Civil War What you didn't like about Captain America: Civil War - Flaws/Critiques

[Flint Marko]

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

No.

It's fine if you think that. Just understand you're firmly in the minority that isn't currently enjoying the superhero genre operating at its biggest and arguably best yet.

 

[TeeKay]

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

No.

Name another studio that has the consistency of Marvel studios?

 

[Kobra]

It's fine if you think that. Just understand you're firmly in the minority that isn't currently enjoying the superhero genre operating at its biggest and arguably best yet.

"Because i don't really have an argument, i'm gonna tell you that most people don't think like you, which means you're wrong, because the majority is always right"

Btw, i wouldn't be too sure the majority really thinks CW has a well crafted plot. People can like movies for several different reasons.

 

[Kobra]

Name another studio that has the consistency of Marvel studios?

In what? In delivering good entertainment for when i'm feeling brain dead? All studios can do that.

 

[Flint Marko]

"Because i don't really have an argument, i'm gonna tell you that most people don't think like you, which means you're wrong, because the majority is always right"

Btw, i wouldn't be too sure the majority really thinks CW has a well crafted plot. People can like movies for several different reasons.

Oh trust me I have an argument, I'm just not about to waste it on someone whose idea of a rebuttal is "loooooooool no". And I'm the one without the argument?

In what? In delivering good entertainment for when i'm feeling brain dead? All studios can do that.

If all studios can do that, why haven't any of them been near as successful?

 

[Kobra]

Oh trust me I have an argument, I'm just not about to waste it on someone whose idea of a rebuttal is "loooooooool no". And I'm the one without the argument?



If all studios can do that, why haven't any of them been near as successful?

I don't know. Because some studios are better than others at making stupid movies?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I don't know. Because some studios are better than others at making stupid movies?

This right here shows you have no argument and are now just being plain insulting.

 

[Aejej]

Marvel keep pulling their punches because they know the GA want feel good movies. They're trying to elevate it but won't risk any serious consequences in their movies so they all end up feeling a little thin.

Absitively, posolutely this.

And Marvel killed off Quicksilver and all people did was complain they wasted a good character.

That's an exaggeration, by far. Everyone knew he was cannon fodder and that his death was a stupid one.

If they had killed Rhodey, the same people complaining about Marvel pulling their punches would be complaining that "no one cares about Rhodey, they're still pulling their punches because they're never going to kill off a big character".

And they wouldn't be wrong.

I understand the argument, but I have a feeling Infinity War will give us the death of a major character.

There will deaths of characters, plural, and they will all be undone.

 

[Flint Marko]

And they wouldn't be wrong.



There will deaths of characters, plural, and they will all be undone.

Talk to me when competing studios with similarly valuable IP's that see theatrical releases twice a year start killing characters off. Spoiler alert: it's not going to happen any time soon. And no, BvS does not count.
I could care less if no one dies, or everyone dies, in a particular story as long as it's well crafted. So far Marvel has consistently cranked out movies I've enjoyed, Civil War being right at the top. I think killing a major character off in Infinity War would be a good way to end Phase 3 but if that doesn't happen, I won't blink an eye as long as the stories continue to be great and the characters are engaging.

This right here shows you have no argument and are now just being plain insulting.

Anyone familiar with his posting history already knew that.

 

[Aejej]

I could care less if no one dies, or everyone dies, in a particular story as long as it's well crafted. So far Marvel has consistently cranked out movies I've enjoyed, Civil War being right at the top. I think killing a major character off in Infinity War would be a good way to end Phase 3 but if that doesn't happen, I won't blink an eye as long as the stories continue to be great and the characters are engaging.

I don't think you understood what I meant by "they will all be undone."

 

[kedrell]

Marvel keep pulling their punches because they know the GA want feel good movies. They're trying to elevate it but won't risk any serious consequences in their movies so they all end up feeling a little thin.

What's wrong with feel good movies? And since when has going dour and killing characters off = elevating things? Like it's somehow better. Bull***t. The stuff your talking about is better for one-and-done movies, not franchises. Neither is 'better' than the other. They're just different. In franchise films the only ones who get killed off are the ones that they could afford to do so anyway(Obi-Wan, Gandalf, Quicksilver, Boromir, Uncle Ben, Rachel Dawes, Han Solo, Pa Kent, etc.) and half the time they end up getting a loophole that lets them stick around anyway(by literally rising from the dead or coming back as a ghost or getting flashback scenes in the next movie). This isn't a Marvel thing. This is a Hollywood thing, a movies in general thing. Solo films have some freedoms franchises have but franchises have advantages solo films will never have. CW couldn't have ever been a solo movie. It would not have had the impact w/o the dozen films leading up to it. Not even close to the level of impact. We watched these two main characters start off at opposite ends of the personality spectrum and slowly, organically throughout a dozen films they migrated to the place where the opposite character was at the beginning. And we really didn't even notice it so much at first until you looked back and saw how far from their initial positions they had come. Kinda like having the current slowly pull you out to sea. Cap in CW would totally back up the Tony of IM1 and the beginning of IM2 during that Senate hearing.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It's not about being some sort of mystery. It's about being properly developed and well crafted to the point where the viewer's attention is focused on the story. The problem with movies like this is that they basically just introduce ideas and never really develope them because they are too busy with fighting sequences. The answers to the questions are always very simple. There's nothing fascinating about the resolutions.

It's just not very good storytelling. But to be fair, this is not CW's problem. This is pretty much every CBM's problem. Studios are just content in making the same simplistic cartoon-like plot over and over again, because it doesn't take much risk. It's a proven formula. But that's not what's going to elevate the genre. Nolan at least tried to elevate the whole thing. He wasn't happy with simply providing you with an extended cut of a sunday morning cartoon. The man tried to make a genuinelly great film than could easily compete with some of the all time greats. Now this...this is just baby food.

The greatest quality of CW is that it actually convinced a lot of people that they were watching an example of great filmmaking. It's a little bit like products like Red Bull. Sometimes it's better to have great business men behind a movie than great artists.

I completely disagree. I think you're confusing what you think of as a good plot with simply a different kind of plot. Is Casino Royale a bad film because it has high action and not many scenes where the characters sit down and engage in verbal sparring ala Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy? No, it's just different.

And to be honest man, I respect that you didn't like the film, but all you've done is come in and repeat variations of "I don't think it's a good plot" without giving any reasons for why you think it was so. On the other hand, I think CW had a very well put together plot, some of the best arcs for many of it's characters involved, and easily handled the ensemble superhero make up the best of any Superhero film yet. They equally divided the time and each character felt like they should be there, we saw how their relationships were formed even when some characters only got a small amount of time, and overall (and most importantly) the relationships and conflict felt REAL. That's what made it a good film.

 

[Jaxon]

What's wrong with feel good movies? And since when has going dour and killing characters off = elevating things? Like it's somehow better. Bull***t. The stuff your talking about is better for one-and-done movies, not franchises. Neither is 'better' than the other. They're just different. In franchise films the only ones who get killed off are the ones that they could afford to do so anyway(Obi-Wan, Gandalf, Quicksilver, Boromir, Uncle Ben, Rachel Dawes, Han Solo, Pa Kent, etc.) and half the time they end up getting a loophole that lets them stick around anyway(by literally rising from the dead or coming back as a ghost or getting flashback scenes in the next movie). This isn't a Marvel thing. This is a Hollywood thing, a movies in general thing. Solo films have some freedoms franchises have but franchises have advantages solo films will never have. CW couldn't have ever been a solo movie. It would not have had the impact w/o the dozen films leading up to it. Not even close to the level of impact. We watched these two main characters start off at opposite ends of the personality spectrum and slowly, organically throughout a dozen films they migrated to the place where the opposite character was at the beginning. And we really didn't even notice it so much at first until you looked back and saw how far from their initial positions they had come. Kinda like having the current slowly pull you out to sea. Cap in CW would totally back up the Tony of IM1 and the beginning of IM2 during that Senate hearing.

You have to keep IM, Cap, and Thor because they are the true core. The rest you can use to punctuate drama around these guys.

Example: Ultron - The Avengers foremost threat. He captures Widow and just leaves her alone (and let's not add in that he leaves her with a comm's device). He should have murdered her, she wasn't being used for any leverage. Problem is, Scarlett Johanson is so popular among women aged 15-30 they wouldn't dare risk killing off that money. It's good business sense but the movie becomes weak.

Example 2: Civil war - Rhodey falls about 10,000 feet and the worst thing that happens is that Tony gives him robot legs. That's 10 types of garbage. He should have been murdered by Winter Soldier to raise the dramatic rift between Tony and Steve and give real pay off at the end, not "hey, yeah, I knew the Manchurian candidate did it, but it's all cool, 2 minutes ago you were OK with his innocence and his mind control so you know. Wait, what, we're fighting now?".

Example 3: Thor Dark World - well, well, they actually kill Thor's mother but he just ignores it, so they completely write around any impact the murder of his mother in front of his eyes would have because the levity is too much. So Thor's character arc is just hollow and no one cares for that movie.

Example 4: IM3 - Pepper gets killed. Oh wait no she doesn't, she's saved by the magic formula. So instead of Tony going into a spiral of depression where his IM technology could have led to the death of Pepper, and led him into down a dark path of creating Ultron and going through a redemption arc, they just write that all's cool again. No one is in danger ever, have a few laughs, next movie.


Now they're hugely successful, and will be dearly remembered, but they're thin as f***

 

[Mjölnir]

You have to keep IM, Cap, and Thor because they are the true core. The rest you can use to punctuate drama around these guys.

Example: Ultron - The Avengers foremost threat. He captures Widow and just leaves her alone (and let's not add in that he leaves her with a comm's device). He should have murdered her, she wasn't being used for any leverage. Problem is, Scarlett Johanson is so popular among women aged 15-30 they wouldn't dare risk killing off that money. It's good business sense but the movie becomes weak.

Example 2: Civil war - Rhodey falls about 10,000 feet and the worst thing that happens is that Tony gives him robot legs. That's 10 types of garbage. He should have been murdered by Winter Soldier to raise the dramatic rift between Tony and Steve and give real pay off at the end, not "hey, yeah, I knew the Manchurian candidate did it, but it's all cool, 2 minutes ago you were OK with his innocence and his mind control so you know. Wait, what, we're fighting now?".

Example 3: Thor Dark World - well, well, they actually kill Thor's mother but he just ignores it, so they completely write around any impact the murder of his mother in front of his eyes would have because the levity is too much. So Thor's character arc is just hollow and no one cares for that movie.

Example 4: IM3 - Pepper gets killed. Oh wait no she doesn't, she's saved by the magic formula. So instead of Tony going into a spiral of depression where his IM technology could have led to the death of Pepper, and led him into down a dark path of creating Ultron and going through a redemption arc, they just write that all's cool again. No one is in danger ever, have a few laughs, next movie.


Now they're hugely successful, and will be dearly remembered, but they're thin as f***

1. You've missed part of Ultron's disturbed personality. He took Widow because he was alone after the twins left. Ultron is all about contradiction. He seeks to destroy humanity but still he has some affection for us and actually wants to be more human in a way. That's a more interesting part to show than to just have him kill her before he kills everyone.

2. Your suggestion removes the impact in the group (who don't really want to fight each other and a serious injury was a big realization for some) and just reduces the impact of the finale. Much worse than what we got.

3. He doesn't ignore it so you're just making things up. The focus lies more on Loki's turn due to the death though, where Thor has more focus on the conflict with his father, but it's certainly not ignored.

4. That doesn't really fit with the movie as it takes away the arc of the character. If they planned to do that the movie should have been written differently overall.

 

[Jaxon]

1. You've missed part of Ultron's disturbed personality. He took Widow because he was alone after the twins left. Ultron is all about contradiction. He seeks to destroy humanity but still he has some affection for us and actually wants to be more human in a way. That's a more interesting part to show than to just have him kill her before he kills everyone.

2. Your suggestion removes the impact in the group (who don't really want to fight each other and a serious injury was a big realization for some) and just reduces the impact of the finale. Much worse than what we got.

3. He doesn't ignore it so you're just making things up. The focus lies more on Loki's turn due to the death though, where Thor has more focus on the conflict with his father, but it's certainly not ignored.

4. That doesn't really fit with the movie as it takes away the arc of the character. If they planned to do that the movie should have been written differently overall.

1. No he takes her to exchange her for the Vision body. Once he becomes aware of that he should have killed her.

2. What we got was acceptable enough but the fact that no one was ever in danger from an alien attack is just ridiculous.

3. Once Thor's mother is killed in front of him we see the impact on Odin and Thor is all la di da let's get on with it. It was so laughable. I was watching going wtf his mother just got murdered, maybe get upset or something.

4. Yes my version is infinitely better than the movie presented and would have greater threads into the other movies. F*** even his friend survived the eexplosion. They all survive! Hiw is there any tension in the MCU. Answer: there's none.

 

[JB33]

1. No he takes her to exchange her for the Vision body. Once he becomes aware of that he should have killed her.

2. What we got was acceptable enough but the fact that no one was ever in danger from an alien attack is just ridiculous.

3. Once Thor's mother is killed in front of him we see the impact on Odin and Thor is all la di da let's get on with it. It was so laughable. I was watching going wtf his mother just got murdered, maybe get upset or something.

4. Yes my version is infinitely better than the movie presented and would have greater threads into the other movies. F*** even his friend survived the eexplosion. They all survive! Hiw is there any tension in the MCU. Answer: there's none.

It's just the style of MCU movies. There's less tension (although their IS tension and stakes) and more classic comic book-y goodness.

This doesn't mean the audience doesn't like super gritty, tense superhero movies either, as the last two Dark Knight films were both mega hits. As you can see, the audience likes variety and will go see different types and styles of movies. Go figure!!

 

[JtheDreamer]

1. You've missed part of Ultron's disturbed personality. He took Widow because he was alone after the twins left. Ultron is all about contradiction. He seeks to destroy humanity but still he has some affection for us and actually wants to be more human in a way. That's a more interesting part to show than to just have him kill her before he kills everyone.

Whaaaaaa? He didn't have affection for humanity. He kept Widow alive because he had nobody else to show what he was up to with the vibranium. He literally says that in the movie.

 

[Bebop Cowboy]

Just a really small thing..and not really the film's fault... But I just felt like everyone seemed to have the same powers. This kind of superhuman strength and MMA/parkour fighting style.

For me it just didn't allow individuals to stand out as much. Like I said it's a little thing, but if I can use an example, I really dug Vision's fight scene where incorporated his phase ability into his fighting style. I know the others did show off all their abilities very well, I just felt that we were constantly watching Cap, Panther, Bucky, Hawkeye, Widow, Crossbones, even Iron Man in the end fight, having some sort of very similar fighting style.

If anything, the worst thing about the movie was the shaky cam fights. They were bordering o Michael Bay, can't see a damn thing, type scenes. The opening battle I wasn;t really enjoying due to the filming style.

 

[souperman]

Just saw CW the first time.

Was it just my theater or was the first big street fight scene "stroby" ?

The fast action looked like it was being shown on a computer screen with lag. Very choppy and unnatural looking and distracting.

Anyone else notice this?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Stroby? Don't remember that at all so I'm thinking it was your theater's problem.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Just saw CW the first time.

Was it just my theater or was the first big street fight scene "stroby" ?

The fast action looked like it was being shown on a computer screen with lag. Very choppy and unnatural looking and distracting.

Anyone else notice this?

No, I think there was some kind of over cranking type effect used which added to the "shaky cam" many noticed. I think this was used to help cover up the use of stunt men and women. It's noticeable and for some reason is absent for the most the rest of the film. It's there in the Lagos scene for sure.

 

[Jaxon]

No, I think there was some kind of over cranking type effect used which added to the "shaky cam" many noticed. I think this was used to help cover up the use of stunt men and women. It's noticeable and for some reason is absent for the most the rest of the film. It's there in the Lagos scene for sure.

Yep, they use the shaky cam primarily to the hide the faces of the stunt doubles, and secondary to give the "frantic" feel. The more people they build into the fights the more of the shaky cam there's going to be.

 

[TheRoman]

I actually liked the political symbolism in the movie though at times it got preachy. Overall though, it made the film work on a way that transcended the usual superhero plot and actually made for a pretty solid commentary on drones, secret prisons, and all sorts of stuff.

The article enclosed goes into some more detail.

https://medium.com/@muricamedia/is-...g-drones-in-civil-war-eff57329a6d3#.2bwjkwavk

REDWING!

 

[Aejej]

Just saw CW the first time.

Was it just my theater or was the first big street fight scene "stroby" ?

The fast action looked like it was being shown on a computer screen with lag. Very choppy and unnatural looking and distracting.

Anyone else notice this?

Yes. The action in the opening scene, and the Cap-Bucky-Panther pursuit/fight (and then Bucky's breakout) was filmed shaky-cam style with wacko shutter-flitter (that "strobe" effect) and too many cuts. Also, the actors' movements was sped up a LOT. Unnecessary. If you're going to go shaky, okay (but not that much). But don't do everything else.

 

[Consona]

MEGA SPOILER

Is it just me, or is the fact Bucky was brainwashed a huge flaw in the logic of the most important scene in the film