Spoilers Batman v Superman and Captain America Civil War

[Marsden]

But, would he want to be comicbook Zemo? I just don't buy it, I mean he did what he set out to do. So I don't see why he would go supervillain.

He's in jail, if there's a news story of Cap and the Avengers all fighting someone together, that may convince him to try again.

 

[Showdown]

Please feel free to leave your thoughts.

Good list.

11. Both films came to a screeching halt and use videos to expand their cinematic universe. CACW videos showed Spiderman in action, hinting on a new Spidey movie. BvS videos teased new heroes and their movies. It also shows how Lex knew about Batman and Superman.

I don't mind these universe building moments.

12. Both films have a love interest that help one our heroes. Agent 13 helped Captain America and Lois Lane helped Superman.

13. Both films have the final fight starting with three heroes confronting a villain. BvS have Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman facing Doomsday. CACW have Captain America, Iron Man, and Winter Soldier facing Zemo.

14. Both films have a hero stopped by getting stabbed in the chest, Iron Man and Superman.

15. Both films showed the main villain, Zemo and Lex, in jail at the end. While in jail, they talked to one person, Ross and Batman.

16. Both films end on a downer, but with a hint of hope that our heroes will reunite and save the day.

Both films were going to open on the same weekend, have a great opening weekend, and a massive drop on the next weekend.

-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.

True. Zemo and Lex are good schemers and manipulators, but I don't think they are JUST lucky. Each step in their plan can lead to multiple outcomes, which they prepared contingencies for. All their plans could have failed at multiple points, but then we would not have these great movies. The same could be said about TDK Joker.

I liked both Civil War and Dawn of Justice a lot. Thumbs up, A+ on both.

Here are some silly pictures my brother and I made

 

[M.A.C.O.]

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.

It was Senator Finch and Batman who were leading their own respective crusades against Superman. The root for both of them was the Kryptonian invasion of Metropolis. Batman having prophetic dreams of the future are his own missplace fears and paranoia about what could happen to Earth.

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.

Ross was actively engaged? He had 1 major scene in the beginning, and another scene on the gulag towards the end.

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.

The Spider-Man and WW thing I don't really care about. I'm just listing the similarities. Tony recruiting a teenager to fight in a battle for him is a whole other can of worms. I don't care, but a number of people on others site and friends of mine thought it was irresponsible for Tony to recruit a kid and entice him with money to go fight in another country.

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.

The Avengers recruit civilian heroes members, split into two teams, evacuate an airport and have a balls to the wall action scene on the tarmac. Instead of the large empty field outside the airport. OR have Cap explain to Tony and T'Challa then and there about Zemo and the bombing.

There are so many characters involved, each with different set of agendas in a protracted fight scene; that I literally forgot what they were fighting about after the first 3 minutes.The stakes really only mattered for 3 of them; Cap, Bucky and Tony. Everyone else was just there to make it look cool.

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.

You've gone into more detail than the movie did in establishing Zemo's motives and making the audience care about them. Myself however, Zemo's plan seemed to be to frame Bucky, have him captured, use the code words to trigger him (after somehow gaining access to the military location in Vienna), and have him cause mayhem. Cap goes rogue to protect his friend, it's just serendipitous that the Sokovia Accords (a then UN document that had not been released to the public) was being legislated at the time. I forgot how Cap and Bucky tracked Zemo to Siberia, but when they get there, Zemo's plan is to show Tony the tape of his parents being murdered and then make his escape. What if Iron Man never showed up? How did the Soviets/HYDRA have the tape of Bucky killing the Starks? So many coincidences to make his plan work. It's like The Force Awakens all over again.

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.

Luthor being a manic, creepy, billionaire has happened before. People tend to go in for the Luthor who is more like Wilson Fisk. I don't care either way.

Zemo though. He should've been a bad ass HYDRA official. Pink suit, sock mask, sword and all. Marvel has really let the heads of HYDRA down. Armin Zola, Baron Von Strucker, and Baron Zemo. Red Skull endures largely because of Hugo Weaving's performance.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I wish I saw this video before I created my thread.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ichab]

I wish I saw this video before I created my thread.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Different strokes for different folks. Some people don't need a fight scene happening every five minutes to enjoy a movie.

Im sure people like this guy would call The Godfather boring because its a mob movie with very few gun fights.

 

[Set Harth]

It's not like there's only 2 people in the audience singing this tune, either.

Appeals to popularity don't work that way.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

In terms of responsibility for their actions, Superman is on a different level than the heroes in Captain America, he could easily defeat them all, which makes it harder for any kind of oversight. He has to be willing to follow the laws.

Which happens about 90% of the time something like this happens.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It was Senator Finch and Batman who were leading their own respective crusades against Superman. The root for both of them was the Kryptonian invasion of Metropolis. Batman having prophetic dreams of the future are his own missplace fears and paranoia about what could happen to Earth.

And Senator Finch's went nowhere.

Ross was actively engaged? He had 1 major scene in the beginning, and another scene on the gulag towards the end.

Yes. He was the boot on Iron Man's back. 'Clean this up now, or we're sending everything we've got to take them down.'

The Spider-Man and WW thing I don't really care about. I'm just listing the similarities. Tony recruiting a teenager to fight in a battle for him is a whole other can of worms. I don't care, but a number of people on others site and friends of mine thought it was irresponsible for Tony to recruit a kid and entice him with money to go fight in another country.

I didn't dislike it either, I'm just explaining why I felt like Spider-man's introduction scene actually didn't detract from the flow of the movie at all. As for it being irresponsible for Tony to do that... well, yeah, that's the whole point.

I also didn't dislike the Wonder Woman scene, either. But in that case, I can absolutely understand why people say it stopped the movie.

The Avengers recruit civilian heroes members, split into two teams, evacuate an airport and have a balls to the wall action scene on the tarmac. Instead of the large empty field outside the airport. OR have Cap explain to Tony and T'Challa then and there about Zemo and the bombing.

Team Cap believed they were trying to save the world and to do so they had to get to a plane. They weren't there to fight, they were just doing everything they could to get to a plane. Therefore, it was inevitable that the fight happen in the airport, not in the empty field. Fighting in the field would've served absolutely no purpose at all other than being a random gladiator match.

And Cap tried to explain what was happening. Tony told him to his face that Bucky was fooling him. He wasn't listening.

There are so many characters involved, each with different set of agendas in a protracted fight scene; that I literally forgot what they were fighting about after the first 3 minutes.The stakes really only mattered for 3 of them; Cap, Bucky and Tony. Everyone else was just there to make it look cool.

I disagree. All of team Cap believed they were saving the world. All of Team Iron Man believed they were upholding the law. And considering he'd just watched his father die in his arms, I'd say the stakes were especially high for Black Panther as well.

You've gone into more detail than the movie did in establishing Zemo's motives and making the audience care about them. Myself however, Zemo's plan seemed to be to frame Bucky, have him captured, use the code words to trigger him (after somehow gaining access to the military location in Vienna), and have him cause mayhem. Cap goes rogue to protect his friend, it's just serendipitous that the Sokovia Accords (a then UN document that had not been released to the public) was being legislated at the time. I forgot how Cap and Bucky tracked Zemo to Siberia, but when they get there, Zemo's plan is to show Tony the tape of his parents being murdered and then make his escape. What if Iron Man never showed up? How did the Soviets/HYDRA have the tape of Bucky killing the Starks? So many coincidences to make his plan work. It's like The Force Awakens all over again.

Everything I said came directly from the movie. And your account of his plan is basically exactly the same as mine is, except you've forgotten the part where he deliberately exposed himself in order to prove to Iron Man that Cap was telling the truth all along (which is why it was basically guaranteed that Iron Man would show up), and you act like it's just a coincidence that he puts his plan into motion when the accords are being signed. Obviously, he didn't create the accords, but he did clearly and deliberately take advantage of the opportunity they presented.

Also, asking how did Hydra get its hands on a security tape seems pretty ridiculous given all the things Hydra and Shield have been shown to be capable of in the past. That's the kind of thing a half decent con-man could easily retrieve, so a global high tech conspiracy shouldn't have any difficulty at all.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

While I'm thinking about it, because I keep forgetting.

17. Both Zemo and Lex's plans involve showing one of the heroes either film or photographs of their parents in a distressing situation. Martha gagged and bound and threatened with death. Howard and Maria Stark assassinated and the scene made to look like an accident.


Remember, the point of this thread is to compare the similarities of both films, and to ascertain why one did better than the other both critically and financially. So far, I think it's two things. BvS's lack of fun, and the way the story was told. There was definitely a smarter way to tell this story.

 

[ichab]

While I'm thinking about it, because I keep forgetting.

17. Both Zemo and Lex's plans involve showing one of the heroes either film or photographs of their parents in a distressing situation. Martha gagged and bound and threatened with death. Howard and Maria Stark assassinated and the scene made to look like an accident.


Remember, the point of this thread is to compare the similarities of both films, and to ascertain why one did better than the other both critically and financially. So far, I think it's two things. BvS's lack of fun, and the way the story was told. There was definitely a smarter way to tell this story.

No, BvS was told in a similiar style to the dark novels which themselves are less humouress and more serious. For fans like myself of those novels this was a great movie. Now I can understand why there is a bigger audience for the happy fun ride that is CW but they really cant be compared as CW had a large cast of superheroes who had already been established through several movies.It was really Avengers 2.5. Now when we get to a D.C movie that has Superman,Batman,Wonderwoman,Green Lantern, Aquaman,Shazam, Cyborg etc. all together after several movies then it would be a more accurate comparison.

 

[dahj]

Everything I said came directly from the movie.

And as a convoluted movie villain plot it works, but to defend it as some brilliant and unassailable piece of writing, while simultaneously condemning BvS as horrible writing for doing basically the same thing is a bit disingenuous.

Here's just several points where his plan can go horribly wrong but doesn't:
What if Tony was in the building while signing the Accords and he died right then and there?
What if CIA succeeded in killing Bucky?
What if Black Panther succeeded in killing Bucky?
What if the EMP delivery guy got stuck in traffic?
What if that building had backup generators?
What if somebody from the CIA checked Zemo's photo ID?
What if Bucky shot Tony in the face while escaping?
What if he chopped up Cap with the chopper?
What if the Winter Soldier facility was destroyed and not just abandoned?
What if a different Winter Soldier killed the Starks?
What if there was no footage from the Stark murder?

There are just soooooo many points of possible failure in the chain of events that had to lead up to his endgame. Here's a much simpler alternative plan:

Kill Pepper Pots and frame Bucky for it.

Zemo wouldn't have to expose himself at all, Bucky would have no way to prove he didn't do it, Cap would believe him, Tony wouldn't and the events should play out pretty much the same without going through all of that and risking failure every few seconds. He doesn't have to harm other innocent civilians(which he claimed he didn't want to do) and he gets the bonus of the oldfashioned eye for an eye, you killed my wife I kill yours type vengeance.

You'd think that would make more sense for a guy like Zemo, but at the end of the day he is a movie villain, and those guys just love to go elaborate, so he had to go elaborate. Can't fault him for that.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

What if a different Winter Soldier killed the Starks?

They only had one at that point.

 

[Marsden]

18. They both sold tickets to watch them in a movie theater.

19. They both had a superhero named after a mammal.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

What i find funny difference wise with audiences is in Man of Steel Superman gets in a fight with considerable collateral damage and people crawl up his ass for 3 years, Civil War points out how the Avengers have actually caused considerably more collateral damage over the course of 4 years and everybody leaps to their defense.

 

[ichab]

What i find funny difference wise with audiences is in Man of Steel Superman gets in a fight with considerable collateral damage and people crawl up his ass for 3 years, Civil War points out how the Avengers have actually caused considerably more collateral damage over the course of 4 years and everybody leaps to their defense.

That's a very good point. In both cases the villains were the real reason for the collateral damage yet somehow Superman is the bad guy and the Avengers get a pass.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

What i find funny difference wise with audiences is in Man of Steel Superman gets in a fight with considerable collateral damage and people crawl up his ass for 3 years, Civil War points out how the Avengers have actually caused considerably more collateral damage over the course of 4 years and everybody leaps to their defense.

Superman is held up to a much higher standard than every Avenger, save Captain America. Fair or not, you would never compare his actions to, say, Hulk or Black Widow regardless. They are expected to knock down a building and jump off or whatever. Superman is meant to be better than that.

Ironically, in Avengers we saw one of those flying creatures heading straight for a building full of people about to die, and they go out of their way to show the Hulk (of ALL people) come from seemingly nowhere and save them all. We had no scenes like that in MoS.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

come from seemingly nowhere and save them all. We had no scenes like that in MoS.

No it seems DC wanted to avoid the Dues ex Machina stunts Marvels pulls to make their heroes not look bad.

 

[Marsden]

Not look bad?
Hulk pull monster out of way. Good PR.
Puny reporter no match for Hulk!

I think when the hero does heroic things, that's what makes them a hero, not because they just show up and blow up everything and hope there was some bad guys mixed in that slaughter. Before you say I'm accusing anyone (Snyderman), that was not directed at any character in any of the recent movies, but a great example is Fantastic Four, the first one, where they pretty much destroy a bridge and then get credit for saving the drivers they imperiled. They were the problem.

 

[Skywalker]

but a great example is Fantastic Four, the first one, where they pretty much destroy a bridge and then get credit for saving the drivers they imperiled. They were the problem.

Not to mention their whole plan to stop Doctor Doom at the end--at which point only the Fantastic Four themselves were in any immediate danger--relied upon the Human Torch attempting something that had a chance of setting the entire atmosphere on fire. Very heroic.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Not look bad?

In AoU it looks like the Avengers are going to have to cause the deaths of everyone in the city Ultron is planning to crash into the Earth as an extinction level event to save humanity, cue Nick Fury showing up in a fucking Helicarrier despite SHIELD being defunct in the nick of time to save everyone aka an asspull.