Batman-Online.com

We've seen the latest Batman v Superman trailer, now we should talk about the latest trailer for Marvel's superhero smackdown/team-up that was released last week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdV-lxRPFo

I understand some may have been disappointed by Age of Ultron because it tried to be too light-hearted at times (even though I still liked it), but I trust the Russo brothers will have a more serious tone as they delivered for The Winter Soldier.

But I have to tell you: I'm more concerned about the level of overcrowding characters here than I am for Batman v Superman.

I share your concern, Laughing Fish, it seems to me that this will mainly be Tony Stark vs Steve Rogers with the rest in the background. And I thought AOU was not a bad movie, but not a very good one either, especially when compared to the Captain America movies.

Admittedly, the story here does require a lot of heroes to take sides over the handling of the Winter Soldier and their stance over the Registration Act, but there's always going to be characters who get short-changed in terms of screen time. And you're right Edd, Age of Ultron does fall down in the middle of the MCU pecking order when compared to the two Cap movies and the first Avengers film.

I want to see every hero having his own opinion and motivations. The fighting should be later in the film.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:32But I have to tell you: I'm more concerned about the level of overcrowding characters here than I am for Batman v Superman.

I'm not.  I you're familiar with the Civil War comic-mini-series you'll know that the upcoming film barely covers a fraction of the characters featured.  And more importantly, most of the characters in Civil War have already been introduced and established in previous movies.  The only big new additions are Black Panther and Spider-Man in what is rumoured to be little more than a cameo.  And the fact that they'll be interacting with characters we already are invested in helps considerably.

By contrast Batman v Superman has to introduce a new Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Alfred, Mercy Graves and, if rumours are correct, Aquaman and Cyborg.  At least a film called 'Civil War' has a reason to shoehorn so many characters into its running time.  But it seems like the DC Cinematic Universe is already desperate to build-up to a big team movie without doing all the groundwork and building up each character in their solo movies first.  Not a wise approach IMHO.

I'd like it if this thread was on Civil War and not "B v S against Civil War fans"  :)

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:53
I'd like it if this thread was on Civil War and not "B v S against Civil War fans"  :)

I understand Edd.  I was just following up a comment made by The Laughing Fish earlier on:

QuoteBut I have to tell you: I'm more concerned about the level of overcrowding characters here than I am for Batman v Superman.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:52I'm not.  I you're familiar with the Civil War comic-mini-series you'll know that the upcoming film barely covers a fraction of the characters featured.  And more importantly, most of the characters in Civil War have already been introduced and established in previous movies.  The only big new additions are Black Panther and Spider-Man in what is rumoured to be little more than a cameo.  And the fact that they'll be interacting with characters we already are invested in helps considerably.

The central conflict in the Civil War comic is between Iron Man and Captain America. It's carried out through their deputies in many cases but they were the leaders of their respective sides. It was their conflict.

That said, it looks like the movie will address the same basic themes in different ways and with a smaller cast of characters. I must say it's disappointing. What I dig about the CW comic is that it affected pretty much the entire Marvel universe. Restricting a story this important to one Captain America movie seems wrong somehow.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:52By contrast Batman v Superman has to introduce a new Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Alfred, Mercy Graves and, if rumours are correct, Aquaman and Cyborg.  At least a film called 'Civil War' has a reason to shoehorn so many characters into its running time.  But it seems like the DC Cinematic Universe is already desperate to build-up to a big team movie without doing all the groundwork and building up each character in their solo movies first.  Not a wise approach IMHO.

Considering you haven't seen BvS and don't know if any of those rumors are true or in what context those characters might appear, I'm not sure how you're qualified to make that statement.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:58Considering you haven't seen BvS and don't know if any of those rumors are true or in what context those characters might appear, I'm not sure how you're qualified to make that statement.

As qualified as The Laughing Fish is to state the following:

QuoteBut I have to tell you: I'm more concerned about the level of overcrowding characters here than I am for Batman v Superman.

:)

But hey, we all have different opinions and are entitled to them, right?  :) :-\

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:52

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:32But I have to tell you: I'm more concerned about the level of overcrowding characters here than I am for Batman v Superman.

I'm not.  I you're familiar with the Civil War comic-mini-series you'll know that the upcoming film barely covers a fraction of the characters featured.  And more importantly, most of the characters in Civil War have already been introduced and established in previous movies.  The only big new additions are Black Panther and Spider-Man in what is rumoured to be little more than a cameo.  And the fact that they'll be interacting with characters we already are invested in helps considerably.

By contrast Batman v Superman has to introduce a new Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Alfred, Mercy Graves and, if rumours are correct, Aquaman and Cyborg.  At least a film called 'Civil War' has a reason to shoehorn so many characters into its running time.  But it seems like the DC Cinematic Universe is already desperate to build-up to a big team movie without doing all the groundwork and building up each character in their solo movies first.  Not a wise approach IMHO.

Point taken, but is there really a possible alternative for DC/WB to build a cinematic universe? I'm no fan of WB as a corporation, but they are in a no-win situation here. if they copy the Marvel approach with 'solo films first, team-up movie later', they'll get accused of having no innovation and are desperate to catch up with Marvel. They try to build  with having three big name heroes with a confirmed cameo by Aquaman, yet they're still being accused of trying to catch up with Marvel.

Like I said, I know there's a reason there are more characters in Civil War, but there's always going to get somebody who is short-changed, and you'll likely get people complaining that their favourite character didn't get to do much.

Let's face it: there's a first time in everything, and you got to start somewhere. I like the premise that BvS has, and it has a lot of potential in my opinion. But again, it depends how it's executed.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:53
I'd like it if this thread was on Civil War and not "B v S against Civil War fans"  :)

I for one am looking forward to both films, so don't you worry.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 01:09

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 00:53
I'd like it if this thread was on Civil War and not "B v S against Civil War fans"  :)

I for one am looking forward to both films, so don't you worry.

Good.  :)

Let's open six cases of champagne when the films come out. And, let's give Affleck a grant.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 01:09
Point taken, but is there really a possible alternative for DC/WB to build a cinematic universe? I'm no fan of WB as a corporation, but they are in a no-win situation here. if they copy the Marvel approach with 'solo films first, team-up movie later', they'll get accused of having no innovation and are desperate to catch up with Marvel. They try to build  with having three big name heroes with a confirmed cameo by Aquaman, yet they're still being accused of trying to catch up with Marvel.

Like I said, I know there's a reason there are more characters in Civil War, but there's always going to get somebody who is short-changed, and you'll likely get people complaining that their favourite character didn't get to do much.

Let's face it: there's a first time in everything, and you got to start somewhere. I like the premise that BvS has, and it has a lot of potential in my opinion. But again, it depends how it's executed.

You make some very valid points, particularly the one about WB not wanting to be seen as copying the MCU approach.

But ultimately my faith in the Civil War is based on the MCU's sterling track-record so far and my mixed, although by no means entirely negative, feelings towards Man of Steel.

That said, AOU was a relative disappointment, if still a better-than-average movie, and I hope Civil War doesn't suffer from the same issues regarding certain characters being short-changed.  Personally, I don't think that will be a big issue because ultimately Civil War is still primarily about Captain America, Iron Man and to some extent Bucky, judging by the trailer, and the other Avengers are effectively making up support, whereas AOU was a team/ensemble movie, and it partially failed in not building on the group dynamic and giving each character their own narrative as elegantly as the first Avengers film had done (apparently Thor in particular suffered from editing room choices).

Since we are already discussing MCU, I expected better from AOU, it's an average movie for me, and not a very good entry overall. And I actually enjoyed Ant-Man quite a bit more.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 01:27
Since we are already discussing MCU, I expected better from AOU, it's an average movie for me, and not a very good entry overall. And I actually enjoyed Ant-Man quite a bit more.

I've only seen AOU once.  I hope I enjoy it on a second viewing.  It was a slight disappointment for me but there are still a lot of things I liked and I'd argue that it was still better than average.  :-\  But you're right; Ant-Man is much better.  :)

I tend to change my mind on some films sometimes, and like them more, and some films I like the same or less.  :)

Like the Iron Man films. 3 used to be my favorite, now it's 2. And while I don't hate the first one, it was a good origin movie but not a great movie.

And to me , AOU and Iron Man and Iron Man 3 are average, while Iron Man 2 is above average.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat,  5 Dec  2015, 01:27
Since we are already discussing MCU, I expected better from AOU, it's an average movie for me, and not a very good entry overall. And I actually enjoyed Ant-Man quite a bit more.

I finally got to see Ant-Man over the weekend. While I don't rank it as one of my favourite Marvel films, I still enjoyed it simply for the fact that a crook got a father and daughter back together.  8) It had goofy jokes too, but I still got a laugh out of them.

I saw the post-credit scene where Cap and Falcon found Bucky - the same scene that also appeared in the CW trailer. You can really feel the contrast between the serious tone that scene had compared to the rest of Ant-Man.

I haven't seen Ant-Man but I agree about AOU. I actually haven't seen any of the phase two films more than once (waiting for the combo set to drop in price, it's ridiculously expensive). Here's how I'd rank the films against each other

Excellent: Avengers
Great: Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Cap 2, Guardians of the galaxy
Good: Cap 1, Thor 1 and 2, Iron Man 2 and 3, age of ultron

I don't see any of them as bad films per se, I enjoy all of them to their own extent but AOU's problems were actually what I feared would be the problem of the first avengers....


So I know it's been asked in this thread to try and avoid comparing DC to Marvel but I will instead to a contrast; not to claim one is better than the other but rather how they are different. While the individual heroes all have their own interesting comics, I prefer reading justice league comics to Avengers. I find avengers stories lack plot and characterization and often have endless fighting with very little of the alter egos. The first avengers film didn't have that problem, the heroes interacted well developing relationships out of costume. Age of ultron though the fight scenes dragged on as they can in the comics.

Now civil war I'm excited about; it has the same directors as Winter Soldier which was easily the best overall phase two film (Guardians was good as well but it's not for everyone, a prerequisite is an enjoyment of Sci-fi) and despite what I wrote earlier about Avengers comics, Civil war is easily my favourite marvel comics story.

New Super Bowl TV spot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7iH3foZU0

Spidey!!!  :D

You beat me to it.

I absolutely love the fact his eyes can move (i.e. Deadpool). I'll have to see more of the rest of the suit, but the mask has won me over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKrVegVI0Us

I'm seeing a fair amount of negativity on other sites, but I like it. The mask's got that classic Ditko look, and the expressive eyes are a neat innovation on what we've seen in earlier films.

I've only read positive things so far, which is good because I like the cowl.  It has a very retro feel, which is something I'd expect from the guys at the MCU with their tendency to remain faithful to the comic-book origins.  Plus, it allows much scope for the suit to develop film-by-film to become gradually more 'sophisticated'.

I like the look of the new Spidey myself.

I know I said I'd judge the rest of the suit when I saw more, but the screencaps online have given me enough to look at. The web lines over his suit are also closer to the Ditko/classic Spider-Man look. The other movies have kind of a "raised" or textured look to the webs. These look more like the way they were drawn in the comic panels. Same goes for the black spider on his chest and the red one on his back (that you can see if you freeze frame the part where he flips). I also swear I've seen a comic with the utility belt (with spare webbing cartridges) before but can't find a panel.

What's cool is that if you listen closely, you can hear the "whirr" of Spider-Man's eyes as they move, which means that the eyes don't magically move on their own like in Deadpool, it's a built-in part of the suit (likely an upgrade that Tony gives him).

Here's hoping they nail down all the other aspects of the character, outside of the suit. I'm loving that we live in an era where filmmakers are trying to make the characters look more like the comics, not less.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 11 Mar  2016, 18:18I also swear I've seen a comic with the utility belt (with spare webbing cartridges) before but can't find a panel.

I vaguely recall something along those lines myself, but I can't remember where I've seen it. Can any diehard webheads provide a scan?

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 11 Mar  2016, 18:18
What's cool is that if you listen closely, you can hear the "whirr" of Spider-Man's eyes as they move, which means that the eyes don't magically move on their own like in Deadpool, it's a built-in part of the suit (likely an upgrade that Tony gives him).

I liked that touch. When there were rumours he'd be wearing a suit designed by Stark, I was worried they might go with the Iron Spider armour to distinguish it from the earlier films. But based on what we've seen so far, I think it looks awesome.

The suit is pretty good. I like they went for something completely different in comparison to the other live action costumes. However, at the moment, this would be my least liked. It's not terrible, but I simply prefer the others. I think this feels a little bland, with the other cinematic costumes 'popping' more.

Surprisingly, none of us here have mentioned that this will be the first time William Hurt is playing General Ross since The Incredible Hulk. He has gone from hunting down the Hulk to running an agenda to regulate costumed heroes following the events of the last two Avengers movies.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 13 Mar  2016, 00:18
Surprisingly, none of us here have mentioned that this will be the first time William Hurt is playing General Ross since The Incredible Hulk. He has gone from hunting down the Hulk to running an agenda to regulate costumed heroes following the events of the last two Avengers movies.

I'm so glad General Ross is coming back.  One of the reasons I like the MCU is its sense of continuity, and one of the reasons I find Ross such a compelling character, whether he's played by the brilliant likes of Sam Elliott or William Hurt (one of my favourite actors), is that he isn't an out-and-out villain.  He's an antagonist and a big-time jerk, but he isn't truly evil; just very misguided.  He may even have a point this time, in terms of ensuring that rogue superheroes are made accountable to democratic governments and their agencies.

That said, it's funny that Ross is so determined to control and register the Avengers for the destruction left in their wake, after it was his actions, tinkering with the super-serum that ultimately helped create The Abomination, that nearly flattened Harlem in The Incredible Hulk (admittedly that wasn't entirely Ross's fault, since the Hulk/Banner blood samples kept by Dr Samuel Sterns were what really turned Blonsky into such a destructive monster).

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdOa8GfVIAApPjK.jpg:large)

What is this nonsense?  And can't we dispense with all the silly Marvel v DC foolishness?

Get over it. It's funny and I'm allowed to post it here. I'm not comparing DC to Marvel with it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 13 Mar  2016, 01:44
Get over it. It's funny and I'm allowed to post it here. I'm not comparing DC to Marvel with it.

I don't want an argument with you, but the meme is clearly intended to mock the MCU, even though the MCU has done a bang-up job with its films and establishing the various characters so far.

Unlike some franchises, it hasn't rushed into things.  :-X

If anyone is mocking a company, it's you mocking the new DC universe with language like that. Thanks for making a mountain out of a molehill. It seems we can't have a laugh any more without causing offence, which is a shame.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 13 Mar  2016, 03:09
If anyone is mocking a company, it's you mocking the new DC universe with language like that. Thanks for making a mountain out of a molehill. It seems we can't have a laugh any more without causing offence, which is a shame.

But  haven't said anything about the new DC Universe.  I'm looking forward to it.  :)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Mar  2016, 20:42
I'm seeing a fair amount of negativity on other sites, but I like it. The mask's got that classic Ditko look, and the expressive eyes are a neat innovation on what we've seen in earlier films.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fmcu%2520spider-man%2520ditko_zpsadbgc3vo.png&hash=4dd12c792e1e7ec9c44e914601766da13cf0e167)

I like the look as well. Because of it's inspiration from the Ditko/Romita days, and also because the animated eyes instantly makes me think of various Spidey toons (which were probably my first exposure to Spider-Man to begin with).

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprem0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1116%2Febdc06c614326b2eeeb23760496cde90.gif&hash=e5cbc6fceefd3eb1cbc6809c534cec8e5b3cfc14)

To be honest I don't find the meme funny. Is it mocking the fact that the film only has about 10 heroes going at it instead of 30 in the comics? And for the record I'm not someone who has a stake in the DC vs Marvel debate, both sides have great comic characters, DC  is doing better on TV but Marvel is kicking the crap out DC on the big screen lately and I agree with those who say that BvS would not be happening right now if not for the Avengers.

On the subject of Ross, he'll be the first supporting character from the Incredible Hulk to appear in another marvel film and the first actor to reprise his role. I'm happy, it seems that film is the forgotten one of the MCU and very underrated. While Sam Elliot is a fine actor, I liked Hurt's character far better. Elliiots character was an antagonist of sorts but it was obvious he was doing what he believed to be right; keeping people safe from the unknown powerful threat. William Hurt's character was far more layered; he knew he was partially responsible for the Hulk and was after Banner to protect his own career. He definitely falls into the anti-hero category.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 15 Mar  2016, 13:28On the subject of Ross, he'll be the first supporting character from the Incredible Hulk to appear in another marvel film and the first actor to reprise his role. I'm happy, it seems that film is the forgotten one of the MCU and very underrated. While Sam Elliot is a fine actor, I liked Hurt's character far better. Elliiots character was an antagonist of sorts but it was obvious he was doing what he believed to be right; keeping people safe from the unknown powerful threat. William Hurt's character was far more layered; he knew he was partially responsible for the Hulk and was after Banner to protect his own career. He definitely falls into the anti-hero category.

Great comments riddler.  :)

Would you say that Elliot's version of General Ross was on balance more sympathetic than Hurt's?  For the record I don't think either version of the character is an out-and-out villain but I agree with your analysis regarding the contrast between the two performances (Elliot's Ross being an antagonist to the Hulk but not necessarily a 'bad guy', and Hurt's Ross being somewhat more misguided and questionable in his motives).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 15 Mar  2016, 19:29

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 15 Mar  2016, 13:28On the subject of Ross, he'll be the first supporting character from the Incredible Hulk to appear in another marvel film and the first actor to reprise his role. I'm happy, it seems that film is the forgotten one of the MCU and very underrated. While Sam Elliot is a fine actor, I liked Hurt's character far better. Elliiots character was an antagonist of sorts but it was obvious he was doing what he believed to be right; keeping people safe from the unknown powerful threat. William Hurt's character was far more layered; he knew he was partially responsible for the Hulk and was after Banner to protect his own career. He definitely falls into the anti-hero category.

Great comments riddler.  :)

Would you say that Elliot's version of General Ross was on balance more sympathetic than Hurt's?  For the record I don't think either version of the character is an out-and-out villain but I agree with your analysis regarding the contrast between the two performances (Elliot's Ross being an antagonist to the Hulk but not necessarily a 'bad guy', and Hurt's Ross being somewhat more misguided and questionable in his motives).

For the most part Elliot had noble intentions, the only criticism of the characters motives is that it seems he was partially targetting Banner due to a vendetta with his father so he is the more sympathetic of the two. Hurt is more antagonistic as it seems he is trying to capture Banner to replicate the serum. You were right earlier that he's not entirely at fault for the Abomination, he couldn't have predicted Sterns to give him an injection himself. Hurts character does the right thing at the end letting Banner fight the Abomination, giving him some help and then letting him escape. It will be interesting to see though if Ross is questioned himself; SHIELD and Fury have no doubts Banner is a good guy and the hulk isn't a threat. It's likely the Stark cameo in TIH (which hasn't exactly added much plot up until now other than a prelude that the avengers would form) will be expanded on as Stark did come to ross.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/trailers/674577-captain-america-civil-wars-female-heroes-featured-in-behind-the-scenes-video

Marvel has dropped the social media embargo following a recent press screening. The early Twitter response from critics is highly positive:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/captain_america/captain_america_civil_war/the-first-reactions-to-captain-america-a137275

A few key points they all seem to agree on:

-   It's good. A couple of critics are lukewarm in their praise and say it's not as good as Winter Soldier. But most are more enthusiastic than that. Some are saying it's Marvel's best film so far.

-   It's a better Avengers film than Age of Ultron.

-   Tom Holland's Spider-Man is the best to date. He steals the show.

-   The airport scene is the greatest action sequence in any comic book movie ever. This sounds a tab hyperbolic to me, but they all seem to concur on this point.

-   It's the darkest Marvel film so far, but still manages to be fun.

-   It has surprising emotional depth. More so than some critics were expecting.

So it looks like Civil War's going to get a good response from critics. I believe the review embargo ends on Wednesday next week, which is a good sign. Marvel/Disney must be very confident to let the critics voice their opinions so far in advance of the release date.

This is great news Silver Nemesis.

As much as I adored the MCU however, I do hope the films will now start taking some risks and perhaps kill off key characters.  Perhaps that's what the 'darkest Marvel film so far' and 'emotional depth' alludes to.

The reviews are starting to trickle in, weeks in advance, with an overall positive response:
http://comicbook.com/2016/04/13/captain-america-civil-war-review-roundup/
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/04/13/captain-america-civil-war-review-a-total-triumph

Currently sitting at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes with 14 reviews and an average rating of 8.8/10. It'll drop as more reviews come in, but it's off to an encouraging start.

I knew it was a good sign when Marvel lifted the critical embargo so early. Unlike Warner Bros, who maintained the BvS critical embargo until the last possible minute...

Empire Magazine has given it 5 out of 5 stars: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/captain-america-civil-war/review/ (http://www.empireonline.com/movies/captain-america-civil-war/review/)

Things are looking good for this film.  I just hope I can avoid spoilers before it's released.

Some interesting new clips:




I love that they're framing the central battle using a solid ideological conflict, similar to the Daredevil vs. Punisher rivalry in DD season 2. Two heroes, each behaving very much in character, but each pursuing an objective that is incompatible with the goals of their rival. In order for one of them to accomplish their objective, the other must be overcome. It's the kind of conflict that evolves naturally from the characters and what they represent, rather than through contrived circumstances.

I'm so looking forward to this film that I'm going to be avoiding certain forums for the next few weeks.  In fact I'm not even sure about checking out those clips.

It might be as well to have a separate 'spoilers' thread when the movie is released. Later, when it's been out for a few weeks and everyone's seen it, we can merge the 'spoilers' thread with this one.

It looks good - looking forward to seeing it.

As someone who is a fan of the MCU, and loved the first two Cap movies...I'm honestly not so sure about this one.

On one hand, they're exploring the ramifications of the damage left behind in every Avengers battle, and that's good for the sake of the story.

But on the other hand, there's always a chance that too many characters could spoil it. Despite I liked how they introduced Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver and Vision in Age of Ultron, I thought that movie had an unfocused plot because of the amount of characters introduced in the film. I heard rumours that Spider-Man plays a bigger part in this than most people are expecting, and to tell you truth, I'm disappointed. What if the film has too many sub-plots that get in the way of the conflict between Captain America and Iron Man? Plus, how does it juggle the other villains in the film: Baron Zemo and Crossbones?

I'll definitely see it, and I'm not going to write it off. But I have a hunch that Civil War won't entertain me as much as The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier did. Hope I'm wrong.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 12:44
As someone who is a fan of the MCU, and loved the first two Cap movies...I'm honestly not so sure about this one.

On one hand, they're exploring the ramifications of the damage left behind in every Avengers battle, and that's good for the sake of the story.

But on the other hand, there's always a chance that too many characters could spoil it. Despite I liked how they introduced Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver and Vision in Age of Ultron, I thought that movie had an unfocused plot because of the amount of characters introduced in the film. I heard rumours that Spider-Man plays a bigger part in this than most people are expecting, and to tell you truth, I'm disappointed. What if the film has too many sub-plots that get in the way of the conflict between Captain America and Iron Man? Plus, how does it juggle the other villains in the film: Baron Zemo and Crossbones?

I'll definitely see it, and I'm not going to write it off. But I have a hunch that Civil War won't entertain me as much as The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier did. Hope I'm wrong.

In the comics Spider-man plays a critical role in the civil war. I'm interested to see how the Black Panther is handled. Initially he was standing in Spideys role prior to the rights being secured.

New promo featuring some Spidey footage:

The RT consensus is up:

QuoteCaptain America: Civil War begins the next wave of Marvel movies with an action-packed superhero blockbuster boasting a decidedly non-cartoonish plot and the courage to explore thought-provoking themes.

Currently it has 60 reviews: 59 positive, 1 negative. The RT score is 98% with an average rating of 8.2. The 'top critic' score is 100% with an average rating of 8.6. The word of mouth from fans has been equally positive. Looking good, so far.

A local review I saw tackles the vibe with CW and the Marvel routine in general:

"CW has arrived trailing such critical acclaim it's as if Elsabeth Olsen's Scarlett Witch has taken control of reviewers minds. ("You will give it five stars or you will never be invited to a Marvel movie again.") This third Captain America movie is far from the best ever Marvel movie, as certain reviewers have anointed it. It's good, but it's not marvellous. "

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 29 Apr  2016, 09:06
A local review I saw tackles the vibe with CW and the Marvel routine in general:

"You will give it five stars or you will never be invited to a Marvel movie again."

;D  Great... ::)  Another conspiracy theorist.  :-\

Unfortunately, the film has now dropped to 94% thanks to a handful of bad reviews.  :(

I'll merge this thread with the other one when more people have seen the movie. I just got back from seeing it myself and I thought I'd write a quick review. I'll place major spoilers in white. Apologies in advance for the messy rambling nature of this post. These are my unfiltered thoughts right after seeing the movie.

I know some people have been debating whether Civil War was really a Captain America film or if it had been hijacked into becoming an Avengers movie. Well having seen it, I can say it's both. Cap and Bucky are the central protagonists and it's their story that drives the heart of the narrative. But the film also does an excellent job of giving each of the supporting characters a personal investment in what's happening. It's a great Captain America movie, but it's also a great Avengers movie. In fact I think it's the best Avengers film so far. Yes, even better than the 2012 film.

Cap 3 picks up a lot of the plot threads and themes from The Winter Solider, while also incorporating a surprising amount of content from the original Civil War comic. Comments from the producers had led me to believe this was essentially a totally different story, sharing only its basic premise and title with the comic. But in reality there are numerous beats taken straight from the source material:

•   A sequence in which a villain blows himself up in a populated area during a battle with a team of heroes; this serves as a catalyst for the public backlash against the Avengers

•   A mother confronting Tony over the death of her son, exacerbating the guilt which drives him throughout the film

•   Government legislation designed to hold heroes accountable for the collateral damage incurred by their actions

•   Tony recruiting Spider-Man to his cause

•   A point in the story where one of the heroes is severely injured when a battle gets out of hand

•   A prison where super powered beings are incarcerated

There's also at least one panel recreation lifted directly from the comic. Ultimately, I felt the film improved on the source material in a number of significant ways. For one thing, the protagonists' reasons for fighting are a lot more layered. This is particularly true during the final act when Tony discovers the Winter Soldier is responsible for murdering his parents. The moment of anagorisis where Stark learns this is unquestionably the single most dramatic scene in any MCU film to date.

And this leads me to one of the film's greatest strengths – every character is given clear, compelling motivation for their actions. The movie has a surprisingly strong plot with some nice twists, but at its heart it's a character-driven story. And the characters are consistent, believable and sympathetic throughout. This extends to supporting players like Vision and Scarlet Witch. The result is that the audience's sympathies are constantly flip-flopping back and forth between Team Cap and Team Iron Man. I started out siding with Steve, but by the end of the movie I was rooting for Tony. I can't think of another superhero film that so expertly manipulates audience sympathies in this way. In the original comic there was a logic to Stark's cause, but he and his allies conducted themselves with such militant heavy-handedness that most readers ended up rooting for Steve. In the movie it's not that black and white. Both sides are equally right/wrong, and the nature of their conflict transcends the broader ideological impasse concerning government legislation and delves into more personal depths that the comic barely touched upon. In my opinion, this is a rare example of a literary adaptation that's far superior to the book it's based on.

The cast are all on top form. It's great to see Paul Rudd back as Ant-Man (we get to see him in Giant-Man mode here too) and Downey delivers by far his darkest performance as Stark. A lot of people are saying this is the darkest MCU film to date. And it probably is. At the very least it's the darkest since The Incredible Hulk. But it never feels tonally one-note. The film has a sense of wit and humanity, offering moments of warmth and humour to offset the grimness prevalent elsewhere in the story. The end product is pleasantly well paced and tonally balanced. Nothing feels tacked on, and it never seems like the film's trying to bite off more than it can chew.

Tom Holland is brilliant as Spider-Man. The Raimi Spider-Man films will always be my preferred version for nostalgic reasons, but in the long run I think Holland's interpretation may well prove to be definitive. He's funny, his action scenes are great, and he nails the goodhearted-geek characterisation of Peter from the comics. I also like the fact he's the first Spider-Man actor to play the role who is actually a teenager. He brings a youthful authenticity to the part that was lacking from earlier versions. And what makes his debut here all the more impressive is the fact he creates such a strong impression in only a handful of scenes (stay tuned after the credits ;)).

I've also got to mention Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther. Like all the other characters, T'Challa has a compelling personal investment in the plot. His fight scenes are magnificent and he executes some truly awesome martial arts moves. But he's also likeable and sympathetic. There's a great moment towards the end of the film where he has to make a difficult moral decision concerning Zemo, and his response to this situation was perfect. My only criticism of Black Panther is that I've got to wait until 2018 to see his solo film. With the addition of him and Spider-Man, with Doctor Strange following later in the year, it feels as if the MCU just got a massive shot in the arm.

I still maintain Daredevil is the best thing produced by Marvel Studios. But as far as feature films go, I'd say Civil War has supplanted The Winter Soldier as the apex of the series. Not only is it the best MCU film IMO, but I'd also argue it's the best superhero film in general since The Dark Knight. In fact I think the Captain America trilogy as a whole is a serious contender for best superhero movie trilogy ever. I love the way each film reflects a different aspect of the character's history: The First Avenger is Cap the Golden Age war hero; The Winter Soldier is Cap the temporally-displaced agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.; Civil War is Cap the Modern Age Avenger.

I think 2016 is going to go down in history as the best year ever for Marvel adaptations. We've already had Deadpool, Daredevil s2 and Captain America: Civil War. And we've still got X-Men: Apocalypse, Luke Cage s1 and Doctor Strange yet to come. I realise not everyone will rate Civil War as highly as me, but I honestly thought it was terrific. The theatre I saw it in was packed. There were people of all ages, including kids dressed in Spider-Man and Iron Man costumes. Before seeing it, I was predicting a worldwide gross of around $800-900 million. But having now seen it, I think this is easily good enough to cross the $1 billion mark. It's the first superhero film I've seen in ages where I feel compelled to go back and see it again. And that's the best compliment I could give it.

There's a lot more to be said, but for now I'll leave it at that.

Final rating: 9/10

Glad you liked it. Good review. I'll hopefully catch it this week.

Read the non-spoiler stuff, and it's good to hear you enjoyed it, and provided explanatory reasons why you did!

Hope to check it out this coming Friday night. Normally I would push for the late Thursday showing, but it doesn't appear as if everyone in my circle can make it that particular night. Oh well, we'll see it the next night, no biggie.

I hope you guys all enjoy it as much as I did.

I'd just like to clarify that I'm a fan of the original Civil War comic. I don't want my comments about the film surpassing it to come across as implying I don't. I know the comic is divisive amongst fans, but I'm one of the people who liked it. I just feel the adaptation takes everything that worked about the comic and improves upon it. The movie also does a great job of connecting the dots with previous MCU films. You feel the weight of the franchise's 8-year history bearing down on events, and for me that added an extra layer of poignancy to proceedings.

There were a number of scenes in the movie that reminded me of The Empire Strikes Back, which is interesting considering many fans were hyping Age of Ultron as the MCU's answer to TESB. But no, Civil War fits that description much better. A few scenes in particular which reminded me of TESB:

•   The obvious one is during the airport battle where Spider-Man directly references the movie as he webs up Ant-Man's legs, similar to Wedge using a tow cable to immobilise an AT-AT during the Battle of Hoth

•   Black Panther stealthily following Iron Man to Siberia to hunt down the Winter Solider, similar to Boba Fett following the Falcon to Cloud City

•   The whole finale, where Stark makes a shocking discovery about the identity of his parents' killer; somewhat similar to Luke's discovery during the Bespin duel. Also the fact both movies end not with a huge battle between military forces, but with a more intimate battle between the main characters. Both showdowns also involve a character losing a limb

•   Tony ending up physically and emotionally beaten, similar to Luke at the end of TESB

To give some context to the 9/10 rating I gave it, I'd probably rate Age of Ultron a 6.5/10 and Captain America: The First Avenger a 7/10. I'd rate both The Avengers (2012) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier an 8 or possibly an 8.5/10. So Civil War is definitely the best MCU film for me. I also think it's the best Spider-Man film since Spider-Man 2 (2004).

Now this has got me thinking about which characters I'd choose.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  2 May  2016, 18:39
I also think it's the best Spider-Man film since Spider-Man 2 (2004).

That's exciting, especially when Spidey doesn't have much screen time in this apparently.

I'm not sure if I'd rank it above or equal to Winter Soldier yet, but Civil War is absolutely one of the best entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It has the fun and comic book feeling of the previous films, but with a darker tone and maturity that will honestly challenge the whole notion that "Marvel just makes cookie cutter popcorn blockbuster films."

I thought the Russos did an excellent job balancing out the various Avengers characters, but their biggest triumph was examining both Steve and Tony's characters in a way where you had trouble rooting against either of them. By the end, I walked out feeling like I had fought my best friend.

And then of course, there's the action. The airport sequence is probably the superhero showdown of the decade. So much fun while including so much character.

SPOILERS:
Many critics are comparing this and Batman v Superman and I can't blame them. Not only do these have the "All American Boy Scout superhero against the millionaire playboy superhero" but there's a lot of other coincidental similarities in the storylines as well. Expect a lot of think pieces comparing the two (and in Civil War's favor).

- The film opens with a flashback of the death of the billionaire superhero's parents. This flashback is later brought back and made more relevant in the main superhero fight. (In BvS's case, it's used to end the fight. In Civil War, it starts the fight between Cap, Bucky, and Tony).
- The main superhero fights against mercenaries in Africa in the beginning, which ends in several deaths. The government then asks the superhero to be held accountable for that action as well as the past destruction that he's been involved with (from previous film(s)).
- A general from a previous movie is promoted to Secretary of State (General Ross in Civil War, Swanwick in BvS)
- The main villain is non-costumed and aims to pit the two main heroes against each other. This includes causing a major explosion that kills off political leaders and serves as the catalyst for the heroes to fight. At the end, he is put in a prison cell, gloating over his apparent victory.
- The superhero fight ends with one hero standing over the other's body, but sparing his life.
- The billionaire superhero realizes he was on the wrong side of the issue and was being manipulated by the villain. At the end, he's the one left to lead the rest of the superheroes.

The comparisons are hard to ignore, and unfortunately I think the quality of this movie will retroactively worsen people's perceptions of BvS. We're lucky on this site in that we're largely free of DC vs. Marvel competitiveness. I think most of the regulars around here support both companies and won't let the rivalry prevent them from enjoying Civil War.

What did you think of Holland's Spider-Man, BatmAngelus? I know he only had two scenes (three if you count the post-credit coda), but I thought he made a great first impression. I loved the whole kid-on-work-experience-placement thing they had going on, with him calling Iron Man "Mr Stark" and being easily impressed by the other heroes. And what about Black Panther? I was expecting him to have a fairly small role similar to Spidey's. So I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be more substantial than that.

One other thing I forgot to mention in my earlier posts was a particularly impressive visual effect early in the film. I was blown away by the scene in Ant-Man where they de-aged Michael Douglas, and there's a similar scene in Civil War where we get to see a young Tony Stark. In the past it's always looked fake when they aged and de-aged actors. See Guy Pearce in Prometheus or Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy for examples (although Tron: Legacy came within striking distance of making it work). But it looks like Marvel's got this particular process mastered.

I thought both characters were great.

While I still miss the Ditko-like feeling of Raimi's Spider-Man, what really separates this Parker is his dynamic with the other superheroes. Loved his exchange with Captain America and his interaction with Tony. This Spidey's also got the talkative part down and I wouldn't be surprised if we see them nail the whole smack talk aspect of the character when he goes up against supervillains in Spider-Man Homecoming. I also enjoyed how his paraphrasing of "with great power comes great responsibility" was directly related to what Tony was going through and the themes of the movie

Black Panther was also a surprise in how big his role was. His final scene with Zemo is one of the darkest MCU scenes, yet also rather wonderful in its character development for T'challa.

Speaking of Zemo, I was, at first, underwhelmed that he didn't have the comic book costume and had no ties to any evil organizations. He was just...a guy. But when we got to the end, I realized that that was the novelty of it. He was someone who lost so much and was so bent on revenge that he was willing to take down the Earth's Mightiest Heroes. But he was also smart enough to know he couldn't take them on himself. He arguably succeeds more than Loki or Ultron ever did when it comes to ripping the team apart. I anticipate that this is simply his origin story and they kept him alive so he could come back in another movie. This time with a costume, please....

Overall, the Russos hit it out of the park once again, successfully introducing new players into the Marvel Universe while still honoring and developing the main ones.

I loved the scene between T'Challa and Zemo. I was worried they might depict Black Panther as an angry one-note badass, which is somewhat how I felt they depicted Luke Cage in Jessica Jones season 1. But the scene with Zemo brought out T'Challa's humanity. He shows compassion, forgiveness and mercy, not only sparing Zemo but actually stopping him from committing suicide. And this scene occurs parallel to the battle between Iron Man and Bucky, giving us two examples of filial vengeance to contrast against one another. T'Challa forgives his father's killer, while Stark is consumed by hatred for Bucky. This is one of the many examples of narrative and thematic symmetry littered throughout the movie. In fact I would argue that symmetry is one of the film's central themes. Symmetry of ideas, symmetry of motivation, symmetry of opposing forces, narrative symmetry. It's even reflected in the poster.


I agree with your points about Zemo. I was disappointed when I saw the first pictures and realised he wasn't going to be wearing his traditional costume. But by the end of the film, I'd come to appreciate the Russo brothers' take on the character and actually felt sorry for him. Unlike Loki or Ultron, Zemo's just an ordinary guy. He couldn't possibly go up against the Avengers himself, and he doesn't have the resources to conjure an army to fight on his behalf. So instead of adding pieces to the board, he just manipulates the ones that are already in place; pitting the heroes against one another so they do his job for him. And although none of the Avengers actually die, Zemo still more or less accomplishes his goal. He splits up the team and turns half of them into outlaws. His one miscalculation was in killing T'Chaka, as that brought Black Panther into the mix.

In a film filled with colourful over-the-top characters, it was refreshing to have such an understated human antagonist. The Russo brothers seem better at handling villains than most MCU directors. I thought Crossbones, Winter Solider and Zemo were all interesting and memorable in their own way. Now I'm looking forward to seeing how the Russos handle Thanos.

Now's as good a time as any to reflect on the failures of the past. This particular failure was one I watched repeatedly on VHS as a kid.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  4 May  2016, 21:06
Now's as good a time as any to reflect on the failures of the past. This particular failure was one I watched repeatedly on VHS as a kid.

Yeah, Marvel, outside of the Incredible Hulk, had something of a curse going there for awhile where none of their properties came anywhere near as close as being successful as the Superman or Batman films. I remember getting a big Marvel book published around 1990 or 1991, and they themselves even acknowledged this!

It's funny, but every time I see the 1990 Captain America film being referred to, I always think back to how I first came across the film. It wasn't released until 1992, and I remember being sick on a school day (yeah I was actually sick and not Ferris Buellering it), going to the doctor, and afterwards, my Mom taking me to a Blockbuster Video to keep me occupied at home. Browsing around, I think my eyes nearly shot out of my head when I saw the VHS box for an ACTUAL CAPTAIN AMERICA movie sitting right there on the video shelf. Especially considering I was definitely not expecting a film, in any way, to having been made since I don't recall EVER seeing it mentioned in whatever magazine, or seeing a trailer. But there it was. I don't recall exactly how many times I watched it during that 2-3 days I had before having to return it, but it was most assuredly alot.

Obviously, it wasn't on the level of Batman, but at that time, and as a Superhero fanatic, I was so starved for new films featuring my favorite heroes on the screen, I would have accepted certain deviations from the source material just in order to be able to actually see and hopefully enjoy those movies. Deviations from the source material when making a film with comic books, especially at that time, was almost always going to happen. It just depends on to what extent. I remember the Red Skull being Italian was odd to me as a kid, but I don't remember Cap having suffered from Polio being much of an issue for me. Personally, I thought the "Memories of You" montage where Cap is going back to his home town to hopefully reunite with his love to be pretty effective. But that's just me.

No spoiler looks into the comic history of Captain America and Iron Man's battles as well as the history of the villain, Zemo:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-iron-man-who-887370
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-civil-war-meet-888509

I've just seen the film.  I'll add more thoughts later, but the one thing that really stands out about this film, apart from Chadwick Boseman's particularly impressive performance as Black Panther/T'Challa, is how sympathetic the ostensible villain, Colonel Zemo, is (perhaps the most sympathetic villain in a popcorn movie since Ed Harris' General Hummel in The Rock), not to mention how successful his plans are despite being, as Silver Nemesis has pointed out, a relatively ordinary guy with no super-powers or advanced abilities.  But that is as it should be considering this is a film which is primarily focused around two sets of good guys going head-to-head.

My only real criticisms are that Spider-Man's presence seems relatively shoehorned (it's a shame the MCU wasn't able to strike a deal with Sony some time prior to Civil War, and thus establish this version of the character beforehand), and that once the Winter Soldier re-emerges onto the scene the whole philosophical/political issue of accountability and oversight, that initially divides the team, is somewhat forgotten about in favour of a story that is much more focused on personal allegiances, friendships and vendettas.

Much like Wonder Woman in BvS, Spider-Man could've been cut from the film without making huge changes in the story, yet he was enjoyable for the small screen time he had and impressed people enough to want to see a solo film.

It's a shame that the Andrew Garfield films were such a mess, as connecting a previous Spider-Man series or movie to Civil War would've helped feel more natural (Garfield is too old for the Civil War Spidey anyway). If you think about it, Scott Lang/Ant-Man/Giant Man isn't really any more important to the story, but his presence felt more organic given that he had a solo film and had encountered Falcon as his "audition."

Ideally, the MCU Spider-Man would've been the post-Raimi reboot instead, could've had his own movie in Phase 2, and audiences wouldn't feel as fatigued with the character. Given the circumstances with the Webb/Garfield films, though, I think they made the right call in bringing their Spidey into the team up movie first to get people's interest back before giving him his own movie.

I've seen the movie. I'll share my thoughts later. I liked Spidey a lot.

I saw the movie today. While I can say that I definitely enjoyed it, I still didn't think it was better than the first two Cap movies, the first Avengers or even the first Thor, which I like a lot. But it was better than Age of Ultron, which I found to be a bit of a let down. As a matter of fact, this felt more of an Avengers sequel than a Cap one because this movie has implications for the rest of the team.

I won't bother hiding the following in white because I think it's redundant since this is the spoilers thread. You've been warned in any case.

As others mentioned here, I liked how vengeance was a theme throughout the plot, from Zemo's desire to get revenge over the Avengers for the destruction of Sokovia by manipulating everybody to turn against each other, to Black Panther realising how destructive revenge is during his confrontation with Zemo near the end and prevents him from committing suicide. Another example of how destructive the desire for vengeance can be is when Iron Man discovers Bucky had killed his parents, despite Bucky was programmed to assassinate them.

I liked how the movie explored the fallout and aftermath of all the Avengers' battles, and how people react to their actions. BvS did a little, but not quite enough for my liking, and I was glad Ross was consequential to the story, unlike General Swanwick in BvS who I thought didn't need to be there.

But I have to say, I thought Spider-Man didn't need to be in this movie, and his presence together with Ant-Man changed drastically the tone of the movie. This is a fairly serious movie for two-thirds of the time, but the sense of humour those two characters brought to the middle portion didn't quite fit.

So I wonder where does this lead to now, with Cap hiding in Wakanda and now Tony Stark leading what's left of the Avengers? I guess this means the Avengers have agreed to be kept under government surveillance starting onwards, doesn't it?

Summary: Good movie, but in my opinion, I thought The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier were far more satisfying.

A couple of things that occurred to me right now.

The one thing Zemo and Wallace Keefe from BvS shared in common was they blamed the heroes for destroying their lives when Sovokia and Metropolis were under attack. Of course, one was the mastermind in turning the Avengers against each other, and the other was manipulated himself by Lex Luthor.

The DCEU and now the MCU show that the heroes are subject to criticism and condemnation for their actions. As we saw Superman facing protesters before attending the US Senate hearing and Wallace Keefe's hatred in BvS, we see Sovokians protesting against the Avengers in Age of Ultron. In Civil War, we see the scrutiny the Avengers face from the government when discussing the Sovokian Accords, and the secretary who blamed Stark for killing her son during the Battle of Sovokia. But I find it a little odd that the same critics out there who complain the DCEU Superman is portrayed in a poor light seem to be okay with the Avengers being blamed for causing their share of collateral damage.

Food for thought.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri,  6 May  2016, 17:52
No spoiler looks into the comic history of Captain America and Iron Man's battles as well as the history of the villain, Zemo:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-iron-man-who-887370
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-civil-war-meet-888509

Thanks for posting these. I think the Captain America trilogy would be a good basis for some future comic analysis threads.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  7 May  2016, 00:00My only real criticisms are that Spider-Man's presence seems relatively shoehorned (it's a shame the MCU wasn't able to strike a deal with Sony some time prior to Civil War, and thus establish this version of the character beforehand), and that once the Winter Soldier re-emerges onto the scene the whole philosophical/political issue of accountability and oversight, that initially divides the team, is somewhat forgotten about in favour of a story that is much more focused on personal allegiances, friendships and vendettas.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat,  7 May  2016, 18:26
Much like Wonder Woman in BvS, Spider-Man could've been cut from the film without making huge changes in the story, yet he was enjoyable for the small screen time he had and impressed people enough to want to see a solo film.

It's a shame that the Andrew Garfield films were such a mess, as connecting a previous Spider-Man series or movie to Civil War would've helped feel more natural (Garfield is too old for the Civil War Spidey anyway). If you think about it, Scott Lang/Ant-Man/Giant Man isn't really any more important to the story, but his presence felt more organic given that he had a solo film and had encountered Falcon as his "audition."

This is very true. I remember after seeing both movies thinking you could remove Wonder Woman and Spider-Man altogether, and in neither case would it really affect the narrative in any meaningful way. You would however lose major fan service points, as both characters really lit up the screen whenever they appeared.

I agree that Ant-Man's inclusion felt more organic as a payoff for the "I know a guy" thread established in his solo movie last year. Likewise I thought Black Panther's introduction felt like an organic progression from the Wakanda/stolen vibranium subplot in Age of Ultron. And T'Challa ultimately plays a significant role in the plot, justifying his presence a good deal more than Spider-Man or Ant-Man did. IMO one of the things that made Civil War's potentially cluttered narrative feel cohesive is the manner in which it picked up loose threads from earlier MCU films. Obviously it's primarily a sequel to The Winter Soldier, but it also connects to unresolved storylines from The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 3 (2013), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) and Ant-Man (2015). In that sense, some of the legwork regarding plot, themes and characterisation had already been completed in advance of the film's release. Which meant the Russos could hit the ground running. The only problem with this approach is that it risks alienating viewers who haven't seen those earlier films.

We're presently living in the age of multi-hero films, and some of them are becoming really overstuffed with characters. Yet somehow, for me at least, Civil War worked. On paper it shouldn't have. But it did. While I'm looking forward to the Infinity War films, I do have reservations about the sheer number of characters involved. That said, I have faith in the Russo brothers. They've hit two consecutive homeruns now and I think they've earned our trust.

But when was the last time there was a major superhero film featuring just one hero? I think it was either Man of Steel or Thor: The Dark World (not counting Cap's cameo, as that was Loki in disguise).

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  8 May  2016, 13:05
Thanks for posting these. I think the Captain America trilogy would be a good basis for some future comic analysis threads.

It's arguable whether the Captain America Trilogy is a true trilogy (since it's highly possible there will be further Captain America films, and one cannot isolate these films from the other MCU films particularly The Avengers and AOU which impacts significantly on the events of Civil War), but as a standalone set of three films it definitely has a strong, cohesive self-contained narrative, primarily in relation to the Steve-Bucky relationship.

And if we are to judge the 2011, 2014 and 2016 Captain America films as part of a standalone trilogy, I think there's a very strong case in favour of it being regarded as the best comic-book-movie trilogy so far, give or take TDK series.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  8 May  2016, 13:32
I agree that Ant-Man's inclusion felt more organic as a payoff for the "I know a guy" thread established in his solo movie last year. Likewise I thought Black Panther's introduction felt like an organic progression from the Wakanda/stolen vibranium subplot in Age of Ultron. And T'Challa ultimately plays a significant role in the plot, justifying his presence a good deal more than Spider-Man or Ant-Man did. IMO one of the things that made Civil War's potentially cluttered narrative feel cohesive is the manner in which it picked up loose threads from earlier MCU films. Obviously it's primarily a sequel to The Winter Soldier, but it also connects to unresolved storylines from The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 3 (2013), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) and Ant-Man (2015). In that sense, some of the legwork regarding plot, themes and characterisation had already been completed in advance of the film's release. Which meant the Russos could hit the ground running. The only problem with this approach is that it risks alienating viewers who haven't seen those earlier films.

I think whatever faults can be laid at Civil War (and I don't think it's quite 'the best Marvel film of all-time' as some critics are claiming; as far as the MCU is concerned I still favour 2012's Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and possibly The Winter Soldier ahead of Civil War, although 'the fourth best MCU movie' still isn't bad going), I don't think 'over-cluttering' is one of them.  All of the super-powered characters on either side of the civil war divide, including the arguably shoehorned Spider-Man, were given sufficient screen-time and more than justified their inclusion particularly during the big airport-set fight sequence, and even those Avengers with the briefest screen-time, including Ant-Man and Hawkeye, made their presence felt, the former acting as the closest thing to comic-relief (not to mention being the focus of the film's most spectacular action sequence), and the latter building upon his AOU role as the team's everyman and deadpan snarker (especially now that an increasingly anguished Iron Man has seemingly relinquished that position).

And I completely concur with respect to T'Challa, arguably the film's ace card (Chadwick Boseman's performance here has substantially increased my, already high, anticipation for the Black Panther solo movie).  He is almost the de facto antagonist for the second third of the film, as Cap tries to defend his clearly mind-controlled buddy Bucky from Black Panther's potentially lethal retribution for the death of his father, T'Chaka (played by the excellent John Kani), and as you pointed out in an earlier post, Silver Nemesis, T'Challa's story echoes Tony's own determination to punish his parents' murderer, as well as offering an alternative resolution to this desire for vengeance.

They could make another Cap film some day, but quotes from Kevin Feige suggest Civil War is intended to be the conclusion of Steve's solo adventures:

Quote"It's very much, in a certain way, the completion of a Captain America trilogy. I think one day you'll look back and watch — 'Captain America: The First Avenger,' 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier,' and 'Captain America: Civil War' — and it'll be one of the most unique and different trilogies ever around a single character."

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/civil-war-bring-marvels-captain-america-trilogy/

The Dark Knight trilogy comparisons are interesting. I've been keeping an eye on the critic and user scores for the Cap trilogy and comparing them against Nolan's films. Obviously these numbers might change as more reviews and votes are tallied, but here's how things presently stand:

THE CAPTAIN AMERICA TRILOGY

ROTTEN TOMATOES
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) – 80% (6.9) – TC 76% (6.5) – audience 74% (3.7/5)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) – 89% (7.5) – TC 80% (7.4) – audience 92% (4.3/5)
Captain America: Civil War (2016) – 91% (7.7) – TC 90% (7.5) – audience 92% (4.5)
AVERAGE: 86.6% (7.4) – TC 82% (7.1) – audience 86%

METACRITIC
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) – Metascore 66 – user score 7/10
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) – Metascore 70 – user score 8.5/10
Captain America: Civil War (2016) – Metascore 75 – user score 8.3/10
AVERAGE: 70.3 – user score 7.9

IMDb
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) – 6.8
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) – 7.8
Captain America: Civil War (2016) – 8.5 (ranked #64 in the Top 250)
AVERAGE: 7.7

And for comparison, here are the same numbers for Nolan's films.

THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY

ROTTEN TOMATOES
Batman Begins (2005) – 85% (7.7) – TC 63% (6.8 ) – audience 94% (3.9/5)
The Dark Knight (2008) – 94% (8.6) – TC 92% (8.3) – audience 94% (4.4/5)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) – 87% (8 ) – TC 75% (7.8 ) – audience 90% (4.3/5)
AVERAGE: 88.6% (8.1) – TC 76.6 (7.6) – audience 92.6%

METACRITIC
Batman Begins (2005) – Metascore 70 – user score 8.7/10
The Dark Knight (2008) – Metascore 82 – user score 8.9/10
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) – Metascore 78 – user score 8.3/10
AVERAGE: 76.6 – user score 8.6

IMDb
Batman Begins (2005) – 8.3 (ranked #109 in the Top 250)
The Dark Knight (2008) – 9 (ranked #4 in the Top 250)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) – 8.5 (ranked #62 in the Top 250)
AVERAGE: 8.6

As you can see, the average RT score for the Cap trilogy is only 2% lower than the DK trilogy. And Cap's average top critic percentage is higher than that of the DK trilogy, even though Nolan's films still win in terms of average rating. But even so, I think these numbers illustrate just how close Marvel has come to matching a trilogy that many fans claimed was untouchable. Obviously it's too early to compare box office results at this stage, but here's how things currently stack up financially:

BOX OFFICE (worldwide, unadjusted for inflation)

THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY
Batman Begins (2005) – $372.7
The Dark Knight (2008) – $1,003.0
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) – $1,084.9
TOTAL: $2,460.6 million

THE CAPTAIN AMERICA TRILOGY
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) – $370.6 million
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) – $714.4 million
Captain America: Civil War (2016) – $678.3 million
TOTAL: $1,763.3 million

Naturally Civil War will gross a lot more before it completes its theatrical run. It'll need to make approximately $700 million more WW to surpass Nolan's trilogy. Though if we adjust domestic box office results for inflation, Nolan's trilogy would probably still come out on top. But once again, the fact we're even able to compare these figures shows just how successful Marvel's Cap trilogy has become.

Personally, I still think The Dark Knight trilogy takes the top spot. But the Captain America trilogy is a worthy second. And I can totally understand why many would prefer it. But I'd argue Nolan's films function better as a trilogy from a structural perspective. The dramatic emphases of the classic three act narrative are usually as follows:

•   ACT 1: introduce your characters, explain the hero's back story and motivation, have the hero lose a mentor figure, depict one of the hero's early victories

•   ACT 2: the central conflict, the hero fails for the first time and suffers a personal setback/loss, the stakes are upped, the hero confronts issues of self doubt

•   ACT 3: the final battle, the hero has matured and grown stronger/wiser, the hero must confront their greatest challenge, often involving an element from their past, the story is concluded, the loose ends are tied up

The best narrative-based movie trilogies usually conform to the above pattern, more or less. The Cap trilogy mostly does, but the conclusion at the end of the final film isn't really conclusive. We know he'll be back. His story began in The First Avenger, but it doesn't end in Civil War. Some would argue this is preferable to having the hero die or retire, as it means their adventures can go on and on, as they do in the comics. But it does mean the Cap trilogy isn't really self-contained the way the DK trilogy is. On a related note, to get the most out of the Cap trilogy you really need to watch The Avengers movies too. Whereas with the DK trilogy you get the entire story within three films.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the comparisons.

It's already made $97 million in China. For comparison, BvS's Chinese gross stands at $95.7 million. And Civil War beat that in just 3 days.
http://variety.com/2016/film/asia/china-box-office-captain-america-blockbuster-weekend-1201768850/

I'd say $1 billion WW is a lock at this point.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  8 May  2016, 13:32
This is very true. I remember after seeing both movies thinking you could remove Wonder Woman and Spider-Man altogether, and in neither case would it really affect the narrative in any meaningful way. You would however lose major fan service points, as both characters really lit up the screen whenever they appeared.

Yes. Spider-Man's appearance in CW restoked the fire. I'm a Spider-Man fan. I love this character just as much as Batman. And I have a lot of nostalgia for the Raimi trilogy. A lot. You just have to play 'Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head' and I'm back in 2004, as a 15 year-old who felt just like Maguire's Peter Parker, and in many ways, still do. I got on board with Garfield, but honestly, it was never the same. I was majorly bitter and twisted about that reboot. It was like my soul being ripped out. But more than enough time has passed now, and I think Holland represents a genuine return to form. I can see him rivalling Maguire, and the filmic output with Marvel is consistently solid.

So I'm excited about the future. In those brief scenes in CW, we see a young kid who loves science and reading comics. He loves his aunt. He has the smarts to make his own webbing, and while poor, manages to build his own makeshift suit. Tony Stark is a logical entry point for Peter entering the Avengers, and I like their explanation as to how he acquires the professional, tailored suit Raimi and Garfield apparently built themselves. Generally speaking, with the mask on he's the hyperactive quipper enjoying life, and with it off, he's the nervous, somewhat awkward teenager who still has an endearing heart of gold. Having a young person play a young person no doubt helps, too.

I can see Marvel doing some new, creative things in the reboot. We already have the spider-signal, as shown during the end credits scene. And I'm hoping they get creative with the webbing. Meaning parachutes and different constructs being made, along with spider-tracers and other tech. It hasn't been touched upon in the films yet. So go for it.

Civil war was my favourite marvel comic storyline so I got super excited when it was announced to happen on the big screen. My one big concern was lack of spider-man. Comparing to the comics is tough, you knew they weren't going to kill off a hero in the film. I would have preferred spider-man to have more of a role although it was tough since this film established the character. It does establish how he avoids letting May know his identity of all costs but this is a major character trait; Spidey above all else does everything he can to conceal his identity hence his confliction in the comics of joining the registration side. The movie doesn't overly touch on this. It's uniqure because prior to spider-man most of the heroes identities were not a secret to to the world.

Nevertheless I thought it was executed well. Black Panther was well portrayed, I enjoyed seeing giant man for the first time. Evans and RDJ showed their chemistry and had some good quips. I almost feel bad for Stark, after his first film, these films have truly been beating up on him emotionally. It would have been nice to have Banner but that would have required quite a bit more development putting him in the same film with Ross as those two clearly have their unresolved issues (likely why they avoid mentioning him for the most part but I was kind of hoping Ross' actions would have been questioned and they weren't).

It's hard to compare Spider-men as this one only had a few scenes. I enjoyed all the spidey films to some extent, I definitely feel Garfield was much better than Maguire; less whiny and more of a smart ass. There was no mention of Uncle Ben, we assume he's dead since that event triggers Parker becoming Spider-man and that is likely what he refers to when he says if he fails to act with his powers when needed then he's at the same fault as the bad guys. I did feel so far Holland captures the smart ass spidey better than his predecessors.

I don't think you can consider it a trilogy. Imagine someone watching the three films without seeing or having any knowledge of the MCU films;

the first film you'd be fine. You may not understand the Howard Stark references and perhaps the ending but they aren't essential to the plot.

The second films presence of SHIELD would be out of place as well as Black Widow and Nick Fury both of whom are established in other films as well as referencing Tony Stark.

The third film is more of an avengers film than a cap film. Yeah the plot centers more around Cap than any other characters but the presence of the other characters fits the overall narrative of the MCU rather than Rogers himself.

There is also the two avenger films in which Cap goes through important character points. 


Now without spoiling anything, where would I rank the films? First off I don't think there's been a bad film in the MCU. They range from excellent to decent in my book.
Just for retrospect I put their IMDB ratings next to them (and their spot on the top 250 if they made it)

excellent
Iron Man 7.9
Avengers 8.1 (#232)
Cap 2 7.8
Cap 3 8.5 (#64)

stellar

Iron Man 3 7.3
Guardians of the Galaxy 8.1 (#238)
Ant-Man 7.4

above average
Avengers 2 7.5
Incredible Hulk 6.8
Iron Man 2 7.0

decent
Thor 7.0
Thor 2 7.1
Captain America 6.8


Many people would probably claim each Cap film is better than the last but the title character is focused on less in each film so could one read that the title character himself is not what is driving the films and that the supporting characters are what makes the sequels better?

Watched Captain America: Civil War and enjoyed it for the most part.

Not anything stellar by any stretch of the imagination, but enjoyable as a MCU flick.

The following, if you're interested, will contain SPOILERS so be WARNED .... !!!

--

For what I liked about it, Iron Man's arc of continued paranoia since the events of the first Avengers served him well here. It appears as if the more he tries to protect the people around him, the circumstances usually go with them leaving him in some fashion. He seems like the type of character that despite wanting to be Iron Man, eventually wants to build a world that eventually will not need him, where Cap's views seem more geared towards fighting the never ending battle for justice till the very end. It's a contrast that works for the characters, and especially in terms of the film here. With the other newly introduced character's in this universe, I believe they were incorporated pretty well. Black Panther is VERY interesting, alot more than I can honestly say that I was initially expecting, but was pleasantly surprised just how much screen time he had, and I'm now actually looking forward to seeing him in a starring film one day.

Spidey, well, what can I say? He's AMAZING! I'll always hold a special place for Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man in my cold black heart, but Holland's Spidey definitely comes across as the heir apparent to Maguire's Spidey and was ALOT better in my estimation than what we were getting with the two Amazing Spider-Man films. Not that I hated those films, or Garfield (in the costume he was fine, as Parker, ehh ....) they just seemed to really miss the mark in alot of ways. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to Spider-Man: Homecoming, and that's a understatement!

Pacing wise, it's got that over BvS. As it's paced and edited very well for a film that has so many character's. On the other hand, I felt the plot came off as predictable at times, and simply going thru the motions. Can't say I was too big on Crossbones just offing himself as part of a set up. Just seems like a complete waste of a notable Cap villain. I mean, we see the guy survive the entirety of TWS with nothing but pure piss and vinegar. Brock literally would NOT stay down, but in Civil War, he just blows himself sky high the first time he's given a beatdown? Sort of lame, but whatever. *sigh* With Zemo, much like Eisenberg's Lex, I left underwhelmed by this cinematic version. Certainly not to the extent of the whole Mandarian-less fiasco in Iron Man 3, and I found him alot more tolerable than having to sit thru Eisenberg's performance in BvS, but yeah, disappointed nevertheless. As he really could have been anyone to be perfectly honest, an entirely new character even. Does this cinematic depiction of Zemo have an arc that in the grand scheme of things makes sense within the film? Sure. But it's a motivation I've seen alot, and really nothing new. With a character like Zemo, I was unfortunately expecting alot MORE than what we got. Buuuut.... it's the MCU, so being rather disappointed villain-wise makes perfect sense, statistically speaking.

The film, as expected, leaned towards Cap's team alot more thsn it did Iron Man's side. This was a my biggest issue going in and I was essentially half proven right. I wanted an ambiguous conflict, a fight between two sides with equal reasons and convictions, but the movie clearly frames Iron Man as being, ultimately, in the wrong, and he loses all but 3 of his team members by the end. Narratively speaking, that would be the natural conclusion. Cap is the titular character and movies have a boner for heroes who refuse to operate by any sort of authority, but honestly he and everyone who sided with him has made their lives complete crap now. If we're going to look at this in any sort of literal sense, it doesn't matter how well their intentions are, the majority of the world governments are now offically against them. Why? Cap's brainwashed human weapon of a friend? That's what Hawkeye and Ant-Man threw away the ability to see their children for? Interesting.

So what we are left with is that now they are going to be publicly labled as being a group of enhanced individuals who, in addition, have shown a complete unwillingness to comply with authorities and whose only answer to the consequences of that is to fight their way out. Wow, and Snyder/Goyer got flack for something just like that!

My other biggest complaint was the lack of a major character death. For me, It took a lot of the bite out of things. I actually thought Disney/Marvel was actually going to cowboy up, and present us with a major death, as a actual depiction of what a war is. Which is hell (yeah, not so much joking around/snarky banter during actual battles which is common place in MCU would have really been preferred, if even in just THIS movie alone), and with actual War, the loss of life is very much to be expected in the course of such actions. It, and when I'm referring to "IT" I mean a actual major death, didn't have to be Cap, but, and I can only speak for myself, the comic book one shot Civil War: The Confession, made the entire Civil War storyline in the comics very much worth it with that single issue. Similar to how Funeral for a Friend was exceptional following the Death of Superman storyline. With the Confession, it essentially deals with Iron Man privately speaking to Captain America's corpse, and not only expressing regret, and tearful sadness, but also the 'confession' that his actions led to the death of his friend, and that the price was simply not worth it. A very emotional epilgue to the Marvel Civil War 'Event' that, to me, was sorely lacking in this film version. I get why Disney/Marvel went the route they did, as they seem to prefer playing it safe in accessibility for audiences, but I'd rather they made interesting stories than shrewd business decisions. Which is what it came across as.

So yeah, similar to BvS, I didn't think it was perfect by any means (obviously), but I enjoyed it on a MCU level of entertainment. It's fun, it has great fights and visuals, but just lacked that special oomph to make it something REALLY special. Captain America: Civil War actually made me appreciate what WB/DC is doing with their more serious approach, because they give me something totally different and I personally need that because all the Marvel movies kind of blend together. Some alot more than others. I wouldn't say this particular film is the BEST of the BEST when it comes to MCU films (I think CA: TWS is the better movie), but I believe it's most assuredly in the top 5 of their output thus far.

I'm personally mixed on the whole "someone could've died" debate.

On the one hand, I think the ending would've hit way harder if Rhodey had actually been killed in the fall or Tony had been able to kill Bucky in revenge or both.

Right now, there's still a feeling at the end of Civil War that Cap and Iron Man will find a way to sort things out in the future (with Infinity War). The ending would've been way more devastating if both men's best friends had been killed off and you were left wondering what the hell would happen next with the characters.

But there's the other side of the issue: I think today's storytelling has completely overdone the whole "Major character DIES! You will be SHOCKED." We see it on TV with Game of Thrones and Walking Dead. It's gotten gimmicky.

Even more gimmicky is the "Dead character is actually alive/comes back to life!" Arrow's universe has become notorious for this on TV.

As has the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Loki (in both Thor and Thor 2), Captain America, Agent Coulson, Pepper Potts, Nick Fury, Bucky, Groot, and possibly even Janet Van Dyne (if the hints at the end of Ant-Man are true) have all been "killed off" only to come back again. This is why I'm glad they didn't follow the comics and kill Cap. I just don't think it would've fit his arc in the story and, like how I felt with Superman's death in BvS, I wouldn't buy that he was gone since I know he's coming back in the next team-up and I know that the death doesn't stick in the comics either.

Resurrect enough characters and eventually, you just stop believing anyone's actually dead. And death ceases to mean anything other than shock value.

[SPOILERS contained]

I don't like the whole 'resurrection' trope that is popular in comic-books, and now comic-book films.  I also agree, having now seen the film, that a major character death would not have been appropriate within the context of Civil War.  Rhodey's near death and subsequent incapacitation is arguably traumatic enough to maintain a seemingly insurmountable chasm between Steve and Tony, compounded to an even greater extent by the former's defence of the man who killed the latter's parents.

That said, it would definitely increase the stakes if, during the imminent 'Avengers: Infinity War' movies, various major characters were finally sacrificed in the battle to take on Thanos.

Although you're right BatmAngelus, to argue that death is a precious currency within comic-book movies, that should not be so carelessly squandered, that understanding also goes side-by-side with the sense that anyone could bite the bullet at any moment and that unless one's super-power is immortality, even 'enhanced' individuals are not immune from the first of Benjamin Franklin's two certainties.

*SPOILERS*

I reckon it's best that no hero died in Civil War. I think it would've turned off a lot of people if the Avengers' feuding indirectly got War Machine killed, or Captain America or Iron Man killed each other. If a hero were to die, it's best to keep it as an act of bravery, or die by a villain's hand e.g. Thanos.

While it happens in the comics, I think the filmmakers worry movie audiences wouldn't accept killing off characters and then bringing them back. Once the marvel films start doing that, there's no going back. Every future death will have less meaning if it isn't permanent. I do have a feeling it will happen soon enough. RDJ and Chris evans are entrenched enough with their characters that once they decide not to portray them any further, the characters will need to be written out as recasting isn't an option so I wouldn't be shocked to see it. To be honest if I had to predict I think Cap will be the first avenger to die; they can use the death of captain America story and have Bucky become captain America.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 10 May  2016, 13:52
To be honest if I had to predict I think Cap will be the first avenger to die; they can use the death of captain America story and have Bucky become captain America.

I think that's what alot of people were thinking going into this. That Cap might die, with Bucky taking up the mantle. I personally enjoyed that arc during the Brubaker run in the comics, but as I said before, a major death didn't have to necessarily be Cap, but atleast someone that we have grown familiar with at the very least. In the actual comic book story line, there were casualties, and none of them was Captain America. That happened more or less, as an epilogue to the event. Not within the Mark Millar-written story line. In the actual war, I remember Goliath being one that got killed by the Thor clone-bot, and as a narrative, it raised the stakes, because no hero wanted that, on either sides, but that's the consequences of going to war. It's not always friendly fire, and even that can get you killed.

In the film, no such thing took place, and it just came across as being Disney/Marvel being too safe for my tastes. I don't really care for the whole resurrection argument. In comics, it happens waaaay too frequently, but in the films, it could have been done with a character that's not absolutely vital to Disney/Marvel's plans going forward, in order to display the ramifications of said actions. As it stands, it's fairly run-of-the-mill in terms of how Marvel has trained their audiences. If a character dies, they are expected to return somewhere within the same film they supposedly 'died' in, and that has actually happened. Which as a result has made people jaded on the whole death thing cause it's evident that it most certainly cannot be taken too seriously within the MCU. Which, by the way, is their own doing.

As much as I adore the MCU, I do agree that it often plays things too safe.  Although the 'kiddie' attacks are unfair and way off the mark, it is also true to say that the MCU films never really delve into truly dark, adult territory.  Skirting around death by refusing to kill-off any of the main characters (at least thus far) is one example of that tendency to resist the slightest darkness, or anything that might potentially 'traumatise' Disney's family audience, as is the decision not to turn Tony into a full-blown alcoholic, as he is in the comic-books.  Considering the trauma he has gone through in the last few films (first, suffering PTSD following the events of The Avengers, then bringing the world close to the brink with Ultron, and finally his bust-up with his fellow Avengers and the discovery of his parents' murderer, as well as his apparent estrangement from Pepper Potts) surely it's about time to approach the whole 'Demon in a Bottle' story arc.

It's those dark, controversial and all-too-human elements (i.e. Tony's alcoholism and Hank Pym's history of domestic violence towards Janet Van Dyne) that make the Marvel comic-book characters so compelling.  They may be super-powered but that doesn't make them flawless or even particularly nice people.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 10 May  2016, 13:52
While it happens in the comics, I think the filmmakers worry movie audiences wouldn't accept killing off characters and then bringing them back. Once the marvel films start doing that, there's no going back. Every future death will have less meaning if it isn't permanent. I do have a feeling it will happen soon enough. RDJ and Chris evans are entrenched enough with their characters that once they decide not to portray them any further, the characters will need to be written out as recasting isn't an option so I wouldn't be shocked to see it. To be honest if I had to predict I think Cap will be the first avenger to die; they can use the death of captain America story and have Bucky become captain America.

To be completely, utterly honest - Civil War didn't affect me in the same way as BvS. When Superman bit the dust, I had a lump in my throat. Especially the first time seeing it. When the 'Beautiful Lie' montage played, I had tears welling in my eyes. When the Superman montage occurred, I was genuinely touched, feeling the weight of the situation. DC is more of my thing, so I admit to being biased in that regard. But I can only share how I felt. And in my opinion, I think the music plays a big role. I'm not a musician, but I know what I like. And I think music is one part which the MCU could improve on. Zimmer hasn't always been my cup of tea, but he brought his A game to Man of Steel and BvS.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 11 May  2016, 08:42
I think music is one part which the MCU could improve on. Zimmer hasn't always been my cup of tea, but he brought his A game to Man of Steel and BvS.

Fair call. I was hoping Danny Elfman would bring something unique when he was brought in to co-perform the score for Age Of Ultron, as he did for Burton's Batman and Raimi's Spider-Man. But it wasn't to be. I totally agree about Zimmer.

Does Chris Evans have one more movie on his contract? Maybe Infinity War will be Steve Rogers' last appearance in the MCU.

Sebastian Stan has lend his support for BvS, and gave his thumbs up to Ben Affleck and Jesse Eisenberg's performances.

Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/captain_america/captain_america_civil_war/sebastian-stan-weighs-in-on-batman-v-a141515

BvS also had the better cinematography and visuals in general, to be honest. The opening scene with the Wayne murders told me immediately this would be a lovely film to watch.

I found this article on-line which echoes some of my thoughts about why Zemo (Daniel Bruhl) is one of the most resonant villains we've yet seen in a Marvel movie:

Quote'Captain America: Civil War': Why Zemo May Be The Best Villain In The MCU

By Phillip Martinez

It's not news that the  Marvel Studios films have not handled their villains well. Outside of Loki, there hasn't been a bad guy in the MCU that has stayed around for more than one movie, let alone resonated enough with the audience to remain relevant.

However,  Captain America: Civil War has finally broken the streak of forgettable villains.

While it helps that the crux of the film is superheroes facing off against each other, the person behind the scenes pulling the strings takes  Civil War beyond  just friends punching each other in the face.

SPOILER ALERT! The following contents spoil the events of Civil War . If you haven't seen the film yet, don't proceed. You have been warned.

If you've seen Civil War , you now know that Zemo (played by Daniel Bruhl) is the force behind the breakup of the Avengers. Through a series of well thought out and planned events, from the creation of the Sokovia Accords to the gut-wrenching finale, Zemo saw an opportunity to strike the Avengers and did so without a bat of an eye.

After the casualties in Africa in the beginning of the movie, Zemo pounced to take down the "empire." Knowing full well that Bucky and Cap were linked forever, he impersonated Bucky and took it upon himself to frame the Winter Soldier to get the pro-registration side to go after him.

And, of course, Cap would go and protect his friend, even if it meant going against his former teammates.

This led to some in-fighting between the Avengers, as they were split in two before the final fight in Russia. While the audience thought Zemo was using the infighting to get to the army of Winter Soldiers in stasis, he was actually luring Cap and Iron Man to the facility to reveal the final piece of his plan: to show Tony Stark that Bucky was the one who killed his parents.

The revelation reversed Iron Man's change of heart and he went to kill Bucky, with Cap stepping in to stop him. This elaborate plot was to get revenge on Cap for the events of  Age of Ultron, where Zemo's wife and child were killed in Sokovia.

Now, the Zemo in Civil War  is very different from the purple-clad villain of the comics. This Zemo is a product of the Avengers' shortcomings, which makes him a more intriguing character to start with. Civil War explores the limits of superpowers and the consequences of superheroes' actions, and Zemo provides a lasting reminder to Iron Man and Captain America that they failed a lot of people, demonstrating how the people they are dedicated to protecting can turn against them.

It wasn't made clear if Zemo was a part of Hydra before he went on his personal vendetta quest, but the way he went about and tore up Hydra to get to the Winter Soldier and complete his plan was brilliant. It didn't matter if he was aligned with Hydra or not beforehand, no one was going to stop him from achieving his goal.

And unlike past Marvel villains, Zemo's motives are clear and rational. He's not trying to take over the galaxy or get revenge on a race of aliens for vaguely defined political reasons, he's getting revenge on the people who he believes are directly responsible for the death of his family.

Is Zemo right to place blame on the Avengers for their death after trying to save the world? What would you do if the people who swore to protect you were the reason your loved ones were gone?

That's the tricky part, Zemo is working solely on his emotions and his grief makes his motives and thinking logical in his own mind, which makes him an especially dangerous and sympathetic villain. And once he felt his work was done, he tried to commit suicide because he wanted to be with his family again.

Thankfully, T'Challa was there to stop him, but as we saw by the end of the film, Zemo's story is not done. Comic book readers know that Zemo is one of Cap's most enduring and recognizable villains, but in the film he isn't anywhere near who he is (or will become?) in the comics. It's going to be exciting to see what Marvel Studios does with him down the line.

The seeds are planted for Zemo to torment Cap and the rest of the MCU for years to come, and I can't wait to see what they do with him.

The only thing I'm unsure about it Zemo's relationship to Hydra.  The film briefly mentions that he was in some type of militia or mercenary group, however, I think it's far more powerful if he has no direct attachment to Hydra.  Hydra was an inherently evil organisation, so Zemo's vendetta evokes far more sympathy if he was in fact a relatively decent, moral man before his family ended up as 'collateral damage' during The Avengers' Sokovian mission.  It adds a degree of complexity to the dynamic instead of offering us an easy black-and-white one (i.e. making Zemo's descent into evil a product of Iron Man/Captain America's actions, rather than something that was already a part of him).

In my opinion, Black Panther was the best character in this movie. I liked his arc a lot, and I look forward to his solo movie.

I read a theory online that the reason Iron Man recruits Spider-Man to face Captain America and Bucky was because he wanted to make up for that kid who died in Sokovia, whose mother blamed Stark for his death.

Tony Stark has entered quite a dark journey within the last three years. He had to overcome his PTSD following Loki's attacks and now he has to carry the guilt of creating Ultron and the consequences of what happened afterwards for the rest of his life. He's splitting up from Pepper, and now he learns a close friend of Cap's was the one who killed his parents. I suppose he would've been torn apart over all of this if he never met Peter Parker. Who knows, mentoring Peter could give him a relief to cope through all of this personal anguish. Sort of like a surrogate son.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 12 May  2016, 12:14
In my opinion, Black Panther was the best character in this movie. I liked his arc a lot, and I look forward to his solo movie.

Fair call. I was impressed with him too. He felt nigh unstoppable in combat, especially during the chase sequence.

Worldwide box office now stands at $940,892,078, which means it's already surpassed BvS.


Cap 3 should hit one billion within the next week. And that will make it the first film of 2016 to join the 10-figure club. The MCU has now grossed over $10 billion, cementing its status as the highest grossing film franchise of all time (unadjusted for inflation).

Best of luck to them. Marvel clearly have a plan that works.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 15 May  2016, 17:51
Worldwide box office now stands at $940,892,078, which means it's already surpassed BvS.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--meUHs8Fq--%2Fki3v2mpzrlw7wrtjhnqw.gif&hash=5fcaba929dc94e849faa2066bfcaa48dec952187)

Cap 3 should hit one billion within the next week. And that will make it the first film of 2016 to join the 10-figure club. The MCU has now grossed over $10 billion, cementing its status as the highest grossing film franchise of all time (unadjusted for inflation).

That's a very funny graphic.  But I do wish DC would get its act together.  They have such great characters, and Burton's Batman, Donner's Superman, TDK trilogy and, best of all, the DC animated universe, have demonstrated that it is possible to make entertaining and enjoyable films/TV shows out of these characters.

What I find hilarious

Originally when the date for civil war was set, it wasn't announced to be a civil war film, it was tentatively known as 'captain america 3'. DC set BvS to release on the same day in a bully tactic. Marvel didn't budge and many people pointed out DC is taking the bigger risk because Marvel could afford having a film underperform whereas DC had everything riding on BvS so DC bumped up their start date.

Marvel did better anyhow. Imagine how bad things would have been for DC had they let the two films compete with each other (or Marvel retaliated and bumped up their start date as some suggested?)

Cap 3 will be Robert Downey Jr's fourth consecutive outing as Iron Man to gross over $1 billion. Is it any wonder he's the highest (over)paid actor in Hollywood?

I have my doubts this trend will continue with Spider-Man: Homecoming, but you never know. Raimi's movies grossed insane amounts, and they did it without the added revenue from 3D ticket sales. If Homecoming can recapture that level of audience interest, then it should do extremely well.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 16 May  2016, 16:00
Marvel did better anyhow. Imagine how bad things would have been for DC had they let the two films compete with each other (or Marvel retaliated and bumped up their start date as some suggested?)

It would've been a massacre. :( WB did the smart thing by moving.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 16 May  2016, 19:41
It would've been a massacre. :( WB did the smart thing by moving.

Arguably the only smart thing they've done of late.  :-X

I think enough time's passed now for the two Civil War threads to be merged.

I watched Civil War again for the first time since I saw it at the cinema.

There are three things that are bugging me:

• Scarlet Witch - Her arc is unfinished. She feels guilty for accidentally causing the deaths of bystanders while saving Cap from Crossbones back in Lagos, and she spends the rest of the film under Vision's supervision (no pun intended) as ordered by Tony. And then she joins Cap's team, and that's it. It feels rather cheap. Will the Scarlet Witch get the chance to "redeem" herself in the eyes of the distrusting public? Who knows.
• Spider-Man - Despite what I said earlier about helping Peter Parker might've been Tony's way of channeling his guilt over the secretary's dead son in Sokovia, I still feel Spidey's role in this film is unnecessary. In fact, his scene where he first met Stark really does feel out of place with the rest of the film, which for the most part is quite serious. I don't normally agree with the criticism that Marvel overuses humour to its own detriment, but to be honest, this is the first film in the MCU where I thought some critics have a point. The Winter Soldier was much more consistent in its tone.
• The ending - I think I've already mentioned this in this thread, but I'm still not clear if Cap's letter to Tony in the end meant their dispute has been restored completely, or if the tension is still there but calmed down a bit. Either way, Tony blowing Ross off over the phone gives me the impression the animosity is not as strong as it was following his fight with Cap. Maybe (and perhaps most likely)  the next Avengers will make this clearer and Zemo's plan to divide the Avengers will come to fruition. But as it stands right now, I'm left confused.

I still maintain that The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier are not only the best Captain America films, but also the benchmark for the entire MCU. This one comes a distant third rate. I actually enjoyed Doctor Strange more than this.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  2 Dec  2016, 11:50Spider-Man - Despite what I said earlier about helping Peter Parker might've been Tony's way of channeling his guilt over the secretary's dead son in Sokovia, I still feel Spidey's role in this film is unnecessary. In fact, his scene where he first met Stark really does feel out of place with the rest of the film, which for the most part is quite serious. I don't normally agree with the criticism that Marvel overuses humour to its own detriment, but to be honest, this is the first film in the MCU where I thought some critics have a point.

I thought everything with Spider-Man in CW was subpar. All the joking and talking and whatnot Spider-Man did just seemed like it was trying too hard. It's neat to see Spider-Man running around the MCU with the other characters but that's novelty. The fact is that we've had five Spider-Man movies in relatively recent years so it takes more than novelty now to engender interest in Spider-Man. At this point, Homecoming had better live up to something or other because Raimi and Webb's movies are overall pretty solid and just being good probably won't be enough for Homecoming to win points.

I found some YouTuber's video about goings on with the Spider-Verse thing Sony considered doing before making the deal with Marvel. Some of that stuff, especially Spider-Man 2099, sounded really interesting so I'm kind of pissed now that those things probably aren't happening. Simply having Spider-Man in the MCU won't make up for that either.

Yeah. You know what? Marvel is dead to me. Even their new Spider-Man. I was optimistic about the new beginning and all that jazz. But honestly? I agree completely with the blender of colors. A lot of Hollandman fell flat like a burnt pancake to me. Forced humour. The Star Wars joke was long winded and cringeworthy. The new suit is also bland. The raised webbing made the design visually pop. This one can pop off into the garbage can.

And also, the suit is basically CGI all the time. So what's the point of even creating a hand made suit in the first place? And not to get too political, but I'm not liking the direction of Homecoming's casting. It just smacks of a SJW love in. And that turns me off.

So yeah, I'm not the Spider-Man fan I used to be. The passion has eroded like a mile long tsunami pounding a fragile coastline. These days, give me Superman and the DCEU, OK? Civil War more or less copied the much superior Dawn of Justice beat for beat, and it just didn't stack up. But don't tell the biased Marvel lovers that. They'll be triggered. So on second thought, tell them that. The DCEU fan has to cop a lot of rubbish, so it's overdue we turned up the volume.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  2 Dec  2016, 15:50
I thought everything with Spider-Man in CW was subpar. All the joking and talking and whatnot Spider-Man did just seemed like it was trying too hard. It's neat to see Spider-Man running around the MCU with the other characters but that's novelty. The fact is that we've had five Spider-Man movies in relatively recent years so it takes more than novelty now to engender interest in Spider-Man. At this point, Homecoming had better live up to something or other because Raimi and Webb's movies are overall pretty solid and just being good probably won't be enough for Homecoming to win points.

I must admit that I never wanted Spider-Man in the MCU to begin. Marvel has enough characters on their plate as it is. Plus, what will another reboot have to offer, other than making Iron Man Peter's mentor? It's going to take place where Peter attends high school yet again and it seems there are going to be multiple villains stealing the show. Weren't these the same things people had complained about Spider-Man 3 and Andrew Garfield's run?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  2 Dec  2016, 15:50
I found some YouTuber's video about goings on with the Spider-Verse thing Sony considered doing before making the deal with Marvel. Some of that stuff, especially Spider-Man 2099, sounded really interesting so I'm kind of pissed now that those things probably aren't happening. Simply having Spider-Man in the MCU won't make up for that either.

I haven't heard about that. I did hear a stupid rumour about Sony supposedly making an Aunt May movie. It was a joke of course, but a lot of fans thought it was legit.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Dec  2016, 00:07
Yeah. You know what? Marvel is dead to me. Even their new Spider-Man. I was optimistic about the new beginning and all that jazz. But honestly? I agree completely with the blender of colors. A lot of Hollandman fell flat like a burnt pancake to me. Forced humour. The Star Wars joke was long winded and cringeworthy. The new suit is also bland. The raised webbing made the design visually pop. This one can pop off into the garbage can.

I'll say it again, for all the criticism about BvS rushing characters to set up Justice League, I say Spider-Man's inclusion for Civil War was a blatant set-up for his own film. I accept Black Panther because he had an arc to go through, but Spidey was completely unnecessary. I remember watching the Super Bowl trailer where he didn't even feature, and after watching it again, there's not one moment where I thought his presence was missed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G22asv2aGbY

If it were up to me, I'd introduce Spider-Man starting from Homecoming.

It's a shame to hear you're turned off by the MCU, TDK. But I'll respect your opinion.

I have simply had enough of the grossly overrated Marvel movies, and the same goes for Spider-Man. I just don't care anymore. I just don't have the passion or the emotional investment. The CW post credit scene with Peter was very ho hum. Audiences I saw the movie with were very much of the "ugh, Spider-Man again?!" vibe. It just felt underwhelming and samey. I think the Marvel films have been released so rapidly that I just don't give them any attention anymore. Doctor Strange came and went, and I have no desire to EVER lay eyes on it. Marvel films are generic and are no longer a special event at all. They are fast food. You know what you are going to get, and it doesn't really challenge or excite my senses. Battle lines have been drawn by those dogs as well, so I wish them nothing but pain and suffering.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Dec  2016, 00:07Yeah. You know what? Marvel is dead to me. Even their new Spider-Man. I was optimistic about the new beginning and all that jazz. But honestly? I agree completely with the blender of colors. A lot of Hollandman fell flat like a burnt pancake to me. Forced humour. The Star Wars joke was long winded and cringeworthy. The new suit is also bland. The raised webbing made the design visually pop. This one can pop off into the garbage can.

There are some positive aspects to the HC Spider-Man costume. But as you say, it's nothing really special. I do like the Ditko eye-apertures but that's about it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Dec  2016, 00:07And not to get too political, but I'm not liking the direction of Homecoming's casting. It just smacks of a SJW love in. And that turns me off.

I know what you mean. Frankly, I'm sick of that. It's a very warped idea and it seems inescapable in entertainment media nowadays. It's all over the place in the CW network's Arrowverse shows. It's damaging, I don't care what anybody says, and it's unwelcome. TDK, you know exactly what I'm referring to here.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Dec  2016, 00:07So yeah, I'm not the Spider-Man fan I used to be. The passion has eroded like a mile long tsunami pounding a fragile coastline. These days, give me Superman and the DCEU, OK? Civil War more or less copied the much superior Dawn of Justice beat for beat, and it just didn't stack up. But don't tell the biased Marvel lovers that. They'll be triggered. So on second thought, tell them that. The DCEU fan has to cop a lot of rubbish, so it's overdue we turned up the volume.

The thing that might've rescued Homecoming for me MIGHT have been Spider-Man's origin done right. It's never been done properly in live action before. Peter starts off as a jerk. Period. It has to be that way. Otherwise his "hubris" doesn't mean anything when Uncle Ben pays the price. Raimi screwed it up and so did Webb.

But Homecoming shows us an up-to-speed Spider-Man and... just whatever, I don't care.

Indeedy do. I'm up for something new. Superman has been dormant for so long, cinematically, at least, and that represents exciting potential. Wonder Woman only hit the big screen with Dawn of Justice, so it's literally a blank canvass. I am very eager to follow her development. I think her character is fantastic, and give me Gal Gadot over the reheated Spiderdude ANY DAY. Likewise for Aquaman, Cyborg and Flash. The wait can be torture, with only two films a year, but in the long run, I think that's going to help. It makes these films feel more like events, with the anticipation becoming greater.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Dec  2016, 13:29

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Dec  2016, 00:07And not to get too political, but I'm not liking the direction of Homecoming's casting. It just smacks of a SJW love in. And that turns me off.

I know what you mean. Frankly, I'm sick of that. It's a very warped idea and it seems inescapable in entertainment media nowadays. It's all over the place in the CW network's Arrowverse shows. It's damaging, I don't care what anybody says, and it's unwelcome. TDK, you know exactly what I'm referring to here.

That's nothing. Earlier this year, there were SJWs on Twitter who demanded that Captain America should turn gay and get together with Bucky, because they fantasised them as a couple while watching Civil War.

Of course, they got disappointed when Marvel Comics turned Cap into a Nazi instead.  ;D

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  9 May  2016, 21:42
So what we are left with is that now they are going to be publicly labled as being a group of enhanced individuals who, in addition, have shown a complete unwillingness to comply with authorities and whose only answer to the consequences of that is to fight their way out. Wow, and Snyder/Goyer got flack for something just like that!

Indeed. What is really annoying me is Lex manipulating Wallace Keefe and public perception to hate Superman for the collateral damage in Metropolis was met with massive criticism, and yet, Civil War shows us a vengeful Zemo turning the Avengers against each other because he holds them responsible for the death of his family. This film has made it perfectly clear that the Avengers are guilty of causing their own collateral damage on three occasions, and as stated by Secretary Ross, they are often accused of being unconcerned of the mess they leave behind. There was even an episode of Jessica Jones where the title character got ambushed by an angry couple because they blamed superhumans for losing their livelihood to the Avengers in NY.

But for some reason, I haven't seen much outcry as we saw in MOS and BvS.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  9 May  2016, 21:42
I wouldn't say this particular film is the BEST of the BEST when it comes to MCU films (I think CA: TWS is the better movie), but I believe it's most assuredly in the top 5 of their output thus far.

I personally don't think it comes anywhere near close to the top five. I'd rate the first Avengers, the first two Cap movies, Iron Man 1 and even 3 before Civil War.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 15 Dec  2016, 23:42
I personally don't think it comes anywhere near close to the top five. I'd rate the first Avengers, the first two Cap movies, Iron Man 1 and even 3 before Civil War.

That's fine. One of the reasons I never really discussed either of the Avengers films in real depth in their respective threads, was because I really didn't get much out of them. Doesn't mean I disliked them, as I did enjoy them for what they were, but both were not really films I would want to discuss for very long. The 2nd Avengers movie (Age of Ultron) was a fun enough watch, but felt very much like your standard summer action movie fare, and the 1st Avengers film was enjoyable, but I personally never was particularly 'wowed' by it either. I kinda put it in the Nolan "Dark Knight" camp. Notable and popular with fans, but not something I personally have the interest in re-watching very much. Civil War was more engaging to me than either one of the Avengers films, as well as Iron Man 3, but I couldn't tell you how well it holds up in subsequent viewings. Yes, I bought the blu, but it's still shrink wrapped on my Marvel DVD/Blu ray shelf!

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 16 Dec  2016, 05:30

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 15 Dec  2016, 23:42
I personally don't think it comes anywhere near close to the top five. I'd rate the first Avengers, the first two Cap movies, Iron Man 1 and even 3 before Civil War.

That's fine. One of the reasons I never really discussed either of the Avengers films in real depth in their respective threads, was because I really didn't get much out of them. Doesn't mean I disliked them, as I did enjoy them for what they were, but both were not really films I would want to discuss for very long. The 2nd Avengers movie (Age of Ultron) was a fun enough watch, but felt very much like your standard summer action movie fare, and the 1st Avengers film was enjoyable, but I personally never was particularly 'wowed' by it either. I kinda put it in the Nolan "Dark Knight" camp. Notable and popular with fans, but not something I personally have the interest in re-watching very much. Civil War was more engaging to me than either one of the Avengers films, as well as Iron Man 3, but I couldn't tell you how well it holds up in subsequent viewings. Yes, I bought the blu, but it's still shrink wrapped on my Marvel DVD/Blu ray shelf!

I see. A common criticism with Marvel films is that they don't have a lot of rewatching value, as you once said yourself. I haven't necessarily agreed with that, although the latest films admittedly haven't stacked up with the earlier efforts for my liking.

Meanwhile, I found this review from a disgruntled MCU fan who claims that Civil War is, in his opinion, the worst film of the entire franchise to date, and his concern with where the rest of the MCU is heading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C8cyqzwkz4

I can definitely see his points about Marvel slowly becoming less cinematic in terms of visuals and the trend of leaning towards TV directors, as well as the disparity among critics for praising Civil War for its "fun" but ignoring that it's arguably just as dark as BvS.

But there are some things this guy says that make me scratch my head. Black Panther's treatment in the film is racist, because he has a tribal musical motif? Come on, the guy is disguised as a panther! It would feel out of place if he didn't have a tribal musical beat. And his complaint about this film teaching kids that violence is the only way solution to problems can easily apply to the entire superhero and action genre.

I'm starting to think superhero fatigue is actually starting to set in for real now. People mentioned it ten years ago (mostly to excuse what a colossal box office failure Superman Returns was) but I'm starting to think it's an actual thing now.

Irrespective, there aren't very many MCU movies I think have repeat value. Short list, really:

Iron Man
First Avenger
Winter Soldier
Thor (mostly for personal) nostalgia
Incredible Hulk

Otherwise I can take or leave the rest of the MCU.

To make this post a bit more on-topic, I do wish the conflict between Cap and Iron Man had been a bit more focused. So many other characters running around sort of crowds their conflict a little bit. Reducing the other characters to something more like cameo appearances and have most of Cap's dialogue directed to Iron Man and most of Iron Man's dialogue directed to Cap would've been a better way to focus things.

Broadly, there are just too damn many characters in CW. Yes, the comic had even more characters... but they also had dozens of tie-in's, miniseries and all that other stuff to broaden the canvas. A movie has 2.5 hours to get to the point and CW as a movie muddied the waters a lot.

CW could've been really innovative. An entire phase of MCU where the characters pick sides and do their own thing would've been the better way to go. It could've been a true crossover story unlike anything ever done in cinema before... but instead it's just another action movie with too many characters and too little narrative focus.

It turns out Mark Millar, who wrote the Civil War comics, wasn't crazy about the film.

Quote
"Civil War had a good opening twenty mins, but then I honestly can't remember what the movie was about. It's interesting the Russos have a background in comedy because it's really missing in these otherwise well-made pictures and very, very missed."

"I really hope this bleakness doesn't extend into their two Avengers pictures because what made that first Avengers work was the light as well as shade and I'll be sad if that's all lost like it was in this picture."

Source: http://comicbook.com/marvel/2016/12/20/creator-mark-millar-was-not-impressed-with-captain-america-civil/

I don't think a lack of comedy was an issue in this film; as a matter of fact, the use of comedy during the second act mismatched an otherwise melodramatic film.

Dang, I should've replied to this a long time ago...

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 17 Dec  2016, 00:55https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C8cyqzwkz4

The race thing seems like it came out of nowhere and is based on nothing. But otherwise I think the guy is on point. He raised a few things I remember bothering me during the one time I saw CW but then kind of forgot about because, honestly, other things bugged me more.

But if you tally up the total number of bothersome issues, they all point to CW just not being a good movie.

Still, the MCU is the zeitgeist of superhero cinema right now so unless a flagrantly horrible MCU movie comes along, it won't be called out for being bad. Ant Man, for example, is unbelievably weak but none dare say so because muh Marvel.

Meanwhile, so far the DCEU has been really solid, both creatively and financially but its climbing one hell of a mountain just for recognition.

Disclosures
- I'm a DC fan at heart. I enjoy Marvel but fundamentally I'll always be an outsider there. Yeah, I dig some Spider-Man comics and some X-Men comics and a few Cap comics too but you don't get to call yourself a "Marvel fan" based just on that stuff. So my biases may well be affecting my judgment.

- I spent all or most of the 2000's utterly disgusted with WB's movie division so the fact that they're offering semi-decent material now could also be affecting my judgment.

- I recently made a lot of peace with my Batman fandom. I'm a Superman fan first... which isn't an easy condition in this age of obnoxious Batman fans on Facebook with their insipid memes that have to demean other characters (especially Superman) in order to praise Batman. Again, could affect my judgment.

- Affleck is a contender for my favorite live action Batman of all time. Might affect my judgment.

The above conditions notwithstanding, I do believe I'm not going crazy. The MCU is objectively less entertaining to me than the DCEU, at least to me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 20 Dec  2016, 02:57
Still, the MCU is the zeitgeist of superhero cinema right now so unless a flagrantly horrible MCU movie comes along, it won't be called out for being bad. Ant Man, for example, is unbelievably weak but none dare say so because muh Marvel.

Ant-Man doesn't come across anywhere near as bad as Iron Man 2, in my opinion. I'd describe IM2 as THE worst film of the MCU to date. Waste of Mickey Rourke, who gets shoved aside for Sam Rockwell's incredibly annoying Justin Hammer, Downey simply phoning it in, and an aimless plot for two hours. What a piece of sh*t.

Thankfully, Marvel bounced back with Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 20 Dec  2016, 02:57
- I recently made a lot of peace with my Batman fandom. I'm a Superman fan first... which isn't an easy condition in this age of obnoxious Batman fans on Facebook with their insipid memes that have to demean other characters (especially Superman) in order to praise Batman. Again, could affect my judgment.

I commend you for staying strong in your Batman fandom. The whiny Superman fan is often mocked and belittled on the internet, and honestly, I think for good reason. Superman fans need to be much like yourself. Empowered because they know the character is great. Someone who will wear that yellow and red shield with pride down the street, like myself. I see a lot of 'hard done by' big blue supporters and that annoys me, to be honest. Get on the front foot and shrug off the smears. The character has a lot to celebrate and I'd like to see that more often. Big blue fans need to move beyond that whole victimhood mentality. I say this as a Superman fan too - even if I'm not as passionate as you colors. I just think we need to stand strong. He's an icon and honestly, Captian America doesn't come close.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F1%2F16715%2F3479035-8956493332-Truth.jpg&hash=f9c7cd6e32864063e9e6d05912687704cd2910f4)

That's why we need this character.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 17 Dec  2016, 00:55
I see. A common criticism with Marvel films is that they don't have a lot of rewatching value, as you once said yourself. I haven't necessarily agreed with that, although the latest films admittedly haven't stacked up with the earlier efforts for my liking.

Some of the MCU's earlier efforts don't hold much re-watch value for me either, while some of the later one's actually do. Personal preference and all that. I can see myself revisiting Ant-Man, or Dr. Strange from time to time. Iron Man 2/3, Avengers/Ultron? Not so much.

QuoteMeanwhile, I found this review from a disgruntled MCU fan who claims that Civil War is, in his opinion, the worst film of the entire franchise to date, and his concern with where the rest of the MCU is heading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C8cyqzwkz4

I can definitely see his points about Marvel slowly becoming less cinematic in terms of visuals and the trend of leaning towards TV directors, as well as the disparity among critics for praising Civil War for its "fun" but ignoring that it's arguably just as dark as BvS.

Oh brother. I tend to tune out online critics these days as much as I do alot of the so-called political analysts, but saying Civil War is the worst film in the MCU is really coming across like he's trying too hard to be a attention whore. Atleast he's bright enough in his review to throw in not-so-valid reasons (like the Black Panther one you pointed out), along with actual valid criticisms in order to prolong the video's run time. I guess such a approach will garner him more views, but his ignorance towards problems with other MCU films like the Thor films, the Iron Man sequels, or the Avengers follow-up leaves alot to be desired.

QuoteAnd his complaint about this film teaching kids that violence is the only way solution to problems can easily apply to the entire superhero and action genre.

Yeah, he's (again) really reaching there.

The violence thing lines up more against, say, Star Trek Into Darkness. If ever there was a movie where the implicit message is Might Makes Right, there it is. Putting aside the stupidity of retreading Wrath of Khan, Khan has legitimate grievances. For that matter, Kirk has legitimate grievances too.

Kirk wins in his conflict with Khan though so that means Kirk is right... doesn't it? The fact that Kirk's brand of ruthlessness and brutality defeated Khan's brand of ruthlessness and brutality makes him superior, doesn't it?

Yes, as you all say this can be said of many action movies. But rarely has it been so prominent and all-but-explicit as Into Darkness. Yeah, CW has problems but it's no worse about Might Making Right than a lot of other movies while ID IS worse about it. And dammit, that's not what Star Trek is supposed to be.

Sorry to derail the discussion but it's almost 1am and I can barely see straight.

Don't get me started on Star Trek Into Darkness. What a letdown.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 22 Dec  2016, 06:28
Oh brother. I tend to tune out online critics these days as much as I do alot of the so-called political analysts, but saying Civil War is the worst film in the MCU is really coming across like he's trying too hard to be a attention whore. Atleast he's bright enough in his review to throw in not-so-valid reasons (like the Black Panther one you pointed out), along with actual valid criticisms in order to prolong the video's run time. I guess such a approach will garner him more views, but his ignorance towards problems with other MCU films like the Thor films, the Iron Man sequels, or the Avengers follow-up leaves alot to be desired.

I totally understand, I've seen my share of online commentators who have strong opinions of certain films while blatantly overlooking the faults in others. There was this one particular blogger who boldly claimed "if you think The Dark Knight Rises was a good movie, chances are you're probably a moron" because he hated the movie's politics, the clumsy action, the plot holes, underwhelming plot twists and Bale's acting...and yet, he thought The Dark Knight was fantastic. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  ::)

Anyway, another complaint some people had about BvS was the fight between Batman and Superman would never have happened if Superman tried harder in telling Batman that Lex was setting up both of them to kill each other. Yet in Civil War, Cap tells Iron Man and company about Zemo framing Bucky and setting everybody up against each other at the start of the airport fight, yet nobody listens.

As you say, one movie gets derided for having heroes unwilling to cooperate, yet the other gets praised for doing the same thing.

I can't remember if this was mentioned earlier on in this thread, but when Civil War came out nearly three years ago, the Russo brothers acknowledged the film existed because of BvS. Which isn't surprising to many of you, myself included, because of the obvious similarities both movies share.

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/batman-v-superman-captain-america-civil-war-influence-2016-4/?r=AU&IR=T

Some things about this article irks me though.

Quote
Although the "Captain America" franchise had been very successful, Joe and Anthony anticipated that at some point audiences would tire of the Marvel formula:

"Our pitch to [Marvel] was: 'People will tell you they love chocolate ice cream — until you give it to them five days a week. It's time to give them some rainbow sherbet,'" he explained. "[Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige] is a maverick and he's very sensitive to how people are responding to his content. He said he thought we might be right."

After the announcement of "Batman v Superman," which began as a straight-forward "Man of Steel" sequel and later became a crossover tentpole with multiple heroes, Feige agreed to a new direction for "Captain America" that would break from tradition.

Russo told THR the latest in the "Captain America" series "deconstructs the superhero genre," and critics are applauding the film's clear focus on both the emotional arcs of its heroes and the larger political themes of freedom and accountability. This contrasts the response to "Batman v Superman," which critics said focused too heavily on convoluted philosophical implications and not on the characters.

A couple of things:

They talk about changing the Marvel formula, but if anything, Civil War cemented it even further; specifically that goddamn overrated airport scene. The biggest thing people were raving about this movie wasn't the themes or even the actual conflict between the characters. The most talked about part was the rather pointless infighting at the airport because of the quips. I did enjoy watching that scene the first time, but it gets old after repeated viewings. I have no doubt the positive reaction to that scene gave Disney the confidence to inject more dumbed down comedy for the majority of Phase 3, which got progressively worse in Homecoming, GOTG2 and Infinity War. What annoys me is for all the talk about the accountability and Sokovia Accords, it's soon forgotten for the remainder of Phase 3. You could say the plot point ended as soon as Tony Stark saw its negative impact when he saw pro-Cap Avengers contingent imprisoned at the Raft, but I find that to be an anticlimax.

I don't buy the praise over Civil War's supposed "emotional" arcs, apart from Black Panther. The movie didn't have the same emotional weight as it did with The First Avenger or The Winter Soldier. Compare that to Steve Rogers sacrificing himself to crash Red Skull's ship into the arctic as he says farewell to Peggy Carter. Or Steve visiting an elderly Peggy suffering from Alzhemier's. Or his standoff with Bucky to help him snap out of his brainwashing. Can you honestly tell me anything in Civil War has a scene as powerful as those moments? I thought Cap's letter in the end was a cop out and undermined the violent fight between him and Stark near the end.

It never made any sense to me how anybody could say Civil War is the best Cap movie, let alone the best MCU movie. If you take Black Panther out of the picture, it's so-so. With that said, it's better than Infinity War, which in my opinion, is a piece of crap. The Winter Solider is still the best MCU movie the Russo brothers have ever made. Apart from that, they're overrated.

As for the critical consensus that BvS "focused too heavily on convoluted philosophical implications and not on the characters"?

::)

Love or hate the movie, you have to be outright blind if you thought it didn't focus on the characters. I seriously wonder if these critics even bothered to watch the movies they're reviewing. They give me the impression of cheerleading for a cause or for some director than adequately evaluating something on merit.

If quality film criticism ever existed (which I'm skeptical of), it's definitely taken a nosedive in the past decade or two. These days, film critics wear their groupthink on their sleeves. Brag about it, even.

It kind of torques me off when somebody dismisses negative criticism of something with "You just don't get it". But in the case of BVS, yeah, I think there's a lot to that idea. The knives were out for Snyder and Affleck from the word "Go". Marvel was the immediate beneficiary of that (and to be fair, there are logical comparisons to be made between CACW and BVS) but what the negative critical reaction to BVS mostly came down to is Snyder and Affleck.

Oh well. It's done. And I can take comfort in the fact that least BVS looks like A REAL FILM. Sometimes, it's the small things.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 30 Jan  2019, 11:28A couple of things:

They talk about changing the Marvel formula, but if anything, Civil War cemented it even further; specifically that goddamn overrated airport scene. The biggest thing people were raving about this movie wasn't the themes or even the actual conflict between the characters. The most talked about part was the rather pointless infighting at the airport because of the quips. I did enjoy watching that scene the first time, but it gets old after repeated viewings. I have no doubt the positive reaction to that scene gave Disney the confidence to inject more dumbed down comedy for the majority of Phase 3, which got progressively worse in Homecoming, GOTG2 and Infinity War. What annoys me is for all the talk about the accountability and Sokovia Accords, it's soon forgotten for the remainder of Phase 3. You could say the plot point ended as soon as Tony Stark saw its negative impact when he saw pro-Cap Avengers contingent imprisoned at the Raft, but I find that to be an anticlimax.

I don't buy the praise over Civil War's supposed "emotional" arcs, apart from Black Panther. The movie didn't have the same emotional weight as it did with The First Avenger or The Winter Soldier. Compare that to Steve Rogers sacrificing himself to crash Red Skull's ship into the arctic as he says farewell to Peggy Carter. Or Steve visiting an elderly Peggy suffering from Alzhemier's. Or his standoff with Bucky to help him snap out of his brainwashing. Can you honestly tell me anything in Civil War has a scene as powerful as those moments? I thought Cap's letter in the end was a cop out and undermined the violent fight between him and Stark near the end.

Cap wasn't fighting Tony out of hatred. Why wouldn't he try to patch up their relationship? Tony would never operate under complete control of the government. He thinks they should be held accountable out of guilt.

While I can agree that fight was fairly light in comparison to the tone of the movie, I think based on the situation it wouldn't have been appropriate for it to be harsher and was in character generally. They're not fighting out of hatred. Tony, in his mind, is doing this for the good of the team, to keep them together. Cap is fighting to be able to stop what he think Zemo's plan is. I agree TWS is better than CW. But I don't think TFA has more emotional weight than CW.

And I can agree, there were too many not as good jokes in GOTG2, I don't think the comedy was much different than GOTG1 and I think can be argued it can get darker than 1 too. I don't see how the comedy in IW was anymore dumbed down than GOTG1 and think that the comedy was acceptably in character mostly.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 27 Dec  2016, 03:19Anyway, another complaint some people had about BvS was the fight between Batman and Superman would never have happened if Superman tried harder in telling Batman that Lex was setting up both of them to kill each other. Yet in Civil War, Cap tells Iron Man and company about Zemo framing Bucky and setting everybody up against each other at the start of the airport fight, yet nobody listens.

As you say, one movie gets derided for having heroes unwilling to cooperate, yet the other gets praised for doing the same thing.

That's not the same thing.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 30 Jan  2019, 11:28As you say, one movie gets derided for having heroes unwilling to cooperate, yet the other gets praised for doing the same thing.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 31 Jan  2019, 10:51That's not the same thing.

So that must mean that they're total opposites, right?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 31 Jan  2019, 12:26
So that must mean that they're total opposites, right?

Colors, don't waste your time. Nothing you say will knock any sense to him.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 31 Jan  2019, 12:26So that must mean that they're total opposites, right?

It doesn't have to be for some to think it's better or worse.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 31 Jan  2019, 12:33Colors, don't waste your time. Nothing you say will knock any sense to him.

Why do you put someone down over them disagreeing with you about a movie?