Superhero Cinematic Civil War - - - - - Part 45

[Spider-Fan]

It was Iron Man v Captain America: Totally Solo.

Or was it Captain America v Iron Man?

What was the name of the movie again? CAPTAIN AMERICA: Civil War

Spiritually you can argue it, but it counts as a solo.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I think most people refer to it as Civil War and consider it a "team" film, just not the same type of team film as the Avengers films. I mean Cap's "solo" movie features more heroes than the two Avengers films before it...

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think most people refer to it as Civil War and consider it a "team" film, just not the same type of team film as the Avengers films. I mean Cap's "solo" movie features more heroes than the two Avengers films before it...

I get why it is not considered a solo by some, but at the end of the day that film is in the Captain America trilogy. Therefore it is considered a solo film, even if it features other characters.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I get why it is not considered a solo by some, but at the end of the day that film is in the Captain America trilogy. Therefore it is considered a solo film, even if it features other characters.

Officially it is Cap 3 but it does exist in a sort of gray area

 

[Spider-Fan]

Officially it is Cap 3 but it does exist in a sort of gray area

Not really. While it features many characters, it still is a Captain America movie. Even Stark's role, large as it was in the movie, was still in service of Captain America's arc/story in the film. Cap's arc coincided with the Civil War aspect AND the Zemo plotline. Stark only merged into the Zemo plot at the very end, and that was mainly to serve as an adversary to Cap at the end of the movie.

I think we kind of allow the fact it has so many characters complicate it a little bit.

 

[Flint Marko]

The way I see it, it's a diet-Avengers movie (Thor and Hulk aren't there, so....) as told through Cap's eyes. Ergo, it's his story. Ergo, it's his movie.

 

[Hammer!]

It’s like Captain America: Reborn by Brubaker. Could of easily been under the Avengers label but it wasn’t, so it’s a Cap book. Like that mini series, the film was made by the entire team who did the previous Cap movie so I have no problem calling it a Cap movie. Solo comics do this all the time with no one giving as much thought as they do here.

 

[DACrowe]

What was the name of the movie again? CAPTAIN AMERICA: Civil War

Spiritually you can argue it, but it counts as a solo.

Maybe, but the reason it was the Cap movie to make over a billion dollars is because it also starred Robert Downey Jr. and was marketed as an Avengers movie. And I can only speak for myself and folks I know directly, but the stuff that everyone liked in the movie was the airport fight and Tony vs. Steve. The Bucky stuff, for me at least, kind of dragged the movie down.

 

[DA_Champion]

The success of Black Panther helps inform how WB/DC messed up Cyborg.

Ray Fisher's character was actually one of the bright spots of Justice League, I think that he had the only significant character arc, and that he and Batman might be the only protagonists whose decisions had any impact on the plot. I liked Cyborg, and there's good potential there but ... they've squandered his origin story on an awful team movie where it got very little screen time.

In contrast, T'Challa's origin was not squandered on Civil War, we were only introduced to him. We saw an interesting new character of decent strength, and the introduction served to stimulate interest and provide a mystery, rather than to resolve a character arc. They set him up a lay up, rather than completing the lay up ... which is far wiser and kind of obvious in my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

I personally really enjoyed DS and GOTG2, and frankly, I think GOTG2 is very similar to 1, so I don't get how some people love 1 but rip on 2.

That aside, I'm similar to you with Hela. I enjoyed her, but she's not one of my favs. But I understand why people do. Sometimes you just want a crazy OTT villain, and she did that perfectly. Let's be real, Darth Vader had no character development other than silent badass for two Star Wars films (until literally the last minutes of Empire), yet he is regarded as one of the best villains of all time. Why? because he's badass. The Terminator has no character development in T1, but he's also regarded as one of the best villains of all time. Why? Badass. The Predator...well, you get the picture.

Sometimes, people just want badass, crazy villains. I prefer villains with more depth too (which is why I really enjoyed Keaton in HC and I'm looking forward to Killmonger once I see BP), but I get why people like the one dimensional over the top villains. They're fun.

Oh I don't mind crazy cartoonish villains. Some can become elemental and, as you say, true epic standouts like Vader. Hela to me is not Vader, because she spends most of the movie as an afterthought as the "fun" is happening on Jeff Goldblum's planet. In that sense, I feel like Goldblum is as much the main villain as she is. Blanchett is terrific, but what they gave her was only decent. I think that is what separates her from villains who really define their movies like Vulture in SMHC or Killmonger. Even Ego, who I don't think is an amazing villain, I think had more menace and had a bigger impact on the hero than Hela, who felt more like an arbitrary obstacle who was doing spring cleaning for Phase 4 (hence killing off the Heroes Three while not even giving two of them any dialogue).

 

[Spider-Fan]

Maybe, but the reason it was the Cap movie to make over a billion dollars is because it also starred Robert Downey Jr. and was marketed as an Avengers movie. And I can only speak for myself and folks I know directly, but the stuff that everyone liked in the movie was the airport fight and Tony vs. Steve. The Bucky stuff, for me at least, kind of dragged the movie down.

What people liked or disliked about the movie is not really relevant. The Bucky stuff is still part of the movie, and not a small part either. The airport was not the climax. The climax came down to Iron Man going after Bucky, effectively being the villain Cap needed to overcome to save his friend in that particular sequence.

Heck, Black Panther is the breakout character of the movie. He is on Stark's team. Ask yourself this: when did Black Panther have any dialogue with Iron Man? You're going to be searching a very long time. But, he had several with Captain America.

 

[2kt09]

The success of Black Panther helps inform how WB/DC messed up Cyborg.

Ray Fisher's character was actually one of the bright spots of Justice League, I think that he had the only significant character arc, and that he and Batman might be the only protagonists whose decisions had any impact on the plot. I liked Cyborg, and there's good potential there but ... they've squandered his origin story on an awful team movie where it got very little screen time.

In contrast, T'Challa's origin was not squandered on Civil War, we were only introduced to him. We saw an interesting new character of decent strength, and the introduction served to stimulate interest and provide a mystery, rather than to resolve a character arc. They set him up a lay up, rather than completing the lay up ... which is far wiser and kind of obvious in my opinion.

No need to remind all the cut footage. JL was supposed to be his movie, which is something the source material doesn't put as much of an emphasis on even though he's the most integral character to the story.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It feels like a dream. I cannot believe Black Panther will gross domestically more in 4 days than Justice League for its entire theater run.

We live in a different world folks.

 

[Samuron]

Officially it is Cap 3 but it does exist in a sort of gray area

Maybe it's different today, but in the old days, stories spanned multiple titles all the time.

I think it's a perfect illustration (no pun intended) of how Feige and company have translated the Comic Book experience to film. You have the major and minor titles, but all of them are developing amid the backdrop of the major story lines.

 

[DACrowe]

What people liked or disliked about the movie is not really relevant. The Bucky stuff is still part of the movie, and not a small part either. The airport was not the climax. The climax came down to Iron Man going after Bucky, effectively being the villain Cap needed to overcome to save his friend in that particular sequence.

Heck, Black Panther is the breakout character of the movie. He is on Stark's team. Ask yourself this: when did Black Panther have any dialogue with Iron Man? You're going to be searching a very long time. But, he had several with Captain America.

The other breakout character was Spider-Man. And he had a lot of scenes with Stark as I recall.

You're right the Bucky stuff is a significant part of the movie. The weakest part, but still a part. You also reminded me that even so, Tony and Steve is the real relationship that matters in the movie. Theirs is the friendship that is (kind of but not really, because it's Marvel) ended. Theirs is the relationship that defines the conflict. And you're right, the end of the movie is about Tony vs. Steve. Bucky is a cause, but the focus is on two Avengers with their hands at each other's throat.

Further Stark is the one with the arc in the movie. He goes from egotist loner to feeling guilty over global instability, to being the one who tries to rein Cap in, to becoming disillusioned in his friendship with Cap, the government he trusted, and arguably even the Avengers themselves. He drives most of the conflict of the movie, even if he ends up being an antagonist.

I won't dispute that it is called Captain America: Civil War. But the reason it is so good, and the reason it made a billion dollars, is because it is really an Avengers movie that co-stars RDJ. And I wouldn't be surprised if most moviegoers remember it as simply "Civil War" or an Avengers movie. That admittedly I can't prove, but when James Gunn is irked that THR is saying he is an "Avengers director," I think it's clear that audiences and even trades aren't sweating the specifics as these lines blur more and more.

It's why I really appreciate Black Panther being so standalone. Yes, there are a few allusions to Civil War in it, but other than the post-credits scene, it is a completely autonomous and original movie. And, I would argue, it is better for it.

 

[Erzengel]

Even if there was a significant arc that got squandered in JL, I was never confident in a Cyborg movie and thought it'd turn into a Titans movie.

However, with there being a Titans tv show and Cyborg being "wasted", it seems even less likely now.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The other breakout character was Spider-Man. And he had a lot of scenes with Stark as I recall.

But he also had one memorable one with Cap. Stark had 0 with T'Challa

You're right the Bucky stuff is a significant part of the movie. The weakest part. And you reminded me that even so, Tony and Steve is the real relationship that matters in the movie. Theirs is the friendship that is (kind of but not really, because it's Marvel) ended. Theirs is the relationship that defines the conflict. And you're right, the end of the movie is about Tony vs. Steve. Bucky is a cause, but the focus is on two Avengers with their hands at each other's throat.

Further Stark is the one with the arc in the movie. He goes from egotist loner to feeling guilty over global instability, to being the one who tries to rein Cap in, to becoming disillusioned in his friendship with Cap, the government he trusted, and arguably even the Avengers themselves. He drives most of the conflict of the movie, even if he ends up being an antagonist.

I won't dispute that it is called Captain America: Civil War. But the reason it is so good, and the reason it made a billion dollars, is because it is really an Avengers movie that co-stars RDJ. And I wouldn't be surprised if most moviegoers remember it as simply "Civil War" or an Avengers movie. That admittedly I can't prove, but when James Gunn is irked that THR is saying he is an "Avengers director," I think it's clear that audiences and even trades aren't sweating the specifics as these lines blur more and more.

It's why I really appreciate Black Panther being so standalone. Yes, there are a few allusions to Civil War in it, but other than the post-credits scene, it is a completely autonomous and original movie. And, I would argue, it is better for it.

Are you saying Cap has no arc in the movie? Because that is 100% wrong. Steve in this movie goes from being the leader everyone should look up to and owning that mantle, to becoming someone who sees how that power not only corrupted SHIELD, but has corrupted himself, thus he doesn't want to be Captain America, the symbol, anymore. He is rejecting that identity due to the Accords AND his own actions.

Yes, you have effectively shown Stark's arc. But, supporting characters and villains often still have arcs. But, to say Stark is the one that has the arc implies Cap has no arc, which is just wrong. He has the arc most relevant to the movie and its themes.

 

[DACrowe]

But he also had one memorable one with Cap. Stark had 0 with T'Challa




Are you saying Cap has no arc in the movie? Because that is 100% wrong. Steve in this movie goes from being the leader everyone should look up to and owning that mantle, to becoming someone who sees how that power not only corrupted SHIELD, but has corrupted himself, thus he doesn't want to be Captain America, the symbol, anymore. He is rejecting that identity due to the Accords AND his own actions.

Yes, you have effectively shown Stark's arc. But, supporting characters and villains often still have arcs. But, to say Stark is the one that has the arc implies Cap has no arc, which is just wrong. He has the arc most relevant to the movie and its themes.

I don't see Steve changes fundamentally as a character throughout the movie. He is the same guy from beginning to end. You're right he gives up the mantle or title of Captain America, because Tony demands he give up the shield, saying he doesn't deserve it. And Steve seems to agree that is a fair price for his actions and throws down the shield.

But he is still the stubborn guy who "can't look the other way" when he sees something he thinks is wrong. His choice to do that costs him a lot, but as a person he is still the guy who will give it all up to defend Bucky from the beginning of the movie to the end of the movie. It is just external forces like Tony and the UN Accords punish him severely for being who he is. But he remains the same. Which is fine. He is the kind of altruistic absolutist of the MCU. At least since the end of TWS anyway.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't see Steve changes fundamentally as a character throughout the movie. He is the same guy from beginning to end. You're right he gives up the mantle or title of Captain America, because Tony demands he give up the shield, saying he doesn't deserve it. And Steve seems to agree that is a fair price for his actions and throws down the shield.

Steve is a strong willed guy (like you said later) and admits he failed Tony in the letter. But, Steve would not willingly hand over the shield and give up being Captain America just because Tony said drop the shield. Steve saw his own failures. Hiding the truth from Tony created the fight in the end, and allowed Zemo to put the whole Civil War plan into motion (if Zemo did not have this information after all, would he have proceeded with this plan?). Ultimately, he bears the greatest responsibility for the whole situation, including the imprisonment of his comrades. So, Steve is willingly handing the shield and the identity over because he feels it is the right thing to do and that maybe he doesn't deserve to be "Captain America." Yes, he is standing by his decision of not siding with the Accords because he feels they are wrong (and that doesn't change), but he clearly views himself differently by the end of the film. If Steve didn't change at all, he would have remained Captain America even in the face of persecution.

 

[The Batman]

I won't dispute that it is called Captain America: Civil War. But the reason it is so good, and the reason it made a billion dollars, is because it is really an Avengers movie that co-stars RDJ. And I wouldn't be surprised if most moviegoers remember it as simply "Civil War" or an Avengers movie. That admittedly I can't prove, but when James Gunn is irked that THR is saying he is an "Avengers director," I think it's clear that audiences and even trades aren't sweating the specifics as these lines blur more and more.

This. Civil War is pretty much Avengers 3 as far as I'm concerned. Tony is basically the co lead of the film. If CW were actually Cap 3, it wouldn't have made the money that it did.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Oh I don't mind crazy cartoonish villains. Some can become elemental and, as you say, true epic standouts like Vader. Hela to me is not Vader, because she spends most of the movie as an afterthought as the "fun" is happening on Jeff Goldblum's planet. In that sense, I feel like Goldblum is as much the main villain as she is. Blanchett is terrific, but what they gave her was only decent. I think that is what separates her from villains who really define their movies like Vulture in SMHC or Killmonger. Even Ego, who I don't think is an amazing villain, I think had more menace and had a bigger impact on the hero than Hela, who felt more like an arbitrary obstacle who was doing spring cleaning for Phase 4 (hence killing off the Heroes Three while not even giving two of them any dialogue).

True. And while I enjoyed Hela, I would agree that Goldblum was definitely the standout in that film for me. When Goldblum goes full Goldblum, there's no stopping him from stealing the movie. And he did that.

Overall I would agree. While Hela was enjoyable and Blanchett was clearly having going over the top, I wouldn't put her on the same level of great Marvel villains like Vulture or Loki and apparently Killmonger (I really need to see BP). I would probably put her and Ego in a category together. They're certainly not bland or forgettable like some of the earlier Marvel films, but they didn't quite reach the level that Vulture or Loki did. Though I did enjoy the personal connection Ego had more than Hela in Thor. Even though she had a familial connection as well, it was much more personal in GOTG2 than it was in Thor.

I actually might put Hela together with Ronin. They're both essentially villains in action comedy's, and they fulfill the exact roles they need to. Are they very deep or pathological? No. But damn if they aren't fun.

 

[StarLord]

It feels like a dream. I cannot believe Black Panther will gross domestically more in 4 days than Justice League for its entire theater run.

We live in a different world folks.

The panic button at WB must be needing replaced.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[UltimatePyro9]

It feels like a dream. I cannot believe Black Panther will gross domestically more in 4 days than Justice League for its entire theater run.

We live in a different world folks.

That’s the Marvel Machine baby. Maybe the DCEU will reboot itself into a good universe.

 

[StarLord]