Captain America 3 - Discussion and reviews (SPOILERS in tags until May 14th!)

[mormont]

10 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Interestingly, PG got me looking into Geoff a bit more and by all appearances he might not actually be outside the loop. If that's the case, I'm not sure where to go from there.

Yeah, that's my issue - there appears to be an assumption in polish's post that Johns is not already on board with what Snyder is doing. I'm not so sure about that.

But this is a MCU thread, so let's return to that.

[Mladen]

6 hours ago, sifth said:

Personally I think Tony Stark's beliefs in this film are insane. When trying to save the world from evil aliens and killer robots innocent people are going to die. That's something impossible to prevent. The Avengers at the very least try to save as many people as possible. The team being regulated by the U.N. (which we're laughably meant to believe has actual power in this universe), isn't going prevent collateral damage when the Avengers go on missions. If anything it's going to make the Avengers a more ineffectual group, because they'd now be tied down by government red tape, which is always a good thing. lol

It should also be of note that the government in this world tried to nuke NYC in the first Avengers film and HYDRA infiltrated SHIELD in the second Cap movie. I wouldn't be so quick to trust the U.N. or any government in this world after those two major events.

So yea, I'm for Steve Rogers side all the way.

I think that this entire debate is just the starting point of the movie... It perhaps started the movie but as the story progresses I see that the real conflict was about

Spoiler

Bucky and in many ways, Wanda. At some point we came to the fact Cap wants to sign the document, but after hearing that Bucky and Wanda won't be treated fairly, everything falls apart.

And regarding Wanda...

Spoiler

1. First, Miss Olsen is shaping up in absolutely amazing actress. Never thought I'd be saying this about an Olsen girl, but she is seriously, real deal. And her "Blanchett route" between indy movies and blockbusters is the road she should stick to, as it is giving great results.

2. Tony's perspective here is not something I understand. Not only that he seems genuinely upset with Wanda, it seems as if he believes she made the entire thing worse. Now, someone please correct me, but that bomb in Lagos would have exploded without Wanda's powers and all she did was moving and containing it. I understand how some regular Joe would blame her, but did Tony miss the memo or something?

 

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

 

And regarding Wanda...

  Hide contents

2. Tony's perspective here is not something I understand. Not only that he seems genuinely upset with Wanda, it seems as if he believes she made the entire thing worse. Now, someone please correct me, but that bomb in Lagos would have exploded without Wanda's powers and all she did was moving and containing it. I understand how some regular Joe would blame her, but did Tony miss the memo or something?

 

I think maybe part of the reason is that Tony still hasn't forgotten what Wanda did to his mind (and the minds of the other Avengers) in Age of Ultron. He probably finds her power more frightening than any of the others, Vision alludes to this in his conversation with Wanda.

[Mladen]

37 minutes ago, williamjm said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I think maybe part of the reason is that Tony still hasn't forgotten what Wanda did to his mind (and the minds of the other Avengers) in Age of Ultron. He probably finds her power more frightening than any of the others, Vision alludes to this in his conversation with Wanda.

 

I would agree about that and I do think that the events from Ulton played the role here...

Spoiler

But, it was a bit jarring... I mean, all Cap had to say was "Tony, be reasonable... It was bomb" It is not like she lost control of her powers or that the victims were the result of her powers. Unless, of course, her force field made the bomb stronger? 

 

[WolfOfWinter]

So
 

Spoiler

Throughout AoU, Steve was pissed at Tony for keeping secrets, while withholding the truth about Tony's parents' demise from him?

I love Steve Rogers, both as a character and as a person, but this made me lose all respect for him. He comes across as a giant hypocrite.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I loved the airport fight but i kept wondering what Vision was doing at the back of my mind. Vision probably could take on all of Team Captain America minus Scarlet Witch, by himself. Maybe Thor should have been there to balance things out.

[Calibandar]

10 hours ago, sifth said:

Personally I think Tony Stark's beliefs in this film are insane. When trying to save the world from evil aliens and killer robots innocent people are going to die. That's something impossible to prevent. The Avengers at the very least try to save as many people as possible. The team being regulated by the U.N. (which we're laughably meant to believe has actual power in this universe), isn't going prevent collateral damage when the Avengers go on missions. If anything it's going to make the Avengers a more ineffectual group, because they'd now be tied down by government red tape, which is always a good thing. lol

So yea, I'm for Steve Rogers side all the way.

Totally agreed with this and this is why I feel that the writers create a conflict of opinion here that does not feel organic but deliberate to create a story they can tell. If anything you would think Cap takes the position that Tony does, but you can see why he would not. I cannot see why Tony takes the position he does, even after he has created Ultron. The Avengers/Shield are the real power here, they would just be straight-jacketed by a corrupt UN leadership which if it was anything like the "real world" would not be able to agree on a sufficienct course of action anyway. Furthermore the plot all hanges on coincidences. Oh Tony's parents were killed? Oh and that happens to be Cap's very best friend ( who btw we are only told he is his best friend but these guys have zero chemistry in both Cap films so we never see it, but that's another story). And an evil man who likes bacon has a whole plan of revenge hinging on that? Well it's something else from the usual Macguffins in Marvel films I suppose. Just not a better idea to watch.

I particularly disliked the scene early on where Tony Stark encounters a black woman near the elevator who's come to tell him that it's his fault that her son died because the Avengers acted in response to terror, and that as a direct result of this, Stark backs the government plan to constrain the Avengers as government sees fit.

[Calibandar]

14 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Crazy to think that Superman could easily be usurped as most famous and recognisable superhero. He hasn't been in an unequivocally good film or TV series in 35 years. Meanwhile, Captain America (who I couldn't give two fucks about and assumed was some patriotic douche in 2008) gives us the best series of movies within the MCU by some distance. Who saw that coming? I can't imagine even diehard fans of his did.

 

I don't think Superman is about to be usurped as the most famous and recognizable superhero, and if anyone does that, it's probably Batman. In fact you could begin to argue by now Batman is about as famous. Globally speaking ( not just in the US) I don't think Captain America is anywhere near these guys even after these films. 

[sifth]

4 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Totally agreed with this and this is why I feel that he writers create a conflict of opinion here that does not feel organic but deliberate to create a story they can tell. If anything you would think Cap takes the position that Tony does, but you can see why he would not. I cannot see why Tony takes the position he does, even after he has created Ultron. The Avengers/Shield are the real power here, they would just be straihtjacketed by a corrupt UN leadership which if it was anything like the "real world" would not be able to agree on a suffiienct course of action anyway. Furthermore the plot all hanges on coincidences. Oh Tony's parents were killed? Oh and that happens to be Cap's very best friend ( who btw we are only told he is his best friend but these guys have zero chemistry in both Cap films so we never see it, but that's another story).

I particularly disliked the scene early on where Tony Stark encounters a black woman near the elevator who's come to tell him that it's his fault that her son died because the Avengers acted in response to terror, and that as a direct result of this, Stark backs the government plan to constrain the Avengers as government sees fit.

To be fair, I can understand why Stark feels guilty about that one kids life. He did create Ultron after all, so it is in a way his fault.

 

I also love how no one mentioned in the movie how corrupt the government in this world is. These guys wanted to nuke New York for crying out loud. That alone should make signing the bill seem insane.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Totally agreed with this and this is why I feel that the writers create a conflict of opinion here that does not feel organic but deliberate to create a story they can tell. If anything you would think Cap takes the position that Tony does, but you can see why he would not. I cannot see why Tony takes the position he does, even after he has created Ultron. The Avengers/Shield are the real power here, they would just be straight-jacketed by a corrupt UN leadership which if it was anything like the "real world" would not be able to agree on a sufficienct course of action anyway. Furthermore the plot all hanges on coincidences. Oh Tony's parents were killed? Oh and that happens to be Cap's very best friend ( who btw we are only told he is his best friend but these guys have zero chemistry in both Cap films so we never see it, but that's another story). And an evil man who likes bacon has a whole plan of revenge hinging on that? Well it's something else from the usual Macguffins in Marvel films I suppose. Just not a better idea to watch.

I particularly disliked the scene early on where Tony Stark encounters a black woman near the elevator who's come to tell him that it's his fault that her son died because the Avengers acted in response to terror, and that as a direct result of this, Stark backs the government plan to constrain the Avengers as government sees fit.

I disagree. Tony's story since about Iron Man 2 has mainly been about him trying to find solutions to him being a superhero, because I don't think he trusts himself. He destroys his own suits in Iron Man 3 and in Ultron he tried to create a system that would do the job without him having to be involved. It all went wrong, but its essentially all about the fact that he realises he is infalliable and needs checks and balances n order to do the right thing. All the destruction that was caused by the Avengers only feeds into that guilt and self loathing. It makes a lot of sense for him to hand over his responsiblity to a higher power.

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 I disagree. Tony's story since about Iron Man 2 has mainly been about him trying to find solutions to him being a superhero, because I don't think he trusts himself. He destroys his own suits in Iron Man 3 and in Ultron he tried to create a system that would do the job without him having to be involved. It all went wrong, but its essentially all about the fact that he realises he is infalliable and needs checks and balances n order to do the right thing. All the destruction that was caused by the Avengers only feeds into that guilt and self loathing. It makes a lot of sense for him to hand over his responsiblity to a higher power.

Fantastic movie. One thing I loved is all sides were presented as understandable and sane.

Spoiler

 

Yep. I think also people in this discussion are ignoring that there was only the illusion of choice in signing the accords. There was no scenario where all the Avengers refuse to sign and the Avengers just keep on going as they have been before. There would be consequences. And it was stated to the Captain that if he refuses to sign he becomes a vigilante.

Tony Stark says something like he's just trying to prevent something worse. It isn't just his guilt talking. He's being realistic about how the world will react to a refusal. A couple obvious things that would likely happen. All passports revoked for all involved for the 160+ nations that were involved in the accords. The Avengers are funded by Stark's billions. Those funds would likely be seized at some point.

The Avengers would basically end up a super villian group, or at least viewed and treated that way. Eventually they'd likely face some UN sanctioned group of supers led by Black Panther.

Anyway it sounds like some of this Civil War stuff will continue to play out in the next big Avengers movie, according to the writers and directors. (There's some articles on Den of Geek about it)

 

 

 

 

[DaveSumm]

39 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

I don't think Superman is about to be usurped as the most famous and recognizable superhero, and if anyone does that, it's probably Batman. In fact you could begin to argue by now Batman is about as famous. Globally speaking ( not just in the US) I don't think Captain America is anywhere near these guys even after these films. 

I didn't really mean Cap particularly, it's just weird to me that Superman's as famous as he is and has done nothing great for so long. Surely that can only last so long? If the MCU continues to thrive, and the DCCU falters, there'll almost certainly be a gap before they reboot Superman........what's the earliest we could see a non-Snyder Superman? It's gotta be 10-15 years at least.

[JGP]

This Bizarro-Calibandar is freaking me out.

In the eyes of the movie going public, those who aren't big on Superhero's or steeped lore of Superman... the Last Son of Krypton didn't enjoy a position worth usurping regardless.

For example-- I had like... I think it was 5 women in my classical animation program? Something like that. Anyway.

We got into a bit of a round table one day and Superman was dismissed by all 5 of them as relevant or even as capable vehicle for dramatic storytelling of any kind. Other things were said that weren't so nice, i.e. wish fulfillment of the powerless male, yada yadda

Now, Superman has always been one of my faves. While I didn't agree with them then and kinda don't now, the point can't just be hand waved away.

Unless DC gets off the pot, this emotionally constipated direction they've been leaning toward will definitely see Superman eclipsed as Comicdom's preeminent true blue.

So yah, I agree with Kal on his assessment of Steve's development in film. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised that if in general popular culture, the Captain hasn't eclipsed Superman already [edit: as like the goodest guy, not neccessarily in the teenage popularity contest version of this argument]

 

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Fantastic movie. One thing I loved is all sides were presented as understandable and sane.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Yep. I think also people in this discussion are ignoring that there was only the illusion of choice in signing the accords. There was no scenario where all the Avengers refuse to sign and the Avengers just keep on going as they have been before. There would be consequences. And it was stated to the Captain that if he refuses to sign he becomes a vigilante.

Tony Stark says something like he's just trying to prevent something worse. It isn't just his guilt talking. He's being realistic about how the world will react to a refusal. A couple obvious things that would likely happen. All passports revoked for all involved for the 160+ nations that were involved in the accords. The Avengers are funded by Stark's billions. Those funds would likely be seized at some point.

The Avengers would basically end up a super villian group, or at least viewed and treated that way. Eventually they'd likely face some UN sanctioned group of supers led by Black Panther.

Anyway it sounds like some of this Civil War stuff will continue to play out in the next big Avengers movie, according to the writers and directors. (There's some articles on Den of Geek about it)

 

 

 

 

Until the next alien invasion or world ending event. I get the feeling the U.N. will be singing a different song then. 

 

I mean how could any of the Avengers trust the government after they nearly nuked New York and the whole Hrydra infiltration of Shield. 

Also I love how Wanda is the hump that breaks the camels back. She saved possibly hundreds of lives and it's sad that 11 people still died, but all things considered it seems pretty small scale. 

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Until the next alien invasion or world ending event. I get the feeling the U.N. would be singing a different song then. 

 

I mean how could any of the Avengers trust the government after they nearly nuked New York and the whole Hrydra infiltration of Shield. 

Also I love how Wanda is the hump that breaks the camels back. She saved possibly hundreds of lives and it's sad that 11 people still died, but all things considered it seems pretty small scale.

 

 

Spoiler

 

We'll never know because Stark signed the Accords. Which means the Avengers remain intact as a UN sanctioned group. However, whatever consequences befall the Captain and his cohorts in the next big Avengers movie will kind of give us a sense of what would have happened to the Avengers if Stark hadn't signed.

Stark runs a massive U.S. based corporation. There's no chance he doesn't have both large ties and influence there in the US government. Since the U.S. is part of the accords, it puts Stark in quite a bind. I'm sure he is quite leery of the Security Council over the nuke thing. However, there isn't a ton he can do about it beyond any US influence he has. Even he isn't powerful enough to dictate terms to China.

How does one run a powerful US corporation and be a criminal in the US at the same time? Stark doesn't want to find out.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

In the eyes of the movie going public, those who aren't big on Superhero's or steeped lore of Superman... the Last Son of Krypton didn't enjoy a position worth usurping regardless.

For example-- I had like... I think it was 5 women in my classical animation program? Something like that. Anyway.

We got into a bit of a round table one day and Superman was dismissed by all 5 of them as relevant or even as capable vehicle for dramatic storytelling of any kind. Other things were said that weren't so nice, i.e. wish fulfillment of the powerless male, yada yadda

Now, Superman has always been one of my faves. While I didn't agree with them then and kinda don't now, the point can't just be hand waved away.

Unless DC gets off the pot, this emotionally constipated direction they've been leaning toward will definitely see Superman eclipsed as Comicdom's preeminent true blue.

So yah, I agree with Kal on his assessment of Steve's development in film. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised that if in general popular culture, the Captain hasn't eclipsed Superman already [edit: as like the goodest guy, not neccessarily in the teenage popularity contest version of this argument]

 

Eh, Superman has surpassed the medium of comics to become an iconic pop culture figure. Like Coca-Cola or something like that. He is a symbol of Americana. I don't think it really matters whether anything meaningful or interesting is done with the character from this point forward in terms of how recognizable and universally known the character is. He's not just the most popular superhero of all time, he's one of the most popular logos or brands in pop culture. 

[JGP]

I don't know if I believe that.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, Superman has surpassed the medium of comics to become an iconic pop culture figure. Like Coca-Cola or something like that. He is a symbol of Americana. I don't think it really matters whether anything meaningful or interesting is done with the character from this point forward in terms of how recognizable and universally known the character is. He's not just the most popular superhero of all time, he's one of the most popular logos or brands in pop culture. 

I really don't think thats true any more. He hasn't really been very relevant in popular culture for a long time.. He represents maybe the America of the past, but he doesn't have much relevance now. I'd say Hulk or Wolverine are probably bigger in the public consciousness than Superman these days

[JGP]

Careful, C4. You're setting yourself up for a take down via the false metric of overall sales, merchandising or something like that.

Keeping the tangent on topic, I'd think what would be more difficult to refute would be that, barring Superman Returns, if you look at the relatively recent theatrical depictions of Captain America and Superman-- there's little evidence to support the notion that Clark represents the good old boy ideology more than Steve.      

[polishgenius]

36 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

He represents maybe the America of the past, but he doesn't have much relevance now.

Representing a romantic past (that never existed) is part of Superman's appeal. He's an ideal. He might be out-of-fashion now, but he'll never be totally irrelevant I don't think. Just needs the right writing.
And who's bigger in the public consciousness depends who you look at. Wolverine and Deadpool might be more popular with people who are going to see superhero movies, but everyone knows who Superman is.