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

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

55 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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

Among comic book fans, sure, but worldwide? No way. You could wear a Superman logo t-shirt in just about any country in the world that has had exposure to American pop culture and people are going to recognize it.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Among comic book fans, sure, but worldwide? No way. You could wear a Superman logo t-shirt in just about any country in the world that has had exposure to American pop culture and people are going to recognize it.

The idea of Superman, like the tshirt for instance still holds up, but in terms of actually the popularity of the character.. I doubt many people really think much about him or have any sort of fixed idea of what Superman represents. 

[Mladen]

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The idea of Superman, like the tshirt for instance still holds up, but in terms of actually the popularity of the character.. I doubt many people really think much about him or have any sort of fixed idea of what Superman represents. 

As someone who comes half-a-world away from US, Superman, Batman and Spiderman were, are and will always be huge deal. Nothing compares with that... BvS was disastrous movie on all accounts and still it managed to earn $800 million. In comparison, F4 last year earned $168, Ant-Man earned $520, X-Man:DoFP earned $750, GotG $773 millions... So, even though that the superhero pool widened, the fact remains that the golden trifecta of superheroes remain as popular as always. The grown popularity of IronMan, Thor, Captain America influenced them, but it didn't take from people knowing about the abovementioned trio.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The idea of Superman, like the tshirt for instance still holds up, but in terms of actually the popularity of the character.. I doubt many people really think much about him or have any sort of fixed idea of what Superman represents. 

Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Superman has transcended the comic book genre. That's all I'm saying. As a comic book fan, there have been just a few iterations of the character that I gave a crap about. Probably The Dark Knight portrayal, Kingdom Come and Red Son are the only ones that come to mind. As a general rule, I have very little interest in Superman comics at this point.

[JGP]

2 hours ago, Risto said:

As someone who comes half-a-world away from US, Superman, Batman and Spiderman were, are and will always be huge deal. Nothing compares with that... BvS was disastrous movie on all accounts and still it managed to earn $800 million. In comparison, F4 last year earned $168, Ant-Man earned $520, X-Man:DoFP earned $750, GotG $773 millions... So, even though that the superhero pool widened, the fact remains that the golden trifecta of superheroes remain as popular as always. The grown popularity of IronMan, Thor, Captain America influenced them, but it didn't take from people knowing about the abovementioned trio.

Totally. Thing is, it seemed like this little derail was born from Mother of the Other's post-- in the main however, I'd agree with him [or her, whatever]. Of the two, since the MoS iteration anyway, it's the Captain who is holding up the ideal whereas Superman in Snyder's attempt to make him modern or whatever he's trying to do... he's created a distance between who Superman should be and who he currently is [theatrically]. An argument could be made that we're to see this long established foundation of his character develop as he grows up, if you will, but to my mind ... [spreads hands] ...PG said that Superman needs the right writing, and with that I couldn't agree more. And please, don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Superman fan. He was, quite literally, my hero growing up and seeing what's happened to his essential character over the last few years has been quite disheartening.

Balance it against what's been going on with Captain America on the other hand [which is what MotO was driving at, as I'd interpret it] and I'd agree that Steve Rogers now holds up the flag in regard to 'doing the right thing.' Hence, eclipsing.

It's difficult to hold someone responsible for what they’ve done under duress ffs, so to my mind Steve was absolutely right in standing by his friend who was conditioned/brainwashed/not in control of his own mind whathaveyou. And right again in standing by Wanda as the resolving incident that led to his rejection of the Accord outright. Despite that I can see both sides of the argument. Look at how internationally divisive it was when the Bush Administration decided that Afghanistan wasn't enough and Iraq needed to be invaded. On a world scale, it is very problematic when you have an entity [whether a super powered individual or group, or a Nation] that feels they can do whatever they want as long as it's something that, even if only to themselves, they can justify as being right. Both nervous and wise parties will want oversight, sure... but at the cost of freedom, of the liberty of a soul's right to choose though? Then I'm not so sure.  

At the end of the day, the argument as presented in Civil War is similar. It’s less the potential for harm, less the Individual vs the Greater Good than it’s about Self Determination vs Bureaucracy. 

 

In my opinion.

 

[sifth]

5 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

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.

 

 

What they should have played on is that half of the UN is made out of dictatorships and fake democracies that makes it a sad sad joke. Its like a democracy where half of the citizens are Ted Bundy,

 

These are totally the people we should give control of The Avengers to. Nothing bad could possibly come from this. Silly Tony Stark, lol

[The Anti-Targ]

CA:CW is a 6.5/10 for me. It did all the usual marvel things right, and it even managed a bit of drama. But it left me feeling like I'd eaten junk food, loaded with calories but devoid of nutrition. I thought Captain America in particular behaved in questionable ways for someone who's supposed to be kind of the moral centre of the Avengers. He can argue for the no-shackles on the Avengers side, but he behaved in ways that would give cause for controls to be put in place.

Also 

Spoiler

the balance of superpowers at the airport fight is totally in favour of team stark. Wanda and Vision are the most powerful but cancel each other out, more or less. So that leaves the rest, and team Stark should easily be able to deal to Team Cap, especially once Steve and Bucky bravely run away to hijack the quinjet.

 

[Calibandar]

17 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

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]

 

Maybe if Superman were to disappear from media there would be some chance at that. But The Justice League film next year is going to be very big and a great deal of people will be watching that.

Regardless of that, Superman is a far more iconic character than someone like Captain America. If he's to be usurped, I don't see who is to do that. Batman is more likely to do it than anything Marvel have right now. Not that Marvel don't have very cool characters of their own with some of the X-Men and some of the Avengers, but they are not in the same league as the two big ones from DC in terms of traditional, legendary superhero status. The fact that BvS wasn't a great film isn't going to take too much away from that, is my assertion.

 

15 hours 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. 

Agreed with this.

 

[The BlackBear]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

  Hide contents

the balance of superpowers at the airport fight is totally in favour of team stark. Wanda and Vision are the most powerful but cancel each other out, more or less. So that leaves the rest, and team Stark should easily be able to deal to Team Cap, especially once Steve and Bucky bravely run away to hijack the quinjet.

 

Spoiler

 

Yes if they were going all out this'd be the case. And it seems pretty clear to me throughout the fight Tony has the upper hand.

But certain characters like Vision dare not use their powers much because they are so powerful, he knows these aren't bad guys and as such doesn't really want to hurt them and takes himself out of the fight even if he wasn't focused on Scarlet Witch. Hell we see what can go wrong when he uses his powers.

War Machine too is mostly equipped to deal out lethal force, he can't use most of his arsenal, and in fact is slowed down by it, compared to Tony.

When Cap and Bucky run off to get the jet, their goal from the start, they accept it's because they can't win this. Vision is focused on Wanda, Widow we find out has gone after Black Panther, Black Panther nearly catches Steve and Bucky, Starks suit is at least a little compromised by Ant-Man's earlier tinkering. And Giant Man is causing havoc, enough that they have to be focused on him.

Then at the very end War Machine and Iron Man are still in pursuit, it's only Visions accident that stops them.

 

 

[dbunting]

Watched it this weekend, pretty good movie, 7 or 8 out of 10 for me. It didn't feel as long as it was and that's always a good sign.

Spoiler

Kind of a let down after watching Superman vs Batman, just in the sense that the pact was basically what Batman was all about. That the suffering doesn't outweigh the good. To me, that is all just comic book silliness. If they hadn't done what they did and stopped them the world would be destroyed or enslaved, but that's real world logic.

I liked Spiderman in this, he seemed very true to the comics with his child like wonder at it all.

As to the battle itself, it's exactly what you expect, a lot of excitement and such with no one really winning.

 

[Mladen]

Do we actually agree that the Civil war in this movie was about Sokovia accords? I mean at the end of the day, I don't see the confrontation being about that.

On 5/8/2016 at 11:34 PM, JEORDHl said:

Balance it against what's been going on with Captain America on the other hand [which is what MotO was driving at, as I'd interpret it] and I'd agree that Steve Rogers now holds up the flag in regard to 'doing the right thing.' Hence, eclipsing.

If I am to choose who was right here, regardless of what happened in the movie, it would be Cap. But what happened doesn't build his case...

Spoiler

At the end of the day, he made things worse. He involved Wanda, Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Falcon into something that wasn't truly the problem of the Accords. It was the personal issue of Bucky. I do think Captain was unfair to Tony when he said that he broke the team with signing of Accords. I think that the problem weren't the Accords, it was Cap's lack of faith in the system. He knew Bucky won't get the fair trail, he knew he had to do something to prove his innocence and he was doing all the wrong things. I am not even sure who is more at fault here: Cap for not talking when needed, or Tony for not listening when things were said.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

54 minutes ago, Risto said:

Do we actually agree that the Civil war in this movie was about Sokovia accords? I mean at the end of the day, I don't see the confrontation being about that.

If I am to choose who was right here, regardless of what happened in the movie, it would be Cap. But what happened doesn't build his case...

  Hide contents

At the end of the day, he made things worse. He involved Wanda, Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Falcon into something that wasn't truly the problem of the Accords. It was the personal issue of Bucky. I do think Captain was unfair to Tony when he said that he broke the team with signing of Accords. I think that the problem weren't the Accords, it was Cap's lack of faith in the system. He knew Bucky won't get the fair trail, he knew he had to do something to prove his innocence and he was doing all the wrong things. I am not even sure who is more at fault here: Cap for not talking when needed, or Tony for not listening when things were said.

 

The accords was a side issue in the end IMO. They were a catalyst for developing mistrust and ill feeling, but in the end the breaking of the Avengers was not about the Accords. Which kind of makes the movie title a misnomer. This wasn't a civil war, because they weren't fighting about the Avengers' "constitution" or governance.  It's more like a rogue agent movie than a civil war movie. Should have been called Captain America: Going Rogue.

[Jack Bauer 24]

Is Vision OP?

[Martell Spy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/05/captain-america-civil-war/481881/

Picking Sides in Captain America: Civil War

Four Atlantic writers discuss the newest installment in Marvel’s Cinematic Universe.

[JGP]

16 hours ago, Risto said:

 

  Hide contents

At the end of the day, he made things worse. He involved Wanda, Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Falcon into something that wasn't truly the problem of the Accords. It was the personal issue of Bucky. I do think Captain was unfair to Tony when he said that he broke the team with signing of Accords. I think that the problem weren't the Accords, it was Cap's lack of faith in the system. He knew Bucky won't get the fair trail, he knew he had to do something to prove his innocence and he was doing all the wrong things. I am not even sure who is more at fault here: Cap for not talking when needed, or Tony for not listening when things were said.

 

I wouldn't agree that Civil War was about the Accords [can't write above the quote for some reason. Quoting, and the performance of this board's server lately... oi]

I'm not sure about the rest of it though. I mean, deep down, it seemed apparent to me that they all had issues with the Accord. Some were willing to compromise, or as Tony said, take the path of least resistance, and Cap almost bent that far until he heard Wanda was on house arrest, which was a loss of personal liberty that he couldn't countenance. Your argument gets a little traction here because that was a personal choice and if Steve was about personal responsibility he maybe should've chosen to shoulder the consequences on his own. Then again, he was a soldier as well, and as such is going to plan through or around obstacles to an objective.

Speaking for myself, I see blame as a thing for children. Most realized adults, I'd hope, understand that it's never a singular 'thing,' that root causes are for the hard sciences rather than the human psyche. You [general you] can assign portions of the blame I suppose, but I don't see approximations as particularly valuable unless you're trying to land on the moon, mars, or in this case to state something about your relative position. I'd think the same applies to Steve and Tony, to all of us. At least, insofar and choice itself goes anyway.

Like, pick your battles, right? But when the dust settles, ever wonder why you picked that one? And while for some a thing is as simple as this-or-that, in reality most people get lost down those rabbit holes all the time. The funny thing is, when you actually talk about it, those passages, even if they don't find any particular revelation about themselves... that's usually when understanding between two people is most often found. 

You definitely have a point, Risto-- yet when I look at Civil War and the reality it's embedded in, which at heart isn't something so divorced from our own, I see it as something that was kind of inevitable.

 

edited for formatting        

[Leofric]

Steve has always gone against authority when it goes against what he thinks is right.   In the first movie, he went along with bond selling and USO tour thing until he learned Bucky and a bunch of others soldiers were being held captive and he was told no  one was going after them.   So he and Peggy and Stark 1.0 disobeyed orders and went to rescue them.

In Winter Soldier, he was thinking of leaving Shield when he found out Fury and Black Widow had risked the lives of the crew on the ship for their side mission and found out about the Helicarriers and their planned use by Shield to hit terrorists before they acted.  (Reminded me of Sean Connery in Hunt for Red October, who defected because he realized the only purpose for a caterpillar drive was for a first strike). 

So his resistance to the Accords is definitely in character, knowing that there will be a time he and oversight committee won't agree on what is the right thing to do, so he couldn't commit.

 

[ants]

On ‎8‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 2:02 PM, 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.

Whereas I think Tony is mostly in the right. If you believe in democracy, there must be oversight. If the avengers will just go into any country and operate, then unless they have that country's permission they are vigilantes. This would all change if/when they require registration, but while the accords are about giving these guys the green light to act unilaterally, then putting them within a democratic structure is completely reasonable.

On ‎8‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 8:58 PM, Risto said:

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

  Reveal hidden contents

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...

  Hide contents

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?

 

Is Tony that upset about the bombing? My impression was that he was more concerned about Wanda herself, and reactions to her. Plus the visa issues. I believe he (and Vision too) honestly thought he was acting in Wanda's best interests.

Virtually all the rest of the Avengers powers can be explained away by science, whether it is super-soldier serum, iron suits or gamma radiation. Wanda's can't, and Vision doesn't appear to have a public profile (was he even in Nigeria?). It appears that the world is reacting badly to her, which is understandable. She represents the first real "non-science" public avenger, and was allied with Ultron and Hydra to boot.

So I think Tony was trying to help out, which is why he was frustrated at her. He honestly thought he was doing the right thing, and saw it as temporary. Wanda saw how people were reacting to her, and saw it as the first step towards containment. I would point out Vision, who is worthy, agreed with Tony.

On ‎10‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 11:32 AM, Risto said:

Do we actually agree that the Civil war in this movie was about Sokovia accords? I mean at the end of the day, I don't see the confrontation being about that.

If I am to choose who was right here, regardless of what happened in the movie, it would be Cap. But what happened doesn't build his case...

  Hide contents

At the end of the day, he made things worse. He involved Wanda, Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Falcon into something that wasn't truly the problem of the Accords. It was the personal issue of Bucky. I do think Captain was unfair to Tony when he said that he broke the team with signing of Accords. I think that the problem weren't the Accords, it was Cap's lack of faith in the system. He knew Bucky won't get the fair trail, he knew he had to do something to prove his innocence and he was doing all the wrong things. I am not even sure who is more at fault here: Cap for not talking when needed, or Tony for not listening when things were said.

 

Absolutely. If he'd signed, he could have brought in Bucky without wholesale property damage. If he'd brought Bucky back after the episode with the psychologist Bucky would have been held until the evidence that he was being framed was found. He would have saved millions in property damage, and when Stark found out about his parents had a bunch of other avengers to stop Tony going off the rails. And in the end, Bucky ends up virtually imprisoned anyway. His stance achieved very little.

[Jack Bauer 24]

So I'm hearing this should have been Black Panthers coming out party, but they actually backfired themselves and had Spidey steal all the thunder?

[ants]

Beyond these threads I'd never heard of Black Panther before, so wasn't fussed about the character. Now I'm looking forward to his movie.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, ants said:

Virtually all the rest of the Avengers powers can be explained away by science, whether it is super-soldier serum, iron suits or gamma radiation.

I'm not sold on this at all. Thor is somehow different from Wanda, how? Both get powers from what is effectively magic as far as the general public is concerned, even if it's officially dressed up as weird alien science.

I can agree about her being ex-HYDRA, though that's not necessarily widely known and of course all the heroes are to some extent tainted by that association via SHIELD (and with Ultron via Tony).

4 hours ago, ants said:

So I think Tony was trying to help out, which is why he was frustrated at her.

The kind of 'help' that involves confining someone to quarters without even telling, let alone consulting, them and setting a colleague to be their watchdog, does not really qualify as 'help'.

4 hours ago, ants said:

 I would point out Vision, who is worthy, agreed with Tony.

As I said earlier, there's a legitimate question of how independent of Tony Vision actually is.