of these, why the hell not?
Stuff is happening right now in the production of Sony's fast-tracked Spider-Man reboot. Why aren't we hearing about it? Who knows, but it's possibly because most studios with superhero movies in production are holding the usual minor leaks until they know how to frame it in the context of "Iron Man 2" (i.e. "do we tell them that Sinestro is next year's Whiplash, or next year's Whiplash-done-well?")
So, we're probably going to hear Spider-news sooner than later. My guess is that ONE of the earliest things "leaked" is some minor (or maybe not) element that's being "rethought" from the previous films that will actually "fix" something fans didn't like about Raimi's version; the idea being to "buy" some positive buzz ("Cue Cullen" aka "And The Fandom Rejoiced" for you TV Tropers.)
So, what do we think it'll be? What bone will Sony Pictures throw to fandom in hopes of distracting from how bad the rest of it will still sound?
A.) Mechanical Webshooters.
B.) No raised webbing on the costume and/or web-netting under the arms.
C.) ONE supporting-actor retained from earlier series (like Simmons still being Jameson.)
D.) "Geek pinup" actress, likely from a canceled Joss Whedon show, cast as female lead.
E.) The villain is... THE LIZARD, since you never actually got him last round!
F.) Previously-utilized villain returns, but now done "right" (i.e. Goblin in his purple tunic.)
G.) "That's Eddie Brock, he just transfered here."
Stuff is happening right now in the production of Sony's fast-tracked Spider-Man reboot. Why aren't we hearing about it? Who knows, but it's possibly because most studios with superhero movies in production are holding the usual minor leaks until they know how to frame it in the context of "Iron Man 2" (i.e. "do we tell them that Sinestro is next year's Whiplash, or next year's Whiplash-done-well?")
So, we're probably going to hear Spider-news sooner than later. My guess is that ONE of the earliest things "leaked" is some minor (or maybe not) element that's being "rethought" from the previous films that will actually "fix" something fans didn't like about Raimi's version; the idea being to "buy" some positive buzz ("Cue Cullen" aka "And The Fandom Rejoiced" for you TV Tropers.)
So, what do we think it'll be? What bone will Sony Pictures throw to fandom in hopes of distracting from how bad the rest of it will still sound?
A.) Mechanical Webshooters.
B.) No raised webbing on the costume and/or web-netting under the arms.
C.) ONE supporting-actor retained from earlier series (like Simmons still being Jameson.)
D.) "Geek pinup" actress, likely from a canceled Joss Whedon show, cast as female lead.
E.) The villain is... THE LIZARD, since you never actually got him last round!
F.) Previously-utilized villain returns, but now done "right" (i.e. Goblin in his purple tunic.)
G.) "That's Eddie Brock, he just transfered here."
Friday, April 23, 2010
Escape to the Movies: "The Losers"
It's a wholly-appropriate title.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1642-The-Losers
This week's "Intermission" is titled "What's The Problem With Hit-Girl?":
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7464-Whats-the-Problem-With-Hit-Girl
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1642-The-Losers
This week's "Intermission" is titled "What's The Problem With Hit-Girl?":
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7464-Whats-the-Problem-With-Hit-Girl
Thursday, April 22, 2010
is Platinum Dunes in trouble?
Man, I sure hope so.
Look, it's sad when anyone loses a job or takes a financial hit in this business, but you'll forgive me if I'm not more than a little hopeful at the vauge prospect of "Platinum Dunes" - the Michael Bay affiliated production company specializing mostly in remakes of classic horror movies - having to scale things back. They're output, which has so-far included the abysmal "Texas Chainsaw," "Friday the 13th" and "Hitcher" remakes, has been even worse than you'd expect from an outfit built (literally) on the words "remake" and "Michael Bay."
Bloody-Disgusting, which actually hosts PD's "official" site, reports that one of the company's top dogs, Brad Fuller, has tweeted that the presumed sequel to the "Friday" remake is "dead. Not happening": http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/19920
All well and good, since the movie was terrible, but color me shocked: It was a good-sized hit, and historically Jason movies have been among the top "what it makes vs what it costs" moneymakers in modern genre film. This is the sort of thing that could've been a cash-cow, providing funding for whatever else they wanted to do. This particular news, coming literally a week before PD's "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake is supposed to hit, doesn't exactly make it look like they're flush with confidence about the future of their brand.
Whatever. If it means they have to scrap their proposed in-name-only "Monster Squad" remake, good riddance to `em.
Look, it's sad when anyone loses a job or takes a financial hit in this business, but you'll forgive me if I'm not more than a little hopeful at the vauge prospect of "Platinum Dunes" - the Michael Bay affiliated production company specializing mostly in remakes of classic horror movies - having to scale things back. They're output, which has so-far included the abysmal "Texas Chainsaw," "Friday the 13th" and "Hitcher" remakes, has been even worse than you'd expect from an outfit built (literally) on the words "remake" and "Michael Bay."
Bloody-Disgusting, which actually hosts PD's "official" site, reports that one of the company's top dogs, Brad Fuller, has tweeted that the presumed sequel to the "Friday" remake is "dead. Not happening": http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/19920
All well and good, since the movie was terrible, but color me shocked: It was a good-sized hit, and historically Jason movies have been among the top "what it makes vs what it costs" moneymakers in modern genre film. This is the sort of thing that could've been a cash-cow, providing funding for whatever else they wanted to do. This particular news, coming literally a week before PD's "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake is supposed to hit, doesn't exactly make it look like they're flush with confidence about the future of their brand.
Whatever. If it means they have to scrap their proposed in-name-only "Monster Squad" remake, good riddance to `em.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Tales of Mystery... Guests
Surprising absolutely nobody, the "stay through the credits" signal has gone up on "Iron Man 2," something of a foregone conclusion but nice heads-up. With that in mind, let's have some fun with guestimate-polling: When Nick Fury (or whoever) pulls back the curtain, opens then manilla folder, whatever... what's gonna be in there? For laffs, pick two: The one you THINK you'll see, and the one you WANT to see...
A.) Dr. Bruce Banner "and his big friend."
B.) Chris Evans, dressed like a flag.
C.) An ice cube containing a shape vaugely resembling Chris Evans dressed like a flag.
D.) Musclebound Norwegian with a hammer, dressed for a Renaissance Faire.
E.) A red, green and yellow robot.
F.) Vaugely goth-ish brunette in bright red fetish-gear.
G.) Prematurely graying lad dressed like a male figure skater.
H.) F&G together.
I.) Very small woman with insect wings.
J.) Purple man with bow and arrow.
K.) Flying aircraft-carrier.
A.) Dr. Bruce Banner "and his big friend."
B.) Chris Evans, dressed like a flag.
C.) An ice cube containing a shape vaugely resembling Chris Evans dressed like a flag.
D.) Musclebound Norwegian with a hammer, dressed for a Renaissance Faire.
E.) A red, green and yellow robot.
F.) Vaugely goth-ish brunette in bright red fetish-gear.
G.) Prematurely graying lad dressed like a male figure skater.
H.) F&G together.
I.) Very small woman with insect wings.
J.) Purple man with bow and arrow.
K.) Flying aircraft-carrier.
Friday, April 16, 2010
"Dan the Man"
From Aussie animators "Studio JOHO:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEVU-YLpM8A
Yes, I know... I know... the bald-faced misogyny should be pissing me off... but c'mon, you know it's funny in a "good "Married With Children" sorta way ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEVU-YLpM8A
Yes, I know... I know... the bald-faced misogyny should be pissing me off... but c'mon, you know it's funny in a "good "Married With Children" sorta way ;)
Escape to the Movies: "Kick-Ass"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1624-Kick-Ass?hq=0
"Intermission" is all about superhero movies you may not remember existing: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7434-Forgotten-Heroes-Who-Kicked-Ass
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Joss Whedon quite possibly on "Avengers"
Deadline Hollywood, who has some of the best sources in the gossip business, says that Joss Whedon is Marvel's guy to direct "The Avengers:"
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/
I don't even have to say anything about this, do I?
If this is true, it's at once the surest thing and the biggest gamble Marvel could take.
On the one hand, Whedon is "in the family" having done a lot of comic writing for Marvel, and he's beloved in the "fanboy" community on a level usually reserved only for the "actual" superheroes. Waaaaay back when they were setting up the first Spider-Man movie, Marvel bought themselves the ultimate in fan-reassurance by tapping geek icon Sam Raimi to direct. This, if true, will have a similar effect: Avengers will be "awesome until proven guilty" from now until it comes out. Smooth sailing and nothing but free advertising and hype from the web set from here on out.
On the OTHER hand... for all the fan worship, Whedon basically has ONE successful TV show (and it's spinoff) to his name, while the rest of his output consists of one-season-wonders and movie that.. well, sorry, but pretty-much tanked. That's not to say he's NOT talented - he's a great writer, knows "team dynamics" in genre ficiton inside and out and can direct action - just that it's impressive that Marvel would trust him with what's prospectively the biggest superhero movie ever made.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/
I don't even have to say anything about this, do I?
If this is true, it's at once the surest thing and the biggest gamble Marvel could take.
On the one hand, Whedon is "in the family" having done a lot of comic writing for Marvel, and he's beloved in the "fanboy" community on a level usually reserved only for the "actual" superheroes. Waaaaay back when they were setting up the first Spider-Man movie, Marvel bought themselves the ultimate in fan-reassurance by tapping geek icon Sam Raimi to direct. This, if true, will have a similar effect: Avengers will be "awesome until proven guilty" from now until it comes out. Smooth sailing and nothing but free advertising and hype from the web set from here on out.
On the OTHER hand... for all the fan worship, Whedon basically has ONE successful TV show (and it's spinoff) to his name, while the rest of his output consists of one-season-wonders and movie that.. well, sorry, but pretty-much tanked. That's not to say he's NOT talented - he's a great writer, knows "team dynamics" in genre ficiton inside and out and can direct action - just that it's impressive that Marvel would trust him with what's prospectively the biggest superhero movie ever made.
Monday, April 12, 2010
"don't you mean extinct?"
17 years ago, CGI dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park" essentially put hundreds (if not thousands) of Practical FX technicians out of work - or at least got the ball rolling.
Apparently, Warner Bros. "Green Lantern" movie is looking to do the same thing to the costume design business. So says Slashfilm: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/11/exclusive-green-lanterns-suit-will-be-almost-entirely-cg/
Short version: Ryan Reynolds is doing the part wearing a motion-capture suit over most of his body, and they'll be rendering a CGI Green Lantern costume over him in post-production. Which, of course, makes perfect sense because there's simply no way that GL's ridiculously complicated uniform of a black-and-green body-stocking could possibly be accomplished with fabric. Clearly, this was a job for a few million in rendering tech. Left unsaid is whether or not Reynolds "actual" head and face will be visible, or if they're going to roll the dice and see if human fleshtones can look as "acceptable" as Na'Vi ones.
...Interesting.
Something like this has been coming for awhile. Warners has been making chirps about doing the next Superman with a "real" Clark but a "CGI Supes," and this certainly sounds like what they might've been talking about. Done right, this could theoretically end the problem of actors having the personality but not being in the right "shape" for roles like this... though I'm already filled with nightmare visions of the disembodied heads of gangly character actors and/or over the hill "stars" pasted on top of brawny comic-appropriate CG bodies.
It could go VERY wrong - it reminds me of the Holophoner Opera in "Futurama" which, for some reason, required live actors "wearing" hologram costumes - but I could easily see something like this become a cost-saving standard and a way to "broaden the field" of available actors. Reynolds, for example, has generally been in great shape since Blade 3; but concievably an actor with just an average (or "too old") build could play Superman, Flash, whatever this way. It might also solve the problem of actors not being able to MOVE inside Batman's cumbersome, impractical costume.
Or it could look incredibly silly.
Apparently, Warner Bros. "Green Lantern" movie is looking to do the same thing to the costume design business. So says Slashfilm: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/11/exclusive-green-lanterns-suit-will-be-almost-entirely-cg/
Short version: Ryan Reynolds is doing the part wearing a motion-capture suit over most of his body, and they'll be rendering a CGI Green Lantern costume over him in post-production. Which, of course, makes perfect sense because there's simply no way that GL's ridiculously complicated uniform of a black-and-green body-stocking could possibly be accomplished with fabric. Clearly, this was a job for a few million in rendering tech. Left unsaid is whether or not Reynolds "actual" head and face will be visible, or if they're going to roll the dice and see if human fleshtones can look as "acceptable" as Na'Vi ones.
...Interesting.
Something like this has been coming for awhile. Warners has been making chirps about doing the next Superman with a "real" Clark but a "CGI Supes," and this certainly sounds like what they might've been talking about. Done right, this could theoretically end the problem of actors having the personality but not being in the right "shape" for roles like this... though I'm already filled with nightmare visions of the disembodied heads of gangly character actors and/or over the hill "stars" pasted on top of brawny comic-appropriate CG bodies.
It could go VERY wrong - it reminds me of the Holophoner Opera in "Futurama" which, for some reason, required live actors "wearing" hologram costumes - but I could easily see something like this become a cost-saving standard and a way to "broaden the field" of available actors. Reynolds, for example, has generally been in great shape since Blade 3; but concievably an actor with just an average (or "too old") build could play Superman, Flash, whatever this way. It might also solve the problem of actors not being able to MOVE inside Batman's cumbersome, impractical costume.
Or it could look incredibly silly.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Escape to the Movies: "Avengers: Assemble"
Different kinda fun this week: In lieu of reviewing something, a rundown of the various "crossover" clues running through Marvel's "Avengers"-related movies thus far:
"Intermission" is related as well: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7397-The-End-of-Reality-Good-Riddance
"Intermission" is related as well: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7397-The-End-of-Reality-Good-Riddance
Thursday, April 8, 2010
I saw a movie...
...and for various legal reasons I don't think I can tell you what I thought of it yet, or probably get specific at all. So let me be say two things:
1.) What you've heard is true.
2.) Nicholas Cage is the best Batman ever.
That is all.
1.) What you've heard is true.
2.) Nicholas Cage is the best Batman ever.
That is all.
Friday, April 2, 2010
"I Give A Damn"
Here's some insight into how my mind works.
Below, the innaugural TV spot for "I give a damn," a public service campaign aimed at making LGBT issues more publically talked-about - the idea being that the "I don't care what you do but I don't need to hear about it" attitude contributes to violence against gay, bisexual and transgendered people by keeping said issues "impolite to talk about." Nobel cause, tastefully executed, deserves the support of all thinking (or even just compassionate) people... all in all, very serious business:
...But yeah, I'll admit it: My FIRST thought (followed quickly by all the proper, compassionate and serious reactions, yes) was, "Whoa! Anna Paquin's into chicks? AWESOME!"
So, yeah... one-track-mind. Though I suppose it's worth noting that having the gorgeous lead actress of a hit TV show "out" herself in the spot is just about the most perfect (positive) publicity a campaign like this could ask for. The campaign's official site can be found HERE: http://www.wegiveadamn.org/
Below, the innaugural TV spot for "I give a damn," a public service campaign aimed at making LGBT issues more publically talked-about - the idea being that the "I don't care what you do but I don't need to hear about it" attitude contributes to violence against gay, bisexual and transgendered people by keeping said issues "impolite to talk about." Nobel cause, tastefully executed, deserves the support of all thinking (or even just compassionate) people... all in all, very serious business:
...But yeah, I'll admit it: My FIRST thought (followed quickly by all the proper, compassionate and serious reactions, yes) was, "Whoa! Anna Paquin's into chicks? AWESOME!"
So, yeah... one-track-mind. Though I suppose it's worth noting that having the gorgeous lead actress of a hit TV show "out" herself in the spot is just about the most perfect (positive) publicity a campaign like this could ask for. The campaign's official site can be found HERE: http://www.wegiveadamn.org/
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Bucky Barnes? Seriously?
This has been up for most of Thursday, but I was waiting to see whether or not it was an April Fools joke. Apparently, it is not. Heat Vision (and now everyone else) reports that Sebastian Stan - apparently one of the also-rans for Captain America - got a consolation prize when the role ultimately went to Chris Evans: He gets to play Cap's sidekick, Bucky Barnes.
http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/04/captain-america-sidekick-sebastian-stan-exclusive.html
In this case, the surprise is that Bucky is in the movie AT ALL, I'd say. Honestly didn't expect that. If you had to ask me what the first thing you'd jettison (or at least trim way, way down) for an Avengers lead-in Captain America movie, I'd say Bucky right off the bat.
Quick primer for non-fans: Since Captain America originated in the 1940s, he came completely with the then-all-but-mandatory "boy sidekick," a'la Robin. So goes the story, Stan Lee was never terribly fond of the boy sidekick angle, which is why basically none of the "Silver Age" Marvel Heroes started out with one. So when it came time to ressurect Cap - and concoct an altered backstory to erase the ill-advised 50s "Commie Smasher" Cap/Bucky books - Stan etc. opted to kill two birds with one stone: In the "new" version of Marvel history, the same circumstances that led to Cap being frozen in ice since the end of the war ALSO flat-out KILLED Bucky Barnes.
In the short term, "guilt at responsibility for Bucky's death" served as Cap's version of the Marvel-mandated "heroic flaw" (he was actually pretty over-the-top hysterical about it... Venture Bros. fans who recall Captain Sunshine's recent appearance? Yeah, pretty much that) before "WWII hero doesn't fit in 60s America" became more compelling; but in the long term it wound up as an important benchmark in Marvel continuity: "Bucky's death soured everyone on the concept" became the default "why we don't have kid sidekicks" explanation, and OBSD - "Only Bucky Stays Dead" - was a mantra on the ressurectability of dead heroes for decades.
Anyway, the movie question will be "what will he DO?," since the character has undergone a lot of re-interpretation over the years. Regular-Marvel Bucky has, historically, been played as a wartime Robin - all gee-whiz and let's-go. In the "Ultimate" universe - which has inspired a lot of the Marvel movieverse - Bucky is just a regular army grunt Cap hung out with during the war (he doesn't die and Cap meets him again, as an old man now long-married to Cap's onetime ladyfriend, after being thawed out, which would probably be a KILLER scene in a movie.)
The HV story, however, may unwittingly give away a pretty good idea of where they might be going by noting that Sebastian has signed for "five or six" movies as the character. See, since it's unlikely that Sebastian would sign to play himself in old-man makeup in six movies, it seems like Bucky might be running around "young" in future Cap and/or Avengers movies. How might that work?
Well, a few years back when Ed Brubaker began what's become an acclaimed run on the Cap books, he started off with a MAJOR reworking of Bucky's official backstory: Now, the "gee-whiz" kid thing was an act, and his "real" function was as Cap's one-man "wetwork" team; i.e. he did all the throat-cutting and guard-neutralizing that the Army didn't want to tarnish Cap's symbolic stature with. In addition, well... he threw out the "Only Bucky" death rule once and for all: As it now turns out, Bucky was revived in the future, too: As a brainwashed, semi-cyborg Soviet assassin called "Winter Soldier;" who Cap discovered, fought and rehabbed into a good guy... good enough that he briefly took up the Captain America mantle when Cap died after "Civil War." In other words, add at least ONE prospective story-point/bad-guy to the Cap/Avengers sequel rumors.
http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/04/captain-america-sidekick-sebastian-stan-exclusive.html
In this case, the surprise is that Bucky is in the movie AT ALL, I'd say. Honestly didn't expect that. If you had to ask me what the first thing you'd jettison (or at least trim way, way down) for an Avengers lead-in Captain America movie, I'd say Bucky right off the bat.
Quick primer for non-fans: Since Captain America originated in the 1940s, he came completely with the then-all-but-mandatory "boy sidekick," a'la Robin. So goes the story, Stan Lee was never terribly fond of the boy sidekick angle, which is why basically none of the "Silver Age" Marvel Heroes started out with one. So when it came time to ressurect Cap - and concoct an altered backstory to erase the ill-advised 50s "Commie Smasher" Cap/Bucky books - Stan etc. opted to kill two birds with one stone: In the "new" version of Marvel history, the same circumstances that led to Cap being frozen in ice since the end of the war ALSO flat-out KILLED Bucky Barnes.
In the short term, "guilt at responsibility for Bucky's death" served as Cap's version of the Marvel-mandated "heroic flaw" (he was actually pretty over-the-top hysterical about it... Venture Bros. fans who recall Captain Sunshine's recent appearance? Yeah, pretty much that) before "WWII hero doesn't fit in 60s America" became more compelling; but in the long term it wound up as an important benchmark in Marvel continuity: "Bucky's death soured everyone on the concept" became the default "why we don't have kid sidekicks" explanation, and OBSD - "Only Bucky Stays Dead" - was a mantra on the ressurectability of dead heroes for decades.
Anyway, the movie question will be "what will he DO?," since the character has undergone a lot of re-interpretation over the years. Regular-Marvel Bucky has, historically, been played as a wartime Robin - all gee-whiz and let's-go. In the "Ultimate" universe - which has inspired a lot of the Marvel movieverse - Bucky is just a regular army grunt Cap hung out with during the war (he doesn't die and Cap meets him again, as an old man now long-married to Cap's onetime ladyfriend, after being thawed out, which would probably be a KILLER scene in a movie.)
The HV story, however, may unwittingly give away a pretty good idea of where they might be going by noting that Sebastian has signed for "five or six" movies as the character. See, since it's unlikely that Sebastian would sign to play himself in old-man makeup in six movies, it seems like Bucky might be running around "young" in future Cap and/or Avengers movies. How might that work?
Well, a few years back when Ed Brubaker began what's become an acclaimed run on the Cap books, he started off with a MAJOR reworking of Bucky's official backstory: Now, the "gee-whiz" kid thing was an act, and his "real" function was as Cap's one-man "wetwork" team; i.e. he did all the throat-cutting and guard-neutralizing that the Army didn't want to tarnish Cap's symbolic stature with. In addition, well... he threw out the "Only Bucky" death rule once and for all: As it now turns out, Bucky was revived in the future, too: As a brainwashed, semi-cyborg Soviet assassin called "Winter Soldier;" who Cap discovered, fought and rehabbed into a good guy... good enough that he briefly took up the Captain America mantle when Cap died after "Civil War." In other words, add at least ONE prospective story-point/bad-guy to the Cap/Avengers sequel rumors.