Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - - - Part 12

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]521163[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]520675[/split]

 

[Timebomb]

Oh man, that new GOTG trailer was gold!

It was already my number 1 anticipated movie for next year, that has become the case even more now.

It does look like it will be 2 hours of awesomeness. I could have cared less about Drax as a character a couple of years ago and now I can't get enough of him.

 

[DrCosmic]

So if he says nothing, he's escalating because he wants an appearance from Hulk and if he (rightly) tells Tony to cut the crap, he's escalating with Tony.

The man can't win. Everyone has a little bit of something in their psychological makeup or they wouldn't be able to understand others who have those traits more central to their makeup. I think, at his core, Steve is a guy who wants to do well and could learn to live in peace. It would be interesting to hear what Chris thinks.

Nah, there's plenty of options between saying nothing (which is never escalating) and being overtly and explicitly confrontational. That's actually a really juvenile response: "Well, if you don't like things exactly how I've been doing them, I might as well not do anything! I can't win!"

Personalities are usually dominated by one or two major traits, and those traits have positives and negatives. The guy who won't back down from bullies no matter what, is the guy who won't back down from bullies no matter what. Certainly Steve, could, in theory, learn to live in peace, just as Tony could learn to be less insulting and unstalbe, and Bruce could learn to not be always angry. However... they won't, both because it's so difficult for them and because those flaws are what make them interesting.

But yeah, I'd love to hear what Chris thinks too. Go ahead and do some searching on his comments on Cap's character arcs.

I don't buy that nor your perception on what the movies do or don't tell us about his character. Of course Steve Rogers is worthy. He's a hero. The movies show us this over and over again.

So... put yourself in my shoes for just a moment. I say I'm going by the films and accuse you of not doing so. I say Steve is not worthy, a pretty clear allusion to Thor's hammer, and the scene from AoU where Steve can't lift it (though he gets to at least shake a bit). Your response is that... of course he's worthy.

Can you in any way assure me that we're talking about the same thing? Because if not, we're probably just talking at each other. We're no longer basing our "facts" on the same thing, so not only is agreement impossible, but essentially, when I say Steve Rogers and you say Steve Rogers, we're talking about two completely different things.

But I'll follow up anyway just because I like typing, and have a point to bring it back to the topic.

The conversation with Steve and Tony perfectly mirrors the later one between Peter and Tony.

"When you can do the things I can, and bad things happen because you don't, it's on you."

It's the old with great power comes responsibility. Though Steve felt responsibility to help and protect before he had power. If he could help by throwing himself on a grenade he did so. That's not him escalating or creating conflict.

Rescuing Bucky and the other POWs escalated conflict and cost people around him? Fighting in WWII and defeating the Red Skull escalated conflict? Taking down a plane and sacrificing his life to spare the East Coast from devastation was an escalation of conflict? Stopping hellicarriers from exterminating 20 million people was escalation of conflict? Laying down his shield and letting his brainwashed psycho friend beat him to a pulp in order to try and save him was an escalation of conflict? Rescuing people from Sokovia and deciding he'd be the last to leave that rock was an escalation? Trying to stop Crossbones from getting a biological weapon was an escalation of conflict? Stopping the Kill squad and Black Panther from murdering Bucky while making sure no one was killed in the process was an escalation? Stopping Tony from murdering Bucky by disabling Tony's suit was an escalation? At the airport Steve was the one who wanted to talk but Tony wouldn't listen except to point out Steve was emotionally compromised when it was Tony on the emotional edge the entire movie.

Steve does what has to be done, often with great sacrifice to himself. To believe that he costs those around him as opposed to saving everyone he possibly can is mind boggling to me. As he told Wanda, they can't save everyone but if they don't try no one gets saved. Steve is never going to just stand by, that's not being a warmonger or having a dark side.

So, a couple things: escalating conflict means you take a conflict and make it more intense, so you don't have to ask me what is and what is escalating conflict. He escalated the conflict in the theater, with Tony, both as we discussed, even though there was no one to save there, and escalation wasn't necessary. He did it again with Pierce, and then showed how happy he was when he knew who his enemies were, even though the revelation disturbed someone like Natasha. He did it again with Tony and the world in Civil War, where took a "what if" and turned it into a schism, and then took a fugitive situation and instead of bringing him in quietly fought along side him, escalating the conflict. This doesn't mean that he wasn't right, or that he was warmongering, or whatever else you're reading into it, but simply that there were better ways to handle it that weren't apparent to Steve because of his flaws.

Most importantly, good deeds don't erase negative events. Cap kills people. Saving a lot more people doesn't make him not a killer. So if your rebuttal to the idea Cap escalated the conflict in the theater, or with Tony in Avengers, or with the Government in TWS or the world in CW is "look at all his good deeds" I think you're over-estimating the significance of good deeds, and also talking past me, cherry picking and mentally editing your own version of what was said, just as I believe you do with the films. I mean, we were talking about three specific instances of his escalation and the clear negative consequences and lack of anyone being saved and your resposne is essentially: "No, look over here!" Perhaps you're truly not aware of the words that you're quoting, because of how you feel about Cap, in which case, of course you'd be mind boggled. That's all on you though.

If Cap didn't believe that his drive for conflict cost the people around him, he wouldn't feel so bad about Bucky, who he drug into the war on HYDRA. If he cared to handle problems diplomatically, there would be no Civil War, Winter Soldier would have taken forty minutes long, and Avengers, like 20. They also would have been far less interesting, because they would have been dragged out without characters with full personalities, including flaws including undesirable side effects of their best qualities that make them worth watching.

That's what MoS and BvS did. These characters also aim to be people we're supposed to look up to, but without personalities that are interesting, and by interesting, I do mean that are full enough to have their strong points also be their weak points, like every real human being on the planet. This is why those characters remain less compelling, not because they're not willing to throw themselves on a grenade to save others, or accept great responsibility with their power, but because their motivations cut off and disappear as soon as it will cause a problem for the plot, whereas with a Marvel film, all the downsides of its very human characters, including Steve Rogers, often drive the conflict.

 

[misslane38]

That's what MoS and BvS did. These characters also aim to be people we're supposed to look up to, but without personalities that are interesting, and by interesting, I do mean that are full enough to have their strong points also be their weak points, like every real human being on the planet. This is why those characters remain less compelling, not because they're not willing to throw themselves on a grenade to save others, or accept great responsibility with their power, but because their motivations cut off and disappear as soon as it will cause a problem for the plot, whereas with a Marvel film, all the downsides of its very human characters, including Steve Rogers, often drive the conflict.

How did you come to this perception of these characters? What evidence supports this reading?

 

[I Am The Knight]

Oh gawd...

 

[Greens]

Lawd.

 

[ehh]

The two main superheroes in BvS are both unlikable to me. Superman just mopes about having to save people, Batman is a murderer who isn't even willing to hear Superman out...

Wonder Woman might be more redeemable, but we'll see.

All of the MCU heroes are so likeable and fully of joy.

 

[MadVillainy]

Here's a fun little article to get away from the essay writing in this thread. It's comic based so it's kinda OT and Im kinda over heroes fighting heroes but whatever.
http://www.cbr.com/dc-vs-marvel-the...Distribution&utm_campaign=CBR-FB-B&view=lista

I disagree with Deadpool beating Deathstroke and Spider-Man beating Superboy.

I did not know Hawkeye was now a girl, Hulk is an Asian guy, and Superboy was a child

 

[misslane38]

The two main superheroes in BvS are both unlikable to me. Superman just mopes about having to save people, Batman is a murderer who isn't even willing to hear Superman out...

Wonder Woman might be more redeemable, but we'll see.

All of the MCU heroes are so likeable and fully of joy.

Superman does not mope about having to save people. The only time Superman mopes in the entire film is when he wasn't able to save people and believes his attempts to save people are doing more harm than good. What Superman does do throughout the film is cheer his girlfriend up, investigate Batman, and save people. He smiles and embraces his fate when he attacks Doomsday for the last time. He fully accepts his role as humanity's savior just moments before his death.

Likability is such an odd concept for me. When I read or watch fiction, likability isn't something I care about. I care about whether a character is interesting. I care if a character grows and changes. Batman, to me, is a fascinating character in BvS. I don't like him because he's particularly likable; I like him because he's interesting. I like him because the film doesn't celebrate his cruelty or defend his unwillingness to listen.

The MCU heroes, to me, aren't that interesting. I don't dislike them, but I also don't care about them. What seems like joy to you mostly just comes off as either simplicity or stale humor. Their worst sin is that they are boring.

shadowoftheforce​

 

[kguillou]

Hahaha damn what show is that from?

 

[TeeKay]

Lawd.

Oh gawd...

 

[OcStat]

Dr. Strange was more heroic than Superman has been in a long time.

The dude willingly subjected himself to years, if not decades or eons, of constant painful death to save the planet.

I won't be forgetting that anytime soon.

 

[First Avenger]

Hahaha damn what show is that from?

Gilmore girls. They also take a shot at BvS mere minutes before this scene.

 

[ehh]

Superman does not mope about having to save people. The only time Superman mopes in the entire film is when he wasn't able to save people and believes his attempts to save people are doing more harm than good. What Superman does do throughout the film is cheer his girlfriend up, investigate Batman, and save people. He smiles and embraces his fate when he attacks Doomsday for the last time. He fully accepts his role as humanity's savior just moments before his death.

Likability is such an odd concept for me. When I read or watch fiction, likability isn't something I care about. I care about whether a character is interesting. I care if a character grows and changes. Batman, to me, is a fascinating character in BvS. I don't like him because he's particularly likable; I like him because he's interesting. I like him because the film doesn't celebrate his cruelty or defend his unwillingness to listen.

The MCU heroes, to me, aren't that interesting. I don't dislike them, but I also don't care about them. What seems like joy to you mostly just comes off as either simplicity or stale humor. Their worst sin is that they are boring.

shadowoftheforce​

 

[misslane38]

Gilmore girls. They also take a shot at BvS mere minutes before this scene.

I took it as more of a dig at Affleck than BvS: “Where will Superman change when he saves us from Ben Affleck?

 

[Erzengel]

So the Gilmore Girls making fun of the MCU is funny but the comics making fun of BvS isn't?

 

[ehh]

Yeah, Gilmore Girls are so on point. I can never remember who Captain America is, and especially not Iron Man. All of the Avengers are basically the same and I totally forget who they are after each MCU film. Who was that superhero with the power rangers suit that tried to kill that guy with the plastic--no, metal arm? Marvel makes it so hard to remember any of the superheroes. Like who was it at the end of Civil War who beats the other guy with a shield and throws in on the ground? No recollection whatsoever.

But that Batfleck guy from BvS... he really stands out. Totally one of the best superheroes on film ever.

 

[kguillou]

I didn't know Gilmore girls was that type of show, do they usually poke fun at geek culture like that?

 

[misslane38]

So the Gilmore Girls making fun of the MCU is funny but the comics making fun of BvS isn't?

The comic could have been funny, but it was just a tired Martha meme joke. It was boring and unoriginal, and demonstrated a misunderstanding of the film. The Gilmore Girls joke is about audience perception and a minority opinion at that. It's not cliche. So, for me, the difference between the two jokes is the quality of the humor. The MCU joke was lazy as hell, so it wasn't funny.

 

[MadVillainy]

Dr. Strange was more heroic than Superman has been in a long time.

The dude willingly subjected himself to years, if not decades or eons, of constant painful death to save the planet.

I won't be forgetting that anytime soon.

...
I never even though of that...I'm bummed out about that fact.

So the Gilmore Girls making fun of the MCU is funny but the comics making fun of BvS isn't?

 

[Patchwork Man]

The dude willingly subjected himself to years, if not decades or eons, of constant painful death to save the planet.

Derrickson said something like he was "killed" 1000 times (so definitely not "years"). I maintain that Dormammu should not have appeared in the first film.

 

[Patchwork Man]

​

t: LOL! Somebody over there doesn't like Marvel.

 

[Timebomb]

So the Gilmore Girls making fun of the MCU is funny but the comics making fun of BvS isn't?

And that is the funniest thing about it. DCEU supporters are definitely a unique group.

 

[ehh]

I'm starting to think that watching another DCEU film is a human rights violation.