Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
This movie has a ton of Godzillas in it. I think that's what RDJ used to justify his pay raise.
I do think a lot of the emotion about Bucky is projected because Cap feels so strongly about him. We don't really get a great sense of him in either previous film.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.I think we have an okay idea of who he used to be, but right now we only have a sliver of an idea what he's like now. For all intents and purposes, Winter Soldier is basically a different character with elements of Bucky. But it's those elements that make him important to Steve, which makes him important to us.
I remember reading Film Crit Hulk's Man of Steel article, and him bringing up how the movie doesn't really make us care about Pa Kent or Lois or Perry or not!Jimmy Olsen, and instead just kind of coasts on what they are/what they're supposed to be to Superman. And while that's a flaw, I feel like the bigger problem was a failing to demonstrate why they're so important to Superman.
Terrible as it sounds, it never felt like anything was lost when Johnathan died in the tornado, and it's because it feels like (I could be wrong) all they ever showed him and Clark doing was arguing and disagreeing. Johnathan never felt like an actual father figure, he felt like a roadblock, the thing keeping us from seeing Superman. I get they were going for conflicted and polarizing, but they went so far in one direction they neglected to give us any meaningful connection.
For Civil War, we can understand why Bucky is so important to Steve, because the filmmakers have given us scenes where we witness the strength of their bond. We may not know much about Bucky himself, but for now we don't need to.
![]()
![]()
Then that's the job of this film: To define him as a character.
Also valid.
edited 10th Mar '16 9:57:07 PM by edvedd
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau ProjectRegardless, we know the conflict of the film is not just about Bucky anyway, so the assertion that the premise doesn't work because it's about two sides warring over a Satellite Character really doesn't work when the character is only part of the reason they're fighting.
I was going to say something to that effect. Bucky is an inciting force, but it's the political themes and the difference in ideologies between Tony and Steve that cause Bucky to become a problem in the first place.
Edit: OK, he did sort of address it. But I reckon that the relationship between Tony and Steve is an equally important consideration.
edited 10th Mar '16 10:15:13 PM by edvedd
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau ProjectBesides Zemo, Abomination and Crossbones (if he survives, though he probably wouldn't be a visible member but instead be more like the Number Two Zemo keeps in the shadows), in addition to people using Yellowjacket tech I've been hoping we see Whiplash tech. Mark Scarlotti was in AOS under HYDRA's employ, and I don't think he died. They might be able to finagle an AIM operative surviving too, since a lot of them were left for dead rather than outright exploded.
But speaking of AOS and the tv shows, if they decide to start acknowledging them there's also Absorbing Man, Blizzard and maybe Graviton (though he works best as a solo villain imo), though Daredevil and Jessica Jones didn't give us any villains that would work well outside of their setting. And if the Thunderbolts' movie happens after Spider-Man, we could see one of his rogues in that lineup.
It's also likely there'll be at least one or two villains introduced as Thunderbolts rather than recurring. Songbird has a good chance for that.
Its been brought up before, but Justin Hammer could be a good Tony Stark parallel, given that he's Taken A Level In Badass (it wouldn't even need to be THAT huge of a level, the only thing he had that was approved for usage in the field that failed was a bunker-buster being misused as a normal missile).
edited 10th Mar '16 11:17:28 PM by PushoverMediaCritic
We need more 60s Spider Man memes with the new suit.
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau ProjectFar as I can tell, if the eyes are a practical effect done similarly to a camera lens, the eyes' emotiveness will be mostly restricted to narrowing and widening. Also, I hate all the people saying that the eyes are too Deadpool-like when the two sizes we see them in are the two most popular versions, eyes emoting is nothing new, and DEADPOOL'S MASK WAS INSPIRED BY SPIDER-MAN IN THE FIRST DANG PLACE.
This conflict is not about Bucky. Bucky will just end up the reason for Cap to stop toeing the line. As the trailer has shown, the actual conflict is about the question if the Avengers should submit to some sort of oversight which would limit their actions, or if the power to make the decisions should be in their hands. The RIGHT decision would naturally be some sort of middle ground, but apparently it is all or nothing...and in this case, I am with Cap. Their own hands are safer, because they are the ones who lay down their life and have to make the decisions, not a bunch of people watching from afar who can't really gauge what is going on properly.
Honestly I think both sides have a point. On one hand, Tony is right: the Avengers are no better than terrorists or supervillains if they are unwilling to accept limitations. I mean, they are good guys right now, but what prevent them from turning wrong later on if new less well-intentioned members join? On the other, I also see Cap's point: he doesn't want the Avengers to be restrained by politics and have their hands tied in situations where they could actually save millions of lifes. Not to mention the whole HYDRA having infiltrated SHIELD proved the government can't necessarly be trusted. It's a real dilemna.
On the other hand I would kinda question the justifications used. I mean, New York? That was the CHITAURI, not the Avengers; in fact at this point the Avengers were assembled by SHIELD so they were technically under supervision. Similarly, Sokovia was caused by Ultron, all the Avengers did was save people. The only event where there actually was their involvement as a cause was in Winter Soldier, and even then that was to stop a HYDRA scheme that would have done much more dead.
Then again, Cinematic or not this is still the Marvel Universe; civilians are expected to be assholes who blame their heroes for everything.
edited 11th Mar '16 3:19:04 AM by Theokal3

if they didn't watch the previous cap films, obviously they won't know who bucky is or care about him. why would you go see the third captain america film without having gone to see the other two? I don't see why the film-makers are at fault for that.
edited 10th Mar '16 9:24:43 PM by wehrmacht