Batman v. Superman VS. Captain America: Civil War VS. X-Men Apocalypse

[Timebomb]

Lol, meanwhile, BvS isn't even good enough to be background noise...especially if EisenLex is that background noise.

Agree with yours and Anita18's last couple of posts.

 

[metaphysician]

I've never seen this place do such a 180 in such a quick amount of time. One second the hype was through the roof ("best CBM ever! All hail Snyder!") and then the embargo lifted and the sky started falling.

I think its because there was a goodly percentage of DC fans who were quietly disappointed with MoS, but kept quiet and kept the faith. When BvS landed and was everything one could fear and more, the flood gates opened.

 

[spider-neil]

I have a lot of problem with BvS but I actually think the start of the movie is very strong. The way the movie opens with the battle of Metropolis from Bruce Wayne's perspective is freaking excellent. That's what makes what follows so disappointing.

 

[SiegePerilous]

Still haven't seen Apocalypse, so it was down to BvS and Civil War. Of the two, I think Civil War is the more polished movie but...it still has more than its fair share of stupid stuff. Chiefly Spider-Man.

I think Black Panther was the most well done superhero introduction out of the three major ones (WW and Spider-Man being the other two). But Spider-Man was so damn pointless. I can't stand when people dismiss Wonder Woman as being in the movie for fanservice, but give Spidey a free pass. It's his sixth movie, whereas at least Diana has the novelty of it being her first major appearance. Neither movie is as smart as it likes to come across as, but for some reason, Civil War's attempts just bug me more.

Both of them were mediocre disappointments. But even though the TC of BvS was a mess, the stuff that worked for me really worked, while nothing in Civil War really made me feel that much. I also can't say no to Diana, fanservice accusations be damned.

So far, none of my best cinematic experiences in 2016 have been superhero movies. I am looking forward to the UC of BvS though.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

What so stupid about Spider-man?

 

[2kt09]

So far, none of my best cinematic experiences in 2016 have been superhero movies.

 

[SiegePerilous]

What so stupid about Spider-man?

The whole movie comes screeching to a halt in order to introduce him. There's also the fact that the death of a young man is what prompts Tony to want to sign the accords...and he doesn't bat an eye at the thought of sending an even younger kid into the battlefield, without the consent of said kid's guardian. You can lift him right out of the movie and it wouldn't change a thing.

I liked the actor a lot, and will probably see the new movie, but it doesn't change the fact that we've seen Spider-Man 5 times before this and he was clearly crowbarred into this thing as shameless fanservice. So was Wonder Woman, but at least she was someone we haven't seen in a movie before.

Seriously, I had more fun with the Conjuring 2 than any recent MCU film. Helps that it had humor that was actually funny and appropriately timed.

Can't wait for Wan's Aquaman.

 

[ApophènX]

The whole movie comes screeching to a halt in order to introduce him. There's also the fact that the death of a young man is what prompts Tony to want to sign the accords...and he doesn't bat an eye at the thought of sending an even younger kid into the battlefield, without the consent of said kid's guardian. You can lift him right out of the movie and it wouldn't change a thing.

yes but this attitude he has is one of redemption. just before he try to play it safe with Wanda and keep her away from danger and under control. Here he trust Peter (the youth) to fight by his side. Tony's action isn't a good one but he is on a path and it informs and complement the character's psyche very well.

The fact that he is a youth component was great for spider man and fitting the character, it is a part why he was so well receive. it's adulthood coming to childhood for help and the child reminding him of important stuff.

 

[The Joker]

I don't think one scene of Tony going to recruit Peter into the cause brought the movie to a screeching halt.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I don't think one scene of Tony going to recruit Peter into the cause brought the movie to a screeching halt.

It felt like a shoehorn, but a relatively well handled shoehorn. At least he was integrated into the plot (unlike a certain character with claws).

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't think one scene of Tony going to recruit Peter into the cause brought the movie to a screeching halt.

It helped that it was a great scene on its own.

 

[ApophènX]

It felt like a shoehorn, but a relatively well handled shoehorn. At least he was integrated into the plot (unlike a certain character with claws).

You didn't understood the plot. Apocalypse enhanced powers, he is a force of nature. Jean fears the dormant powers inside her.

Stryker takes four hostages, two man and two woman. Storm represented the youth element, Quicksilver represent the youth in the hostages. Both are looking for a leader/mother/father figure. They will both be deciding to stay in the end.

Logan helps to free them, he represent unleash brutal power. When Jean give him back memory it close the character's ark of six films, he has always been looking for his memory and where in every movie he use to stab a woman in the stomach, here, he tack needles out of his own. He is free of his memory.

Magneto is another person whom canno't escape his painfull memory.
Charles will have to give back Moira's memory and free Jean, thus repairing his mistakes of X3. Jean unleashed a force, animal and cosmic. Freeing Logan also helped her to see what can unleash power led to. She learned.

How Logan is not relevant to the plot?

 

[daddydivine]

The whole movie comes screeching to a halt in order to introduce him. There's also the fact that the death of a young man is what prompts Tony to want to sign the accords...and he doesn't bat an eye at the thought of sending an even younger kid into the battlefield, without the consent of said kid's guardian. You can lift him right out of the movie and it wouldn't change a thing.

I liked the actor a lot, and will probably see the new movie, but it doesn't change the fact that we've seen Spider-Man 5 times before this and he was clearly crowbarred into this thing as shameless fanservice. So was Wonder Woman, but at least she was someone we haven't seen in a movie before.



Seriously, I had more fun with the Conjuring 2 than any recent MCU film. Helps that it had humor that was actually funny and appropriately timed.

Can't wait for Wan's Aquaman.

I'm actually saddened that your taste in movies will never allow you to enjoy the awesomeness that is Marvel Studios. I mean it's like feeling sad that certain people are color blind and can't experience color.

Hopefully DC will continue giving you what you want. I'm black so I know how being in the minority feels.

 

[lordofthenerds]

How Logan is not relevant to the plot?

Lol at your synopsis. I understood the plot full well.

I would sum it up as follows: Apocalypse is resurrected and enlists four mutants to help him destroy and rebuild the world. When Professor X realizes this, he attempts to stop Apocalypse with the help of his X-Men.

Stryker (and by association Weapon X) were irrelevant to this plot because they absolutely had nothing to do with Apocalypse. When Stryker kidnapped the mutants it came completely out of nowhere.

 

[ApophènX]

Lol at your synopsis. I understood the plot full well.

I would sum it up as follows: Apocalypse is resurrected and enlists four mutants to help him destroy and rebuild the world. When Professor X realizes this, he attempts to stop Apocalypse with the help of his X-Men.

Stryker (and by association Weapon X) were irrelevant to this plot because they absolutely had nothing to do with Apocalypse. When Stryker kidnapped the mutants it came completely out of nowhere.

You don't understand emotion apparently. And he says it clearly "this is epicenter of a psychic event that dismissed all nukes from dc to moscow", Stryker is send because is the one who take cares of mutant. This is not full plot driven, it is emotion driven. We have the new trinity (scott, nightcrawler, jean) being built up. We have two character who are afraid of their power facing a mere animal, or someone turned into it. Someone that has been manipulated by technology (hey another theme of the movie, Apocalypse want to kill technology) and has been enhanced in his power (another of Apocalypse theme). (Plus the rest of what i already said about parallels with other movie and X3)

Not ploted in the way you like. Coherent and emotion vector non the less.

But stay in your color blind world

 

[lordofthenerds]

You don't understand emotion apparently. And he says it clearly "this is epicenter of a psychic event that dismissed all nukes from dc to moscow", Stryker is send because is the one who take cares of mutant. This is not full plot driven, it is emotion driven. We have the new trinity (scott, nightcrawler, jean) being built up. We have two character who are afraid of their power facing a mere animal, or someone turned into it. Someone that has been manipulated by technology (hey another theme of the movie, Apocalypse want to kill technology) and has been enhanced in his power (another of Apocalypse theme). (Plus the rest of what i already said about parallels with other movie and X3)

Not ploted in the way you like. Coherent and emotion vector non the less.

But stay in your color blind world

You're giving the movie far too much credit. The "this is epicenter of a psychic event that dismissed all nukes from dc to moscow" was a remarkably flimsy excuse to throw Stryker into the story once again; introducing him well over an hour into the film. Bad storytelling 101.

Furthermore, all of the "emotion elements" of this Weapon X shoehorn require audiences to view and deeply contemplate the events of prior X-Men movies. A sequel should be able to hold up on its own.

 

[The Joker]

It helped that it was a great scene on its own.

That it was. One of the best in the movie.

You didn't understood the plot.

You don't understand emotion apparently.

Some advice for you; I can see you're new, but if you want to last around here don't go around telling people they didn't understand things. A lot of Batman vs Superman defenders have been banned for having that same ignorant attitude.

 

[ApophènX]

You're giving the movie far too much credit. The "this is epicenter of a psychic event that dismissed all nukes from dc to moscow" was a remarkably flimsy excuse to throw Stryker into the story once again; introducing him well over an hour into the film. Bad storytelling 101.

Furthermore, all of the "emotion elements" of this Weapon X shoehorn require audiences to view and deeply contemplate the events of prior X-Men movies. A sequel should be able to hold up on its own.

This is the 6th movie of a trilogy that try to repair the arm done in X3, in X3 you had a cure here you have a mutant who can enhance power. Among many others thing. What is the audiance and fan for if it is not to deeply contemplate. Imo it just took one viewing of the past movie before see the film to catch it so it's possible for everyone.

Stryker also fit the film because he is a father figure, wich has been a major thing in this second trilogy. Apocalypse being a patriacal figure of excellence, solar god and old testament.

When you have character that fit the themes of the movies it can excuze a simplistic plot and it enhance on emotion.

I'm even gonna go further in the "give the film too much credit" and state that Apocalypse built is pyramid in cairo wich was supposed to be the center of the world. Another main theme of the movie is about home. Apocalypse want to go home too, he want to go back to nature ruling. Rules of the fittest. Erik claim home is where your family is. We passes from home in nature to home in the Charles's house for mutant, the new epicenter. The all movie is people without a home or a family, on different country wich enhance the feeling, and them finally finding and building it back.

Si this line was perfectly fitting the movie. But this is movie who convey information through images, parallels and symbols. I understand not everyone like or see film this way. I like it and it's a pleasure to see every time i go back on the movie how it is coherent, both the movie itself but also regarding the six other movie.

 

[ApophènX]

Some advice for you; I can see you're new, but if you want to last around here don't go around telling people they didn't understand things. A lot of Batman vs Superman defenders have been banned for having that same ignorant attitude.

I know this and i choosed my word, thank you still for your advice.

A more accurate statement from me would be "you didn't understand emotion the way i did". I would still add that sometime being nitpicky and closing yourself to other details or global theme of the movie can lead to a misunderstanding of it. But it's nuanced and a matter of perception i agree.

 

[SiegePerilous]

I don't think one scene of Tony going to recruit Peter into the cause brought the movie to a screeching halt.

It does for me. There's no build up to it, no foreshadowing and it kind of kills the momentum of the Bucky stuff. Meanwhile, Panther was actually integrated into this movie very well and had some stakes in the main plot. Spidey shows up for a fight scene, and then leaves. He's not even (traditionally) an Avenger.

Why is he here besides to advertise his new MCU movie, which certainly doesn't need advertisement because this is Spider-Man we're talking about.

It helped that it was a great scene on its own.

It was a good scene. But I think it just felt like it belonged to a different movie. Having this scene in the Spider-Man film (along with other appearances by Tony, and just Tony, throughout) would have probably worked better for me.

But then, it's not surprising they did it. Pushing back the BP and Captain Marvel films as soon as the Spider-Man money making machine became available is pretty telling.

I'm actually saddened that your taste in movies will never allow you to enjoy the awesomeness that is Marvel Studios. I mean it's like feeling sad that certain people are color blind and can't experience color.

Hopefully DC will continue giving you what you want. I'm black so I know how being in the minority feels.

The sun doesn't rise and set on Marvel studios. And I actually greatly enjoy Avengers and TWS. Captain Marvel and BP have my interest as well.

And the DCEU isn't exactly firing on all cylinders for me either. At least the Snyder portions, which is of course all we have to go on for now. But even with the BvS TC disaster...their future output from their other directors has me way more intrigued than most of the MCU does at this point. The split Avengers team will kiss and make up, and they will all unite (with the GoTG) to stop Thanos from boring us all to death with his Infinity Gauntlet antics. Yay.

 

[The Joker]

It does for me. There's no build up to it, no foreshadowing and it kind of kills the momentum of the Bucky stuff. Meanwhile, Panther was actually integrated into this movie very well and had some stakes in the main plot. Spidey shows up for a fight scene, and then leaves. He's not even (traditionally) an Avenger.

Why is he here besides to advertise his new MCU movie, which certainly doesn't need advertisement because this is Spider-Man we're talking about.

It didn't need a build up. There was a divide in the Avengers, and Tony was recruiting to his cause. Just like Cap's side did. Didn't need a build up to Ant-Man being brought into the story either.

If all it took was for one scene that wasn't more than five minutes long, and was totally relevant to main story, to kill the momentum of the Bucky stuff for you, then the Bucky story can't have been very strong to begin with.

 

[spider-neil]

So far, none of my best cinematic experiences in 2016 have been superhero movies. I am looking forward to the UC of BvS though.

My favorite movie of the year is definitely CW, a superhero movie.
Last year it was Ex Machina (by a distance).

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It didn't need a build up. There was a divide in the Avengers, and Tony was recruiting to his cause. Just like Cap's side did. Didn't need a build up to Ant-Man being brought into the story either.

If all it took was for one scene that wasn't more than five minutes long, and was totally relevant to main story, to kill the momentum of the Bucky stuff for you, then the Bucky story can't have been very strong to begin with.

Exactly. It is like the scene where Wolverine, Beast, and Xavier go to meet Quicksilver in DOFP. I didn't have a problem with that one either.

 

[SiegePerilous]

It didn't need a build up. There was a divide in the Avengers, and Tony was recruiting to his cause. Just like Cap's side did. Didn't need a build up to Ant-Man being brought into the story either.

If all it took was for one scene that wasn't more than five minutes long, and was totally relevant to main story, to kill the momentum of the Bucky stuff for you, then the Bucky story can't have been very strong to begin with.

How was Spidey relevant to the main story? After his introduction, he shows up for a fight scene and then vanishes from the movie. That's an action set piece, not anything thematically relevant. Black Panther meanwhile has some thematic parallels with Zemo and (later) Tony, so his introduction and integration is much better handled.

And the Spidey thing still seems to make Tony forget about that teenager who died in Sokovia and the mother who was grieving while he takes Peter out from under Aunt May's nose. Super powered or not, Peter is still 15 and his mother figure would rightly call for Tony's head if her nephew got injured/killed without her knowing what was going on before the fact.

 

[ApophènX]

On contray it's because that child in slokovia that it works emotionally. The child was MIT, so science, like Pete and Tony.

That impacted Tony and he locked up Wanda wich didn't end well as she runaway.
When he goes to Peter it's motivated by the will to repair thzt, and trust youth but as you said it's still a Tony moove and putting a kid in danger, it's not white or black, he is both trying to do good and repeting his mistake.