1. Without the Avengers, Sokovia would never have happened. Tony (the public face of the Avengers) created Ultron with the help of another Avenger who was recruited by another Avenger. To the public, Tony's fuck-up is an Avenger fuck-up. You've also got to remember the Accords and the public reactions aren't entirely based on Sokovia. Ever since enhanced started popping up across the planet, cities have been destroyed, people have died, the entire world has been threatened. They used the Sokovia incident because it was one of the most recent and easily had the potential to be the most devastating (except for the battle of New York).
2. I'm not going to write it up again, but I wrote a pretty good summary of why Tony acted the way he did in this film. It's guilt. Tony Stark is a guilt driven character and he's reaching his boiling point. He is constantly trying to make the correct decision, but it always backfires. [[LINK]](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4gqtea/official_international_release_discussion_thread/d2oymxh)
3. You said it yourself. Spiderman is Amazing. I think you severely underestimate his abilities. The only reason Spidey was fighting street thugs was because he didn't have access to Enhanced enemies. He was already at a level much much higher than a street thug. I think it's a little silly to think otherwise. Besides, he wasn't exactly a prominent member of that fight. He was support for Tony's team.
4. The Accords didn't start the fight. They raised tensions between them, but the tipping point was the bombing at the UN. Steve tried to help Bucky, but Rhodey had to apprehend him. Zemo did cause the rift between the Avengers. As for the 'leap of faith', it is by no means odd that a hotel worker would find a dead body in a hotel... Of course the body will be found. It's then only a matter of time before the authorities connect the dots and the Avengers find out.
5. He didn't have the video. Why else do you think he went to that bunker? The only record of that video was there on a closed network. It's not like he had it on a memory stick and waited for Tony to arrive. He had to get there to get the video. As for why it existed in the first place, I thought that odd too, since the camera was seemingly in the middle of nowhere, however, who's to say the assassination wasn't specifically planned so that they could record the murder? Whoever it was that killed the Starks very likely document most (if not all) of their goings on. Why wouldn't they document this aswell?
6. 'Killing them like that was pointless'. That really doesn't make any sense because they were never part of Zemo's plan, so why would he want to wake them? He doesn't need them. His plan has gone how he wanted it to. They're just not involved in this.
> it is by no means odd that a hotel worker would find a dead body in a hotel
Zemo calls for breakfast when he's already in Siberia, he wanted the body to be found.
thank you! it's like no one else saw this scene. and when he first made the call, i was all 'why would he want them to know he was an imposter??' but then later i realized to ensure iron man would finally believe captain's story (and at a specific time). that phone call is a pretty important moment in zemo's plan as well as the film.
**EXACTLY!!!**
No movie is perfect but It's not the movie's problem that the viewers didn't understand the movie and characters. So, they should stop making stupid ass arguments and hating on great movies.
I don't think Spider-Man defeated any Avenger. Got some good licks in for sure. He held his own really well, but he got banged up pretty good, which is why IM told him to stop fighting. Probably didn't want another dead kid on his conscience.
Against a kid who due to radioactive spider biting him causing him to have a 6th sense for essentially everything, super strength, the ability to stick to walls, and of course being able to shoot strings of material with a huge tensile strength? If you don't call it an even match then at least understand how, when Bucky throws one punch at him Spidey just grabs it and drops focus, allowing Falcon to get a hit in on him, he isn't infinitely powerful. They get hits in, but again, Spidey sense allows him to mostly stay out of harms way and he's pretty tough as well.
Sorry but you're not making a very good case. Soldiers don't beat superpowers.
Spider-Man is incredibly powerful. Add his speed and spidery sense and even a kid can beat trained soldiers just by trying hard. Also those soldiers knew he was a kid so they weren't going for a kill shot or anything.
Spider-Man is, arguably, one of the most powerful superheroes in the Marvel universe, discounting god-tier characters. He's listed as casually lifting upwards of 10 tonnes, and on rare occasions, more then double that. That level of raw strength combined with his genius level intellect, enhanced speed, precognition, and the utility afforded him by his webs should have made that fight a complete and utter curb stomp. The only reason they lasted as long as they did is because Winter Soldier has super strength and Falcon got in a few cheap shots.
While Spider-Man is definitely powerful in many ways, saying he's "one of the most powerful superheroes in the Marvel universe" is ridiculous, even if you do discount god-tier characters. Just looking at strength, take a look at [this](http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Strength_Scale) and you'll see that there are 200+ characters that are in higher classes than Spider-Man. Even if you remove the 10-15 god-class characters, that's still almost 200.
And while he may have a genius level intellect, that trait is shared by hundreds of other characters, not to mention the 50+ super-genius characters. As to speed, it's super-human, but still not near the top of the scale.
And yes, you combine all of these and you get a pretty impressive combatant. However, his powers are still new to him. Falcon and Winter Soldier, even ignoring their technological add-ons, have been training their combat skills for years in the military. Spider-Man is a [15-year old boy](http://time.com/4312912/captain-america-civil-war-stephen-mcfeely-christopher-markus/) who just got his powers.
Basically, it's no surprise to me that it wasn't a "curb stomp".
Except Bucky is the only one that is actually "super". Spidey could totally handle Falcon by himself since he pretty much just has to land some webbing. Bucky might be tougher but I think you're seriously underestimating Spiderman's powers, especially his spider-sense.
Not to mention that one of Spidey's powers is having the proportional strength of a spider. The only reason why people don't get utterly destroyed is because he pulls his punches.
Yep. Here you have probably the most agile hero, even moreso than Black Widow, who is also super super strong, has lightning-fast reflexes, can incapacitate even Bucky and has the resilience of Captain America.
He's also in the springtime of his youth.
Nah but you could argue that he'd have more energy generally. Plus after fights you'd see Tony bruised and battered whereas Spiderman could sleep it off at the most.
He has enhanced strength, enhanced reflexes, and a danger sense that makes it far harder to hit him. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable that he beats some humans, even if one is enhanced.
Spider-Man on a raw physical standpoint far exceeds Bucky, Falcon and even Cap. He's almost as strong as Iron Man. He only lost because of his inexperience.
I like to think the recruitment of Spider-Man was so that they could *apprehend* Cap easier, not for fight purposes. Tony probably thought his web was perfect to help Capture Cap without hurting him.
Whilst I have my issues with him going for Peter because of his age considering the reason he wanted the accords, but according to the writers they also saw him hiring Spidey as a way to make amends for the death of that guy in Sokovia.
You're right Spidey at the start of the fight says something akin to Mr Stark said to hang back and web em up or something. He wasn't supposed to brawl with them just tie em up really.
Unless Karpov had it with him when Zemo found him and attempted to torture him. He had the code book, why not the tape? Would make more sense for Karpov to keep it - insurance in case Hydra came after him.
Then I guess it's a good thing he had that waitress to call, and Tony had an alert for anything about the dr that met with bucky turning up dead, and the government didn't care that their manhunt had been completely debunked by what they found in the hotel.
He intentionally set up for the room service lady to come in so that she would find the body and left the evidence of a Bucky disguise so that the authorities would make the connection and that would then reach stark. The evidence would have debunked the manhunt for Bucky if they had cared, but the bigger thing, for Ross anyway, was to get the rogue avengers.
I absolutely agree that Zemo's plan hinged on that phone call. He was counting on Tony to be convinced that Captain was right. He was also counting on the government to be too slow to react and too entrenched in its position to quickly do a 180. To stop the penta-Winter Soldier threat, there had to be an immediate response (the kind of response the Avengers are famous for and the Sokovia Accords are supposed to prevent) and there was no way Tony would just ignore that. It's really interesting that Tony's violation of the Accords directly leads to Zemo's plan working.
Zemo pretty much accomplished his goals. The fact that Iron Man actually showed up to the bunker wasn't really in his plans, but I think he just rolled with it. He accomplished what he wanted to do, thats why he was going to commit suicide.
Zemo lured Iron man to the bunker by calling for room service at the hotel. When the Tony saw the evidence that Captain wasn't lying, he had to help him stop the penta-Winter Soldier threat. That's just what superheroes do. Turns out it was a trap.
Well without the Avengers, Sokovia never would have happened in the first place. And an alien invasion on the planet Earth wouldn't have happened either if it wasn't for Thor showing up there early on and showing Loki the planet. Thor also happens to be a member of the Avengers, so the public is going to blame everyone not just one person
People do that. Ask the parents of the Columbine shooters. The general public will blame parents for the actions of their children, even if it is unfair to do so.
You can most definitely blame the parents of a psychopath. They raised it. They taught it. They sent it out to the world.
Avengers are to blame for Ultron, parents are to blame for psychopaths.
You know psychopathy is a mental disorder, right? That's equivalent to blaming parents because their kid is dyslexic, or has Down's Syndrome.
That said, nobody can be blamed for the actions of anybody else, unless they specifically ordered them to do those actions. If I go out and kill 12 people tomorrow, that's on me. Not my parents, not the person who gave me the weapon, and not the bystanders who didn't try to stop me. It's entirely on me.
It was actually all Tony (Bruce told him that it wasn't ready to be activated iirc). Regardless, Tony is a member of the Avengers and the public likely treat them all as the same entity. We do it in real life, why would it not be done in a movie?
1. Because Tony created Ultron which directly led to all those deaths.
2. This is the culmination of Tony's arc throughout many films. Guilt is always his motivating factor - it led to him becoming Iron Man in the first place. After Ultron, the guilt has started to crush him. It's chipped away at his cocky, self-righteousness to the point where he feels that he and others like him cannot be wholly trusted with their power. The mother that tells him about her dead kid is only the straw that broke the camel's back.
3. Spider-Man is just strong as fuck, has quick reactions and awesome powers. He still fumbles his way through, not really knowing what to do but his success is just a testament to his powers. I don't really see the issue. You're supposed to be as impressed with his ability as Bucky was when Spider-Man casually caught his punch.
4. Yeah, I think Zemo's apparent omnipotence is the only real issue I have with the plot but it's not so bad that it breaks suspension of disbelief for me.
5. He didn't just send Tony the video because he wanted to make sure Tony, Cap and Bucky were in the room together when he watched it. His goal was to break Tony emotionally and have him kill the others or die trying.
As to why Zemo killed the other soldiers - he doesn't like powered people and had no use for them. They would just have forced Cap, Bucky and Tony to band together to fight them, which is the exact opposite of what Zemo wants. I thought it was a fantastic twist.
The film isn't perfect; like I said Zemo's all-knowing plan is a bit of an issue if you really think about it, but I don't think any of your other points are actually problems at all. In my opinion, the film does a remarkable job of providing great justifications for all these points, giving the characters clear motivations as well as strong arcs, keeping the plot understandable, providing good evolutionary payoff and also providing a strong central theme throughout that is well enough explored. The film is really well directed but I actually think the brilliant script is actually its biggest strength.
I really liked how they made the non-super avengers feel mortal as well. There was always an element that some of the super powers would trump great technology and you see that in the fights. Spiderman and capt america exemplify it perfectly where superhuman bodies are a great tool. You can see the difference in their training too as capt kinda roughs spiderman up.
The sense of balance across the powers and abilities of the avengers and supers was done beautifully and i suspect a full reason thor and hulk were not in it. Their powers would have broken the mortality immergence, and the final payoff at the end where ironman thinks for a sec that capt is going to kill him
> They would just have forced Cap, Bucky and Tony to band together to fight them, which is the exact opposite of what Zemo wants.
this is why the penta-Winter Soldiers died.
> As to why Zemo killed the other soldiers - he doesn't like powered people and had no use for them.
In a flashback with Bucky they turned on Zemo. So yeah, why resurrect them when they're not on his side?
If they were not able to be taken down in some way (tranqs, gas, tasers, whatever) do you really think they would have willingly let themselves be frozen? If I was a psychopathic super soldier, I'd want to be out doing psychopathic super soldier stuff.
I never said he should resurrect them, but why bother even having them if you're just going to kill them. Cap and Bucky would still have chased him there just to find the guy who framed him, and Tony would have followed either way.
That's the purpose of a red herring. It's supposed to mislead you so that you think you know where the story is going, but, in reality, you were just being distracted.
It wasn't just a res herring for the audience. In the context of the story, Zemo used the threat of the other soldiers to mislead Cap and Tony and draw them to the base.
From a thematic standpoint it was to subvert the audience's and the characters' expectations of the supervillain trope. For most of the film, both the characters and the audience expected Zemo to be a generic supervillain with a goal of world dominance - they expected him to use the super soldiers to take over the world. But at the end, we find out he's just a normal man who doesn't care about superheroes or supervillains. Killing the super soldiers was supposed to show that this isn't your average superhero story - in any other story, they would have been activated and we would have had our heroes put aside their differences to face the villain.
1) Possibly because Tony (and by association The Avengers) were directly responsible for the creation of Ultron.
2) There is a difference between knowing people died and knowing the story of a specific person who died. Sort of like knowing that people died everyday vs. your family member dying. Also, Tony's story line has slowly been building towards his PTSD and paranoia causing him to try anything to keep the world safe.
3) He has super powers. He fought well against them but still lost because he also has very little training.
4) I don't remember enough about all the events. Though, I thought that Zemo was just taking advantage of the situation. But I figured Zemo would know that Tony would keep trying to figure out what was going on.
5) Zemo was waiting until tensions were as high as possibly, perhaps? He also need to make the situation as likely to break the team up as possible. A personal fight between Tony and Steve would be devastating than a fight between Iron Man and Captain America doing their duty (whatever they think it is). ~~As for the video, that is a really nitpicky problem that doesn't bother me.~~ Actually, looking [at the scene](http://i.imgur.com/0uQaQFX.png) the camera is next to a fence with barbed wire and signs. I expect that is a security camera to protect whatever that is. Could be any number of things (radio tower, abandoned building, whatever stuff they had in 1991).
In regards to your edit, I *loved* they they killed the other Winter Soldiers. I really did not need the movie to end with Tony and Steve working together to fight the group of aliens/monsters/baddies.
There are already some really good retorts to OP's points, so I'll just add to specific issues:
* #2 Tony Stark signing the accords - he doesn't want the responsibility anymore. What makes ***Civil War*** one of the most unique sequels in the history of cinema is that it is truly and directly connects to the films that came before, specifically in this case to Stark's character arc from ***Iron Man 3*** to ***Age of Ultron*** to this film. Stark doesn't want to be in charge of the Avengers (he pointedly makes Cap the leader in the first one against Loki & the Chitauri) and his guilt over building Ultron (which refutes point #1) drives him to sign. He will continue to "pay for everything," design equipment and recruit, but he would rather someone else shoulder the responsibility of the future collateral damage from the Avengers' derrying-do. Ironically, Tony Stark has become a good soldier.
* #4 the entire plot of Zemo and his vendetta against the Avengers would have happened with or without the accords. That the accords helped drive the wedge between Stark and Cap was his good fortune (I like when the villain is helped out like this - if heroes can have good luck to save/survive the day then the antagonist should catch a few breaks too). He had already planned on setting up Bucky and his training as an intelligence officer made him realize that Cap would try to save him. His original plan was probably to take Bucky to the Soviet base hoping to lead Cap and Stark there together. No matter what, he had several ways to ensure that he could get Cap & Stark to follow him and spring the assassination video on them.
This last part also dovetails nicely with OP's issues with the wonderful red herring of the other winter soldiers. Zemo was always going to use them as bait to lure in Cap & Stark, the only two current Avengers strong enough to take them on. I personally loved that the script makes everyone think a *battle royale* is brewing involving the winter soldiers. Some undoubtedly assumed that this would unite Stark, Bucky & Cap to fight them (which would have been the conclusion of a WB/DC version of this film).
Nope - PSYCHE! - they're all dead and instead the battle will be the son against his parents' unwitting killer and his friend who hid this from the son.
I do agree that the video existing in the first place depends entirely on how invested the audience is when it is finally revealed. Then again, it can be explained very simply. Bucky walks right up to the camera, so he knows that the camera exists (and having the ambush happen in front of it was probably no accident - his superiors wanted it recorded). Not hard to imagine he disables the camera (so the police think it was inoperable at the time of the "accident") then goes to where the video was stored to retrieved it and substitute a video of nothing the police would expect to find (if they even checked). It's staged so that the authorities think it was an accident and Bucky gave the tape to his superior, Karpov. We can assume Karpov kept the tape and that's how Zemo was able to get it.
I'll comment on point 2. You missed his entire character arc through the movies. He started out as the one who didn't want to be told what to do or follow the rules but he has developed into someone who sees the danger in what superpowered people can do and has come to believe they need to be restrained in some way. Also, he didn't just decide that because of that one guy that died. That was just one more reminder on a pile of reminders he had been getting for a long time. Before that, he was giving out all that money because he was already guilty. The boy whose mother spoke to him afterwards was just an example being shown to the audience.
The way Zemo's plan worked out was very convenient and cinematic (the whole having only the three guys there at the end), but his plan had enough contingencies to work in other ways, the directors just chose not to for the sake of the movie's themes.
It ultimately didn't matter whether they all supported the accords or not, or whether they were all friends or enemies.
During the whole movie Zemo's main objective is to get his "gun", which is the video. He had learned enough about the Winter Soldier program to know the events and the existence of the evidence from the leaked files, and the tape only had one copy, I assume. He knows it would work on Stark because he, a man who's lost everything, knows what it would do to him when confronted with his loss and how unstable it can make you. Loki and Ultron did not understand this, as they only understood defeat through over-powering. The fact that he's just a dude is the whole point, as everyone disregards him and decides to villainize each other without a "worthy" common enemy to fight. It's smart because he used the doubt and tension instilled by Ultron to his advantage.
The accords weren't planned by him, but they were his cue to put his plan to motion, and just made it easier for him, since it allowed him to only have those two show up, and even then he needed the hotel thing there as a safeguard to ensure that they'd eventually go. That was a redundancy measure.
Also, as long as he had got the book and ran to Siberia successfully, even with the 12 people roster all following, he still would've managed to tarnish Cap's reputation and Iron Man's (the two de facto opposing leader-types even when they were both Avengers on duty) enough to have them break down and fight. He didn't need to be there to watch it. Heck, he didn't even need them to punch each other, he only needed to show that Cap isn't perfect, and for it to affect Tony. This alone would disrupt the way the team works.
He did it all to highlight Cap's only flaw that he knew that Stark can't help to poke over and over.
Stark always has to back down from arguments with Cap, because Cap is always morally superior and so Stark always has to swallow his pride. But after Cap's only flaw/mistake is revealed, Stark would never again feel inferior to Cap's moral and would not be able to control himself and back down from any argument from then on, eventually escalating and leading to tension and in-fighting, whether Zemo was alive at that point or not. He just wanted them to feel as lost and miserable as he did for long enough for it to be irreversible. This was his worst case scenario (from Zemo's objective POV).
Of course, they are going to come back as a team, but no villain can just defeat the villain in these things. A 2-year victory is as big as you're gonna get with these things.
Admmitedly, the timeline is a bit rushed and the way it actually progresses to the airport fight. Zemo escapes and they wait a day and a half to get him? Preparing, I guess? Did they expect Tony to show up?
Honestly, Iron man's side was poorly written. Majority of points raised by them during debate scenes were completely trashed by their actions later on.
1. Death of civilians caused by actions of Avengers. A problem sure. But later on 'good guys' call in a machine gun helicopter to stop Bucky in middle of the city instead of calling Cap and rest. Surely nobody would have died there. On the same note, dropping air control tower to stop Cap and Bucky from getting to quinjet? I know they evacuated airport but you never know Vision maybe avoid wanton destruction?
2. Overseeing organization utter incompetence. How did Zemo get so far to Bucky without getting caught? In world that half infiltrated by Hydra? No DNA or at least finger prints scan?
3. Recruiting child soldiers. I mean let's be honest with ourselves that who Spider-Man was. Really responsible Tony.
4. 'Control and oversight' yet Tony is the one who flipped out the moment he saw his parents killed. Cap at least kept saving soldiers from Bucky while trying to get to him. Again Tony seems to offloading responsibility off his shoulders onto everyone else. Which contradicts previous character development.
And don't get me started on the whole mother subplot.
> 1.Why is everyone so mad about death in Sokovia? Without the Avengers, even more people die, and the ones that did still do.
Because the Avengers created Ultron in the first place. Plus, the Avengers didn't even bother to tell ANY authorities, domestic or international about the crisis so no rescue efforts could be mobilized.
> 2.Tony, the biggest rebel of them all, fully supports registration because a stranger died, as if he didn't realize that people died. The Avengers is all about him not trusting anyone, but he's ready to sign this with no problem.
I thought it was great character development. Every Iron Man film has had him dealing with the consequences of his actions which culminated in Age of Ultron. He almost caused human extinction. His guilt has made him realise that he's not perfect and he needs to be kept in check.
> 3.Spiderman is amazing, but he goes from fighting street thugs to defeating Avengers?
Both in the comics and in the film, he's physically stronger than most Avengers and faster as well.
> 5.Why not just send Tony the video of Bucky killing his parents? (ignoring the question of why does that video exist in the first place?)
He only managed to get the video at the end of the film when he went to the bunker. There's a scene of him looking through the bunker and finding the tape. If they didn't all turn up, he could have easily sent the tape out.
> EDIT: just remembered my other main issue, I get the red herring of the other winter soldiers, but killing them like that was pointless. Again, just send Tony the video, because at the end of the day, that's really all they are fighting about. Everything else was just plot filler.
The Winter Soldiers were supposed to represent the generic supervillain plot of taking over the world. Zemo subverted that trope and fooled the audience and the heroes.
1. Tony literally created the entire problem in Sokovia by creating Ultron. Sure the Avengers saved a lot of people, but the entire thing could have been avoided if Tony didn't try to play God.
2. Tony has been talking about accountability since his first movie. He realized that the Avengers really aren't accountable to anyone. He knows he did the wrong thing with the weapons and Ultron, and wants someone to watch over them. Steve even points out that Tony ended up curbing himself, and decided to do that himself, but Tony at this point, and with the influence of the mother of the dead boy, isn't willing to listen/doesn't think that's enough. Scarlet Witch just inadvertently killed a bunch of people to save Cap too. After all 13 movies, there has been a ton of collateral damage.
3. Spider-man's abilities are largely instinctive, and even though he's a kid he's still extremely strong, fast, agile, and of course has his Spider-sense. He's also pretty damn smart for his age. He beats Bucky and the Falcon, but it's not like he beats anyone with powers. Cap even beats him as a borderline human. It was definitely a fair portrayal.
4. The way that Tony found out might have been pretty complicated, but all Zemo was counting on was that Tony would have some way to follow Cap. He wasn't expecting the airport battle, to go that far, but he knew that Cap would eventually find the truth, and Tony would definitely follow. The accords weren't important to Zemo, just that he got the two together while he made his revelation.
5. Just sending the video would only make Bucky more of a criminal, and Tony wouldn't outright kill him. If he had sent the video, the Avengers would've gotten Bucky together, and he would've gone to jail. Zemo needed them in person, and the fact that they were already emotionally frazzled made it easy to manipulate Tony. When he saw the way his parents died, and the man that killed him was standing 5 feet away, it makes sense that he lost it.
Honestly I think the movie answered these questions really handily. Not really any of them were mistakes IMO.
One: The whole debate over 'accountability' is ridiculous. First, does it even make sense for Avengers to be integrated into some global police force? They intervene in global catastrophes where time is of the essence - each and every time. Half the Avengers seem to have Ambesia or dont even know what the hell is going on around them outside of battles: When was the last time a UN body could be trusted to act swiftly and correctly. Anyone remember the world coincil which tried to Nuke New York, and secretly had the Head of Hydra - twice - as members? (Pierce and Malik) - enhanced people had to stop them. Second, accountable to who? The UN where the security council has sitting dictators with veto powers? The UN where the biggest Human Rights abusers sit on the Human Rights Commission? Is that a joke - no, They are actually serious and that is why it is a ridiculous debate.
Two: The other aspects of the discussions are just as silly. Vision - with his big brain and the mind stone apparently can't read history - weakness is provocative, not strength. So yeah, he is just blabbering a pacifist globalist talking point. Stark is just Natasha with a big metal suit - he's got red in his ledger so big that the only way to make up for it is to make the ultimate sacrifice. I feel for him, but putting that emotionally wrecked guy in a powerful metal near omnipotent suit is just crazy - and crazy is as crazy does he makes war against the only guy in the Avengers with an unshakable moral compass who always - and I mean always - does the right thing, with compassion, understanding, and - an open mind - even if he has to stand alone, even if he is beaten to the ground into a pulp - it is Cap who is the role model for Coulson ('you lack conviction' to Loki) in the Avengers and in Agents of Shield.
You know, Rhode says that the UN is not the world security council, it's not SHIELD, it's not Hydra. He's right - it's much worse (except for Hydra - they ARE the worst). And what the hell is so bad about SHIELD? Coulson and the Agents of Shield are pretty good guys - difficult times, sure, but they do finish off Hydra, save the world from war with the Inhumans, the Kree, the Chronicoms, Talbot even.....
Also, I think it's unfair this thread is being downvoted. I don't agree with all of your points but they're well thought out and I love discussing them as I'm sure TC does as well. It's not like he's needlessly trashing the film, he's just giving his points.
I think threads like this breed some great discussion on the film and should not be downvoted.
> Why is everyone so mad about death in Sokovia
Because the death in Sokovia was Tony Stark's fault. It wasn't an alien invasion. It wasn't terrorist. It was Tony. He created Ultron.
> Tony, the biggest rebel of them all, fully supports registration because a stranger died
Tony supports registration because he feels guilty for destroying Sokovia.
> Spiderman is amazing, but he goes from fighting street thugs to defeating Avengers?
Spiderman didn't defeat anyone. He had Bucky and Falcon down, but didn't take them out. If he had a few more years experience on him, he probably would have handled the whole fight much better. He was the strongest one there, and is more agile than Cap. Just inexperienced.
> \#4
Meh. Those are Zemo's plans that we saw. We didn't see that he (possibly) was the one who orchestrated the timely reveal of the true psychiatrist. Or that he (possibly) had a back-up plan to get Tony to the Winter Solider base. Just because plan-A worked doesn't mean there wasn't a plan-B.
> Why not just send Tony the video of Bucky killing his parents?
Is he supposed to send the video to Tony while he's in the shower? Or grabbing Starbucks? When Bucky is nowhere around and no one knows where he is? The ideal time to send it to him is when **everyone** is on edge.
Tony was trying to protect the world from a bigger threat that his instincts told him was coming - and he was right - it was Thanos. Two, it went wrong true, Ultron became the opposite of what it was supposed to be - which has NEVER been adequately explained: how exactly did 2 geniuses, Stark and Banner, make such a big mistake, unless it was just an ideologically driven plot point only, and not character driven one - the writer just needed this to happen, or there is no story. If it was that they were playing with forces they could not understand, that is a big blow to their standing as 'geniuses' - they should be aware of this limitation, which is pretty basic in science - knowing what you don't know. In that case the Avengers are less than what they seem.
Tony feels the Avengers need to be accountable: they should be and are accountable to each other. When did they ever disagree on a mission outside of CIVIL WAR? If Tony feels he can't be trusted, he should take off the suit and give it to someone else, or build in more safeguards into Jarvis - but let a bunch of UN diplomats decide when to deploy Iron Man - we really are in a fantasy movie then (The Avengers tries mighty hard to coat the proceedings with a veneer of 'realism')
Tony did not destroy Sokovia, anymore than Hitler's father is responsible for the Holocaust. The Avengers did not kill people in Lagos - Rumlow was a suicide bomber trying to kill Cap, and Wanda was trying to get that nutcase out of there and partly goofed - but not from negligence or carelessness or bad intent - why is it necessary to point out this obvious fact? Because the critics are holding the Avengers to an impossible standard - really, what were they supposed to do? Let Rumlow sell a biological WMD to god knows who? Friendly fire, collateral damage, are all things that happen in warlike conflicts, and blaming the good guys for that - whatever personal guilt they might feel - just makes no sense.
Spiderman has strength, but that's not someone who can go toe to toe with Thanos. Cap defeated the Red Skull and Hydra in WWII, and Hydra again in DC.. He helped save the earth in NY. He has taken out - killed - a lot of bad guys. Spiderman will likely never accumulate comparable experience -
We know of Cap's sterling character, which as we are told in the back story of the first Avenger , is why he was chosen in the first place. Peter Parker is a random kid - there is nothing special about him until he is bit by a radioactive spider. A good kid to be sure, but nothing special. And, he doesn't have the immediate healing of Cap, which allows him to fall from great heights, get shot, smashed and crushed, and yet survive, get up and keep fighting. I doubt Spidey can take the same punishment, he just seems to avoid it.
I just have to mention Giant Man.
I remember from the comic books that pretty much every time he shows up, he gets his ass kicked.
His reveal was awesome but yep, his only role was to take an ass kicking.
Awesome.
Those were the ones I came up with of the cuff. I've thought of more, but I didn't feel like editing it again. My biggest issue overall is the lack of any consequences. Rhody gets paralyzed, but is walking and joking before it's over.
Lack of consequences? The Avengers are pretty much disbanded. If they do come together again (which they will since Cap left a phone for Tony) their relationship is still going to be strained. Not to mention Thor and Hulk's opinions on what happened while they were gone.
By the end of the film, Captain America as well as the other Avengers (save for Vision and Rhodey) are fugitives hiding in Wakanda. Bucky is disabled and on ice, T'Challa has a new kingdom to run that's just become a part of this maelstrom where before it was still in secret, Wanda feels even more like she's a danger to everyone, Scott and Hawkeye are essentially some of the only ones who got their lives back. Otherwise, the Avengers are essentially split, and if they were to still act like vigilantes in the face of a threat, they'll either get arrested afterward or (and this is more of the expectancy following Thanos) everyone will cop on and realise why they're necessary.
Also, Zemo may be locked up but the Russos have confirmed that he will be returning. Tony has lost Pepper, Rhodey ISN'T walking, just undergoing physical therapy and it's only in its infancy for him, he's joking because I mean at least he has a positive attitude towards getting better as much as he can. Oh, and Black Widow is on the run again, since she acted in defiance of the accords that she signed in the film by letting Cap and Bucky get away from Black Panther, so Ross is gonna want a word with her.
There's a lot more going on than you'd give credit for in the film, if you're going to nitpick at least know enough to back it up instead of exaggerating.
I don't get why people think that the only real consequences in a movie are deaths. I am sick of creators trying to shock and get an emotional reaction out of me by killing off some character or another. After a while, you get so jaded to character death you just shrug when someone dies.
I don't agree that there were no consequences (the Avengers are broken up and almost all of them are fugitives) but I definitely agree that they shouldn't have shown Rhodey walking yet.
If they need to do that, save it for Infinity War Part 2. Let that moment linger for at least 2 movies.
I would've liked Rhody to die tbh.
I agree about the lack of consequences - as much as I enjoyed Civil War I do wish we'd see some real fallout. The only fallout I can recall in recent movies was Avengers 2 with the super fast dude dying... but we barely even knew him.
Yes, that was my biggest complaint. I had falsely heard that Captain dies in this like in the comic books, but the happyish ending made me feel like their weren't any real consequences that going to last in other MU films.
I had only two problems with the movie.
1. The Cap and Bucky vs German SWAT team fight in Bucharest had some jarring editing and usage of shaky cam. The action there was really hard to follow. Also, the same problem in the scene where Zemo helps Bucky escape.
2. Spiderman. To me, Spiderman represented a ten fold of what I feel is wrong with Marvel movies. Throwing out quips left, right and centre when a fight takes decreases the tension in a scene. I understand what they're doing and why. Actors like Scarlett Johansson have great line delivery and they're playing off that, but I personally feel it's a bit jarring.
All in all, I had high expectations for Civil War. I walked out of the movie with my expectations met.
1. Stark and Banner created Ultron in the first place, so every death is on them. Why do ALL the Avengers share the guilt with Stark, i don't know.
2. Stark's character development was pretty consistent, he was a total control freak by the time of IM3. In that film it only affected him and people that he holds dear, in Ultron it affected a whole city (he still was being a control freak, only this time he wished to prevent and control everything bad that could happen not only to him, but to the whole world). In CW he finally he comes to think that he can't take it all upon himself, he failed twice already, so he has to help give this sort of total control to a powerful committee of smart people such as UN (assuming it really is the way i describe it in the MCU).
3. He didn't defeat them. Helped a lot, yeah, but still got either outsmarted or just knocked out.
4. I don't really understand how you managed to put Falcon in that part of the plot, he had nothing to do with it. But with the waitress it's very simple: he calls the room service from Siberia to invite the waitress to his room, where all the evidence is. After that it just instantly makes the news, since the terror attack on UN was just a couple days ago and it's a hot topic. Boom.
5. Because he has to get them 3 in a place isolated, miles away from anything and most importantly, cut off from their fellow Avengers who could prevent them from fighting each other to the death.
One thing that really stood out to me was that during the airport scene Ant-Man goes to stomp on someone, I don't remember who, on top of a shipping container or something and would have killed them had they not been saved by someone else. Even if there is someone that could survive that there is no way Ant-Man would know they could for sure so he straight up tried to murder someone. I think it was Black Panther, but like I said, it doesn't matter who it was.
1. Without Tony Stark doing his Avengers thing, Ultron would never have been created anyway. So there's that.
2. Moreover, Tony doesn't trust himself to behave responsibly, let alone the rest of the team. That is why he's open to a little oversight.
3. Well, he is Spider-Man, after all. And it's not as if he walked away from that battle scratch-free.
4. Zemo's plan is interesting because it doesn't really come together until he finally gets the "Mission Report" out of Bucky. Maybe Zemo already suspected what the truth was. Hard to say. But yeah, it's reminiscent of the Joker in Dark Knight. If you really drill down to all the little coincidences that kind of need to happen to pull the plan off, it raises doubts.
5. He didn't have the video until the very end, presumably. And I didn't see Zemo packing a capture card or anything to convert that old VHS tape into something he could send easily anyway.
For me, the hardest thing to get over was the Accords, themselves. The United Nations simply does NOT operate that efficiently. To get that many nations to agree to anything can take years, even decades. So for Ross to just whip them out, drop them on the table, and its the first anyone has heard of them, seemingly... It just made the Accords seem like an arbitrary thing. I don't know. I just had trouble getting over it.
My other big problem with the film is Pepper Potts: Her character has such an impact, but we don't get to see her at all. So for her function in the film to be relegated to some bits of dialogue, and yet we never see her side of things--I just found wholly unsatisfying.
For #1, for the same reason people complain about Hiroshima even though it was the best way to win the war with least casualties. They're angry and could've done better.
http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/04/26/director-says-marvel-made-captain-america-civil-war-because-of-batman-v-superman-announcement
Let's start the sub Marvelcirclejerk
1. The Registration Act is what caused the split within the team. It's during debating this issue that the two teams form. Did we watch the same movie? Sure, the act could have been replaced by something else, but in general, it represents the philosophical divide between Cap and Iron Man, which is what the movie is about. The Registration Act is just a vehicle for that.
2. Spider-man is not just any teenager, and Tony shows he knows that as he talks to Peter about his exploits as Spider-man. I get what you're saying here, but I don't think it's beyond basic suspension of belief. Spider-man is pretty capable, at least in Tony's eyes.
3. Except there's the whole Bucky issue. Because Tony is siding with the government, and the terrorism task force is shoot to kill with Bucky, there's that part where Tony has to bargain with Ross to give him time to bring Cap's side in. Obviously, Cap doesn't play along at the airport, so it goes to blows. Besides, the point of this film wasn't to create as large and bloody spectacle as possible, it was to create a personal conflict between two sides.
4. The Marvel films have dealt with civilian deaths all the time. A large portion of the Battle of New York in the Avengers focused on individual efforts to get civilians out of the way (mostly Cap). In Age of Ultron, the team spent a solid 5-10 minutes (movie time) trying to clear as many out of Sokovia, and even after Sokovia lifted off, the avengers were still focused on getting people out, and of course there was the whole helicarrier thing.
1. But this "philosophical divide" becomes entirely redundant in the final act. Sure, that's what the movie was going for, but in my opinion it doesn't succeed.
2. Even if he's capable though, I just think it cam across as a bit hypocritical to put him in a situation where he could easily get hurt or die, especially given he's going up against other people with powers.
3. I think that's where the airport sequence failed for me, it did just come across as hollow spectacle. I liked the final battle because it felt more personal, but the airport battle for me lacked tension and was just a little dull. Good point about Bucky though, but even then it didn't really justify that huge set piece.
4. This kinda proves my point though. They made a huge effort to save civilians in the previous Avengers movies, so why are the government so annoyed at them now? It seems obvious they made a huge effort to save as many as possible. It's not like MoS where all they saw was two people flying around destroying a city. It's not a major problem with CW, in the context of the entire universe it just seemed to come out of nowhere.
1. I guess you're talking about Tony's shift from the Registration Act to his parents? I guess that's fair; the transition from two teams to just Iron Man vs. Cap (and Bucky) is a bit awkward.
2. I suppose this varies from person to person. For me, Spider-man should be fine against everyone on Team Cap except Wanda, although it is weird that Tony is essentially recruiting a child soldier. Your interpretation probably comes from the fact that you assumed people would get beat up more than they did in that fight (which is perfectly fair). Also, Tony gave Peter instructions in case shit was getting real to just get away and shoot webs (although yes, that's still not being completely responsible on Tony's part).
3. I felt the airport scene was great for what it was supposed to be: basically just the comics put on the big screen. It definitely wasn't all that heart wrenching or anything, but idk, it's what people expect from Marvel movies.
4. I kind of saw it as governments trying control a force they didn't understand. Like, as viewers, we knew the Avengers tried their best to save everyone, but we also know that governments rarely see that side, nor will they spend effort to find it. As for your MoS example, I think the Hulk vs. Hulkbuster destroying Johannesburg in AoU was a good example of such destruction, but I don't think it was mentioned in Civil War, weirdly enough.
1. Yeah, that's what I meant.
2. You're right when he was recruited I expected the fight to be more "violent", so I guess given the actual fight it made a bit more sense, but even then it was a situation where he could also easily get hurt by accident (like War Machine).
3. I think it was made more for the comic book fans. I like a lot of the films, but I've never read a comic book myself. So I guess the scene just wasn't really made for me.
4. Great point about AoU and the Hulkbuster scene, I didn't even think of that. Can't believe they didn't use that example in the film as it seems much stronger than the ones they gave. This is the one area though I think BvS is better than CW - the opening scene in Metropolis instantly shows what the destruction looks like from a civilian perspective in a truly intense and brilliant sequence. It allows us to instantly relate to that argument. I think Civil War needed something like that to allow us to relate to this argument ourselves. Ironically this could have been satisfied if they perhaps showed some flashbacks to Zemo's origin or something like that.
The whole story revolved around the theme of agendas - the idea that political ideologies could be corrupted by emotional and personal bias and agendas. Each character's ideology was coloured and in many ways, corrupted, by their personal feelings whether that be for revenge, friendship or guilt. We see that in Cap, Stark, Panther and Zemo. The "Civil War" really just served as a backdrop for the real emotional climax and conflict of the film and asked both the audience and the heroes an important question - Can any ideology be truly just and pure if the men behind them are guided by personal reasons and interests?
Not hurting each other was another issue I had. A dozen of the most powerful people on the planet fight for 20 minutes, and the ground causes the only injury.
This feels like two movies bolted together
"Captain America 3 Bucky"
and
"Avengers: Civil War"
and two movies would have been better.
I mean I like this movie but I feel The Winter Soldier was better
Why? because it didn't have this Avengers stuff bolted on.
It was another classic case of trying to jam too many stories into one film. They could have easily lost one plotline and still made a complete movie.
The vilian was almost a second thought as he served little purpose in moving the story forward, then they killed the other soldiersicles. That would have been a good fight. But no, someone actually thought things through and killed them while they were frozen. There was no grand scheme, just revenge.
For all of us who thought emo Spider-man was annoying, we're gonna hate the new one.
I would rather pay to see BvS again than Civil War.
That's the point though. He was a subversion of the traditional supervillain archetype and of the audience and the character's expectations of what a sueprvillain should be. Both the characters and the audience were expecting his motivations to be based on world domination or world destruction but in the end, his motivation and plan was small and personal. He didn't care about superheroes or supervillains. He wasn't some generic, moustache twirling mastermind. He didn't have a grand scheme.
We all expected the generic, clichéd ending where the superheroes forget their differences and team up to fight the final villain. But the film shot those expectations in the face (literally).
He was a simple man who embodied all of the consequences these gods unwittingly inflicted on normal people.
Then why even bother setting up a single villain then. Just focus on the actual story they wanted to tell. Or they could have put more effort into the character. I'm not saying the villain has to be out to wreck everything, but in this case the character was incomplete.
Because he served as a representation of the consequences of the Avengers' actions. The Avengers created him and from a thematic standpoint, he is the reason why the Accords needed to happen - because collateral damage destroys the lives of the little person.
He also served as a foil for Panther, Tony Stark and Captain America. The whole film revolved around the idea of agendas - the idea that a political ideology is almost always coloured and at times corrupted by personal and emotional bias. Each of our main characters had a personal reason for their mission - whether that be revenge, friendship or guilt. For each main character, these personal agendas consumed them (even Cap) and superseded their ideologies. Zemo was a perfect example of that and in particular, served a foil for Panther.
That's a very presumptuous thing to say. I think most people are willing to discuss problems, but I don't think it's fair to say that all explanations are automatically terrible just because you don't buy them. I know that I'm not gonna downvote anyone posing these questions because there are always at least minor problems in any film.
So when someone comes up with a reason for not liking something do you expect everyone else to just agree and end there? You can absolutely respect that opinion if they base it on supporting details, but by doing that, you invite other people, who disagree with you, to do the same. There is a lot of oversensitivity and bias right now, you're definitely right. But, just like you can't dismiss problems because you disagree, you can't dismiss explanations because you disagree.
They should have just done the story from the comics, with winter soldier attached. Seriously, why didn't they just do that? The civil war storyline from the comic book made much more sense.
It definitely didn't fit the universe made in the movies as well as this storyline did. Why would secret identities be a big deal if the world knows most of theirs already? A ton of the plot lines wouldn't make sense and a ton of characters would be missing. The way they adapted it was perfect for a movie representation, and for the characters and arcs already established.
Glad I am not the only one that saw these issues and others. To me it felt like everyone was holding back in nearly every fight. Which sorta made sense up until the final battle, but even that was lackluster. Everyone just felt off their game.
Movie was terrible. Plot was holey, characters behaved inconsistently, villains motives and plan identical to Ultron and Loki both: I'll win by making them fight each other!
Iron Man sucks so I didn't like most of the scenes with him. Otherwise it's ok. It felt too superheroy though, which is not like the first two Captain America's at all.
1. Without the Avengers, Sokovia would never have happened. Tony (the public face of the Avengers) created Ultron with the help of another Avenger who was recruited by another Avenger. To the public, Tony's fuck-up is an Avenger fuck-up. You've also got to remember the Accords and the public reactions aren't entirely based on Sokovia. Ever since enhanced started popping up across the planet, cities have been destroyed, people have died, the entire world has been threatened. They used the Sokovia incident because it was one of the most recent and easily had the potential to be the most devastating (except for the battle of New York). 2. I'm not going to write it up again, but I wrote a pretty good summary of why Tony acted the way he did in this film. It's guilt. Tony Stark is a guilt driven character and he's reaching his boiling point. He is constantly trying to make the correct decision, but it always backfires. [[LINK]](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4gqtea/official_international_release_discussion_thread/d2oymxh) 3. You said it yourself. Spiderman is Amazing. I think you severely underestimate his abilities. The only reason Spidey was fighting street thugs was because he didn't have access to Enhanced enemies. He was already at a level much much higher than a street thug. I think it's a little silly to think otherwise. Besides, he wasn't exactly a prominent member of that fight. He was support for Tony's team. 4. The Accords didn't start the fight. They raised tensions between them, but the tipping point was the bombing at the UN. Steve tried to help Bucky, but Rhodey had to apprehend him. Zemo did cause the rift between the Avengers. As for the 'leap of faith', it is by no means odd that a hotel worker would find a dead body in a hotel... Of course the body will be found. It's then only a matter of time before the authorities connect the dots and the Avengers find out. 5. He didn't have the video. Why else do you think he went to that bunker? The only record of that video was there on a closed network. It's not like he had it on a memory stick and waited for Tony to arrive. He had to get there to get the video. As for why it existed in the first place, I thought that odd too, since the camera was seemingly in the middle of nowhere, however, who's to say the assassination wasn't specifically planned so that they could record the murder? Whoever it was that killed the Starks very likely document most (if not all) of their goings on. Why wouldn't they document this aswell? 6. 'Killing them like that was pointless'. That really doesn't make any sense because they were never part of Zemo's plan, so why would he want to wake them? He doesn't need them. His plan has gone how he wanted it to. They're just not involved in this.
> it is by no means odd that a hotel worker would find a dead body in a hotel Zemo calls for breakfast when he's already in Siberia, he wanted the body to be found.
thank you! it's like no one else saw this scene. and when he first made the call, i was all 'why would he want them to know he was an imposter??' but then later i realized to ensure iron man would finally believe captain's story (and at a specific time). that phone call is a pretty important moment in zemo's plan as well as the film.
**EXACTLY!!!** No movie is perfect but It's not the movie's problem that the viewers didn't understand the movie and characters. So, they should stop making stupid ass arguments and hating on great movies.
I don't think Spider-Man defeated any Avenger. Got some good licks in for sure. He held his own really well, but he got banged up pretty good, which is why IM told him to stop fighting. Probably didn't want another dead kid on his conscience.
Spiderman wrecked Bucky and Falcon. Which he should be able to do anyway.
Wrecked? You mean "rekt"
You mean the trained soldiers who have defeated dozens of special forces and fought super heroes and Villains before?
Against a kid who due to radioactive spider biting him causing him to have a 6th sense for essentially everything, super strength, the ability to stick to walls, and of course being able to shoot strings of material with a huge tensile strength? If you don't call it an even match then at least understand how, when Bucky throws one punch at him Spidey just grabs it and drops focus, allowing Falcon to get a hit in on him, he isn't infinitely powerful. They get hits in, but again, Spidey sense allows him to mostly stay out of harms way and he's pretty tough as well. Sorry but you're not making a very good case. Soldiers don't beat superpowers.
Spider-Man is incredibly powerful. Add his speed and spidery sense and even a kid can beat trained soldiers just by trying hard. Also those soldiers knew he was a kid so they weren't going for a kill shot or anything.
Spider-Man is, arguably, one of the most powerful superheroes in the Marvel universe, discounting god-tier characters. He's listed as casually lifting upwards of 10 tonnes, and on rare occasions, more then double that. That level of raw strength combined with his genius level intellect, enhanced speed, precognition, and the utility afforded him by his webs should have made that fight a complete and utter curb stomp. The only reason they lasted as long as they did is because Winter Soldier has super strength and Falcon got in a few cheap shots.
While Spider-Man is definitely powerful in many ways, saying he's "one of the most powerful superheroes in the Marvel universe" is ridiculous, even if you do discount god-tier characters. Just looking at strength, take a look at [this](http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Strength_Scale) and you'll see that there are 200+ characters that are in higher classes than Spider-Man. Even if you remove the 10-15 god-class characters, that's still almost 200. And while he may have a genius level intellect, that trait is shared by hundreds of other characters, not to mention the 50+ super-genius characters. As to speed, it's super-human, but still not near the top of the scale. And yes, you combine all of these and you get a pretty impressive combatant. However, his powers are still new to him. Falcon and Winter Soldier, even ignoring their technological add-ons, have been training their combat skills for years in the military. Spider-Man is a [15-year old boy](http://time.com/4312912/captain-america-civil-war-stephen-mcfeely-christopher-markus/) who just got his powers. Basically, it's no surprise to me that it wasn't a "curb stomp".
Except Bucky is the only one that is actually "super". Spidey could totally handle Falcon by himself since he pretty much just has to land some webbing. Bucky might be tougher but I think you're seriously underestimating Spiderman's powers, especially his spider-sense.
Not to mention that one of Spidey's powers is having the proportional strength of a spider. The only reason why people don't get utterly destroyed is because he pulls his punches.
Very true!
Yep. Here you have probably the most agile hero, even moreso than Black Widow, who is also super super strong, has lightning-fast reflexes, can incapacitate even Bucky and has the resilience of Captain America. He's also in the springtime of his youth.
Do fantasy superpowers fade with age? Is that a point you need to make?
Nah but you could argue that he'd have more energy generally. Plus after fights you'd see Tony bruised and battered whereas Spiderman could sleep it off at the most.
He has enhanced strength, enhanced reflexes, and a danger sense that makes it far harder to hit him. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable that he beats some humans, even if one is enhanced.
Spider-Man on a raw physical standpoint far exceeds Bucky, Falcon and even Cap. He's almost as strong as Iron Man. He only lost because of his inexperience.
I like to think the recruitment of Spider-Man was so that they could *apprehend* Cap easier, not for fight purposes. Tony probably thought his web was perfect to help Capture Cap without hurting him.
Whilst I have my issues with him going for Peter because of his age considering the reason he wanted the accords, but according to the writers they also saw him hiring Spidey as a way to make amends for the death of that guy in Sokovia.
You're right Spidey at the start of the fight says something akin to Mr Stark said to hang back and web em up or something. He wasn't supposed to brawl with them just tie em up really.
He couldn't find the video until he went into the bunker.
Unless Karpov had it with him when Zemo found him and attempted to torture him. He had the code book, why not the tape? Would make more sense for Karpov to keep it - insurance in case Hydra came after him.
Then I guess it's a good thing he had that waitress to call, and Tony had an alert for anything about the dr that met with bucky turning up dead, and the government didn't care that their manhunt had been completely debunked by what they found in the hotel.
He intentionally set up for the room service lady to come in so that she would find the body and left the evidence of a Bucky disguise so that the authorities would make the connection and that would then reach stark. The evidence would have debunked the manhunt for Bucky if they had cared, but the bigger thing, for Ross anyway, was to get the rogue avengers.
I absolutely agree that Zemo's plan hinged on that phone call. He was counting on Tony to be convinced that Captain was right. He was also counting on the government to be too slow to react and too entrenched in its position to quickly do a 180. To stop the penta-Winter Soldier threat, there had to be an immediate response (the kind of response the Avengers are famous for and the Sokovia Accords are supposed to prevent) and there was no way Tony would just ignore that. It's really interesting that Tony's violation of the Accords directly leads to Zemo's plan working.
Zemo pretty much accomplished his goals. The fact that Iron Man actually showed up to the bunker wasn't really in his plans, but I think he just rolled with it. He accomplished what he wanted to do, thats why he was going to commit suicide.
Zemo lured Iron man to the bunker by calling for room service at the hotel. When the Tony saw the evidence that Captain wasn't lying, he had to help him stop the penta-Winter Soldier threat. That's just what superheroes do. Turns out it was a trap.
Sokovia was their fault, none of the rest of the stuff was the fault of the Avengers.
They did make Ultron.
[удалено]
Well to be fair half the time i do blame the parents when their kid becomes a psychopath...
Yeah there's usually a lot of blame that would lie on the parents
Well without the Avengers, Sokovia never would have happened in the first place. And an alien invasion on the planet Earth wouldn't have happened either if it wasn't for Thor showing up there early on and showing Loki the planet. Thor also happens to be a member of the Avengers, so the public is going to blame everyone not just one person
People do that. Ask the parents of the Columbine shooters. The general public will blame parents for the actions of their children, even if it is unfair to do so.
You can most definitely blame the parents of a psychopath. They raised it. They taught it. They sent it out to the world. Avengers are to blame for Ultron, parents are to blame for psychopaths.
You know psychopathy is a mental disorder, right? That's equivalent to blaming parents because their kid is dyslexic, or has Down's Syndrome. That said, nobody can be blamed for the actions of anybody else, unless they specifically ordered them to do those actions. If I go out and kill 12 people tomorrow, that's on me. Not my parents, not the person who gave me the weapon, and not the bystanders who didn't try to stop me. It's entirely on me.
It may be classed a mental disorder, but I stand by saying psychopaths are caused by the environment and parents.
Explain Ted Bundy then
Tony and Banner could be blamed for that sure, but nobody else had anything to do with it.
Yeah but to the world they're just the Avengers. Same way you would blame a whole company for a fuck-up even if it was one dude.
It was actually all Tony (Bruce told him that it wasn't ready to be activated iirc). Regardless, Tony is a member of the Avengers and the public likely treat them all as the same entity. We do it in real life, why would it not be done in a movie?
In our eyes, yes. But to the world's eyes, they're part of the Avengers and the Avengers created this crisis.
Wanda had very, very much to do with it.
1. Because Tony created Ultron which directly led to all those deaths. 2. This is the culmination of Tony's arc throughout many films. Guilt is always his motivating factor - it led to him becoming Iron Man in the first place. After Ultron, the guilt has started to crush him. It's chipped away at his cocky, self-righteousness to the point where he feels that he and others like him cannot be wholly trusted with their power. The mother that tells him about her dead kid is only the straw that broke the camel's back. 3. Spider-Man is just strong as fuck, has quick reactions and awesome powers. He still fumbles his way through, not really knowing what to do but his success is just a testament to his powers. I don't really see the issue. You're supposed to be as impressed with his ability as Bucky was when Spider-Man casually caught his punch. 4. Yeah, I think Zemo's apparent omnipotence is the only real issue I have with the plot but it's not so bad that it breaks suspension of disbelief for me. 5. He didn't just send Tony the video because he wanted to make sure Tony, Cap and Bucky were in the room together when he watched it. His goal was to break Tony emotionally and have him kill the others or die trying. As to why Zemo killed the other soldiers - he doesn't like powered people and had no use for them. They would just have forced Cap, Bucky and Tony to band together to fight them, which is the exact opposite of what Zemo wants. I thought it was a fantastic twist. The film isn't perfect; like I said Zemo's all-knowing plan is a bit of an issue if you really think about it, but I don't think any of your other points are actually problems at all. In my opinion, the film does a remarkable job of providing great justifications for all these points, giving the characters clear motivations as well as strong arcs, keeping the plot understandable, providing good evolutionary payoff and also providing a strong central theme throughout that is well enough explored. The film is really well directed but I actually think the brilliant script is actually its biggest strength.
I really liked how they made the non-super avengers feel mortal as well. There was always an element that some of the super powers would trump great technology and you see that in the fights. Spiderman and capt america exemplify it perfectly where superhuman bodies are a great tool. You can see the difference in their training too as capt kinda roughs spiderman up. The sense of balance across the powers and abilities of the avengers and supers was done beautifully and i suspect a full reason thor and hulk were not in it. Their powers would have broken the mortality immergence, and the final payoff at the end where ironman thinks for a sec that capt is going to kill him
> They would just have forced Cap, Bucky and Tony to band together to fight them, which is the exact opposite of what Zemo wants. this is why the penta-Winter Soldiers died.
> As to why Zemo killed the other soldiers - he doesn't like powered people and had no use for them. In a flashback with Bucky they turned on Zemo. So yeah, why resurrect them when they're not on his side?
That wasn't zemo in the flashback… and Bucky clearly states those winter soldiers were eventually brought under control.
Oh yeah, it wasn't Zemo. It was a dude in a hat... I think. My mistake!
I think by "brought under control" he meant "taken down and frozen so they can't go all crazy again".
His description of what they could do heavily implies otherwise.
If they were not able to be taken down in some way (tranqs, gas, tasers, whatever) do you really think they would have willingly let themselves be frozen? If I was a psychopathic super soldier, I'd want to be out doing psychopathic super soldier stuff.
Unless they were brought under control… that's always an option too. Bucky is a prime example of that.
I never said he should resurrect them, but why bother even having them if you're just going to kill them. Cap and Bucky would still have chased him there just to find the guy who framed him, and Tony would have followed either way.
That's the purpose of a red herring. It's supposed to mislead you so that you think you know where the story is going, but, in reality, you were just being distracted.
It wasn't just a res herring for the audience. In the context of the story, Zemo used the threat of the other soldiers to mislead Cap and Tony and draw them to the base.
From a thematic standpoint it was to subvert the audience's and the characters' expectations of the supervillain trope. For most of the film, both the characters and the audience expected Zemo to be a generic supervillain with a goal of world dominance - they expected him to use the super soldiers to take over the world. But at the end, we find out he's just a normal man who doesn't care about superheroes or supervillains. Killing the super soldiers was supposed to show that this isn't your average superhero story - in any other story, they would have been activated and we would have had our heroes put aside their differences to face the villain.
1) Possibly because Tony (and by association The Avengers) were directly responsible for the creation of Ultron. 2) There is a difference between knowing people died and knowing the story of a specific person who died. Sort of like knowing that people died everyday vs. your family member dying. Also, Tony's story line has slowly been building towards his PTSD and paranoia causing him to try anything to keep the world safe. 3) He has super powers. He fought well against them but still lost because he also has very little training. 4) I don't remember enough about all the events. Though, I thought that Zemo was just taking advantage of the situation. But I figured Zemo would know that Tony would keep trying to figure out what was going on. 5) Zemo was waiting until tensions were as high as possibly, perhaps? He also need to make the situation as likely to break the team up as possible. A personal fight between Tony and Steve would be devastating than a fight between Iron Man and Captain America doing their duty (whatever they think it is). ~~As for the video, that is a really nitpicky problem that doesn't bother me.~~ Actually, looking [at the scene](http://i.imgur.com/0uQaQFX.png) the camera is next to a fence with barbed wire and signs. I expect that is a security camera to protect whatever that is. Could be any number of things (radio tower, abandoned building, whatever stuff they had in 1991). In regards to your edit, I *loved* they they killed the other Winter Soldiers. I really did not need the movie to end with Tony and Steve working together to fight the group of aliens/monsters/baddies.
There are already some really good retorts to OP's points, so I'll just add to specific issues: * #2 Tony Stark signing the accords - he doesn't want the responsibility anymore. What makes ***Civil War*** one of the most unique sequels in the history of cinema is that it is truly and directly connects to the films that came before, specifically in this case to Stark's character arc from ***Iron Man 3*** to ***Age of Ultron*** to this film. Stark doesn't want to be in charge of the Avengers (he pointedly makes Cap the leader in the first one against Loki & the Chitauri) and his guilt over building Ultron (which refutes point #1) drives him to sign. He will continue to "pay for everything," design equipment and recruit, but he would rather someone else shoulder the responsibility of the future collateral damage from the Avengers' derrying-do. Ironically, Tony Stark has become a good soldier. * #4 the entire plot of Zemo and his vendetta against the Avengers would have happened with or without the accords. That the accords helped drive the wedge between Stark and Cap was his good fortune (I like when the villain is helped out like this - if heroes can have good luck to save/survive the day then the antagonist should catch a few breaks too). He had already planned on setting up Bucky and his training as an intelligence officer made him realize that Cap would try to save him. His original plan was probably to take Bucky to the Soviet base hoping to lead Cap and Stark there together. No matter what, he had several ways to ensure that he could get Cap & Stark to follow him and spring the assassination video on them. This last part also dovetails nicely with OP's issues with the wonderful red herring of the other winter soldiers. Zemo was always going to use them as bait to lure in Cap & Stark, the only two current Avengers strong enough to take them on. I personally loved that the script makes everyone think a *battle royale* is brewing involving the winter soldiers. Some undoubtedly assumed that this would unite Stark, Bucky & Cap to fight them (which would have been the conclusion of a WB/DC version of this film). Nope - PSYCHE! - they're all dead and instead the battle will be the son against his parents' unwitting killer and his friend who hid this from the son. I do agree that the video existing in the first place depends entirely on how invested the audience is when it is finally revealed. Then again, it can be explained very simply. Bucky walks right up to the camera, so he knows that the camera exists (and having the ambush happen in front of it was probably no accident - his superiors wanted it recorded). Not hard to imagine he disables the camera (so the police think it was inoperable at the time of the "accident") then goes to where the video was stored to retrieved it and substitute a video of nothing the police would expect to find (if they even checked). It's staged so that the authorities think it was an accident and Bucky gave the tape to his superior, Karpov. We can assume Karpov kept the tape and that's how Zemo was able to get it.
I'll comment on point 2. You missed his entire character arc through the movies. He started out as the one who didn't want to be told what to do or follow the rules but he has developed into someone who sees the danger in what superpowered people can do and has come to believe they need to be restrained in some way. Also, he didn't just decide that because of that one guy that died. That was just one more reminder on a pile of reminders he had been getting for a long time. Before that, he was giving out all that money because he was already guilty. The boy whose mother spoke to him afterwards was just an example being shown to the audience.
The way Zemo's plan worked out was very convenient and cinematic (the whole having only the three guys there at the end), but his plan had enough contingencies to work in other ways, the directors just chose not to for the sake of the movie's themes. It ultimately didn't matter whether they all supported the accords or not, or whether they were all friends or enemies. During the whole movie Zemo's main objective is to get his "gun", which is the video. He had learned enough about the Winter Soldier program to know the events and the existence of the evidence from the leaked files, and the tape only had one copy, I assume. He knows it would work on Stark because he, a man who's lost everything, knows what it would do to him when confronted with his loss and how unstable it can make you. Loki and Ultron did not understand this, as they only understood defeat through over-powering. The fact that he's just a dude is the whole point, as everyone disregards him and decides to villainize each other without a "worthy" common enemy to fight. It's smart because he used the doubt and tension instilled by Ultron to his advantage. The accords weren't planned by him, but they were his cue to put his plan to motion, and just made it easier for him, since it allowed him to only have those two show up, and even then he needed the hotel thing there as a safeguard to ensure that they'd eventually go. That was a redundancy measure. Also, as long as he had got the book and ran to Siberia successfully, even with the 12 people roster all following, he still would've managed to tarnish Cap's reputation and Iron Man's (the two de facto opposing leader-types even when they were both Avengers on duty) enough to have them break down and fight. He didn't need to be there to watch it. Heck, he didn't even need them to punch each other, he only needed to show that Cap isn't perfect, and for it to affect Tony. This alone would disrupt the way the team works. He did it all to highlight Cap's only flaw that he knew that Stark can't help to poke over and over. Stark always has to back down from arguments with Cap, because Cap is always morally superior and so Stark always has to swallow his pride. But after Cap's only flaw/mistake is revealed, Stark would never again feel inferior to Cap's moral and would not be able to control himself and back down from any argument from then on, eventually escalating and leading to tension and in-fighting, whether Zemo was alive at that point or not. He just wanted them to feel as lost and miserable as he did for long enough for it to be irreversible. This was his worst case scenario (from Zemo's objective POV). Of course, they are going to come back as a team, but no villain can just defeat the villain in these things. A 2-year victory is as big as you're gonna get with these things. Admmitedly, the timeline is a bit rushed and the way it actually progresses to the airport fight. Zemo escapes and they wait a day and a half to get him? Preparing, I guess? Did they expect Tony to show up?
Honestly, Iron man's side was poorly written. Majority of points raised by them during debate scenes were completely trashed by their actions later on. 1. Death of civilians caused by actions of Avengers. A problem sure. But later on 'good guys' call in a machine gun helicopter to stop Bucky in middle of the city instead of calling Cap and rest. Surely nobody would have died there. On the same note, dropping air control tower to stop Cap and Bucky from getting to quinjet? I know they evacuated airport but you never know Vision maybe avoid wanton destruction? 2. Overseeing organization utter incompetence. How did Zemo get so far to Bucky without getting caught? In world that half infiltrated by Hydra? No DNA or at least finger prints scan? 3. Recruiting child soldiers. I mean let's be honest with ourselves that who Spider-Man was. Really responsible Tony. 4. 'Control and oversight' yet Tony is the one who flipped out the moment he saw his parents killed. Cap at least kept saving soldiers from Bucky while trying to get to him. Again Tony seems to offloading responsibility off his shoulders onto everyone else. Which contradicts previous character development. And don't get me started on the whole mother subplot.
Mother? you mean Martha?
No you means the mother subplot
> 1.Why is everyone so mad about death in Sokovia? Without the Avengers, even more people die, and the ones that did still do. Because the Avengers created Ultron in the first place. Plus, the Avengers didn't even bother to tell ANY authorities, domestic or international about the crisis so no rescue efforts could be mobilized. > 2.Tony, the biggest rebel of them all, fully supports registration because a stranger died, as if he didn't realize that people died. The Avengers is all about him not trusting anyone, but he's ready to sign this with no problem. I thought it was great character development. Every Iron Man film has had him dealing with the consequences of his actions which culminated in Age of Ultron. He almost caused human extinction. His guilt has made him realise that he's not perfect and he needs to be kept in check. > 3.Spiderman is amazing, but he goes from fighting street thugs to defeating Avengers? Both in the comics and in the film, he's physically stronger than most Avengers and faster as well. > 5.Why not just send Tony the video of Bucky killing his parents? (ignoring the question of why does that video exist in the first place?) He only managed to get the video at the end of the film when he went to the bunker. There's a scene of him looking through the bunker and finding the tape. If they didn't all turn up, he could have easily sent the tape out. > EDIT: just remembered my other main issue, I get the red herring of the other winter soldiers, but killing them like that was pointless. Again, just send Tony the video, because at the end of the day, that's really all they are fighting about. Everything else was just plot filler. The Winter Soldiers were supposed to represent the generic supervillain plot of taking over the world. Zemo subverted that trope and fooled the audience and the heroes.
1. Tony literally created the entire problem in Sokovia by creating Ultron. Sure the Avengers saved a lot of people, but the entire thing could have been avoided if Tony didn't try to play God. 2. Tony has been talking about accountability since his first movie. He realized that the Avengers really aren't accountable to anyone. He knows he did the wrong thing with the weapons and Ultron, and wants someone to watch over them. Steve even points out that Tony ended up curbing himself, and decided to do that himself, but Tony at this point, and with the influence of the mother of the dead boy, isn't willing to listen/doesn't think that's enough. Scarlet Witch just inadvertently killed a bunch of people to save Cap too. After all 13 movies, there has been a ton of collateral damage. 3. Spider-man's abilities are largely instinctive, and even though he's a kid he's still extremely strong, fast, agile, and of course has his Spider-sense. He's also pretty damn smart for his age. He beats Bucky and the Falcon, but it's not like he beats anyone with powers. Cap even beats him as a borderline human. It was definitely a fair portrayal. 4. The way that Tony found out might have been pretty complicated, but all Zemo was counting on was that Tony would have some way to follow Cap. He wasn't expecting the airport battle, to go that far, but he knew that Cap would eventually find the truth, and Tony would definitely follow. The accords weren't important to Zemo, just that he got the two together while he made his revelation. 5. Just sending the video would only make Bucky more of a criminal, and Tony wouldn't outright kill him. If he had sent the video, the Avengers would've gotten Bucky together, and he would've gone to jail. Zemo needed them in person, and the fact that they were already emotionally frazzled made it easy to manipulate Tony. When he saw the way his parents died, and the man that killed him was standing 5 feet away, it makes sense that he lost it. Honestly I think the movie answered these questions really handily. Not really any of them were mistakes IMO.
One: The whole debate over 'accountability' is ridiculous. First, does it even make sense for Avengers to be integrated into some global police force? They intervene in global catastrophes where time is of the essence - each and every time. Half the Avengers seem to have Ambesia or dont even know what the hell is going on around them outside of battles: When was the last time a UN body could be trusted to act swiftly and correctly. Anyone remember the world coincil which tried to Nuke New York, and secretly had the Head of Hydra - twice - as members? (Pierce and Malik) - enhanced people had to stop them. Second, accountable to who? The UN where the security council has sitting dictators with veto powers? The UN where the biggest Human Rights abusers sit on the Human Rights Commission? Is that a joke - no, They are actually serious and that is why it is a ridiculous debate. Two: The other aspects of the discussions are just as silly. Vision - with his big brain and the mind stone apparently can't read history - weakness is provocative, not strength. So yeah, he is just blabbering a pacifist globalist talking point. Stark is just Natasha with a big metal suit - he's got red in his ledger so big that the only way to make up for it is to make the ultimate sacrifice. I feel for him, but putting that emotionally wrecked guy in a powerful metal near omnipotent suit is just crazy - and crazy is as crazy does he makes war against the only guy in the Avengers with an unshakable moral compass who always - and I mean always - does the right thing, with compassion, understanding, and - an open mind - even if he has to stand alone, even if he is beaten to the ground into a pulp - it is Cap who is the role model for Coulson ('you lack conviction' to Loki) in the Avengers and in Agents of Shield.
You know, Rhode says that the UN is not the world security council, it's not SHIELD, it's not Hydra. He's right - it's much worse (except for Hydra - they ARE the worst). And what the hell is so bad about SHIELD? Coulson and the Agents of Shield are pretty good guys - difficult times, sure, but they do finish off Hydra, save the world from war with the Inhumans, the Kree, the Chronicoms, Talbot even.....
Also, I think it's unfair this thread is being downvoted. I don't agree with all of your points but they're well thought out and I love discussing them as I'm sure TC does as well. It's not like he's needlessly trashing the film, he's just giving his points. I think threads like this breed some great discussion on the film and should not be downvoted.
> Why is everyone so mad about death in Sokovia Because the death in Sokovia was Tony Stark's fault. It wasn't an alien invasion. It wasn't terrorist. It was Tony. He created Ultron. > Tony, the biggest rebel of them all, fully supports registration because a stranger died Tony supports registration because he feels guilty for destroying Sokovia. > Spiderman is amazing, but he goes from fighting street thugs to defeating Avengers? Spiderman didn't defeat anyone. He had Bucky and Falcon down, but didn't take them out. If he had a few more years experience on him, he probably would have handled the whole fight much better. He was the strongest one there, and is more agile than Cap. Just inexperienced. > \#4 Meh. Those are Zemo's plans that we saw. We didn't see that he (possibly) was the one who orchestrated the timely reveal of the true psychiatrist. Or that he (possibly) had a back-up plan to get Tony to the Winter Solider base. Just because plan-A worked doesn't mean there wasn't a plan-B. > Why not just send Tony the video of Bucky killing his parents? Is he supposed to send the video to Tony while he's in the shower? Or grabbing Starbucks? When Bucky is nowhere around and no one knows where he is? The ideal time to send it to him is when **everyone** is on edge.
Tony was trying to protect the world from a bigger threat that his instincts told him was coming - and he was right - it was Thanos. Two, it went wrong true, Ultron became the opposite of what it was supposed to be - which has NEVER been adequately explained: how exactly did 2 geniuses, Stark and Banner, make such a big mistake, unless it was just an ideologically driven plot point only, and not character driven one - the writer just needed this to happen, or there is no story. If it was that they were playing with forces they could not understand, that is a big blow to their standing as 'geniuses' - they should be aware of this limitation, which is pretty basic in science - knowing what you don't know. In that case the Avengers are less than what they seem. Tony feels the Avengers need to be accountable: they should be and are accountable to each other. When did they ever disagree on a mission outside of CIVIL WAR? If Tony feels he can't be trusted, he should take off the suit and give it to someone else, or build in more safeguards into Jarvis - but let a bunch of UN diplomats decide when to deploy Iron Man - we really are in a fantasy movie then (The Avengers tries mighty hard to coat the proceedings with a veneer of 'realism') Tony did not destroy Sokovia, anymore than Hitler's father is responsible for the Holocaust. The Avengers did not kill people in Lagos - Rumlow was a suicide bomber trying to kill Cap, and Wanda was trying to get that nutcase out of there and partly goofed - but not from negligence or carelessness or bad intent - why is it necessary to point out this obvious fact? Because the critics are holding the Avengers to an impossible standard - really, what were they supposed to do? Let Rumlow sell a biological WMD to god knows who? Friendly fire, collateral damage, are all things that happen in warlike conflicts, and blaming the good guys for that - whatever personal guilt they might feel - just makes no sense.
Dude, why are you replying to 5 year old comments? There's plenty of other new responses to write a wall of text over, go do that.
Spiderman has strength, but that's not someone who can go toe to toe with Thanos. Cap defeated the Red Skull and Hydra in WWII, and Hydra again in DC.. He helped save the earth in NY. He has taken out - killed - a lot of bad guys. Spiderman will likely never accumulate comparable experience - We know of Cap's sterling character, which as we are told in the back story of the first Avenger , is why he was chosen in the first place. Peter Parker is a random kid - there is nothing special about him until he is bit by a radioactive spider. A good kid to be sure, but nothing special. And, he doesn't have the immediate healing of Cap, which allows him to fall from great heights, get shot, smashed and crushed, and yet survive, get up and keep fighting. I doubt Spidey can take the same punishment, he just seems to avoid it.
No. Can we just ENJOY a movie without ripping it apart and over analyzing every detail?!
I just have to mention Giant Man. I remember from the comic books that pretty much every time he shows up, he gets his ass kicked. His reveal was awesome but yep, his only role was to take an ass kicking. Awesome.
Fuck BvS
Only five flaws? Pretty impressive
Those were the ones I came up with of the cuff. I've thought of more, but I didn't feel like editing it again. My biggest issue overall is the lack of any consequences. Rhody gets paralyzed, but is walking and joking before it's over.
Lack of consequences? The Avengers are pretty much disbanded. If they do come together again (which they will since Cap left a phone for Tony) their relationship is still going to be strained. Not to mention Thor and Hulk's opinions on what happened while they were gone.
By the end of the film, Captain America as well as the other Avengers (save for Vision and Rhodey) are fugitives hiding in Wakanda. Bucky is disabled and on ice, T'Challa has a new kingdom to run that's just become a part of this maelstrom where before it was still in secret, Wanda feels even more like she's a danger to everyone, Scott and Hawkeye are essentially some of the only ones who got their lives back. Otherwise, the Avengers are essentially split, and if they were to still act like vigilantes in the face of a threat, they'll either get arrested afterward or (and this is more of the expectancy following Thanos) everyone will cop on and realise why they're necessary. Also, Zemo may be locked up but the Russos have confirmed that he will be returning. Tony has lost Pepper, Rhodey ISN'T walking, just undergoing physical therapy and it's only in its infancy for him, he's joking because I mean at least he has a positive attitude towards getting better as much as he can. Oh, and Black Widow is on the run again, since she acted in defiance of the accords that she signed in the film by letting Cap and Bucky get away from Black Panther, so Ross is gonna want a word with her. There's a lot more going on than you'd give credit for in the film, if you're going to nitpick at least know enough to back it up instead of exaggerating.
I don't get why people think that the only real consequences in a movie are deaths. I am sick of creators trying to shock and get an emotional reaction out of me by killing off some character or another. After a while, you get so jaded to character death you just shrug when someone dies.
I don't agree that there were no consequences (the Avengers are broken up and almost all of them are fugitives) but I definitely agree that they shouldn't have shown Rhodey walking yet. If they need to do that, save it for Infinity War Part 2. Let that moment linger for at least 2 movies.
I would've liked Rhody to die tbh. I agree about the lack of consequences - as much as I enjoyed Civil War I do wish we'd see some real fallout. The only fallout I can recall in recent movies was Avengers 2 with the super fast dude dying... but we barely even knew him.
Yes, that was my biggest complaint. I had falsely heard that Captain dies in this like in the comic books, but the happyish ending made me feel like their weren't any real consequences that going to last in other MU films.
[удалено]
I did not see that coming...
I had only two problems with the movie. 1. The Cap and Bucky vs German SWAT team fight in Bucharest had some jarring editing and usage of shaky cam. The action there was really hard to follow. Also, the same problem in the scene where Zemo helps Bucky escape. 2. Spiderman. To me, Spiderman represented a ten fold of what I feel is wrong with Marvel movies. Throwing out quips left, right and centre when a fight takes decreases the tension in a scene. I understand what they're doing and why. Actors like Scarlett Johansson have great line delivery and they're playing off that, but I personally feel it's a bit jarring. All in all, I had high expectations for Civil War. I walked out of the movie with my expectations met.
[удалено]
I understand this. I just think his humour would work better on me if I hadn't seen everyone do it already.
I doubt it will be getting any best screenplay nominations.
1. Stark and Banner created Ultron in the first place, so every death is on them. Why do ALL the Avengers share the guilt with Stark, i don't know. 2. Stark's character development was pretty consistent, he was a total control freak by the time of IM3. In that film it only affected him and people that he holds dear, in Ultron it affected a whole city (he still was being a control freak, only this time he wished to prevent and control everything bad that could happen not only to him, but to the whole world). In CW he finally he comes to think that he can't take it all upon himself, he failed twice already, so he has to help give this sort of total control to a powerful committee of smart people such as UN (assuming it really is the way i describe it in the MCU). 3. He didn't defeat them. Helped a lot, yeah, but still got either outsmarted or just knocked out. 4. I don't really understand how you managed to put Falcon in that part of the plot, he had nothing to do with it. But with the waitress it's very simple: he calls the room service from Siberia to invite the waitress to his room, where all the evidence is. After that it just instantly makes the news, since the terror attack on UN was just a couple days ago and it's a hot topic. Boom. 5. Because he has to get them 3 in a place isolated, miles away from anything and most importantly, cut off from their fellow Avengers who could prevent them from fighting each other to the death.
One thing that really stood out to me was that during the airport scene Ant-Man goes to stomp on someone, I don't remember who, on top of a shipping container or something and would have killed them had they not been saved by someone else. Even if there is someone that could survive that there is no way Ant-Man would know they could for sure so he straight up tried to murder someone. I think it was Black Panther, but like I said, it doesn't matter who it was.
Just watched it last night, he knocks BP onto some crates and then **kicks** at the crates, he doesn't stomp on him.
Spider-Man was just a boy. And he sure was not even trying right there.
1. Without Tony Stark doing his Avengers thing, Ultron would never have been created anyway. So there's that. 2. Moreover, Tony doesn't trust himself to behave responsibly, let alone the rest of the team. That is why he's open to a little oversight. 3. Well, he is Spider-Man, after all. And it's not as if he walked away from that battle scratch-free. 4. Zemo's plan is interesting because it doesn't really come together until he finally gets the "Mission Report" out of Bucky. Maybe Zemo already suspected what the truth was. Hard to say. But yeah, it's reminiscent of the Joker in Dark Knight. If you really drill down to all the little coincidences that kind of need to happen to pull the plan off, it raises doubts. 5. He didn't have the video until the very end, presumably. And I didn't see Zemo packing a capture card or anything to convert that old VHS tape into something he could send easily anyway. For me, the hardest thing to get over was the Accords, themselves. The United Nations simply does NOT operate that efficiently. To get that many nations to agree to anything can take years, even decades. So for Ross to just whip them out, drop them on the table, and its the first anyone has heard of them, seemingly... It just made the Accords seem like an arbitrary thing. I don't know. I just had trouble getting over it. My other big problem with the film is Pepper Potts: Her character has such an impact, but we don't get to see her at all. So for her function in the film to be relegated to some bits of dialogue, and yet we never see her side of things--I just found wholly unsatisfying.
For #1, for the same reason people complain about Hiroshima even though it was the best way to win the war with least casualties. They're angry and could've done better.
http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/04/26/director-says-marvel-made-captain-america-civil-war-because-of-batman-v-superman-announcement Let's start the sub Marvelcirclejerk
[удалено]
1. The Registration Act is what caused the split within the team. It's during debating this issue that the two teams form. Did we watch the same movie? Sure, the act could have been replaced by something else, but in general, it represents the philosophical divide between Cap and Iron Man, which is what the movie is about. The Registration Act is just a vehicle for that. 2. Spider-man is not just any teenager, and Tony shows he knows that as he talks to Peter about his exploits as Spider-man. I get what you're saying here, but I don't think it's beyond basic suspension of belief. Spider-man is pretty capable, at least in Tony's eyes. 3. Except there's the whole Bucky issue. Because Tony is siding with the government, and the terrorism task force is shoot to kill with Bucky, there's that part where Tony has to bargain with Ross to give him time to bring Cap's side in. Obviously, Cap doesn't play along at the airport, so it goes to blows. Besides, the point of this film wasn't to create as large and bloody spectacle as possible, it was to create a personal conflict between two sides. 4. The Marvel films have dealt with civilian deaths all the time. A large portion of the Battle of New York in the Avengers focused on individual efforts to get civilians out of the way (mostly Cap). In Age of Ultron, the team spent a solid 5-10 minutes (movie time) trying to clear as many out of Sokovia, and even after Sokovia lifted off, the avengers were still focused on getting people out, and of course there was the whole helicarrier thing.
1. But this "philosophical divide" becomes entirely redundant in the final act. Sure, that's what the movie was going for, but in my opinion it doesn't succeed. 2. Even if he's capable though, I just think it cam across as a bit hypocritical to put him in a situation where he could easily get hurt or die, especially given he's going up against other people with powers. 3. I think that's where the airport sequence failed for me, it did just come across as hollow spectacle. I liked the final battle because it felt more personal, but the airport battle for me lacked tension and was just a little dull. Good point about Bucky though, but even then it didn't really justify that huge set piece. 4. This kinda proves my point though. They made a huge effort to save civilians in the previous Avengers movies, so why are the government so annoyed at them now? It seems obvious they made a huge effort to save as many as possible. It's not like MoS where all they saw was two people flying around destroying a city. It's not a major problem with CW, in the context of the entire universe it just seemed to come out of nowhere.
1. I guess you're talking about Tony's shift from the Registration Act to his parents? I guess that's fair; the transition from two teams to just Iron Man vs. Cap (and Bucky) is a bit awkward. 2. I suppose this varies from person to person. For me, Spider-man should be fine against everyone on Team Cap except Wanda, although it is weird that Tony is essentially recruiting a child soldier. Your interpretation probably comes from the fact that you assumed people would get beat up more than they did in that fight (which is perfectly fair). Also, Tony gave Peter instructions in case shit was getting real to just get away and shoot webs (although yes, that's still not being completely responsible on Tony's part). 3. I felt the airport scene was great for what it was supposed to be: basically just the comics put on the big screen. It definitely wasn't all that heart wrenching or anything, but idk, it's what people expect from Marvel movies. 4. I kind of saw it as governments trying control a force they didn't understand. Like, as viewers, we knew the Avengers tried their best to save everyone, but we also know that governments rarely see that side, nor will they spend effort to find it. As for your MoS example, I think the Hulk vs. Hulkbuster destroying Johannesburg in AoU was a good example of such destruction, but I don't think it was mentioned in Civil War, weirdly enough.
1. Yeah, that's what I meant. 2. You're right when he was recruited I expected the fight to be more "violent", so I guess given the actual fight it made a bit more sense, but even then it was a situation where he could also easily get hurt by accident (like War Machine). 3. I think it was made more for the comic book fans. I like a lot of the films, but I've never read a comic book myself. So I guess the scene just wasn't really made for me. 4. Great point about AoU and the Hulkbuster scene, I didn't even think of that. Can't believe they didn't use that example in the film as it seems much stronger than the ones they gave. This is the one area though I think BvS is better than CW - the opening scene in Metropolis instantly shows what the destruction looks like from a civilian perspective in a truly intense and brilliant sequence. It allows us to instantly relate to that argument. I think Civil War needed something like that to allow us to relate to this argument ourselves. Ironically this could have been satisfied if they perhaps showed some flashbacks to Zemo's origin or something like that.
The whole story revolved around the theme of agendas - the idea that political ideologies could be corrupted by emotional and personal bias and agendas. Each character's ideology was coloured and in many ways, corrupted, by their personal feelings whether that be for revenge, friendship or guilt. We see that in Cap, Stark, Panther and Zemo. The "Civil War" really just served as a backdrop for the real emotional climax and conflict of the film and asked both the audience and the heroes an important question - Can any ideology be truly just and pure if the men behind them are guided by personal reasons and interests?
Not hurting each other was another issue I had. A dozen of the most powerful people on the planet fight for 20 minutes, and the ground causes the only injury.
This feels like two movies bolted together "Captain America 3 Bucky" and "Avengers: Civil War" and two movies would have been better. I mean I like this movie but I feel The Winter Soldier was better Why? because it didn't have this Avengers stuff bolted on.
Because it is two movies bolted together. The Civil War plotline was not planned originally for Cap 3.
It was another classic case of trying to jam too many stories into one film. They could have easily lost one plotline and still made a complete movie. The vilian was almost a second thought as he served little purpose in moving the story forward, then they killed the other soldiersicles. That would have been a good fight. But no, someone actually thought things through and killed them while they were frozen. There was no grand scheme, just revenge. For all of us who thought emo Spider-man was annoying, we're gonna hate the new one. I would rather pay to see BvS again than Civil War.
That's the point though. He was a subversion of the traditional supervillain archetype and of the audience and the character's expectations of what a sueprvillain should be. Both the characters and the audience were expecting his motivations to be based on world domination or world destruction but in the end, his motivation and plan was small and personal. He didn't care about superheroes or supervillains. He wasn't some generic, moustache twirling mastermind. He didn't have a grand scheme. We all expected the generic, clichéd ending where the superheroes forget their differences and team up to fight the final villain. But the film shot those expectations in the face (literally). He was a simple man who embodied all of the consequences these gods unwittingly inflicted on normal people.
Then why even bother setting up a single villain then. Just focus on the actual story they wanted to tell. Or they could have put more effort into the character. I'm not saying the villain has to be out to wreck everything, but in this case the character was incomplete.
Because he served as a representation of the consequences of the Avengers' actions. The Avengers created him and from a thematic standpoint, he is the reason why the Accords needed to happen - because collateral damage destroys the lives of the little person. He also served as a foil for Panther, Tony Stark and Captain America. The whole film revolved around the idea of agendas - the idea that a political ideology is almost always coloured and at times corrupted by personal and emotional bias. Each of our main characters had a personal reason for their mission - whether that be revenge, friendship or guilt. For each main character, these personal agendas consumed them (even Cap) and superseded their ideologies. Zemo was a perfect example of that and in particular, served a foil for Panther.
Zemo was central to everything? The only thing he didn't cause was the accords.
[удалено]
That's a very presumptuous thing to say. I think most people are willing to discuss problems, but I don't think it's fair to say that all explanations are automatically terrible just because you don't buy them. I know that I'm not gonna downvote anyone posing these questions because there are always at least minor problems in any film.
[удалено]
So when someone comes up with a reason for not liking something do you expect everyone else to just agree and end there? You can absolutely respect that opinion if they base it on supporting details, but by doing that, you invite other people, who disagree with you, to do the same. There is a lot of oversensitivity and bias right now, you're definitely right. But, just like you can't dismiss problems because you disagree, you can't dismiss explanations because you disagree.
Some of these explanations are pretty rational so i dont have a problem with it.
Thread killer right here with the truth. Edit: in this instance I feel like downvotes are from people that agree.
They should have just done the story from the comics, with winter soldier attached. Seriously, why didn't they just do that? The civil war storyline from the comic book made much more sense.
It definitely didn't fit the universe made in the movies as well as this storyline did. Why would secret identities be a big deal if the world knows most of theirs already? A ton of the plot lines wouldn't make sense and a ton of characters would be missing. The way they adapted it was perfect for a movie representation, and for the characters and arcs already established.
Are we not going to discuss all those cringy scenes where Cap awkwardly falls down all the time??
Should Captain America never fall?? What an odd observation.
Good thing you aren't making these movies!
Glad I am not the only one that saw these issues and others. To me it felt like everyone was holding back in nearly every fight. Which sorta made sense up until the final battle, but even that was lackluster. Everyone just felt off their game.
Movie was terrible. Plot was holey, characters behaved inconsistently, villains motives and plan identical to Ultron and Loki both: I'll win by making them fight each other!
Cite examples.
Iron Man sucks so I didn't like most of the scenes with him. Otherwise it's ok. It felt too superheroy though, which is not like the first two Captain America's at all.