Yes I meant CW (the third or second-and-a-half appearance of/story with the Avengers) and so what if there had been many more movies in the franchise universe before when, though they should have had an impact, Ant-Man and TIH had minimal impact on it (and Iron Man seems oblivious to what happened in Cap's films)? There's probably been too many movies if movie events that are supposed to contribute to the characters and relationships do so only minimally or not at all.
What Marvel films are worth seeing?
- Thread starter JirinPanthosa
- Start date
Yes I meant CW (the third or second-and-a-half appearance of/story with the Avengers) and so what if there had been many more movies in the franchise universe before when, though they should have had an impact, Ant-Man and TIH had minimal impact on it (and Iron Man seems oblivious to what happened in Cap's films)? There's probably been too many movies if movie events that are supposed to contribute to the characters and relationships do so only minimally or not at all.
Another person presuming to speak on behalf of everyone. This is beginning to be a real problem. You still think that everyone thinks the same as you.
It doesn't bother to advance Superman's story as established in MoS in the slightest, so, what does the name even matter? He needed more development as a person and a hero before rushing into the Death of Superman.
The same could be said about The Dark Knight and its relationship to Batman Begins if you're just looking at the surface stories of both films, but that's being dismissive.
Not really. Begins is about him becoming a hero, TDK is about him being a hero. It's the next logical step. By comparison, MoS is about Clark choosing to become a hero and really not yet even understanding how, then BvS is about him already being worn down by the responsibility and wavering in his losses. It's like skipping straight from Begins to Rises with nothing in between.
MoS is about Clark choosing to fulfill the wishes of both of his families; BvS depicts the consequences, both good and bad, of that choice; it's also about him coming to grips with the fears that drove Jonathan and Martha during his childhood and then rising beyond those fears to truly become who they always felt he could be.
Also, BvS carries over far more thematic narrative threads from MoS than TDK does from BB.
Also, BvS carries over far more thematic narrative threads from MoS than TDK does from BB.
The implication was clear...and frankly, no one suspected for one second he'd stay dead. Let's be real here.
Coherent and not insulting to ones intelligence?
They really should've just made a MOS2 without needing Batman.
^ How convenient that you didn't bother to quote the part of my post where I identified what the DCEU films get criticized for not being, which, in case you missed it, is MCU films.
It's pretty easy to make an argument when you're just "cherrypicking".
It's pretty easy to make an argument when you're just "cherrypicking".
Except that almost nothing that happens in BvS is a consequence of MoS. The only thing that really ticks that box is that people react poorly to just knowing Superman exists at all, and Superman has to deal with it.
Everything else is driven by Lex Luthor's machinations which are born out of simple jealousy and mental instability and further enabled by Bruce Wayne's general loss of faith in the goodness of people.
This is patently false. Bruce's entire storyline in the film is predicated on the consequences of the choice that Clark makes in Man of Steel to embrace being a hero and confront Zod, and it's what allows Lex to pit the two characters against one another.
Pretty much
Nope. Bruce's story is predicated on his long history in Gotham and his lack of belief in basic goodness (which apparently has something to do with whatever happened to Robin). The opening scene of him in metropolis is never really connected to the main plot at all and his characterization would not make much sense as a response to that scene, anyway.
Because your comparison to the MCU (the MCU's brightly-colored, cookie-cutter, formulaic fluff) is shallow and shows you refuse to look past the surface to the actual content.
And your views of the DCEU (thought-provoking and entertaining adaptations of the "modern myths" from which they draw their inspiration that are insanely "deep" and rewarchable) are laughable.
The "inciting incident" for Bruce being willing to go after Clark is the "Metropolis incident" where his WayneTech building is destroyed, and the reason it's the inciting incident is because he's been broken down by the loss of Robin and years of putting on the cape and cowl. If you missed that, you simply weren't paying attention.
I started out as a fan of the MCU, but stopped caring after a certain point because the films were not evolving or changing in either narrative, style, or tone.
Wrong.
There's a reason the hosts of the Justice League Universe podcast and their collaborators can do what they do: the films' content goes beyond mere entertainment and actively invites analysis.
How is that so different from that in CW we get no sense of how the general publics rather than just governments feel about superheroes or that it was vague what the Accords included and what signing and being bound by them would mean? And though there was some disagreement about the regulation, the bulk or for some characters the whole of the fighting wasn't actually about the Accords but about whether or not to capture or (and therefore kill) Bucky?
But that was a little too easy and obvious a choice, Clark would be a bit of a monster if he made no effort to communicate and then fight Zod after Zod threatened that if he didn't Zod would take over the planet.
You act like the DCEU has evolve and changed in narrative style or tone. Leave it to Snyder, Thor would still be acting 100% the same way he did at the beginning of Thor 1 because he's "still becoming a hero" and Tony would still be 100% the same as he was at the start of Iron Man 1.
They're desperate to not have to acknowledge the DCEU is a mess. That's why they do it. You could easily find all that stuff in an MCU picture. It's just not presented as melodramatically or pretentiously.
Last edited:
'The reason it is the cause is because he was already broken, so it isn't actually the cause'. Batman's issue is clearly far more general than specific. Superman is nothing more than a convenient target. There is no real connection between MoS and Batman's pov.
Because the Civil War movie doesn't actually need to be about the general public's pov, focusing on Bucky actually is the logical next step from The Winter Soldier, and the pro registration push that so splits the Avengers is mostly down to Iron Man's determination that the avengers need to be put in check - a pov that is clearly personally motivated, so bringing in a million specific details wouldn't actually add anything to the story.
The closest that we get to "the public" in Civil War are the people who lose loved ones in Hero Action. Alfre Woodard's character who lost her son, the people of Wakanda who lose their embassy, T'Challa, and of course Zemo. The Accords are popular enough that the U.S. President is standing behind them (through Ross as Secretary of State). But no we never get to see crowds picketing Wanda Maximov or the Avengers.
Batman v. Superman and Civil War have a fair amount of intersect, I suppose. But CW is exploring the outcome of a series of movies and how several characters react to it. BvS is short circuiting that with only one movie but with a cultural knowledge of how these stories go. (I have always found the arguments that Superman did NOT do everything in his power in Man of Steel and was somehow careless or uncaring to be nonsense. He was SUPERMAN and he SAVED THE PLANET.) To comic readers Batman's intrinsic distrust of Superman is familiar. To casual movie goers it comes very unexpectedly.
I always thought of Civil War in terms of individuals. Individuals who are acting by any reasonable definition as vigilantes. In that regard I'm very much on Stark's side. I just like Rogers better so his arguments seem better. But if I expand that out into more of a metaphor: A hero or heroes as nations (I mean, he's Captain America) then Rogers' arguments take more heft.
It's interesting that it is the American Secretary of State noting that the Avengers are based on American soil occasionally operating in other nations. But his solution is not one based in the American legal system (other than Wanda, who isn't an U.S. citizen?) but an international treaty with... the heroes themselves? Why does Steve Rogers personally have to sign this? Are there countries who are NOT signatories? How is that treated? What is a level of powers or abilities to make signing necessary? Or is it simply activity? If SHIELD still existed would Romanov or Barton have needed to sign? Does Maria Hill need to?
Really the Accords (despite how they're handled on Agents of SHIELD) are a "license" to do Hero Work. Not really a treaty between nations.
To quote Bruce Wayne from The Dark Knight Returns: "Of course we're outlaws. We've always been outlaws!"
I wonder if there is any version of the Accords that Rogers would have been party to? (His original affiliation was the United States Army. Rhodey's is still the Air Force.) Is his objection to any controls? Or who he is signing control over to?
Of course (and Superman would certainly a parallel) as we've seen: No one has been able to control The Hulk. They don't seem to be doing a very good job with... well anyone else. Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow. Certainly not Vision. So the Accords are really polite fiction. International PR.
This is both wordy and probably pretty far afield from the topic. But more fun that "DC sucks!" "No Marvel does!"
Batman v. Superman and Civil War have a fair amount of intersect, I suppose. But CW is exploring the outcome of a series of movies and how several characters react to it. BvS is short circuiting that with only one movie but with a cultural knowledge of how these stories go. (I have always found the arguments that Superman did NOT do everything in his power in Man of Steel and was somehow careless or uncaring to be nonsense. He was SUPERMAN and he SAVED THE PLANET.) To comic readers Batman's intrinsic distrust of Superman is familiar. To casual movie goers it comes very unexpectedly.
I always thought of Civil War in terms of individuals. Individuals who are acting by any reasonable definition as vigilantes. In that regard I'm very much on Stark's side. I just like Rogers better so his arguments seem better. But if I expand that out into more of a metaphor: A hero or heroes as nations (I mean, he's Captain America) then Rogers' arguments take more heft.
It's interesting that it is the American Secretary of State noting that the Avengers are based on American soil occasionally operating in other nations. But his solution is not one based in the American legal system (other than Wanda, who isn't an U.S. citizen?) but an international treaty with... the heroes themselves? Why does Steve Rogers personally have to sign this? Are there countries who are NOT signatories? How is that treated? What is a level of powers or abilities to make signing necessary? Or is it simply activity? If SHIELD still existed would Romanov or Barton have needed to sign? Does Maria Hill need to?
Really the Accords (despite how they're handled on Agents of SHIELD) are a "license" to do Hero Work. Not really a treaty between nations.
To quote Bruce Wayne from The Dark Knight Returns: "Of course we're outlaws. We've always been outlaws!"
I wonder if there is any version of the Accords that Rogers would have been party to? (His original affiliation was the United States Army. Rhodey's is still the Air Force.) Is his objection to any controls? Or who he is signing control over to?
Of course (and Superman would certainly a parallel) as we've seen: No one has been able to control The Hulk. They don't seem to be doing a very good job with... well anyone else. Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow. Certainly not Vision. So the Accords are really polite fiction. International PR.
This is both wordy and probably pretty far afield from the topic. But more fun that "DC sucks!" "No Marvel does!"
Certainly not when one considers how much the MCU is continuity-challenged in their "shared universe" For example, the entire legacy of Hydra's effect on the nation--or world (sold as starting/influencing/changing endless major world events for 70 years) is all but ignored after The Winter Soldier. Or in Civil War's Accords meeting scene, not one Avenger manages to call Ross on his hypocrisy thanks to his being the point man behind Abomination/Blonsky and the all of the collateral damage caused by his rampage--its like the event s of the 2008 film never happened. Oh, but according to some, the MCU is a tight, perfect machine.
No.
To this day, it is shocking how some still do not get this. The entire reason for the events of BvS is MoS--it has parallel effects on Wayne and Luthor in wanting to stop an "alien god" who could destroy all life if he cared to, and Kal-El himself, who still wrestles with that responsibility, while trying to live as a human, particularly with his relationship to his mother and Lois. Some seem to fail to understand that the film's title--Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice--points to the aftermath of the carnage of the Kryptonian invasion, and how a psychotic opportunist inadvertently creates the foundation of the JL. This is not hieroglyphics inscribed backwards--it was all carefully, logically plotted from MoS to BvS, and that perfectly set up Wonder Woman.
If you're expecting every single film to be about the Hydra thing, maybe. I fail to see what effect that would've had on Thor Ragnarok or Guardians of the Galaxy.
Ross isn't culpable, Blonsky got the treatment that turned him into Abomination on his own.
It's still better run than DC and FOX.
Luthor's reasons are nonsensical. He doesn't give a damn about Humanity's safety, he just wants to kill Superman because his daddy beat him and made him hate the idea of a loving God. Of course, as soon as Luthor discovered Kryptonite and how it clearly meant Superman wasn't all powerful his motivation fell apart.
He doesn't struggle at all, he clearly is miserable the whole way through and admits that no one can handle it especially him. He doesn't grow or change in the least. He barely speaks in the movie.
We understand it, we just won't ignore its flaws.
