• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

I don`t get why everybody loves Marvel`s Civil War and doesn`t love DC`s BvS?

Started by ComicConnoisseur,

193 posts in this topic

fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I don`t get why people care what other people like or dislike.

 

If you don't like what I like, it implicity means that you think I have poor taste. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted

While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

And would it appear they team up again logically after the events of cinema Civil War?

 

I haven't seen it yet. So not sure how that plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Civil War starts with General Ross showing the Avengers all the carnage that has resulted from their previous adventures, and informing them of the new United Nations oversight. The idea that those that signed the document would then battle those that didn't seems kind of silly. A battle is a battle, and can cause damage and injury regardless of what instigated it. For the most part, Civil War conveniently sidesteps that by having their battles occur in wide-open spaces where innocents won't be hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Civil War starts with General Ross showing the Avengers all the carnage that has resulted from their previous adventures, and informing them of the new United Nations oversight. The idea that those that signed the document would then battle those that didn't seems kind of silly. A battle is a battle, and can cause damage and injury regardless of what instigated it. For the most part, Civil War conveniently sidesteps that by having their battles occur in wide-open spaces where innocents won't be hurt.

 

Ah...ok. That makes more sense. Haven't seen the movie yet. :blush:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chezmtghut

chezmtghut

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Civil War starts with General Ross showing the Avengers all the carnage that has resulted from their previous adventures, and informing them of the new United Nations oversight. The idea that those that signed the document would then battle those that didn't seems kind of silly. A battle is a battle, and can cause damage and injury regardless of what instigated it. For the most part, Civil War conveniently sidesteps that by having their battles occur in wide-open spaces where innocents won't be hurt.

Pretty sure the aim was to avoid casualties, or they would just be proving Ross right. That's why Wanda was locked in her room. It would have made them all look pretty bad if they destroyed a city to enforce/rebuke this new policy, when the whole point was that the Avengers have been causing too many casualties. Going after Cap in a populated area would have looked pretty careless on Iron Man's part.

 

If you're in the Army & go rogue, it's their position to bring you in. Doesn't seem silly to me. Seems on point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Civil War starts with General Ross showing the Avengers all the carnage that has resulted from their previous adventures, and informing them of the new United Nations oversight. The idea that those that signed the document would then battle those that didn't seems kind of silly. A battle is a battle, and can cause damage and injury regardless of what instigated it. For the most part, Civil War conveniently sidesteps that by having their battles occur in wide-open spaces where innocents won't be hurt.

Pretty sure the aim was to avoid casualties, or they would just be proving Ross right. That's why Wanda was locked in her room. It would have made them all look pretty bad if they destroyed a city to enforce/rebuke this new policy, when the whole point was that the Avengers have been causing too many casualties. Going after Cap in a populated area would have looked pretty careless on Iron Man's part.

 

If you're in the Army & go rogue, it's their position to bring you in. Doesn't seem silly to me. Seems on point.

 

They're not in the army. This is a group of people that know each other very well. They're friends. If Cap is protecting Bucky after the tragic events that occur in the film, he must have a darn good reason. I would think Team Iron Man would realize that, and have a conversation with Cap, rather than stating "hand him over, or else".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chezmtghut

chezmtghut

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Civil War starts with General Ross showing the Avengers all the carnage that has resulted from their previous adventures, and informing them of the new United Nations oversight. The idea that those that signed the document would then battle those that didn't seems kind of silly. A battle is a battle, and can cause damage and injury regardless of what instigated it. For the most part, Civil War conveniently sidesteps that by having their battles occur in wide-open spaces where innocents won't be hurt.

Pretty sure the aim was to avoid casualties, or they would just be proving Ross right. That's why Wanda was locked in her room. It would have made them all look pretty bad if they destroyed a city to enforce/rebuke this new policy, when the whole point was that the Avengers have been causing too many casualties. Going after Cap in a populated area would have looked pretty careless on Iron Man's part.

 

If you're in the Army & go rogue, it's their position to bring you in. Doesn't seem silly to me. Seems on point.

 

They're not in the army. This is a group of people that know each other very well. They're friends. If Cap is protecting Bucky after the tragic events that occur in the film, he must have a darn good reason. I would think Team Iron Man would realize that, and have a conversation with Cap, rather than stating "hand him over, or else".

 

 

They may not be in the Army but they do act as a Military unit. They never even met before the 1st Avengers & were brought together in a military strategy to protect the world against threats. Do you not think that Military comrades become close friends after fighting in combat together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doktor

Doktor

Posted
Posted

Iron Man, now operating under UN command thanks to signing onto the Accords, likely had to get a permission for engagement, before attacking. Hence why someone made mention of the fact that the airport had been evacuated. It was likely that Iron Man didn't have a permission to engage Cap's team until the evacuation was complete & only when that was done was he given the green light. That Cap was on the tarmac was convenient for Tony's team. It could have just as easily been in the terminal (except Cap's team wouldn't really have been able to exactly blend in in the terminal & had no intention of entering it)

 

But the reason that they were "conveniently" fighting in a place without worrying about civilian casualties was because I guarantee that Iron Man did not have permission to engage Cap's team until they were in a location without civilians present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Iron Man, now operating under UN command thanks to signing onto the Accords, likely had to get a permission for engagement, before attacking. Hence why someone made mention of the fact that the airport had been evacuated. It was likely that Iron Man didn't have a permission to engage Cap's team until the evacuation was complete & only when that was done was he given the green light. That Cap was on the tarmac was convenient for Tony's team. It could have just as easily been in the terminal (except Cap's team wouldn't really have been able to exactly blend in in the terminal & had no intention of entering it)

 

But the reason that they were "conveniently" fighting in a place without worrying about civilian casualties was because I guarantee that Iron Man did not have permission to engage Cap's team until they were in a location without civilians present.

 

Doesn't it seem a bit out of character for Iron Man to 1)wait for permission to engage, and 2)to attack friends rather trying to understand why they're seemingly harboring a fugitive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Civil War starts with General Ross showing the Avengers all the carnage that has resulted from their previous adventures, and informing them of the new United Nations oversight. The idea that those that signed the document would then battle those that didn't seems kind of silly. A battle is a battle, and can cause damage and injury regardless of what instigated it. For the most part, Civil War conveniently sidesteps that by having their battles occur in wide-open spaces where innocents won't be hurt.

Pretty sure the aim was to avoid casualties, or they would just be proving Ross right. That's why Wanda was locked in her room. It would have made them all look pretty bad if they destroyed a city to enforce/rebuke this new policy, when the whole point was that the Avengers have been causing too many casualties. Going after Cap in a populated area would have looked pretty careless on Iron Man's part.

 

If you're in the Army & go rogue, it's their position to bring you in. Doesn't seem silly to me. Seems on point.

 

They're not in the army. This is a group of people that know each other very well. They're friends. If Cap is protecting Bucky after the tragic events that occur in the film, he must have a darn good reason. I would think Team Iron Man would realize that, and have a conversation with Cap, rather than stating "hand him over, or else".

 

 

They may not be in the Army but they do act as a Military unit. They never even met before the 1st Avengers & were brought together in a military strategy to protect the world against threats. Do you not think that Military comrades become close friends after fighting in combat together?

 

Sure, I get that. But I still don't buy that Team Iron Man would be so quick to attack Team Cap rather than trying to understand why Cap is protecting Bucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatsby77

Gatsby77

Posted
Posted

Haven't seen it, but:

 

a) Acting that impulsively to try to capture Bucky seems in Stark's character after what he pulled in Age of Ultron - he basically betrayed them by choosing to upload / create Ultron in the first place.

 

b) If they follow the story of Civil War & its aftermath in the film universe, the "lets have them fight in non-urban or evacuated spaces" directive will be moot after Hulk returns from his Planet Hulk solo movie to take them all out in Avengers 5: World War Hulk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chezmtghut

chezmtghut

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I was re-watching Ultron last night and the Hulk/IM battle took place right in the middle of a city and there was plenty of carnage.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Civil War starts with General Ross showing the Avengers all the carnage that has resulted from their previous adventures, and informing them of the new United Nations oversight. The idea that those that signed the document would then battle those that didn't seems kind of silly. A battle is a battle, and can cause damage and injury regardless of what instigated it. For the most part, Civil War conveniently sidesteps that by having their battles occur in wide-open spaces where innocents won't be hurt.

Pretty sure the aim was to avoid casualties, or they would just be proving Ross right. That's why Wanda was locked in her room. It would have made them all look pretty bad if they destroyed a city to enforce/rebuke this new policy, when the whole point was that the Avengers have been causing too many casualties. Going after Cap in a populated area would have looked pretty careless on Iron Man's part.

 

If you're in the Army & go rogue, it's their position to bring you in. Doesn't seem silly to me. Seems on point.

 

They're not in the army. This is a group of people that know each other very well. They're friends. If Cap is protecting Bucky after the tragic events that occur in the film, he must have a darn good reason. I would think Team Iron Man would realize that, and have a conversation with Cap, rather than stating "hand him over, or else".

 

 

They may not be in the Army but they do act as a Military unit. They never even met before the 1st Avengers & were brought together in a military strategy to protect the world against threats. Do you not think that Military comrades become close friends after fighting in combat together?

 

Sure, I get that. But I still don't buy that Team Iron Man would be so quick to attack Team Cap rather than trying to understand why Cap is protecting Bucky.

 

Iron Man has always been portrayed as impulsive from what I remember. I think it is very much in his character to react the way he did.

 

Stark knew Cap was going to try reasoning with Bucky in hopes of exonerating him, rather than capturing him. After all, Cap had already helped Bucky escape custody & attack military personnel in the process.

 

If Stark & Bucky had mom's with the same name, causing the fight to suddenly end, then I would agree that it was both convenient & silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
While watching Civil War, I kept wondering, would these guys, with all that they've been through, really beat the out of each other? I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

 

It's pretty convenient that their big battles all occur in wide-open spaces, like an airport tarmac. If they were in the middle of the city, they run the risk of damage to property and injury to innocent bystanders, the very reason the government wanted oversight in the first place.

 

I'm thinking that you've never read a super-hero comic book :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paperheart

paperheart

Posted
Posted
Honestly I think it comes down to this... and I know the OP very badly wants everyone to love BvS, and if HE loved it? If anyone loved it? They don't need to apologize. Shoot, I love the movie Ishtar (look it up kiddies - Also, check it out... it's really funny). Don't apologize for something you like.

 

That being said? You can't WILL people to like a flawed movie, or try to bring down a better movie to raise up a movie you like. Just like what you like and be happy.

 

 

Here's how I see it.

 

DC has KILLED IT on the TV Universe. Fabulous. But they made a choice not to connect that to its cinematic universe. Fine.

 

DC KILLED IT with the Nolan trilogy. However, it wasn't a set of movies that they felt were something they could use for universe building. So while they were being universally lauded, they were also falling incredibly far behind Marvel who was carefully building a universe on all fronts. Movies, TV, even streaming now.

 

The end result?

 

When we get a movie like Civil War - which was phenomenal... every beat in that movie is earned. Every small character moment is something that calls back to something we know about that CINEMATIC version of that character. We understand WHY these conflicts happen, and HOW these personalities could come to this. The have weight to them. Yes, those of us who love the comics know even more in the background... but increasingly with such a rich cinematic history... it's less and less important to know that. You can know Steve Rogers from the hours you've seen him on screen. You know Tony Stark too. When they fight in this movie, you don't want them to lose their friendship. Like I said it's well earned.

 

BvS? Any depth to that movie we as comic fans had to BRING to it from our knowledge of the comic characters... because otherwise we're getting it from very limited screen time and not much else. The Batman Superman fight is resolved because their mothers are both named Martha? I mean honestly... I love the characters. I thought Affleck was a great Batman. But it's hard to argue that movie had any of the real impact of Civil War. And certainly not for people who just are basing it on the movies.

 

I do believe that Civil War is the movie Zack Snyder THOUGHT he was making with BvS... but because of the great success of TV and the Nolan trilogy they tried to skip all the steps Marvel took to get to the place where they could make that movie. And that's why on a number of levels it was a let down.

 

 

Was it still fun to see those characters on the screen? Sure. But was it a disappointment? To me it was. If it wasn't to you? Great. You're lucky. But, no OP, I don't think there's any Marvel vs DC bias. I just think that you perhaps have such a love for the DC characters that you're bringing that knowledge and love to the viewing of BvS and seeing more than what was on the screen... and that's why your reaction to it was different than many others who looked at it on it's own merits. But like I said, you're entitled to do that, and if you enjoyed it, I think that's great.

I think there is. No way is Civil War three times better than BvS!

That`s the differential if we go by Rotten Tomatoes.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice :27%

Captain America: Civil War :90%

:o

If someone asks me which of the two I want to see again. I am going with BvS!

Plus, they are at least will be offering me an R rated version next.

 

Another thing I want to point out I am not sold yet on Civil War`s final box office.

I will not be shocked if it doesn`t beat BvS at the box office!

I have a funny feeling Civil War`s box office is front-loaded.

btw

I loved Civil War,but no way is it three times better than BvS! That`s my beef!

Clearly there is a bias just like there is a bias among Apple users over PC users!

To give BvS a 27% is unfathomable!

 

 

:roflmao:

 

Cap:CW int'l BO will pass BvS today and it's still doing nearly $20MM a day internationally during the week. BvS was the second most front loaded superhero movie of the 84 tracked by BO mojo- it couldn't even do 2x it's opening weekend domestically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cat-Man_America

Cat-Man_America

Posted
Posted

The logic of Civil War is pretty solid. It actually comes from two rational points of view that are complicated by personality conflicts.

 

Tony Stark's guilt over having made reckless decisions, his personal losses from his parents to his bad relationships and Pepper Potts being out of his life. Tony's views are shaped from a civilian background, wealth, influence and zero accountability. He never yielded to anyone's authority before which played heavily on his conscience when bad things happened due to decisions he made. I think he was looking for guidance and General Ross's UN resolution provided just the answer he was looking for.

 

Cap comes from a patriotic military background, pre-UN. He's a soldier trained by the U.S. military to fight under United States authority, leaving no man behind. Bucky represents friendship, his connection to the past and a fallen comrade tortured by an enemy. Cap adapted to civilian life by fighting for causes that reflect those values he carried with him in WWII. The problem with yielding to the UN is that it ceded authority to foreign heads of state with their own agendas. This is not unlike the uneasy real world balance the U.S. has with the UN.

 

Bucky had been accused and presumed guilty of an international crime without a hearing. Cap made a decision to stand by his friend and former ally and seek the truth. It just wouldn't be in his nature or training to turn his back on him. To my way of thinking, this is what set the whole thing in motion. Those who sided with Cap did so out of friendship, respect for the correctness of his moral compass, or because they didn't like the idea of being under the UN control any more than he did. Cap felt that the Avengers should be free to act as needed, not by UN resolution.

 

This movie is one of the best 2 1/2 hours of Marvelous entertainment any fan could want. Each character has a distinct personality and they're all dealing with complex issues. Finally, it's thought provoking and hopeful, not dystopian. This is such a multi-faceted film that folks will undoubtably catch lots of tossed off lines and little things in repeated viewings that are easy to miss in a single screening (for instance, the Timely reference). I plan on seeing this film two or three times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing