THE MARVELS starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani and Teyonna Parris (2023) 9 9

[@therealsilvermane]

5 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Hulk and Valkyrie were just as important as Jane and Darcie.

Thor was the emotional lead and the main character in Ragnarok, but it was still a team-up movie of Thor, Hulk, Loki, and Val. Steve Rogers was the emotional lead and the main character in Civil War (Tony Stark and Zemo were the antagonists) even though it was obviously a team-up movie of every Avenger except Thor and Hulk.

[Bosco685]

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

Thor was the emotional lead and the main character in Ragnarok, but it was still a team-up movie of Thor, Hulk, Loki, and Val. Steve Rogers was the emotional lead and the main character in Civil War (Tony Stark and Zemo were the antagonists) even though it was obviously a team-up movie of every Avenger except Thor and Hulk.

You two are never going to be aligned. So that is a given.

But to call out Civil War as an example of a solo film that was a team-up movie - that's not even reasonable since even Marvel Studios treated this as an Avengers 2.5 production. That's why you had such a massive cast of superheroes.

[theCapraAegagrus]

5 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Thor was the emotional lead and the main character in Ragnarok, but it was still a team-up movie of Thor, Hulk, Loki, and Val. Steve Rogers was the emotional lead and the main character in Civil War (Tony Stark and Zemo were the antagonists) even though it was obviously a team-up movie of every Avenger except Thor and Hulk.

Nope. Ragnarok and Civil War are similar in 0 ways.

[Gatsby77]

4 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Nope. Ragnarok and Civil War are similar in 0 ways.

Agreed that Civil War was less a Captain America film (at all) than it was Avengers 2.5 (and - given the storyline, rightfully so).

But Ragnarok was overtly a Thor/Hulk film - it literally adapted one of the most famous / well-regarded Hulk storylines of the last 20 years - which drove the entire reason Thor was even on-planet.

BTW - Silvermane is wrong about a great many things, particularly as regards Captain Marvel, but he's not wrong that it was a buddy team-up film between Carol Danvers and Nick Fury.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Gatsby77

[theCapraAegagrus]

4 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

BTW - Silvermane is wrong about a great many things, particularly as regards Captain Marvel, but he's not wrong that it was a buddy team-up film between Carol Danvers and Nick Fury.

Oh, come on.

[@therealsilvermane]

21 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

BTW - Silvermane is wrong about a great many things, particularly as regards Captain Marvel, but he's not wrong that it was a buddy team-up film between Carol Danvers and Nick Fury.

Uh...thanks...?

[@therealsilvermane]

30 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

You two are never going to be aligned. So that is a given.

But to call out Civil War as an example of a solo film that was a team-up movie - that's not even reasonable since even Marvel Studios treated this as an Avengers 2.5 production. That's why you had such a massive cast of superheroes.

But...but...it had Captain America in the title. I thought that was so important to you guys whether it's that character's movie or not (see: The Marvels). Yes, Civil War was a mini-Avengers movie, but Captain America was still the lead and the story revolved around everybody trying to catch Bucky, Cap's best friend. Cap was in the right and his is the last face we see before the credits roll. It's still Cap's movie.

You know what was also a mini-Avengers movie btw? Winter Soldier (two regular Avengers, the Avengers founder, and two future Avengers if you count Bucky), Ragnarok (two regular Avengers and if you count Valkyrie, a future Avenger), and Captain Marvel (the guy who founded the Avengers and the her-o who inspired their name).

[Bosco685]

27 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

But...but...it had Captain America in the title. I thought that was so important to you guys whether it's that character's movie or not (see: The Marvels). Yes, Civil War was a mini-Avengers movie, but Captain America was still the lead and the story revolved around everybody trying to catch Bucky, Cap's best friend. Cap was in the right and his is the last face we see before the credits roll. It's still Cap's movie.

You know what was also a mini-Avengers movie btw? Winter Soldier (two regular Avengers, the Avengers founder, and two future Avengers if you count Bucky), Ragnarok (two regular Avengers and if you count Valkyrie, a future Avenger), and Captain Marvel (the guy who founded the Avengers and the her-o who inspired their name).

I know you go to the extreme to celebrate and defend anything Marvel Studios. Even when there is nothing really to defend.

But to assume Captain America: Civil War was just a little team-up movie, you are way off the deep end. This was an Avengers movie in everything but name only.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier very much was about Steve Rogers with a supporting cast to include the reveal of Bucky Barnes as Winter Soldier.

You try to troll too hard.

[@therealsilvermane]

38 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I know you go to the extreme to celebrate and defend anything Marvel Studios. Even when there is nothing really to defend.

But to assume Captain America: Civil War was just a little team-up movie, you are way off the deep end. This was an Avengers movie in everything but name only.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier very much was about Steve Rogers with a supporting cast to include the reveal of Bucky Barnes as Winter Soldier.

You try to troll too hard.

Civil War was not an Avengers movie. It was a Captain America movie.

Yeah, the Avengers were in it, but it was still Steve Rogers' movie and story. Mr. Rogers doesn't have much of a life outside SHIELD and the Avengers. His life is the mission. He's a soldier. So it makes sense that First Avenger is all US Army, that Winter Soldier is all SHIELD, and that Civil War is all Avengers. That's his life. But the basic story is still Steve Rogers as the protagonist who is trying to find out who actually framed his best friend Bucky when the whole world including Stark and T'Challa are just trying to kill Bucky. Barton, Natasha, and Sam are there as a supporting cast to help Steve while everyone else is wrongly against him, including Peter Parker.

Avengers movies, besides being an official part of the Avengers franchise (within the larger MCU franchise) are true ensemble movies with no main protagonist. The Avengers are the protagonist. In Civil War, there is one main protagonist, Steve Rogers. The Avengers and others like Spider-Man and Black Panther are just supporting cast members.

Most likely that will be the case in The Marvels. Carol will be the emotional lead and it will be her story and Kamala and Monica will be supporting cast members along with any other Avengers who are appearing of which I'm sure there'll be some as this will probably be the movie that establishes Carol Danvers as the head of the Avengers' space division (Sam Wilson will take the land).

 

[Gatsby77]

7 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Civil War was not an Avengers movie. It was a Captain America movie.

Yeah, the Avengers were in it, but it was still Steve Rogers' movie and story. Mr. Rogers doesn't have much of a life outside SHIELD and the Avengers. His life is the mission. He's a soldier. So it makes sense that First Avenger is all US Army, that Winter Soldier is all SHIELD, and that Civil War is all Avengers. That's his life. But the basic story is still Steve Rogers as the protagonist who is trying to find out who actually framed his best friend Bucky when the whole world including Stark and T'Challa are just trying to kill Bucky. Barton, Natasha, and Sam are there as a supporting cast to help Steve while everyone else is wrongly against him, including Peter Parker.

Avengers movies, besides being an official part of the Avengers franchise (within the larger MCU franchise) are true ensemble movies with no main protagonist. The Avengers are the protagonist. In Civil War, there is one main protagonist, Steve Rogers. The Avengers and others like Spider-Man and Black Panther are just supporting cast members.

Bro -

Did you even read the Civil War comics?

It was a universe-wide hero vs. hero mega crossover (a la Secret Wars and the Infinity Gauntlet before it) but the two teams were led by Captain America and Iron Man. As in the film, virtually every hero lined up behind one or the other.

While the Civil War film was (necessarily) different, it retained the heart of the Captain America v Iron Man conflict.

It could just as easily have been titled Iron Man: Civil War or Avengers: Civil War.

[Bosco685]

24 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Civil War was not an Avengers movie. It was a Captain America movie.

Yeah, the Avengers were in it, but it was still Steve Rogers' movie and story. Mr. Rogers doesn't have much of a life outside SHIELD and the Avengers. His life is the mission. He's a soldier. So it makes sense that First Avenger is all US Army, that Winter Soldier is all SHIELD, and that Civil War is all Avengers. That's his life. But the basic story is still Steve Rogers as the protagonist who is trying to find out who actually framed his best friend Bucky when the whole world including Stark and T'Challa are just trying to kill Bucky. Barton, Natasha, and Sam are there as a supporting cast to help Steve while everyone else is wrongly against him, including Peter Parker.

Avengers movies, besides being an official part of the Avengers franchise (within the larger MCU franchise) are true ensemble movies with no main protagonist. The Avengers are the protagonist. In Civil War, there is one main protagonist, Steve Rogers. The Avengers and others like Spider-Man and Black Panther are just supporting cast members.

Most likely that will be the case in The Marvels. Carol will be the emotional lead and it will be her story and Kamala and Monica will be supporting cast members along with any other Avengers who are appearing of which I'm sure there'll be some as this will probably be the movie that establishes Carol Danvers as the head of the Avengers' space division (Sam Wilson will take the land).

 

It actually wasn't. After the Russo Brothers heard of the WB news Batman v Superman was moving forward, they went back to a Marvel significant series that challenged the concept of the superhero: Civil War.

Steve Rogers was not the lone protagonist in Civil War. There was Black Panther introduced with conflicting emotions over being a hero and agent of revenge over the death of his father. There was Peter Parker taking sides but his heart was always about being a hero, leading to his humble exchange with Steve Rogers at the airport. And then there is the event at the beginning of the film with Wanda Maximoff accidentally causing the death of a number of Wakandan humanitarians in redirecting the explosion by Crossbones. So best intentions but deadly actions which leaves Wanda questioning her own contributions and leading to the Sokovia Accords. And then there is Tony Stark wanting to follow the letter of the law in controlling the actions of superheroes that can accidentally maim or kill bystanders if not guiding effectively by the government to set the rules of engagement.

It's just how you are forcing yourself to see this film. Not reality.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Bosco685

[@therealsilvermane]

2 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Bro -

Did you even read the Civil War comics?

It was a universe-wide hero vs. hero mega crossover (a la Secret Wars and the Infinity Gauntlet before it) but the two teams were led by Captain America and Iron Man. As in the film, virtually every hero lined up behind one or the other.

While the Civil War film was (necessarily) different, it retained the heart of the Captain America v Iron Man conflict.

It could just as easily have been titled Iron Man: Civil War or Avengers: Civil War.

Nuh-uh.

Captain America Civil War (the movie) only partly took from its comic book counterpart, just like Infinity War/Endgame only partly took from its comic counterpart.

Yes, the comic book Civil War was a true crossover event with two heroes on two different sides and each with a legitimate stake in that side. The Civil War movie was not that at all. The only way it compared like the comic, it started with an international disaster for the world to see and had Tony and Steve with two different idealogical stances to government oversight. The rest of the 75% of the movie is a big misunderstanding by everyone not on Cap's team about who bombed the UN building and killed T'Chaka. Civil War the comic book wasn't a big frame-up concocted by Zemo to pit every superhero in the world against each other. Civil War the movie was. There was one main protagonist in Civil War the movie, Steve Rogers. He's the one trying to figure out who's really behind the UN bombing. Everyone else not on Team Cap has their mind made up that Bucky is the villain.

The comic book and the movie were two very different stories. And the movie was still mainly Steve Rogers' story.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Nuh-uh.

Captain America Civil War (the movie) only partly took from its comic book counterpart, just like Infinity War/Endgame only partly took from its comic counterpart.

Yes, the comic book Civil War was a true crossover event with two heroes on two different sides and each with a legitimate stake in that side. The Civil War movie was not that at all. The only way it compared like the comic, it started with an international disaster for the world to see and had Tony and Steve with two different idealogical stances to government oversight. The rest of the 75% of the movie is a big misunderstanding by everyone not on Cap's team about who bombed the UN building and killed T'Chaka. Civil War the comic book wasn't a big frame-up concocted by Zemo to pit every superhero in the world against each other. Civil War the movie was. There was one main protagonist in Civil War the movie, Steve Rogers. He's the one trying to figure out who's really behind the UN bombing. Everyone else not on Team Cap has their mind made up that Bucky is the villain.

The comic book and the movie were two very different stories. And the movie was still mainly Steve Rogers' story.

I could see you now...

[Gatsby77]

8 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Nuh-uh.

Captain America Civil War (the movie) only partly took from its comic book counterpart, just like Infinity War/Endgame only partly took from its comic counterpart.

Yes, the comic book Civil War was a true crossover event with two heroes on two different sides and each with a legitimate stake in that side. The Civil War movie was not that at all. The only way it compared like the comic, it started with an international disaster for the world to see and had Tony and Steve with two different idealogical stances to government oversight. The rest of the 75% of the movie is a big misunderstanding by everyone not on Cap's team about who bombed the UN building and killed T'Chaka. Civil War the comic book wasn't a big frame-up concocted by Zemo to pit every superhero in the world against each other. Civil War the movie was. There was one main protagonist in Civil War the movie, Steve Rogers. He's the one trying to figure out who's really behind the UN bombing. Everyone else not on Team Cap has their mind made up that Bucky is the villain.

The comic book and the movie were two very different stories. And the movie was still mainly Steve Rogers' story.

Umm...yeah.

I'm well aware of the differences between the film and the comic.

But my point stands - yes - the Russo Bros. chose to tell this story from Captain America's POV - but it could *just as easily* have been a straight-up Iron Man or Avengers story.

You know that Baron Zemo was originally an Avengers villain, yes?

Whatever...I'm done.

If you can't accept the blatant reality that the film was structured - and marketed - as an "Avengers 2.5" - to the extent that they negotiated a Sony-owned Spider-Man appearance because Spidey was pivotal in the original comic storyline, whatever.

I deal in reality, not wishful thinking that willfully ignores it.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Gatsby77

[@therealsilvermane]

45 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

If you can't accept the blatant reality that the film was structured - and marketed - as an "Avengers 2.5" - to the extent that they negotiated a Sony-owned Spider-Man appearance because Spidey was pivotal in the original comic storyline, whatever.

 

55 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Steve Rogers was not the lone protagonist in Civil War. There was Black Panther introduced with conflicting emotions over being a hero and agent of revenge over the death of his father. There was Peter Parker taking sides but his heart was always about being a hero, leading to his humble exchange with Steve Rogers at the airport. And then there is the event at the beginning of the film with Wanda Maximoff accidentally causing the death of a number of Wakandan humanitarians in redirecting the explosion by Crossbones. So best intentions but deadly actions which leaves Wanda questioning her own contributions and leading to the Sokovia Accords. And then there is Tony Stark wanting to follow the letter of the law in controlling the actions of superheroes that can accidentally maim or kill bystanders if not guiding effectively by the government to set the rules of engagement.

It's just how you are forcing yourself to see this film. Not reality.

In 25 words or less, the main plot of Civil War the movie wasn't "Iron Man must stop Captain America who is acting against the law and protecting a possible murderer." It wasn't "T'Challa must track down the man who killed his father." It wasn't "Peter Parker disobeys his Aunt and follows a super-hero around the Earth in a heart-stopping adventure."

The main plot, in 25 words or less, is "Steve Rogers must find out who framed his best friend Bucky while both are being hunted by Cap's former team, the Avengers." Yes, there are still scenes where other characters like Stark recruit Peter Parker or where Wanda and Vision have a lover's quarrel, but the reason they do these things is in reaction to Steve Rogers boldy taking the initiative to believe that Bucky didn't do this horrendous act that all the world thinks he did.

I'm not the one being delusional or out of touch with reality here. I get why y'all think Civil War is an Avengers movie, but I'm also clearly stating here how and why Civil War is Captain America's movie. You could have stuffed the X-Men and the Fantastic Four into that movie, but if the story was still Steve Rogers correctly trying to find out who framed Bucky while everyone else is either trying to stop him or help him, than it's still Steve Rogers' story no matter how many super-heroes are in it.

Edited June 2, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[@therealsilvermane]

Here's a Verge interview with the Civil War writers who discuss the importance of the Steve Rogers-Bucky relationship to the movie...

"The relationship between Steve Rogers and his best friend, Bucky, drives this movie. It’s largely based on emotion, and it feels personal. As writers, was there anything personal you two were pulling from when writing that relationship, beyond what’s already in the comics?

CM: I mean, there’s always been [the fact that] I am a bad team player.

SM: Get the quotes right! "Chris Markus says…"

CM: I don’t mean that I can’t work with others. I just mean that growing up, I never liked sports. I never liked pep rallies. I found school spirit hard to deal with. I am much more oriented towards the individual. And so there is something resonant with me about someone trying desperately to keep the team together. Maybe I’d want to question, "Why is the team so important to you?"

But you know, it feels personal every time we’re writing about Captain America because he has so little, in a weird way. I don’t mean he has so little to give, I mean just the makeup of his personality. He’s not the kind of guy who allows himself the indulgence of personal needs. So with the death of Peggy Carter — one thing that relates back to who he originally was — I have this incredible empathy [for him because] he doesn’t want to let Bucky go. Because Bucky’s it. Bucky’s the last part of the real Steve Rogers, in a way. He’s not just fighting because "This is my best friend." He’s fighting because, "I will be fully adrift from everything."

The writers don't necessarily say that Civil War is or isn't an Avengers movie, but this answer shows how important Steve Rogers' inner world was to the main story of Civil War. This is Steve sticking up for his best friend the way Bucky stuck up for him in First Avenger. Only this time, instead of a back-alley bully or a bunch of disillusioned Army soldiers (when Bucky says "let's hear it for Captain America"), Steve is protecting his best friend against the might of Earth's Mightiest Heroes.

[Bosco685]

16 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

 

In 25 words or less, the main plot of Civil War the movie wasn't "Iron Man must stop Captain America who is acting against the law and protecting a possible murderer." It wasn't "T'Challa must track down the man who killed his father." It wasn't "Peter Parker disobeys his Aunt and follows a super-hero around the Earth in a heart-stopping adventure."

The main plot, in 25 words or less, is "Steve Rogers must find out who framed his best friend Bucky while both are being hunted by Cap's former team, the Avengers." Yes, there are still scenes where other characters like Stark recruit Peter Parker or where Natasha and Vision have a lover's quarrel, but the reason they do these things is in reaction to Steve Rogers boldy taking the initiative to believe that Bucky didn't do this horrendous act that all the world thinks he did.

I'm not the one being delusional or out of touch with reality here. I get why y'all think Civil War is an Avengers movie, but I'm also clearly stating here how and why Civil War is Captain America's movie. You could have stuffed the X-Men and the Fantastic Four into that movie, but if the story was still Steve Rogers correctly trying to find out who framed Bucky while everyone else is either trying to stop him or help him, than it's still Steve Rogers' story no matter how many super-heroes are in it.

I can top this with a better official Disney description provided to VUDU.

Brevity: it actually works. 

 

[Gatsby77]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

I can top this with a better official Disney description provided to VUDU.

Brevity: it actually works. 

 

Weird how Iron Man is featured first in that image - and that Civil War is highlighted in the text, with "Captain America" minimized.

[@therealsilvermane]

20 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I can top this with a better official Disney description provided to VUDU.

Brevity: it actually works. 

 

Yeah, and this description isn't what the movie is really about. The Avengers are pitted in physical combat against each other because Captain America is protecting Bucky who got framed for something he didn't do. Team Iron Man and Team Cap aren't fighting on the streets of Bucharest or at the airport or at the abandoned HYDRA base because of an ideological difference about government oversight and accountability. They're fighting over Bucky. And in this fight, Steve Rogers is right and Tony Stark is wrong. Stark even admits he was wrong until they start fighting over Bucky again after Stark sees the security video of his parents getting killed.

Edited June 2, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[@therealsilvermane]

21 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I can top this with a better official Disney description provided to VUDU.

Brevity: it actually works. 

 

Just because Disney or whoever wrote this blurb for Civil War to try to get people to watch the movie doesn't mean this is the logline the writers used when writing the movie or what the directors always referenced when directing the story for camera. This VUDU movie description could describe the argument the Avengers are having when they're first introduced to the Accords at the group meeting with General Ross at the start of the movie. After that, it's all about Captain America sticking up for his friend Bucky when all the other super-heroes and police are trying to apprehend Bucky. And while the Avengers breaking up was an important reason for the existence of this movie (so that Thanos could more easily defeat them), the break-up was more an end of movie consequence of Stark feeling betrayed by Steve Rogers because of, you guessed it, Bucky. Not the Segovia Accords.