I dunno. It's not like this is out of character for anyone in the government to do, of which Ross now is.
I do not like MCU films
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
I dunno. It's not like this is out of character for anyone in the government to do, of which Ross now is.
And part of the thing is that the Accords are being driven by fear. None of the logic of the argument makes sense (given that the big examples were warzones, not the Avengers being careless), but the point remained that the public was afraid and wanted control and the Accords gave them that control. (I do wish the movie had pointed out Ross was a hypocrite, but he is presented as an antagonist and seems to be putting himself above the law, so I don't think we're supposed to trust him, anyways.
It's a good thing Bruce wasn't there to call Ross out on everything. Worked to the advantage of the story in more ways than one.
If Bruce HAD been there, things would've gotten pretty bad between him and Tony once he saw the guy who is basically his best friend now working with his arch-enemy.
Yeah, as Black Widow pointed out, the Hulk would not have been on their side (and, as the moviemakers pointed out, once the Hulk picked a side, all that was left was for the other side was to negotiate a surrender).
(I suppose it could've been interesting to see Black Widow have divided loyalties by being on the opposite side of Banner, esp. after he went AWOL in Age of Ultron, to her distress. On the other hand, that condition was filled with Captain America leading the opposition.)
Its a far cry from the longest-lived comic and the Avengers movie version.
But the Falcon's costume has no distinctive flash like his best known comic version. Remove the wings, and no one would know who he is, aside from comic readers who knew the character was adapted for film.
Again, its not at all like the best-known (and marketed) version of her costume.
No. John Romita (who designed the costume) was was one of the most style-conscious artists in comics history. He was sharp in more artistic categories than one could imagine.
Two things...
- I suggested the infiltration would be greater than anything seen or mentioned on screen. As far as the movies go, HYDRA's reach was presented as limited enough to have been a matter of the past by the time of Civil War.
- In Civil War, the only concern Ross (and the rest of the government) had was the BS attempt to control super beings. Not once did he say or indicate that the HYDRA issue was active and they would never fully know the extent of the infiltration (which would have been realistic). Oh, and for the record, most MCU audience are just average moviegoers and do not follow TV spin-offs at all. Their experience with adapted Marvel strictly rests with the big screen.
You are misreading. I said:
--that referred to the HYDRA situation. I mentioned the accords only to point out that it was forced into the MCU at a time (chronologically speaking) where HYDRA's infiltration should still be an issue instead of jumping to "ooh! a bunch a heroes are running at each other!"
You provided the key--outer space. The Infinity story will take center stage of this new phase, and will not leave its effects off-world. The MCU (with few exceptions) is so spectacle-driven, that there's no way Infinity does not alter earth to become some overpopulated Secret Wars / Contest of Champions type of bloated silliness.
That seems to be the case--and more evidence that the MCU has already wiped away or skipped over important plots, just to get to the next series of CG/explosions/rollercoaster ride.
All four movies use costumes that are unmistakably Captain America uniforms.
So?
If it's the one I think it is, it's needed to die for years.
To put it another way, is the movie taking a more detailed version of the comics suit?
I'm not really sure where you're going with this, though. In the comics, Black Widow's trademark costume is a snug black jumpsuit. In all her movie appearances, she wears a snug black jumpsuit when in costume (except for Iron Man 2, where she wore a snug blue jumpsuit with S.H.I.E.L.D. insignias). She looks like the character from the pages. Arguing that its a different suit because the comics don't have textured fabric, Tron lines, or whatever, seems like splitting hairs.
\
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. showed that HYDRA was still active, and that Coulson's S.H.I.E.L.D. was working to take them down. Also, Age of Ultron established that the Avengers were also taking HYDRA bases down, and Ant-Man established that HYDRA (or HYDRA branch) was trying to get the Yellowjacket suit for their own purposes. Most of those stories were happening really close to Civil War. It wasn't a past problem, it just wasn't part of the problem that the Avengers were facing at the time.
The pro-registration side did raise some good points, to be fair.
It wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
The TV shows are part of the MCU canon. Even if they're not viewed, they still count. Ignoring them and the information they provide when discussing the MCU and the internal world-building is intellectually dishonest.
HYDRA isn't the only problem in the world. They were active and being met in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (and were pretty well crippled shortly before Civil War, if I understand the spoilers I've heard for season three correctly). The wanting to sign the accords and Zemo's plan were did not involve confronting HYDRA, so why would it come up.
And considering that many of the events that the Infinity Stones caused were tied into S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA business and/or Earth, that makes sense.
We won't know for sure until the movie comes out. (Secret Wars, at least, had nothing to do with the Infinity Gauntlet, though.)
In retrospect, I may have spoken too soon. Canonically speaking, there are references to Incredible Hulk in other MCU stuff; the rules of the Hulk's transformation are the same, "The Consultant" One Shot provides more context to the teaser scene, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. references Blonsky's fate, the "Nick Fury's Big Week" smooths over more the unanswered questions, and furthermore, nothing in the other movies contradicts it.
I wonder if it's in the same situation as The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III are in their franchise: part of canon, but not focused on and placed in such a way that you could skip them without getting lost, if you wish.
I don't think they're in that position to start with. JW takes place 22 years after JP and ten years into the operation of the JW park, which means this park would've had to have been opened only a few years after a t-rex tore through San Diego. That seems highly unlikely. Also, the Isla Sorna setting of JP2 and 3 suggests that in those movies, Isla Nublar was actually destroyed (just like it was in the books) after the events of the first movie. And the statue of Hammond in JW suggests the he was never ousted from the company in disgrace, nor transformed into a dinosaur rights activist, both of which were the case in JP2.
The San Diego incident took place in 1997. Jurassic World opened in 2005 (and ran until 2015). That's a decent gap for things to die down.
There's nothing in the movies that suggests that Isla Nublar was bombed. The second movie goes to Isla Sorna because InGen wants to exploit Site B, which is located there and the third movie goes there because that's where the Kirby's boy went missing. After the San Diego Incident, Isla Sorna seems to have become the more famous (the Kirbys and Udesky are surprised to learn that there are two dinosaur islands when Grant tells them he's never been to Site B), until Jurassic World opens (given that original park merchandise is very valuable circa 2015).
Jurassic World (and InGen) were owned by Simon Masrani, who did respect Hammond, so whatever the previous management thought of him isn't really relevant to Jurassic World.
Also, the viral marketing for Jurassic World built off of the information from the two sequels (Hoskins got his job from catching the escaped pterodactyls from JP3), the raptor's communication was established in JP3, and finally, Collin Trevarrow himself stated that the movies two and three are still canonical, just that the Site B stories are not part of the dinosaur park arc that JP1 and JW are.
It's a ridiculous argument and it's right in character, that's what makes it so good in the movie. From that senator blaming the Avengers for the Battle of New York on CNN or whatever network that was in the Avengers movie straight through to Ross now.
Ross is a control freak. That's his thing. He's not evil per say, because he wants thing to be safe, but it's his way or no way. I'm wondering, hoping really, that somehow Steve Rogers defeating his Raft prison causes him to become Red Hulk. So he can regain control of the situation.
The comic books costumes constantly being altered and outright replaced, so I really don't have a problem with the movie costumes being different from the comics.
Hell, Spider-Man alone has had 21 different costumes according to this page on the Marvel wiki, and that's specific costumes not including artistic differences over the years. Yes, some of those used for a single situation, but I they still count to me since many of the movie costumes are only used for one movie.
I'm pretty sure I've seen some people on here complaining about the lack of character deaths in Civil War, and now the Russos have specifically addressed that.
Missing the point--the films have steadily removed the flash from his costume, removing from its most bright, colorful version.
See the Cap post.
So, you're not familiar with the Romita-designed version--the most famous created for the character.
Again, HYDRA bases (AoU) are not the level of government infiltration suggested in WS; bases are an open target of enemies not disguising their identity, unlike the individuals who posed as politicians, security agents, et al. Moreover, to reiterate, the average MCU moviegoer is not watching TV series. The job of a film is to explain / sell it in the film or film series, and not have the expectation that the numbers who pay to see MCU films are all watching TV spin-offs. Clearly, that's not the case, or AoS would be the biggest TV series of the decade.
It makes no sense, as its creators are hypocritical in trying to create a false panic over superbeings, yet Ross slides by for his own actions?
Because its bad screenwriting--and of course, after what the Ross character did in the Hulk film with Blonsky, an honest CW script would have had Cap and his supporters throw that back in his face with the force of truth. That would have invalidated both Ross' place as Secretary, and called its member nations into question, as they supported his involvement, yet he is the textbook example of all that the accords attempted to suppress. That would have made an interesting sub-plot, but spectacle was the goal, not strong logically progressive plotting.
I referred to Secret Wars / Contest of Champions as examples of the MCU (with few exceptions) being so spectacle-driven, that there's no way Infinity does not alter earth to become some overpopulated Secret Wars / Contest of Champions type of bloated silliness.
The Ross/Blonsky matter was too relevant to the accords matter in CW, that nothing should be able to gloss over Ross' (and other parties) involvement.
Last edited:
Blonsky mutated himself into the Abomination, Ross didn't force him into it. Ross isn't culpable. Plus seeing how Ross got made into the Secretary of State most likely his actions were covered up by his friends and political connections, meaning there's the chance the Avengers wouldn't have known 100% of his involvement.
So yeah, not relevant.
So yeah, not relevant.
I've seen the movies. Except for the first Winter Soldier movie, it's very slight, at best. This ain't black-suit Spider-Man-type stuff.
If you're referring to the one that looked like a red one-piece swimsuit, pink nylons, and the red "M"-shaped thing on her head, then yeah, that cannot go away fast enough. The red long coat look from the movies was a better call. It's more sensible, fits the MCU world better, and is a more flattering look to boot.
Fair enough. However the franchise did show (through Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and other bits in the movies) that HYDRA was not a problem that just went away, even though their big operation was scuttled and their database was leaked online.
That's irrelevant to the discussion. You maintain that certain implications were not addressed in the MCU. They were. Whether it was on the big or small screen, it still counts.
For what it's worth, I was referring to Iron Man and his team specifically. I do kind of agree that Ross was a hypocrite. However, even so, that doesn't change the validity of the question if the Accords were needed. After all, they wouldn't have gone through it other people besides Ross were calling for them (like the Wakanan government).
Who knew of Ross's involvement and could call him out on it? Bruce Banner was MIA, Phil Coulson and Nick Fury were busy with other things, the general public didn't seem to know about the Hulk's existence before Avengers 1 (the opening of Incredible Hulk shows that his existence was very much an urban legend, the Harlem incident didn't seem to get out), "The Consultant" One Shot establishes that the Wold Security Council believed that war hero Blonsky was the good guy and the Hulk was the villain (albeit the WSC were no longer a factor), and the Hulk's last public actions were going mad and attacking a city and the fight with Ultron (both in Age of Ultron).
So, its unlikely that anyone in the Avengers or government knew the full extent of Ross's chase and motivations for capturing the Hulk (unless Banner told them, which we have no evidence of), the few that knew something already seemed to see the Hulk as a danger, and everyone else would have reason to see the Hulk as a big reason why the Accords needed to be passed. And, once again, even if Ross can be discredited, that doesn't discredit the Accords themselves, which is the question the movie is asking. (Finally, it seems to be planted in Civil War itself that Ross shouldn't be trusted, so its not like it was completely forgotten.)
I do kind of wish that Ross's past had been brought up, but that would be a different story.
Finally, the movie was logically plotted. Everyone's involvement and choice of side made logical sense based on their previous appearances. It provided an answer as to how the world would react to the close calls, battles and lack of supervision that superheroes bring. At the end of the day, that's what the movie was about. A decision is made and how the characters attempts to do what they think is the right thing shapes the conflict
Unless, of course, that most of the battle happens off-world in space, or something. (For what it's worth, even Secret Wars was capable of doing grounded stuff, e.g. Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows.)
Once again, we don't know how much of Ross's past was public knowledge, and Ross was not the creator of the Accords, nor the only person pushing for them. At most, it could've been questioned if Ross should be working to implement them, but that wouldn't change the central question: should the superheroes have handlers or should they be self-policing?
Anyone thinking it's unrealistic for Ross to "slide by his own actions" clearly hasn't been watching the presidential race in America.
I can't even fathom how people can't understand Ross sweeping his Abomination involvement away when we see more tragic cases similar enough in scope happening in real life right now.
I can't even fathom how people can't understand Ross sweeping his Abomination involvement away when we see more tragic cases similar enough in scope happening in real life right now.
And here's Nolan / Singer hate at it's finest. Simply the stupidest thing I'll read today.
Well, it's true. The X-Men Movies in particular are averse to any growth CBMs have made in the last 16 years. DOFP was all about getting things back to the way they were at the end of the first X-Men movie.
And all Nolan really cares about is writing archetypes and fanatics.