Captain America: Civil War

[Khaldun]

Yeah, I think both IM and Cap are acting perfectly consistently with the characterization arcs they've gotten in the films. They both make sense to me. I just wish that their big brawl at the end hadn't required such a convoluted set-up. E.g., all it needs is the tape to set it off, rather than a string of unlikely events.

[Soulflame]

My opinion:  It only looks convoluted because you're thinking of this as a plan where a bunch of planned steps worked out, rather than one man creating chaos to try to engineer a situation where he can drive a wedge into the Avengers.

[Khaldun]

Here's a good analysis of just how weak the plot is if you try to see it from Zemo's point-of-view. Zemo is not a character, he's a (convoluted) plot device. (I actually really like this guy's suggestion that every really good movie should have a hidden parallel story inside of it that is the antagonist's story.)

https://unseenfilms.blogspot.com/2016/06/guest-post-isaac-cates-on-captain.html

[HaemishM]

Again, I think the mistake that writer makes isn't that he's not right from a story point of view, it's that he assumes the character of Zemo's actions have to follow a logical plan. I can easily sort of handwave that entire article away by saying that Zemo has had a break with reality due to psychological trauma and thus his actions might not be rational, nor his reactions to events outside of his control, or even his end goals. All he cared to do was drive a wedge into the Avengers any way possible. The Winter Soldier provided that wedge and for all he knew at the beginning of the movie, that's all he'd need if he created enough chaos so that the protagonists were fighting each other. The climax probably wasn't even necessary to his "plans." He likely didn't even know about the incident that was on the tape until he spoke to Bucky, he just needed more ammunition from the bunker.

[Furiously]

The fastest way to turn me off of a super hero story, whether it be in book, comics, TV, or movie form, is to take away the hero's powers.  That shit frustrates me so badly that I end up never watching or reading that material ever again.  The recent flash is an example.  When Barry gave his power to Zoom, I stopped watching the show, even though I knew he would get his powers back. I just couldn't take it.  Taking a hero's powers is such a shitty plot device.

I'd agree, but offer the counterpoint that it's the only way Superman is actually interesting.

[Hoax]

Good Spider Man but it was awful to have him shoe-horned into the movie. Didn't fit at all. He was def Spider Man during his fight scene, quite well done but like that scene with him and Stark was so awkward and ill suited to what was going on.

Could have left Ant Man out too would not have been missed.

The film to set off the final fight part was by far the weakest bit. Also didn't like them making it so that Vision accidentally hurt his "own side" instead of actually having someone go too far and seriously damage someone. That was a cop out and a half.

Better than Age of Ultron. Not as good as WS1. Felt very much like the set up pitch and not even for just one thing. Set of Black Panther stand alone, check. Set up Spider Man stand alone, check. Set up future Avengers drama and/or write IM out of future movies, check. Remind you Ant Man exists (I liked his movie but he didn't feel like part of the MCU to me) check.

And so on. Wonderful film considering they had so many outside things to worry about while making it.

[Khaldun]

Jesus, I thought he fit beautifully. I don't even see how someone would feel that he didn't fit or belong, unless they let all the Too Much Information that everyone going in to the film might have about the contract status of the intellectual property cue or prompt that feeling.

[ezrast]

For me, the litmus test is: if this character was left entirely on the cutting room floor, would it affect the plot in any way? They spent a lot of time (relatively) setting up Spider-Man's character only to have him bounce around and make some quips in one fight scene and then vanish from the rest of the movie. He didn't make the movie worse, exactly, but his scenes were just this weird diversion that had no reason to be there.

[apocrypha]

I got about 1/3rd of the way through this and stopped watching because it was incredibly tedious. Wife had fallen asleep and I was getting there. Does it improve after that point?

[ezrast]

The frequency with which arbitrary sets of superheroes punch each other goes up. Does that count?

[Mandella]

For me, the litmus test is: if this character was left entirely on the cutting room floor, would it affect the plot in any way? They spent a lot of time (relatively) setting up Spider-Man's character only to have him bounce around and make some quips in one fight scene and then vanish from the rest of the movie. He didn't make the movie worse, exactly, but his scenes were just this weird diversion that had no reason to be there.

You're right in that Spider-man was shoehorned in, but I thought it was done pretty well, considering. I think this was covered up thread, but here is the backstory for those who care.

Years ago, Kevin Feige stuck his head in the writers' room and said, "Great news, we've got rights to Spider-man, add him to Civil War." Writers went "OK" and wrote a huge part of the movie for him. Black Panther was only in this version as a cameo to set up his own movie.

Year later, Feige stuck his head in the writers' room and said, "Bad news, we lost the rights to Spider-man. Write him out." Writers went "OK" and re-wrote all the Spider-man parts to Black Panther. Chadwick Boseman's contract is also re-written to compensate him for the bigger role.

Months later, Feige stuck his head in the writers' room and said, "Great news! We've got rights to Spider-man again! Put him back in!"

At this point production had already begun, scenes were being shot, Boseman was pretty happy with his expanded role, so considering all that I really thought they did a great job of adding Tom Holland to the cast and Spider-man to the action. And as far as the scenes between Stark and Aunt May, well, it helps if you know that Downey and Marisa Tomei themselves had a bit of a thing, long long ago, so their flirting was kind of an in joke, but even so I thought their chemistry was so good that it made me totally fine with "hot Aunt May."

Now all that said, I'll have to note that I cannot share faith in your litmus test. I'm just not sure that movies need to be min/maxed. Sometimes scenes that add nothing to the plot add a *lot* to the enjoyment of the film. For instance, Zombieland. Bill Murray's entire fifteen minute "cameo" did absolutely nothing to further the plot, but, IMHO, was the best thing about the movie.

[apocrypha]

The frequency with which arbitrary sets of superheroes punch each other goes up. Does that count?

Enh, maybe. I've not loved the last couple of 'big' Marvel folms I've seen - by which I mean this and Age of Ultron. I find I don't care about most of the characters. Too many of them are 'too big to fail'.

[MediumHigh]

I got about 1/3rd of the way through this and stopped watching because it was incredibly tedious. Wife had fallen asleep and I was getting there. Does it improve after that point?

If you didn't like this movie your either done withe the genre or enjoyed batman vs superman.

[apocrypha]

I got about 1/3rd of the way through this and stopped watching because it was incredibly tedious. Wife had fallen asleep and I was getting there. Does it improve after that point?

If you didn't like this movie your either done withe the genre or enjoyed batman vs superman.

Batman vs Superman was total drivel. I enjoyed Deadpool & Ant Man though.  <-- just cos I couldn't be bothered copypasting a shruggie.

[Mandella]

I got about 1/3rd of the way through this and stopped watching because it was incredibly tedious. Wife had fallen asleep and I was getting there. Does it improve after that point?

If you didn't like this movie your either done withe the genre or enjoyed batman vs superman.

Batman vs Superman was total drivel. I enjoyed Deadpool & Ant Man though.  <-- just cos I couldn't be bothered copypasting a shruggie.

No mystery there. Sounds like you enjoy the funny/parodyish comic genre movies. How about Guardians of the Galaxy? That one had a lot of humor too.

But believe it or not, as ripe for parody as you might think Captain America could be (and would be in pretty much anybody else's hands), they chose to play him straight, and pattern his movies more off of 70s action/political intrigue flicks than the comics.

Personally I think the decision was smart, and the movies have been vastly entertaining to me. Clearly, YMMV, but it does certainly highlight the conundrum where one guy's perfection is another guy's boring waste of time...

[HaemishM]

Most of the Captain America comics of the last decade have been modeled more on the 70's action/political intrigue, particularly the Ed Brubaker stuff. He hasn't really been the kind of over the top white bread vanilla boring super hero for a long time. The movies have taken that approach and done wonders with it.

[Mandella]

Most of the Captain America comics of the last decade have been modeled more on the 70's action/political intrigue, particularly the Ed Brubaker stuff. He hasn't really been the kind of over the top white bread vanilla boring super hero for a long time. The movies have taken that approach and done wonders with it.

That's good to hear. Unfortunately, comics have been so unevenly written in the past few decades that I've pretty much given up on them (I did make the mistake of trying to catch up on the comic Civil War line, and quickly regretted it).

What Cap story runs would you recommend, besides the Ed Brubaker?

[Khaldun]

None, really.

The old Roger Stein/John Byrne issues were a short run but good. After that Cap was written by Gruenwald for a long time and it's pretty awful stuff and very very Boy Scout Cap.

The other great Cap story pre-Brubaker actually happened in Daredevil--Frank Miller's short run where the Kingpin discovers Daredevil's identity. The Avengers get involved near the end, when the character Nuke appears, and Captain America is pivotal for one issue that turns into a better profile of Captain America than it is of Daredevil. Before he went totally shit-the-bed, Miller could still hone in like a guided missile on what made characters iconic.

[apocrypha]

No mystery there. Sounds like you enjoy the funny/parodyish comic genre movies. How about Guardians of the Galaxy? That one had a lot of humor too.

Don't get me wrong, I've been watching and enjoying superhero movies for ever, it's only recently that I've started to find the blockbuster, centrepiece offerings from Marvel and DC a bit lacking. Marvel in particular seem to have gone off the rails a bit (DC have never really been on them) and are, IMO, bloating their films with too many crossovers and interconnected plots.

[HaemishM]

Besides the Ed Brubaker stuff, I actually do recommend the Mark Waid run. It got ended earlier than it should have and was decent but then almost anything Waid writes is good, IMO. I think it immediately preceded the Brubaker run.

[Khaldun]

Yeah, it's not terrible. But Brubaker immediately shifted the tone in a way that made the character and his situation very appealing and decisively moved off "Captain America is the nicest guy ever" take on the character without losing his moral strength as a central theme.

[eldaec]

Marvel in particular seem to have gone off the rails a bit (DC have never really been on them) and are, IMO, bloating their films with too many crossovers and interconnected plots.

I think it is fairer to say they are so on the rails that the rails are starting to show a little.

They maintained quality by sticking to the template. Unfortunately it means they are sticking to the template.

And yeah, too much crossover - basically the same thing they trip up on in the comics, so at least its authentic. Isn't to say I don't enjoy them etc.

[jgsugden]

Civil War was 50% Cap 3, 50% Avengers 3. That gives it a pretty good reason to feel like it was continuing something. However, we've seen a lot of different types of movies in the MCU. Heist Movie, War Movie, Space Opera, Monster Movie, Family Drama, Political Thriller, Comedy... all mixed with  a heavy dose of action hero. We're fine. I've enjoyed everything in the MCU films and have high ecpectations for everything in process.

[Velorath]

I think it just feels like there's too much crossover right now because they transformed a Captain America movie into an Avengers movie not that long after the previous Avengers movie and then we have Infinity War looming. IM3, Thor 2, and Cap 2 worked within their respective franchises, and GotG and Ant Man (and presumably Dr. Strange) were stand-alone stories as well. Stark will be showing up in Spider-man, and Hulk is in the next Thor movie, but that seems fairly reasonable.

[Khaldun]

I think on one level this is a smart hook: that you want to see a story advance, to see what happens next. It's almost the logic of the old-time movie serial amped up to have each segment costs tens of millions of dollars to create.

However, this only works if the story advances and doesn't recycle or spin its wheels. Which is where superheroes get into trouble, typically. You can only really have Spider-Man throw his costume in the garbage once, have Thor face Ragnarok once, have Doctor Strange's cape get ripped and need to be fixed by an extradimensional tailor once, etcetera: it gets old. More importantly, the characters need to get old if this is really about telling a long-form story in installments. The lessons they've learned need to stay with them, the character growth they've undergone needs to be remembered.

There are other ways to go, but they won't support this many movies at this frequency. You could have something like the Bond franchise: one film every three years, where some are really good, some are sort of good, some are pretty lame, but people go to see them because it's a familiar and comforting thing. You recast, you change the mood slightly, but you stick with the familiar elements: the martinis, the cars, the women, the deathtraps, the villains.

You could really, really segregate the different films radically and not be telling a connected story, making each one a completely separate invocation of a different genre. Marvel Studios has done that some--political thriller, heist movie, etc. but I think they know that they'd eventually come to a point where there weren't any other subgenres to spread into and where some of those subgenres weren't very compatible with a superhero who is meant in any sense to exist in a universe with other superheroes for intellectual property synergy. Superhero rom-com: that can be done, but if it's really good, one might wonder, why the superhero? Superhero horror: can be done (Hellboy, sort of) but at some point a superhero's power subverts some of the basic requirements of the horror genre about the relative powerlessness or desperation of the protagonists. Superhero satire: it's been done, and if you do it too well, you undercut your whole shared universe. Superhero found footage: been done already, probably can't improve on it. And so on. This approach can only get Marvel so far.

The only way they keep the goose laying golden eggs for a good while yet is by telling a serial story. They can make each installment feel different in terms of genre callbacks and aesthetics, they can bring new characters and settings in to keep it lively, but folks will keep coming past a certain point only if they want to see what happens next. And that takes Marvel having the willingness to have a next[/i: to let things happen that are new, to have some characters change in permanent ways, to have some characters fall or be replaced, and so on. The moment they start talking reboot is probably the signal that the superhero trend is finally dying off.

[eldaec]

However, we've seen a lot of different types of movies in the MCU. Heist Movie, War Movie, Space Opera, Monster Movie, Family Drama, Political Thriller, Comedy... all mixed with  a heavy dose of action hero.

No. We've had a bunch of comedy adventure films. Winter solidier was not a political thriller, Ant Man was not a heist movie. There is nothing wrong with this.

I think on one level this is a smart hook: that you want to see a story advance, to see what happens next.

I'd agree with you - it's just a matter of degree. CA3 probably came a bit too soon after A2, and both had too many characters, that doesn't mean the basic idea of a couple of films about Tony Stark and Steve Rodgers having a pissing contest was a bad one.

Having Hulk in Thor 3 feels like a better balance because there will not be another dozen avengers fighting for screentime.

[jgsugden]

...
No. We've had a bunch of comedy adventure films. Winter solidier was not a political thriller, Ant Man was not a heist movie. There is nothing wrong with this...

The degree to which Cap 3 is a political thriller, Ant-man is a hesit movie, Incredible Hulk is a monster movie, etc... is debatable.  However, the directors, reviewers, and most fans put these labels on the movies.  Saying these movies are all just comedy adventure and not these other things is the minority position.  If you think Cap 2, Ant-man, GotG and Cap 1 are essentially the same film at their core, I can't agree with that statement.  They're very different films.

[eldaec]

They are certainly different films which portray different events.

In the same genre.

[Khaldun]

I think they have fairly different moods, though. The house style is about the relationship between comedy beats, plot, and action--that's what makes them seem similar, even formulaic. It's not so much genre. The film that's gotten the closest to having a style of its own is Guardians of the Galaxy; the Thor movies have been the closest to paint-by-the-numbers. I think the interesting 'counterfactual' of the MCU so far is what an Edgar Wright Ant-Man might have been like. I suspect Ant-Man would have been a slightly less likeable character and the visual style and pacing would have been farthest from the Marvel house style.

I think they're probably going to need somewhere down the line to take a James Gunn-level chance when interest starts to flag a bit. Maybe that's the next phase after Infinity War, loosen up and let some more idiosyncratic stuff in the door. People really will get tired at some point, even if the films remain technically proficient and well-tuned.

[K9]

Wasn't someone a few pages back saying that IW is going to have 70+ characters? That doesn't sound like it solves the problem, the MCU is basically a pyramid scheme run in reverse when it comes to putting people on screen.

That said, if Ragnarok is as daft as they seem to be pitching it, then it could be good fun, but then the Thor films have always seemed to be the ones which take themselves less seriously.

I think on one level this is a smart hook: that you want to see a story advance, to see what happens next. It's almost the logic of the old-time movie serial amped up to have each segment costs tens of millions of dollars to create.

However, this only works if the story advances and doesn't recycle or spin its wheels. Which is where superheroes get into trouble, typically. You can only really have Spider-Man throw his costume in the garbage once, have Thor face Ragnarok once, have Doctor Strange's cape get ripped and need to be fixed by an extradimensional tailor once, etcetera: it gets old. More importantly, the characters need to get old if this is really about telling a long-form story in installments. The lessons they've learned need to stay with them, the character growth they've undergone needs to be remembered.

Sooner or later people want closure. That is one of the things that makes Nolan's Batman trilogy so fantastic. You're along for the ride and then the story ends.

[jgsugden]

They've been building towards a mas crossover event since Iron Man was released.  If you think that having too many characters in the film is going to be the wrong call, you've missed the entire buildup over the past decade.

[eldaec]

I think the interesting 'counterfactual' of the MCU so far is what an Edgar Wright Ant-Man might have been like. I suspect Ant-Man would have been a slightly less likeable character and the visual style and pacing would have been farthest from the Marvel house style.

Exactly. I'm also guessing the final act would have been weirder, had fewer EXPLOSIONS, more thematic relevance, and been less boring.

Even Guardians of the Galaxy struggles in the last 40 minutes.

Sooner or later people want closure. That is one of the things that makes Nolan's Batman trilogy so fantastic. You're along for the ride and then the story ends.

I'm not sure they need closure as such, they just want films to contain new stuff. A closure story is an easy way to write one more film, but isn't at all necessary. Iron Man 3 or Dark Knight Rises didn't need their terrible epilogues to provide 'closure'. They just needed the studios to stop making films about either character before they ran them into the ground. Or at least wait a few years till everyone has moved on and got nostalgic.

Ongoing plots need closure. In this context Marvel's ultimate mitten of bullshit needs to be built and broken. But I don't really care if Thor just stops showing up.

It's not like Disney are short on characters.

[jgsugden]

It amazes me that people are still so pessimistic.

People have been predicting that Marvel is headed towards a cliff since the beginning.  Lakov Sanite ...

Negotiating such a huge deal when the super hero bubble is close to popping would be a terrible business decision. 

... even Marvel optimists have thought this machine was going to fail....

Your distrust of Marvel doesn't change the fact that they have put out two movies (Avengers, IM3) that are in the top 10 money makers of all time.  Maybe they actually know what they are doing.

Having said that, they will have a flop sooner or later.  I say "Guardians of the Galaxy".  It could be interesting to see how that affects their plans down the line. 

Marvel is doing it right in the cinemas.  They are building stories that people want to see.  Ant-man - which is a hard concept to sell, was plagued by bad press when Wright left, and basically was rebuilt at the last minute - was their closest thing to a flop - and it still made 4 times the budget.  Their worst movie is light years better than the recent DC offerings. 

At some point, you kind of need to accept that they're doing it right.

[Velorath]

Disney generally knows how to make successful movies. Disappointments like Alice Through the Looking Glass and Pete's Dragon aside, they've got the top 4 grossing movies Worldwide so far this year (and while I don't expect Dr. Strange to do huge numbers they have Rogue One on the way this year as well). In a world where the Fast and Furious franchise has gone on for 15 years so far and the critically despised Transformers movies have installments 6 and 7 on the schedule already, it's hard to imagine a scenario where audience fatigue is going to be the catalyst for change.

The bigger issue would be if their newer franchises like Dr. Strange, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel haven't achieved much success by the time Downey, Evans, and Hemsworth move on. Spider-man's inclusion in the MCU is a boost at least going forward.

[eldaec]

They are spending tens of millions each time and I don't begrudge them playing it safe. I'd do the same.

It limits their ability to do anything except follow the template. But that is only going to make nerds like us mildly bored and the films somewhat forgettable. I'd agree it is not a bad business strategy and unlikely to result in a flop any time soon.

As for whether the new characters will be as successful, if they are as well marketed as Thor and Iron Man were, then of course they will be. Only Captain America, Spiderman, and Hulk had any meaningful recognition before Marvel and Disney built what they built. If they can sell Thor then Dr Strange and Black Panther are no problem.