First time watching civil war
Just started watching the mcu like 15 days ago and ive reached civil war and i would give it a 9.4/10 the movie is absolute cinema my 3rd best movie after avengers age of ultron and the avengers before watching it i thought the avengers split because of tony's parents being killed turns out its because they have to sign a paper from the un and before watching the movie i was team iron man but im now team captain because it makes sense to not sign thats the whole point of avengers they're a team that helps the world without anyone stopping them it would break the point of avengers if they signed it for example if theres a terorist attack in a country they have to be aprroved by the un to go stop it so if the un declined whats the point of avengers they're now just a goverment team that moves under the un's order also a thing i didnt like is that black panther didnt kill zemo like he killed your own father why would you wanna give zemo a speech about humanity fuck humanity he killed you father other than that its one of the best movies ive ever seen
Commentaires
If you liked those movies, you're in for quite some treats
Particularly as those threads are starting to combine with the current phase of MCU more than ever before.
Same could be said of older, pre-MCU movies (Sony and Fox films). For example, you’ll get an even bigger payload of excitement if you watch all prior Spider-Man movies before you get to the ones after Endgame.
The last few years, she has started to gain interest in the subject, hearing my ex-gf and me talk about it. One day last year, we were talking and I said to my sister how now, being single, I had no one to share my love for the MCU with. And so she decided that, yeah, why not watch the whole MCU together
And then we started it from the very first movie, watching not only full feature films but also shorts, series, and other tie-ins. It's been less than a year, and we've seen 220h of MCU yet — and rated each project because we love to rate things
Does she like everything? Of course not, and me neither, but the fact that all of this is supposed to be one big universe is enough for her to be interested and eager to know what will happen next. I'm amazed how quickly she went from someone who didn't give a shit to someone who has already planned to take a day off to see Doomsday
There's nothing like the MCU. I don't care how deeply flawed it is, there's just nothing like it
When movies like Madame Web from Sony or Captain America Brave New World from Marvel Studios fail, there are usually a few clear reasons.
1) The lead does not sell tickets. Either the actor or the character needs real pull. Robert Downey Jr sold tickets. Spider Man character sold tickets with three different actors
2) When a movie is well made, sequels feel earned and are easy to justify.
3) When executive interference overtakes creativity and storytelling, the movie suffers.
4) Diversity is important, but forced diversity is obvious and often backfires. Changing characters purely for representation, without narrative purpose, creates friction instead of connection.
On the other hand, you could make Dumbledore black. Find a strong actor, and it can work just fine. Has zero negative impact, and improves by adding another layer to the story.
Snape's characterization is not strictly tied to his origins.
If the team making the movie is hiring based on quality of actors, there’s nothing forced.
If Kathleen Kennedy is hiring, it’s gong to be quota driven and terrible by design.
pack it up
Heroes/vigilantes come in many forms. But most "noblebright" heroes are hard-coded as a remake of the Knights of the Round Table. Most of the original superheroes comic runs use this as their baseline. The darker, revenge focused heroes came later during more cynical decades.
Some of them are coded after the knights depicted by the middle-ages fiction or the romantic era. They're supposed to rise above their human condition. For lack of a better comparison, they're Jesus-characters (as in they manage to rise above the impulsive needs of their human condition. If they fail at that, they cause devastation to the realm. Within the MCU, there are three characters that best represent this genre of heroic figures :
* **Black Panther** (who is also a divine ambassador and his nation's representative) can't simply act for personal reasons. He is supposed to be the incarnation of Wakanda's justice and as such cannot let vengeance consume him. He is a sort of King Arthur (he manages a kingdom, forgives those who wound him lest it would cause his ruination) and Galahad (the perfect knight by definition). He cannot act as an individual because of his responsibilities. It's also Shuri's character arc : >!learning to move beyond her grudge and hatred as the new Black Panther.!<
* **Peter Parker** / **Spider-man** in all of his iterations starts off as a prideful brat who's first reflex with his superpowers is to glory-hunt or seek personal gain. His whole origin story is literally learning about responsibility and letting go of grudges before they consume him. T>!he MCU doesn't deviate from that basic formula with Aunt May instead of Uncle Ben.!< He's a Percival. He needs to make egotistical mistakes before finally rising as a knight worthy of the name.
* Finally, and more obviously **Captain America :** Steve for the longest of times acts as the perfect knight. Rising above personal slights and instead always choosing the high road of justice and righteousness. But he's also coded as Lancelot. He cannot (initially) overcome his sentimental attachment to a close friend: Bucky (Guinevere), even if that imperils the whole of the nation. Mind you, those feelings aren't ignoble nor is he fundamentally wrong. It's just that the choice is incompatible with the King and the Kingdom (here, preserving the unity of the Avengers and the honor of Stark). And thus the kingdom fractures. Like Lancelot, he starts off as the perfect incarnation of knighthood only to fail because of sentiment. It is interesting to note that >!Walker ultimately fails a similar test but has not yet managed to rise above it while Sam initially rejects the burden (a little like Lancelot in some versions of the story) before finally embracing it fully.!<
I can't close off this Arthurian analysis without mentioning the other King Arthur of the group: Tony Stark. In the legend, while Lancelot (Steve Roger)'s actions are ultimately the catalyst of the downfall of the kingdom, it is Arthur's (Tony's) inability to let go of his revenge and reconcile with one of his greatest knights that makes the downval inevitable.
But TLDR: CACW is a movie that fully plays in the Arthurian motifs and how human frailty can cause great devastation. As such, some of the protagonists (knights) need to rise above this condition while others fail. It's a narrative demand and what ultimately makes the story fascinating. It's also what makes the Arthurian legends so universal.
CW is a better *comic book movie*.
Civil War was a much more ambitious project by introducing two massive characters seamlessly. It was essentially an Avengers-level movie.
I like WS more as a movie, but CW pleases my comic book nostalgia significantly more.
It's proof of what happens when movie executives get out of the way (or get pushed out the the way) and give the creatives the freedom to tell the story they want to tell.
Glad to hear you loved it as well.
I think a major reason both these movies are incredible is because they both have grounded, well-fleshed out antagonists you can't help but agree to some degree with. The moral complexities and fatalistic nature of both >!Zemo!< and Thanos worked really well as narrative arcs, which is a kind of storytelling unfortunately missing from many later MCU works.
And I really love T'Challa's choice there at the end to not kill Zemo. He sees the pattern of violence stemming from pain, from vengeance. From Zemo to Tony, T'Challa has stalked the participants, allowing him to have some outside perspective on why they did (or are doing) their current actions. Tony is actively out of pocket and trying to kill Bucky at that same time. T'Challa sees this reflection of his own murderous intent, and while Zemo has no excuse for this actions, T'Challa can now see him acting out from his own pain. He chooses to break the cycle, and bring Zemo to justice, because he's a good man - a consistent character choice that follows him into his solo movie.
I like to contrast the scene with Steve and Tony sitting at the table, debating the right thing to do with the scene from Batman v Superman where they are literally punching each other through buildings.
Civil War had so much more conflict and drama.
Sometimes I’ll just put the airport fight sequence on while I work
Next time use periods. Run-on sentences are the worst.
Cap vs Ironman is right, rest all should've been
Rhodey vs Falcon (Both with Tech)
Hawkeye vs Black Widow (Both friends n without super powers)
Wanda vs Ultron (Couple n kinda close enough in power)
Bucky vs Black Panther (Bp hates Bucky for Killin his dad n wants revenge)
Also, you gotta learn punctuation at some point my guy, shit was a headache to read.