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
Well on of them is saving Bucky.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=33109151&postcount=844
Also good post here about Spider's eyes.
We should be getting the huge eyes as well in the movie.
Well in hindsight there is a good guy in the story. But the ending notwithstanding, you pretty much see two assholes trying to destroy each other.
Thanks for the answers anyway. I really want this movie to be good. I hope it avoids the filler issues that were mildly entertaining in Avengers and already annoying in AOU just so that everyone would get screentime. I honestly hope that Marvel was heavy-handed enough with the references and Fanservice in the previous movies so that for this one they don't bother with it and try first and foremost to tell a good story without getting some backlash because "X should have been here" and "they got the Y detail wrong"..
Well, you have a "good guy" in quote marks. The less douchey Borden twin is the most sympathetic, but he still allowed his brother to mistreat his wife. I don't even want to think about the possibility of spousal rape either.
But anyways, I have faith that this movie will be good. The same people behind it made Winter Soldier, which is the best Marvel movie, so I'm not terribly worried.
One of the biggest fumbles of the comics Civil War was the Act itself, and the increasingly unsympathetic actions of the people on either side just shaped the problem into something bigger.
Was the law just to do as Tobias said, to have superheroes be accountable and become official emergency responders with oversight? Or was it an attempt by the government to control the superpowered population?
If it's just the former, then the actions of Iron Man and Pro-Reg are the desperate acts of sympathetic Well Intentioned Extremists. If it's the latter, then their actions are repressive and draconian. Writers couldn't decide, which was the first problem. Everything they had the characters do was canon, which was the other problem
When Pro-Reg is doing things like pressganging superpowered kids to become assassins and imprisoning anyone with visible superpowers who didn't get with the program even if they're not actually superheroes indefinitely in one book, and merely trying to curtail a spiraling situation brought on by arrogance and foolishness in another, and both events are just as canon as one another, the reader is forced to take the situation as a whole. And because of that, the sympathetic moments of the Pro-Reg's come off as insincere.
Instead it looks like what they're really after is control. Control over superpowers and control over the situation - I didn't even know about Tony trying to frame Atlantis to resolve the situation before, but its exactly what I'm talking about. Tony is the reasonable guy in one book, and the guy so bent on controlling how the world is saved that he's willing to burn large parts of it in another. And in Clor's case, it looks like Tony is trying to get control over Thor's power, which he had never been able to do before (when Thor shows up after Civil War and is confronted by Tony, he's almost an Audience Surrogate in how he judged the situation - in regards to Clor he directly accused Tony of doing just that).
This was extremely unintended, and a result of the bad writing and coordination of the series in general.
Likewise, Cap comes off as a freedom fighter one book and an arrogant man with Moral Myopia that isn't willing to compromise in another, and so he comes off looking like an asshole who believes less in what he's doing than in being right - a false revolutionary with an egocentric cause. It's also worth noting that regardless of what the act meant in other books, iirc what Steve mainly took offense with was the otherwise justifiable "controlling superheroes" bit.
But because people have always resonated more with the idea of people fighting against an oppressive government, lots of readers still gravitated towards him, especially since he died like a martyr in the end.
Imo, the only person who made a good decision in that arc was Ben Grimm. He left the country.
edited 11th Mar '16 1:46:27 PM by KnownUnknown
We don't know what exactly is in the Sokovia Accords. There was an ultra-condensed version released with one of the DVD box sets that basically says that the Avengers are forbidden to take action until the U.N. decides if they should be allowed to, and how they should.
For the SHRA the major problem was that nobody seemed to have any clear idea what the law entailed. Some writers had it so that all you had to do was register and either undergo a training course or surrender your powers, while others had it as flat-out military conscription.
edited 11th Mar '16 1:49:49 PM by comicwriter
![]()
![]()
Do you mean in the movie or in the comics?
The movie version of the Act shouldn't have any (or at least most) of the comics' problems, since it's apparently solely about keeping the Avengers from acting without oversight.
Instead of a situation that can easily become an analogue for government repression, it's an "agent gone rogue" plot where Cap wants to deal with the situation his way but can't because of the law.
edited 11th Mar '16 1:51:58 PM by KnownUnknown
It was never accurately defined in the comics. As I sad a few posts up, writers sympathetic towards it had it as more of a training and licensing system, and those opposed to it had it as flat out military conscription.
The Initiative series that spun out of it mostly portrays it along those lines. You got powers and want to keep them? Then get ready to go kill people for good ole' Uncle Sam!
Late again to The Prestige talk, but what aids it over the Civil War comic is that it doesn't want us to pick a side. It's fine with letting us just watch a story about two rivals trying to ruin each other, while Civil War thinks itself too important and insists we readers MUST decide which side is right.
People keep saying there aren't enough heroes in this (even the WMG page for the movie has several variations of "The Daredevil and AOS characters are secretly in it because otherwise the cast is too small!) but honestly, people wouldn't be satisfied if they just threw in a bunch of cameos for fight scenes anyway. 11 heroes is already pushing it.
edited 11th Mar '16 4:48:11 PM by comicwriter
I dunno, that place didn't look like somewhere Tony would hang.
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project![]()
I don't think it's anyone. Someone blew up the picture to make it clearer and it just looks like a chair with head and arm rests.
edited 12th Mar '16 6:23:10 AM by comicwriter
All this cloning talk makes me wonder if that tank is a variation on that part of the story.
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project

@Tobias Drake
So in this movie how can Captain America's side win the civil war?
Mainly because I don't see any possible victory conditions for Team Cap.
edited 11th Mar '16 1:30:00 PM by warrior93
Place your past in a book burn the pages let them cook.