Discussion in 'Captain America: Civil War' started by Thread Manager, May 18, 2016.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]513763[/split]
I was just wondering what minor/major flaws you had with the film (if any) and what elements they could have improved on and what you would liked to have seen, but didn't see etc. You could put them in bullet points:
- What you would of liked to have seen in the film, but didn't get
- Major/minor flaws
- What they could have improved on
T'Challa is royalty, and Ross is a general for the US military, so it makes sense they'd refer to him by his name and military rank, especially since they're talking about how he needs to sign a United Nations document.
I generally don't like the trope of not using the hero's codename, but it's more justifiable here than in stuff like the Green Arrow show where everyone's called "The Arrow" or "The Canary."
I think that mostly makes sense in the context of a universe where nobody has secret identities.
Which is pretty much my point.
Now if you want to complain about the people constantly calling Daredevil "The Devil of Hells Kitchen", then I'm right there with you.t:
Steve has never really been referred as Captain America any way. In The First Avenger, any time he's called Captain America it's in a mocking way, outside of his first confrontation with Red Skull where that was the only thing Skull could refer to him as. I don't think it's ever said in The Avengers, it's said once *I think* in The Winter Soldier and that's by Sam when he's offering his help, then once in Age of Ultron, where again it's used to mock Steve.
I think it's quite realistic that he''s not called Captain America all the time, most of the people he interact with are military officials who will refer to him professionally ie Captain Rogers or his friends who will call him by his name ie Steve, Rogers, or Cap.
LMAO the more I think about it the more I can actually pinpoint how many times he's called Captain America. Bucky does it twice in TFA. Same with the Red Skull. In WS, Sam does and I think that's it. It's very sparse in Winter Soldier. In the Avengers he's mostly referred to as "Captain".
When you think about it, even in the comics, people refer to him as "Cap", "Captain", "Rodgers" or just "Steve". Captain America can be alot to say LOL
I loved the movie, but it also seems like a Cap story was written at some point, then a bunch of stuff was added to pump it up to 11... While I like the stuff they added I wish it were more of a solo movie. Or they could've retitled it Avengers: Civil War and all would've been well.
Yeah, "Captain America" was more of a stage name when he was a performer. People in the films don't really use it, but Coulson loved it and I'd wager the public still know him by that name. Kinda like how everyone still talks about "The Rock" rather than Dwayne.
I went into my third viewing listening for how people called each other, and everyone pretty much uses the real names instead of the code names. But I don't think it has to do with secret identities, as much as it has to do with the theme of personal responsibility. It's them acknowledging the individual human being behind each codename.
It's most obvious when Natasha asks General Ross point-blank, if he'd be willing to shoot and kill "Steve Rogers." Not "Captain America." She's focusing on the human being behind the shield. He's flesh and blood, he's just not a symbol or propaganda. He's not bloodless like Santa Claus. Is General Ross willing to kill that person? That's what she's asking.
You notice that Scott is the only person to purposely (and obviously) call Steve "Captain America," and it's done in a tongue-in-cheek tone each time. That's because he's a huge fanboy and is blinded in meeting the symbol. He's JUST met the dude, he doesn't know Steve as a real person yet.
It's even done when the newscasters refer to Steve as "Captain Steve Rogers" when they report he's missing along with "James Barnes." They're implying that he acted alone, that what happened was his personal responsibility and not sanctioned by anyone else.
I also noticed that Zemo, when torturing Bucky's former handler, refers to Natasha as "Widow." He doesn't think of her as a person, or any of the Avengers, really. He even makes note of that when talking about Steve's "flaws" when of course he has flaws, he's a person. But Zemo has been ignoring the fact that he's dealing with real people. He only cares about destroying what they stand for.
The usage of the names is a nice little detail that follows the main theme of the film, really.
its prolly because secret identities dont really exist in the MCU. I wonder how theyll deal with spiderman since hes the only one who has a reason to keep his identity a secret.
Not exactly true. Daredevil has a secret identity. Ditto on Ant-Man. Spider-Man now makes the latest hero with one. Heroes with secret identities have them to protect those around them which is why these 3 wear masks and hide their identities. Most of the other heroes have little to lose by the public knowing their identities. The only one that doesnt have one that makes no sense is Hawkeye bc he has a wife and kids to worry about
With Ant-Man it's more like the superhero persona itself is a secret, rather than the identity. Almost no one has seen him and most that have know who he is.
My big issue is where were War Machine and Vision in Lagos? They're Avengers, too, so they should have been there, but there's no explanation for why neither is there. Particularly since they're two of the three heavy hitters on that team. The only big gun they had with them was Scarlet Witch, and she's not entirely in control of her abilities.
I thought Tony's quick descent into sadness and wanting to make amends for the death of that kid in Sokovia was a bit too abrupt for my tastes. It led to moments in the movie that felt like overacting - particularly at the airport when he's yelling at Cap for tearing the Avengers apart. Literally right before getting emotional, he's joking and telling underoos to come out.
The movie never really dives into that angle though - how the accord affects the Avengers and how everyone feels about it. Everything sort of coasts along "Oh he signed, he didn't" then we get Tony ranting about the effects on the team.
I really dont see what the difference is. He's confided in people he trusts but his identity is still a secret to the public. He keeps it hidden and considering what happened to his daughter in the first film, he has more reason to do so going further.
Every Avenger isnt needed for every mission and they really werent needed for that. They were trying to keep a low profile. Vision isnt exactly low profile given his appearance. The team that was assembled handled the situation well until the bomb which was totally unexpected but even then, its not like WM and Vision there would have necessarily resulted in a different outcome
The Accords were really irrelevant. It seemed to only exist to give the film a tie to the comic book story but it could have been removed from the film and I dont think the plot would have changed much
This is true.
Some sharp edges left exposed.
They know they are doing the right thing and the best under the circumstances but some wonder if the governments know better? Especially Stark?! He knows how the Gov can screw everything up which is why he kept Iron Man from them in the first place and yet now he wants them to hold the football!?
Why didn't anyone know how Ross screwed over Banner and distrust him? Stark can find Spidy but not know about Ross' s history. ?
And Vision has one of the Infinity stones , the Mindstone! Yet his power and input was very much diminished and seemed an afterthought for such a powerful being.
Because you say that they wear masks to protect themselves and those around them, but that's not been an issue for Ant-Man, and he's wearing the mask because he has to in order to use the Ant-Man suit. Pretty much everyone that's encountered Ant-Man know it's Scott Lang, but only a minuscule amount of people that have heard of Scott Lang have heard of Ant-Man.
I also don't agree that it doesn't make sense for Hawkeye not to have a secret identity because he does have a secret life.
Vision was playing deep coverage during the airport fight. He didn't engage until Giant Man appeared and Bucky and Cap were making their exit.
He certainly could have been more proactive, but Vision was concerned about the battle leading to catastrophe. I would argue that not turning his friends and colleagues into ashes was the right choice.
Tony's been like that for the entire MCU. He jokes around a lot to avoid having to deal with heavy emotions.
Um, then what was that whole meeting for, before Steve finds out about Peggy? We hear from Rhodey, Sam, Tony, Steve, Vision, Natasha. They're all pretty clear about where they stand and why. Pretty much everyone in the room says their piece except for Wanda, and she decides later. We don't hear directly from Clint and Scott's mouth, but they have families so you can probably deduce why they'd have a problem with registration. And Tony tricks Peter into coming, even though he's ideologically Team Cap. I'm not sure what more you needed there.
Hmm, although Zemo would have had a hard time framing Bucky for a bombing of an event the same caliber as the UN meeting. That was explained as a special meeting just for the signing of the Accords.
It also pretty much is the entire point of the Avengers breaking apart. Steve wants to go against the Accords to go after Zemo (at that point it really isn't about Bucky specifically anymore), Tony wants to follow the rules to avoid the bureaucratic consequences. And you bet Tony is still gonna try to play on the government's side as long as he can. They need someone who has some teeth on that side to still get things done, instead of everyone being locked up. It's still going to cause SOME drama down the line, even though you know they'll be teammates again once Thanos comes knocking.
I actually like that explaining of Vision being there to limit catastrophe - the problem is the movie should have done a better job depicting that.
I'm referring to the context of Tony's "I'm trying to prevent you from tearing the Avengers apart" line. It's more lip service than it is the movie showing Steve's actions as though he's literally ripping thru the fabric of what bonds the Avengers.
Well, half of them would be in jail, the other half wouldn't be.
They'll never be torn apart - they're fighting together in Infinity Wars as we already know.
i wonder how many innocent swat team guys are now crippled from winter soldier and Captain beating the crap outta them. getting punched in the face by a super soldier isnt exactly a minor bruising.