|
Ignite Memories posted:Not all of the people who got locked up were involved with that scene. And were not given a choice to sign up after the airport scene.
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:There's that whole bit that by refusing the Accords they will get locked up. I really don't think Spidey would be cool having Cap locked away. That's not what the deal was. Refusing the Accords meant they had to stop being superheroes. Aiding and abetting a wanted mass murderer is what got them tossed into the Raft. I can't imagine Spidey would really disagree with that. Or at least feel his voice is big enough to disagree with that as a relatively new superhero kid with no experience. I'm saying Spidey wouldn't have been okay if the deal was "Agree with this law or go to jail" but since that wasn't the deal, that's a moot point. I highly doubt "He's not right" is the extent of the conversation they had. I'm sure Tony said more to him than that offscreen. He didn't just say the "thinks he's right when he's not" line and Spidey jumped into action. The simplest "Cap is breaking the law" is enough information.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Considering that part of Spidey's banter in the airport fight was reading Falcon his rights, and especially considering he's not a loving idiot, I'm pretty sure he knew that Team Cap would be going to prison. I think the 'he was a naive yourh manipulated by Tony' talk is really overblown.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Not all of the people who got locked up were involved with that scene. Who else was locked up? Scarlet Witch wasn't imprisoned or anything. That was Tony's doing. Technically that was probably forceful confinement even. MacheteZombie posted:And were not given a choice to sign up after the airport scene. Well yeah, you don't get the option to surrender peacefully anymore once you start shooting.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:
Tony gives Cap that option like 20 minutes prior.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Tony didn't even know they'd actually be locked up locked up judging by his reaction to the Raft's conditions. He was apparently expecting the heroes to do minimum security badminton on Fridays jail time.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
LGD posted:If anything I think you're underselling the difficulty of translating Wonder Woman to film. I'm not saying the WW movie won't be incredibly difficult to do right, because yeah she's an amorphous blob of a character rooted in fetishism that DC has continually mistreated for decades. I'm talking about her specific audience appeal, again, popularity. Fame. Awareness of the character, which she's in the top five of at the time that Iron Man comes out. Like seriously, the fact that a Catwoman and loving Elektra movie came out before a WW movie is embarrassing. Embarrassing. She certainly doesn't need to play third wheel as two angry white men punch each other in the foreground, in a movie that utilizes her as a glorified cameo. It's absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:Tony didn't even know they'd actually be locked up locked up judging by his reaction to the Raft's conditions. He was apparently expecting the heroes to do minimum security badminton on Fridays jail time. He should probably read and look into that thing he demands everyone sign and be apart of.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:He should probably read and look into that thing he demands everyone sign and be apart of. You're over-vilifying Tony. It feels like we're talking about the comic Civil War. Why would the Sokovia Accords have anything about imprisoning the heroes? Ross answered Cap when he asked about refusing. "You retire." That doesn't mean "You go to jail." Again, it was Cap beating up the German police and protecting a wanted murderer that got his crew tossed in jail. It had literally 0 to do with the Sokovia Accords. That part of the plot is just for the Zemo and Wanda stuff. The big fight was all about Bucky. Two concurrent plotlines basically.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:You're over-vilifying Tony. It feels like we're talking about the comic Civil War. Why would the Sokovia Accords have anything about imprisoning the heroes? Ross answered Cap when he asked about refusing. "You retire." That doesn't mean "You go to jail." Again, it was Cap beating up the German police and protecting a wanted murderer that got his crew tossed in jail. It had literally 0 to do with the Sokovia Accords. That part of the plot is just for the Zemo and Wanda stuff. The big fight was all about Bucky. Two concurrent plotlines basically. Refusing to sign the Accords and then retiring as a result is different than refusing to sign the Accords and then continuing to act as a vigilante.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Well, so did Wonder Woman. And again, I'm talking pure, symbolic, iconographic fame, not comprehension. Like, the immediate branding appeal of a character that puts butts in seats you can't really beat Wonder Woman outside of Batman, Superman, and I would still say arguably Spider-Man and Wolverine. And the former is only because Spidey Is Marvel and had a bunch of movies out at the time, and the latter solely because until RDJ came around nobody "was" a superhero to the level that Hugh Jackman was Wolverine. That outpaces the Hulk, because that's DC's whole bit, they build their characters around concepts with their attendant legacies. I'd still argue Hulk is above Wonder Woman because his live action show ran longer and inspired a series of made-for-TV movies as well so there are a lot of adults who know the Hulk and would be open to seeing the film, and for younger crowds Hulk has been pretty much a staple of each age of Marvel animation. That there's still a movie studio clinging to Hulk's solo film rights shows they see some inherent value in it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Looks like it's time for me to check out of this thread. I haven't had a chance to see Civil War yet, and it appears people are slowly starting to discuss final act plot details without spoiler tags.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Eh! Frank posted:Looks like it's time for me to check out of this thread. I haven't had a chance to see Civil War yet, and it appears people are slowly starting to discuss final act plot details without spoiler tags. Holy poo poo, I forgot that it's only been out for about a week. I apologize. If mods wanna throw my poo poo in the trash, I will raise no objections.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:That there's still a movie studio clinging to Hulk's solo film rights shows they see some inherent value in it. Universal actually doesn't, they have distribution rights. Marvel and Disney by extension would still make money hand over fist with a solo movie, just not as much of it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:He should probably read and look into that thing he demands everyone sign and be apart of. It's clear from Tony's reaction the accords didn't specify what kind of conditions the imprisonment entailed since he says he's read the Accords. The Raft was the moment in the movie where Tony and the audience realize it's all gotten away from him. Tony thinks he can control the Accords because earlier in the movie he does, Cap doesn't go to jail for beating up German police and aiding a fugitive Tony makes it where Cap get's locked in an office. Even Bucky who's wanted for exploding the UN gets a reprieve from the Raft until he can get a psychological evaluation.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:You're over-vilifying Tony. It feels like we're talking about the comic Civil War. Why would the Sokovia Accords have anything about imprisoning the heroes? Ross answered Cap when he asked about refusing. "You retire." That doesn't mean "You go to jail." Again, it was Cap beating up the German police and protecting a wanted murderer that got his crew tossed in jail. It had literally 0 to do with the Sokovia Accords. That part of the plot is just for the Zemo and Wanda stuff. The big fight was all about Bucky. Two concurrent plotlines basically. The actual Accords book was like 1000 pages. If they didn't outline how to deal with rogue vigilantes in that tome then lol. It wasn't Cap beating up German police that got his crew thrown in jail, it's after that scene that Tony offers him an out by agreeing to the Accords at that time. His crew gets tossed for the Airport scuffle and without the same "make it retroactively okay for you" offer Tony gives Cap.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Tony gives Cap that option like 20 minutes prior. Cap hadn't punched him yet at that point. Tony was still willing to go to bat for him. That's not shooting yet in this analogy. That's holding the gun. He was given the option to put it down. SirDan3k posted:It's clear from Tony's reaction the accords didn't specify what kind of conditions the imprisonment entailed since he says he's read the Accords. The Raft was the moment in the movie where Tony and the audience realize it's all gotten away from him. Tony thinks he can control the Accords because earlier in the movie he does, Cap doesn't go to jail for beating up German police and aiding a fugitive Tony makes it where Cap get's locked in an office. Even Bucky who's wanted for exploding the UN gets a reprieve from the Raft until he can get a psychological evaluation. Something like that wouldn't specify where you end up if you break them anyway. That's just silly. It was an agreement between 100-something countries, each of them would be making the decision on anyone that broke them in their jurisdictions.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Cap hadn't punched him yet at that point. Tony was still willing to go to bat for him. You're right he doesn't punch Tony, just creates a poo poo load of collateral damage which is what the Accords were designed to specifically address.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
To go back to something discussed earlier in the thread, having a teen sidekick in a live action movie seems like a weird move and has obviously been avoided by people making movies for a reason. A Batman that actually gets a young teen involved in a his exploits in a violent universe like the one set up in the DC movies would be really messed up. The Robin suit in the movie clearly wasn't a child's suit so I'm assuming they knew that. I mean I can see maybe a late teen like an 17 or 18 year old but the traditional 14 or 15 year old sidekick would just be completely out of place. This changes a little bit when the kid has powers of their own like a Spider-Man but even then in Civil War it's obviously presented as Tony did something desperate and dumb by bringing a kid into this fight and he realizes it at the end. And that was one of the more powerful people in the fight. A young teen Bucky or Robin makes no sense in the movie universes we've seen so far.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
I agree that "Tony manipulated Peter against Captain America" is getting a bit overblown. I don't think it's that strange, given the events of the film, for Peter to side against Cap with or without Tony's rhetorics. The part where it came across like Tony was being incredibly manipulative was when he, like, threatened to tell Aunt May about Peter being Spider-Man unless Peter comes to Germany. It's like the most rear end in a top hat thing he could do to someone, unless I'm reading the moment wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
I can buy something like Homecoming featuring Tony Stark acting as Peter's mentor as a young, up-and-coming hero, probably with a heavy dose of "Hey, I made a lot of mistakes and genuine fuckups. Here's what I did, here's why I did it, here's why I was wrong. Don't make the same mistakes I did." Maybe even with Tony suiting up for a big battle near the end to, say, deal with mooks while Peter deals with the villain. But I don't think the traditional sidekick thing has aged very well, and I can't see the movies employing it - heroes with partners who follow their lead, maybe, like Cap with Falcon or Iron Man with War Machine, but not teenaged sidekicks.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I agree that "Tony manipulated Peter against Captain America" is getting a bit overblown. I don't think it's that strange, given the events of the film, for Peter to side against Cap with or without Tony's rhetorics. It's totally getting overblown. Given that each of the incidents (New York, Washington DC, Sokovia, Lagos) have had heavy media coverage, was the public's opinion of Captain America and the Avengers really even that positive at that point? Peter might be young and naive, but he's old enough to form an opinion, even if Tony only explained his side of the story. That last part you mention (threatening to tell Aunt May about Peter being Spider-Man) is borderline manipulative, but if you recall, Peter webs Tony's hand to the door to prevent him from trying. I thought that whole scene worked really well, as it ties back into his spiel about future generations during his MIT presentation. Essentially, Tony is grooming Spider-Man to be his successor, going to the length of upgrading his suit and giving him cool new gadgets.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I agree that "Tony manipulated Peter against Captain America" is getting a bit overblown. I don't think it's that strange, given the events of the film, for Peter to side against Cap with or without Tony's rhetorics. How is it overblown? People have noticed it and commented on it being odd, weird, or clearly a thing that's wrong. You even admit he manipulates Peter through threats. Most people aren't saying they hate the movie because of that bit or anything. It's clearly there, and some people find it off putting. In a movie that's specifically designed to live in the grey area, its one of the choices that Tony makes that really stands out. Similarly, I found the Airport scene to be nice visual treat, and finally got to see some things I've been dying to see on the big screen (Ant Arrow and GiAnt-Man) for a long time, but the tone and the constant quips really pulled me out of the scene and killed what tension it had for me. Doesn't make it terrible or whatever, just a difference in opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:How is it overblown? It's being overblown because it's not like Tony held Aunt May at gunpoint and forced Peter to join him. Yes, he threatened to tell Aunt May about his identity, but that's about as far as it goes. It's certainly a grey area, but to Tony's credit, he does realize that he made a mistake after the airport fight.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Also, Tony did tell Spidey not to get involved in the fight and to stay way back and just web people up. Obviously the Futurist didn't see the big smackdown coming even though he instigated it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
It is weird and awkward that Tony's plan was "RECRUIT EXACTLY ONE MORE GUY FOR MY SIDE". Made no real effort to find Thor or Hulk, or anyone at all who has appeared on Agents of SHIELD. Also, am I crazy, or was Nick Fury's absence really noticeable? SonicRulez posted:You cannot possibly believe that "I was hypnotized for years to do horrible things" wouldn't immediately sympathize with "I was hypnotized for years to do horrible Russian things" and tell Tony to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Made no real effort to find Thor or Hulk, or anyone at all who has appeared on Agents of SHIELD. Oh, I can answer this! 1) I guarantee you a gazillion billion bajillion dollars that Thor and Hulk will be in or around Asgard when the CW poo poo goes down. 2) Nobody in the audience gives even the slightest poo poo about anyone in Agents of SHIELD, nor should they.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Oh, I can answer this! 1) I guarantee you a gazillion billion bajillion dollars that Thor and Hulk will be in or around Asgard when the CW poo poo goes down. 2) Nobody in the audience gives even the slightest poo poo about anyone in Agents of SHIELD, nor should they. Well sure, I understand the real world reasons for it, but it's a bit silly in the internal logic.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Nope, nope, nope. No thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It is weird and awkward that Tony's plan was "RECRUIT EXACTLY ONE MORE GUY FOR MY SIDE". Made no real effort to find Thor or Hulk, or anyone at all who has appeared on Agents of SHIELD. I really don't think Hulk would've sided with Tony and Ross. quote:Also, am I crazy, or was Nick Fury's absence really noticeable? It was weird considering how essential of a role he had in Winter Soldier and AOU already bought him back into the fold. But apparently Jackson's contract only has two movies left so they're saving him for Infinity Wars.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Was the cast really the problem for FF?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Well sure, I understand the real world reasons for it, but it's a bit silly in the internal logic. Well the point is the Thor and Hulk stuff is easily explained away in the movie, and the SHIELD stuff could be as simple as "Tony was off the books because the American government officially disavowed Cap's actions, so bringing him in with any SHIELD agents could've been a political impossibility. Also, nobody gives a loving poo poo about anyone in SHIELD."
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Was the cast really the problem for FF? Everything was the problem. The cast clearly didn't even want to be there.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
X-O posted:Also, Tony did tell Spidey not to get involved in the fight and to stay way back and just web people up. Obviously the Futurist didn't see the big smackdown coming even though he instigated it. That's kind of like saying the police instigate assaulting police officers. Okay sure this is frequently true in the States, but I mean generally.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
I love most of those actors, though. Isn't the main problem with Fantastic Four Reboot that the director had a complete meltdown?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Was the cast really the problem for FF? Scrap everyone who isn't Michael B. Jordan, recast everyone as older (except Michael B. Jordan, since Johnny Storm's an eternally immature hothead), fast forward to Reed and Sue married with kids since in contrast to Peter Parker/Mary Jane Reed and Sue are inherently more interesting characters when married then when not. Ben Grimm works better when he's been Thing for a while and gets any one of his myriad, impermanent ways to attain temporary humanity. More interesting tragic character that way.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Also, I don't think the "Hey, we should be accountable to a higher authority because when we do our thing there is collateral damage and innocent people get killed" side is really the side that wants to bring the Hulk to the party.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Miles Teller is 29, Kate Mara is 33 and Jamie Bell is 30. They don't have to cast older, they can cast the same range and just have them use their real ages.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Like here's my fan casting for a new F4: Reed: Stephen Colbert Sue: Vera Farmiga Johnny: Michael B. Jordan Ben: Vin Diesel Cast Valeria and Franklin, possibly aged up to at least ten or so.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
The Iron Man manipulation thing is wildly overblown. If that's what you got out of the scene, power to you, but that's not what the movie was getting across at all. I feel like people who look at it that way are underestimating how wrong Cap was in the eyes of everyone else. He broke the law. He fought the police. He was protecting a murderer. Those are things deserving of a smack upside the head. X-O posted:To go back to something discussed earlier in the thread, having a teen sidekick in a live action movie seems like a weird move and has obviously been avoided by people making movies for a reason. A Batman that actually gets a young teen involved in a his exploits in a violent universe like the one set up in the DC movies would be really messed up. The Robin suit in the movie clearly wasn't a child's suit so I'm assuming they knew that. I mean I can see maybe a late teen like an 17 or 18 year old but the traditional 14 or 15 year old sidekick would just be completely out of place. This changes a little bit when the kid has powers of their own like a Spider-Man but even then in Civil War it's obviously presented as Tony did something desperate and dumb by bringing a kid into this fight and he realizes it at the end. And that was one of the more powerful people in the fight. A young teen Bucky or Robin makes no sense in the movie universes we've seen so far. It's just not as weird as I think people are making it sound. Rather, I think if a movie had the guts to just do it and tacked a well-written story on it, people would say "Wow that was an awesome movie" and save the "Wow, that kid thing was troubling" for blogs a few weeks after the fact. I mean if they did it and it was poo poo that'd be different, but the concept isn't that odd. Even so, like I said, 18 is fine. I'm curious as to why they wouldn't just do that instead of killing them off. theflyingorc posted:It is weird and awkward that Tony's plan was "RECRUIT EXACTLY ONE MORE GUY FOR MY SIDE". Made no real effort to find Thor or Hulk, or anyone at all who has appeared on Agents of SHIELD. He has no way to contact Asgard. The only way he can get Thor is if Thor shows up and wants to help. He asked about Hulk and Widow was like "Honestly he might join Team Cap, so you should probably not." They bothered to explain it. I think ultimately Tony was hoping Cap would just back down. Plus Widow grabbed T'Challa, that's two. I weirdly didn't notice that Fury wasn't present. The Russos said they would explain it and I believe them, but in retrospect I'm glad he was. He would've had all the answers and solved the central conflict like he did before. MacheteZombie posted:quips Oh Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:44
|
|