Coulson Watches You While You Sleep

[The Lone Ranger]

So, I just saw Captain America: Civil War. It ... didn't suck. I guess.

I wasn't expecting a lot; otherwise I'd have been rather disappointed.

And let's face it, it was way better than Batman v. Superman.

show spoiler

Originally Posted by slimshady2357

How the fuck does Tony Stark just happen to know that Peter Parker is Spiderman? It is just such a monumental part of Spiderman that basically no one knows his identity, that is why it's a HUGE deal in the Civil War comics that he joins TeamStark and unmasks himself. Couldn't they have had Iron Man just fly around New York and find Spiderman and speak to him? That rubbed me wrong, but maybe I'm too much a stickler for the comics.

Yeah, that came completely out of nowhere and made no sense whatsoever. They couldn't have spent 10 seconds establishing that Stark had been secretly tracking Spider-Man for some time, trying to find out his identity? It wouldn't have been at all out of character, considering Tony's control-freak nature and his arrogant (and more than a little hypocritical) disregard for the privacy of others.

The other thing is why the fuck did Aunt May need to be a MILF? Aunt May is already old when Peter is in high school, not a 40 year old hot Marisa Tomei. I know she's 52 IRL, but she doesn't look it and Aunt May never looked like that.

Man, I love me some Marisa Tomei, but I couldn't help but think, "That is Aunt May?" It was a bit of a surprise. Choosing Marisa Tomei to play Aunt May seems a little ... calculated ... on Marvel's part. "Calculated" as in, "We can't very-well put a woman on the screen who isn't an absolute hottie, so who can we find that's old enough to plausibly be Peter's aunt while still being as hot as the Sun?"

Because, God forbid we should allow a woman to be on the screen who doesn't make every heterosexual male in the audience think: "Man, I'd sure like to be with her!"

There was lots of problems with the way they introduced the Sokovia accords (superhero registration act). For one, they show them footage of New York (Avengers 1), Washington DC (Cap 2) and Sokovia (Avengers 2) and say "You dudes are fucking DANGEROUS!!! You know how many people died!?" and no one says "You know how many people would have died if we weren't there?!". In the case of Sokovia, that is 100% the Avengers fault (*coughTONYSTARKcough*). Stark created Ultron and none of that would have happened if he didn't. But in the other cases, most of the problem was started by SHIELD, a government run entity.

What's worse, the movie had to resort to character assassination to make their case.

I'll get back to that in a moment. First, though, this brings up why I've never much liked Tony Stark, not in the comics, and especially not in the movies. Yeah, he's charming, and his heart is more or less in the right place. But he's an egomaniac and a control freak who has virtually no regard for the privacy or feelings of others -- even though he guards his own quite zealously.

His massive ego and his refusal to listen to anyone else has resulted in catastrophe on multiple occasions, and he never learns from his mistakes. On those occasions when his mistakes come back to bite him in the ass, if he learns anything at all, it's always the wrong lesson.

So yeah, the proper response to the complaints about the Avengers' actions in New York, Washington, and even Sokovia should have been: "Yeah, we couldn't save everyone, despite our best efforts, but we tried -- and if we hadn't taken action, in New York or Washington, then millions would have died, and/or we'd all be slaves. If we hadn't taken action in Sokovia, then everyone would have died."


And yeah, Ultron was 100% Tony Stark and Bruce Banner's fault. There's no way that could be laid at the feet of the Avengers as a whole.


Like I said; that's why I've never liked Stark. His egomania, need for control, and arrogance have directly led to the deaths of thousands (and nearly led to the extinction of all life on Earth), and yet he never really takes responsibility for his actions. He tries to act like the rest of the Avengers somehow share the responsibility when they tried to stop him.


Oh, the "character assassination" thing. A big part of Zemo's motivation was that the Avengers supposedly didn't stick around after the events in Sokovia to help clean up and rescue survivors.

WHAT??????

There is no way on Earth that either Cap or Thor would have allowed that. The instant the fighting was over, you know perfectly well they'd have immediately gone into the rubble to start locating and rescuing survivors. So would Natasha, and so would Clint, wounded or not. Indeed, the only one who might have been inclined to say, "Okay, job done; let's go home" was Tony.

For both Steve and Thor, taking personal responsibility for their actions and doing everything they can to protect the innocent is literally what they're all about. It's more or less literally why Captain America exists, and it's literally what makes Thor worthy to wield Mjolnir.


So no, I don't buy that for one instant.


That having been said, Stark is not entirely wrong. Yes, the Avengers have no business running around the world righting supposed wrongs while answering to no one else. But it's hard to believe that Steve, of all people, would behave in such a cavalier manner anyway.

But they should have consulted with Nick Fury on that matter. Because Steve is right: it's not that the Avengers shouldn't be unsupervised or unaccountable for their actions, because they should be held to account for their actions. The real problem is that putting them under the control of an unaccountable government agency just makes things worse. What they need is to establish some sort of check-and-balance so that the Avengers aren't turned into the tools of some unaccountable government (or non-governmental) agency.

Ask Nick Fury what he thinks of that idea. After all, he saw the World Security Council try to nuke New York City. He knows, better than anyone, that an unaccountable governmental agency made up of people who are completely removed from the consequences of their actions can and will sanction horrible things.




Oh, and can someone please explain to me why both Steve and Natasha thought it was a good idea to keep Tony from knowing that Hydra had orchestrated his parents' deaths? Because for the life of me, I can't figure out why either of them would have thought that was a good idea.

After all, neither of them had known that Bucky was the killer, so it's not like they were trying to protect Bucky. And telling Tony that Hydra murdered his parents was not only the morally-correct thing to do, it might have helped Tony get some closure.

Given that Steve withheld that rather important piece of news from Tony, it's hardly surprising that Tony regarded that as a sort of betrayal when he found out. Of course, that doesn't justify Tony's response of trying to kill Bucky -- a many who Tony knew perfectly well wasn't in control of his actions at the time. Still, it seems awfully out-of-character for Steve to refuse to share that information with Tony. As such, it strikes me as bad writing, since the only explanation I can think of is that the writers needed some sort of excuse to set Steve and Tony against one another.

[Zehava]

Crap, why did I click on that spoiler link while sitting in the theater waiting for the movie to start.

[Zehava]

show spoiler

Holy hell what crappy camera work. Every single God damn action scene felt like it was shot by your next door neighbor on his 8mm '70s home movie camera. So much shake.

[BrotherMan]

I loved darn near everything about it. Civil War, unlike the comics they were based on, is thus far the best thing Marvel has put on the screen. And unlike whatever BvS was, Marvel earned this versus match.

NO SPOILERS YET.

A key thing to consider is that what happened (what we saw in the movies), what got reported (in the movie world) and how the people of that world interpreted and reacted to that. A great success that the Russo Bros accomplished here is that philosophically neither side was more correct than the other.

I would have loved it if each individual Avenger was a little less hot headed and so ready to punch their friends - or if not friends exactly, then certainly allies - in the face for what should, at least initially, be a simple disagreement. You know, just like I thought the initiation of the BvS of BvS could have gone way differently. (I mean, really. If Superman doesn't want to fight you, he can p much ignore anything you try to do to him. But then, I'm used to watching an adult. And after 18 months of using his powers he could have easily let Bruce punch at him until Bruce got tired and then could listen to his mouth words.)

But, sigh, comic conventions are comic conventions. Heroes are gonna use their powers first and their brains last.

Putting that in its box, now it's time for me to

T'Challa, the Black Panther was freaking amazing. I was already excited for his stand alone movie. Now I can't wait. He was p much everything I expected. I really like how subtle it is that they're already insinuating how freaking smart he is. Like, Tony Stark but without the glaring flaws. Though I think he was more impulsive in the beginning, but it was completely understandable why. (An aside: For no reason I always thought Wakanda was a western African nation.)

Also. Additionally? You know how Wonder-Woman stole the BvS? Spider-Man was like that in Civil War. There was literally nothing wrong. Perfect performance by the actor both as Peter and as Spider-Man. My god. Everything he did in his fight scenes was just so it took all of my control not to squee like an babby. I mean, I liked two of the three Toby movies, and though I didn't like the Garfield movies it wasn't because of the actor. So, I'm kinda primed to pre-like Spider-Man, but the Marvel Studios Spider-Man movie should be... uh... Amazing. No pun intended but that's just the perfect word.

Now. What about Hot Aunt May? Yeah, traditionally she's more like Grandma Aunt May. But I reason that she's Peter's [Mom or Dad]'s sister, how much older should she be?

And though I've been on Blackout Protocol (avoiding media, trailers, tweets, posts, reviews and etc), I had no idea the villain of the piece would be who it was. When that person said their name I about passed out with joy.

Shit guys. I don't know if Marvel can make a better movie.

[slimshady2357]

That is an interesting and not atypical response to the movie Bort. I have been amazed by the number of super positive reviews of Civil War. I really thought it was very meh. Not horrible but pretty much just OK. That was also the feeling of all 3 other people I saw it with, though only 1 of them is really a comic book movie junkie like me, the other 2 just get dragged along usually. But even Sou (draggee) loved Avengers Assemble, loved Winter Soldier and just thought this was OK.

Interestingly, every single super-positive review I've seen has made some comparison to Batman Vs Superman. None of us had seen BvS so maybe that had some effect (though TLR had a similar review to me and had seen BvS).

I'm really glad you loved it and the positive reviews make me hopeful a second viewing in the future will be better

[The Lone Ranger]

Overall, I think it was a pretty good movie, but not at the level of The Avengers or CA: The Winter Soldier. My main complaint is that the conflict between Tony and Steve wasn't particularly well set-up, in my opinion, especially since it requires Steve to some notably out-of-character things.

Still, the conflict was done way better than it was in the comics, and without turning Tony into a monster in the process.



I suspect that if (s)he wasn't particularly familiar with the characters, the average person would find this one a breath of fresh air compared to Batman v. Superman. "Finally! A superhero conflict movie that makes at least some effort to provide a plausible explanation for why they're fighting. And that establishes that though they might disagree, they still have a great deal of respect for each other, and so aren't fighting ... just because."


Worth seeing? Yes. Worth seeing a second time? In my opinion ... maybe. Better than Batman v. Superman? Oh, heck yes! Better than the comics version of Civil War? Absolutely. Anywhere close to Marvel's best? Not in my opinion.

[Kael]

I'm with the Bortman on this one, I loved it. Not perfect, no, and the rest of you are also very smrt in the points you bring up, but for me the biggest thing was I had fun. I want to go see it again.

As an aside, I still find it weird when people in a regular old movie theater in Podunk, America applaud at the end. It's just super weird, you guys. I know it was good, but applause is a gesture of appreciation or respect and nobody who worked on it is there to receive it. It's weird…

[BrotherMan]

Oh yeah. I don't disagree with the points raised, people acting out of character and the real buried story is that Tony Stark is to blame for almost all of the problems. While that issue isn't addressed specifically, it can be seen as a prime motivation for Tony. Though he does have an ego the size of Stark Tower (prolly larger, amirite) and can't admit that maybe somebody else may be more right than him, he can still be haunted by the poor choices he's made. Maybe he's admitting he needs to be kept in check. (Though that is just as likely me trying to read something into it that isn't there.)

I did have one big worry before seeing the movie. From just the trailers I was concerned about the airport big multipage fight scene. They were running at each other. How in the world does that make sense when you have Arrow Guy and the Irons Men who can pew pew from far away? While that still didn't make perfect sense, the way the action did happen was mind boggling amazeballs that I didn't care as much as I thought I would.

But also concerning the airport multipager: I loved how they lamp shaded there weren't going to be any collateral loss of life. Though I did chuckle at just how much destruction they did cause. That was a lot of millions of dollars they destroyed.

The thing where [Villain] suggested that the Avengers didn't stick around? It's entirely plausible that's selective memory. It's likely there weren't enough SHIELD personell (remember SHIELD was destroyed by then) to go around, to be seen doing anything. And with only a handful of people being Avengers there, they could have been doing stuff somewhere where he didn't, couldn't or simply wouldn't see. And willfully ignored reports of them helping in the aftermath.

But again that could be me trying to read something that may not actually be there.

So much is done well enough that I am willing to forgive some of the stuff that doesn't pass initial examination.

[The Lone Ranger]

I don't know Aunt May's actual relationship to Peter; I can't recall that the comics have ever explained their actual relationship. I always figured that she was his Great Aunt.

[BrotherMan]

According to wiki, classic Aunt May is an aunt-in-law. Ben Parker is Richard's brother. (I didn't know, just looked it up.)

[wei yau]

I am surprised by the "meh" reaction of some FF'ers here.

I loved CA:CW. Of all the MCU movies, it is second only to CA:WS, in my book. Definitely a better Avengers movie than either actual Avengers movies.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that it was an important piece of art, but it was so much more than superheroes fighting for fighting's sake. I believe that both Tony and Steve did act very much in character. Their motivations for being on either side of the Accords made sense to me.

To date, Tony's experience has been one where the crises he faced were all engendered by the failing of an individual. From Stane to Vanko to Killian in his own movies and Loki and Ultron (really Tony himself) in the Avengers movies. His experience shows that the individual with great power is what needs to be reined in.

Meanwhile, Steve's experience, especially in CA:WS is that it is the organization that is questionable. That only the individual is capable of resisting a suspect organization.

And what may be seen as out-of-character, I see irony. Tony, the futurist, is reacting to the events of the actions of the past in his agreement with the Accords. Meanwhile, Steve, the man from the past, is looking forward to the future in his disagreement.

I could go on, but I'd only cover the ground that young master Bort has already tread.

[Janet]

Took my mom to see it today. I really enjoyed it and it hit my fangirl sweet spots. I LOVED the way the shield was used in the opening fight. It was just like the cartoons I grew up with and bypassed my brain & went straight to my heart. I loved Black Panther full stop. The costume, the acting, the moves, the nobility and, let's be frank, the ass.

But the absolute best thing about it to my inner twelve-year-old, was Vision and Wanda falling in love. Because when I read Avengers comics, Vision was the leader and he was married to Wanda. It made me so happy to see them finally get to part of what I think of as the Avengers. I hope they keep going there,

[BrotherMan]

I gushed about the movie today while at work. One guy said he was going to try and get his girlfriend to go. I described Black Panther as "very pimp, he's going to steal yo girl." And if T'Challa doesn't then certainly Steve Rogers will when she sees him hauling down that helicopter.

[Janet]

Steve would have stolen even more hearts if he'd gotten his way.

[BrotherMan]

Agent Carter, retired.

[Miisa]

[Sock Puppet]

Goddammit. I don't hate Agents of SHIELD, but Agent Carter deserves renewal a couple orders of magnitude more than it does.

[erimir]

X-Men: Apocalypse was... fine.

I was never that into Apocalypse as a villain anyway.

If I'm rating this year's superhero movies...

Civil War > Apocalypse > Deadpool > Batman vs. Superman

Credit stinger spoiler:

show spoiler

strongly hints that the plan is for the next villain to be Mr. Sinister

[BrotherMan]

Seeing you rate it above Deadpool is interesting.

[erimir]

You might not rate it above Deadpool. Based on your review, you liked Deadpool better than I did. I thought it was ok and the humor was... not great.

[BrotherMan]

I don't think my body is ready.

Marvel's The Defenders - SDCC Teaser - Netflix...

Marvel's Luke Cage - SDCC - Teaser - Netflix [HD]...

[BrotherMan]

The San Diego Comic Convention was this weekend. That means a whole bunch of nerdy stuff is breaking in the news. Up next for Marvel this year is Doctor Strange. My mind was already set to see it simply because it's, you know, a Marvel Studios Marvel Cinematic Universe movie and those have been fairly consistent. I wouldn't call myself a Strange fan or anything. I'm also kind of tired of seeing Benedict Cumberbatch in just about everything. (Not because I think he's bad or anything, just over exposed maybe?) The first trailer looked p good. But now there's this one released at SDCC and I'm kinda hyping up.

Doctor Strange Official Trailer 2 - YouTube

Gird yourself, livius, and other Mads Mikkelson fans.

[slimshady2357]

I am trying to reduce my expectations for this because they are already building to a furore that will be difficult for anything to achieve.

Unlike Bort, I could watch Cumberbatch in every movie and still look forward to the next one. In fact this movie has 3 people I could never tire of seeing: Cumberbatch, Mads and Chiwetel Ejiofor.

Every time something new is released I try to make myself forget about the movie for a couple of months, otherwise I might not make it until November.

[The Lone Ranger]

Are they going to admit that magic exists in the MCU now? 'Cause I'm not terribly happy about them claiming that the Asgardians are just long-lived aliens with super-advanced (but strangely inconsistent) science.

[slimshady2357]

Originally Posted by erimir

X-Men: Apocalypse was... fine.

I was never that into Apocalypse as a villain anyway.

If I'm rating this year's superhero movies...

Civil War > Apocalypse > Deadpool > Batman vs. Superman

Credit stinger spoiler:

show spoiler

strongly hints that the plan is for the next villain to be Mr. Sinister

I finally saw X-Men Apocalypse and I enjoyed it. I didn't go in with very high expectations but I had fun watching it. I tried not to think too hard about certain bits (like the motivation for helping him of the 4 horsemen) and that helped. Again, that was probably an easier task because I didn't expect much to begin with.

I still haven't seen B. vs S. but I would put my order of enjoyment as Deadpool > Apocalypse > Civil War

Of course, I really need to give Civil War another chance in the quiet of my own home. I'm sure some of the reason I didn't enjoy it was the constant disruption in the cinema. I've never been to a movie with so much distraction; huge numbers of people going in and out (??), someone eating from the noisiest bag of chips ever for about 30 mins straight, and the weirdo 2 seats over who was yelling crazy things through the movie and just talking out loud for a decent portion of it. Hearing the overwhelming positive reviews from people I trust, I have to think it had an affect on my experience.