It's not that there are actual differences in movie quality, you're just biased against DC and love Marvel!
And so are the vast majority of movie critics and audiences!
It's a worldwide conspiracy!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone besides me feel like Captain America: Civil War is overrated and exploitative?
- Thread starter The Artisan
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
It's not that there are actual differences in movie quality, you're just biased against DC and love Marvel!
And so are the vast majority of movie critics and audiences!
It's a worldwide conspiracy!
There it is..
Are you seriously arguing that Marvel's good will doesn't cut them more slack? We have people here who defend Thor: The Dark World with "it's not that bad" level stretching.
Also see my "it's a better film than BvS" post.
Corronchilejano
Member
The movie is the personal story of how Captain America leaves his place among the Avengers because he needs to be beside his best friend. The Avengers just get dragged into it.
My stance is Civil War is a better film, but I had more fun with BvS. Once you've seen Civil War once that's it, BvS rewards you each time with more and more batshit crazy.
I know I'm taking the bait but... how? The movie is gloomy as shit. Unless you're actively making fun of it...fun with BvS
on the flip side do you think the DC films negative reception makes people view future DC movies more harshly?Are you seriously arguing that Marvel's good will doesn't cut them more slack? We have people here who defend Thor: The Dark World with "it's not that bad" level stretching.
Also see my "it's a better film than BvS" post.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I've had more fun with colonoscopies than I did with BvS.
BronsonLee
Member
on the flip side do you think the DC films negative reception makes people view future DC movies more harshly?
Warner didn't pay me enough
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
the film definitely doesn't hold up as well on repeated viewings.
This is true. Wierd, since I enjoyed Winter Soldier everytime I've watched it.
The Artisan
Member
Yes it is. You didn't read me OP, did you? You just wanted to come here to condescend? I didn't say Disney was out to exploit the audience.No it isn't. Nobody got hustled out of their money by the title of the movie.
Also trailers exist.
It's also a really personal story of how Iron Man never got over his parents' death, about how he never got to say goodbye to them and it haunts him.The movie is the personal story of how Captain America leaves his place among the Avengers because he needs to be beside his best friend. The Avengers just get dragged into it.
The movie is the personal story of how Captain America leaves his place among the Avengers because he needs to be beside his best friend. The Avengers just get dragged into it.
I know I'm taking the bait but... how? The movie is gloomy as shit. Unless you're actively making fun of it...
I think visually it's incredible, I like them having Supes/WW at full strength rather than them being nerfed power wise. And I think the Bats vs Supes fight is absolutely hilariously awful. Just makes me laugh.
So it's a mixed bag. Hilariously bad and enjoyable equally.
Are you seriously arguing that Marvel's good will doesn't cut them more slack? We have people here who defend Thor: The Dark World with "it's not that bad" level stretching.
It's not that bad. Its biggest sin is that it's very forgettable. There are plenty of other action movies, both in general and related to comics specifically, that are actively terrible.
Thor: The Dark World isn't even the worst Marvel movie. Iron Man 2 is.
Vasty vasty over-rated. It was a 100% by-the-books Avengers movie, it felt like I was rewatching all the other Avenger movies. And the amount of love it gets on the internet is embarrassing. People are all to happy to ignore the giant loop-holes and problems while lambasting BvS for similar problems.
That's just the culture we live in- echo chambers, fanboyism, etc.
That's just the culture we live in- echo chambers, fanboyism, etc.
Corronchilejano
Member
I think visually it's incredible, I like them having Supes/WW at full strength rather than them being nerfed power wise. And I think the Bats vs Supes fight is absolutely hilariously awful. Just makes me laugh.
So it's a mixed bag. Hilariously bad and enjoyable equally.
I'll give you that.
Your comment is so full of irony I'm wondering if I'm stepping on a landmine here.Vasty vasty over-rated. It was a 100% by-the-books Avengers movie, it felt like I was rewatching all the other Avenger movies. And the amount of love it gets on the internet is embarrassing. People are all to happy to ignore the giant loop-holes and problems while lambasting BvS for similar problems.
That's just the culture we live in- echo chambers, fanboyism, etc.
That's because it isn't. It's mediocre and boring when Loki is off-scren ,but it isn't actively bad like, say, Suicide Squad or Fant4Stic. The characters, dialogue, editing, music and story are actually competent.Are you seriously arguing that Marvel's good will doesn't cut them more slack? We have people here who defend Thor: The Dark World with "it's not that bad" level stretching.
Also see my "it's a better film than BvS" post.
Glass Rebel
Member
i guess i have to elaborate to counter your snark sarcasm that it was rather convenient writing.
Yeah, good writing is convenient. I guess they could have also decided to write something convoluted around the plotpoint "superpowered individual causes accident during unsupervised mission" but luckily they didn't.
I think it's a fun movie that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If you look at what the main catalysts for the main plot points are, there are a lot of contrivances and arguments that certain characters present can be rebutted when you start looking at actions of characters in previous films.
Was going to make a thread but I'll ask in here
So when martin freeman's character tells Zemo he wasnt successful, he questions with was it.
Sure he got them to fight but
Judging by the end, Steve still befriends Tony, sending him a we got your back letter and a burner phone
So Zemo didn't do crap then?
The team splitting up was due to the accords not zemo
So when martin freeman's character tells Zemo he wasnt successful, he questions with was it.
Sure he got them to fight but
Judging by the end, Steve still befriends Tony, sending him a we got your back letter and a burner phone
So Zemo didn't do crap then?
The team splitting up was due to the accords not zemo
Glass Rebel
Member
I think it's a fun movie that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If you look at what the main catalysts for the main plot points are, there are a lot of contrivances and arguments that certain characters present can be rebutted when you start looking at actions of characters in previous films.
Like?
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Yes it is. You didn't read me OP, did you? You just wanted to come here to condescend? I didn't say Disney was out to exploit the audience.It's also a really personal story of how Iron Man never got over his parents' death, about how he never got to say goodbye to them and it haunts him.
But it's framed as a Captain America movie. And so it is one. Framing is everything.
Die Hard could have been the origin story of a suave German terrorist if it had been tweaked slightly. But it isn't. It's about John McClane.
The film was marketed as having all the Avengers in it. If the general audience was that worried about filling themselves in, the box office numbers and reception would have spoke for itself. Did we have articles where people whined about not knowing what was going on? Did we have nobody going to see the movie because they didn't like the characters involved?
No. As I said, it's a comic book movie. Comic book movies tie in and involve characters all. The. Time.
I don't understand why Steve sending that letter leads people to think that they are suddenly BFFs again.Was going to make a thread but I'll ask in here
So when martin freeman's character tells Zemo he wasnt successful, he questions with was it.
Sure he got them to fight but
Judging by the end, Steve still befriends Tony, sending him a we got your back letter and a burner phone
So Zemo didn't do crap then?
The team splitting up was due to the accords not zemo
The Artisan
Member
there's no need to be snark. they needed an opening with one of them (accidentally) killing innocent people to put the sovokia accords into motionYeah, good writing is convenient. I guess they could have also decided to write something convoluted around the plotpoint "superpowered individual causes accident during unsupervised mission" but luckily they didn't.
I get that, but is this what's going to happen from here on out? Are we gonna expect major Marvel characters to be in each other's solo films? We're getting Iron Man in the next Spiderman movie and Hulk in the next Thor movie, but there was no major player in Dr. Strange's movie even though it's his introduction; Homecoming is Spiderman's introduction, there's also no extra major players in GoTG2, and as others have pointed out, these crossovers didn't happen until phase 3, so it's difficult to see what to expectBut it's framed as a Captain America movie. And so it is one. Framing is everything.
Die Hard could have been the origin story of a suave German terrorist if it had been tweaked slightly. But it isn't. It's about John McClane.
The film was marketed as having all the Avengers in it. If the general audience was that worried about filling themselves in, the box office numbers and reception would have spoke for itself. Did we have articles where people whined about not knowing what was going on? Did we have nobody going to see the movie because they didn't like the characters involved?
No. As I said, it's a comic book movie. Comic book movies tie in and involve characters all. The. Time.
Was going to make a thread but I'll ask in here
So when martin freeman's character tells Zemo he wasnt successful, he questions with was it.
Sure he got them to fight but
Judging by the end, Steve still befriends Tony, sending him a we got your back letter and a burner phone
So Zemo didn't do crap then?
The team splitting up was due to the accords not zemo
The only thing Zemo did was waste an incredible actor.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
The team splitting up was due to the accords not zemo
The team ideologically being separated was due to the Accords. But Tony showed he was willing to ignore these when necessary anyways.
The team being split because its central figureheads (Cap and Tony) are at loggerheads because of a dark, personal, mortifying secret. Because of Zemo.
PeskyToaster
Member
If the GSG9 aren't in jeans, you know it's a bad movie.
Glass Rebel
Member
there's no need to be snark. they needed an opening with one of them (accidentally) killing innocent people to put the sovokia accords into motion
I mean, I hope you realize that you could look at every single one of these movies and say "they needed a thing to happen so another thing could happen". That's how stories work.
BronsonLee
Member
Tony should've burned and peed on that letter
'Hey sorry I hid your family's killer for years and then beat your ass with something your daddy made for me, you goateed bitch'
'Hey sorry I hid your family's killer for years and then beat your ass with something your daddy made for me, you goateed bitch'
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Tony should've burned and peed on that letter
'Hey sorry I hid your family's killer for years and then beat your ass with something your daddy made for me, you goateed bitch'
How can he release all the people who aren't Steve and did nothing to him AND STILL BE MAD AT STEVE
That makes no sense.
Russo Brothers: "The rift between Iron Man and Captain America is far from resolved, and that will play into Infinity War."
Random Fan: "No, they're friends already. I saw it."
Russo Brothers: ....
Are you seriously arguing that Marvel's good will doesn't cut them more slack? We have people here who defend Thor: The Dark World with "it's not that bad" level stretching.
Also see my "it's a better film than BvS" post.
Vasty vasty over-rated. It was a 100% by-the-books Avengers movie, it felt like I was rewatching all the other Avenger movies. And the amount of love it gets on the internet is embarrassing. People are all to happy to ignore the giant loop-holes and problems while lambasting BvS for similar problems.
That's just the culture we live in- echo chambers, fanboyism, etc.
Maybe we can stop pretending that liking Civil War more than BvS is some GAF-only phenomenon.
The Artisan
Member
some stories do it well, others don't. for instance, as a really out-there example, some people call Sam, Nathan Drake's brother's placement in Uc4 to be really "convenient", or whatever. No mention of him beforehand but he's suddenly a main character in the fourth installment. Depending on the integrity of the storytelling, it can be looked at either as convenient storytelling or satisfactory, for lack of a better termI mean, I hope you realize that you could look at every single one of these movies and say "they needed a thing to happen so another thing could happen". That's how stories work.
Fancy Clown
Member
Some of the inter-Avenger conflict feels a bit forced, and Spider Man was definitely in there just to introduce his character (even though his scenes were fun), but other than that the movie is pretty focused and I think the best of the MCU movies. Yeah it feels like Stark's movie nearly as much as Rogers,, but it works for the story they were telling.
I really liked the more personal stakes and that they started exploring shades of gray in the morality, both of which made Zemo and the central civil war conflict compelling. The action set pieces were all quite good, especially the smaller scale climax. My biggest issues with the movie are that it still doesn't have as bold of a visual identity as it should, and it leaves things off feeling like things aren't nearly as dire for the Avengers as they should be.
They should be super fractured by the end, which would set up the stakes for the next Avengers movie really well, by having Thanos come at the worst possible time. I'm hoping Zemo returns as well, as Daniel Bruhl was great as him and he's the most human villain in these movies. Thanos should given make him "Baron" Zemo and have him be a captain in his schemes or something.
I really liked the more personal stakes and that they started exploring shades of gray in the morality, both of which made Zemo and the central civil war conflict compelling. The action set pieces were all quite good, especially the smaller scale climax. My biggest issues with the movie are that it still doesn't have as bold of a visual identity as it should, and it leaves things off feeling like things aren't nearly as dire for the Avengers as they should be.
They should be super fractured by the end, which would set up the stakes for the next Avengers movie really well, by having Thanos come at the worst possible time. I'm hoping Zemo returns as well, as Daniel Bruhl was great as him and he's the most human villain in these movies. Thanos should given make him "Baron" Zemo and have him be a captain in his schemes or something.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
some stories do it well, others don't. for instance, as a really out-there example, some people call Sam, Nathan Drake's brother's placement in Uc4 to be really "convenient", or whatever. No mention of him beforehand but he's suddenly a main character in the fourth installment. Depending on the integrity of the storytelling, it can be looked at either as convenient storytelling or satisfactory, for lack of a better term
... and your wider point is?
there's no need to be snark. they needed an opening with one of them (accidentally) killing innocent people to put the sovokia accords into motionI get that, but is this what's going to happen from here on out? Are we gonna expect major Marvel characters to be in each other's solo films? We're getting Iron Man in the next Spiderman movie and Hulk in the next Thor movie, but there was no major player in Dr. Strange's movie even though it's his introduction; Homecoming is Spiderman's introduction, there's also no extra major players in GoTG2, and as others have pointed out, these crossovers didn't happen until phase 3, so it's difficult to see what to expect
So maybe your expectations don't matter that much? The good thing about the MCU is that it, as you say, can go either way. Gunn's very keen to leave GOTG separate untill their introduction in Infinity War. That can happen. They can also have an introduction with Doctor Strange without being bogged down with a new face.
But is it such a risky assumption to think that if people bothered seeing Thor 1-2, they probably know who the Hulk is too? Probably not. Like you're saying all these things like you know it, but I don't see what the problem is.
Captain Marvel probably won't have RDJ or Evans in a supporting role. Spiderman 2, or Doctor Strange 2... might. And that's really honestly fine.
Mighty Chin
Banned
Civil War was like a Double Sized Special Issue.
I loved it.
I loved it.
serenewarfare
Banned
Captain America 3 does not feel like a solo captain america movie. It feels like Disney exploiting the 3rd solo cap film slate as an Avengers storyline because Disney knew it would do Avengers numbers if they did that, and it did; and they even banked on it. Just Tony Stark's presence alone was supposed to guarantee a billion dollars in the box office.
Actually, the rumors I remember a few years ago from before the film was announced were that they originally just wanted RDJ in Cap 3 in a small role, but he wanted his full payout regardless of how big his role was, so they decided to just make him a co-star and basically make it an All-Star movie.
Maybe we can stop pretending that liking Civil War more than BvS is some GAF-only phenomenon.
I didn't say it was GAF-only. I'm talking about internet culture in its entirety.
BronsonLee
Member
How can he release all the people who aren't Steve and did nothing to him AND STILL BE MAD AT STEVE
That makes no sense.
Russo Brothers: "The rift between Iron Man and Captain America is far from resolved, and that will play into Infinity War."
Random Fan: "No, they're friends already. I saw it."
Russo Brothers: ....
Didn't Cap bust those losers out?
Also watch Cap try to call the burner phone but it just goes to a voicemail of Tony pooping on a collection of WWII war bonds
The Artisan
Member
you didn't get it? that's what they wanted and needed to get the sokovia accords in motion. this whole thing played out with crossbones in the beginning.... and your wider point is?
do you remember what year you heard that rumor? the ones I posted were shortly after the first avengers movieActually, the rumors I remember a few years ago from before the film was announced were that they originally just wanted RDJ in Cap 3 in a small role, but he wanted his full payout regardless of how big his role was, so they decided to just make him a co-star and basically make it an All-Star movie.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Actually, the rumors I remember a few years ago from before the film was announced were that they originally just wanted RDJ in Cap 3 in a small role, but he wanted his full payout regardless of how big his role was, so they decided to just make him a co-star and basically make it an All-Star movie.
And the rumours I heard were that Ike wouldn't pay out for RDJ in a full supporting role.
Them rumours huh.
Glass Rebel
Member
some stories do it well, others don't. for instance, as a really out-there example, some people call Sam, Nathan Drake's brother's placement in Uc4 to be really "convenient", or whatever. No mention of him beforehand but he's suddenly a main character in the fourth installment. Depending on the integrity of the storytelling, it can be looked at either as convenient storytelling or satisfactory, for lack of a better term
So how is Scarlet Witch with her limited grasp over her powers fucking up a mission "convenient"? She's the most inexperienced of the bunch and potentially the most powerful. Of course that's gonna blow up in their faces eventually.
Mighty Chin
Banned
Was going to make a thread but I'll ask in here
So when martin freeman's character tells Zemo he wasnt successful, he questions with was it.
Sure he got them to fight but
Judging by the end, Steve still befriends Tony, sending him a we got your back letter and a burner phone
So Zemo didn't do crap then?
The team splitting up was due to the accords not zemo
You do know Cap is a criminal at the end right?
Don't. Dont need Bleepey shitting up the thread with his bullshit.Like?
He's on a crusade to prove that critics and audiences didn't get BvS because it was too smart for them.
Showing how CW is the one with the problems BvS was criticised for is one of the ways he goes about doing it.
I didn't say it was GAF-only. I'm talking about internet culture in its entirety.
RT, Metacritic and Cinemascore all have critics and general audiences rating Civil War higher than BvS, too. Is that also a product of internet culture fanboy echo chambers, or does the majority of the movie-going public just consider Civil War the better movie?
The Artisan
Member
I just told you, because they needed that to happen to put the Sokovia Accords in motion. Which, all of it, was a distraction in the movie in what eventually turns into the airport battle where Papa Doc himself even says "this isn't the real fight"So how is Scarlet Witch with her limited grasp over her powers fucking up a mission "convenient"? She's the most inexperienced of the bunch and potentially the most powerful. Of course that's gonna blow up in their faces eventually.
this fight, which the movie was made for, isn't the real one
Fancy Clown
Member
I just told you, because they needed that to happen to put the Sokovia Accords in motion. Which, all of it, was a distraction in the movie in what eventually turns into the airport battle where Papa Doc himself even says "this isn't the real fight"
this fight, which the movie was made for, isn't the real one
The airport fight is a distraction in the plot, and while certainly an indulgent action sequence, is absolutely thematically tied to everything in the movie. The whole point of the film is that the Avengers actions have consequences for regular people's lives. Zemo was created by the Avengers, and the conflict he created between them was driven by that same set of consequences.
Yeah, that's kinda the point of this whole MCU thing. To interconnect characters and their stories.Yes it is. You didn't read me OP, did you? You just wanted to come here to condescend? I didn't say Disney was out to exploit the audience.It's also a really personal story of how Iron Man never got over his parents' death, about how he never got to say goodbye to them and it haunts him.
Civil War is also the logical extension of a post-Hydra SHIELD trying to contain the Avengers, directly following the theme of Winter Soldier.
And no from now on, the charcters won't be as isolated as in the beginning. Still doesn't make it exploitative in the least.
It's a Cap movie from beginning to end. His reluctancy to sign the accords stems directly from his experiences in Cap 1 and 2. He's the only opponent of the accords who's motives are explored as much.
The escalation of the conflict comes directly from Cap taking a stand against the accords and for his friend.
The movie ends with Cap surrendering his shield, a dramatic move for the character. He doesn't need the shield to do what he does, but the symbolism is clearly there. It's the end of an era for Cap.
Yes with some tweaks and script alternations, the movie could've been Iron Man: Civil War. But then again, with some tweaks the movie could've been Black Panther, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Hawkeye or Winter Soldier: Civil War as well. That's how scripts work.
You're putting too much value into the War aspect of the title, there's a conflict within the team, civil war is an exaggeration of that, not unlike age of Ultron or Batman V Superman. They like to use popular comic arcs as titles. Here's a spoiler: infinity war won't probably last that long either.
The escalation of the conflict comes directly from Cap taking a stand against the accords and for his friend.
The movie ends with Cap surrendering his shield, a dramatic move for the character. He doesn't need the shield to do what he does, but the symbolism is clearly there. It's the end of an era for Cap.
Yes with some tweaks and script alternations, the movie could've been Iron Man: Civil War. But then again, with some tweaks the movie could've been Black Panther, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Hawkeye or Winter Soldier: Civil War as well. That's how scripts work.
You're putting too much value into the War aspect of the title, there's a conflict within the team, civil war is an exaggeration of that, not unlike age of Ultron or Batman V Superman. They like to use popular comic arcs as titles. Here's a spoiler: infinity war won't probably last that long either.
The Artisan
Member
That's kind of why I didn't like it. A civil war movie should've focused solely on the civil war, having it be the real battle, not a distraction created by ZemoThe airport fight is a distraction in the plot, and while certainly an indulgent action sequence, is absolutely thematically tied to everything in the movie. The whole point of the film is that the Avengers actions have consequences for regular people's lives. Zemo was created by the Avengers, and the conflict he created between them was driven by that same set of consequences.
The crossover films are meant to interconnect characters and their stories the most. The solo films are supposed to be solo. That line was blurred with Cap3.Yeah, that's kinda the point of this whole MCU thing. To interconnect characters and their stories.
Civil War is also the logical extension of a post-Hydra SHIELD trying to contain the Avengers, directly following the theme of Winter Soldier.
And no from now on, the charcters won't be as isolated as in the beginning. Still doesn't make it exploitative in the least.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
The solo films are supposed to be solo/QUOTE]
They're not "supposed" to be anything. You would prefer they be solo.
I'm sure in 2008 Spiderman wasn't "supposed" to join and the Guardians of the Galaxy weren't "supposed" to happen, but here we are.
Glass Rebel
Member
I just told you, because they needed that to happen to put the Sokovia Accords in motion. Which, all of it, was a distraction in the movie in what eventually turns into the airport battle where Papa Doc himself even says "this isn't the real fight"
this fight, which the movie was made for, isn't the real one
This is such a weird way to look at stories. They didn't need anything to happen, they wrote it that way because of the trajectory set by the previous movies in the MCU. The Iron Man movies, Captain America movies and Avengers movies all dealt with taking responsibility for one's actions and it placed Cap and Tony at two opposing ends. Cap 3 is the culmination of those themes, events and their relationship and the Sokovia Accords are the international society's answer to superpowered beings.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.