Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Turtletrekker]

I'm glad that they didn't just do the same type of story three times. That would make for a boring trilogy. They managed to keep it interesting and touch on all aspects of Cap's story (WW2, solo hero and Avenger) by telling different types of stories in each movie. And despite it's extended cast, Civil War was definitely and distinctly a Captain America movie. The story revolved around Steve and his choices, it featured his supporting characters and wrapped up his story arcs and the story arcs of his supporting players as well his time as wielding the shield.

 

[fireproof78]

Please tell me you're not one of those "The movie should've been standalone! It should've been about his final battle with Hydra!" folks.

No. I just don't care for the movie.

 

[suarezguy]

No, they're all pretty good. The third is only a mess if you were expecting them to take the lazy way out and make everything self-contained and standalone.

It should have brought up the antagonists of the second movie and their goals more than one or two times and it should have explained the fighters's motivations for fighting more than they like and trust Cap or Tony more than the other.

The story revolved around Steve and his choices

But it also heavily depended on and revolved around that Wanda had joined the Avengers and that the reason governments, and maybe or maybe not the public, were dubious of the Avengers was because of what happened in AoU.

it featured his supporting characters and wrapped up his story arcs and the story arcs of his supporting players as well his time as wielding the shield.

The conclusion to Bucky's story was he goes back to hibernation, to Sharon Carter's that we're not sure how she felt about the policies but probably disliked them enough to make a small stand against them, to Steve's team's that their illegally supporting him one time due to their personal affection for him makes them live as fugitives from then on. And Steve opposed Tony to the end and then kind of apologized and they're likely to be able to work together later. Open-ended can work but I think that's way too open-ended in way too many ways rather than conclusive.

 

[Turtletrekker]

We saw the resolution to Bucky's arc as he is no longer running nor is he a slave to his brainwashers. There is resolution to Steve's quest to find/save him. We saw the end of Peggy's arc, Steve's arcs, even Howard Stark. Just because it has connections to the larger shared universe is irrelevant. And, of course, since it exists in a larger shared universe, the narrative is going to be open to further tales. But when we next see Bucky in Black Panther, we see him moving on beyond his role as a brainwashed weapon. When we next see Steve we see him moving beyond the perception of him being an American symbol.

 

[Anwar]

It should have brought up the antagonists of the second movie

Zola and Pierce were both wrapped up in TWS, there's no point to bring them back.

and their goals more than one or two times

Why? Hydra is a threat to the entire MCU, not just Cap.

and it should have explained the fighters's motivations for fighting more than they like and trust Cap or Tony more than the other.

They did explain their motives just fine.

But it also heavily depended on and revolved around that Wanda had joined the Avengers and that the reason governments, and maybe or maybe not the public, were dubious of the Avengers was because of what happened in AoU.

And? What's the problem.

 

[suarezguy]

Zola and Pierce were both wrapped up in TWS, there's no point to bring them back.

Their goals and that they nearly succeeded should have been remembered though.

Why? Hydra is a threat to the entire MCU, not just Cap.

TWS antagonists's goals was to improve society through increased social surveillance and control. In AoU that's Stark's goal and it pretty much also is his goal in CW. Steve, though he becomes very doubtful of power and authority, enough to oppose the Accords, because of them, doesn't directly mention them in the sequel to TWS (they are mentioned once or twice in that nearly 2.5 hour sequel film).

They did explain their motives just fine.

Peter's motivation to fight was that Tony asked him to and convinces him they both fight for the underdogs but Steve doesn't, Steve's position is so wrong he's got to be stopped and captured. Sam's motivation to was that Steve and Sam asked him to and that apparently was worth becoming an international fugitive. Clint's was, I think, that Steve asked him to (if that was even shown, if not I think it was all that was implied). Wanda's was that she decided she doesn't have to feel sorry for and shouldn't face consequences for what she did (and Steve comes to feel she shouldn't either). Way too little explanation or justification for such extreme actions and consequences.

And? What's the problem.

It tries to follow up on, it basically depends on following from, both TWS and AoU but it also ignores or minimizes a lot of both films and so seems at best a disappointing follow-up to both.

 

[Christopher]

TWS antagonists's goals was to improve society through increased social surveillance and control. In AoU that's Stark's goal and it pretty much also is his goal in CW

I think that's giving Hydra too much credit. They just wanted power; improving society was their excuse. Tony wanted to protect everyone, and saw greater control as a means to that end. Hydra wanted control as an end in itself, and tried to kill everyone who got in the way of that end. (Although Spider-Man: Far from Home compromises that by establishing that Tony built a bunch of hair-trigger killer drones.)

 

[fireproof78]

Way too little explanation or justification for such extreme actions and consequences.

This pretty much sums up my feelings, especially when there is another subplot of the guy trying to get the Avengers to fight each other because...

It comes across as highly manipulative in terms of having the heroes fight. It doesn't feel earned at all.

 

[Mrs. Silvercrest]

I don't know if this is a subject change or okay to say? But I was thinking a while back about Tony and Thor. That they both have something in common. Both of them have powerful rich dad's that want them to take over after the dad retires or dies. But neither of them are good at running a world/or company. They both just want to be heroes and save the day and don't do well with that kind of pressure. If only their dad's could understand that about them the relationships might have gone better? This is not really about any one movie with them, just a general thought I had about the characters. I hope this is okay?

 

[Reverend]

This pretty much sums up my feelings, especially when there is another subplot of the guy trying to get the Avengers to fight each other because...

It comes across as highly manipulative in terms of having the heroes fight. It doesn't feel earned at all.

It seemed pretty well earned to me.
The guy is black-ops trained. He saw his whole family die as collateral damage while the Avengers saved the world from a threat they created. Revenge is easy to understand and of course he knows that to come at them head-on is suicide for a normal person like him.
So he studied them, observed the weak points that have been present within the team from day one, and applied pressure...and it very nearly worked. Bucky is Cap's Achilles heel and Tony's relationship with his father is his. That the one killed the other is one hell of a chink in both of their proverbial armours. It also helps that one of the pair has self destructive tendencies and the other has a habit of throwing himself onto live grenades (literally and figuratively.)

I think where a lot of people get tripped up is the misapprehension that Zemo arranged *everything*, where in reality all he really did was to just give the odd push. Most of it was just to obtain his CCTV silver bullet and then get the Avengers to chase him.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I don't know if this is a subject change or okay to say? But I was thinking a while back about Tony and Thor. That they both have something in common. Both of them have powerful rich dad's that want them to take over after the dad retires or dies. But neither of them are good at running a world/or company. They both just want to be heroes and save the day and don't do well with that kind of pressure. If only their dad's could understand that about them the relationships might have gone better? This is not really about any one movie with them, just a general thought I had about the characters. I hope this is okay?

They both also had extended family members (Stane being a replacement father figure for Stark and Loki being Thor's adopted brother) that wanted to kill them.

 

[Reverend]

I'm not sure I buy Stane as a surrogate father in any real sense of the word. At least not from Tony's perspective. An uncle figure at most.

As for the rest. It's all pretty standard "hero's Journey" stuff. Both Tony and Thor had to grow up and learn responsibility, just as the two Caps both had to learn that they're more than just the soldiers they aspired to be and that maybe the people they weren't as pure of intent as they were.

 

[Marsden]

Thor said so himself, Families can be tough.

 

[fireproof78]

The guy is black-ops trained. He saw his whole family die as collateral damage while the Avengers saved the world from a threat they created. Revenge is easy to understand and of course he knows that to come at them head-on is suicide for a normal person like him.
So he studied them, observed the weak points that have been present within the team from day one, and applied pressure...and it very nearly worked. Bucky is Cap's Achilles heel and Tony's relationship with his father is his. That the one killed the other is one hell of a chink in both of their proverbial armours. It also helps that one of the pair has self destructive tendencies and the other has a habit of throwing himself onto live grenades (literally and figuratively.)

It's unearned to me in the sense that the conflict feels highly prolonged and intense for the catalyst to it. Yes, I get that both Tony and Steve have their trigger points and weaknesses. But, pushing it to the point that you have heroes fighting on both sides and everyone drawing lines and on and on? It strained credibility to be to the breaking point and beyond.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Michelle Williams to return.

https://screenrant.com/venom-2-michelle-williams-return-official/

 

[Reverend]

It's unearned to me in the sense that the conflict feels highly prolonged and intense for the catalyst to it. Yes, I get that both Tony and Steve have their trigger points and weaknesses. But, pushing it to the point that you have heroes fighting on both sides and everyone drawing lines and on and on? It strained credibility to be to the breaking point and beyond.

That huge fight at the airport didn't come out of nowhere, there was a clear ramp-up prior to that. Also if you recall pretty much everyone was pulling their punches; Cap's team was just buying time until they could spot the quinjet and fly it to Siberia. Tony's team was there to arrest everyone else because if they didn't, Ross would and he wouldn't be as gentle.
Nobody was out to murder anyone, but they had diametrically opposed viewpoints and both thought they were in the right and that the stakes where high enough that they had no other option. That's pretty much how conflict works.

 

[Anwar]

This pretty much sums up my feelings, especially when there is another subplot of the guy trying to get the Avengers to fight each other because...

It comes across as highly manipulative in terms of having the heroes fight. It doesn't feel earned at all.

No more than Harvey Dent becoming a psychopath in the last 20 minutes of Dark Knight was.

 

[DigificWriter]

The basic story of Civil War is fine, but where the film falls flat is that it makes Cap a sidekick in his own movie. The film ought to have been focused on Cap's 'side' of the Sokovia Accords conflict but what we got instead was Tony's POV being the dominent narrative driver.

Spider-Man Homecomimg also suffers from this same issue, although that movie also has to deal with the mistake that Civil War made in tethering Peter to Tony in the first place.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Michelle Williams to return.

https://screenrant.com/venom-2-michelle-williams-return-official/

*pssst*

Wrong thread!

 

[suarezguy]

Nobody was out to murder anyone, but they had diametrically opposed viewpoints and both thought they were in the right and that the stakes where high enough that they had no other option. That's pretty much how conflict works.

But for too many on each side the film didn't go into why they thought the pro- or anti-view and side were the right ones, instead it seemed like just because Tony and Steve, respectively, asked them to help them.