Captain America: Civil War (May 6, 2016)

[RIDDICK]

IM was a great film and he was great in Avengers as well.
I've never understood why a bad film ruins earlier films for some folks.

Nothing was said about the ruination of IM or the first film, only that I don't like MCU's Stark any more.

 

[KitFisto]

Nothing was said about the ruination of IM or the first film, only that I don't like MCU's Stark any more.

Well, you said cinematic Stark was ruined. IM is a part of that so I assumed you didn't like any of his appearances anymore. Misunderstood what you meant.

 

[guy66657]

A tad surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Looks like Cap is about to swat Ant-Man.

 

[GasparZizou]

I've never understood why a bad film ruins earlier films for some folks.

Despite this being perfectly and reasonably explained to you a couple times in other threads.

In this case, the over-exposition, and that's putting it lightly, more like the bombardment of Iron Man in the MCU, more specifically, the rancid entries of this character, can very well ruin the rest of the iterations of this character, and I would perfectly understand if that's the case for some people, even more so since this is a cohesive universe and is in canon with it.

For instance, a mediocre and disappointing Thanos can ruin the entire MCU since the whole thing is a set up for that guy.

 

[The Clown Prince]

Looks like we'l meet ant 248, but we'l miss you Antony, lol only a movie like honey i shrunk the kids and ant-man can make you care about an ant, thats just good tv

 

[RIDDICK]

"Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" did.
"Motorbiker-Man" didn't.

It's not even a competition. HIStK is a better and much more entertaining film.

 

[karamazov80]

Stop, Or My Mom Will Shoot > Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

 

[RIDDICK]

 

[EVILFACE]

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids



What garbage.

 

[jye4ever]

Josh Trank is directing Honey I Shrunk My Career.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

 

[jye4ever]

• Scarlet Witch Could Be Crazy In CIVIL WAR

Elizabeth Olsen also confirms Daniel Bruhl is the baddie.
By DEVIN FARACI Sep. 10, 2015

Elizabeth Olsen did an interview with French Premier and, amidst the usual fluffy stuff (this is the darkest Marvel movie, she says, which is a standard talking point when superhero movie actors want to express that the film is good/serious), she revealed that not only is Daniel Bruhl playing the bad guy in the film, maybe her Scarlet Witch character is too.

"She's someone who's more powerful than she's able to control and she ends up going insane because of it. And she's like a wildcard. You never know [if] she's a hero or a villain and that's a very fun part."



​

I'm not quite sure what to make of that quote. Is Wanda going crazy in Civil War?

Rumors have pointed to her inability to control her powers creating a disaster that kickstarts the civil war itself, but is that what she means? Or is this a reference to her comic research? After all, Wanda Maximoff was revealed to be very deeply disturbed at one point, to the level that she unconsciously used her powers to create children for herself and husband The Vision (this is a storyline I'm not wild about and one that has colored the character for decades since).


If she does go crazy that could explain why she's in the D23 footage as being on Cap's team but absent from the concept art that Jeremy Renner posted - perhaps she gets sidelined from the fracas by her own issues.

 

[Spartan Rex]

Scarlet Witch is a difficult character to write for in comics and I would assume in movies as well. Her powers are poorly defined with the best description being " has the mutant ability to alter probability, the outcome as such is never certain and difficult to predict and control." Joss had her pretty much casting hex bolts and the mind control thing was never mentioned in the comics I believe. But Wanda has the potential to be crazy powerful and could easily be written to take out Tony's team and go toe to toe with Thanos himself. So it's probable the Russos didn't want to have to deal with her too much, can't blame them.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Why is every tease for the next movie tauted as "darker"...?

Those seem to be the ones that fail in the MCU.

 

[RIDDICK]

But MCU fails has nothing to do with the "dark" stuff.
AoU had a lot of good and memorable dark moments.

Movies are be bad when they've been poorly written / misdirected / terribly edited / etc.
And I really hope that CW, unlike AoU, is not the case.

 

[xforce]

• CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR Isn’t About Secret Identities

It's barely connected to the comic.
By DEVIN FARACI Sep. 03, 2015

Captain America: Civil War is not about unmasking and secret identities.

In the original comic book crossover that was the crux of the issue, with the government wanting superpowered individuals to register as part of the Superhero Registration Act, and they wanted everybody on file with their full identities revealed and all that. In the course of the story Spider-Man revealed his true ID (an idea so bad the ****ing devil had to get involved to erase it) and Captain America and Iron Man came to blows over it all. With the next Captain America movie having that title - and pitting Cap against Iron Man - it's easy to see why some people think that's the plot of the film. But it isn't, and when io9 ran a lengthy article today about how unmasking is a stupid idea for a movie, I knew I had to say something. And that something is:


Captain America: Civil War is not about unmasking and secret identities.


There is no Registration Act. There are Accords, a global move to govern the supeheroes. After the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, where the Avengers showed up and busted **** in South Africa and Sokovia, many of the world's governments are concerned about a unilateral super-powered strike force that answers to no one now that SHIELD has been destroyed (SHIELD is still gone in Civil War, as evidenced by the fact that Samuel L. Jackson isn't even in the movie). The divide between Captain America and Iron Man boils down to that famous Latin quote that gave us one of the best comic book stories ever:


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the watchmen?


It's similar in some ways to the story of the comic Civil War, but only in the broadest strokes. The main difference is that there are almost no characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with secret identities, rendering all of the registration **** utterly moot. This isn't going to be a movie where Cap and Iron Man fight over whether Daredevil and Spider-Man get to maintain their secret IDs. It's a larger question of responsibility, and to whom these heroes answer. It cuts both ways - who is responsible when the Avengers get into a battle that causes civilian casualties... but also can the Avengers be told by a world governing body not to get involved in a terrible situation where lives are at risk simply because the local government says to stay out? Should superheroes be free to do as they please, ubermensch inflicting their will on the world? Should superheroes be bound by the whims and changing winds of politics, unable to help people simply because a dictator who has a place on the UN Security Council doesn't want anyone interfering in his human rights abuses? It's a rich conflict where both sides are potentially right. It's a conflict that grows out of the two characters: Tony Stark who has become increasingly aware of his responsibility to the world and Steve Rogers who has seen everything he believed in undermined when SHIELD was revealed to be a Hydra front.
And it has nothing to do with secret identities.


Will Captain America: Civil War be good? We wil find out in May. Until then we can be sure of one thing:


Captain America: Civil War is not about unmasking and secret identities.

Great post, the movies have done a great job of translating the spirit of the stories. Looking forward to this one. Read and enjoyed civil war in the comics

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[jye4ever]

Comics CW is just a frame for the movie, if even that.

 

[Wor-Gar]

But MCU fails has nothing to do with the "dark" stuff.
AoU had a lot of good and memorable dark moments.

Movies are be bad when they've been poorly written / misdirected / terribly edited / etc.
And I really hope that CW, unlike AoU, is not the case.

I agree. My point was the word "dark" has just become a marketing tool buzz-word, like "reboot" or "reimagining". It's what you say when you don't really have a good angle on something or a true vision.

That's not to say that CW isn't dark -- its subject matter is heavy enough to be considered dark I suppose -- but the word has been thrown around ever since "Empire" and has gotten a lot of mileage after Nolan's Batman. Same with the word "gritty", though that's become an un-cool word now.

 

[KitFisto]

Why is every tease for the next movie tauted as "darker"...?

Those seem to be the ones that fail in the MCU.

Welcome to almost every movie description in a sequel these days. Every story or character is described as getting "darker" than the previous story and that seems to be what so many people want unfortunately.