Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (Page 2 of 15)

I'll try to respond to what I can

Spider-Man... I don't get the eyes. I don't get why they need to grow and shrink. Is it supposed to serve a purpose? How does narrowing his field of vision help him? When I saw that, my only reaction was "Why?".

Civil War/Justice League... I actually don't think that the Justice League element was added because of the Marvel franchise. The way it played out seems like they brought Batman in to serve a specific purpose, and as the process went on, Batman's role became bigger and he was given full-on star status, complete with name in the title (which Iron Man should be getting, but isn't)
Snyder recently said that when the idea to have Batman fight Superman came up, it sounded crazy to him that they would really be fighting at all, but it opened up this whole world of possibilities. If Batman and Superman exist together, the whole Justice League could exist together in the same movie universe, which has never happened before.

I would call BS on that, since it could easily be a response to Marvel, but it kinda makes sense. The way it played out in the press, from the earliest buzz about a Man of Steel sequel, which turned into Batman v Superman, which turned into a chance to introduce this whole world... the progression of those elements felt natural, as though they were being added as the story called for them. I don't think it was as much a "We need our own Avengers movie NOW!!!" reaction as it was "What if this coming together of Batman and Superman in such a public way draws the attention of others out there? What if their conflict exposes a whole world of heroes and villains?"

People say that the movie is too crammed with other heroes, but I think they're misunderstanding what happens. I think it will play out like the introduction of Kendra at the end of season 1 of The Flash. A glimpse of who is out there, setting up what is to come. I think the trailer is making Wonder Woman's role look bigger than it is, just because this is her first appearance on the big screen and that's a big deal.

I think that DC's approach has been better, honestly. They're making real movies, not live action cartoons. The look of the Marvel movies is very simple. The lighting is basic and too perfect. The coloration is bright, with no atmosphere. The shots are very basic, just to convey the idea of what's happening, without much art behind it. Marvel is creating products as quickly as they can, and it's working for them. But DC's movies are epic and beautiful. People didn't care when aliens attacked New York and the government ordered a nuke attack on the city. There was really no reaction to that at all from the public, and why not? That should be a big deal, right? So where is the investment?

Say what you will about Man of Steel, but it got people talking. People cared about how much damage happened to Smallville and Metropolis. People cared about Zod's end. We still debate the emotional motivation of the final shot in the movie, whereas nobody cared that the Avengers were joking around with each other while people were picking up the pieces of their lives around them at the end.

Treatment of characters... I disagree that Marvel is handling their characters better. They are managing their products better, perhaps, but not their characters. There is very little actual character work put into Marvel's characters. They're pretty two-dimensional, with special recognition given to RDJ for infusing life into one of those characters. The others have no real arcs. No emotional center. No real personalities. There really is no Steve Rogers, there is only Captain America. They keep throwing away chances to make him more than that. First, by bringing him to the future too soon. Second, by not really focusing on how out of place he is here. And poor Black Widow (who also has no real story... and I don't even think Scarlett Johansson has been given a multi-film contract yet, much less her own character arc) is tossed around from movie to movie, being the love interest of whoever needs one at the moment.

The business side of their movies, Marvel has handled well. They make unoffensive movies that almost everyone in the family can watch and enjoy, and they have a ton of merchandising to go with it. The Disney model. It works for making money. But the characters themselves have been treated horribly.

Going ahead with the next phases... yeah, they will probably just swap out the old characters with new ones. But what I mean is that while people are praising the popularity of Iron Man right now, it's not really Iron Man that's popular. It's RDJ. I don't think that these movies have propelled Iron Man to the level of Batman or Superman, as some people suggest. I don't think that the character will continue to be as popular once RDJ is gone.

Daredevil... I've only watched the premiere of season 2 so far, but the quality of that show is far beyond anything else that Marvel has put out. There is more care put into that TV series than any of the huge Marvel movies. The lighting and use of shadows, the camera placement, the coloration, the line delivery... it looks more DC than Marvel, quite honestly. I mean that in a very good way. I can't speak for the overall writing of season 2, but the other stuff is still strong.

VAL: "Why is Barry working cases fresh out of a coma? Every defence lawyer in the world would get his work thrown out of court."

ME: " ... shut up... "

VAL: "And does he work in that lab all by himself? Like, there's only one criminal scientist in the whole police department? And nobody worked there while he was in a coma?"

ME: " ... shut up... "

VAL: "And when the sky rips open from the black hole -- why did they include that random shot of that one actress for no reason whatsoever?"

ME: "Because she's going to play Hawkgirl in a spinoff. I mean -- shut up... "

Because spinoff.

Deserve or not, Hunter and Bobbi are getting a pilot for a spinoff.  Not sure how far along it is, but that's why they were disavowed.

I fully support Adrianne. She is a great actress who does deserve as much success as she can possibly get. And on top of that, she is even more beautiful in person than she is on TV. I don't know how that happened, but it did.

I just hope that her show is created, written by, and produced by people who care about the product a lot more than most of the Marvel properties. She is capable of Daredevil-level television, so let's not keep her stuck with Agents of SHIELD level material.

That said, I don't know that I'd call Fox or Alba talentless. Fox turned in a surprisingly impressive arc on New Girl this year, showing that she does have some talent. And I've been a fan of a lot of Alba's work for a long time. Plus, she knows business, so she deserves some props for that.

Was Jessica Alba good in Dark Angel?  I never watched it.

Question about Daredevil - do people know that he's blind?  On the show there's a limited sample to work with, but in the comics is it something that is known?

I'm liking season two so far.  Just finished episode 4.  They've done a good job with Frank Castle.

I don't know if the public knows Daredevil is blind or not. From 1964 - 2002, his identity was a secret and Daredevil presumably having sight was often used to hide Matt's identity. Batman figured out that Daredevil was blind within a few minutes of meeting him, however, based on how Daredevil's body language reacted to noise and how he angled towards sounds of interest.

In 2002, Daredevil's identity was outed by an FBI agent who sold his story to the Daily Globe newspaper. Since then, Matt has been in a state of publicly denying his alter-ego identity with barely anyone believing him, even after Iron Fist made sure Daredevil and Matt Murdock were seen in two different places at the same time.

However, due to a recent cosmic event called Secret Wars, nobody except Foggy Nelson and Matt know the truth anymore. It's not clear what the current situation is.

I saw a commercial for Civil War the other day. In it, Black Widow and Hawkeye are fighting each other. He has her pinned down. And then they start exchanging witty banter about how they're still friends.

Which makes me wonder why they're fighting. You don't seriously fight someone that you are still on good terms with. You don't go to "war" unless you intend to win that war. Assuming that the movie isn't about a mock battle to train new Avenger trainees, how serious is this supposed to be? Initial clips made it out to be pretty serious. People possibly dying, and other people trying to shoot their opponent in the face at close range. The one moment in the trailer that caught my attention was Tony's reaction when Bucky tries to kill him.

But if they cut that tension with characters who aren't really willing to be enemies and who are goofing around while battling each other, what is the point of the movie? Batman was legitimately trying to kill Superman for most of that movie. Their banter only started when they were on the same team.

Will Marvel's need to keep things "fun" prevent this movie from taking itself seriously?

Back to being critical. It feels like wrapping myself in a warm blanket.

Which means it isn't a Civil War, it is just a cry for group therapy?

"The War of Northern Aggression" is the preferred phrase around here.

I mean I guess we'll see how much actual force they use.  If Tony and Cap are fighting, Cap could punch Tony in the face as hard as he can without hurting Tony too bad.  And Tony could fire a repulsor ray at him without hurting him too bad.

Superman fought Zod for a while without killing him.  He never intended on killing him - it's why being "forced" to kill him was so upsetting.  Same with Clark and Batman - "if I wanted it, you'd be dead already."  In both instances, Clark was fighting because there was no other choice.  The only difference, in this fight, is that they're both in that mindset.  They both want to disable the other, but neither is going to just let that happen.

Okay, but I really don't see the difference between these fights and Superman's side of Batman vs Superman.  I'll acknowledge that Batman was trying to kill Superman, but Superman wasn't trying to kill Batman.  And if Superman had done to, say, Perry White, what he'd done to Batman, Perry would've died.  "Lethal force" to Pepper Potts is different than "lethal force" to Iron Man.

I mean this isn't even the first time these guys have fought under similar circumstances.  In Avengers, Cap and Iron Man fought Thor.  In Age of Ultron, Iron Man fought Hulk.  In both cases, there was a misunderstanding of some sort, and one side was fighting with huge force with no intention of killing the other.

Now it's true that whenever these guys fight, there's a chance that an accident could happen.  Someone could fire an explosive at Tony (which would simply disable him) but accidentally kill Black Widow.  It's possible.  And we do see a disabled/unconscious/maybe dead War Machine outside the airport.  So it's possible that something like that happens.

Now if this is just Civil War vs. BvS, I see them as very different movies.  BvS is going to have way more emotional weight to it because emotional weight isn't Marvel's style.  They're always going to play off an emotional moment with a joke, and the movie is going to end on a happy/hopeful note no matter what.  A Marvel movie is never going to win an Academy Award.  But it's going to be fun, it's going to get positive press and positive reviews, and it's going to make a lot of money.  Probably more than BvS just because of repeated viewings and because it's kid-friendly.

And Spider-Man always jokes when he's fighting, no matter how serious it is.

Informant's issues seem to largely center on how the combat in CIVIL WAR is not realistic. I don't really go to superhero films or comic books for realism. Superhero combat in comics has always been a hyperexaggerated escapist fantasy with the powers being forms of emotional expression, acting as metaphor and imagery for internal states of mind. A lot of your issues with CIVIL WAR and with the Marvel Universe in general are fundamentally due to the genre having never prized realism.

For example, the Hulk. He has never killed an innocent person in the comics. This is a central aspect to Bruce Banner's character because the second the Hulk kills an innocent and Banner doesn't find some way to off himself, Banner becomes a villain. In realistic, physical terms, this makes no sense whatsoever given how the Hulk would appear to be an uncontrollable, rampaging force of nature smashing through buildings and streets.

There are various cod psychological explanations for this. Most of them are that Banner has some small splinter of control over the Hulk and Banner's conscience prevents the Hulk from stomping on innocent people or harming them. Writer Dan Slott took the view that this may be crazy, but it would be far crazier to take a heroic figure created in 1962 and turn him into a supervillain in the name of a realism that is inherently alien to this genre.

Slott also pointed out that anyone who has been to New York City and seen the vast spaces between buildings and blocks would find it absurd that Daredevil can bound across rooftops with ease, something even the most highly trained Olympic level athlete would fail to perform.

There's also the collateral damage. Spider-Man, Iron Man and Thor have regularly smashed apart buildings and had battles across New York City in the course of their adventures. They have never been responsible for innocent people getting killed. That's ridiculous, as MAN OF STEEL would indicate, but again -- this is part of the nature of the superhero genre. Superheroes in the Marvel Universe rarely if ever kill no matter how bad the situation -- and that's simply an aspect of their fictional existence. It's also in the nature of superhero comics that characters engage in lengthy conversations while beating each other up, something that couldn't happen in real life because no fighter would waste their breath on chatter.

There are other aspects of non-realism to the Marvel Universe. The technology created by Reed Richards and Tony Stark should turn the Marvel Universe into a futuristic wonderland, but it's always the twentieth to twenty-first century.

The floating timeline is absurd; Hawkeye, Iron Man and the Black Widow were contemporaries, but while the Black Widow's Communist origins have been maintained with a retconned immortality serum, Spidey and Iron Man have been relocated to the present day -- yet Black Widow's origin story is inextricably tangled up in Hawkeye and Iron Man despite them having been born years after her origin.

The shared universe aspect of the Marvel Universe is at best nonsensical. For some weird reason, the superpowered X-Men are seen as freaks and outcasts, but the superpowered Avengers and Fantastic Four are regarded as beloved celebrities. The constant deaths and resurrections stagger even the most willing sense of disbelief; Spider-Man and Captain America seem to die and return two or three times a decade.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has allowed its heroes to use lethal force now and then, but the Marvel comic book universe has never been able to wrap themselves around that narratively for whatever reason. The Hulk was briefly given a body count, but the editors, for the reasons above, decided it was a mistake and to reverse that entirely.

Ultimately, this is the Marvel Universe. A world where nobody ever really dies, where the Hulk has never killed an innocent person, where fighters can chat while battling -- and ultimately, a world of escapist comfort. I find that you're taking issue with the Marvel Universe being the Marvel Universe.

This is of course your right and I will defend your right to express your disdain for the superhero genre -- but to me, it's a bit like saying ONCE UPON A TIME is a stupid show because fairy tales are lame.

But not to worry. Your BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN DAWN OF JUSTICE re-release is coming soon enough. The ULTIMATE EDITION, rated R and retitled DAWN OF JUSTICE VERSUS APOKALIPS OMEGA SANCTION WONDER AQUA FLASH SUICIDE BAT. Mixed with Extra Grimness where every moment of Henry Cavill grimacing has been extended by 40 per cent just to get just a few more frames of misery into the movie. Augmented with Additional Nihilism in which Ben Affleck will not only declare the brutal murders of his parents as a vital life lesson, he'll also narrate a slideshow about the nature of radical self-interest. Enhanced with Supplemental Horror in which instead of just hearing about the drowning horses, we'll get to see them drown while intercut with Jonathan eating cake! Uplifted by a new sequence in which Superman sits in the ash and dust of incinerated human corpses after the bombing. And a closing scene where Kenny Braverman, the lead bully from MAN OF STEEL, visits the Kent farm to rob Clark Kent's grave only to be accidentally pulped by Superman hitting him while flying out of the coffin at top speed.

.......................

I suppose we could mock the Marvel movies in much the same way, just to be fair. I'll do that tomorrow! :-D

Informant has regularly accused Marvel of reacting to Batman v Superman with Civil War.  ireactions has responded with evidence that it wasn't a direct reaction.  But what's funny is that, from the trailers, it seems like the movie is actually a Marvel response to the end of Man of Steel.

Basically, the government is saying "listen, I know you guys saved people in the Battle of New York/Metropolis" but people died.  We can't do our job as the government(s) of the US/the world without doing our best to make sure people are safe.  It's certainly a big deal in these movies - there's collateral damage in all these movies, and most movies don't really deal with it.

What's crazy is that the goofier of the two movies seemed to deal with it more realistically/seriously.  The government says "hey, we have to come up with a plan to defend normal people" and heroes choose sides.  And they believe in their sides enough that they're willing to fight for it.  Yeah, it's a bit illogical that Tony would side with government control and Cap would side against the system, but at least they're acknowledging that something should be done.

DC, however, had most people in that universe gloss over the whole thing.  Yeah, Batman is mad.  Yeah, Luthor is mad.  But in-universe, most people seemed to unilaterally agree that Superman did what was necessary.  There's zero mention of rebuilding the city, what that took, or anything.  I was shocked that the government hearings from the trailer wasn't about the battle with Zod.  Absolutely shocked.  I was less shocked (but still startled) that there wasn't more of those protest scenes we saw in the trailers.  It seemed like a relatively minor (and extremely calm/unemotional) mob that Superman faced.  And, again, the statue was "beloved" in Metropolis.

In the movie, the hearing was about interfering with some random terrorist, and only three people were all that upset that Superman was responsible for any civilian deaths.

So, yeah, the Marvel stuff is silly.  But for the serious movie to basically say "nah, Superman did nothing wrong and everyone but crazy murderers agree" was a bit mystifying to me.

The thing about the city-scale fights in AVENGERS, WINTER SOLDIER and AGE OF ULTRON is that the entire planet would have been destroyed if the Avengers hadn't intervened, whereas Superman didn't seem to make much effort to shift the battle out of Metropolis or Smallville in MAN OF STEEL. It's also a problem in BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, where Superman is shown to be hovering above a flooded town but making no effort to save people, rescuing someone from a garment factory fire but not putting out the fire, standing in the midst of an explosion without any attempt to try to get a few people out of the blast and to the hospital.

The weird, weird, weird thing is that the MAN OF STEEL script treatment indicated that Superman tries to move the Kryptonian fights away from populated areas, but they keep knocking him back into the buildings. The dialogue in BVS makes it clear that Superman did save the people in the flood and attempted to put out the fire and tried to get people to the hospital -- but all these onscreen moments were apparently cut from the final edit, which is why Superman seems cold and indifferent.

In AVENGERS and AGE OF ULTRON, the heroes saving civillians was thoroughline connecting every action setpiece, although Informant is certainly correct to note that there is a certain weightless lack of consequence to the onscreen action of Marvel movies.

I don't really see the Marvel Cinematic Universe as realistic even with live action. I see the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Marvel comic book universe in terms of COMMUNITY's flexible, contradictory terms of realism, specifically the paintball episodes where everyone develops high functioning combat skills, Pierce can build a fort inside a day, the damage to the school is cleared away within hours.

While Dan Harmon himself would characterize this as parody, Abed would call it homage --and the Marvel Universe is an existence where that kind of absurdity is a daily fact of life -- which was a factor in why they hired COMMUNITY directors Joe and Anthony Russo.

One of the definitive moments of the Marvel Universe, for me, is when Nick Fury's old war buddies are in a bar when they learn of Nick Fury having been killed by the Punisher. A somber moment passes -- and then all of Nick's friends start laughing uncontrollably, joking to each other that they've all 'died' on multiple occasions ("Hey, aren't you dead too? "Naw, you the dead guy!") and none of them expect Fury to be dead for long.

In the CIVIL WAR comic, Peter Parker unmasked as Spider-Man; Flash Thompson observed that Peter was being a very good pal to Spidey to participate in this ruse, but that at some point during or after the Civil War, Peter and Spidey would be seen in the same place together and everything would go back to normal. Spider-Man is also friends with a talking duck named Howard.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has largely embraced this absurdity by hiring comedians like Downey Jr., Paul Rudd and Chris Pratt as well as virtuosos of deadpan lunacy like Joss Whedon and the Russo brothers.

That said -- part of the Marvel Universe's initial appeal was the illusion of realism in that all the stories were set in New York City with photo referenced landmarks and references to current events and celebrities. However, the Marvel Universe also played up the absurd factors that were totally at odds with real life such as Reed Richards' flying car. This created the amusing effect where the Marvel Universe and the real world would overlap; the MU would be relevant to the real world without being the real world.

This would wax and wane over the decades; the 90s were when the MU detached almost entirely from real world overlap as the stories began to take place in an exaggerated macho fantasy. In the 2000s, a new editor, Joe Quesada, made a number of interesting initiatives to move back to overlapping with the real world -- first through increased referencing to current events and celebrities, then with incorporating real-world situations like Captain America visiting Guantanamo Bay and Tony Stark in Afghanistan, the Red Skull renounced Nazism and declared himself a Republican.

The first was effective -- Spider-Man met Jay Leno and nearly got him killed, Tony Stark dated Shannon Elizabeth, Emma Frost told the X-Men trainees that their first telepathic assignment was to find the real truth behind Tom and Nicole's split, George Bush guest-starred in numerous issues as a cunning political strategist who liked to play stupid, etc..

The incorporation of real-world situations, however, turned out to be a problem for the editors who led this charge. Given that the majority of comic book readers were left of center, there was no backlash from the fans, but editors found it awkward to have Captain America fighting Al Qaeda one week and purple dragons the next.

It was awkward to have 9-11 treated as a monumental event in the Marvel Universe when the X-Men tear up the city monthly without any issues. The editors eventually decided that the comics were not a soapbox for their personal politics and moved towards apolitical allegory. Captain America would stick to fighting AIM and HYDRA, but they might use methods that resembled modern terrorist tactics. The heroes would debate the Superhero Registration Act instead of the Patriot Act. But Spider-Man was still allowed to declare that teachers are underpaid and to meet Barack Obama.

Yeah, I just think you're reading too much into stuff that wasn't directly stated.  I'd need to see the movie a second time because my memory of it is fading, but I know the statue is in the middle of a park.  And I would expect, if there was any level of animosity in that city, for there to be protests at that statue around the clock.  Occupy Wall Street style protests every minute of every day, saying "How dare you build a statue to this guy?  He killed my friend/mom/brother/dad/etc!"

There's none of that.  When the statue is defaced, no one celebrates.  No one says "hell, yeah!"  Then, it's declared that the statue was "beloved" - not controversial or mixed opinionated.  Beloved. 

I mean look at protests outside of Donald Trump events.  People are mad because the guy is gaining power - he hasn't actually done anything wrong, but they're protesting because something could be wrong.  People protest all the time for dumb reasons.  Not to trivialize anything, but I'd equate it to building a statue of Osama Bin Laden in the middle of Ground Zero for some people.  This is the guy who destroyed the city right here, and you're building a STATUE to him?

Because you clearly can't follow Superman around.  There's no way to protest at his appearances because he could be anywhere at any time.  So the only place to protest, if a protest were to happen, would be at his statue.  It'd be the place to do it.

Now, yes, there's a protest in Washington.  But I think that goes even further to say that Metropolis doesn't hate him.  The world might.  But Metropolis loves him.

Maybe there were protests.  18 months passed - maybe they protested for a year and then gave up.  Occupy Wall Street died down eventually too.  But why explicitly say that the statue was beloved?  Why are the only people shown to be angry Lex, Bruce, and Wally?  Three people who are absolutely murderers in this very movie.  People who are absolutely crazy in this very movie.  They're the only ones who actually show that people are upset with Superman.

In the prequel comics, people are worried but there doesn't seem to be any animosity.  There doesn't seem to be any indication that there's any discussion on whether or not Superman has been a force for good.  No one shares Bruce's opinions.  The Senator goes out of her way to block Lex's idea of building kryptonite weapons. 

I don't honestly think Clark wanted anyone to die.  He absolutely might've tried to move the fight away from people and couldn't.  If he flies off to draw Zod out, Zod might kill 50 people in that time and it's not worth leaving the fight.  And we as the audience know that Clark is a good guy.  That it *destroyed* him to take one life.  Why would he have played any part in any innocent people dying.

The problem is that no one else would know that.  And just like the repeated mentions of "no civilians in the area" or "this area is abandoned" I think it was Snyder sorta making fun of the dissenters by saying "listen, you guys, no one in Metropolis is upset at Superman.  Why should you be?"

I just watch movies differently. One of my favorite movies is Signs. If you ask most people, they will say that Shyamalan is a hack, and Signs was a movie about an alien invasion. If you ask me to describe the movie, I would say that it is a fascinating film about faith and the demons that we face. I don't see aliens at all... I'm not even talking like alien were a metaphor. I don't think they were aliens at all. Everything that we were told about the situation were from the point of view of people who had no idea what was happening, so they came to the most sensible explanation, in their minds.

If you ask me about The Happening and how people react to it, I tend to laugh. People talk about how air is killing people and how stupid it was. I love it because that is what they tell us in the movie, but one of the first scenes in the movie tells us that people will always come up with an explanation to explain things that have no real explanation. The movie is an homage to 1950's paranoia films. Everything from the dialog to the costumes points to this. If you watch it in black and white, it actually works better as a movie. I enjoy it quite a lot, despite the fact that its Rotten Tomatoes scores are far, far worse than Batman v Superman.

I just watch movies differently than most people. I think that if Hitchcock were making movies today, he'd be considered a horrible failure with movies like The Trouble with Harry or even The Birds. Those movies just wouldn't go anywhere today.

That doesn't mean that I just go making up my own meaning for bad movies and make them good in my head. I don't think that every movie is intended to be viewed this way, just like not every book is meant to be examined and discussed. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not.

So yeah, they never have a shot of Lois pointing at Clark and Zod fighting and saying "Look! He's trying to get Zod away from the city!", but watching the movie, I see it. I see him punching for distance rather than pain. I see him dragging the fight into space, only to have Zod drag it back down. I see that scene on screen. I don't know how it was scripted, but I've seen the movie a lot of times and I know that there is footage of him trying to take the fight out of the city.

I don't see Clark as grim or dark or cold or inhuman just because he doesn't smile and play baseball with kids. I see him as a person, like most of the people I know. Because he is like most of the people I know, I relate to him more. I get what he is thinking. I know what it feels like to be scared of leaving the house as a kid, and to take those first steps of freedom.

With Batman v Superman, you say that we don't see enough about people hating him or being mad at him. I disagree. Most of the movie is from the point of view of those people, and the result is that we see a Superman who comes across as angry or inhuman a lot of the time. That is how they see him.
And then we see him from the perspective of the people who love him, but even there he isn't seen as human. He is seen as a mythical savior. I don't think we would see more shots of him connecting with those people, because those people are the ones that we are seeing those scenes through. It isn't about him.

The problem with the movie is that we see Superman from the perspectives of everyone around Superman, but not from the perspective of Superman. It's an interesting choice. I didn't dislike the movie because of it. But if people see Superman in a scene and think that he is the hero of that scene by default, they will be let down. The movie was Batman vs. Superman, the same way a movie would be Batman vs. Clayface. Batman was the star and Superman was the target. We were expecting a movie that was equal parts Batman and Superman, or that Superman would at least be a strong point of view character in the movie. That isn't what we got. This is not a Superman sequel, which is where the problem comes in. His perspective takes up about as much time as Wonder Woman's. Maybe it should have been a Superman movie. I don't know.

Wait... this is the Marvel thread?

How could I have seen things that were cut from the film, especially if I have never read the scripts?!

I don't think that perception of Superman was unintentional at all. I think that we were seeing Superman the way various people around the world saw him, and I think that it was done very intentionally. It wasn't flattering, because whether the people wanted him dead or they wanted to worship him, they were all dehumanizing him. They were turning him into whatever they needed him to be for their own sake, and disregarding the person he actually was. When we see him through the eyes of Bruce, he is a monster and a threat to humanity. When we see him through the eyes of those he saves, he is an untouchable god. The Daily Planet will make him into whatever sells papers that day. The only time he is actually a person in the movie is when we get to see him the way Martha or Lois see him. Even when he is alone, he is struggling with that identity and what it all means.

I think I'm just way more intellectual than you guys.

Okay, so let's talk about the various layers and motivations of the Marvel characters...

...

Hmm...

Maybe one of you should go first.

I... Agree.

I agree! We agree on something!!!

Which is why I think that comparing the franchises is a mistake. They're playing entirely different games, aimes at entirely different audiences. There is no "will DC catch up to Marvel?" competition, because they're not remotely similar, beyond being "comic book movies", which only sounds like one specific thing if you don't actually read comic books.

Also, Dumb and Dumber sucked. I hate that movie so much. I hate that entire brand of comedy. I side with your mother.

So I saw Civil War today.  My thoughts after the spoiler space:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I loved it.  I thought it was a nice culmination of so many things in the MCU, and I think it showed the potential of the entire concept of a cinematic comic book universe.  I know Informant doesn't think there's a ton of character development in these movies, but while they're definitely more goofy and childish, I think we have a pretty good idea of who these characters are by now.  And while it's a bit odd for Tony to side with the government, it's important to realize that Tony is an egomaniac who's been responsible for most of the disasters in the MCU.  He figures if he can make that many mistakes, anyone else could too.  I thought the brief scene with the mother of the person who died in Sokovia was a nice touch and a semi-callback to the comics. 

And while Captain America is generally a pretty bland character, I thought his motivations made sense too.  He's seen pretty much everything he's ever worked for betrayed by him.  He loved what the United States stood for in WWII but now those ideals are old and forgotten.  He admired working for SHIELD, but he lost faith in them in Avengers, further lost faith when he learned of Fury's flying weapons of mass destruction, and then he found out that Hydra had infiltrated everything.  It doesn't matter who he's reporting to....everything he's ever believed in has betrayed him.  So the idea of being his own boss and having the freedom to make the "right" choice - that's what Captain America stands for.

And the minor stuff.  War Machine signs up because he's a soldier who understands modern war more than Cap does.  Vision does it because it's logical.  Scarlet Witch doesn't want to be a prisoner like she was for Hydra.

And what's great is that because we know these guys, a lot of their motivations can be understood....which allows for the proper introductions of Black Panther and Spider-Man.  The Russo Brothers have done a pretty good job of introducing people on the fly - with Falcon in Winter Soldier and Black Panther here.  Much better than the awkward introduction of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in Age of Ultron.  I thought his character made sense and had some depth to it, although he sorta becomes a background character in the middle.

Spider-Man.  I'm shocked at how much Spider-Man is in this movie.  They must've been tipped off and written a new script with Spider-Man before the agreement was made because everyone kept saying there'd only be time to get him in as a cameo.  And damn if he doesn't get a scene with Tony and Aunt May (a proper introduction to the universe) and then he plays a huge part in the airport fight.  As it was all happening, I was trying to figure out how it would've gone differently if Spider-Man hadn't been available, but he was woven so well that I figured it was completely re-written for it to end that way.  He's a bit like Quicksilver in Days of Future Past, but he definitely is worth it.  Classic Spidey and very well done.  I'm looking forward to his solo movie.

The "Civil War" itself.  I was impressed by how much the fight was simple but also how complicated it was beneath the surface.  Unlike the comics, the Sokovia Accords / Registration Act doesn't seem to be the driving force.  As we all figured in the trailers, it's more about Bucky.  And the build-up makes sense.  Cap crosses the line by helping his friend escape custody - the fact that he didn't sign doesn't really seem like a big deal at first.  Then he escapes with Bucky and becomes a fugitive.  Then he learns the truth but simply can't trust the rest of the team with it.  Tony is simply trying to catch a fugitive, who, by all means seems to be violent and dangerous.  As soon as he figures out Zemo's plan, he's more than happy to truce with Cap.

The fight at the airport is brilliant.  It's funny, it's well choreographed, and it's exciting.  Every character gets to shine, although I still feel like Vision should be more dominant than he's ever really shown himself to be.  Spidey steals the show, but I thought Ant-Man's big display was also pretty fantastic. 

Then the finale.  I thought it was pretty cool how simple Zemo's motivations were.  And, honestly, how simple his plan was.  I don't know if it's possible that he was able to do all that, but the stuff about Tony's parents is all stuff we were able to ascertain.  And what's cool about it is that the movies have planted little clues, and it's cool that they got to pay it off this far down the line.  We've seen Howard Stark a ton throughout the movies and TV shows, and now we get the answer to how he died.  It felt earned.  And it felt earned that Tony and Cap would be having their own brutal battle.

And unlike when Zack Snyder tried it, the moment when they frame a famous comic book panel fits within the story as opposed to working as a distraction or an odd character motivation.

I was a little surprised that no one died.  Not even the villain.  And even Rhodey's injury was toned down - he seemed less paralyzed than I thought they were going to do.  I thought it would end with Cap dying or Tony dying, but they pulled their punches.  I guess they want everyone on board for Infinity War (or whatever they're going to re-title it).

I just really thought it was fun.  Like Winter Soldier, it was a little more serious than other MCU titles, but I thought it was great.

It's funny because it's both unfair to compare Civil War and Dawn of Justice and also impossible not to.  Marvel and DC aren't really trying to do the same thing, but they're also trying something similar enough in the same genre (kind of) that it's hard to just ignore the similarities.

So I'll just say this: the advantage that the Marvel model has over the DC model is patience.  I know why DC did things the way they did, but the problem with BvS and Civil War is that Civil War feels earned.  And BvS is stuck in this weird place for a lot of the film where they have these main characters (Batman, Alfred, Lex, Diana) who people know but don't really know.  This is Batman, but it's a very different version of Batman than we know.  And it has to spend so much time on Batman that Superman gets ignored, and things start to get muddled.

And while Tony and Cap are weaker characters than Batman or Superman, Civil War felt "earned" to me.  These characters might be five-story buildings compared to the Batman/Superman skyscrapers, but their foundations are solid.  And you can understand why these two might want to kick the crap out of each other and while they might fight beside each other five minutes later.  What I liked about it vs. BvS is that they try pretty hard not to fight.  There's a handful of scenes in Civil War where they try and talk it out.  And it doesn't work.  They're both entrenched and won't be persuaded.

So the fight does feel earned - at least from Cap and Tony's story.  The rest is sorta assumed.  But instead of spending time on why Cap and Tony are there or who the Starks are or who even someone like Ant-Man is....we get proper introductions to Black Panther and Spider-Man.  I know more about those two than I do about Diana, and both of them were actually introduced in the same way as Diana (minor part in someone else's movie - then her own movie).

I went to the movie with two people.  One of my buddies has seen every MCU movie but Thor 2 and Ant-Man.  My other buddy has seen pieces of the MCU here and there.  I'm not sure he saw any movie in Phase 2, including Avengers 2.  Both of them really enjoyed it.  The first guy actually said he's interested in going back and seeing Ant-Man now.

What's interesting about the second guy is how much I assumed was lost by not seeing all the movies.  Something as simple as Scott's line about being a criminal being nothing new was funny, but you wouldn't really get it unless you knew (from comics or from the first movie) that Scott's a petty criminal.  But he said there was enough there (and, he said, enough that I'd told him about movies he hadn't seen) that it all sorta fit.  He enjoyed it.

So, yeah, there's stupid in the MCU, but they're for kids.  Still, I thought (like Winter Soldier) that there was some darkness there.  Tony is legitimately trying to kill Bucky at the end.  Not as violently as Batman fighting Superman, but it's brutal.  And Cap has to stop him.

What I really liked is that both guys are really the good guys in this.  I could see myself arguing either side of it.  And while I'm a bigger fan of Tony than Steve, I found it hard to really be Team Cap or Team Iron Man.  I was sorta like Black Widow - where I'd probably side with Tony but switch if the situation was dangerous enough.  And to compare it to BvS unfairly again, that disagreement is way deeper and way more human, but in the end, it's really weak.  It could be (and is) solved with twenty seconds of real conversation.  So that's why I felt like the fights were earned.

Still have not seen it. It's hard to justify going to the cinema when I have such a lengthy Netflix queue -- I'll probably watch it soon because it ties into AGENTS OF SHIELD -- or rather, AGENTS OF SHIELD ties into the movie while the movie's screenwriters confessed to being wholly ignorant of AGENTS OF SHIELD. ("What's an Inhuman?")

Did I see a different Batman v Superman than you? I swear, sometimes it seems like it.

Anyway, I finally saw Fantastic Four. Finally, there is a Marvel movie that I can enjoy. They finally put some effort into character, and they seemed to care about the visual elements and how they aid a story on screen. It was just really refreshing, after all this time.

I am joking. My goodness, I'm joking. There was a climax to a movie that didn't even exist before the climax started. It was like they cut together two movies and at some point, the actors obviously just gave up. I was willing to accept changed in the source material, but only if it actually worked. This did not.

And I kept waiting for Sue's father to offer her some ribs.

Okay, we're in the wrong thread again, but I'll do this anyway...

To me, the movie was about perception. It's about how different people view this being, when there has never been anything to measure him up against before. Even he doesn't know how to do it. So yeah, Batman was mad, Wally was mad and Lex was mad, but their anger was all different. They had different motivation and different reactions to it. They represented the people who were furious at Superman, for all of the various reasons. They are the extremes.

Batman - Superman is a threat unlike anything we have ever faced. He is completely alien, which means that we have no idea how to begin to trust him or know what he's thinking. He is more powerful than anything we can throw at him, and allowing that power to go wild will get people killed. Essentially, Superman is a phantom, comprised of everything untrustworthy and dangerous that Batman has ever faced.

Wally - He came here. He destroyed lives. People died. And now he has a f*****g statue built in honor of his heroic actions, taken during an event that wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't come here in the first place! People need to see this for what it is. People need to understand. And on some level, he's pissed because for all of the people that Superman saved, he didn't save *him*.

Lex - I have spent my entire life working to become the most powerful man on the planet, and this guy literally has to do nothing in order to take the title. He just has to exist. How do I compete with that? How do I become that powerful? How do I get what he has? Or, alternatively, how do I take it all away from him?

Then we have the people who are less committed either way. The Perry Whites of the world, who will take things for what they are at any given moment. Or the Senator, who wants the answers, but isn't as committed to the cause as some.

Somewhere in the middle, we have Martha and Lois, who know him, trust him and support him. Not because of his power, but because of who he is. Which is something that other people don't have access to. To them he is human.

Then, opposite to Lex or Bruce, we have the people who are in awe of Superman. The people who worship him. The people who see him coming to save the day, and see a god. The people who celebrate him, even when he doesn't deserve it. The people who are blind to him humanity, and to whatever bad he has brought to the world.

We don't get a lot from Clark's point of view. What we do get is somewhere in the middle, torn between sides. He wants to be the good guy that is deserving of trust, but nothing he does is good enough (for him, much less other people). It doesn't matter how many people he saves. He didn't save them all.

The whole movie was about exploring that conflict. I think they did a good job of making painting that divisive figure, because nobody is all right or all wrong. As much as I want the MoS sequel from Superman's point of view, I don't know that this story could be done if Superman were one of the main point of view characters in the movie. If we know him as the Clark Kent from Smallville, we can't understand any of those other points of view. Everyone who hates him becomes irrational and evil. So we have the information from MoS to work with, but this movie has more distance from his point of view. That works for me.

We should discuss House of Cards sometime. I'm curious to see why you hate it so much.

I watched Fantastic Four on HBO. It's an interesting movie to watch.

No I can definitely see all of that.  The problem is that (in my opinion) there wasn't enough of the "in the middle" crowd.  You're right - the movie can't really be from Superman's point of view because otherwise Batman is a murderous psycho. 

But I wanted more world-building where it's implied that people other than Lex (a crazy murderer) and Wally (a crazy murderer) are on Batman's side.  Like I've said before - protests.  Pressure on Senator Finch from other countries to control Superman.  Even one-off lines where it's just implied that people are torn ("you hear about that poll that came out the other day.  First time since he showed up that people in Metropolis support him more than don't support him.")

Instead, the statue is "beloved."  There's no indication that anyone support's Wally's vandalization of the statue.  The Daily Planet is running "puff pieces" on Superman.  It describes the Christopher Reeve Superman more than the one we've seen for two movies.  Everyone in Metropolis loves him.  The whole city is rebuilt, and here's a statue.  The entire government is trusting enough of him that they're not willing to look into weapons that might hurt or possibly kill him.

I think everything you said is right.  Superman has to look sorta cold and alien because that's the way Batman sees him.  And we, as the audience, are supposed to think of Batman as being rational. 

The problem is that the message was lost on me.  Batman doesn't look rational - he still looks like a murderous psycho.  And now Clark looks like a cold alien.  So I don't really feel anything either way.

What I think the script wanted was Batman to be the bad guy.  He sees this event happen and snaps, no longer able to use his own judgment and just sees a super-powered Joker who can destroy the planet whenever he wants.  And so he goes on this plan...and as the movie moves with him, we see that Lex has the same plan.  Maybe even have parallel stories where they're each building tech suits.  And Bruce realizes, "Holy shit, I'm Lex Luthor.  I'm the bad guy."  And if you do that, then you can have a human Superman who's trying his best to make up for everything.  He's saving people, not just physically but emotionally, and he's training so that he never has to put people in harm's way again.

And if Batman is the bad guy, Superman gets to be the protagonist.  He gets to save the day twice, and the end is so tragic for Batman.  If they could've just done that, then BvS blows Civil War out of the water no question.

The problem is that Tony and Cap's story is a true moral dilemma.  Bruce and Clark's is an imaginary dilemma that's twisted so that Zack Snyder could make a Batman movie.

And yeah I'm happy to talk about House of Cards.  I gave it two full seasons (well, I quit after the penultimate one of season two) and I'll never go back.

Accidentally stepped on the toes of this.  Agreed.  What's funny is that a ton really isn't resolved at the end.  I imagine that will be touched on in future movies (and won't be "resolved" until Avengers 3), but I don't really see it as "open-ended."  A lot got done - but it's just  the kind of argument that doesn't really have a complete answer.  So it's left nebulous.

Have any of you seen the Original British House of Cards?

Not sure, but any movie that makes $700 million in five days can be considered a runaway success even if it spent BVS levels in marketing and production.