Spoilers Batman v Superman and Captain America Civil War

[M.A.C.O.]

Since these two movies explored similar topics and themes and in each respective thread about both movies, comparisons are continuously brought up. I figured it be appropriate to make a separate thread to discuss these two films and why one was a critical success and the other wasn't.

Now, it's been awhile since I've seen both, so I'm going by memory of what I remember. Please feel free to add any I've missed.

1. Both films revolving around the massive amounts of collateral damage and fatalities caused by superhero activities in defense of the planet. We see repeatedly in both films the human cost of these epic battles, and the people they leave damaged in their wake.

2. Both films have characters demanding accountability of the heroes who operate with no oversite. Senator Finch for BvS, and Secretary Ross for CACW.

3. Both films have their billionaire characters on the side of accountability, and who are willing to do anything necessary to ensure security of the public.

4. Both films have bombings of important government buildings, that provides more motivation for the characters on the side of accountability to take action. BvS it was Capital Hill, CACW it was a UN building.

5. Both films have scenes where Superman and Captain America are in the presence of a bomb, fail to notice it in time and as a result a dozen or so people die in each respective film.

6. Both films have characters that stole the show when they appeared on screen. However, there are complaints on both sides that scenes with them outside of action scenes, stop the movie. BvS Wonder Woman and CACW Spider-Man.

7. Both films have the heroes ultimately come to blows against one another for arbitrary reasons. When a conversation in both BvS and CACW would've resolved their differences. Or just a genuine resistance to fighting at all.

- With regard to this, I'd say Civil War was the worst offender. Because they evacuate an airport just to have a superhero throw down and end up wrecking the tarmac and a dozen or so multi-million dollar airplanes and vehicles. The entire fight is exactly why the Sokovia Accords exist in the first place.

8. Both films have villains whose mad scheme is to manipulate the respective heroes into fighting one another.

-I honestly don't know which one is more absurd or inconceivable. The amount of planning, manipulation and predicting how certain characters would act and react is mind boggling when you think about it.

9. Both films have subplots that explore the billionaire superhero's trauma and grief over losing his parents.


I'm sure there are more similarities I've missed, but I think I've listed enough to get the ball going. On more than just a superficial level, these films are eerily similar. And yet one is adored for it's take on the subject matter and the other is raked across the coals for it. Where did BvS go wrong? Is it the lack of fun and joy that caused the critics to rip this film a new one? While I think BvS has problems and that there was a smarter way to tell the story they did. I don't think it deserves the 28% it has on RT.

Please feel free to leave your thoughts.

 

[Starkers]

Re point 9 it's interesting how the finales of both turn on mention of their mothers. Mention of the name Martha causes Batman to cool his anger in BvS, but the notion that The Winter Soldier killed his mother enrages Iron Man (and he very obviously doesn't seem bothered about his dad. it's his mum he mentions).

CW is just so better all around. Better directors, better script, better villain with motivations that made sense. I liked Affleck a lot as Bats, and I think Cavill got a bit of a rum deal, but CW showed how a film could be fun and still deal with serious issues, BvS was just so up its own bottom. Which isn't to say I hated it. I don't think it's as bad as its painted, but that doesn't mean its good.

The other difference is that CW is coming off many years and many films setting up the characters and situations so not only do we feel comfortable with these characters, but when Steve and Tony start punching each other it means something. By contrast WB/DC are trying to take too many shortcuts because they're playing catch-up on Marvel. We had three Iron Man, two Captain America, and two Avengers films before we got to Civil War. They didn't nip straight from Iron Man 1 to Civil War.

And give me Black Panther and Spidey's trailers within a movie over Wonder Woman watching some YouTube videos any day of the week.

 

[dahj]

I'd like to add one more...
10. Both films feature good guys holding bad guys at gunpoint as they threaten to do a bad thing. Batman shoots KGBeast's fuel tank to stop him from killing Ma Kent, while Black Widow and Falcon execute a double headshot to stop the henchmen from releasing the virus in the market.

I do find it kinda weird that people had mad tantrums over a lot of those points for BvS, yet simply wave them off when it comes to CA:CW. Like everyone complained at length how that's not the "real" Lex Luthor, but I haven't seen a single complaint that's not the "real" Zemo...

 

[Tosk]

the notion that The Winter Soldier killed his mother enrages Iron Man (and he very obviously doesn't seem bothered about his dad. it's his mum he mentions).

We know from earlier films that Tony had father issues, so not a big surprise that he focused on the death of his mother in a moment of rage. Even then, I did find myself thinking, "Jeez, Tony. Cold!"

I do find it kinda weird that people had mad tantrums over a lot of those points for BvS, yet simply wave them off when it comes to CA:CW.

It's about the execution. Becoming angry because you just found out who killed your mother is easy to relate to. Stopping suddenly mid-murder because your mother's name was the same as that of your would-be victim is a lot harder to relate to.

 

[Starkers]

We know from earlier films that Tony had father issues, so not a big surprise that he focused on the death of his mother in a moment of rage. Even then, I did find myself thinking, "Jeez, Tony. Cold!"

It's about the execution. Becoming angry because you just found out who killed your mother is easy to relate to. Stopping suddenly mid-murder because your mother's name was the same as that of your would-be victim is a lot harder to relate to.

I imagine it probably seemed a lot better on the page and that was an element of BvS that didn't bother me so much, I just felt a bit thick for never having noticed both their mum's were called Martha before now!

 

[Marsden]

I can't talk about BvS but I saw Civil War.

Re: Tony's parents, Howard looked in worse shape to me, Winter Soldier caused the accident and then finished him off, but he may have died from just the crash, But, then it seemed to me his mom could have survived the crash but was brutally strangled in the car. I think that's something no one wants to see.

I also want to object to the "arbitrariness" of the airport battle. Cap and his band were fugitives from the law, the Avengers were there to arrest them. What should they have done to bring Cap in when he said no? BTW, there was a brief conversation which lead to the fighting. It was the results of it that started the fight.

So how could the Avengers+Spidey brought in Cap's renegade band, including wanted assassin Winter Soldier?

Believe me, when I saw the previews I thought, boy that looks dumb, why would they be fighting like that, but when I saw the movie I didn't have any problem with it. It came about from a logical progression of previously depicted events, even if said events were crafted solely to get to that set piece they were well crafted to get us to that point. Also, no one was out to actually kill anyone in that battle, and when War Machine got hurt almost everyone just stopped.
It was more of a scrum then a war.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

1. Both films revolving around the massive amounts of collateral damage and fatalities caused by superhero activities in defense of the planet. We see repeatedly in both films the human cost of these epic battles, and the people they leave damaged in their wake.

I would say this is inaccurate for BvS. Senator Finch's side show is ultimately largely irrelevant to the plot (which is one of the main weaknesses of the film). Batman wants to kill Superman because he's just too powerful and Earth can't afford to wait around for him to decide to stop playing by the rules. There's a reason the dream sequence revolved around 'superman commandos' executing people, instead of just a generic superhero related disaster.

2.

Both films have characters demanding accountability of the heroes who operate with no oversite. Senator Finch for BvS, and Secretary Ross for CACW.

But, like I mentioned already, Finch's subplot doesn't really go anywhere or connect very well to the main plot. To Batman it's just one more reason in a dozen why he wants to kill Superman, and any theoretical effect it could've had to make Superman willing to fight Batman to the death is negated by the fact that Lex ultimately just blackmails him into doing it.

Whereas Ross is actively engaged in enforcing the Sokovia Accords.

6. Both films have characters that stole the show when they appeared on screen. However, there are complaints on both sides that scenes with them outside of action scenes, stop the movie. BvS Wonder Woman and CACW Spider-Man.

I can understand why some people feel that way about Spider-Man, but I personally didn't see it that way at all. You can perhaps say that I read too much in between the lines, but I saw a subtle but very plot significant through line from Peter's recruitment scene through to the end of the Airport battle.

Stark - despite having sought out Peter himself and being in desperate need of a helping hand - basically gives him a little interview asking question after question, which seemed to me to be basically designed to help ease Stark's conscience about dragging a kid into Avengers business. 'It's ok, because he's already doing it/he's practically invulnerable anyway/he would be doing it anyway, whether I help him or not/he's doing it for the right reasons', etc.

Then in the airport battle, we see multiple references of people asking where the hell this kid came from and how old he is, etc. Stark seemed almost embarassed about it. And, of course, when Spider-Man almost got himself crushed to death at the end, Tony instantly blew up and said 'You're done, go home'. To me, that was the first moment when Tony started realizing the lines he'd crossed and understanding that even in trying to do the right thing, you can't adopt this utterly inflexible attitude that x is bad, no matter what, because when you stop thinking about and questioning what the right thing is, you easily lose sight of it. This is then further reinforced with Rhodey's situation, Black Widow's rebellion and the revelation that Zemo was real all along.

7.

Both films have the heroes ultimately come to blows against one another for arbitrary reasons. When a conversation in both BvS and CACW would've resolved their differences. Or just a genuine resistance to fighting at all.

- With regard to this, I'd say Civil War was the worst offender. Because they evacuate an airport just to have a superhero throw down and end up wrecking the tarmac and a dozen or so multi-million dollar airplanes and vehicles. The entire fight is exactly why the Sokovia Accords exist in the first place.

This, imo, is entirely wrong. There's nothing arbitrary about their reasons for fighting there and the movie leads up to it very organically. There are multiple conversations preceding it and they simply don't work. Tony isn't prepared to allowed Bucky to leave when he's a wanted criminal. He even tells Cap to his face that Bucky is fooling him.

Also, the Sokovia Accords exist to provide accountability, not to prevent property damage. Tony had authorization from his legal overlords to do whatever it took to bring the renegades in, so accountability was there. And in so far as their purpose is to prevent collateral damage, their focus is far, far more heavily weighted to unnecessary casualties over potential property damage.

8.

]Both films have villains whose mad scheme is to manipulate the respective heroes into fighting one another.

-I honestly don't know which one is more absurd or inconceivable. The amount of planning, manipulation and predicting how certain characters would act and react is mind boggling when you think about it.

Again, I find this completely inaccurate. Zemo's plan is so appealingly robust precisely because it isn't that complex at all.

His goal is first and foremost to topple the Avengers' empire: he takes advantage of an obviously already divisive issue (the Sokovia Accords) by implicating a bombing attack by the Winter Soldier. Anyone who knew anything about Cap would know 1) he would not stand by and let Bucky get killed for something that probably wasn't his fault (either because he didn't do it, or because the brainwashing was still in effect) and 2) he's guaranteed to convince someone to go along with him, because inspiring loyalty is his thing.

With that one move, Zemo already accomplished his main objective, because the Avengers public reputation is ruined the second Cap and his followers openly reject public oversight in order to defend a wanted terrorist.

His second goal is to tear the team apart emotionally and maybe get some of them to kill each other (the last part being optional). To that end, he uses standard operating procedure to get face time with the Winter Soldier and convince him that there's a world ending conspiracy going on. Again, anyone who knows anything about Cap knows that he can't stand by while there's potential danger, and Iron Man very clearly can't let a man wanted for murdering half the UN go free. A fight is pretty much guaranteed - with luck, maybe Cap and Iron Man accidentally kill each other there and then, in which case the rest of his plan isn't even necessary.

But, just in case, he sends Iron Man proof of his own existence to ensure that he'll finally put aside his prejudices and do what needs done to save the world. At which point, he's already gotten Cap and/or Bucky and Iron Man to his hideout where he can guarantee he can control the situation long enough to put on his show (longer than that doesn't matter, because Zemo expected to die anyway). And, again, anyone who knows anything about Iron Man, knows that he isn't the most emotionally stable person and would be pretty much guaranteed to react badly.

There are any number of different ways many of these events could've played out - maybe the big battle happened in Russia instead of the airport, maybe Iron Man was outnumbered at the end, maybe Cap didn't make it to Russia and Tony actually killed Bucky - but the vast majority of possible outcomes probably still would've ended up with the Avengers' public reputation ruined, their interpersonal dynamics severely damaged from actually fighting each other and their leaders (Cap and Iron Man) unavoidably at each others' throats. Check, check and check for Zemo.

I'd like to add one more...
10. Both films feature good guys holding bad guys at gunpoint as they threaten to do a bad thing. Batman shoots KGBeast's fuel tank to stop him from killing Ma Kent, while Black Widow and Falcon execute a double headshot to stop the henchmen from releasing the virus in the market.

I do find it kinda weird that people had mad tantrums over a lot of those points for BvS, yet simply wave them off when it comes to CA:CW. Like everyone complained at length how that's not the "real" Lex Luthor, but I haven't seen a single complaint that's not the "real" Zemo...

As already mentioned, it's the execution. Most people who complain about the 'real' Luthor, wouldn't be complaining if the Luthor they got at least seemed more interesting to them. But his motivation is non-existent, his plan makes no sense, and his characterization feels more like the Joker than Lex Luthor. Which would've been an interesting creative choice for a standalone Batman/Superman movie (just combine the two classic characters into one), but is just kind of confusing in a shared universe that already has its own Joker.

 

[Cyke101]

-I honestly don't know which one is more absurd or inconceivable. The amount of planning, manipulation and predicting how certain characters would act and react is mind boggling when you think about it.

Regarding Civil War, there's no denying that Zemo's plan depended on a lot of dumb luck, ridiculously good timing, and PIS on the heroes' part. But I appreciate that even though he wasn't the first one to try this on the Avengers, he's simply the one who managed to get it done (and he outdid a god of mischief). The part where he's a trained military operative isn't enough to justify that one major feat, but I do like that in the end, he managed to finish the Avengers as a cohesive unit, and probably helped accelerate the Sokovia Accords even further.

 

[ichab]

Marvel makes movies that are much easier to digest for the masses than what D.C is doing currently. I liked BvsS but I can understand why many didn't. It's just too depressing and morbid for people expecting a joy ride when they watch a superhero movie.

 

[dahj]

As already mentioned, it's the execution. Most people who complain about the 'real' Luthor, wouldn't be complaining if the Luthor they got at least seemed more interesting to them.

That's kinda my point.
You wrote a really big passage explaining your view of Zemo's actions and why they make sense.

But then...

But his motivation is non-existent, his plan makes no sense, and his characterization feels more like the Joker than Lex Luthor.

... you clearly aren't interested in doing the same for Lex.
Neither his motivation, nor his plan are any more complex than Zemo's, and to top it off you didn't even mention that this Zemo "doesn't feel" like comics Zemo, but you made a point of it when referring to Luthor.

And that's kind of how a lot of people respond to these things, the basically same issues that occur in both films have "a perfectly reasonable explanation" in the things one likes, but are "wrong" in things one doesn't.

 

[Skywalker]

Marvel makes movies that are much easier to digest for the masses than what D.C is doing currently. I liked BvsS but I can understand why many didn't. It's just too depressing and morbid for people expecting a joy ride when they watch a superhero movie.

BvS wasn't any more complex than CW; CW was easier to digest simply because it was better written and edited.

 

[JD]

I thought BvS was OK, but I loved Civil War.
I just think CW was a better movie overall.
I did notice that Zemo was pretty much as different from his comic counterpart as Lex, but I think he was a better character overall. The characterization of Lex was just odd, while Zemo was a well done character, even though he wasn't comic Zemo.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

I thought BvS was OK, but I loved Civil War.
I just think CW was a better movie overall.
I did notice that Zemo was pretty much as different from his comic counterpart as Lex, but I think he was a better character overall. The characterization of Lex was just odd, while Zemo was a well done character, even though he wasn't comic Zemo.

Well he's not the comicbook Zemo, Yet.

 

[Marsden]

Well he's not the comicbook Zemo, Yet.

The thought of a Masters of Evil in the future makes me happy.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The thought of a Masters of Evil in the future makes me happy.

Or Thunderbolts.

 

[Skywalker]

Thunderbolts was my first thought, too. I don't know if they'd be able to pull off that type of reveal in a movie, though. Unless it happened earlier instead of at the end.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Neither his motivation, nor his plan are any more complex than Zemo's, and to top it off you didn't even mention that this Zemo "doesn't feel" like comics Zemo, but you made a point of it when referring to Luthor.

At worst, Zemo is a fairly generic bad guy with a revenge plan to break up the Avengers.

At worst, Lex is a super annoying and over the top caricature that feels like he was totally different character (the Joker) in the first draft of the script, lazily re-written to be Luthor by the final draft, and shoehorned into the role by an actor meant solely as a stunt casting for Jimmy Olsen.

One was offensive before we even look at the plot. The other services the plot when he's supposed to then steps out of the way for the real stars to shine. That goes a long way for a lot of people.

 

[Ovation]

At worst, Zemo is a fairly generic bad guy with a revenge plan to break up the Avengers.

At worst, Lex is a super annoying and over the top caricature that feels like he was totally different character (the Joker) in the first draft of the script, lazily re-written to be Luthor by the final draft, and shoehorned into the role by an actor meant solely as a stunt casting for Jimmy Olsen.

One was offensive before we even look at the plot. The other services the plot when he's supposed to then steps out of the way for the real stars to shine. That goes a long way for a lot of people.

So a take on a character that goes outside the straitjacket of "The Way Things Ought To Be (patent pending)" is not just disappointing anymore to some people. It's now reached the level of "offensive".

To all future adapters of fictional sources--never dare to be different, you might offend someone in the audience.

Good to know.

 

[Tosk]

Plenty of characters have been put on film differing from their comic counterparts in some significant way. Sometimes it is accepted by the masses, sometimes it isn't.

 

[Xerxes82]

8. Both films have villains whose mad scheme is to manipulate the respective heroes into fighting one another.

-I honestly don't know which one is more absurd or inconceivable. The amount of planning, manipulation and predicting how certain characters would act and react is mind boggling when you think about it.

You're giving Zemo WAY more manipulator credit than he actually deserves. Literally his entire scheme in the movie is to reveal that Bucky murdered Stark's parents. That's the extent of it. He believes that the ultimate result of that single action will accomplish his goals. That's why he goes to Colonel Karpov in Cleveland. He wants that tape from 1991. If Karpov plays along, he doesn't need to do anything else. He even tells Karpov straight up that he (Zemo) will have to resort to methods he'd rather not if Karpov doesn't give him what he needs. Those methods are the rest of his actions in the film.

He's not manipulating the Avengers at all, that's the beauty of how things play out. This is everything Zemo actually does in the film: He manipulates the CIA (and every other law enforcement agency ever), into finding Bucky for him, sure. But that only involves the Avengers tangentially. And then once he gets Bucky captured, he goes in, finds what he needs, and activates the Winter Soldier programming to create a distraction for his escape. Then he goes to Siberia and finds the tape. Battle over, he's already won.

Everything else, including Steve, Bucky and Tony showing up together in Siberia ACTUALLY IS coincidence. That the accords force the dispute between the team, that Steve's need to protect Bucky and Tony's need to be right bring the group to blows, that's all a bonus. The Avengers set themselves up for their own destruction, by their own hands. Zemo plays a role in that, yes, but only insomuch as his scheme creates ripples that cross over into the Avengers' own actions. Really, all he does is deliver the coup de grace. The video "forever" breaks the bond between Tony and Steve, and the Avengers are finished. That's Zemo's victory.

So please, stop trying to make him out to be some master manipulator who had a hand in the whole movie. The reason he's such a great villain in this film is because he ISN'T THAT. He goes straight for the jugular, with a bare minimum of games. He's not there to toy with anybody, or thrash around wildly all publicly. He found a weakness, he found the means to exploit it, and he moved with utter determination and laser focus towards his goal.