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
Does the movie take a side, Swanpride?
Two things - one, we do not have the number of heroes in the MCU to equal the scale of the conflict in the comics. Two, I think that "Civil War" can be figurative to an extent - it may not be a full-fledged "war", as we might think of the term, but it's a conflict that splits the team in two, and I think that's the more important definition.
edited 30th Apr '16 4:43:42 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
And that's exactly what I like to hear. I found the comic to be a Dork Age for many reasons, and the stupidity over the SHRA was one of them. As was it devolving into 7 issues of blobs of characters slamming into one another.
"Scale" means nothing to me when it's just a bunch of glorified background fodder punching each other.
edited 30th Apr '16 4:44:29 PM by comicwriter
@Karkat: you misunderstood me. It's not the number of characters I am complaining about; I think it's actually enough. It's how long and big the conflict is. Say all the metaphoric excuse you want, a conflict inside a team that consists in only two battles, one of which is only between two Avengers and has nothing to do with the original reason the conflict started to begin with, does NOT qualify as a war in my mind.
And no, the movie doesn't really take a side. At least I didn't feel it did. That's one thing I'll give to it: Both Sides Have a Point works this time arond.
@comicwriter: I already explained why I liked the comic despite its flaws before, and I won't come back on it. And weither the scale in the comic was worth its flaws is unrelevant here; I am complaining about it for the movie alone here; The trailers sold it as a big conflict that would tear the Avengers apart, and... frankly, it's not. As I said, they only have TWO battles. Plus they crack jokes as usual during the first, and they already are on their way to reconciliation by the end. Much like Age of Ultron, the impact feels a bit lessened.
edited 30th Apr '16 4:56:22 PM by Theokal3
I'd say it's worth considering that the issue isn't over, the accords still stand, Cap's team are still fugitives, hell I think it's been said that there may be fallout in Ao S, likewise it might impact the Newflix shows. This isn't like Ao U where the "age" ended after a week, Civil War the film ended with the Civil War still ongoing.
edited 30th Apr '16 5:17:09 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBack on the subject of that clip between Vision and Ultron, that scene solidified that Vision was the best thing about that movie and it was also the only scene where Ultron wasn't the worst thing.
My various fanfics.To answer the question someone asked, the movie doesn't really take sides, but, well, it is hard to blame Cap for what he does while Tony makes one or two very questionable decisions. But you understand at any point why the characters do what they do. I also disagree with the notion that there are no consequences. Or that it is not enough of a war. It is exactly as much as a war as I would expect it from a group of people who are actually friends.
@Silasw: I don't know. That version of the Civil War is explicitly stated to be about the Avengers and the Avengers only, not superheroes as a whole. So the way I understand it, it feels like it will only affect them and not change much for the other vigilantes (who already were treated as illegal in Daredevil's case anyway). Agents of SHIELD is in no danger because its members, superpowered or not, ALREADY work for the government (even if it no longer is the case in the eyes of the public) and even assuming the whole thing extend to more than the Avengers, Daredevil shouldn't be in a different situation than before because while definitely badass, he is not someone with Avenger-level powers. Hell, as far as most people are concerned, he doesn't even have powers, since him being blind isn't something everyone is aware of in-universe; for all they know he is just a guy in a red suit who's really good at punching thugs.
That, and considering how disappointing Agents of SHIELD's tie-in to Age of Ultron was, I wouldn't expect too much from them saying Civil War will have repercussions on the series.
edited 1st May '16 1:48:36 AM by Theokal3
All TV shows have already set up the basics for the Sokovia accord becoming an issue down the line. SHIELD is currently not officially working for the government so yes, this might become an issue in the upcoming episodes, especially if the fallen Agent is who I think it will be, and in the Netflix shows Foggy was just hired specifically because Hogard expects more cases involving Superpowered people waiting in the woodwork.
.... Wait, what do you mean, who you think it will be? I don't see how that fallen angel thing's a big mystery they are building up to. It's pretty obvious this is referring to Daisy being infected. I mean, they even have a promotion with her picture standing above that subtitle
And again, yes I see your point. Problem is that the Sokovia Accords as presented in this movie are explicitly stated to be about the Avengers only. Officially, SHIELD doesn't even exists anymore, so even if people don't know they work for the government it'd hardly become an issue, especially since only a very few of them actually have powers. And in the case of the Netflix show, that's my point: superpowered (or non-superpowered for the matter) vigilantes ALREADY are illegal, so what will it change?
edited 1st May '16 2:18:18 AM by Theokal3
I have not been keeping up but they've already confirmed registration will affect the show. Right here
(spoilers if you haven't seen the movie).
You know, something just occurred to me. We've had three movies with Hawkeye in them (four if you count his appearance in Thor)... and not one "arrow to the knee" joke. Not even from Tony. Hell, as far as I've seen, not even in fanfiction. I'm actually a little disappointed.
And for those of you who are going to deride me for that, well. I never claimed to have taste or sophistication
.

Yeah, I get that it's not a BAD thing that it's different than the comic, but if that's what you got from my review, then you haven't read the full thing. My problem isn't that it's not like the comic, I am fine with that. It's that it doesn't have the IMPACT it's supposed to have. It's not a bad Civil War adaptation because it's different; it's a bad Civil War adaptation because there isn't a Civil War. The conflict, at least I feel, doesn't have enough scale or impact to qualify as a "war".
edited 30th Apr '16 4:41:25 PM by Theokal3