Fear. Recall how quickly the Patriot Act was written and approved after 9/11. And most of the people who approved of that have admitted that they didn't read it first.
Spoilers Captain America: Civil War - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Well yeah, but it's a bit different when you're the target of that fear.
Huh. So, I was just hanging at home watching some of the fan-made reviews and Easter egg videos on YouTube while I puttered around the apartment. I was just letting it run from video to video for the most part as long as the videos were Civil War related. At one point, I looked up and it was playing the first scene of Civil War, in what I assumed was a short clip. Then the Marvel logo appeared. And then, "Lagos" in giant letters (Actually, "Lago-", as it's slightly off-center). Then it dawned on me that I was actually watching the movie! The whole damn movie. So, yeah, I'm watching the movie for the fourth time (three times on the theater) as we speak in the comfort of my apartment. I decided to not feel any guilt because, A, I didn't seek the video out, it came to me. And B, I have seen it three time in the theater and plan to buy the Blu-Ray, so they're not losing any money from me. It's been up for over two weeks! I wonder how long it will last?
It's as much a continuation of Tony's story as it is Cap's.
New
In a Captain America film? This is why I have such a big problem with this movie. This is why I have such a problem with Kevin Fiege allowing Robert Downey Jr. to co-hijack Chris Evans' last solo film.
I had a problem with watching Tony Stark spend 10 to 15 minutes recruiting the 15 year-old Peter Parker for a fight, and not see how Scott Laing and Clint Barton ended up siding with Steve . . . in a "CAPTAIN AMERICA" movie. I had a problem with watching a Cap film begin with the murder of Iron Man's parents.
If Tony had been the villain of this movie . . . perhaps I would have not had raised such a fuss. Maybe. But he was not the villain. This movie nearly became all about Tony Stark's man pain, and I was not interested in seeing that in a "CAPTAIN AMERICA" film. I wonder how Downey Jr. would like if another Marvel big star - Evans, Hemsworth, etc., who had their own solo films - had hijacked half of an Iron Man film.
If Downey Jr. had not insisted on Marvel making his role bigger or if someone at Marvel had not decided to make this film about the Civil War, perhaps the screenwriters could have spent more time developing Steve's relationship with Sharon Carter, allow audiences to watch Steve deal with his friendships with both Bucky Barnes and Sam Wilson and deal with HYDRA with a fully developed story, instead of as a footnote in "AGENTS OF SHIELD".
In a Captain America film? This is why I have such a big problem with this movie. This is why I have such a problem with Kevin Fiege allowing Robert Downey Jr. to co-hijack Chris Evans' last solo film.
I had a problem with watching Tony Stark spend 10 to 15 minutes recruiting the 15 year-old Peter Parker for a fight, and not see how Scott Laing and Clint Barton ended up siding with Steve . . . in a "CAPTAIN AMERICA" movie. I had a problem with watching a Cap film begin with the murder of Iron Man's parents.
If Tony had been the villain of this movie . . . perhaps I would have not had raised such a fuss. Maybe. But he was not the villain. This movie nearly became all about Tony Stark's man pain, and I was not interested in seeing that in a "CAPTAIN AMERICA" film. I wonder how Downey Jr. would like if another Marvel big star - Evans, Hemsworth, etc., who had their own solo films - had hijacked half of an Iron Man film.
If Downey Jr. had not insisted on Marvel making his role bigger or if someone at Marvel had not decided to make this film about the Civil War, perhaps the screenwriters could have spent more time developing Steve's relationship with Sharon Carter, allow audiences to watch Steve deal with his friendships with both Bucky Barnes and Sam Wilson and deal with HYDRA with a fully developed story, instead of as a footnote in "AGENTS OF SHIELD".
Last edited:
I think you're overstating things. Steve was still the main focus. It still followed up on the hanging plot-threads from The Winter Soldier and Steve's supporting cast. The larger cast may have given the film an Avengers feel at times, but it's still more accurately a Cap movie.
And I don't see why giving Stark some development in a Cap movie is a bad thing. Especially when the core conflict winds up being as personal to Stark as this one was.
And I don't see why giving Stark some development in a Cap movie is a bad thing. Especially when the core conflict winds up being as personal to Stark as this one was.
Last edited:
Tony may not be "the villain" per se, but he is the film's central antagonist. So it's fair game that the film focuses so much on him...he gets the same amount of attention that a good villain would.
This movie was loosely adaptated from the Civil War crossover in the comics, in which Stark played a similar role.
Taking the actual American Civil War as an analogous subject, would you make a movie about it without bothering to flesh out the characters and motivations on the Confederate side as much as those on the Union side (even if it would ultimately make sense for the Union side to be portrayed a bit more heroically)? In general, do you feel that the protagonists should be better developed than the antagonists in a story?
I agree, but it seems to me this was borne more out of a desire to shoehorn Spidey into the movie than Stark, since he too featured in the source material (although his role didn't really transfer over fully intact in the adaptation, and felt to me a bit superfluous in the film) and they were newly at liberty to include him thanks to the deal with Sony.
But this is following up on a thread from the previous Captain America film(s), one that is naturally and organically tied to Cap (through Bucky) at one end and Tony (through his parents) at the other. It's ultimately a significant lynchpin in the source of their conflict, even if neither of them fully realize to what extent at the outset. And recall that although it was obviously clearly foreshadowed, it was not made explicit when we first witnessed the event in question that this was even what we were seeing at all. Rather, such was played as a reveal later in the film, albeit one that shouldn't have come as nearly so much of a surprise to attentive audience members as it did to Tony.
"Villain" no, but antagonist to Cap's protagonist yes, and though far from being the only one in play he's certainly the most sympathetic and worthy of dramatic focus. His perspective lends context and contrast to the exploration of Cap's within the story.
Last edited:
I'd say that's an understatement - however, I haven't read the comics in question, just a treatment of the storyline's content in a book.
The comic was WAY better but the only way that could have worked on screen was for marvel to have the film rights to Fantastic Four, Xmen and the rest of their roster. It would have also at the very least been a two parter.
Its all connected, all of it. MCU 13 however isn't a very good movie title.
The X-Men specifically stayed out of the conflict in the comic.
Wait. What? Is this in the right thread?
What I'm trying to say is . . . all of this - the Sokovia Accords, the Civil War, Tony Stark's man pain - should have been saved for an Avengers film. Instead, Kevin Fiege and Marvel shoved it all in a Captain America movie and allowed Robert Downey Jr. to hijack half of Chris Evans' third SOLO film. This would have never happened in an Iron Man movie.
^ Crap. The BBS must be on the fritz again. It drops out on me the same time every night. I was responding to another quoted post by Tosk in the X-Men A thread.
What could have happened in an Iron Man-less third solo Cap movie that wasn't more than sufficiently covered in CW? This was Captain America's movie, from start to finish. It followed up on every plot thread that TWS left dangling, and continued the narrative forward for the next movies.
WITH BAD WRITING! The movie started with Tony's parents getting killed. Steve's romance with Sharon Carter was rushed, because the Sokovia Accords story line and Tony's man pain made it impossible for the screenwriters to do justice to it. Sam and Bucky's relationship was never explored. Instead, it was presented in a series of comedy routines in which they are mildly hostile toward one another. The movie spent 10 to 15 minutes showing how Tony recruited Peter Parker (who really had no business being in this movie) for Team Iron Man, yet it failed to explain or show why Scott Laing and Clint Barton had decided to side with Steve. Zemo's whole plot was all about Tony finding out that Bucky had killed his parents. Again, it all became about Tony. The worst aspect of all of this is that Marvel ended Steve's conflict with HYDRA in such a weak manner. Marvel ended it on "Agents of Shield" . . . with Phil Coulson and Glenn Talbot coordinating a series of bombing on HYDRA bases . . . off screen. I found that incredibly pathetic.
Someone on Tumblr had pointed out that Steve's personal arc was weakened by the screenwriters' unnecessary focus on Tony. After seeing this movie, I heartily agree. What is really sickening about this is that Marvel came up with the idea to focus the Civil War arc in a "Captain America" movie in order to lure Downey Jr. into another Marvel film. Because of this decision, I have now developed contempt toward Marvel and pure dislike toward Downey Jr.'s Iron Man.
Someone on Tumblr had pointed out that Steve's personal arc was weakened by the screenwriters' unnecessary focus on Tony. After seeing this movie, I heartily agree. What is really sickening about this is that Marvel came up with the idea to focus the Civil War arc in a "Captain America" movie in order to lure Downey Jr. into another Marvel film. Because of this decision, I have now developed contempt toward Marvel and pure dislike toward Downey Jr.'s Iron Man.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
