Spoilers Batman v Superman and Captain America Civil War

[dahj]

I'm not intent, I just asked a question. No one has answered it.

That's a bit dishonest.
That question has come up, and I'm sure if you looked you could find several answers in the BvS thread, and very likely all over the internet.

Saying, "X movie did the same thing" doesn't help.

I did not make the Civil War comment to explain BvS, I made it to point out how BvS comes under intense scrutiny for things that are common and usually treated as not even a minor flaw, let alone a big deal, yet in BvS they are the worst thing ever and proof that this is the worst film ever made.
Like you are now demanding an answer to the BvS question, but aren't even bothering to answer the equivalent questions for Civil War...

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well, that post isn't elitist at all.

But understandable given the increasing amount of complaints about movies that kind of boil down to "assume the audiences are idiots".

 

[Noname Given]

Another comparison to BvS to a previous Avengers film.

Both BvS and AoU have characters experience prophetic dreams about the future, which have nothing to do with the actually movie we are watching.

Haha. You know I'm starting to think that Marvel might just be better at hiding their flaws than DC films, or audiences are just more willing to overlook them. So far, DC and Marvel have done scores of similar things, but Marvel doesn't catch as much of the flak for it as DC.

Food for thought.

Yes the story structures and tropes are very similar in both films - but IMO Marvel has done a better job of keeping their characters 'core personalities' from the comics intact when they execute them on screen (both heroes and villains) as opposed to DC (Again, many people - myself included - felt Lex Luthor came across more like 'The Joker' then Lex.)

Also, at times, the Marvel films don't take themselves a drop dead serious as some of the recent DC outings - and like to really 'wink' at the audience on occasion. And that's also something I as a really old comic nerd find appealing. YMMV.

 

[Tosk]

That's a bit dishonest.
That question has come up, and I'm sure if you looked you could find several answers in the BvS thread, and very likely all over the internet.

Thanks for the info.

I did not make the Civil War comment to explain BvS, I made it to point out how BvS comes under intense scrutiny for things that are common and usually treated as not even a minor flaw, let alone a big deal, yet in BvS they are the worst thing ever and proof that this is the worst film ever made. [...] Like you are now demanding an answer to the BvS question, but aren't even bothering to answer the equivalent questions for Civil War...

I demanded nothing. If it's important that I answer your question you can find it in the CW thread, and very likely all over the internet.

If you demand an answer though, I would say that the circumstances aren't as similar as you claim. Yes, Cap explains his reasoning, Tony makes it absolutely clear that he is not going to listen, Cap resorts to violence instead of trying to explain further...the same that thing happens in BvS, except that Superman could simply hold Batman still (or down) and keep talking. There's nothing Batman could do to stop him if Supes just held his arms down like a little kid. Cap (and his team) don't have that option. Cap also isn't trying to take Team Stark down necessarily, he just wants to leave. Stark won't let him.

Also, I'm not on a crusade against BvS just because I complain about parts of it.

 

[Set Harth]

Cap also isn't trying to take Team Cap down

Well I should certainly hope not!

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Yes the story structures and tropes are very similar in both films - but IMO Marvel has done a better job of keeping their characters 'core personalities' from the comics intact when they execute them on screen (both heroes and villains) as opposed to DC (Again, many people - myself included - felt Lex Luthor came across more like 'The Joker' then Lex.)

At the same time though, Marvel hasn't been accurate or faithful in their deceptions of:
Zemo
Strucker
The Mandarin
Ultron
Yellowjacket
Malekith
Ronan
AIM

And outside of the Mandarin, nobody seemed to care. We have the racebending controversy with The Ancient One, a Tibetan man and mystic in the comics, being portrayed by a white woman in the movie. After the movie comes out, I don't expect anyone to bat an eyelash at it.

Also, at times, the Marvel films don't take themselves a drop dead serious as some of the recent DC outings - and like to really 'wink' at the audience on occasion. And that's also something I as a really old comic nerd find appealing. YMMV.

That's a matter or personal preference and genre though. The DC films (going back to 2005-2006) have all been action dramas. They're supposed to take themselves seriously. The Marvel movies with the exception of the Captain America movies and IM 3, have all been action comedies. With BvS, I saw a lot of reviews sinning the movie for not having jokes, but when you watch the movie there are a couple lines that make you laugh, but the film as a whole isn't trying to be funny.

*Shrugs*

 

[Tosk]

Well I should certainly hope not!

Oops! Fixed, and thank you.

 

[dahj]

If you demand an answer though

I don't.
But your answer proves my point.
You're still insisting on "Why didn't Superman simply hold Batman down and explained himself?" whilst coming up with a convenient excuse on "Why didn't Cap simply sit down with Tony and explained himself?"

You can always find a reason why heroes shouldn't fight, or a way they could avoid a fight, I could pick apart your answer to the CW fight and find a dozen different ways how it could have played out without resorting to violence but that's not the point.

The point is both fights serve a narrative purpose. You can just as easily(even easier, really) explain why the BvS fight took place from everything that happened in that movie.

You however are choosing to take that fight out of the narrative context and scrutinize it from a purely mechanical standpoint, while you use the other's narrative context to reinforce your explaining away the fight taking place, which is a double standard.

 

[Marsden]

We have the racebending controversy with The Ancient One, a Tibetan man and mystic in the comics, being portrayed by a white woman in the movie.

I've been trying to avoid all spoilers about that movie, but I heard that their answer is, "there is more than one Ancient One." So it's not necessarily replacing him as she is another. I'd suppose Tilda would be great as Agatha Harkness, maybe this Ancient One is more in that vein.

Back to your other point, it's a good point, but I think when the movie is named Iron Man (or Captain America or Thor or Avengers), it's more important to have Iron Man right than, say Iron Monger, who could also have been added to your list, also Justin Hammer and Whiplash/Crimson Dynamo who was a combo type of the two. But the movies weren't about the villains, and I don't mind it too much for that.

I'd even be open to a whole new villain for the movies but it seems dumb to not utilize all of the huge numbers of characters already available.

BTW, I never really understood the level of complaining about the Mandarin. I thought Ben Kingsley was absolutely incredible with his Mandarin/Trevor performance. But then, I never really believed that Aldrich Killian was The Mandarin but coopting his name and reputation for his own goals, which is silly, but that is my feeling about it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

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?

Then he would've managed to kill one of the avengers, and Cap would still react badly to the accords.

What if CIA succeeded in killing Bucky?

Then the entire second half of his plan wouldn't even be necessary, because Bucky getting killed for something he didn't do would produce the same result anyway.

What if Black Panther succeeded in killing Bucky?

That really would've thrown him off. But that's because Black Panther is the spoiler of the movie. Zemo had no way of knowing such a thing even existed - even shield didn't seem to know about it - and therefore could not possibly plan around him.

What if the EMP delivery guy got stuck in traffic?

What delivery guy? Wasn't the entire thing based on Zemo setting off the bomb himself? (In a Bucky disguise)

What if that building had backup generators?

I can't remember off the top of my head what the emp part is that you're referencing. Was that during the escape from the CIA? Because letting loose a reprogrammed Winter Soldier is a pretty big deal, regardless of power outages.

What if somebody from the CIA checked Zemo's photo ID?

Presumably they did. They are the CIA. He obviously had a way around it. If they were extra thorough, maybe he got caught, but no plan is completely without risk.

What if Bucky shot Tony in the face while escaping?
What if he chopped up Cap with the chopper?

Those are, again, obvious victories for Zemo

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 was no other Winter Soldier at the time, the footage was great drama but hardly necessary - paperwork would've produced the same result, and Zemo didn't need the final confrontation to take place in that particular spot. It was convenient (and symbolic).

That's my whole point that I'm not sure you're getting: his plan, as it specifically played out on screen, got lucky in several points, sure. But it didn't matter, because his plan didn't need to be that rigorous. Anything that results in the avengers fighting each other and possibly having some of them die would automatically be a success for him, and he did a very good job of ensuring that events were very strongly leaning in that direction, regardless of specifics.

 

[dahj]

That's my whole point that I'm not sure you're getting

I don't think you got my point either

I have no problem with the events as they played out in Civil War, I'm just pointing out how easy it is to tear apart details from the film and then make an argument they "don't make sense"...

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Then the entire second half of his plan wouldn't even be necessary, because Bucky getting killed for something he didn't do would produce the same result anyway.

Except Cap didn't really know he didn't do it until after he found out about Zemo.

I can't remember off the top of my head what the emp part is that you're referencing. Was that during the escape from the CIA? Because letting loose a reprogrammed Winter Soldier is a pretty big deal, regardless of power outages.

And he gets out of the containment cell that still has power how? Hell Zemo can't even do the brainwash thing without the outage becuase everyone was watching him on the freaking cameras.

 

[ichab]

I don't think you got my point either

I have no problem with the events as they played out in Civil War, I'm just pointing out how easy it is to tear apart details from the film and then make an argument they "don't make sense"...

In a story where the good guys win the bad guys will always make a mistake that defies logic. That is why unless it's something blatently obvious (stupid stuff people do in slasher flicks) I never nitpick movies.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Except Cap didn't really know he didn't do it until after he found out about Zemo.

Zemo was already prepared to expose himself (at the most opportune moment) in order to ratchet up the conflict. In the events of this movie, that's how he baited Iron Man into showing up. In the events you postulate, it would work just as well to turn Cap against the others.

And he gets out of the containment cell that still has power how? Hell Zemo can't even do the brainwash thing without the outage becuase everyone was watching him on the freaking cameras.

You're right, I remember the sequence better now. But you're overestimating the problem there by a great deal. He was there to psychoanalyze the prisoner. He could drag the session out as long as he needed to to account for any normal traffic delays, without anyone being the wiser. And if something ridiculously unlikely happened and the delivery didn't happen at all, he could always just end the session and leave to go come up with a new plan.

 

[Showdown]

21. Both films have a black woman complaining about the actions of the superheroes, Superman and Ironman, near the beginning of the film.

22. Both films have conflicts based on a what-ifs. Batman attacks Superman because theres a chance he will destroy the world. Captain America didn't sign the Sokovia Accords because there is a chance they will change their agendas.

23. Both films takes place in multiple continents. BvS have North America, Africa, and Asia. CA:CW have North America, Africa, and Europe.

24. Both films have two males heroes exchange a few words about a woman before the final battle. Batman and Superman talked about Wonder Woman. Captain America and Winter Soldier talked about Dolores.

25. Both films have superheroes that also portrayed Marvel superheroes on Fox films, Batman to Daredevil and Captain America to Fantastic Four's Human Torch.

26. Both films have a superhero thats fully CG, Batman's armor and Spiderman's suit.
http://mcuexchange.com/spider-mans-suit-in-civil-war-is-100-cg-in-every-shot/
http://batman-news.com/2015/10/25/ben-affleck-batman-v-superman-cgi/

27. Both films have one female superhero per team. Black Widow on Team Iron Man, Scarlet Witch on Team Cap, and Wonder Woman on the JLA. Neither follow the "Designated Girl Fight" trope.

28. Both films have no American, female superheroes. Black Widow is Russian, Scarlet Witch is Sokovian, and Wonder Woman is Themysciran.

29. Both films are based on comic books stories, instead of having an original story line. BvS is based on The Dark Knight Return and Death of Superman. CA:CW is based on Marvel Civil War.

30. Both films were advertised as a battle because of ideologies, but weren't. Superman is fighting because Lex kidnapped his mom. Batman is fighting because he succumbing to dark side. Captain America is fighting to save Bucky. Iron Man is fighting out of guilt, and later to avenge his parents.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ Those are pretty amusing additions. I chuckled.