Agent_Z said:
And Steve Rogers released state secrets putting SHIELD agents in danger, sent Helicarriers into the Potomac River which should have caused more damage than the movies care to acknowledge, instigated a fight that endangered citizens in two cities, recruited a terrorist into his team and smuggled her into the U.S and withheld information about the murder of his team mate?s parents. Yeah, I can see why people might want him kept on a leash. Stark at least seemed like he was trying to learn from his mistakes.
Don?t even get me started on the film ignoring Wanda?s setting the Hulk on citizens back in AoU to make her detainment seem more like jack booted thuggery rather than keeping a dangerous woman from harming more people.
The SHIELD that Rogers uncovered was deeply corrupt. And had been actively working on a project that would use those Helicarriers to kill every person on Earth who could be a threat to Hydra's plans.
It's also worth noting that S.H.I.E.L.D. stands for "Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division"- given the "Homeland" part of that equation, in most places that SHIELD has agents working undercover in a way that they might be endangered by having their cover might blown by Rogers' reveal, they're likely already working outside their purview (and much more likely
not to be working for the right side.)
There is no
good place to crash-land a vehicle the size of a Helicarrier. It's somewhat disbelief-baiting that there's a place to
safely land such a vehicle. Landing it in the river is probably better than most, as several real-life plane crashes would imply.
It hasn't been ignored that super-powered conflicts involve costs. But there has been a better than decent case made that those conflicts were better than the events they set out to prevent. Ross conveniently forgets that the
contingency plan the Avengers' fight against the Chitauri managed to prevent involved dropping a nuclear warhead on New York.
Callate said:
Yeah, because the writers ignored the better premise to focus on Steve?s drama with Bucky with the good hair.
Which at least showed some willingness to contemplate the question of whether Rogers' unswerving loyalty was a good thing.
Callate said:
They showed differing opinions on him. If you rewatch the protest scene outside the court room, you?ll see some signs defending him. We see their reactions and how this is affecting him. More importantly, Clark actually takes them into consideration. That?s way more than is done with the MCU where a man whose life is ruined by the Avengers is made into a villain.
Civil War is consistent in the view that putting revenge over all other considerations is not a good thing.
You?re kidding right? It?s flat out stated that Steve is incapable of interacting with anyone who isn?t an Avenger or superhero and thus avoid civilians life. His response to being confronted with the consequences of his actions is to do the same things over and over again and hope for different results. Same with Tony. Clint Barton and Scott Lang abandons their families at Steve?s word. Scarlet Witch shows nothing but contempt for people?s justified fear of her. Sokovia is used more as emotional torque for the Avengers than a tragedy in its own right.
Falcon isn't an Avenger when Rogers encounters him. Neither is Peggy, or Sharon Carter. He's a man who came of age in the 1940s and a soldier who was pulled directly out of armed conflict into another era; for all that, he handles himself pretty well.
Trusting his moral compass brought him out of being a war bond poster boy into making a significant impact on the war, led the remnants of SHIELD to fight against the conspiracy that had sprung up in their midst, and saved his best friend's life. There's a more than slight suggestion it's the reason the Super Soldier serum worked on him in the first place. He isn't without reason to trust it, nor have the consequences suggested otherwise.
Callate said:
Notice that Luthor is not the only one on that side and even his arguments are about the danger Superman presents rather than his usual schtick of just being jealous because he can?t bench press the planet. Senator Finch is depicted as being actually sincere in her worry for the safety of the world rather than the straw man we usually get from the MCU.
...And then she gets blown up, and the next official response we get on the subject is, "I know, let's use supervillains!"
Because people are always able to think clearly when in a fight to the death with a near unstoppable enemy.
No, but it does take the wind right out of a "noble sacrifice" when there are other options at hand. There's supposed to be more daylight between "tragic act of heroism" and "death wish".
This is a superhero film, not a sitcom or a tween movie. The movie established enough not to get bogged down by rom com antics.
Because the only things that can present credible relationships are romantic comedies, sitcoms, and tween movies?
Maybe there's a difference between "getting bogged down" and going beyond "remind the audience that they're there just enough that they can be used as a hostage"?
I?m not exactly sure what more you?d have wanted them to do with him, without having him completely over take the plot. Especially given how much flack the X-Men movies have gotten for their increasing focus on Wolverine to the detriment of other characters. El Diablo got as much development as is needed for a guy in an ensemble cast and frankly it?s on par with, if not better, than what we tend to get in the Avengers movies or any big budget action film, lest you start to think I?m singling out the MCU.
There have been a tremendous number of movies about people who try to leave violence behind, only for circumstances to force it back into their lives. Just off the top of my head,
Unforgiven,
A History of Violence, and
John Wick come to mind. If I could believe for one moment that El Diablo's return to aggression actually cost him something, or that he made an active choice to give up pacifism to protect people that he cared about, it would make a world of difference- and possibly even make me care when he gets killed in the final conflict.
Instead, it feels like his "arc", such as it is, drums along to a perfunctory set of beats that have as much to do with setting up special effect shots as anything resembling motivation. His emotional range goes all the way from "slightly pissed off" to "totally pissed off"; I can't believe his guilt or his affection when we're told that he's showing either.
By comparison, an example from Netflix's take on the Marvel Universe-
Luke Cage. Mid-way through the series, the villain "Cottonmouth" is replaced with another, "Diamondback"- and as I commented to a friend, "crazy train" describes 100% of the latter's emotional range and 90% of his motivation. He wasn't nearly as interesting as what he supplanted. "Cottonmouth" was a better character because he could display calm, happiness, creative impulses-
and terrifying, violent, impulsive rage.
Much like I said of the movies over-all, you have to have some valleys as well as some peaks. And you have to treat the valleys as seriously as you do the peaks, not just as filler or set-up for the next bout of thunder.
I should probably inform you that the premise of this movie is Diana being exposed to just how harsh and cruel the world can be and finding that her mom and her people had very good points for abandoning humanity. It also takes place during WW1, easily the most pointless war in human history. It just won?t be her overcoming obstacles via girl power.
If it helps, some of the people who saw her early screenings of it seem to like it.
I hope their assessment of it matches my own, then.