I enjoyed Spider-Man more than I thought I would.  He really worked.  And while they draw him into the fight in almost a too-quick and irresponsible way (he's just a kid), they make sure to address that briefly but effectively.  He added some nice humor and a different tone.  They did a good job of showing how powerful he is but also how young and inexperienced he is.

Almost a bit of a weird awkward sexual tension thing with Aunt May

Also loved Ant Man.  My buddy claims he doesnt "get" Ant Man.  I like him and Paul Rudd is tremendous.  Sometimes in these Marvel films they try to sprinkle in some humor where it doesnt feel right but characters like Spider-Man and Ant Man bring the funny in a more organic way.

The airport fight was really great and a smart way to let the super heroes battle without worrying about civilians. 

I'd like to see a solo Black Widow film.  Maybe it's hard because she fits as more of a side-kick character to Captain America.  But she is sort of the emotional connective tissue of the movie because she has relationships with so many characters.

Black Panther was very good too.  Almost a back-to-basics Captain America type character.  Definitely want to see more.

The film definitely had a lot to pack in and that can slow it down a bit.  It seemed to take a while to get going. 

I didnt really feel the Vision/Scarlet Witch romance.  Isnt he an android?  And he bordered on abusive relationship at times (I think thats what they were going for) with the "Im doing this for you're own protection" and "Are you not letting me leave?" 

The bad guy was more a back drop to the Civil War stuff and I thought the motivations and plan of the bad guy was somewhat weak.  He was really relying on the good guys being predictable, emotional, egotistical and irrational.  And the aborted Super Soldiers plot seemed more interesting.

7 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

For you and I, it's no different than going to youtube and watching a video.  You are simply viewing something someone else has made available.  If the uploader doesn't have the proper rights, the video will be taken down and they would be the ones to get in trouble.

 

Hat sounds different than youtube in the sense I dont go to youtube seeking out Captain America because I know its not allowed on Youtube.  If you go to these sites looking to watch the film its because you know & hope someone has illegally uploaded it for your enjoyment.

From a legal perspective, for the viewer it's not any different.  Have you ever watched any hockey highlight videos on youtube?  Do you think the people who create those always have the right to put them online?

Just now, bigg jay said:

From a legal perspective, for the viewer it's not any different.  Have you ever watched any hockey highlight videos on youtube?  Do you think the people who create those always have the right to put them online?

Comparing hockey highlites to a full film is like comparing a movie trailer to an entire hockey game.  Not the same thing.

35 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Harrumphed harumph! I'm not sure if you're an angry old man, a pretentious ******, or both.... 

Hey it's a legit question, how are movie studio executives supposed to buy that new ivory back scratcher if people keep watching **** for free?

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Comparing hockey highlites to a full film is like comparing a movie trailer to an entire hockey game.  Not the same thing.

It still comes down to who has the legal right.  A movie trailer is made by the studio that owns the film while most highlight videos are made by some fan splicing together videos they don't have permission for.

2 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

It still comes down to who has the legal right.  A movie trailer is made by the studio that owns the film while most highlight videos are made by some fan splicing together videos they don't have permission for.

Watching hockey highlights likely isnt taking away revenue from people who want to watch the entire game, at least for the most part.  There are plenty of youtube videos of people reviewing films using clips they dont own.  Again, thats not remotely close to watching an entire film for free using an illegal source.

I dont believe this to be a grey area of "Im not doing anything wrong, the guy uploading it to me is".  Im not judging you for doing it.  But lets be realistic about it.

Quote

So, what's the catch? Turns out, legally, there might not be one in Canada, at least not yet. Yes, sometimes customers are watching copyrighted content, but they aren't downloading that material. They're streaming it, and streaming falls into a legal grey area.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-streaming-1.3455524

 

Technically a legal grey area?  Maybe.  Morally?  Come on....  I mean, we've all bent the law.  Who hasnt taken a song off youtube instead of paying for it.  But come on....

Let's just call it what it is, cheap, entitled people want to watch stuff on their own schedule without paying for it so they use a technicality to absolve any guilt they may or may not be having about it. Bottom line they're getting content without paying for it. If you can live with that then good on you, but some people have better morals than that. 

To each their own.  As long as it's not illegal, I'll continue to use it.  And in my case, I still pay for my cable package & netflix, go to a **** ton of movies in the theatre and still buy movies to add to my blu-ray collection so it's not like I'm not paying for the majority of my viewing habits.  

For me, it's simply an additional source.  If there's a show I want to watch & we don't get it here, I'll use Kodi.  My wife, for example, loves a lot of BBC shows that she can't get in Canada so that's what she uses if for.

22 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Let's just call it what it is, cheap, entitled people want to watch stuff on their own schedule without paying for it so they use a technicality to absolve any guilt they may or may not be having about it. Bottom line they're getting content without paying for it. If you can live with that then good on you, but some people have better morals than that. 

I had a debate with someone on another forum because he openly admitted (bragged really) that his friend across town gives him her log in and password for Netflix.  He bragged that he must have better friends then me.  I know its a grey area for Netflix but they clearly intend it not be used in that manner but are careful not to alienate potential future users.  Ive been offered free passwords too.  But I like Netflix and use it, so I pay for it. 

I think if you enjoy content, you should pay for it.  Its a bit different when it's already out on Blu Ray due to first sale doctrine.  But I digress...

An addition, though this is basically off topic, I find it quite interesting.  First Sale Doctrine is why we are allowed to rent movies.  Basically, once you buy a DVD, its yours to do with as you please - lend it to someone, give it to someone, rent it to people.

First Sale Doctrine doesnt apply to streaming services which is why Netflix's DVD rental library is larger than their streaming movie library.  They must negotiate licensing deals to stream.

So if you buy a copy of The Revenant, you can lend it to your friend or rent it to friends.  But if you upload a stream, its illegal.

Some have suggested a law creating a forced licensing arrangement whereby any company (such as Netflix) could stream any available film they wanted as long as they paid X amount fee, established by law and likely on a sliding scale.

I doubt that would gain traction now that there is a trend for networks to create their own streaming service where they want to monopolize their own content. For example, CBS is pulling Star Trek from Netflix to feature on their own streaming service.  But it would be beneficial to the customer.

Just as First Sale Doctrine was established in the wake of the advancement of video tape technology, something will have to come along for streaming.

One of the original owners of Facebook, Sean Parker has a new technology he's pushing where a customer could get a special set top box and be able to stream a movie in their home on the same day its released in the theater, which I think has merit in the future, though not so much right now.

Anyway...interesting topic.

most of the movies watched on kodi (for myself anyways) are dvds that get released months ahead of the NA release date over seas. so i have to put up with some subtitles, but it doesnt bother me.  If they want my $ then release them at the same time, tho id need a dvd player again...

Why don't you just wait until they release them here? 

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Why don't you just wait until they release them here? 

BECAUSE I WANT IT NOW!!! *complete with feet stomping*

For what it's worth, I use it to find older stuff. There's never a good copy of something really new...

I use it for old movies too a lot. Like roddy piper in hell comes to frogtown

On 27/05/2016 at 7:47 AM, bigg jay said:

SALTS or Exodus are my main ones right now.

Meant to tell you -- I got both of these on my laptop and MX8 box KODIs, and SALTS is the best KODI add-on I've ever had. This thing always has a stream of anything you're looking for. No more "Stream Unavailable" bullshit. Very excited about this. No more trying to get Genesis, Ice Films, Phoenix, etc to work....

Yep, I've been very impressed with SALTS.  It does have some hiccups but very minor ones that are more personal preference (like having to manually mark a show as watched rather than it doing it automatically).