• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Captain America Civil War Trailer - Rivals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony makes it all about himself, and Steve is very stubborn. What is confusing is everyone else being dragged into it lol. I assume whatever incident happens at the movie that sparks the accord to become a reality must have something to do with it.



I think an interview stated that Tony is trying to use the minimum force possible when fighting them cause he would just kill them otherwise.

Well, Tony is an obsessive control freak that wants to impose his idea of how things should be and almost caused the extermination of humanity because of that, so I can see now why it could generate friction between themselves.

Hopefully he isn't going all terminator on them.


Also, I don't think that they're really going to the death, just that they both know it takes a lot to subdue the other, so the fights get bigger. For Tony, he feels that if he doesn't bring Cap in, the government goons will take over, and they might go for the kill shot. For Cap, he feels that coming in will be sacrificing his best friend.

Then you have the idea of Tony thinking that if the 'powered' community does not show that they're willing to play ball, then it'll only invite much greater regulation, and Cap thinking that any of this sort of regulation is not something a proper government should be doing.

From there, things can escalate, leading to a big stand-off at a German Airport, for some reason (probably by design, thinking the open space of the airport will reduce collateral damage).

Interesting scenario.
 
Guardians, TWS and Ant Man were solid/fun. Avengers 2 was straight trash. Crazy how that worked out.
Winter Soldier was amazing. No Marvel movies are trash really, even though I put Avengers 2 at the same level as Transformers 2 and up, just mediocre forgettable movies but can be enjoyed if you watch it in theaters. I thought the same for Avengers 1 even though it's held to some exceptional standard -_-
 
I'll take back an earlier comment I made and say I'm a little curious about the Captain Marvel movie but everyone keeps telling me she's a shit character so I don't know.

Carol is a character with a TON of potential. The whole question is how she's going to be handled in the MCU (and she has been repeatedly mishandled in the comics).

At the core, you have someone who has pushed themselves to constantly be better, who has had to work every step of the way, suddenly be given what are essentially superman's powers.

There's a lot that can be done with that...if someone like that no longer has to work for achievements, then what does it do mentally? What does it mean that everything they've accomplished in life is absolutely nothing compared to their current ability? Then there's the question of "Am I even human anymore?" (that is, if her powers are Kree in origin). And, in the comics, she's had all emotional connection to her memories severed (one of her most interesting traits, but not sure they'll use this in the movies).

All of this makes for immense potential...such great psychological issues to explore, a ton of character to build. But time and time again in the comics, they just have her hit things really hard and worry that she's not good enough because she's a woman.
 
Winter Soldier was amazing. No Marvel movies are trash really, even though I put Avengers 2 at the same level as Transformers 2 and up, just mediocre forgettable movies but can be enjoyed if you watch it in theaters. I thought the same for Avengers 1 even though it's held to some exceptional standard -_-

Age of Ultron as bad as transformers 2?!! good god man
 
Carol is a character with a TON of potential. The whole question is how she's going to be handled in the MCU (and she has been repeatedly mishandled in the comics).

At the core, you have someone who has pushed themselves to constantly be better, who has had to work every step of the way, suddenly be given what are essentially superman's powers.

There's a lot that can be done with that...if someone like that no longer has to work for achievements, then what does it do mentally? What does it mean that everything they've accomplished in life is absolutely nothing compared to their current ability? Then there's the question of "Am I even human anymore?" (that is, if her powers are Kree in origin). And, in the comics, she's had all emotional connection to her memories severed (one of her most interesting traits, but not sure they'll use this in the movies).

All of this makes for immense potential...such great psychological issues to explore, a ton of character to build. But time and time again in the comics, they just have her hit things really hard and worry that she's not good enough because she's a woman.

Indeed. But like with Tony Stark's alcoholism in Iron Man 2, they'll probably glance over it and proceed to LOL let's punch things.
 
Haha, I wasn't particularly fond of AoU but stacking it up against the shit show that was Transformers 2 is a bit much but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
 
Winter Soldier was amazing. No Marvel movies are trash really, even though I put Avengers 2 at the same level as Transformers 2 and up, just mediocre forgettable movies but can be enjoyed if you watch it in theaters. I thought the same for Avengers 1 even though it's held to some exceptional standard -_-

Relatively boring movie is apparently just as bad as one of the most offensive movies to come out of Hollywood in the last 10 years.

I'm not saying Age of Ultron isnt medicore but for crying out loud man Transformers 2 is straight up racist in some scenes.
 
They're both really fun dumb movies and something I enjoyed watching once and won't bother watching ever again. Probably both 6/10. I didn't find T2 as a horrible as many others did, just silly dumb fun that you can enjoy once in theaters.

Transformers 2 is a 2 at best. One point for each robot testicle I was forced to watch.
I'm not saying Age of Ultron isnt medicore but for crying out loud man Transformers 2 is straight up racist in some scenes.
I had removed that from memory. My new score is -20.
 
Haha, I wasn't particularly fond of AoU but stacking it up against the shit show that was Transformers 2 is a bit much but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

He gave his criteria:

1) Mediocre

2) Forgettable

3) Can be enjoyed in the movie theater (for spectacle, I assume)


Going by that, it makes sense. AoU was definitely a better mediocre movie though.
 
Relatively boring movie is apparently just as bad as one of the most offensive movies to come out of Hollywood in the last 10 years.

I'm not saying Age of Ultron isnt medicore but for crying out loud man Transformers 2 is straight up racist in some scenes.
It's been so long since I've seen it that I have no idea what is so racist about it?
 
Good ol' Mudflap and Skids. Robots that "talk black" and have gold teeth. Because lol black people. Cause us black people are stupid and loud.
 
Age of Ultron as bad as transformers 2?!! good god man

Dat hyperbole

image.php


image.php
 
I liked Age of Ultron a lot. It was a goddamn mess, but that's because it tried to do too much, so it was at least interesting in an underdeveloped way. I'd rather an interesting but flawed movie (Age of Ultron, Iron Man 3) to a competent but bland one (the Thor movies, Ant-Man).
 
Did nobody on gaf like antman? ive seen a few posts of people bashing the movie but i found it really enjoyable.

one of the better marvel movies personally.

I think a lot of people on here are hung up on bow much "better" it would have been if Edgar Wright stayed on to finish it.

I can see that point, but I still loved Ant-Man.
 
Isn't there a fight in Transformers 2 that starts in the middle of Washington DC, and then goes through a wall and into a remote forest for no reason whatsoever?

edit: sorry, my bad, it was walking out of the Air & Space Museum and into the desert. The remote forest was apparently right around the corner from the inner-city riverfront.
 
I liked Age of Ultron a lot. It was a goddamn mess, but that's because it tried to do too much, so it was at least interesting in an underdeveloped way. I'd rather an interesting but flawed movie (Age of Ultron, Iron Man 3) to a competent but bland one (the Thor movies, Ant-Man).

Whedon was taking Ultron to some interesting places as a character (I dug his fascination with God) but it didn't really go far enough. I'm assuming this movie is one of the most heavily interfered with from Marvel higher ups and Ultron's chance to fully develop was neutered for various reasons. Unfortunately the most likely culprit (Thor/Infinity Stone subplot) was also woefully undercooked. That didn't feel worth it at all so should have just been dropped and incorporated into Ragnarok or something.

Movie legit needed another 15 minutes or so of runtime and it would have been golden. Pretty much all the character work was great it just couldn't fully manifest with so much packed into a short run time.
 
I'll take back an earlier comment I made and say I'm a little curious about the Captain Marvel movie but everyone keeps telling me she's a shit character so I don't know.
She's not shit, it's just a case of a completely white bread character that's called the greatest without anything to really back it up. Like Barry Allen or Hal Jordan. Only Hal is slightly more interesting given that he's a complete piece of shit.
Loki and Thor are not gods. They are aliens in the MCU.
But it doesn't change who Loki is, which is an incredibly powerful master of trickery, illusions, lies, and manipulation. She outplayed the dude on a game set up by him, on a playing field of his own choosing, with his own rules.

So be nitpicky if you like, but these guys are just as much gods as they are in the comics (although their powers are scaled down a lot).

Carol is a character with a TON of potential. The whole question is how she's going to be handled in the MCU (and she has been repeatedly mishandled in the comics).

At the core, you have someone who has pushed themselves to constantly be better, who has had to work every step of the way, suddenly be given what are essentially superman's powers.

There's a lot that can be done with that...if someone like that no longer has to work for achievements, then what does it do mentally? What does it mean that everything they've accomplished in life is absolutely nothing compared to their current ability? Then there's the question of "Am I even human anymore?" (that is, if her powers are Kree in origin). And, in the comics, she's had all emotional connection to her memories severed (one of her most interesting traits, but not sure they'll use this in the movies).

All of this makes for immense potential...such great psychological issues to explore, a ton of character to build. But time and time again in the comics, they just have her hit things really hard and worry that she's not good enough because she's a woman.
She also gets pushed as "Earth's Mightiest Hero" or "The Best Avenger," but I honestly can't think of any reason why. Other than that she's been at the superhero game for a long-ass time.
 
Yeah, Hawkeye has been grossly under represented. Even though he's only been in two movies, they do little more with him than 'Shoot single foot soldier with arrow'. His trick arrows should have been majorly upped in Ultron, and, I agree, they were a step back from the stuff he did in Avengers. Using him as the Ma-Ti of the team, with the power of HEART! was stupid.

Agreed. The only place Hawkeye really shown was in the Avengers (USB arrow, acid arrow, a few no look arrow shots).
 
She also gets pushed as "Earth's Mightiest Hero" or "The Best Avenger," but I honestly can't think of any reason why. Other than that she's been at the superhero game for a long-ass time.
The best thing that happened was in House of M, when she was the top hero in Wanda's World. Then she comes out of it, realizes that just as powerful as she was then, but isn't anywhere near that level. That's a great story, great character development, and really put a spotlight on the whole "Earth's Mightiest" thing...and then they fully abandoned it. Just like they did with the whole 'no emotional connection to the past' thing, and the whole 'not human anymore' thing, and the 'how do I maintain my drive' thing. So many great setups to make her a really fleshed out character, and every time they just ignore it (usually because something happens, like Secret Wars, or Civil War, or some other major event).



Oh the subject of Hawkeye...yeah, boomerang arrows. I did like the electric plunger, and he really should have better, more flashy trick arrows...smoke, EMP net, that sort of thing.
 
Killing people off doesnt necessarily mean an increase in tension
it's the knowledge that they won't be that kills the tension. they don't actually need to die although that would be even better because that would raise the stakes for everyone in a sequel. but then disney can't profit off the character IP anymore so...
A movie doesn't have to have "something at stake" to be interesting. Just because you're starved for some blood doesn't mean everyone else is too. Some of us are just happy to see some fun action for 2 hours.
"fun action", that's an empty phrase if I ever knew one.
Action movies need tension to work, otherwise it's nothing but visual spectacle.
So Mad Max, James Bond and Mission Impossible lacks tension due to their main character won't die?
To some degree yes. It always kills part of the tension when you know that things will work out in the end because the company wants to make sequels and make more money.
The difference is that these movies still sort of work because they aren't superheroes. when tom cruise is climbing a skyscraper the moment still has great tension because I can relate to the danger as a human being. with super heroes you can never do that because their abilities are arbitrarily defined. i don't think bond and MI movies are particularly good though. mediocre dumb action that kinda works.
I will say though that in fury road mad max isn't really the main character and it was not obvious at all to me that furiosa would live. it's one of the reasons the movie work so well.

And action movie absolutely has to have stakes, or otherwise the action lacks any sort of weight. It becomes action for the sake of action and becomes boring. Characters don't have to be the thing at stake, though.
characters absolutely has to be at stake or it doesn't work. In super hero movies it was usually the human friend that was in danger, but it become such a predictable and boring pattern that they moved away from that and now.. instead we have things at stake. stuff that is never emotionally present and so you don't care about it. if you don't care about it, it's not really a stake.

Also, trying to create bigger and bigger stake will just make the story look ridiculous and unbelievable. Many long-running TV series, especially anime often suffers from this.
that's what these movies are doing, introducing "bigger" stakes, but not meaningful stakes. A good change would be if say spidermans abilities were limited to climbing and maybe net shooting. no super strength, no super senses and so on. Then you'd actually feel the danger of him climbing around because a fall would kill him, and his accomplishments compensating for his lack of allroundedness would actually carry weight and meaning.
 
Here's the thing. You (in the general sense) may have a problem with movies in general. Maybe due to boredom or not branching out of your comfort zone enough. Being unable to feel tension because you know the main character won't die is not a problem with the movie itself. That's either on you or it's a narrative problem. As in, the movie didn't compel you enough to let you ignore that thought.

And it's hard to judge that thought after you have had time to digest what you have seen. What matters is how you felt the first time. If it bothered you that Protagonist A wasn't going to die while you were watching the movie for the first time then either the movie and/or character itself just wasn't gripping you or maybe you're sort of a psychopath who wishes death on good people. >_>
 
that's what these movies are doing, introducing "bigger" stakes, but not meaningful stakes. A good change would be if say spidermans abilities were limited to climbing and maybe net shooting. no super strength, no super senses and so on. Then you'd actually feel the danger of him climbing around because a fall would kill him, and his accomplishments compensating for his lack of allroundedness would actually carry weight and meaning.

what

Isn't it just the same as the super heroes beating the villains then? After all the villains have abilities that by all means should be able to match or outmatch the heroes' they just don't because the plot needs the heroes to win.

"Feel the danger of him climbing around" jesus lol.

Like'd it be good as a temporal story line, where he has to deal with the greater risks of fighting depowered (one of the movies already did this anyway), but as a permanent change to Spiderman? Hell no.

It's all meaningless in the comics because popular characters rarely remain dead for very long, its just a "break" the characters are on. On the movies its different, but its not always going to be done well, I feel like Pietro's death in Ultron was badly done, almost as if they just shoehorned a death scene because they continued getting flak on that, wasn't the actor signed for multiple movies?

Movie!Civil War's tension comes from whose side will win and what changes it will bring to how these characters operate in the future, a character dying may be extra tension, but what's stake on this is not the character's imminent dangers, but just whose ideals will be seen as correct.
 
A good change would be if say spidermans abilities were limited to climbing and maybe net shooting. no super strength, no super senses and so on. Then you'd actually feel the danger of him climbing around because a fall would kill him, and his accomplishments compensating for his lack of allroundedness would actually carry weight and meaning.

That's stupid. You want to watch a climbing movie. Not a superhero movie. The problem here is you. You have a silly expectation that doesn't belong in a superhero movie. A superhero will obviously win the day. It's called Superhero for a reason. They stand a chance to win a lot more than typical people and less likely to die to begin with. Even when the odds are stacked against them.

If you want to watch something where someone is likely to die then watch a horror film or a 'based on a true story' film where the characters are vulnerable because they are not superhero in the first place.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/chris-evans-promises-captain-america-civil-war-175624149.html

Here's an interview with Chris Evans:

“Even though there are a lot characters, the focus is on Steve and his struggle,” Evans said in the spring issue of Disney twenty-three, the magazine put out by D23, the official Disney fan club. “Especially his struggle with Tony Stark.“

“It’s exciting to see a guy who’s as optimistic and as selfless as Steve be met with letdown, betrayal, frustration, and selfishness,” said Evans, who is appearing in his fifth film as the super-soldier. “There are events and people in his life that test him — that challenge him and force him to reevaluate who he is and what he wants out of life.”

Though they’ve teamed up in two Avengers films, there has always been a tension between Tony Stark, a cocky billionaire, and Steve Rogers, a patriot born in another era. Kevin Feige, the producer and mastermind of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, says that the big schism between the two heroes has been carefully charted from the early days.

“We’ve seen it coming,” Feige told Disney twenty-three. “The clues were there. When you watch the other films you see how Captain America and Iron Man fight the bad guys together, back-to-back, but they have differences. And there is something that happens in the world that divides them.”

Those differences in personalities will drive the plot even more than the inciting incident, when Congress passes the regulations that demand superheroes answer to a government authority. "The turns in the movie are character-based,” Joe Russo said. “The twists are character-based. Winter Soldier was based more on the twisting plot. This one twists on character.”
 
After watching AoU again (which is a great, great movie) I'm so indecisive on which team I want to root for. Cap is soooooo cool, but I love me some Iron Man.

Guess I'll just be team BP, and wherever he goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom