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
I actually like a lot of the Dark World. Loki's parts are great, and his breakdown is just a fantastic scene. Frigga's death is also really strong, and the funeral is great. I wouldn't say it's an amazing movie, but I give it a pretty good score. The lowest MCU movie, for me, is Incredible Hulk, and even that has some strong moments. Hulk's fight scenes are amazing and gritty, and him roaring at the lightning, while unsubtle, is beautifully shot. I still give it an overall favorable review, better than average.
I'm saying that my name here means exactly what you think it does. I'm the kind of person who walks out of even bad movies in the theater going: "You know, that had flaws, but I can definitely see the good parts, and there's potential there!" Me rating a movie poorly is very rare. That said, Batman v Superman offends me more than any movie ever has, so I'm not that much of a pushover.
The incredible Hulk is my least fav MCU movie - most likely because it is the most predictable one of all of them. It is objectively speaking a more solid movie than Thor: The Dark World or Ironman 2, in that it doesn't have a lot in it which I would call outright bad. But it also has nothing in it which truly excites me.
The Dark Word is a hot mess, but what rescues this movie to end up a totally failure is that within a really terrible written movie about Thor and Jane is an outstanding movie about Loki. There is just more stuff which you could out of the movie without loosing anything of importance (basically nearly all scenes on earth) than in Ironman 2...well, actually, the whole villain plot in Ironman 2 is pretty much only there to give Tony an excuse to have action scenes between his struggle with his impending death, but at least Sam Rockwell is entertaining to watch.
I will said Iron man 2 is bad because marvel gave to much on the "the main chararter is everything" since everything is about tony issue and everything take a backseat, worst for me is the deus ex machina to save Tony which was REALLY bad and painfull to see.
Thor movies are just loki movies with thor shoehorn there, im worry that ragnarok wont give Thor more chararterization that the goofball with the hammer.
Also I will said that ironman 3 is underrated, sure it have is faliures but it give Tony the BEST characterization so far, Age of Ultron make him to unlikable and Civil war just kick him down to much
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"My opinion is pretty similar to Swanpride's. Although in this case I prefer the overall average but even quality film to the movie that has some great parts but hits some real terrible lows where the rest was actively painful or boring to watch and the fight choreography was laughably corny.
edited 7th May '17 8:42:57 AM by AlleyOop
Another thing that disappointed me about CW's abandoned subplot is how they acknowledged the fascinating phenomenon of how superheroes create their own antithesis. Or do they? Batman has gone over this in a few things. Most people probably know about the TAS episode with the Arkhan inmates mock trial. But as it pertains to the MCU, they claim supervillain activity has skyrocketed since supers came out into the open.
We all know the real reason for this is because we need interesting things to happen but the way certain series have tackled this from an in-universe perspective is fascinating.
Are the the heroes the greatest evil of them all? Or, at least, why do disasters just seem to spawn all around them?
I would genuinely like future MCU movies to touch more on this line of questioning.
edited 7th May '17 10:12:19 AM by Nikkolas
The MCU actually more or less works on the opposite principle if you think about it. Steve Rogers came about after Red Skull and HYDRA, Thor only came about due Loki's machinations, Ronan's quest for the orb brought the Guardians together, the Avengers were only united because Loki decided to invade Earth, Stark only came to be because Obadiah kidnapped him.
If anything the villains create the heroes. Besides Civil War, Ant-Man (Pym being inavertedly responsible for Cross) and Incredible Hulk (where Banner indirectly leads to the Abomination's creation) are the only ones the hero is really related to the hero's ascension.
I think Vision's argument is less that heroes create villains and more that it is a cyclic thing for both sides. "conflict breeds challenge" as he says, It's escalation. So villains breed heroes who breed villains who breed heroes and so on and so on.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."And Earth having champions is just making Thanos want to go and punch faces all the more
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI don't see how Civil War "abandoned" the Accords angle. Steve's and Tony's conflicting ideas of how to handle the Bucky situation are a case study for the Accords: one side following them and the chain of command, one side going off and handling things themselves with no oversight, and seeing how they pan out.
![]()
That's true. I take no one's side in this movie because it's all personal issues blown up to make them seem like ideological issues. The reason I said the subplot was forgotten was because, by the end, Tony betrays Ross and tries to murder Bucky. You can't claim "we need more oversight" and then try to murder someone.
I don't think you can really separate the personal from the ideological (maybe you should try, but good luck with that). For a lot of people, especially recently, their politics have become deeply rooted in their identity. As much as anything, though, I think the point of Civil War is that these things are not a zero sum game, that if you turn these causes into absolutes, both sides lose out by it. You have to be able to compromise and be able to walk away, and let others walk away.
edited 7th May '17 12:55:20 PM by Unsung
The instant Tony had his own proof he also ignored the accords to pursue his own agenda. In terms of ideology Steve and Tony are evenly matched, but the plot is firmly in favor of the accords, because the characters are too wrapped up in fighting over the accords to see if they work. And because they fight and ignore the accords they end up with the least accomplished at the end.
On the other topic, it's been a thing for a long time that the world creates the superhero, then the superhero creates the supervillain.
How does making the champion of your cause a total hypocrite help make your cause viable, though?
All Stark did for me was show that these regulations won't work. Don't pass laws you can't actually enforce was something I was told a long time ago and it makes sense. Stark shows that, if the supers really want to, they can do whatever they want.
That's why it should be more of an opt-in, voluntary process. I don't think that mandatory registration works as proposed, but if the first draft doesn't work, go back and draft again. This should've been a negotiation process, not just 'sign this or you're done'.
But of course any discussion is out the window once the actual Civil War got underway. Which is the point— Civil War is how things broke down and went wrong. Even heroes are imperfect. You're not supposed to come away from it with the impression that either side is right, but neither are they completely wrong.
![]()
I agree. You don't bully the group that is way stronger than you, you cozy up to them. If humans actually want to contain superhumans, it can only be done with the latter's consent. You don't get consent by forcing it.
I've used that same argument about a few things so I won't disagree. A work of fiction generating discussion and debate is very good. But I personally don't see much to argue here for the reasons I've already stated.
I think that there not being an absolute objective correct answer to the issue of the Accords is entirely the point. People can and do raise arguments on each side based on textual evidence and personal perspective alike and both are equally valid. Similarly I think that both the 'leaders' of the war, Tony and Steve, are both sympathetic but also both flawed.
There is the side issue that I have found across much of Marvel's material that Steve Roger's stance is correct simply because it's Steve who has it - and events will play out in just such a way that he's never just plain wrong. Even mistakes he does make are never entirely his fault. But that's not exclusive to Civil War as a movie nor is it a deal breaker for me, just something of a bugbear of mine.
"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."The Accords as a concept were a good idea - the Avengers are in effect a very powerful US-based private army, and they should not be able to just launch military actions in another country whenever they like.
The Accords as enforced - where breaking them got you sent to a mid-ocean Guantanamo rather than civil liberties, due process, a lawyer and a trial - was dead wrong, and backed up all Steve's objections to the process. On the other had, the fact that Steve invaded a foreign country - a nuclear-armed foreign country no less - to fight a "threat" that never existed, supports Stark's position that the status quo is not acceptable and oversight is needed.
What you need is an agreement whose legitimacy the Avengers accept, and that has an "out" for situations when an imminent crises means it needs to be violated. So if an Avenger signed and then intervened in a foreign situation without authorization, they would need to testify before the UN and prsent evidence supporting the contention that their actions were necessary in order to avert a disaster. Then the UN could rule on whether the danger was enough to justify the action. If the action was unjustified, there would be penalties; if it was justified, it would be accepted.
Of course, under that system Stark and Rogers would both be in some kind of jail because there was no threat that justified their incursion into Russia. But having a trial is essential, and they were wrong, and their actions were extraordinarily dangerous. How, I ask, would the US react if a superpowered private army from Russia showed up in Nevada and started shooting?
edited 7th May '17 1:46:59 PM by Galadriel

My favorite MCU film is Age of Ultron, with Avengers and Civil War tied for second. Guardians 1, Iron Man 3, and Winter Soldier are all tied/competing for third.