Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

Government demanding accountability is more setting in Civil War than a primary theme - the excuse for the conflict to ensue, much like how fighting terrorism is the catalyst for Tony's origin and the war between Asgard and the Frost Giants is the catalyst for Thor's plot. The primary conflict of the movie is not Tony sponsoring accountability to try to curtail Steve, it's "will Steve be able to save Bucky from the world and himself," in which Tony plays an Inspector Javert and one of the many obstacles to that objective being fulfilled.

Though if we're going to pull "conclusions and analyses about films are entirely irrelevant because everything is subjective anyway," we might as well can the thread and talk about puppies or something instead.

It is, after all, a perspective with little aim but shutting down conversation.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Sigh. No, I didn't. I said that the movie was so jumbled, you could pull many themes from the film and they would all fit. Which isn't true of most movies.

Hell, I just presented several conflicting themes that you could apply to the film. Generally, you can't have conflicting themes that make sense, but MOS does because 1) it's really, really jumbled and 2) it forgets about plotlines a lot. Superman's search for identity? Over and done with as soon as Zod and the other Kryptonians show up. He doesn't hesitate at all to destroy the Genesis Chamber, so he must have, I don't know, resolved his feelings off screen or something. What about the theme of legacy and how Superman carried the hope of Krypton within him? Whoops, nope, nobody even mentions that he has that stuff in his DNA after a certain period in the movie and it's completely forgotten about at the end. Okay, then what about the theme of fathers and sons? Superman's guilt over his father's death? Surely, he'll have some long conversation with Jor-El's AI and...whoops, nope, Jor-El's AI is gone.

Again: the movie brings up and then discards so many plotlines, you get the ability to grab any theme from the film. Does the film support the military? Yes and no. Does the film support what Jonathan Kent said about sacrificing people to have a normal life? Yes and no. Does the film support a Superman who kills? Yes and no.

If you really want to compare it to Civil War, then sure, the central plot of that movie wasn't resolved (is more accountability good when it comes with less security?), but then again, that was just the trappings of the film, not the central theme. The central theme of the film was always the relationship between Steve and Tony and how each of them is right and each of them is wrong, but both are too stubborn to admit it.

Superman's search for answers regarding his abilities ends when he gets the answers regarding his abilities - he's an alien solar sponge that gets superpowers the same way most people get sunburns; so much for that. He doesn't seem conflicted about giving Krypton the shaft because there's no reason for him to be - he considers himself as American as it gets; so much for that too. And he explicitly says he wants to help on his own terms, so it's only natural to conclude he's gotten over what either of his dads intended for him.

Same goes for the film supporting the military, Jon's attitude, and Superman killing people - that's a yes, no, and yes, respectively. There are no evil soldiers or anything in the film, the arrest is perfunctory given how they're dealing with an alien behemoth; might even be standard first contact policy, even without Zod's ship hovering in orbit. Superman ultimately goes against Jon's intentions, not so much out of them being flawed, but because the choice is still his own, and so is the sacrifice. And yeah, he snaps the neck of a mass-murdering maniac, which is clearly shown to be a desperate action, but one he doesn't agonize over afterwards.

None of this is difficult to see, but it goes against so many established expectations of the character, that it seems easier to nitpick and base arguments on otherwise irrelevant details like the film's pacing and editing. It's kinda like how Superman was interpreted as uncaring over the Senate explosion in BVS, because the bullet time shot lingered on what was clearly a split-second moment in-universe. Superman supportive of mass murder? Clearly, yes and no.

I never said his "search for answer regarding his abilities." I said "search for identity." Which is vastly different.

Did we watch the same movie? Because that's not what I saw at all. I mean, I understand it's what you saw, but that's my point: we watched the same thing and came to opposite conclusions.

He got over it off-screen. It's one of many "tell don't show" moments.

Um, all of Zod's group are soldiers. They are the Kryptonian military.

Except he is ultimately outed to the world not by his own decisions, but by Zod. So...does he really make a choice in that regard?

He certainly seems to agonize it right afterwards.

Also, your note about Superman not caring about the Senate explosion is disingenuous: it wasn't that small moment that bugged people, it was the fact that he seems to have no reaction right afterwards. He just looks...kinda sad? And that's it. (The fact that they apparently cut an important scene of him reacting to it and then flying away from the press doesn't help at all.)

"Superman's search for identity? Over and done with as soon as Zod and the other Kryptonians show up"

done before when Clark got to the ship and talk with Jor El, the next question become "what are you going to do with that?" first clark decide to do nothing but them Zod comes and muddle things a bit, he talk with the priest about a jump of faith and he show up and even them the military dosent trust him.

"What about the theme of legacy and how Superman carried the hope of Krypton within him? "

crash with the genesis chamber, Zod try to bring krypton military and eugensis past with him and Clark destroy that, hell Jor el told that to zod that both are ghost of a past is not going to return, Zod decide to pretty much kill everything Kal-El wants or care in return

"If you really want to compare it to Civil War, then sure, the central plot of that movie wasn't resolved (is more accountability good when it comes with less security?), but then again, that was just the trappings of the film, not the central theme"

so fucking bullshit right here, the acountability stuff is not just a set up or a trapping, that would be the HYDRA ride in Ao U which only serve to put the scepter, the acountability aspect is there, moving chararter left and right into the very fight as Tony demand to now if Steve knew and he said yes or Bucky being frozen because he is acepting the acountability of is act, you cant just divorce that into this "oh no, is just about Tony and Cap" other wise the movie have a unecesary cast who dosent matter at all.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

The theme is culled from the setting. It also comes from the plot, characters, cinematography, production design and even the choice of font for the subtitles. In Civil War if you change the topic of accountability to Steve stealing Tony's lunch, the whole theme of the movie would be vastly different.

People will come to different ideas about the theme because they may miss a line of dialogue or decide to focus on one particular scene over another. The theme will constantly evolve throughout the story and yes, will sometimes seem contradictory just because of the different impressions someone will have.

Seconding @unknowing about the "search for identity" - Clark isn't a millennial looking to find himself, he's a guy clearly uncomfortable about being able to snap a semi in half. Once the meeting with Jor-El clears up the origins of that, Superman is outright joyful. In fact, had Zod not arrived at that same time, the story could've easily swerved into the familiar routine of him setting up shop in Metropolis.

As for the rest, the conversation seems to have entered the sentence-by-sentence rebuttal phase, which I've noticed is only one step from blasting all-caps in lieu of reasonable arguments. Might as well change the channel.

Namely, coming from the Justice League trailers, I have this impression of purely thematic build-up going on in all the films to date. MOS is slower and more cerebral, BVS ups the stakes and sets up the greater setting, SS shows additional perspectives, and now I suspect JL will tie things together with an emphasis on action and, for the first time in this generation of superhero films, a proper army-on-army showdown. For all the fears of them trying to ape Marvel, I'm actually quite impressed at how they break out of the expected mold. Sure, the color pallette is still straight out of the XBOX 360 era, but other than that, things are looking up.

No, the plot of the movie would be vastly different, but not the theme. Theme and plot are two entirely different things. Plot is the events that happen. A theme is a recurring motif — for example, the relationship between Steve and Tony is a recurring theme throughout The Avengers, Age of Ultron, and Civil War, despite all three having vastly different plots. Changing the plot doesn't mean changing the theme.

There's a difference between a theme evolving and a movie being so jumbled that any theme can be picked from it and argued successfully.

I disagree. There is nothing after his meeting with Jor-El's AI that indicates Clark is over his identity crisis. Sure, he knows he's an alien now, but that's it. The only point at which he seems "joyful" is when he's flying and that has nothing to do with him learning he's an alien.

If you are making several different arguments in your post, I try to respond to each argument separately. If you do not like the way I respond...I really don't care. (As for your other assertion, I've never responded to any argument with ALL CAPS SHOUTING. The fact that you tried to insinuate I did is just silly.)

edited 26th Mar '17 10:15:14 AM by alliterator

"Plot is the events that happen. A theme is a recurring motif — for example, the relationship between Steve and Tony is a recurring theme throughout The Avengers, Age of Ultron, and Civil War, despite all three having vastly different plots. Changing the plot doesn't mean changing the theme."

a plot and a theme run with each other, or you risk one undermined the other, it dosent matter if the theme is "racism is bad" when only one race do all the bad stuff or "war is hell" if the plot portray as glorious, saying the theme is another of the plot mean Civil war create a huge set just to said "oh yeah they are both stuborn jerks" also you seen to miss why they are like that in this movie: Steve is shilding Bucky from acountability and Tony try to fix is mistake regarding ultron, the theme is right there.

"There is nothing after his meeting with Jor-El's AI that indicates Clark is over his identity crisis. Sure, he knows he's an alien now, but that's it. The only point at which he seems "joyful" is when he's flying and that has nothing to do with him learning he's an alien."

yes he is or a least that part, them the question move about what he SHOULD do with those habilities, it sound very weird to said it have nothing do with each other.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

We see Clark going to his mom to tell her what he's discovered and he's clearly happy to have answers.

we see him talk with lois about him showing to the world, he said no and soon after Zod show up, the issue is not about clark knowing is identity but strugle to see what is next.

edited 26th Mar '17 11:26:56 AM by unknowing

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Plot, theme and character should all be interconnected and support each other. If they are that divorced from each other that you're able to easily interchange one or the other is simply not good storytelling. Even if the theme of Civil War was the relationship between Tony and Steve, their relationship in this movie is defined by accountability vs. responsibility. Spider-Man even supports that with his own variation on Comes Great Responsibility.

On Clark's identity crisis, he does seem happy and joyful visiting his mom and he took pride in wearing the outfit, making reference to what the symbol means in his world. That's a theme that continues prominently in BVS.

Frankly if the movie really is about their relationship it's stupid n multip,e levels.

First of all they never had the close relationship their comics versions had. They've had precious little screen time together that wasn't antagonistic before this film. And really , the world almost ended because of the Avengers' lax oversight and Tony's penchant for stockpiling wmds ,civilians are dying in unsanctioned military ops, violating sovereignty left and right while world governments are compromised by decades long fascist plots that by all accounts should have destroyed the credibility of all international relations tanked the economy and placed half the world under martial law ....but the REAL story is how sad these two are?!

Bite me movie.

edited 26th Mar '17 12:19:30 PM by thatindiantroper

Pretty much. This is why I don't really bother with that old chestnut anymore - the fulcrum of the debates seems to rest on whether one sees the events solely from the main cast's point of view, or from that of just about every other person in the world. Still, I reckon four to eight years under a real life billionaire with unchecked power and the obsession of defending against invading aliens oughta dispel the rosy impression of how heroic some superheroes really are from a neutral standpoint.

This is actually something I like about the Justice League film - the idea that it's Batman who recruits and leads the team, as opposed to Superman. It fits Batman's image as a paranoid mastermind, while Superman comes off as a self-styled demigod looking to increase his already vast power. If anything, it's Superman who should be the reluctant part-timer, not really being on board with working outside traditional authorities.

Yeah overall the movie present acountability but only as it affect the hero, is pretty much THEIR issue with the efect they cause as after thought, is nice movie about family but a terrible one about acountability.

I like batman is recruiting the league because it put him outside the typical loner status, now he cant have that luxury since he was part of Luthor plan and almost fuck up on is on, he have to go better than that and for once trust in someone else since Jason death.

I dont know you but for me that sound as pretty good narrative.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Snyder explained his reasoning fairly well. If Superman went out recruiting people would join just out of deference to his power and judgement. If Superman needs your help you know it's big. If Batman comes calling, with his naturally antagonistic personality, then they are more likely to say "no thanks." We knew early on that Cyborg and Aquaman reject the plan right off, because they are people with their own priorities. We know they will eventually join, but only after their stake in the mission is made more apparent. In other versions of the League's origin, what had to happen was do The Worf Effect on Superman before everyone understood the stakes. That's a reason why Superman was killed in BVS, to leave a power gap at the start of this film. With this approach, Superman remains just as powerful while still emphasizing the value of the League.

In comparison to The Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man and Natasha were on board almost immediately, Banner and Thor took one sequence of tension each before joining and Hawkeye just wasn't in his right mind. As a result the middle part of the movie had almost nowhere to go, it was mostly a lot of discussion and banter on the helicarrier.

edited 26th Mar '17 1:28:40 PM by KJMackley

The other major difference is that, sans Batman, the coLeagues are mostly well-adjusted folk who argue over more important things than petty egotism and soapy grudges. When Batman fights Superman, it's something monumental. When Iron Man fights Captain America, it's Tuesday. This also explains the impression that the DCEU films are more about plot than character - rather, I'd say that they're more about the global consequences than just the personal perspective. And it's about time, really - the post-Watchmen landscape full of deconstructions and metafictional observations has turned the bread-and-butter basis of superheroes into a dead unicorn trope, with saving the world being little more than the backdrop for the same kind of dramas you can find in any other genre. (And it really doesn't help these are also the most frequent award bait stories.) Every now and then, a superhero tale should focus on the actual superheroics for their own sake. Think of it as the difference between a bonafide buddy cop show with plenty of action to go around, and just a bunch of badges in a bar arguing over who gets the last donut.

I think there were two themes to Civil War, one being Steve and Tony's relationship and the other being the Avengers' accountability. The latter was given an answer of sorts in Steve recognizing his own fallibility and choosing to defer to Tony, but a more permanent answer remains hanging because the Accords themselves are still active. The conclusion remains ambiguous, but the film makes a point of its own ambiguity by treating each side as reasonable. The directors even chose the final cut based on the test audience being split by it.

Calling point for point discussion just one step away from shouting feels like reprimanding people for paying attention.

edited 26th Mar '17 2:58:05 PM by Tuckerscreator

The Wire takes the Tarantino approach and makes that argument freaking interesting.

edited 26th Mar '17 3:40:22 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Quite so. Moreover, there's already plenty of traditional police procedurals to go around, so a show like that bucks the trend instead of being the trend. Meanwhile, it seems you can barely tune in to Netflix or the CW without seeing a superhero soap these days. It's one thing to say that budget restrictions and serialization tend to result in greater focus on character interaction and personal dramas. However, when even the blockbuster films relegate actual superheroics to perfunctory decorations, one can't help but wonder if the Russos aren't more interested in political thrillers while Whedon's trying to make Firefly in spandex.

Let's just say it usually doesn't lead to anything productive, particularly around DCEU vs. MCU comparisons. Never mind it apparently being described as "trolling in progress" on general principle.

Man, Fast Eddie must've never gotten how modern forum discussion works.

edited 26th Mar '17 3:59:50 PM by VeryMelon

Nobody said they shouldn't. But plot and theme are two entirely different things and you can change the plot, but keep the same theme.

A theme can't be interchangeable, sure. If you change the theme and the plot stays the same, that's a bad thing, that means the plot does nothing to tie into the theme. But that doesn't mean if you change a plot, then the theme changes. A plot changing and the theme being the same isn't a bad thing at all — it just means that you can connect your plot to the same theme as before.

Yes, it's about their relationship. You know what other movies are about relationships? Pretty much all good ones.

Does this matter? The fact that the movie relationship is different from the comics relationship means that the arguments are different, sure, but it doesn't mean that the theme of their relationship and the contrast between them is any different.

Somehow, I don't think you understand the importance of character over plot. Sure, plot is important, but character is more important. Character is what makes us invested in the movie, in an entire fictional world. If you don't care about Captain America and Iron Man...

...why the fuck would you even watch a film called Captain America: Civil War?

Again, you dislike the film because you dislike the characters. But if they discarded the characters completely, all that would be left would be a generic plot about accountability. Movies are made not by their plots, but by their characters. You don't like the characters, I get it. But that doesn't mean the movie would have been better had they replaced those characters with other characters.

Except Steve and Tony only verbally sparred before their big fight, they never actually physically fought each other. So, no, you are incorrect. Their fight at the end of Civil War was their first (and most brutal) fight.

(Also, I would completely disagree that the Superman/Batman fight was "monumental." It was entirely stupid, but I realize that is a matter of opinion.)

Like Captain America: The First Avenger did? Or something like Doctor Strange? Because the MCU has plenty of those types of movies. Including a movie that is deeper than "just superheroics" seems like the exception, not the norm for the MCU.

I would watch both of those shows if they were well written.

the problem with that is it look neither Tony or Steve care about the acords beyond their on selfish interest, also there is the issue of Ultron: neither Tony or Wanda suffer much beyond their on volition so is like "things are bad because it made feel sad"

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

I don't see how connecting the issue to their own personal feelings makes them look selfish. I mean, Tony is clearly for the Accords because he feels massively guilty, but that doesn't make the conflict any less meaningful.

Again: stories are about characters. If your characters aren't connected to your plot in some way, there's something wrong with your story. Nobody cares about General Ross, because General Ross has no personal connection to the plot. He's just a device. People care about Steve and Tony because they are more than devices, they are fully fleshed out characters that have deep, personal connections.

So yeah, the plot is because Steve and Tony both feel guilty, one for causing deaths he could have prevented and the other for letting his friend die. That doesn't make it a bad story at all. It makes it a story that is personal for them.

This is also why a lot more people enjoyed Zod as a villain over Luthor. Zod had a very personal connection to Superman and we understand why he wanted to do everything that he did. Luthor, on the other hand...well, his reasons were all very abstract. The audience had a much, much harder time connecting to Luthor, because there were given much less reason to.

edited 26th Mar '17 8:09:05 PM by alliterator

@ Indiana 404: It's actually a trend I've realized in how movies are leaning towards a microscope on a handful of characters and the overall narrative never steps away from them. Every scene has to have one of the main characters and they have to be the absolute center of attention. In a film class we watched The Drop and afterwards the discussion went on about how a minor female detective shows up in a few scenes to pass on information, and she was such a lively character not because she had a strong personality but because it felt like she came in from a completely different movie and we were intersecting with HER story. She was dealing with her own case, barely gave the main story any attention. That made it quite refreshing. Coen Brothers and classic Star Wars (not so much modern Star Wars) is also known for this, as they often have minor characters who are preoccupied with their own problems and don't care much what the main characters are up to. Just think about the Rancor keeper in ROTJ.

There was a scene in Civil War that illustrates this issue rather well. A woman played by Alfre Woodard approaches Tony and gives him a picture of her son, who died in the events of Age of Ultron. The performances of the scene are generally good, but the one-scene character never comes alive because she comes into the scene with a laser focus on Tony and essentially says "I am going to hurt you emotionally" and that is what she does. And that is the problem, all we end up caring about is the fact that Tony feels bad. We have no clue what she was doing before this scene or what she wanted to do afterwards, it's a character packaged exclusively for a plot point and the movie has no other use for her.