[QuickTidal]

Tsundoku, on 07 June 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Carter romance = super awkward.

http://www.news.com....ec2f43700104be7

How ridiculous.

[polishgenius]

Let's be fair: she's got a point.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 07 June 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

Let's be fair: she's got a point.

Not really. The Steve/Peggy relationship was always meant as a "what if" scenario. She was never intended as his love interest, but instead as someone he crushed on who he never really got to be with due to being frozen for years. She originally only appeared in flashbacks and she and Steve never got further than attempting dates. This is why Sharon/Agent 13 was introduced into the 616 in the first place (during the same time, but in his non-flashbacks), as a real love interest for Steve going forward in the era in which he lives most of his life. Peggy becomes (as you see in the films), someone he obviously cared a great deal for but no further. Sharon Carter is and always was Cap's love interest as intended by Kirby and Lee. That she is descended from Peggy doesn't mean anything when he is not involved in the family she eventually had genetically.

It also proves to me that she never read any of the Cap comics before taking on the character in the films.

[Abyss]

Thor's absence finally explained.... http://io9.gizmodo.c...-war-1785863205

[Abyss]

Thor Odinson and Darryl Jacobson.GENIUS.

[Lycaenion]

I'm sooo glad they finally broke into their SSDC 2016 vault of exclusive vids and showed this one. Now waiting for the Spidy one!

[Morgoth]

Yeah, I finally saw this movie too. No reason for the delay really, it just sort of happened.

IT was good. I really liked it in many respects. Though I did struggle to follow the movies attempt to paint Cpt. America's path as the right one here. How could anyone, including Cpt. America whom after all is supposed to represent the ideals of America, think that a privately run task force should be allowed to fight battles in sovereign nations on a whim. How could he, or anyone, possibly think any country would be fine with that. Or that it's a good thing? It was just so absurd, and by the end I just wanted Iron Man to toast the lot of them and start anew.

And not to mention the, oh no Purple whatever is required to stay indoors for a while as she blew up a building (and probably killed a whole bunch of people) in a foreign country. How unreasonable! This is just another proof that Tony is the bad guy!

Or how hawkeye et al were complaining about being imprisoned for just committing a little bit of treason? Is the message here that heroes should be above the law? It certainly felt like that to me.

So, I enjoyed the film a lot, but it was also really stupid.

[Slow Ben]

Morgoth, on 22 September 2016 - 08:11 AM, said:

So, I enjoyed the film a lot, but it was also really stupid.

Finally watched it over the weekend, this pretty much sums it up.

[QuickTidal]

It's a REALLY fun film...but yes it largely fails at what it tries to present to us as viewers (the whole "who polices the police" plot line) by dint of not showing but telling. You never see the issues from the human angle, just the superhero and military complex one. As such, the things like Hawkeye complaining, and the lax upset about what Scarlet Witch's collateral damage was ect. come off as petulant as opposed to realistic. With regards to Cap and IM they both basically slide from things that happened in each of their last films down a path that they SHOULD (in a smarter movie) stop sliding on...but don't...because they want to have a big battle with many superheroes. Their personalities don't jive with what is being presented here with VERY bullheaded ideals that get stuck to throughout.

the sides they take also don't make a whole lot of sense. Cap should be the one, as the stalwart symbol of America and the boy scout character, who supports the registration, and Tony, being the guy who has always fought authority and done his own thing, should be rejecting it. I think that was the deal i the comics too, so that's not the movie's fault...but yeah I just think the sides are totally mixed up.

This is why I felt that BvS did this story SO much better. In that one, you see the Superheroes character-specific reasoning for behaving the way they do on screen (which makes sense from character to character), you see the political side, the military side, and especially the human side. Every beat of the "who polices the police" storyline lands with a more realistic bent and as such feels largely less lip-service-y and show don't tell than CW. This is not to say they did it perfectly, just that they did it MUCH better than CW attempted.

It just felt like the conflict in CW was invented just for the superheroes to have a big fight, because I'm never given any reason to believe otherwise from any kind of human level.

[Abyss]

Yep.
Also, pretty much everything about Zemo and Zemo's plan.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 22 September 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

Yep.
Also, pretty much everything about Zemo and Zemo's plan.

I still don't quite get Zemo's plan and how it benefits him...? Is he just like the master troll or something?

[Aptorian]

Zemo's plan was simple. He wanted to destroy the superheroes. All super powered people really.

He didn't have any other motivation than revenge and creating a world safe from the "so called" heroes who killed his family and destroyed his world.

[Abyss]

Apt, on 22 September 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

Zemo's plan was simple. He wanted to destroy the superheroes. All super powered people really.

He didn't have any other motivation than revenge and creating a world safe from the "so called" heroes who killed his family and destroyed his world.

His motive was fine - superheroes destroyed my family so I'm going to destroy superheroes.

His plan was a whole other mess involving the Winter Soldier, soviet super soldier popsicles, Wakanda, the Scarlet Witch's inexperience, suicide bombings, Captain America's antidisestablismentarianism, Howard Stark, Tony Stark's abandonment issues, the Black Widow's split loyalties, and a psychology degree obtained on the internet.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 22 September 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

Apt, on 22 September 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

Zemo's plan was simple. He wanted to destroy the superheroes. All super powered people really.

He didn't have any other motivation than revenge and creating a world safe from the "so called" heroes who killed his family and destroyed his world.

His motive was fine - superheroes destroyed my family so I'm going to destroy superheroes.

His plan was a whole other mess involving the Winter Soldier, soviet super soldier popsicles, Wakanda, the Scarlet Witch's inexperience, suicide bombings, Captain America's antidisestablismentarianism, Howard Stark, Tony Stark's abandonment issues, the Black Widow's split loyalties, and a psychology degree obtained on the internet.

Indeed. If you remove any one of the above things, his plan gets nowhere near to completion satisfactorily.

Also, be honest Abyss, is that the first time you've ever used antidisestablismentarianism in daily conversation? I've known the word for years, but have never had opportunity to bust it out.

[amphibian]

So BvS and Civil War are essentially the same level of movie, but the latter has more people forgiving its flaws because it "plays nicer"?

QuickTidal and I agreed on this a while ago, but it's nice to see others now start to come around.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 22 September 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

...
Also, be honest Abyss, is that the first time you've ever used antidisestablismentarianism in daily conversation? I've known the word for years, but have never had opportunity to bust it out.

I WIN!

[Primateus]

amphibian, on 22 September 2016 - 08:22 PM, said:

So BvS and Civil War are essentially the same level of movie, but the latter has more people forgiving its flaws because it "plays nicer"?

QuickTidal and I agreed on this a while ago, but it's nice to see others now start to come around.

I'm not afraid to admit that I like Civil War better because of Spider-Man.

Both movies have their problems, so I actually agree, hating on BvS for certain issues while ignoring pretty much the same issues for Civil War does seem a bit unfair.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 22 September 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

Abyss, on 22 September 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

Apt, on 22 September 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

Zemo's plan was simple. He wanted to destroy the superheroes. All super powered people really.

He didn't have any other motivation than revenge and creating a world safe from the "so called" heroes who killed his family and destroyed his world.

His motive was fine - superheroes destroyed my family so I'm going to destroy superheroes.

His plan was a whole other mess involving the Winter Soldier, soviet super soldier popsicles, Wakanda, the Scarlet Witch's inexperience, suicide bombings, Captain America's antidisestablismentarianism, Howard Stark, Tony Stark's abandonment issues, the Black Widow's split loyalties, and a psychology degree obtained on the internet.

Indeed. If you remove any one of the above things, his plan gets nowhere near to completion satisfactorily.

Also, be honest Abyss, is that the first time you've ever used antidisestablismentarianism in daily conversation? I've known the word for years, but have never had opportunity to bust it out.

Isn't that word just the long way around of saying establishmentarianism? Which sounds like it's a word that should just be Establish(a)nism if it's not used in the specific historical context it stems from.

[Morgoth]

Primateus, on 23 September 2016 - 09:55 AM, said:

amphibian, on 22 September 2016 - 08:22 PM, said:

So BvS and Civil War are essentially the same level of movie, but the latter has more people forgiving its flaws because it "plays nicer"?

QuickTidal and I agreed on this a while ago, but it's nice to see others now start to come around.

I'm not afraid to admit that I like Civil War better because of Spider-Man.

Both movies have their problems, so I actually agree, hating on BvS for certain issues while ignoring pretty much the same issues for Civil War does seem a bit unfair.

But that doesn't seem to be the case on this forum, so I don't fully understand why it is brought up. Civil War and BvS are only similar in a superficial sense. Plot, tone, theme, these are all different. Not to mention that Civil War was made by a competent director, more or less, whereas BvS was made by Snyder. The idea that one is forgiven because it "plays nicer" is a fantasy born out of, it would seem to me, a need to have ones own opinion of the two movies be justified in some sense. It's certainly not reflective of what has been said of the two movies here on this forum.

[QuickTidal]

Morgoth, on 23 September 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

But that doesn't seem to be the case on this forum, so I don't fully understand why it is brought up. Civil War and BvS are only similar in a superficial sense. Plot, tone, theme, these are all different. Not to mention that Civil War was made by a competent director, more or less, whereas BvS was made by Snyder. The idea that one is forgiven because it "plays nicer" is a fantasy born out of, it would seem to me, a need to have ones own opinion of the two movies be justified in some sense. It's certainly not reflective of what has been said of the two movies here on this forum.

The plots and themes are nearly identical Morgy.

Human collateral damage from powered beings doing their thing has caused the plebs to rise up and ask who polices the police. (Avengers:AoU; Man of Steel)
Humans have asked Superheroes to be reigned in, politicians and military seek to make that happen. (CW: Registration Act; BvS: Senate Hearings)
Sides are drawn up (Cap VS Iron Man; Batman VS Superman) which sit on either side of this issue.
Superheroes VS Superheroes have a blowout fight because of it.
Only to find out that they have been manipulated into this the entire time by nefarious villains (Zemo; Lex Luthor)

Calling Snyder a non-compotent director is exceedingly harsh. You may not care for what he does or the films he makes, but he has made great films that have been very well received, and is a very competent director (if overly stylized in his execution). I loathe, for example, Stanley Kubrick, but I can fully accept that he is a competent director whose work is simply not my cup of tea.

It's not a fantasy to say that things in Civil War are forgiven that aren't in BvS. I mean look at the above deconstruction of the plots. They are very close to the same. Marvel rides on it's fun, and formulaic-ness and 8 years of films that have been moderately-to-well received. This is not a slight, it's worked for them in spades. Marvel movies are easy. I would not say cookie cutter, but they DO follow a formula. That formula succeeds (though it doesn't mean it can't falter....AVENGERS: AoU, I'm looking at you) despite itself. People respond to that because it's a comfy coat that you're used to and it asks very little of you as a viewer. You can watch an MCU flick and just sit back and enjoy and not feel the compulsion to question, because you had a good time. The MCU refuses to challenge people. And that's fine.

I loved CIVIL WAR. It was an absolute blast to watch. The Russo's know their stuff and how to deliver a great two hours of fun. But they never ever stepped outside the formula box. Not once. And that's fine, but it's well worth mentioning. But BvS (and MoS while we are at it) does step out of that formula box, and we get a completely different superhero movie experience from it as a result. I think WB has asked more of the viewer in their outings. Neither MoS, BvS, or even SS follows any kind of discernible formulaic-ness.