Captain America - Civil War - Which Side Are You On?

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
There were more jokes in this movie than I expected for this kind of subject matter. Like when Falcon and Bucky are in Cap's getaway car (Move your seat up) and their fight with Spider-Man ("You couldn't do that before?" "I hate you."). Speaking of Spidey, he was awesome! Funny, relatable, determined, smart, and then there's Aunt May.
Didn't expect them to cast
Marissa Tomei
for that role, but they did!
CyanCat47 said:
Diablo1099 said:
Super Cyborg said:
I seem to be in the minority, at least from what I can tell, who actually liked the villain. Sure, not nearly as memorable personality wise, but for what the film was trying to do and how it goes down in the end I really liked him.
Don't worry, I totally agree with you. Zemo was a fucking amazing villain in this.
No superpowers, no real connections, just one man driven by revenge for what happened to his family and to do that, he outsmarts Ex-HYDRA, The Avengers, The UN, EVERYONE.
Hell, a bit of re-framing and he could actually be a protag :p

OT: Loved the movie myself when I saw it the other week with my brother and a few friends.
I agree that the pacing was kinda janky early on in the movie but once Bucky is busted from that UN Prison, the movie REALLY picks up.
Hell, I knew in advance that Iron Man and Captain America were going to live but that last fight scene actually had me thinking Disney would really actually kill one of them off! :eek:
And I totally want to see that Black Panther movie, dude is like African Batman, what's not to love? XD
personally i think zemo is both so mentally screwed up that for all we know he may decide to wear purple battle armor next time we se him. also baron means lord of a castle. maybe he will find more hydra facilities from the war to use against the avengers
My theory: he later discovers he's the heir to a fortune from the House of Zemo, whose last Baron was Heinrich. That would explain why he still had the German name Helmut. I would have liked to see an old photo of him wearing a balaclava, as a shout out to the comics version, but oh well.
Another plot thread left dangling:
What about Sharon Carter, after helping Cap and Bucky right under the Joint Task Force's noses?
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
fix-the-spade said:
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Still they are doing quite well taking b-list and c-list villains and making them seem pretty cool.
I'm quietly hoping that Red Skull will make a return some day. Partly because it's Hugo Weaving, and also because the possibility of a Red Skull with cosmic powers is too much fun to ignore.

After all, we didn't technically see him die...
Its definitely a plot thread that was left fairly open. I mean more or less Loki fell out in much the same way during Thor, and he came back. Red Skull is one of those villains who shouldn't be killed off like that. Keep him under wraps and let him show up when least expected.
After getting sucked into that hole in space opened by the Tesseract, he just might be zipping around the universe, and ended up a minion of Thanos, waiting for his return for vengeance. But I'm just brain-storming here.
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,313
0
0
I was with it till the final conflict.
If Steve had stopped and said "Bucky's just as much a victim of Hydra as your parents." I would have been fine, even if Tony declared that he didn't care.
The fact that his lack of responsibility for his actions wasn't once acknowledged in that fight made it feel forced. Up until that fight, everyone had explained their reasoning for their decisions, and nobody felt stupid.
 

The Enquirer

New member
Apr 10, 2013
1,007
0
0
Souplex said:
I was with it till the final conflict.
If Steve had stopped and said "Bucky's just as much a victim of Hydra as your parents." I would have been fine, even if Tony declared that he didn't care.
The fact that his lack of responsibility for his actions wasn't once acknowledged in that fight made it feel forced. Up until that fight, everyone had explained their reasoning for their decisions, and nobody felt stupid.
I think that was actually not a bad choice.
What was essentially his family, something he has spent years building, was crumbling. His best friend paralyzed by someone else on his team, Widow went double agent on him again, then even after all said and done, when he took them into custody, they only insulted him and insulted his family. I'm certain I'm missing some things in there too but Cap said it best,"it's been a long day" and that's the best way to describe Tony at the end of it all.

Though I thought there was some mention of it not being Bucky's fault in that scene.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
After getting sucked into that hole in space opened by the Tesseract, he just might be zipping around the universe, and ended up a minion of Thanos, waiting for his return for vengeance. But I'm just brain-storming here.
Teaming with Thanos is an interesting idea, getting power enough to come back and take out Cap, which lets Evans exit the MCU and gives way for Captain Bucky to take over... I like the idea of the first Infinity Gauntlet conflict to end with a real down note, which to me would mean taking out the heart of the Avengers. Cap. And who better to take him down than Red Skull? AFAIK, Hugo Weaving wouldn't return but there's plenty of folks out there who can be chosen as the recast. Just hand-wave it with a little cosmic powers change people retcons and boom! Red Skull 2.0.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Gorrath said:
talker said:
I saw Civil War with some friends the other day and we all agreed that the only reason [ i ] anyone [ /i ] would go for team Cap was that he's as close to a central protagonist the movie has.
Interesting that you say that because amongst my friends, no one would have picked Iron man's side. The whole premise that the Avenger's need to be reigned in because "they cause destruction" is a position without a pulse; it's like blaming firefighters for the collateral damage created by fires. If the accords were merely oversight, I would have definitely been on Stark's side but they wanted control over the Avengers both in what they would or would not be doing.

If the Avengers had all signed, I have no doubt their very next set of duties after capturing/killing Bucky would be mutant round-up duty. Have special powers and don't report it to the government? Enjoy your stay at our secret prison with no trial. So when they aren't trying to put everyone from Xavier's school in prison, I imagine they'd spend the rest of their time waiting for the U.N. security council to be useful for something other than international political gridlock. Want to send them to the U.S. because of concerns over mass wiretapping? U.S. vetoes. Want to send them to Serbia to stop Baron Von Killemall from murdering everyone? Russia vetoes. Want to send them to China to check on secret weapons testing? China vetoes.

What sense does it make for a tight group of fallible but unselfish and self-sacrificing people to turn their power over to a bunch of politicians with a thousand back-door agendas at worst and a ton of useless bickering at best? I mean SHIELD itself was an international agency under the command of just such a body and its greatest hits album includes such melodies as "The Future's So Bright I've Got to Wear Shades," and "Heil Hydra: A Love Story."
While I do agree that Stark's weakness was that it gave far too much power to authority, Steve's gives no respect to authority whatsoever. And that's kind of what I like about the movie, both characters are ultimately wrong, but both come from realistic emotional and logical reasons pushed to extreme because they both are emotionally compromised.

But to counter your claim, what right does this group of people have to fight other people's battles? What right do they have to hunt, even kill others with no warning to authorities or even medical services until after the job? Consider how the 117 countries feel about the Avengers. Yes, they have saved the world, but they also have caused destruction on an uncountable scale. And four of them are directly or indirectly responsibility for causing destruction and death of innocents (Hulk, Iron Man, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver). And worse, none have been tried for their recent crimes. Hulk undoubtedly killed people in his rage and Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver directly helped Ultron who killed. To the average citizen, the Avengers seems to act like a mallet trying to kill a fly in a china shop. Why shouldn't the Avengers be held accountable for their actions? Why shouldn't oversight be a requirement for them? What gives them the right to come into a country and endanger the lives of innocents then leave without dealing with the aftermath? Where's the responsibility Captain America is so proud about? For all his talk, he is acting no different than America did in Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam. And the world just will not tolerate such actions.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Gorrath said:
talker said:
I saw Civil War with some friends the other day and we all agreed that the only reason [ i ] anyone [ /i ] would go for team Cap was that he's as close to a central protagonist the movie has.
Interesting that you say that because amongst my friends, no one would have picked Iron man's side. The whole premise that the Avenger's need to be reigned in because "they cause destruction" is a position without a pulse; it's like blaming firefighters for the collateral damage created by fires. If the accords were merely oversight, I would have definitely been on Stark's side but they wanted control over the Avengers both in what they would or would not be doing.

If the Avengers had all signed, I have no doubt their very next set of duties after capturing/killing Bucky would be mutant round-up duty. Have special powers and don't report it to the government? Enjoy your stay at our secret prison with no trial. So when they aren't trying to put everyone from Xavier's school in prison, I imagine they'd spend the rest of their time waiting for the U.N. security council to be useful for something other than international political gridlock. Want to send them to the U.S. because of concerns over mass wiretapping? U.S. vetoes. Want to send them to Serbia to stop Baron Von Killemall from murdering everyone? Russia vetoes. Want to send them to China to check on secret weapons testing? China vetoes.

What sense does it make for a tight group of fallible but unselfish and self-sacrificing people to turn their power over to a bunch of politicians with a thousand back-door agendas at worst and a ton of useless bickering at best? I mean SHIELD itself was an international agency under the command of just such a body and its greatest hits album includes such melodies as "The Future's So Bright I've Got to Wear Shades," and "Heil Hydra: A Love Story."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Hell, the someone on the pro registration side was even smugly arrogant about how there would be no trial or lawyer when some of Cap's team were collared. I would argue that the registration accord was completely in line with hydra needed to win at their next plot after Cap (against the very institutions this accord were backed by) stopped their mass murder campaign in Winter Soldier. Put a collar on all the heroes, hobble them when you set up your next plot through political channels then strike.

being pro registration in this continuity is being on the wrong side because in this continuity the power structures that would be used to enforce it have already proven to be very fallible. I understand where Tony is coming from, but more than signing that accord he needs to get his narcissistic ass to a shrink and get some help for the PTSD he has been suffering from since at least The Avengers, and maybe as far back as Iron Man 1.
 

The Philistine

New member
Jan 15, 2010
237
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Just got back from seeing the movie, and I thought it was pretty good. The only issues I had were
that the fighting between the Avengers was caused by as far as I remember Bucky being framed for blowing up the UN on the basis of the "evidence", a blurry photo that was barely one step above a picture of a man shaped Bonsai tree. The two sides fighting over the fact that Tony wanted revenge for Bucky killing his parents and Cap didn't believe that he should be held accountable for what he did under against his will as the thing that gets them fighting as it did with the movie's final fight between the three would have made much more sense.
That bugged me as well. The villains plans were just a long series of Batman Gambits.
First in assuming the Avengers would split due to the UN resolution. Then that only a small handful of them would actually follow him. And that Tony would go full on murder mode upon finding out who killed his parents. If any of those things had not gone exactly as they had in the movie, he wouldn't have gotten the conflict he wanted.

The other thing that bugs me is how Marvel is making a habit of building up minor villains in one movie, only to kill them off in the next.
Zola from The First Avenger to Winter Soldier, Crossbones from Winter Soldier to Civil War.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
xaszatm said:
While I do agree that Stark's weakness was that it gave far too much power to authority, Steve's gives no respect to authority whatsoever. And that's kind of what I like about the movie, both characters are ultimately wrong, but both come from realistic emotional and logical reasons pushed to extreme because they both are emotionally compromised.
I wouldn't agree that Steve's position was anti-authority, it was just anti-control. Heck, he even agrees to sign until he finds out that
Stark has literally had Vision keeping Wanda a prisoner in her own home.
And don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie. IMO it's the best Marvel movie to date! I can see why everyone picked the sides that they did and switched sides at parts too, so I'm not saying Tony's position makes no sense when it comes to the characters involved, I just can't possibly agree with Stark's position.


But to counter your claim, what right does this group of people have to fight other people's battles? What right do they have to hunt, even kill others with no warning to authorities or even medical services until after the job? Consider how the 117 countries feel about the Avengers. Yes, they have saved the world, but they also have caused destruction on an uncountable scale.
They have a right to act because they have a responsibility to act. If they are the only ones in a position to do what needs to be done to stop the destruction of the world or huge groups of people then acting is the only moral and ethical thing to do. This is a basic moral premise on which societies are built; those with power have a responsibility to protect those without it. Now platitudes like that lack nuance, to be sure, and any individual intervention must be considered on its own merits but that premise is the backbone of all hero stories; they act because they must and they must because no one else can. As for them "causing destruction" that is, again, like blaming fire fighters for fires. Yes the actions they take in battle directly lead to the deaths of people but that is an unavoidable consequence of battle on the scale they have to fight it. The closest you can really get to something being their fault is Ultron.

And four of them are directly or indirectly responsibility for causing destruction and death of innocents (Hulk, Iron Man, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver). And worse, none have been tried for their recent crimes. Hulk undoubtedly killed people in his rage and Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver directly helped Ultron who killed.
The only time I recall Hulk killing anyone is during the battle in NY, which was not intentional. As to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, well, hard to put a corpse on trail as far as the latter and the former turned on Ultron as soon as she knew what he was doing. While it can be argued that she should have been held responsible for anyone she killed or helped Ultron kill before she found out his master plan, and I would agree with that argument, I don't know that there's anyone in any government seeking to punish her for those acts, so it's a moot point. If someone did want to press charges against her for that, I quite agree that she'd need to stand trial. Basic utilitarian morality applies here as it does to all such no-win scenarios; you try and preserve the maximum number of lives the best way you can think of at the time of the crisis. If you've done that, you've met your moral obligations in that situation.

To the average citizen, the Avengers seems to act like a mallet trying to kill a fly in a china shop. Why shouldn't the Avengers be held accountable for their actions? Why shouldn't oversight be a requirement for them? What gives them the right to come into a country and endanger the lives of innocents then leave without dealing with the aftermath? Where's the responsibility Captain America is so proud about? For all his talk, he is acting no different than America did in Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam. And the world just will not tolerate such actions.
If that's what the average citizen thinks then they are none too bright. The fly in the china shop is Hydra, or Ultron or an advanced alien civilization wanting to enslave or kill the whole population of Earth. If any of those things are flies, then what the heck does a real threat look like? If the Avengers are bull in the china shop, why was the world council's answer to the crisis to nuke NY city?! What would they have done to stop Ultron when they couldn't even stop Hydra from taking over their own SHIELD organization? The world can go ahead and not tolerate it, just up until Thanos shows up and murders everyone on the planet. Then there won't be anyone left to complain about collateral damage.

You'll not get a lot of pull with me on the war comparisons; I served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division and am intimately aware of the sorts of situations the Avengers find themselves in because of it.

Fun intellectual exercise though, I'm eager to read your response!
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Gorrath said:
xaszatm said:
While I do agree that Stark's weakness was that it gave far too much power to authority, Steve's gives no respect to authority whatsoever. And that's kind of what I like about the movie, both characters are ultimately wrong, but both come from realistic emotional and logical reasons pushed to extreme because they both are emotionally compromised.
I wouldn't agree that Steve's position was anti-authority, it was just anti-control. Heck, he even agrees to sign until he finds out that
Stark has literally had Vision keeping Wanda a prisoner in her own home.
And don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie. IMO it's the best Marvel movie to date! I can see why everyone picked the sides that they did and switched sides at parts too, so I'm not saying Tony's position makes no sense when it comes to the characters involved, I just can't possibly agree with Stark's position.
Oh yeah, I think Stark is wrong as well. Stark ultimately gives up too much power and control because he is too emotionally compromised to think clearly. To be honest, everyone in this movie is. I mean, Stark is trusting General "Thunderbolt" Ross to not be a power-hungry nut to ease his guilty conscious when Stark has known how ruthless Ross is since The Incredible Hulk. I think there was a solution, while not easy, would have helped bypass a lot of drama and conflict in the film. Therefore, it couldn't happen because...then we'd have no Civil War and the movie would just be Rogers, Wilson, and Bucky riding around Europe in a small VV Bug.

...actually I'd probably still see that movie.


But to counter your claim, what right does this group of people have to fight other people's battles? What right do they have to hunt, even kill others with no warning to authorities or even medical services until after the job? Consider how the 117 countries feel about the Avengers. Yes, they have saved the world, but they also have caused destruction on an uncountable scale.
They have a right to act because they have a responsibility to act. If they are the only ones in a position to do what needs to be done to stop the destruction of the world or huge groups of people then acting is the only moral and ethical thing to do. This is a basic moral premise on which societies are built; those with power have a responsibility to protect those without it. Now platitudes like that lack nuance, to be sure, and any individual intervention must be considered on its own merits but that premise is the backbone of all hero stories; they act because they must and they must because no one else can. As for them "causing destruction" that is, again, like blaming fire fighters for fires. Yes the actions they take in battle directly lead to the deaths of people but that is an unavoidable consequence of battle on the scale they have to fight it. The closest you can really get to something being their fault is Ultron.

And four of them are directly or indirectly responsibility for causing destruction and death of innocents (Hulk, Iron Man, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver). And worse, none have been tried for their recent crimes. Hulk undoubtedly killed people in his rage and Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver directly helped Ultron who killed.
The only time I recall Hulk killing anyone is during the battle in NY, which was not intentional. As to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, well, hard to put a corpse on trail as far as the latter and the former turned on Ultron as soon as she knew what he was doing. While it can be argued that she should have been held responsible for anyone she killed or helped Ultron kill before she found out his master plan, and I would agree with that argument, I don't know that there's anyone in any government seeking to punish her for those acts, so it's a moot point. If someone did want to press charges against her for that, I quite agree that she'd need to stand trial. Basic utilitarian morality applies here as it does to all such no-win scenarios; you try and preserve the maximum number of lives the best way you can think of at the time of the crisis. If you've done that, you've met your moral obligations in that situation.
Well, the Hulk probably killed people during his mind-controlled rage Scarlet Witch did to him. And Thor directly states "The gates of Hel are filled with the screams of his victims," then tries to change it after remembering that Banner doesn't want to kill even if the enemy is HYDRA. And by responsibility I really meant closure. There are dead and destruction in the wake of the heroics of the Avengers. Even Scarlet Witch or Banner apologizing would do a lot to ease the emotional state of mind people might have against the Avengers (wrongly I might add). I mean, think about the motivation for the villain in this movie:

Zemo is driven by vengeance. He lost everyone important to him during the battle and looked for someone to blame. Now, logically The Avengers were trying to save everyone and really shouldn't be held accountable for the deaths here. But emotionally, that will not cut it. Zemo needs to take his emotions out on something otherwise he'll go insane. And while not guaranteed to ease his emotional pain, being given the facts (not all of it mind, but enough to understand the situation clearer) would have been healthier and possibly avoided the whole plot to begin with. But then we'd have no movie. But this lack of closure is kind of why I disagree with your statement that they have met their moral obligation. The Avenges do still have one moral obligation they haven't been filling: closure.

To the average citizen, the Avengers seems to act like a mallet trying to kill a fly in a china shop. Why shouldn't the Avengers be held accountable for their actions? Why shouldn't oversight be a requirement for them? What gives them the right to come into a country and endanger the lives of innocents then leave without dealing with the aftermath? Where's the responsibility Captain America is so proud about? For all his talk, he is acting no different than America did in Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam. And the world just will not tolerate such actions.
If that's what the average citizen thinks then they are none too bright. The fly in the china shop is Hydra, or Ultron or an advanced alien civilization wanting to enslave or kill the whole population of Earth. If any of those things are flies, then what the heck does a real threat look like? If the Avengers are bull in the china shop, why was the world council's answer to the crisis to nuke NY city?! What would they have done to stop Ultron when they couldn't even stop Hydra from taking over their own SHIELD organization? The world can go ahead and not tolerate it, just up until Thanos shows up and murders everyone on the planet. Then there won't be anyone left to complain about collateral damage.

You'll not get a lot of pull with me on the war comparisons; I served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division and am intimately aware of the sorts of situations the Avengers find themselves in because of it.

Fun intellectual exercise though, I'm eager to read your response!
Oh, I agree completely that the average citizen isn't thinking clearly. But that's kind of the point. The average citizens in this movie has been emotionally compromised. I mean, a good example of this is the woman Stark meets after his MIT speech. The woman blames the Avengers for the death of his son. Now, logically, this makes zero sense. The Avengers in Age of Ultron are doing their very best to save every citizen and did save as many people as possible. But think about it from her point of view. All she knows is her son was alive, then he wasn't. He died perhaps pointlessly. Emotionally, this woman is controlled by grief which colors her viewpoint. She is looking for someone to blame and without closure, she has picked The Avengers as her target. I mean consider the following spoiler.

Iron Man immediately tries to kill Bucky after learning that he, under mind control, killed his parents. He's incredibly emotionally destroyed and can only think of vengeance and betrayal. He even says "I don't care. He killed my mom." Tony Stark is running on emotion at this point from many factors but especially from the lack of closure he has over his dead parents.

And the lack of closure is a big theme in the movie. It drives the character arc of at least three characters in the movie and is the ultimate basis for the Solvakia Accords. The Accords are a solution to give this countries and its citizens some measure of control after being in multiple situations where they had none. Now, this is not to say the Accords are a good plan because as Steve said "People have agendas." Getting what's essentially (and literally in one case) a god as a tool can and will corrupt people. Ultimately, the Accords attempt to solve the problem by attacking its biggest target rather than fixing its core: closure.

What the Avengers should have been doing since perhaps The Winter Soldier is work with the United Nations and not for them. The Avengers should have the sovereignty to operate where there is danger. But they should have the support to help fix the financial, social, and emotional cost of their fights. They should have their own set of emergency services like EMTs, field surgeons, and firefighters ready to help the Avengers deal with the aftermath. The Avengers should be willing to help pay for the damages caused by their actions (I mean, Tony probably has enough money at this point to buy the world 10 times over since his official GDP is "more than enough"). They also need to hold some kind of service to provide closure. Not only would this ease the minds of any victim's close one, it would also help heal the incredibly guilty consciences Tony Stark, Bucky Barnes and Scarlet Witch have. This solution helps deal with the personal problems of most in this movie. It provides support to countries so they don't feel like they have no control, it gives Tony a way to healthily deal with his guilty conscience, and still lives sovereignty in the hand so the Avengers. Now, this won't fix all the problems because, once again, people can be very easily emotionally manipulated. But this solution does help heal the problems many of the characters face.

But, if these people were emotionally healthy enough where they wouldn't want to fight each other, we wouldn't have a Civil War movie and the ultimate road trip movie instead. :p
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,057
0
0
I'm just gonna say it: I found it hard to care anymore in this movie. Which is a goddamn shame, because action wise this gives all other movies on the market a run for their money. Everything from the choreography to the sound was pitch perfect. I should have been jumping in my seat during the action scenes. But at this point all sense of danger or urgency has been lost. We know the characters will make it out alive. So all the awesome action held all the emotional weight and tension of me banging my action figures together as a kid. And after enough time it all just becomes white noise in the whirlpool of Eternal Status Quo. 6/10.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
I'm just gonna say it: I found it hard to care anymore in this movie. Which is a goddamn shame, because action wise this gives all other movies on the market a run for their money. Everything from the choreography to the sound was pitch perfect. I should have been jumping in my seat during the action scenes. But at this point all sense of danger or urgency has been lost. We know the characters will make it out alive. So all the awesome action held all the emotional weight and tension of me banging my action figures together as a kid. And after enough time it all just becomes white noise in the whirlpool of Eternal Status Quo. 6/10.
You're kidding right? You were expecting people to die in this one? Right up until the very last scene the only reason they were fighting each other was because of a minor ideological difference certainly nothing to the degree where you would be killing a former team mate or friend (in fact Black Widow and Hawkeye spelled it out perfectly when they where fighting each other and Back Widow asks, we're still friends right?).

The final fight scene was the only one in which the reason for the fight elevated it to the point where the characters would kill try and kill each other (well one character specifically.)

The Avengers should be willing to help pay for the damages caused by their actions
Two words

STARK FOUNDATION, it's mentioned right after the Hulk and Hulkbuster smash the place up in Age Of Ultron, The Avengers ALREADY do help pay for the destruction.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
What team am I on?

pff, silly question

Team 'Nep-nep' of course :p


Samtemdo8 said:
2.Batman thinks Superman is dangerous after the events of Man of Steel
4. Marvel is never Dark and Edgy. And dark and edgy makes for better stories anyway, I mean look at Game of Thrones and Watchmen.
2: Attacking some one because you think they could be a threat is how you breed tragedy. Not to mention the resolution to that was stupid as fucking hell.

4: I only take issue with this in regards to how it apply's to Marvel and DC's movies. Dark and Edgy can make for good story's. But Marvel seems mostly uninterested in going there (and why should they when what they got going now is working just fine) and DC's, well ... DC should just focus on trying to make a GOOD movie that doesn't have Batman as the lead first.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
Honestly, I'm on no one's team... except...
Lunar Templar said:
Team 'Nep-nep' of course :p
http://38.media.tumblr.com/d919470d8ef8ace818a11cda29307f17/tumblr_nb7bsvMmZD1r1uq0jo3_500.gif

Other than that, I was already spoiled on who was going to die in this sequel, which made me enjoy the action sequences for what they were... except that last fight because shit got INTENSE! Also, "Homecoming"... (HA!)
 

Overhead

New member
Apr 29, 2012
107
0
0
The idea that being "dark and edgy" is what makes a movie good is in of itself very immature, reminiscent of the EXTREME comics of the 90's which took the darkness of Watchmen but forgot to add any of the literary style and quality.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
I had some pretty high expectations going into this movie and I'm happy to say that the movie met them. The conflict didn't feel forced at all, and I liked how reluctant many of the characters were to fight each other. Tony's final motivation for going after Bucky may not have made logical sense, but in the heat of the moment, it's hard to fault him for losing it a bit. Speaking of that final action sequence, wow. Seeing Tony not hold back and almost take out both Cap and Bucky was both mesmerizing and heart wrenching.

As for the villain, I think he's one of the best the MCU has created. That might say more about how bad most of their villains are, but I do genuinely think he was a good one. He's just an ordinary man who sought to destroy the Avengers from within. No mind control bullshit that Loki and Ultron used to briefly make a fun scene, he outwitted everyone and until we see otherwise in future movies, the damage he caused may be more lasting than any other villain so far. Though, Cap's letter to Tony definitely brings some hope at the end.

Everyone has been saying that Spiderman and Black Panther were scene stealers. I'd absolutely agree with that. Holland owns the role as someone who's in way over their head, but still extremely competent. I'm really looking forward to him in a standalone movie. The Black Panther just oozes this deadly vibe every time he's on screen.

Edit: as for side..... neither option is particularly appealing when you consider the implications they have. I'd pick Stark's side simply because I'd trust Vision's judgment over just about anyone. Although, he does become distracted at one point which might hint that the stone is interfering with his thought process..... so who knows. To be honest, I think the Black Panther had the best stance on the whole thing. He likes the idea of the Accord, but he doesn't like the baggage that inevitably comes with it.
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,141
106
68
Country
Nigeria
Lunar Templar said:
What team am I on?

pff, silly question

Team 'Nep-nep' of course :p



2: Attacking some one because you think they could be a threat is how you breed tragedy.
Yeah, that was kind of the point. You're not supposed to support Batman's actions just understand why he's doing what he's doing.