The Defenders This show in the larger MCU...

[Havok83]

Peter didn't have a horse in that race either and Stark decided to choose one for him. I thought the Accord was the reason why the Avengers weren't all on the same page in the first place

Well Ive already mentioned that I thought it was beyond stupid to recruit Peter. With that said, he idolized Tony and was very impressionable. He was beyond honored to be involved with the Avengers and acted like he was in heaven.

The Avengers were divided on the Accords but that was not the main source of conflict. Unlike the comics, the "civil war" wasnt about that in the movie. The Airport fight was solely about arresting Captain America and Bucky bc both were fugitives. Bucky allegedly committed a crime when the bomb went off at the Accord signing and Cap aided him escape. Tony built a team to take in these "international terrorists".

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Well Ive already mentioned that I thought it was beyond stupid to recruit Peter. With that said, he idolized Tony and was very impressionable. He was beyond honored to be involved with the Avengers and acted like he was in heaven.

The Avengers were divided on the Accords but that was not the main source of conflict. Unlike the comics, the "civil war" wasnt about that in the movie. The Airport fight was solely about arresting Captain America and Bucky bc both were fugitives. Bucky allegedly committed a crime when the bomb went off at the Accord signing and Cap aided him escape. Tony built a team to take in these "international terrorists".

got it. Well, Tony could've used all the help he can get. If the Netflix characters wouldn't listen to him, fine, but he did not even try. If he thought they weren't a shot, I don't think that makes sense, but fine. But for the film and the character to not acknowledge that he had options in New York is beyond stupid too.

 

[Havok83]

got it. Well, Tony could've used all the help he can get. If the Netflix characters wouldn't listen to him, fine, but he did not even try. If he thought they weren't a shot, I don't think that makes sense, but fine. But for the film and the character to not acknowledge that he had options in New York is beyond stupid too.

I dont think he needed to even get anyone. When Tony went to recruit Peter all Cap had was himself and Falcon. Tony didnt know about Antman. Wanda was firmly with him and Hawkeye was retired with his family. Those are factors that werent in the equation until he showed up to the airport and saw them there. Meanwhile Tony had Rhodey, BW, Vision and BP when the split happened

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I dont think he needed to even get anyone. When Tony went to recruit Peter all Cap had was himself and Falcon. Tony didnt know about Antman. Wanda was firmly with him and Hawkeye was retired with his family. Those are factors that werent in the equation until he showed up to the airport and saw them there. Meanwhile Tony had Rhodey, BW, Vision and BP went the split happened

perhaps he didn't need to get anyone either, but he decided to go to New York to recruit anyway. We're starting to veer into territory of just discussing Civil War itself. I don't think it should've been a cap movie, it should've been an Avengers film and the scope and scale should've been much larger

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think Elektra got a superhuman power boost after she came back to life.

But she was not super soldier level even then.

I think you're on to something here but it still is not a reason for Tony not to even try to recruit him or the other Netflix characters, based on points that have been said over and over again.

But it is a waste of screentime to focus on him if he isn't going to join. Civil War was already nearly 2.5hrs.

nah...the way that film was promoted had Iron Man as almost as important of a character as Cap, with the whole hashtag team cap/hashtag team Iron Man and the poster with them two going head to head; it was a very personal story for Stark too the way I saw it

Killmonger had an emotional story in Black Panther. As did Thanos in IW. Still villains. The team hashtag thing was a marketing ploy, but in narrative terms, Iron Man was serving a villain role.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

But she was not super soldier level even then.

I think she was beyond super soldier serum strength post black sky rebirth, actually.

But it is a waste of screentime to focus on him if he isn't going to join. Civil War was already nearly 2.5hrs.

I definitely would not call it a waste. The movie was disappointing as it was and an acknowledgement of the heroes in New York wouldn't have hurt.

Killmonger had an emotional story in Black Panther. As did Thanos in IW. Still villains. The team hashtag thing was a marketing ploy, but in narrative terms, Iron Man was serving a villain role.

it's not about the villains having emotional stories; I'm comparing Tony to Cap. Zemo had an emotional story too. But Tony was not promoted as a villain, he was promoted as the second lead of a team just like Cap was

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think she was beyond super soldier serum strength post black sky rebirth, actually.

Agree to disagree here. She never does anything nearly as impressive as Cap in any display of power in Defenders.

I definitely would not call it a waste. The movie was disappointing as it was and an acknowledgement of the heroes in New York wouldn't have hurt.

Tell that to my bladder when the movie starts becoming 3 hrs due to cameos. If it was a shorter movie, maybe something like that would have made more sense. But the movie was already long, and the Parker recruitment scene (which was a wild plot divergence) was like 10 minutes. But unlike any of the Defenders, Spidey actually was directly involved in the airport fight. If any of the Defenders was going to help, that's one thing. Then there is a payoff and their inclusion makes sense. But to make an already near 2.5hr movie longer for a cameo recruitment scene with no payoff, that makes no sense.

it's not about the villains having emotional stories; I'm comparing Tony to Cap. Zemo had an emotional story too. But Tony was not promoted as a villain, he was promoted as the second lead of a team just like Cap was

Marketing is immaterial, you have to look at the movie itself. Tony was an obstacle for Cap and a pawn in Zemo's plan. Tony was never in opposition of Zemo until the very end, and even there he was manipulated into fighting Captain America. Cap conversely was in opposition of Zemo and Tony both. He was the hero of the film after all. So, in essence, Tony's role in the film was the Darth Vader to Zemo's Emperor. The fact it wasn't marketed that way is immaterial because that is how the film formats the conflict.

 

[Jh7058622]

This discussion is the reason I loathe CW. And though it had its problems IW is the best "Avengers" film they've done since the original.

 

[Havok83]

Killmonger had an emotional story in Black Panther. As did Thanos in IW. Still villains. The team hashtag thing was a marketing ploy, but in narrative terms, Iron Man was serving a villain role.

Tony wasnt the villian. He was the antagonist in the story. Not the same thing

 

[Spider-Fan]

Tony wasnt the villian. He was the antagonist in the story. Not the same thing

I use villain and antagonist interchangeably, but we're making the same point, LOL!

 

[Havok83]

I use villain and antagonist interchangeably, but we're making the same point, LOL!

Villian: a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel. 2. a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot

Antagonist: a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary.

In a movie/story an antagonist can be the villian and more than not often is, but in rare cases, they are not the same. There was no malicious intent on Tony's part in the film. He wasnt evil and he wasnt setting out to do wrong. That was Zemo. Tony however did directly oppose the main protagonist (Cap) and served as his adversary. People tend to confuse these terms bc they usually serve the same purpose. Not in Civil War though.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Villian: a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel. 2. a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot

Antagonist: a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary.

In a movie/story an antagonist can be the villian and more than not often is, but in rare cases, they are not the same. There was no malicious intent on Tony's part in the film. He wasnt evil and he wasnt setting out to do wrong. That was Zemo. Tony however did directly oppose the main protagonist (Cap) and served as his adversary. People tend to confuse these terms bc they usually serve the same purpose. Not in Civil War though.

Well, he did set out to kill Bucky with malicious intent

But either way, let's call him an antagonist. Either way, his role in the story was in opposition to the main character, not as an equal co-star (like the marketing was indicating). That is my point.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Agree to disagree here. She never does anything nearly as impressive as Cap in any display of power in Defenders.

If we go by the scale of Luke being as strong as Loki, the fact that she was able to knock him on his ass proves she's stronger than Cap because while Cap was able to deal some damage to Loki, he was clearly no match.

Tell that to my bladder when the movie starts becoming 3 hrs due to cameos. If it was a shorter movie, maybe something like that would have made more sense. But the movie was already long, and the Parker recruitment scene (which was a wild plot divergence) was like 10 minutes. But unlike any of the Defenders, Spidey actually was directly involved in the airport fight. If any of the Defenders was going to help, that's one thing. Then there is a payoff and their inclusion makes sense. But to make an already near 2.5hr movie longer for a cameo recruitment scene with no payoff, that makes no sense.

No offense man but this sounds more like a you problem instead of a potential film problem. There are movies that are far longer than 2.5 hours and Spidey was directly involved because Sony and Disney shook hands and shoehorned him into the film. If the producers wanted to they would've made room for the Netflix heroes to some capacity - even if they weren't at the airport.

Marketing is immaterial, you have to look at the movie itself. Tony was an obstacle for Cap and a pawn in Zemo's plan. Tony was never in opposition of Zemo until the very end, and even there he was manipulated into fighting Captain America. Cap conversely was in opposition of Zemo and Tony both. He was the hero of the film after all. So, in essence, Tony's role in the film was the Darth Vader to Zemo's Emperor. The fact it wasn't marketed that way is immaterial because that is how the film formats the conflict.

Nah, marketing is definitely not immaterial; it was a selling point for this movie for sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the audience did not even perceive the film as a cap film but an Avengers film instead. This movie could've been titled Iron Man: Civil War and that would've been just as valid of a title in my opinion.

 

[Spider-Fan]

If we go by the scale of Luke being as strong as Loki, the fact that she was able to knock him on his ass proves she's stronger than Cap because while Cap was able to deal some damage to Loki, he was clearly no match.

How does that prove anything? We have no way to compare Luke's strength vs Loki's. You're using a speculative argument based on an IGN article that is, again, all speculative. Based on what we have actually visibly seen on Netflix and in the movies, I see nothing that indicates she is stronger than Cap. Period. Cap has stopped helicopters by himself. She hit a guy really hard a few times. They are not equal.

No offense man but this sounds more like a you problem instead of a potential film problem. There are movies that are far longer than 2.5 hours and Spidey was directly involved because Sony and Disney shook hands and shoehorned him into the film. If the producers wanted to they would've made room for the Netflix heroes to some capacity - even if they weren't at the airport.

This is not a me problem. There is a thing in film called Checkov's gun. The principle states that if you introduce something, then it needs to come back in the story. If you're just throwing the Defenders in randomly and they don't come back or don't have some payoff, then the scene is pointless. Now, if they would have joined Stark or Cap or something, then their inclusion has payoff and makes sense. But if it is just 5 mins of Stark talking to people who won't be in the movie, then it is wasted screen time that can go to things that actually make the movie itself better.

Nah, marketing is definitely not immaterial; it was a selling point for this movie for sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majorit of the audience did not even perceive the film as a cap film but an Avengers film instead. This movie could've been titled Iron Man: Civil War and that would've been just as valid of a title in my opinion.

Once again, that doesn't matter. Several things in the marketing of IW indicated things that never happened in the movie. Marketing is a way to get people into the seats. The movie itself is the movie, and CW is a Cap movie and Iron Man is an antagonist within the story. This could not have been Iron Man: Civil War because the story wasn't about Iron Man. At its core, the film was about Cap's morality and his friendship with Bucky. Iron Man and the Accords were an obstacle in the way for the main character: Captain America. Who was chasing Zemo throughout the movie? Not Tony, he was chasing Captain America. Cap was chasing Zemo, and Tony was getting in the way of Cap's pursuit. All the plot threads intersect with or go through Captain America, not. Hence why it is a Captain America film. By your definition because they had a Team Cap/Team Iron Man marketing, then in Twilight the main characters would be Edward/Jacob. But the main character is Bella, right? Case in point.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

How does that prove anything? We have no way to compare Luke's strength vs Loki's. You're using a speculative argument based on an IGN article that is, again, all speculative. Based on what we have actually visibly seen on Netflix and in the movies, I see nothing that indicates she is stronger than Cap. Period. Cap has stopped helicopters by himself. She hit a guy really hard a few times. They are not equal.

IGN is a reliable source to me so it's not speculation the way I see it. They are not equal yes, because she's more powerful. If I'm being honest I think Cap is overpowered in the MCU.

This is not a me problem. There is a thing in film called Checkov's gun. The principle states that if you introduce something, then it needs to come back in the story. If you're just throwing the Defenders in randomly and they don't come back or don't have some payoff, then the scene is pointless. Now, if they would have joined Stark or Cap or something, then their inclusion has payoff and makes sense. But if it is just 5 mins of Stark talking to people who won't be in the movie, then it is wasted screen time that can go to things that actually make the movie itself better.

You started this part of your post off by talking about your bladder. If Spiderman showing up is not random, then the Defenders showing up would not be random either. If we're going to break this down and talk about inclusion then we're starting a much bigger conversation about the Civl War movie as a whole. I don't think it should've been dumbed down to being a Captain America movie, and I don't think it should've happened before Av3. The roster should've been built up maybe a phase or so and included much more. As it is, even a passing mention of superheroes in New York would've been a good first step but as it is...the movie doesn't do that either.

Once again, that doesn't matter. Several things in the marketing of IW indicated things that never happened in the movie. Marketing is a way to get people into the seats. The movie itself is the movie, and CW is a Cap movie and Iron Man is an antagonist within the story. This could not have been Iron Man: Civil War because the story wasn't about Iron Man. At its core, the film was about Cap's morality and his friendship with Bucky. Iron Man and the Accords were an obstacle in the way for the main character: Captain America. Who was chasing Zemo throughout the movie? Not Tony, he was chasing Captain America. Cap was chasing Zemo, and Tony was getting in the way of Cap's pursuit. All the plot threads intersect with or go through Captain America, not. Hence why it is a Captain America film. By your definition because they had a Team Cap/Team Iron Man marketing, then in Twilight the main characters would be Edward/Jacob. But the main character is Bella, right? Case in point.

Well...once again it doesn't matter to you. Practically everybody that I discussed the movie with didn't see Cap as the hero and Iron Man as the antagonist because for almost everyone it's interchangeable. For some, Iron Man is the protagonist and Cap is the antagonist; that was the whole point of the hastag team cap/iron man promo. Just coz it doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean that's not what the general consensus worldwide has been for the audience. This movie was just as much a personal story for Cap as it was for Iron Man.

Also I never got to watch any of the Twilight movies so I can't comment there, but what I can compare this movie to is the Civil War comic which was a massive crossover story with two teams led by Captain America and Iron Man. That much is consistent in the movie

 

[Spider-Fan]

IGN is a reliable source to me so it's not speculation the way I see it. They are not equal yes, because she's more powerful. If I'm being honest I think Cap is overpowered in the MCU.

The fact you think he is too powerful doesn't change what he has done in the movies. Elektra did nothing compared to what Cap did in these movies. Elektra could not beat Iron Man or stop a helicopter. Period.

You started this part of your post off by talking about your bladder. If Spiderman showing up is not random, then the Defenders showing up would not be random either. If we're going to break this down and talk about inclusion then we're starting a much bigger conversation about the Civl War movie as a whole. I don't think it should've been dumbed down to being a Captain America movie, and I don't think it should've happened before Av3. The roster should've been built up maybe a phase or so and included much more. As it is, even a passing mention of superheroes in New York would've been a good first step but as it is...the movie doesn't do that either.


Well...once again it doesn't matter to you. Practically everybody that I discussed the movie with didn't see Cap as the hero and Iron Man as the antagonist because for almost everyone it's interchangeable. For some, Iron Man is the protagonist and Cap is the antagonist; that was the whole point of the hastag team cap/iron man promo. Just coz it doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean that's not what the general consensus worldwide has been for the audience. This movie was just as much a personal story for Cap as it was for Iron Man.

Also I never got to watch any of the Twilight movies so I can't comment there, but what I can compare this movie to is the Civil War comic which was a massive crossover story with two teams led by Captain America and Iron Man. That much is consistent in the movie

Whether you don't like how they approached making CW a Cap film, that changes nothing. CW at the end of the day was made as a Captain America film. It wasn't made to be a grand crossover the way IW was made. Yes, it includes many characters from other franchises in the MCU, but it isn't designed to be a massive event crossover like IW was. You can argue over what you WANTED CW to be all day, but that doesn't change what it IS.

I think you're looking at the movie as a fan of the comic book, not evaluating the movie itself. I'm evaluating the movie. It's what I do (as a filmmaker I do that with every movie I watch). Basically what I did in the prior posts is breakdown CW's narrative structure in simpler terms. Yes, Iron Man has a personal journey in CW. Killmonger & Thanos also have personal journeys in their respective films they appeared. They're still antagonists. The best antagonists have personal journeys. Now, you can agree or disagree with either Cap or Iron Man on a personal level. You can see Cap as wrong and Iron Man right, but that doesn't change their roles in CW as a story. What your talking about when you say Person X agrees with Character Y is in regard to the film's message and themes. How a film speaks to you is 100% introspective and unique to each viewer. But, the narrative function a character serves not really up for interpretation. The filmmakers craft the character's roles to serve a specific purpose for the story. Cap is conclusively the Protagonist, as the story and how the story plays out are in response to Cap's responses both to the Zemo plot line and the Accords plot line, and Iron Man is an Antagonist as his role is completely in response to Cap's refusal to sign the Accords and continue to save Bucky as an outlaw. Iron Man is not the main or only antagonist, but he is an antagonist none the less.

I can see where this confuses people. It's hard to see a character you like in the role of an antagonist and there is a bias that comes with that. But, that doesn't change what his actual role in the film is.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The fact you think he is too powerful doesn't change what he has done in the movies.

That was just a side note

Elektra did nothing compared to what Cap did in these movies. Elektra could not beat Iron Man or stop a helicopter. Period.

Elektra simply hasn't had enough exposition as Cap has but from what I have seen in Defenders I believe she's stronger than Cap now. She could not beat Iron Man but in theory, neither could Cap without help, and I got no reason to believe she couldn't stop a helicopter.

Whether you don't like how they approached making CW a Cap film, that changes nothing.

Changes nothing in regards to what? Cap being the main character? No, it does. I'm not making the rules for everyone but speaking for myself I don't think this film was presently properly and Iron Man is just as important as he is.

CW at the end of the day was made as a Captain America film. It wasn't made to be a grand crossover the way IW was made. Yes, it includes many characters from other franchises in the MCU, but it isn't designed to be a massive event crossover like IW was. You can argue over what you WANTED CW to be all day, but that doesn't change what it IS.

It was a captain america movie in name only. Other than that, it was a massive crossover film like the Avengers films.

I think you're looking at the movie as a fan of the comic book, not evaluating the movie itself. I'm evaluating the movie. It's what I do (as a filmmaker I do that with every movie I watch). Basically what I did in the prior posts is breakdown CW's narrative structure in simpler terms. Yes, Iron Man has a personal journey in CW. Killmonger & Thanos also have personal journeys in their respective films they appeared. They're still antagonists. The best antagonists have personal journeys. Now, you can agree or disagree with either Cap or Iron Man on a personal level. You can see Cap as wrong and Iron Man right, but that doesn't change their roles in CW as a story. What your talking about when you say Person X agrees with Character Y is in regard to the film's message and themes. How a film speaks to you is 100% introspective and unique to each viewer. But, the narrative function a character serves not really up for interpretation. The filmmakers craft the character's roles to serve a specific purpose for the story. Cap is conclusively the Protagonist, as the story and how the story plays out are in response to Cap's responses both to the Zemo plot line and the Accords plot line, and Iron Man is an Antagonist as his role is completely in response to Cap's refusal to sign the Accords and continue to save Bucky as an outlaw. Iron Man is not the main or only antagonist, but he is an antagonist none the less.

I can see where this confuses people. It's hard to see a character you like in the role of an antagonist and there is a bias that comes with that. But, that doesn't change what his actual role in the film is.

I respect the fact that this is what you do in your profession, but not even that is going to be enough to convince me of the missteps of this film; regardless of the fact that it's Cap3, to me Iron Man is just as important as he is, and for that reason it shouldn't have even been Cap3, it should've been Av3 (Infinity War as Av4) and the scale and time was really off. I'm not even a huge fan of the comics but the MCU has been disappointing me more and more as time goes on. Not that I don't find these movies entertaining, but I just have a higher bar than most

 

[Spider-Fan]

That was just a side note Elektra simply hasn't had enough exposition as Cap has but from what I have seen in Defenders I believe she's stronger than Cap now. She could not beat Iron Man but in theory, neither could Cap without help, and I got no reason to believe she couldn't stop a helicopter.

I see her attempt to do that going very differently. Until she shows me any level of power like that, then I cannot speculate she can do that.

Changes nothing in regards to what? Cap being the main character? No, it does. I'm not making the rules for everyone but speaking for myself I don't think this film was presently properly and Iron Man is just as important as he is.It was a captain america movie in name only. Other than that, it was a massive crossover film like the Avengers films.

Was CW more of an event crossover film than Iron Man 3 or even Thor: Ragnarok? Yes, I would agree there. But, the narrative focus was still as a Captain America 1st and Avengers film 2nd.

I respect the fact that this is what you do in your profession, but not even that is going to be enough to convince me of the missteps of this film; regardless of the fact that it's Cap3, to me Iron Man is just as important as he is, and for that reason it shouldn't have even been Cap3, it should've been Av3 (Infinity War as Av4) and the scale and time was really off. I'm not even a huge fan of the comics but the MCU has been disappointing me more and more as time goes on. Not that I don't find these movies entertaining, but I just have a higher bar than most

Iron Man is important to the story, but not more so than Cap. Let's remove each from the story. If Cap was not in the film, Iron Man likely just goes and arrests Bucky with the Accords Avengers. Maybe Zemo breaks Bucky out, but Tony was unaware of Zemo, so he would have kept hunting Bucky. Maybe have killed him. Zemo gets away. Heck, it's even possible that without Cap's involvement, T'Challa straight up murders Bucky because he cannot intervene and save him. Well, that's an ending. Let's also not forget Iron Man had no involvement in Lagos whatsoever, so those events would largely be changed without Captain America in the movie, also.

Now lets remove Iron Man. Cap violates the Accords, saves Bucky, goes on the run to stop Zemo once discovered, is pursued by whoever signed the Accords (sans Iron Man) or whoever serves Ross while pursuing Cap. Cap likely still gets away to pursue Zemo in Siberia (though no Iron Man for final fight). The film still plays out closer to the same in all likelihood with Cap in it and no Iron Man than it would in reverse. Because it is Cap's story and Iron Man is just a cog in the larger story.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I see her attempt to do that going very differently. Until she shows me any level of power like that, then I cannot speculate she can do that.

Well then I guess we hit a rock and a really hard place, Spider-Fan.

Was CW more of an event crossover film than Iron Man 3 or even Thor: Ragnarok? Yes, I would agree there. But, the narrative focus was still as a Captain America 1st and Avengers film 2nd.

If we're going to continue going off topic and just critiquing Civil War lol, I'll say that the fact that the focus is first as a Cap film is a point that deserves criticism of the movie. The fact that there is a narrative focus at all of it being an Avengers film is still evidence to me that it is an Avengers film masquerading as Cap3.

Iron Man is important to the story, but not more so than Cap. Let's remove each from the story. If Cap was not in the film, Iron Man likely just goes and arrests Bucky with the Accords Avengers. Maybe Zemo breaks Bucky out, but Tony was unaware of Zemo, so he would have kept hunting Bucky. Maybe have killed him. Zemo gets away. Heck, it's even possible that without Cap's involvement, T'Challa straight up murders Bucky because he cannot intervene and save him. Well, that's an ending. Let's also not forget Iron Man had no involvement in Lagos whatsoever, so those events would largely be changed without Captain America in the movie, also.

Now lets remove Iron Man. Cap violates the Accords, saves Bucky, goes on the run to stop Zemo once discovered, is pursued by whoever signed the Accords (sans Iron Man) or whoever serves Ross while pursuing Cap. Cap likely still gets away to pursue Zemo in Siberia (though no Iron Man for final fight). The film still plays out closer to the same in all likelihood with Cap in it and no Iron Man than it would in reverse. Because it is Cap's story and Iron Man is just a cog in the larger story.

In the end you are right, Iron Man is not as important as Cap - but that hurts the film. I guarantee you a good portion of the audience saw Iron Man and Cap as equals in this film, as they should. However this was still a very personal story for Iron Man as well, personal enough for it to be his own film imo. It's simply that Cap has more screentime but with the Tony Stark scenes this definitely felt like it could've been his own film from his perspective as well as Cap's.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well then I guess we hit a rock and a really hard place, Spider-Fan.

It's all good

If we're going to continue going off topic and just critiquing Civil War lol, I'll say that the fact that the focus is first as a Cap film is a point that deserves criticism of the movie. The fact that there is a narrative focus at all of it being an Avengers film is still evidence to me that it is an Avengers film masquerading as Cap3.

This I don't agree with. While the Avengers are a big part of the movie, it only would have been a flaw for me if this was an Avengers film 1st and a Cap film 2nd but they still called it Captain America 3. Do they sacrifice some emphasis on Cap for the inclusion of the Avengers? Absolutely they do, but the film still holds Cap as the center of the film that holds it together. IW is an unfair comparison as that is more like a total MCU event film, but if you break down Avengers and AoU, they're built as ensembles without any 1 single main character. Everyone has important roles in the story from a narrative standpoint. Conversely in CW, a fair amount of Avengers do not and are simply just sort of there. Spider-Man is there to build on a future sequel, Ant-Man is there because they needed an opposite for Spider-Man, Vision is often forgotten to be in the movie, etc. Many of the Avengers pop into the fight without any real story arc and mainly are there to serve the action (something I cannot say about Avengers or AoU as they all had arcs). This is why it's not really an Avengers film. They are in the movie, but the film is not really about them and they largely don't have heavy character arcs.

In the end you are right, Iron Man is not as important as Cap - but that hurts the film. I guarantee you a good portion of the audience saw Iron Man and Cap as equals in this film, as they should. However this was still a very personal story for Iron Man as well, personal enough for it to be his own film imo. It's simply that Cap has more screentime but with the Tony Stark scenes this definitely felt like it could've been his own film from his perspective as well as Cap's.

Again as I said earlier, you can have an antagonist with a very personal journey. But in the end, the movie in its entirety is not his movie when all the pieces are put together. They could have reshaped it to focus more on Tony if they wanted for sure, but a fair amount of the film would have needed to be reshaped in order to accomplish that. As a Cap story, I think CW works very well.

 

[fan4stic]

I get what you’re saying, but it doesn’t make sense that Tony wouldn’t even try to recruit the other Netflix heroes and just settled on Spider-Man. This plot hole is gonna become worse depending on if NY will be a significant setting in Av4 and it already kinda is if the post credits scene in Av3 was in Manhattan, though it might notve been

One's in prison, another is not stable or taking calls, the other essentially is just an acrobat who punches people as far as anyone knows and Danny isn't known at all really. It's not practical for these cameos to be in the movie when they have no point.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I honestly don't think this show/universe is canon

 

[Spider-Fan]

Whatever works for you man

It's cannon for me.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

This I don't agree with. While the Avengers are a big part of the movie, it only would have been a flaw for me if this was an Avengers film 1st and a Cap film 2nd but they still called it Captain America 3. Do they sacrifice some emphasis on Cap for the inclusion of the Avengers? Absolutely they do, but the film still holds Cap as the center of the film that holds it together. IW is an unfair comparison as that is more like a total MCU event film, but if you break down Avengers and AoU, they're built as ensembles without any 1 single main character. Everyone has important roles in the story from a narrative standpoint. Conversely in CW, a fair amount of Avengers do not and are simply just sort of there. Spider-Man is there to build on a future sequel, Ant-Man is there because they needed an opposite for Spider-Man, Vision is often forgotten to be in the movie, etc. Many of the Avengers pop into the fight without any real story arc and mainly are there to serve the action (something I cannot say about Avengers or AoU as they all had arcs). This is why it's not really an Avengers film. They are in the movie, but the film is not really about them and they largely don't have heavy character arcs.

Ultimately what you are saying is true - but, being that that is the case for this film I still say it is grounds for criticism. Regardless of how they're "built", Civil War literally is an ensemble film with the massive cast it's got. The fact that some characters are "just sort of there" - is not a good thing. The fact that Civil War has been dumbed down to a Captain America film, is not a good thing. The way I see it is Disney exploiting Captain America's 3rd film slot as a massive crossover story instead of one that's more personal for Cap (not saying it wasn't a personal story and journey for him but to me it was equally so for Iron Man) And even with these things said - since I do partially agree with you - like I said earlier a vast amount of the audience probably still have perceived it as an Avengers film.

Again as I said earlier, you can have an antagonist with a very personal journey. But in the end, the movie in its entirety is not his movie when all the pieces are put together. They could have reshaped it to focus more on Tony if they wanted for sure, but a fair amount of the film would have needed to be reshaped in order to accomplish that. As a Cap story, I think CW works very well.

Right but just like I said earlier, depending on perspective both Cap and Iron Man could be seen both each as an antagonist. I don't care if Captain America is the title of the film; the promo intentionally wanted to divide the audience and it worked.

One's in prison, another is not stable or taking calls, the other essentially is just an acrobat who punches people as far as anyone knows and Danny isn't known at all really. It's not practical for these cameos to be in the movie when they have no point.

It's not like Tony's never visited someone who's been incarcerated before. Tony would decide for himself whether another is not stable. As for the "acrobat who punches people" - Black Widow could fall under that category and she was team Iron Man. Danny is the heir to a billion dollar conglomerate so I doubt Tony would have trouble finding him - he had no trouble finding Peter Parker, so...there is a point to reaching out to each of them.

This is the same old tired fan explanation that practically everyone now including you has tried to recycle in this thread

 

[Havok83]

I honestly don't think this show/universe is canon

It definitely overall doesnt matter to anything