Superhero Cinematic Civil War - - - - - Part 45

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]538739[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]537851[/split]

 

[MadVillainy]

-Serious speech from Rhodey. Then "Tony Stank"
I think it is funcional to say Rhodey is not broken and gets very depressing.

-Right after Bucky and Cap get detained, That whole Paprika Thing
That is one of my favorite cuts in the entire MCU

-The opening fight scene with Falcon's little drone. "Go ahead, pet him"
Not too bad for me

-"Cmon man" Steve said to Bucky during their escape
Yeah I can see your Point, but I think this is still very in character

-The Sharon kiss
That works perfect for me.

-Spider-Man's whole intro scene in his Apartment
Here I can agree. Way too much.

I could go on. And even saying "Besides the airport fight scene" That's like over 10 mins of the movie, which even for a 2+ hour movie that's a good amount of time for 1 uninterrupted scene or set piece.

I mean...ok.

I wasn't saying the comedy didn't serve a purpose I was disputing the fact that CW didn't have much humor outside of the airport scene

Iron Man, Winter Soldier, and Cap weren't pulling their punches during the main climax. The airport scene was NOT the climax.

Please read my post again. I said it was the climax to the main conflict which was the Sokovia Accords and the actual Civil War. The Cap/Iron Man/Bucky fight was the true climax of the film,. But the airport fight was the culmination of most of what was being set up before. The Sokovia accords/Tony's guilt, SW being on house arrest, the Avengers choosing sides, Bucky being a fugitive (at least partly)...

And Im not sure, Cap and IM I don't think were legit trying to beat each other into the ground and hurt each other in the airport scene. But fine let's say they weren't. BP wasn't pulling his punches either. But then then that's 4/10 of the fighters who weren't pulling their punches. Maybe 5 if you wanna put Scarlet Witch in there

 

[Mjölnir]

I think only Black Panther is going all out in the airport scene, as he's trying to kill Bucky. The rest hold back at least from that extreme, which I think is a positive since it would make no sense whatsoever that these friends would start trying to kill each other over that conflict.

The same goes for the end fight of the film. The only full on attack is Iron Man against Bucky. IM isn't trying to kill Cap, nor are Cap and Bucky trying to kill IM. And that's the way that makes sense.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think only Black Panther is going all out in the airport scene, as he's trying to kill Bucky. The rest hold back at least from that extreme, which I think is a positive since it would make no sense whatsoever that these friends would start trying to kill each other over that conflict.

The same goes for the end fight of the film. The only full on attack is Iron Man against Bucky. IM isn't trying to kill Cap, nor are Cap and Bucky trying to kill IM. And that's the way that makes sense.

Agreed.

As for what the climax was....a case could be made that the airport fight is the climax. People often assume that the climax is the end of the film, but it isn't. In literature, the climax is the highest or most intense point in the resolution of a story or arc. You could argue that the airport scene is the climax and that the final fight is taking place in the denouement (ie the final part of a movie, narrative, or play in which matters of the plot are drawn together and matters are explained, revealed, or resolved.)

So actually, yeah, the Airport scene is definitely the climax, while the final fight is most certainly the denouement.

 

[MadVillainy]

Agreed.

As for what the climax was....a case could be made that the airport fight is the climax. People often assume that the climax is the end of the film, but it isn't. In literature, the climax is the highest or most intense point in the resolution of a story or arc. You could argue that the airport scene is the climax and that the final fight is taking place in the denouement (ie the final part of a movie, narrative, or play in which matters of the plot are drawn together and matters are explained, revealed, or resolved.)

So actually, yeah, the Airport scene is definitely the climax, while the final fight is most certainly the denouement.

Similar to TDK. Batman saving the hostages and fighting the Joker is the climax. Dealing with Dent is the denouement.
Or Alien. Ripley escaping was the climax. Launching the xenomorph into space was the denouement

 

[Infinity9999x]

Similar to TDK. Batman saving the hostages and fighting the Joker is the climax. Dealing with Dent is the denouement.
Or Alien. Ripley escaping was the climax. Launching the xenomorph into space was the denouement

Exactly. People often assume that the climax refers to what the denouement is, or that it refers to the end of a story. And to be fair, some stories will cut out the denouement, or have a very short denouement. Some even kind of combine the two...because, like any art form, once you set up rules, artists will go out of their way to break them.

But in terms of CW, the airport scene is definitely the climax, if we're using climax in it's literary sense.

 

[AlluAllu]

The stakes were highest during Cap & Bucky vs Tony, so in my mind I consider it the climax of the movie. What a figurative nailbiter.

Back in the day The Incredible Hulk used to contain one of the coolest scenes in superhero movies; Superserum Blonsky vs The Hulk. It was such a great tease for Captain America. It admittedly took a while for Cap to get to that level, but still.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The climax of Civil War is Cap & Bucky vs Iron Man. Everything in Zemo's plan builds toward that moment where Iron Man and Cap become enemies. The airport fight was a stepping stone in Zemo's larger plan. Cap and Iron Man could have still forgiven each other, heck they were working together when Ross refused to let Stark go there. But, that moment cemented the fact they were not going to be on the same side, and the conflict would only end either with Bucky's death or incapacitating Iron Man.

 

[flickchick85]

The airport scene is the definition of "escalating action." It's the end of the 2nd act. The climax is the dramatic peak of the film, the point of conflict which everything else has built toward - that's the Tony/Steve/Bucky/Zemo confrontation. It's just more of an emotional climax than spectacle. It is then succeeded by falling action - BP subduing Zemo, Cap beating IM and leaving his shield, Zemo suggesting his plan succeeded. The denouement is everything getting "resolved" and our new status quo is established - Tony and Widow's talk, Tony and Rhodey, Tony receiving Steve's letter, Steve freeing his allies.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The airport scene is the definition of "escalating action." It's the end of the 2nd act. The climax is the dramatic peak of the film, the point of conflict which everything else has built toward - that's the Tony/Steve/Bucky/Zemo confrontation. It's just more of an emotional climax than spectacle. It is then succeeded by falling action - BP subduing Zemo, Cap beating IM and leaving his shield, Zemo suggesting his plan succeeded. The denouement is everything getting "resolved" and our new status quo is established - Tony and Widow's talk, Tony and Rhodey, Tony receiving Steve's letter, Steve freeing his allies.

100% accurate

 

[Infinity9999x]

The airport scene is the definition of "escalating action." It's the end of the 2nd act. The climax is the dramatic peak of the film, the point of conflict which everything else has built toward - that's the Tony/Steve/Bucky/Zemo confrontation. It's just more of an emotional climax than spectacle. It is then succeeded by falling action - BP subduing Zemo, Cap beating IM and leaving his shield, Zemo suggesting his plan succeeded. The denouement is everything getting "resolved" and our new status quo is established - Tony and Widow's talk, Tony and Rhodey, Tony receiving Steve's letter, Steve freeing his allies.

The final fight is also at the moment that all the plot threads are drawn together and the final conflict is explained, so in that sense it certainly seems to fit better as part of the denouement. The airport scene in many ways could be viewed as the highest point in development of the plot as it it the biggest clash of ideologies presented in the film, quite literally tearing the Avengers apart.

Though I do agree that the final fight is certainly the most intense emotional moment in the film, so in that sense it also fits as the climax. It's a hard one, because from a plot perspective, the final fight definitely fits more in the denouement, as going by the definition of a denouement, which is when the plot threads are draw together and explained OR resolved. The fight is the moment when all the threads are drawn together and the plot threads are explained, and in that sense the winter base and the fight seem to begin the denouement.
Point being, there's a case to be made for either. It also shows how hard it can be to apply hard rules to literature/film/theatre.

 

[flickchick85]

The denouement is NOT the moment that plot threads come together in a film. That is the climax. The denouement comes after the falling action where status quo is re-established. It is literally the concluding scenes of a film (or play). I've been to film school twice, both grad and undergrad, and while this is a common mix-up, it's also a very clear difference.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Denouement, aka resolution, is what happens after the climax the resolve all the remaining threads. In film, this normally lasts 2-5 mins max. The climax is the highest point of suspense where everything leads to 1 event in which the final choice or confrontation occurs. Cap vs Iron Man is not a denouement. It's an extension of the conflict within the plot, and it is the moment the film build towards. That is the climax. Everything after that is the denouement.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

You know, after BP going all out wanting to kill Bucky for killing his dad, it feels kinda weird that he didn't want to kill Zemo for being the architect of the attack.
An excuse could be made that he relates to Zemo when it comes to the loss of dear family members and he stopped because of that, but if this wasn't a superhero movie based on a comic book, a character in the same situation would've killed Zemo for all the deaths and chaos he caused in his quest for vengeance, or let him commit suicide.

 

[Infinity9999x]

The denouement is NOT the moment that plot threads come together in a film. That is the climax. The denouement comes after the falling action where status quo is re-established. It is literally the concluding scenes of a film (or play). I've been to film school twice, both grad and undergrad, and while this is a common mix-up, it's also a very clear difference.

The debate on the meaning is interesting, because I’m using the exact definition online provided out of a dictionary. I’ve also gotten a BFA in acting and I’m currently acting in NYC, (got a L&O: SVU callback Monday, put out good vibes all!) so I’m not unaware of the terminology myself.

As for my end, I’ve never been told the climax is the moment plot threads come together, I’ve learned it as the height of the plot action. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix for example, the climax is the battle at th ministry, but all the plot threads don’t come together until afte the climax, and (in the book) the most intense emotional moment comes in Dumbledore’s office in his discussion with Harry. All of this undoubtedly takes place in The denouncement. I’ve also never heard denouncement described as the status quo being re established. Often times it is the exact opposite, the status quo is completely shaken by the denouncement, and a new status quo is established.

 

[flickchick85]

You know, after BP going all out wanting to kill Bucky for killing his dad, it feels kinda weird that he didn't want to kill Zemo for being the architect of the attack.
An excuse could be made that he relates to Zemo when it comes to the loss of dear family members and he stopped because of that, but if this wasn't a superhero movie based on a comic book, a character in the same situation would've killed Zemo for all the deaths and chaos he caused in his quest for vengeance, or let him commit suicide.

Except that revelation is what made him realize that vengeance was was the wrong course. That it consumed Zemo and was currently consuming Cap and Iron Man, and if he let it, it would consume him too, and it was just feeding an endless cycle. So yes, he WOULD have killed Zemo if he hadn't changed his worldview with that revelation.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

You know, after BP going all out wanting to kill Bucky for killing his dad, it feels kinda weird that he didn't want to kill Zemo for being the architect of the attack.
An excuse could be made that he relates to Zemo when it comes to the loss of dear family members and he stopped because of that, but if this wasn't a superhero movie based on a comic book, a character in the same situation would've killed Zemo for all the deaths and chaos he caused in his quest for vengeance, or let him commit suicide.

From what I interpret, BP saw how hollow, empty and unfulfilling vengeance was. He decided not let vengeance consume him and capture Zemo alive.

 

[Mjölnir]

You know, after BP going all out wanting to kill Bucky for killing his dad, it feels kinda weird that he didn't want to kill Zemo for being the architect of the attack.
An excuse could be made that he relates to Zemo when it comes to the loss of dear family members and he stopped because of that, but if this wasn't a superhero movie based on a comic book, a character in the same situation would've killed Zemo for all the deaths and chaos he caused in his quest for vengeance, or let him commit suicide.

Earlier in the film he probably would have killed Zemo without hesitation, but that whole moment is about T'Challa learning the lesson of where hatred and vengeance leads. He realizes that hatred just consumes you so he stops seeking vengeance and chooses justice instead. A pretty good lesson for a king to learn.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Except that revelation is what made him realize that vengeance was was the wrong course. That it consumed Zemo and was currently consuming Cap and Iron Man, and if he let it, it would consume him too, and it was just feeding an endless cycle. So yes, he WOULD have killed Zemo if he hadn't changed his worldview with that revelation.

That's why I said another character would have chosen a different option like letting Zemo shoot himself.
The one thing you said in your post that I didn't say in mine is how vengeance making one plummet low scared him from having the same attitude.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The debate on the meaning is interesting, because I’m using the exact definition online provided out of a dictionary. I’ve also gotten a BFA in acting and I’m currently acting in NYC, (got a L&O: SVU callback Monday, put out good vibes all!) so I’m not unaware of the terminology myself.

As for my end, I’ve never been told the climax is the moment plot threads come together, I’ve learned it as the height of the plot action. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix for example, the climax is the battle at th ministry, but all the plot threads don’t come together until afte the climax, and (in the book) the most intense emotional moment comes in Dumbledore’s office in his discussion with Harry. All of this undoubtedly takes place in The denouncement. I’ve also never heard denouncement described as the status quo being re established. Often times it is the exact opposite, the status quo is completely shaken by the denouncement, and a new status quo is established.

This is the definition of climax:

"the most intense, exciting, or important point of something; a culmination or apex.
"the climax of her speech""

The airport is not the climax. Zemo is still on the loose, Cap is still pursuing the super soldiers, and Iron Man is pursuing Cap. The most important point or culmination of the story is Cap and Bucky vs Iron Man. After that, everything resolves itself. Cap is on the run, Iron Man takes over the Avengers, etc. That is the denouement.

This is coming from someone with a Bachelor's in Filmmaking and I write my own screenplays. So I am well versed on this topic.

 

[flickchick85]

The debate on the meaning is interesting, because I’m using the exact definition online provided out of a dictionary. I’ve also gotten a BFA in acting and I’m currently acting in NYC, (got a L&O: SVU callback Monday, put out good vibes all!) so I’m not unaware of the terminology myself.

As for my end, I’ve never been told the climax is the moment plot threads come together, I’ve learned it as the height of the plot action. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix for example, the climax is the battle at th ministry, but all the plot threads don’t come together until afte the climax, and (in the book) the most intense emotional moment comes in Dumbledore’s office in his discussion with Harry. All of this undoubtedly takes place in The denouncement. I’ve also never heard denouncement described as the status quo being re established. Often times it is the exact opposite, the status quo is completely shaken by the denouncement, and a new status quo is established.

That's why I said a status quo is "RE-established" because it's often a new one that's established. But to be clear, when I say plot threads come together, I don't mean they tie-up, I mean they come to a head. That's what the climax is - where everything meets. The tie-up is the resolution/denouement. It is always the final scenes of a film, after the conflict has finished. And yes, I'm looking right at the dictionary definition too.

We talked about this in one of my screenwriting classes, and my professor once said he believes the reason for this common mix-up is the word "resolution." Because a lot of people see the point where the conflict comes to a head, and they see it as the conflict getting resolved. He said it's easier to make the distinction when you realize the denouement post-conflict, and is literally the final scenes of a film where everything's wrapped up. If the main characters are still fighting, it ain't the denouement.

 

[Spider-Fan]

That's why I said a status quo is "RE-established" because it's often a new one that's established. But to be clear, when I say plot threads come together, I don't mean they tie-up, I mean they come to a head. That's what the climax is - where everything meets. The tie-up is the resolution/denouement. It is always the final scenes of a film, after the conflict has finished. And yes, I'm looking right at the dictionary definition too.

We talked about this in one of my screenwriting classes, and my professor once said he believes the reason for this common mix-up is the word "resolution." Because a lot of people see the point of where the conflict comes to a head, and they see it as the conflict getting resolved. He said it's easier to make the distinction when you realize the denouement post-conflict, and is literally the final scenes of a film where everything's wrapped up. If people are still fighting, it ain't the denouement.

Exactly. The Denouement is basically for tying up loose ends and showing the characters after the events of the climax. Like I said before, your denouement in general is like, 2-5 mins worth of your average screenplay. When the villain's plan is finally revealed and the heroes are trying to stop him from succeeding, you are in the climax.

 

[Infinity9999x]

That's why I said a status quo is "RE-established" because it's often a new one that's established. But to be clear, when I say plot threads come together, I don't mean they tie-up, I mean they come to a head. That's what the climax is - where everything meets. The tie-up is the resolution/denouement. It is always the final scenes of a film, after the conflict has finished. And yes, I'm looking right at the dictionary definition too.

We talked about this in one of my screenwriting classes, and my professor once said he believes the reason for this common mix-up is the word "resolution." Because a lot of people see the point where the conflict comes to a head, and they see it as the conflict getting resolved. He said it's easier to make the distinction when you realize the denouement post-conflict, and is literally the final scenes of a film where everything's wrapped up. If the main characters are still fighting, it ain't the denouement.

I suppose the hard parts about these definitions as well is some of the terminology in describing them. When you say a climax is the most intense point in the development or resolution of something...that's a very vague definition. If I use the first half, I could say that the highest point in the development of the plot, or the most exciting, is the airport fight. And in fact, some of the critiques I've seen of the film is that after the airport fight the film isn't able to capture the intensity it had in that sequence (I don't personally agree, but I think it's a criticism not entirely without merit).

Now, if I use the second half of the definition, as in the highest point of the resolution of something, I would say the ending fight fits best. But the way the definition is worded can cover two very different things.

The other problem I think is that these terms are often taught in terms of heightening dramatic tension, where you have rising action, rising acting, rising action, climax, denouncement. But often in a story this isn't how it works, its more peaks and valleys. Certainly, after the airport fight, I think the film goes into a bit of a valley before building back up again.

Also, I think at times denouements end up being quite long. The play Tartuffe for example. The denouncement for that lasts forever, probably a solid 10 pages or more after the climax.

Thinking about it more, I would most likely put the final fight as the climax, but again, I do think, going off the way these terms are worded, that there is room for different interpretation here. I know I may seem like I'm being overly picky on the wording, but we're discussing stories, things literally created from words and I think the specificity of the definitions are important.

And as I've said before, I think these things are more fluid than we give them credit for, and often times writers will purposefully try to break the conventions of the "rules" of writing/screenwriting/playwriting.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I suppose the hard parts about these definitions as well is some of the terminology in describing them. When you say a climax is the most intense point in the development or resolution of something...that's a very vague definition. If I use the first half, I could say that the highest point in the development of the plot, or the most exciting, is the airport fight. And in fact, some of the critiques I've seen of the film is that after the airport fight the film isn't able to capture the intensity it had in that sequence (I don't personally agree, but I think it's a criticism not entirely without merit).

Now, if I use the second half of the definition, as in the highest point of the resolution of something, I would say the ending fight fits best. But the way the definition is worded can cover two very different things.

The other problem I think is that these terms are often taught in terms of heightening dramatic tension, where you have rising action, rising acting, rising action, climax, denouncement. But often in a story this isn't how it works, its more peaks and valleys. Certainly, after the airport fight, I think the film goes into a bit of a valley before building back up again.

Also, I think at times denouements end up being quite long. The play Tartuffe for example. The denouncement for that lasts forever, probably a solid 10 pages or more after the climax.

Thinking about it more, I would most likely put the final fight as the climax, but again, I do think, going off the way these terms are worded, that there is room for different interpretation here. I know I may seem like I'm being overly picky on the wording, but we're discussing stories, things literally created from words and I think the specificity of the definitions are important.

And as I've said before, I think these things are more fluid than we give them credit for, and often times writers will purposefully try to break the conventions of the "rules" of writing/screenwriting/playwriting.

But, Captain America: Civil War is not one of these films. That one is fairly by the book 3 act structure. It's not like we're talking about something like Pulp Fiction or Memento, which are very non-conventional and break the structure quite heavily.