Jump to content

Captain America: Civil War


Darth Krawlie
 Share

Recommended Posts

If it were Cap's movie then it should have stuck to being his POV-- in other words, him in 90% of the scenes, as was the case with the first two. Tony going off to Queens to meet the Parkers, Widow and T'Challa, Stark and Ross-- all needed, all great, but it made the narrative more omniscient.

 

To me, any Avenger should be in any and all of these movies-- but whomever the movie is based around, the story should stick with them, and the Avenger movies go bigger in terms of being an ensemble story.

 

Stark had pretty much equal screen time. If this had been Iron Man 4 or Avengers 3 with the same script I don't think we'd have questioned it. Hulk and Thor being in it or not isn't the point-- its all about point of view.

Its a Cap movie. All actions, reactions and arguments all orbited Cap's decisions and relationships--even the expectation of what he might think. The government, Black Panther, and both sides of the Avengers, even something as inconsequential as the coda with Peter and May--intended to sneak Spider-Man's new Stark tech / further adventures still ended up referring to Cap.

 

Cap is the prime mover of the MCU, as he's the logical, strongest bridge between superhero fantasy and the gritty, quasi political reality the Russos have THANKFULLY added to the films to offset Whedon's Power Rangers-esque / nerd beat-off Avengers movies (which were the biggest face of MCU). Thanks to the Cap effect, the missteps of earlier Marvel films are sanded down, so only the relevant elements are pulled along with the direction the Cap films are taking it all.

 

Captain America: Civil War was so inspired by everything from Cold War era political thrillers (obviously) to old newsreels with the almost excessively large location titles a throwback touch, framing the bleak nature of the story.

 

 

 

Some critics have said it was possible to see the merits of Team Cap and Team Iron Man, but in the end, Stark's support of the Sokovia Accords was crumbing under its own hypocrisy every time someone tried to sell it, since UN member nations have no problem launching missions (known and covert) without always seeking--or even respecting UN authority (I could name names, but this is not the thread for that). That said, the fact member nations are still autonomous enough to "do their own thing" for self-interests--and rarely caring about the costs to innocents, they are in no position to place collars on the Avengers. The only problem the "normal" world has is one of feeling inferior to beings who cannot be dragged into court, or threatened with political reprisals.

 

Stark could not see that because of his guilt & attempts to create a one-world/one-fit security force, and as a result, he was just the kind of desperate tool government overreach needs. He was so single-minded from one issue to the next, that one could not really feel much sympathy for his discovering the truth of his parents' fate.

 

Another strong point of the film is how Cap's side so naturally support his plans--even at the expense of themselves. You get the feeling that they genuinely like Cap, and are not just punching the time clock / being there because its a job.

 

On a superheroic level, the film was a grand showcase of just how enhanced Cap is, as he ultimately manhandled Spider-Man, had Stark's life in his hands, and of course, the helicopter scene. Great stuff. Looking forward to more Giant Man--longtime wish come true with the character.

 

I note the economy of T'Challa's dialogue, though what was there said much about the character (and what's coming in his solo film), and I appreciated the slow build nod to the Silver Age relationship between T'Challa & Steve.

 

There's much to enjoy about the movie, including a potential "fight" for Steve's Best Partner between Bucky & Sam, but in the end, Captain America: Civil War is the jewel in the MCU--the best Marvel film overall since Raimi's Spider-Man 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on, I'm hardly a parrot or bandaging kind of guy. I even supported the notion it was NOT Avengers 3. But after seeing it-- structurally, as I said, Cap wasn't in several key scenes. POV is screenwriting 101.

 

Moot point though, cause it's a great movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMFAO

Yeah, I know, lol. I get it. But they add and explain nothing further about him whatsoever in this. A) He's still running B) he's still angsty C) He's still trying to keep others safe from himself D) He sort of knows something about other Winter Soldiers. E) Oh, and he gets his arm knocked off, that's new information!

Just because they set him up in Winter Soldier doesn't give the writers a free pass to make him what essentially turns out to be a human football/living plot device.

 

 

 

*I just watched Winter Soldier last night, and I basically feel the same way about the emotional weight of their relationship. The only difference is the 15 second flashback to when they were teenagers in Brooklyn. Both films (Winter Soldier and Civil War) convey what amounts to the same information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I loved this movie, I can totally understand the feeling of "oversaturation," but Bucky/Winter Soldier has been at the heart of all three Cap movies.

 

1) Bucky is like Steve's older brother. Steve looks up to him, but is also competitive with him. They both have a great deal of love and respect for one another.

 

2) Turns out there was a reason we didn't see Bucky die onscreen. Steve didn't lose his best friend at the end of the mission, his best friend was recovered, and has been mindraped and used as an assassin for ages. They have a fight, Cap can see there is still some of his old friend inside.

 

3) We just saw this.

 

I dunno... I found it pretty resonant. I feel baaaaad for Bucky!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Oh come on, I'm hardly a parrot or bandaging kind of guy. I even supported the notion it was NOT Avengers 3. But after seeing it-- structurally, as I said, Cap wasn't in several key scenes. POV is screenwriting 101.

 

Moot point though, cause it's a great movie.

Yeah, a point you beat me over the head with, too. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm the only person who didn't like this movie. I chalk it up to hating Tony Stark, my annoyance with superheroes being blamed for trying to save people, my annoyance with superheroes fighting each other, Tony's humongous ego and how he doesn't even defend his friends for trying to clean up his mess in Sokovia, that he freaking calls Bucky "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" and then proceeds to be totally manipulated into fighting them anyway. I really wanted to like this movie but it really, really frustrated me.

 

I did like a lot of the characters - Cap, Bucky, Falcon, Natasha, Wanda, and T'Challa were all awesome. Especially T'Challa. (I really hope Tony isn't in the Black Panther movie because I really want to see that one.) I even laughed at Ant-Man's part and I didn't even see that movie. Spider-Man was fine, but kind of extraneous. Especially that super long scene to recruit him.

 

Anyway, yeah. It's my turn to dislike something everyone else likes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some fair points. Especially about Tony Stark. Going back to the very first Iron Man movie I never liked him because of his smug ass ego and trying to hard clever word play. I like his movies but I don't like HIM, if that makes any sense. So I totally get where you're coming from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with unlikable characters, or even characters making bad choices. BUT there comes a point where you gotta throw your hands in the air and go COME ON. The end battle was that moment for me (and proved why Black Panther >>>>> Iron Man). I could see where Tony was coming from throughout the movie, and thought he'd come to understand Steve's point of view (and Steve his), but then, NOPE. All those lessons are just thrown out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally get where you're coming from and agree to a certain point. I'm just generally sick of Tony's smug arrogance. Black Widow is too apparently LOL

 

But it reminds me of Magneto in first class. "I agree with everything you just said. But ... you killed my mother"

 

It's Tony's mother. Not to mention that the whole reason he's a smug arrogant ass in the first place is because of his parents deaths. So for me it wasn't too much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true--but that's also Magneto's final step to becoming the antagonist. Tony's still supposed to be a good guy in these films. And Shaw in First Class knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Erik's mother. Bucky didn't, and Tony knows that. That makes Tony waaaay worse than Magneto in my opinion.

 

But you're right - that fits his character to a tee. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were Cap's movie then it should have stuck to being his POV-- in other words, him in 90% of the scenes, as was the case with the first two.

 

But after seeing it-- structurally, as I said, Cap wasn't in several key scenes. POV is screenwriting 101.

 

 

All films about a character do not stick to that POV to be that character's piece. For example, Nicholas Meyer once said that The Wrath of Khan was really a Khan film because even when he's not in a scene (actually, most of the film), others are reacting to him, talking about him, or dealing with the consequences of his actions. That seared his presence all over the movie and made him the driving force of everything from the moment he took Chekov & Terrell hostage.

 

Cap in CW works in the same way; try removing all scenes where Ross (and other government operatives), Stark, T'Challa, Zemo and the other heroes are not doing something--anything related to Cap's statements and/or actions, and you probably have a 30 minute film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah but see-- you're equating a character movie to an ensemble movie. Most movies have an omniscient narration, and that is fine. Even stories that are not ensemble, and have a lead character, can still play as omniscient.

 

It's like a 3rd person narration vs. a 1st person if you want to compare it to prose.

 

Movies can go either way all things created equal-- BUT really, most of all of the better Marvel films, stick to a very first person point of view. Avengers, playing the ensemble card, did not and it worked fine. Age of Ultron tried to give everyone a story to follow and sort of imploded under its own weight.

 

The first two Cap films most certainly stayed very strict with their POV. One reason WS was so great was that the mystery and conspiracy were revealed to us the same time as Rogers was figuring it out. Bucky was missing for a huge chunks of the movie until Cap knew what was going on.

 

To me, that's the difference.

 

Again-- not sure why you want to argue with me cause I'm not saying it is a detriment-- I loved the movie. I just think if it was Cap's movie, they should have spent less time with Tony and the others. THAT said, some of the best scenes (Tony and Peter) would have been lost.)

 

Sure, Cap was still the primary motivator, but narratively it was an ensemble piece, not a solo story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's an academic conversation not an argument. Some people are being snarky douches about it elsewhere online so I brought that irritation with me when I first brought it up but this conversation here in this place for me is just an interesting one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like in some many ways this movie was apologizing for Age of Ultron.

 

Oh, c'mon. I know that you know this movie was planned around the fallout of Age of Ultron well before anyone thought of "apologizing" for it. I mean, principle photography began before Age of Ultron even opened. It's not like this was a Man of Steel thing where they used their mess up of having Superman trash a city as a major source of conflict in the next movie. Age of Ultron was obviously setting up Civil War. Which, hey, it succeeded in doing so mark that as a point in its favor.

 

Hate on Age of Ultron if you like (I thought it was better than the first at least), but Civil War wasn't trying to make up for anything. They just figured out a way to get Avengers-type hype and box office for their favored directors without necessarily making another Avengers movie.

 

As for it being too much of an Avengers film. I'd have to watch the film again, but in my mindshare, this is the proportion each hero gets:

 

Captain America (plus Falcon, Winter Soldier, and Agent 13): 50%

Iron Man: 25%

Black Panther: 10%

Spider-Man: 5%

Scarlet Witch: 3%

Ant-Man: 2% (mostly based on his moment of awesome)

Black Widow: 2% (surprisingly underused)

The Vision: 1%

War Machine: 1% (would have been completely lost in the shuffle if he hadn't been hurt)

Hawkeye: <1%

 

I think it was definitely Captain America's movie with Iron Man acting as the designated semi-villain and not a true team movie. Black Panther got a fair amount of screen time as another semi-villain to set up his movie, but other than that only Spider-Man really made much of an impact on me. Scarlet Witch took some steps forward, but was a mere subplot that could have been tossed aside if it needed to be.

 

It's a bit of a split. A lot of characters, not many being lost (even Hawkeye had his moments), but most of them really were supporting the main conflict between Cap and Tony.

 

Funnily enough, Samuel L. Jackson somehow didn't get stuffed in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously it was in development before and during. The word "like" generally doesn't mean one is being literal.And after it comes out on home video go ahead and time out everyones on-screen time and get back to me with real numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Tony's mother. Not to mention that the whole reason he's a smug arrogant ass in the first place is because of his parents deaths. So for me it wasn't too much

 

Yeah exactly - I'm not a huge fan of the character like everyone else, but that was the only way to portray the scene. After watching someone murder your Mother, regardless if they were in control, it makes sense that the first thing you would do would be to attack that said person. Having a clear head and displaying some logic isn't really realistic after that kinda event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Tony-- his doucheness is intentional, but he balances it with humor and charm. His motivations made sense in this movie-- as muddy as they were when you compare his actions in IM3 and AOU. They connected those dots here so it made some sense.

 

That said-- he needs an evolutionary shift. At this point he has learned enough hard lessons that he needs a new M.O.

 

But I don't know if his core personality will ever change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.