DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Pattern Ghost]

But I'm inclined to think that all that is digging into the scene a lot more intensively and seriously than anyone making the movie ever intended.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that scene was mostly intended to be a bit of humorous comeuppance, rather than a depiction of Kryptonian frontier justice.

[TheDarkness]

If I could, I would like to divert the discussion of idealism and ethics in comic-book characters for a moment to Marvel's recent Civil War movie. In this movie we see Captain America portrayed as a man of strong convictions and principles, an inspiration to people around him; but also a man who's imperfect, who makes mistakes (as he admits himself). Those mistakes weigh on him, but he doesn't give up the fight because of them, because he knows the consequences of his not acting would be worse.

 

But this movie places him in a situation where the issues of right and wrong aren't clear-cut, where it isn't initially obvious what the "right thing" to do is. Cap struggles with whether or not to compromise his principles for what he keeps being told is the "greater good." But once circumstances lead him to make up his mind, he has no more doubt or hesitation. That was true during the famous airport fight scene, and I was struck by the contrast between Cap and Tony Stark when they confronted each other. Stark is nearly breaking from the stress of what he's trying to do; Cap is calm and resolute, sure of what he needs to do. The kind of man you can believe other people would follow.

 

That's how you make these larger-than-life idealistic characters interesting and realistic, yet still inspirational. You present them with issues that test their beliefs, but see them overcome the challenge and stand firm in the end.

I think that was a decent movie, for many of the reasons you state.

 

But the tone was actually a fraction darker than MoS, there was quite a bit more angst for everyone(given that the fights were almost all between the members of the Avengers*), and, if it had been made a Superman movie, it would involve him actually accidentally killing a building full of people at the beginning. I don't think that would have made the people happy who didn't like his depiction in MoS. Never mind breaking people out of prison at the end. Cap has backstory that makes such a story far more acceptable, despite once upon a time being an extremely similar character as far as personal ethics to Superman, and so the writers don't have to avoid as much as far as ethical dilemmas. You can have the Captain America movie end with him losing his shield. You really can't have Superman not be able to be Superman at the end and not enrage certain fans.

 

The only part of that movie I found weak was Cap's insistence that he had to be the one to catch Bucky, even when there were other options. But that's just one argument in one scene, and it's a common thing in action movies.

 

*One other thing Civil War did do well is have the fight at the airport alternate between humor and seriousness. I would suggest that MoS could learn from that, but I don't think it's as much a matter of characterization. When the biggest joker in the fight is Superman, it's a bit hard to pull off the same effect as a fight that has Spiderman and Antman in it as far as laughs per square minute.

[Old Man]

The only part of that movie I found weak was Cap's insistence that he had to be the one to catch Bucky, even when there were other options. But that's just one argument in one scene, and it's a common thing in action movies.

That part actually made sense to me. Cap knew that normals trying to catch Bucky was probably going to result in dead normals and/or dead Bucky.

 

More questionable to me was the ease with which Tony rolled over for Ross, even though he was not in a great place emotionally at the time.

[TheDarkness]

That part actually made sense to me. Cap knew that normals trying to catch Bucky was probably going to result in dead normals and/or dead Bucky.

 

More questionable to me was the ease with which Tony rolled over for Ross, even though he was not in a great place emotionally at the time.

Yeah, that actually was a quick process.

 

Pretty much all the Chinese people who I know who saw it here say, "It's a pretty good Iron Man movie!" After that, they ask if I have a copy of Deadpool, as it was not allowed in theaters here.

[TheDarkness]

Actually planning on rewatching the second Captain America movie, as I enjoyed it, but considered it just decent and too action heavy, but apparently a lot of people consider it the better than the first, which I thought the first one was better, so I'm curious.

 

This does not mean I'm expecting to agree with the reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes who called it 'a brilliant cold war thriller."

[Bazza]

The thing is, The Winter Soldier IS a Cold War political thriller. It is directly modelled/ inspired by that genre, especially 3 Days Of The Condor, which started Redford.

 

As Redford was eager to be in a big budget Marvel franchise film as it is a new way to make movies and his grandkids asked him too, his appearance in the Winter Soldier is a tip of the hat to him & Condor.

[TheDarkness]

The thing is, The Winter Soldier IS a Cold War political thriller. It is directly modelled/ inspired by that genre, especially 3 Days Of The Condor, which started Redford.

 

As Redford was eager to be in a big budget Marvel franchise film as it is a new way to make movies and his grandkids asked him too, his appearance in the Winter Soldier is a tip of the hat to him & Condor.

It's the style of it, for sure.

[Cassandra]

The New Director on Agents of SHIELD is Jeffrey Mace.  He was the Golden Age Patriot and was the third Captain America in the Comics.

[Lord Liaden]

The only part of that movie I found weak was Cap's insistence that he had to be the one to catch Bucky, even when there were other options. But that's just one argument in one scene, and it's a common thing in action movies.

 

 

 

That part actually made sense to me. Cap knew that normals trying to catch Bucky was probably going to result in dead normals and/or dead Bucky.

 

More questionable to me was the ease with which Tony rolled over for Ross, even though he was not in a great place emotionally at the time.

 

 

 

As Cap told Bucky when they first met face-to-face in Bucharest, "The people who think you did are coming right now, and they're not planning on taking you alive." It wasn't just a matter of Cap bringing Bucky in instead of the national authorities; it was keeping them from killing him. Or, yes, Bucky killing them while defending himself.

 

I don't think Tony "rolled over" for Ross -- he deceived or defied him when he could a few times during the movie -- but for the hundred-plus signatory countries of the Sokovia Accords, for whom Ross was just the point man. As Tony told the Avengers, "If we don't do this now, it'll be done to us later." Stark tried to keep as much control of the situation as he could. Then again, his egotistical attempts to control what other people do "for their own good" was a big part of what caused the situation to blow up in his face.

[Cassandra]

As Cap told Bucky when they first met face-to-face in Bucharest, "The people who think you did are coming right now, and they're not planning on taking you alive." It wasn't just a matter of Cap bringing Bucky in instead of the national authorities; it was keeping them from killing him. Or, yes, Bucky killing them while defending himself.

 

I don't think Tony "rolled over" for Ross -- he deceived or defied him when he could a few times during the movie -- but for the hundred-plus signatory countries of the Sokovia Accords, for whom Ross was just the point man. As Tony told the Avengers, "If we don't do this now, it'll be done to us later." Stark tried to keep as much control of the situation as he could. Then again, his egotistical attempts to control what other people do "for their own good" was a big part of what caused the situation to blow up in his face.

 

 

Captain America: Civil War was a great movie but it high lights the one great weakness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  There are no super villains.  In the Comics Zemo would have assembled a group of like minded villains and battled the Avengers.  Instead he turns out to be a mastermind who manipulates the heroes into fighting each other through the power of plot contrivance.  

[Starlord]

 

 

Problem is that he didn't learn anything.  The first time he punches Kryptonian thug and he crashes into a building he should have gone "oh crap!  Look at the damage, those people were hurt!" and then he tries not to do that.

 

This is all just excuse making for the writing.  They wanted epic damage and huge, massive strength on display.  Look, he punched him so hard, the building collapsed!  ITS EPIC!!!!!!

 

 

Coincidentally, it was Christopher Reeve Superman's first fight also....

[zslane]

Captain America: Civil War was a great movie but it high lights the one great weakness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  There are no super villains.  In the Comics Zemo would have assembled a group of like minded villains and battled the Avengers.  Instead he turns out to be a mastermind who manipulates the heroes into fighting each other through the power of plot contrivance.

 

I would amend that as there aren't enough supervillains. I mean, each of the MCU films had a supervillain (Civil War might be an exception), but aside from Loki, none of them got to stick around long enough to have any enduring impact on the MCU. But this is just the other side of the Insufficiency Coin, as it were. There really aren't enough superheroes either. I mean, aside from Cap in WWII and SHIELD after that, the MCU had no superheroes until 2008. The MCU is so very, very tiny when it comes to superheroes and supervillains. It is the main reason I felt "Civil War" was a hollow title.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree, they need more supervillains.  So far its been aliens, Loki (kinda), Ultron and zillions o' robots, lots of Hydra agents (and not even Nazis??), Bucky and more Hydra agents, Other Avengers, and then a small handfull of villains like Yellowjacket and Whiplash and... whatever those fire guys in Iron Man 3 were supposed to be.

 

Mostly, the Avengers fight each other and the sadz.  More villains, please.  A team of villains.

[bigdamnhero]

Problem is that he didn't learn anything.  The first time he punches Kryptonian thug and he crashes into a building he should have gone "oh crap!  Look at the damage, those people were hurt!" and then he tries not to do that.

Exactly. Not only did he not learn, he never seemed to care about or even notice all the damage, injuries & deaths. I can handle Rookie Superman; I can even handle Angry Superman (in small doses). But I'll skip Callously-Indifferent Superman, thanks.

 

The 1975 Pilot of the Wonder Woman TV show pretty much covered all the elements of her December 1941 comic book origin story.

...

She doesn't get tied up until the next episode.

 

I don't think Tony "rolled over" for Ross -- he deceived or defied him when he could a few times during the movie -- but for the hundred-plus signatory countries of the Sokovia Accords, for whom Ross was just the point man. As Tony told the Avengers, "If we don't do this now, it'll be done to us later." Stark tried to keep as much control of the situation as he could. Then again, his egotistical attempts to control what other people do "for their own good" was a big part of what caused the situation to blow up in his face.

Exactly. I thought CW did a good job of showing how conflicted Stark was; he recognizes he's screwed up kindof a lot and he's trying to not be that guy anymore. Doesn't make him right, but it was very human IMO.

 

Captain America: Civil War was a great movie but it high lights the one great weakness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  There are no super villains.  In the Comics Zemo would have assembled a group of like minded villains and battled the Avengers.  Instead he turns out to be a mastermind who manipulates the heroes into fighting each other through the power of plot contrivance.  

Yeah, I thought that worked really well in CW, and having Zemo show up with his own superteam at the end would've been an unnecessary distraction from the point of the movie IMO. I'm okay with one movie like that. But I agree the MCU in general really needs to have more supervillains that weren't created by Tony Stark.

[Lord Liaden]

They could at least bring back some of their movie villains who are in currently in limbo now. Abomination is presumably still locked up somewhere. Red Skull disappeared into a void, just like Loki, and is just as likely to be dead. Incredible Hulk planted the seed for the Leader. The real Mandarin is supposed to be out there.

 

Or heck, they could just raid the roster of supervillains popping up in Agents of SHIELD.

[Old Man]

I agree, they need more supervillains.  So far its been aliens, Loki (kinda), Ultron and zillions o' robots, lots of Hydra agents (and not even Nazis??), Bucky and more Hydra agents, Other Avengers, and then a small handfull of villains like Yellowjacket and Whiplash and... whatever those fire guys in Iron Man 3 were supposed to be.

 

Mostly, the Avengers fight each other and the sadz.  More villains, please.  A team of villains.

I'm actually glad there weren't any supervillains in Civil War as it would have greatly distracted from the point of the film. Otherwise, though, I agree that the MCU could use a bit more villainy. Up until now the story has been about the Avengers forcing themselves to get along while they unite against a single Big Bad. It might be nice to see a number of Big Bads team up in response to the "threat" posed by the Avengers.

 

As a practical matter they'd have to cast a bunch of nobodies for that supervillain team, though.

 

The other thing is that Marvel as a whole is a bit short on really memorable villains. You have Magneto, Thanos, and Spidey's gallery, but otherwise they're just not in the public consciousness the way DC villains are. (Oh, and Doom, who has been thoroughly fumbled on more occasions than I care to count.)

[massey]

I would like Spider-Man Homecoming to include a handful of villains early on to just appear in kind of a montage.  Nobody too big or important, just guys in costume getting captured by Spidey.  Give the audience the sense that there are more guys out there than the other movies have shown.  Have a 30 second clip of him catching various criminals, some of whom are wearing some outfit and displaying some kind of power.  Then get on with the rest of the movie.

 

They could do it with thinly-veiled Suicide Squad knock-offs and people who caught the joke would think it was funny.

[bigdamnhero]

They could do it with thinly-veiled Suicide Squad knock-offs and people who caught the joke would think it was funny.

Heh, I'd laugh!

[Lord Liaden]

The other thing is that Marvel as a whole is a bit short on really memorable villains. You have Magneto, Thanos, and Spidey's gallery, but otherwise they're just not in the public consciousness the way DC villains are. (Oh, and Doom, who has been thoroughly fumbled on more occasions than I care to count.)

 

 

Well, I do think it's a bit unfair to equate "in the public consciousness" with "memorable." I mean, how many non-comics fans recognize Batman's villains aside from the Joker? Or Superman's apart from Lex Luthor? You couldn't have either comic company lasting all these decades without memorable villains -- we should just see more of them on the screen.

[Cassandra]

Marvel could have more super villains because while the mastermind like Loki or Magneto or Baron Zemo might have to survive the movie, minions like Boomerang, Blizzard, Man Thinker, Wraith, and Cottonmouth could be killed and and not  missed.

[zslane]

Why do they always have kill the villains in the movies? Something about that bothers me, not on some moral level, but just in terms of the sheer wastefulness of it. Part of the superhero tradition is that villains return to cause problems for the heroes over and over again. The MCU should not treat its villains as so disposable.

[Greywind]

Marvel could have more super villains because while the mastermind like Loki or Magneto or Baron Zemo might have to survive the movie, minions like Boomerang, Blizzard, Man Thinker, Wraith, and Cottonmouth could be killed and and not  missed.

 

That was what Marvel thought when they introduced Scourge. Didn't work out like they thought it would.

[Grailknight]

Why do they always have kill the villains in the movies? Something about that bothers me, not on some moral level, but just in terms of the sheer wastefulness of it. Part of the superhero tradition is that villains return to cause problems for the heroes over and over again. The MCU should not treat its villains as so disposable.

 

Different media. Most movies aren't conceived as franchises that will have dozens of sequels while mainstream comics are built with that hope in mind,  The MCU is rough on villains but it hasn't killed off its iconics.

[Lord Liaden]

Well, let's see:

 

Iron Monger: Dead

Whiplash: Dead

Justin Hammer: Alive

General Ross: Alive and Promoted

Abomination: Alive

Leader (potentially): Alive

Loki: Alive

Laufey: Dead

Destroyer: Destroyed

Red Skull: Indeterminate

Arnim Zola: Reused, now Dead (apparently)

Thanos: Alive (as cameo)

The Other (Thanos's minion): Dead

Mandarin (real one):  Alive?

Aldrich Killian: Dead

Malekith: Dead

Curse: Dead

Alexander Pierce: Dead

Batroc: Alive

Brock Rumlov/Crossbones: Reused, now Dead

Ronan: Dead

Nebula: Alive

Yondu: Alive

Collector: Alive

Ultron: Dead

Baron Strucker: Dead

Klaw: Alive

Yellowjacket: Dead

Zemo: Alive

 

Not universal death, but the balance is definitely on that side.

 

[Cassandra]

That was what Marvel thought when they introduced Scourge. Didn't work out like they thought it would.

 

True, but it gave Captain America something to do.