The Pym/Stark feud. Civil War is the first film since Ant-Man to potentially refer to it, and I think this belongs under Fridge Brilliance;
When Stark meets Scott Lang imprisoned on the Raft, he spits "Hank Pym always said you never can trust a Stark!" Stark’s only response was, "Who are you?", which lets the air right out of Lang's tires. Except, considering how important both their companies were - and the way Stark Industries is referred to in Ant-Man - the Stark/Pym feud must have been even more infamous than the rivalry of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs ever was. Even if Tony had no idea who Scott is (which would be kind of dumb, given how he’s the reason every one of them is there), he knew who Hank Pym is — and he said that Hank was Beneath Suspicion. Was there any more vitriolic way possible for Tony to Kick Them While They Are Down?
Play-Along Prisoner: The cell wasn't strong enough to hold Bucky; he stayed put as long as he did out of a desire to cooperate, and only tried to escape when Zemo began reciting the Trigger Phrase.
I don't know if this is accurate for two reasons:
1. Bucky was surrounded by armed guards at pretty much all times. If he tried to break through the cell, he'd have to fight his way through machine-gun fire from every direction. Possible for a superhuman, but probably not likely.
2. I think I heard that the cell was designed to deliver a strong electric shock if Bucky moved or broke through his restraints, and the reason it didn't do so while Zemo read the Trigger Phrase is because there was no electricity to power it. I'm not positive, though, and I don't remember hearing that in the movie— maybe someone got the info from the DVD commentary or an article or something.
I figured I'd ask here before I actually edit the entry.
Edited by RayAP9 System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Hide / Show Replies
You are right on both point. The electric shock was the main thing that kept Bucky in check. With the power down, all was left was the cell. He wasn't trying to escape before that, true, but it's unlikely he would have without Zemo's machinations. The example is iffy.
When Zemo triggers Bucky after the latter has been arrested, Bucky attempts to break out of his cell to stop him. Just as Bucky knocks the cell door off its hinges (and can now actually get to Zemo), he just barely gets in the final word of Bucky's Trigger Phrase. Had Zemo been a second later than he was, Bucky may have ripped his head off.
Does this qualify as Just in Time?
System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Hide / Show Replies
No, because that's when the heroes WIN at the last second.
It could be an inversion, but I think it better fits under You Can't Thwart Stage One.
Do We Have This One: Vision puts forward "an equation" to put a realistic spin on the Superhero Paradox - "Why do these things keep happening?";
- In the 8 years since Mr. Stark announced himself as Iron Man, the number of known enhanced persons has grown exponentially. And during the same period, a number of potentially world-ending events has risen at a commensurable rate. ...I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe. Oversight... Oversight is not an idea that can be dismissed out of hand.
- The First Avenger: Johann Schmidt believes that there is a great power hidden in the earth, left by the gods, waiting to be seized by a superior man. So when he hears about Erskine's formula and what it can do, he cannot resist. Schmidt must become that superior man. He uses Erskine's formula, and thus becomes the Red Skull. Erskine thus searches for a force to counter him - a good man to overcome his evil.
- Iron Man 1: Stane wants control of Stark Enterprises, and gives terrorists "trinkets to kill a prince". Stark thus creates the first Iron Man armor to overcome the terrorists, and ultimately overcome Stane.
- The Incredible Hulk: Ross wants more Super Soldiers, and lies to Banner so he will help make it work. Instead, it creates the Hulk. Banner realizes that Ross wants to use the Hulk as a weapon, and flees him. Ross empowers Blonsky, and ultimately he loses control of him and Banner has to step forward and stop him.
- Iron Man 2: Hammer wants the Iron Man suits. Vanko wants revenge because Stark's father deported his... because Stark wanted to keep control of Arc Reactor technology. Hammer recruits Vanko, empowers him, and Stark has to stop him.
- The Avengers: Everyone wants the Tesseract. Everyone fights over the Tesseract. The Avengers make sure it goes to Asgard.
- Iron Man 3: ...This really comes down to Stark creating his own demons again. He treated Killian like dirt, Killian lost his mind in his drive for revenge, explosions everywhere.
- The Winter Soldier: HYDRA created a world so chaotic that humanity is finally ready to sacrifice its freedom to gain its security. Captain America threw his mighty shield at them.
- Guardians of the Galaxy: (beyond the Avengers' knowledge, but it still fits the theme) Ronan wants the orb, so he can destroy his enemies. The Guardians stop him.
- Ant-Man: Cross wants the Pym Particle. Pym recruits Lang to stop him.
- Age of Ultron: Stark wanted to put "a suit of armor around the world". Said armor became Ultron, and they had to create Vision to stop him.
...It's not that strength invites conflict. It's that strength is only discovered in conflict. Villains Act, Heroes React.
Vision is blaming the flies for the garbage. Is there a trope for someone being "believes black is white" levels of wrong?
Especially since the repeated theme is that it's the villains who seek "oversight" - AKA control of a great power - and the heroes have to stop them? And if a hero is not available, new ones rise to the challenge?
Edited by Kalaong Hide / Show Replies
Thats a one-sided and arguable way of looking at it. A lot of that is your opinion, so I'm not seeing any reason it should be on the page.
It's basically passionate Fan Wank.
And Vision isn't even definitively saying it is a causal relationship. He says that there may be causality, and therefore you can't dismiss oversight out of hand.
All he's really saying is, "Well, something is happening, so we should consider all our options."
Just to be clear, do we know this is a case of following the leader, or are we assuming?
Hide / Show Replies
That kind of trope usually is added on assumption.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
That seems... like a really bad example for Follow the Leader.
Especially since Batman v. Superman is a Follow the Leader to The Avengers. I say axe it.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
For what it's worth, the rumored plans for CA 3 were wildly different early on, and the switch to Civil War happened after the announcement of Batman v Superman.
All this might be a case of Red Herring with marketing purposes (now which purposes is anyone's guess since they dropped it soon after), of course, but there's no denying that the switch in marketing (if it was, indeed, a red herring) was to directly compete against DC's movie.
But all of this sounds like reaching to me, it's clear that Marvel changed its plans after DC announced such an obvious cash-grab concept in the same date of their own movie so it sounds like Follow the Leader indeed. Which I don't see why it's a bad thing, for that matter. Competition builds quality and both movies might be helped in trying to be better than the other.
Edited by 190.96.181.187
I highly doubt it's Follow the Leader. Given how obviously Marvel plans their movies in advance, and the claim this movie will build off of plot developments from Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron, I think this is the plan all along. The reveal event for Phase 3 had the guy even mocking that the subtitle "Serpent Society" was obviously fake, and there have been rumors of them adapting Civil War for months.
I just don't feel like Dueling Movies does not a Follow the Leader make. Especially factoring A: How far in advance the MCU is planning things and B: How successful it's been in its own right (why would it follow a less successful leader? Avengers is the most successful hero movie by a long shot. And GOG shows Marvel is more than fine with just doing its own thing).
Honestly, it just seems like Dueling Movies with Surprisingly Similar Stories to me. Dumb the movies down as much as that entry does and of course they sound similar.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Can we pull this yet?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
- The Meddling Kids Are Useless: Captain America has a big, complex problem: large numbers of people are resentful of the collateral damage caused by the Avengers, and the UN sanctioned the "Sokovia Accords" to oversight them, which he considers to be fundamentally wrong. By the end of the story, none of those problems was fixed.
This was removed as trope misuse, but I think it is fitting. As described, there is a huge problem, and the main characters get in a lot of exiting stuff, but ultimately they do not solve the problem. The trope also clarifies that it does not have to be about kids, but about the main characters.
Ultimate Secret Wars Hide / Show Replies
I'd say it's only half accurate.
The main conflict of the film isn't actually the eponymous Civil War. The Civil War is just a story engine. Yes there was no resolution, but that wasn't the main plot.
The main plot was Zemo's plan—and that's where I find this half-true. The Avengers themselves were ineffectual at doing anything to stop Zemo, but Black Panther wasn't. It is solely because of him that we got anything approaching sweet in the Bittersweet Ending.
The trope is very much misused. Besides the point KingZeal makes above, the trope is about the main protagonists having little to do with actually resolving the conflict, not them failing to do so. The conflict has to be resolved by another, more competent party than the main characters. Here, it is shoehorning of the first order.
Would Marisa Tomei also count as a Casting Gag (besides the more noticeable Adaptational Attractiveness)?
In that sense, Tony Stark's interaction with May and his remarks on her attractiveness would also be references to "Only You" (in which they played the romantic couple) and their former real-life relashionship.
Any tropes for the fact that Captain America is apparently unaffected by noxious gas? Something like The Needless, maybe? I never even remember this being part of his set of abilities.
System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Hide / Show Replies
That just sounds like it falls under his general Super-Soldier abilities.
- Bucky asks Sam to move his seat up while they're in the VW Beetle together, implying that Bucky's uncomfortable. When Bucky was on ice as the Winter Soldier
, he presumably was standing or laying, legs extended. He may have developed an aversion to cramped spaces or having to sit for extended periods of time without stretching his legs.
Tell me if I'm crazy and this actually kinda makes enough sense to throw on the Fridge page. I mean, Fridge is pretty ambiguous, right?
Part of me feels like it's clever, part of me feels like it's stupid as fuck. Try to be nice. The part of me that thinks it's clever is a little sensitive.
Edited by RayAP9 System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Hide / Show Replies
Overthinking it. Not every minor line and aside is some nod to the character's backstory and psychological analysis.
Bucky: I didn't kill your father...
T'Challa: Then why did you run?
Does that count as an Armor-Piercing Question?
Edited by RayAP9 System Specs: GPU, CPU, Dell Inspiron laptop, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Hide / Show Replies
No. Because it didn't crack Bucky's mental defenses or make him question his perspective. Bucky still knew he was innocent. He just knew, at that point, that no answer he gave would be good enough for T'Challa.
It's also a Converse Error on T'Challa's part, because it never crosses his mind that an innocent man, who knows there are orders to shoot him on sight, would run from men with guns. And from a guy in a Panther suit (nobody knew it was T'Challa at first) who is trying to kill him out of nowhere.
Edited by KingZeal
I think the Armor-Piercing Question should be when Iron Man angrily asks Cap about whether he knew about The Winter Soldier being behind his parents' deaths. Cap uncomfortably paused before finally admitting it.
How would the reveal of greater collateral damage during the Battle of New York and Project INSIGHT not be Diabolus ex Machina?
As mentioned, during the former it's shown that the Avengers did everything they could to evacuate—and that was BEFORE the Hulk arrived. The collateral damage he caused was essentially an unavoidable Godzilla Threshold, since they NEEDED him to win. Same thing for Project INSIGHT—what other options did they have, considering how little time there was?
This also goes for them being blamed for those two events in the first place. Those were both caused by SHIELD.
Hide / Show Replies
This looks like a shoehorning of Diabolus ex Machina. There's probably an example here, but it certainly applies to a different trope.
Shoehorning? I'm not seeing how. From what I can tell, it fits the description.
It's Inferred Holocaust brought to light. Not sure if there's a trope for that.
Is it just me, or is the page a bit skewed in terms of which group we're siding with? For example: Tony being listed as Lawful Stupid and an Well-Intentioned Extremist. The opinions about the conflict, from what I gathered, aren't anti-Tony and pro-Steve. Sure, it's Steve's movie, but still.
Hide / Show Replies
Personally, I'm inclined to be on Team Iron Man, but I feel that Tony does take some things too far in the film. Sure, he truly wants to help reduce the collateral damage and keeps the Avengers as a team instead of breaking off into two sides, but keeping Wanda locked inside the Avengers Facility is, to me, kind of unnecessary, which is why I think he fits in the Well-Intentioned Extremist trope. He means well, but he just wants everyone to agree with his decision whether they like it or not, just as Hawkeye claimed when they meet in the Raft.
But yeah, looking back, his good qualities do outshine the bad (aside from that moment regarding his parents and Bucky thing in the finale...). He's willing to make compromise where he can (ironically, what Sharon tells Steve to do during Peggy's funeral) and uses violence as a last resort. So it's up to people to see if it disqualifies him of being a Well-Intentioned Extremist or not.
As for the Lawful Stupid trope...well, I have no idea about that. Just gotta wait for the troper who added it in.
Edited by Willy2537
The main issue I have with it is that the end of the movie glosses over the fact that The Reveal demonstrates WHY Steve's position is no more correct: Steve was wrong.
To be fair, Steve was convinced that the fate of the world was at stake and thus the ends justified the means. His stance is "what happens when we need to fight and bureaucrats won't let us?" But his actions at the end demonstrate that the opposite is true too: what happens when you think you need to run off and screw the rules, but it's a false alarm and that only makes things worse?
Personally, I think the story did a good job of showing how both characters were wrong, but no time is given to state: "Hey wait, if Steve was wrong (even though he meant well), maybe we SHOULDN'T rely on our own gut feelings to fight crime."
Edited by KingZeal
Personally, I believe the whole 'Steve goes rogue' thing is because of the unfortunate timing of Zemo's plan. If Zemo hadn't blow up the Vienna conference and frames Bucky for it, the whole world wouldn't have gone looking for Bucky and forces Steve to break the laws to save him (because, y'know, best friends and stuff). He acts upon this on a more personal, emotional level than the logical stance about going into somewhere people don't let you to save a man's life. (Sorry for my poor English here if there's any mistake). But to be fair, it is the skirmish that happened between T'Challa, Steve and Bucky that drives Steve to face the fact that acting on your own instincts sometimes cause more harm than good, and he's willing to consider signing the accords. Problem is, that's where Tony's extreme side comes in. He reveals to Steve that he keeps Wanda under house arrest as a result of her action accidentally make people die in Nigeria (even though the fact is that if she hadn't do anything, more people and Steve would have been killed instead), and that disgusts Steve so much, he goes back to acting on his instincts again because he couldn't trust Tony to handle the Avengers on his own terms. The whole fiasco happened because both sides take things to the extreme (some could also argue that they both acted on a emotional level rather than logical level; Tony over guilt of what happened in Sokovia, Steve over Bucky's safety) while believing what they do is right. That's why I think they are both Well-Intentioned Extremists. In the end, neither side is completely in the right because they take some actions too far, and the result is disastrous even before they even go to Siberia's Winter Soldier base.
So does that mean we should remove Well-Intentioned Extremist trope altogether? Or just rewording it and also adds Steve to the list as well?
Edited by Willy2537
I would just edit it. Lawful Stupid should be eliminated entirely in my opinion.
Figured I'd take this here, rather than start an edit war. I think Zemo is definitely a Hero Antagonist. The standard, as best I understand it, is that the story told from his perspective would cast him as the hero. For Zemo, I'd say that's a big fat yes.
He Mercy Kills the Super Soldiers so they can't hurt anyone else, kills a Hydra agent (openly saying that Hydra deserved to be destroyed), and tries to stop the forces that created Ultron. Revenge was A motivation, but not the only one by a long shot.
He's an Anti-Hero, yes, but I'd say he's still well within hero territory. That applies doublythis this movie, where we have conflict between multiple heroic ideologies. His is another one.
Edited by backpack Hide / Show Replies
Name one point in the movie where he says he's getting back at the Avengers to prevent another Ultron, because he never does. He sums up his motives at the end and it's very clear he's only targeting them out of personal revenge, not moral responsibility. He bombs the UN convention and sets a murderous Bucky loose. These are the actions of a villain, plain and simple. It's pure Draco in Leather Pants to cast him as a hero.
At no point Zemo says he wanted to stop the Avengers from creating another Ultron-like disaster, all he admits is that he wants revenge for what happened to his family. Killing the Winter Soldiers isn't treated as a Mercy Kill either, and it's not really clear what'd have happened to the Hydra agent had it cooperated. All in all I don't find Zemo an Anti-Hero at all. Anti-Villain definitely but Hero no...
Honestly, I think it's a case where it didn't need to be stated. His family was killed by Ultron, and in his Motive Rant he discusses the horror that a superhero conflict created in his homeland.
I can't see any non-heroic reason to kill the Super Soldiers. They had nothing to do with the deaths of his family.
Except it does need to be stated, otherwise you're pulling motives out of thin air to justify your point. Again, at no point does he claim it's for a greater good. He's doing it specifically because the Avengers hurt his family and he wants revenge. He says that outright. Just because he kills the super soldiers does not automatically make him a good guy, because, again, he bombed the UN. He murdered an innocent man just to get to Bucky. These actions are purely villainous.
While I still think murdering innocents for The Greater Good could be an Anti-Villain trait, it's clear I'm outvotted here, so feel free to delete it. I put it under YMMV as an Alternate Character Interpretation, I suppose that should be less controversial.
Edited by backpack
Why does everything involving Spider-Man have the spoiler filter? Everyone knew he was going to be in the movie and his presence doesn't really spoil the plot. Is it really really to filter out his name for every quote he says in the movie?
Edited by kquinn0830
Guys I wanna make an addition to the shout-outs:
- At one point during the airport brawl, Black Panther performs what appears to be the Tatsumaki Senpukyaku.
In case you don't remember, dude jumps into the air, kicks and spins, three times if I recall. Seems legit, or nah?
Hide / Show Replies
A shout-out has to be deliberate. I don't know what you're describing, but I doubt it was an intentional reference by the filmmakers.
It's the hurricane kick from Street Fighter, Ryu and Ken have it as one of their signature moves. Should've been more specific, sorry
.....
I will comment about the Five-Man Band placement. Overall, it is agreeable for the big fight that Scarlet Witch took The Big Guy position for one thing: She's extremely immobile, having to sacrifice her mobility that she used in the beginning of the movie with her high firepower.
Not sure if Black Panther fits Big Guy. However, Ant Man and Spider Man fits more as The Sixth Ranger, since they were completely new recruits brought solely for the fight. They also don't appear in the promotional image.
Edited by ChrisX Hide / Show Replies
As usual, this trope would need considerable amount of shoehorning to fit. Better keep it commented out than have endless arguments over it.
I don't feel comfortable with Spiritual Antithesis being on the main page. Looking at the examples, it seems to fit much more in YMMV.
Should the cast/character folder in the description stay? A little while ago I asked in ATT about putting such a folder in the description of a different page and was told not to. The one I asked about was just just a character folder, though.
My stories on AO3.
Velocifabulous
The "Continuity Nod" trope is all weird. The items appear in the edit page, but not on the work page proper. Anyone can fix this? I don't know how.
Hide / Show Replies
The bits that are porceeded by %% don't show up on the page, as you can read below hollygoolightly used the that formatting to hide any spoilers till the day of the films internationial release whne the %% can be removed
Working on cleaning up List of Shows That Need Summary
I've just marked out a whole bunch of spoilers (so, be careful when you're editing, most of them are still there). I don't think these have to be added to the movie's main page before it has been released anywhere.
From what I heard, it sounds like Darker and Edgier and Downer Ending apply here... is it true? (I didn't list them myself coz I want all the details first)
Edited by Ghostkaiba297 Hide / Show Replies
Is it too early to start making spoilerish edits to the Civil War pages, or can I add them so long as they're hidden? I went to one of the screenings this week and could update lots of the info.
Edited by pepsimax Hide / Show Replies
Please refrain. It prevents everyone else from making edits, since you can't hide anything from the edit page. And we're still a ways out.
Not to mention that if we let people edit pages based on exclusive pre-release info, we have no means of making sure they're actually true. Not saying you'd make anything up, but it's part of the reason it's a bad idea in general.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Ah, alright. I'm guessing detailed edits have to wait till the international release?
Is there any reason why I can't view the History page properly? It's been listed as "moderator restored to earlier version" ever since the sitewide change, and editing it myself doesn't seem to fix that.
Hide / Show Replies
Seems like it's some issue with the tool that has been reported for fixing.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Can we confirm it's a follow up to both Avengers and Captain America? While it has some themes from Age of Ultron it's being sold as a Captain America sequel not Avengers 2.0.
Edited by Tuvok
Has it actually been confirmed that Tony will be pro-regulation and Steve will be anti-regulation, or is that an assumption based on the comics arc? Thus far, based on MCU canon alone, either alignment seems like a viable possibility.
Hide / Show Replies
Pretty sure. Even without confirmation their stances are pretty clear based on their characters.
Steve: has his whole 'prevent war cause it' and against such government programs like in the Winter soldier.
Tony: has regrets of Ultron and the desire to prevent war before it happens.
Does anybody else realize that the film forgets that Wanda is partially responsible for the destruction Ultron caused more than Tony because she indirectly created Ultron by mind raping Tony, helped Ultron acquire the vibranium, and unleashed a rampaging Hulk on a heavily populated area.