Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 0:19:16 GMT
Why did one work and the other didn't?
Also, a bonus video about "Justice League."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 0:47:33 GMT
I love the way that anyone who writes an article or who makes a video which is negative about JL, feels a need to wearily make the point that they aren't biased in favor of the MCU just because they think DCU movies are bad. Rabid DCU extremists must attack EVERYONE who doesn't like their movies...without exception.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 7, 2017 0:54:13 GMT
The reason for Captain America and Iron Man clashing, what it meant to see them clash and the end result of it was just done in a better way.
There was no real need for Batman and Superman to have to fight and it just made Batman look like the bad guy. Then it was resolved and the conflict was put to an end in such a shoddy way.
It should have focused more on Lex Luthor manipulating Batman in order to turn against Superman. That should have stayed the conflict until the end where it would have been resolved in a much better way and then Lex Luthor would have been sentenced for his crimes at the end.
No Wonder Woman and no Doomsday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 1:07:11 GMT
The reason for Captain America and Iron Man clashing, what it meant to see them clash and the end result of it was just done in a better way. There was no real need for Batman and Superman to have to fight and it just made Batman look like the bad guy. Then it was resolved and the conflict was put to an end in such a shoddy way. It should have focused more on Lex Luthor manipulating Batman in order to turn against Superman. That should have stayed the conflict until the end where it would have been resolved in a much better way and then Lex Luthor would have been sentenced for his crimes at the end. No Wonder Woman and no Doomsday. Well said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 1:55:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Dec 7, 2017 2:05:48 GMT
Without watching the video, Civil War worked because the plot was more focused and the characters' motivations for their position on the Accords were written way better. Batman v Superman had a convoluted plot with too many storylines such as Bruce Wayne discovering more metahumans, Clark Kent investigating the Batman, Lex Luthor trying to manipulate the heroes, and Lois Lane doing her investigation. It had some good ideas going for it, but it didn't come together as a whole. Batman had a legitimate reason for hating Superman because of the mass destruction of Metropolis, but Superman doesn't. He merely fights Batman to save his mother. In the grand scheme of things, Batman and Superman didn't really hate each other. They were just pawns and victims of Lex Luthor's manipulation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 2:36:51 GMT
My favorite parts were when he was discussing the re-valuing of the DCEU brand and how there's no easy fix in sight.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 7, 2017 5:23:01 GMT
The reason for Captain America and Iron Man clashing, what it meant to see them clash and the end result of it was just done in a better way. There was no real need for Batman and Superman to have to fight and it just made Batman look like the bad guy. Civil War was worse. There was no real need for Iron Man and Cap to fight because Cap's position is indefensible and it just made Cap look really bad. It's hilarious how MCU fans try to defend the trash that was Civil War by defending Cap's position. The government passed the Sokovia Accords requiring that the Avengers to have oversight and be held accountable for their reckless actions that got people killed who wouldn't have been killed if not for the reckless actions of the Avengers. But Cap didn't want to have to answer to the people so Cap said "I don't trust the government so that exempts me from abiding by their laws." It's no different than if the government passed a law requiring stricter regulations and registration for assault rifles and guns and some paramilitary psycho who doesn't want to register his assault rifles and guns says "I don't trust the government so that exempts me from abiding by their laws." If the police chased a suspect through a crowded market and got into a shootout with the suspect in a crowded market and many innocent civilians died in the crossfire, people would demand the police be held accountable and demand better oversight to prevent it from happening again. But when the Avengers chase a criminal through a crowded market and many people die as a direct result of the Avengers' reckless actions, Cap doesn't want to be held accountable and doesn't want oversight. That's just absurd. They say actions speak louder than words and Cap's actions in Civil War basically said "Fuck the people. I'm Captain fucking America and I'm stronger than the people so I can do whatever the fuck I want whenever I want and I don't have to answer to the people for it. I'll decide what's best for the people because I'm Captain fucking America. And fuck the Constitution. I don't believe in the Constitutional right to trial by jury. I'm not going to allow any fucking jury of the people to decide if my BFF is guilty of double-murder. I'll be the judge and jury and decide who's guilty and who isn't because I'm Captain fucking America." Cap really was a tyrant in Civil War. Cap appointed himself judge and jury and wanted to be the one to decide what's best for the people. And history has shown time and time again that's often the 1st step towards tyranny - one single individual who's so power-hungry that he ignores the law and appoints himself to be the one to decide what's best for the people.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 7, 2017 5:26:23 GMT
Damn!
I was hoping this was a team up crossover film!
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 7, 2017 7:23:41 GMT
It's hilarious how MCU fans try to defend the trash that was Civil War by defending Cap's position. The government passed the Sokovia Accords requiring that the Avengers to have oversight and be held accountable for their reckless actions that got people killed who wouldn't have been killed if not for the reckless actions of the Avengers. It was because as Captain America said, there would be times when The Avengers would be needed but the government might say no. This was something that occured in the comic when they had to infiltrate Dr Doom's country of Latveria even though the government wouldn't allow them to. Also them fighting made sense because Captain America was aiding a fugitive, though he was the only one who knew about Bucky's brainwashing and innocence and was racing against the clock of Zemo unleashing some more Super Soldiers. Whereas with Batman vs Superman, Batman just wanted to kill Superman because he thought one day he might wipe them all out even though he had actually saved everybody on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 7, 2017 8:56:50 GMT
It's hilarious how MCU fans try to defend the trash that was Civil War by defending Cap's position. The government passed the Sokovia Accords requiring that the Avengers to have oversight and be held accountable for their reckless actions that got people killed who wouldn't have been killed if not for the reckless actions of the Avengers. It was because as Captain America said, there would be times when The Avengers would be needed but the government might say no. This was something that occured in the comic when they had to infiltrate Dr Doom's country of Latveria even though the government wouldn't allow them to. I don't read Avengers comics, but if that's what happened in the comics, then that's even further proof that Cap is wrong and Cap's position in Civil War is indefensible. Latveria is an independent country so an unprovoked infiltration of their country is a violation of their sovereign right as an independent country and could be considered an act of war. Think about it. An American citizen named Captain America, a former soldier in the US Army, infiltrates an independent country like Latveria (or in Civil War's case, Sokovia). The obvious question is "Is he committing this illegal 'act of war' against an independent country on behalf of and with the full endorsement of the US government?" This is why BvS is much better than Civil War. Age of Ultron began with the Avengers invading a HYDRA outpost. But the HYDRA outpost was in Sokovia. So basically, the Avengers violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation by illegally invading that country and attacking residents of that country without provocation. And Tony Stark unilaterally decides to create Ultron without any discussion with or permission from global leaders. But Age of Ultron never addresses the ramifications of such an illegal act of aggression by the Avengers or a unilateral decision by Stark that endangered the lives of every human being. By contrast, in BvS Senator Finch raises the issue of the ramifications of Superman's actions: "To have an individual engaging in these state-level interventions should give us all pause." "I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally." "In a democracy, good is a conversation, not a unilateral decision." "How far will he take his power? Does he act by our will or by his own?"There are ramifications to Superman's actions. "We have international laws. On this Earth, every act is a political act." Does Superman act with the consent and will of the people or does he act by his own will (like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers do)? Are Superman's actions to be interpreted as American? What are his boundaries? What rules will he maintain or break? Also them fighting made sense because Captain America was aiding a fugitive, though he was the only one who knew about Bucky's brainwashing and innocence And Cap is wrong again and Cap's position is indefensible. Bucky killed 2 people (Howard and Maria Stark) with his own hands. That's a fact that's indisputable. The only fact that was in dispute was why Bucky killed them. Cap believes that Bucky was brainwashed and therefore shouldn't be held accountable. But that's for a jury to decide. That's why the Constitution guarantees every defendant a trial by jury. So every defendant has their chance to present their case to a jury. So if Cap believed that Bucky was brainwashed and therefore shouldn't be held accountable, then he should respect the Constitution, like a good American would, and hire a good lawyer to defend Bucky in court. But Cap didn't believe in the Constitution and didn't want Bucky's fate to be decided by a jury of 12 people. So Cap appointed himself judge and jury, and history has shown time and time again that's often the 1st step towards tyranny. Also, some MCU fans claimed that Bucky wasn't getting a trial, but that's false. (They also claimed that the government wanted Bucky dead only and had no intention of arresting him alive, but that's also false as proven by the fact that they did arrest Bucky alive and didn't just shoot and kill him when they had the chance.) Bucky was arrested in public after a chase through a crowded street so there were plenty of witnesses who saw Bucky arrested. That means the press would demand access to the trial to report on it. So there was no way the government could cover up Bucky's arrest and not grant Bucky a trial. Bucky was definitely going to get a trial and get his chance to present his case to a jury, as guaranteed by the Constitution. But Cap didn't believe in the Constitution so Cap spit on the Constitution and acted like a tyrant by appointing himself judge and jury.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 7, 2017 10:14:47 GMT
I don't read Avengers comics, but if that's what happened in the comics, then that's even further proof that Cap is wrong and Cap's position in Civil War is indefensible. Latveria is an independent country so an unprovoked infiltration of their country is a violation of their sovereign right as an independent country and could be considered an act of war. It wasn't unprovoked though, in this instance Dr Doom had created a chemical weapon which he was going to use to infect people with the Symbiote which would probably have doomed mankind. They were ordered by whoever though, not to go. So what's the right thing to do there? Follow orders or stop a terrorist from destroying mankind? Those Hydra soldiers had in their possession an Infinity Stone, which they were using to create dangerous weapons. They were also taking innocent people and performing experiments on them to make super powered being who they would use for their own evil purposes, a lot of which died. Well this one is true but also sort of the point. That was the story of Ultron anyway that he was created by an Avenger. That was Tony Stark's fault and he did say as much in Civil War. So this was intentional. But the fight with Iron Man itself, the conflict between the two, happened because Iron Man was trying to kill Bucky, not calmly take him in to the police. As far as Iron Man was concerned, Bucky had killed his parents, he didn't really care about any brainwashing, understandably because he just saw Bucky bash his mother's skull in, so he was trying to kill him. Cap however, knowing it wasn't Bucky's fault, again understandably tried to save his life. Hence the fight. In Batman vs Superman it doesn't make that much sense why Batman and Superman had to fight. The Kryptonians came to Earth, almost wiped out mankind but they were all saved thanks to Superman which is why he is considered a hero in large parts of the world. Batman however was like "No, no, that guy, even though he was said to have lived amongst us could actually kill all of us, so I'm just gonna kill him." That was it. He just wanted to kill the world renowned superhero because of something he could do. Then at the end when Superman shows up in front of Batman, he nicely asks him to hear him out whilst admitting he was wrong.....and Batman shoots him with a Gatling gun. Of course that doesn't affect Superman in any significant way but what does he do anyway? Starts throwing him around and smashing him through buildings?.....Why? Just 30 seconds ago he wanted to talk things out. There was no need for Superman to attack Batman back, he just made the whole thing worse as opposed to saying "See? You shot me but I'm not fighting back because I'm on your side and need your help to save my mother".
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 13:15:09 GMT
Civil War was better. There was real history between Iron Man and Cap building to a fight because both positions were defensible. Fixed, you old relic.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 7, 2017 13:25:02 GMT
The reason for Captain America and Iron Man clashing, what it meant to see them clash and the end result of it was just done in a better way. There was no real need for Batman and Superman to have to fight and it just made Batman look like the bad guy. Civil War was worse. There was no real need for Iron Man and Cap to fight because Cap's position is indefensible and it just made Cap look really bad. It's hilarious how MCU fans try to defend the trash that was Civil War by defending Cap's position. The government passed the Sokovia Accords requiring that the Avengers to have oversight and be held accountable for their reckless actions that got people killed who wouldn't have been killed if not for the reckless actions of the Avengers. But Cap didn't want to have to answer to the people so Cap said "I don't trust the government so that exempts me from abiding by their laws." It's no different than if the government passed a law requiring stricter regulations and registration for assault rifles and guns and some paramilitary psycho says "I don't trust the government so that exempts me from abiding by their laws." If the police chased a suspect through a crowded market and got into a shootout with the suspect in a crowded market and many innocent civilians died in the crossfire, people would demand the police be held accountable and demand better oversight to prevent it from happening again. But when the Avengers chase a criminal through a crowded market and many people die as a direct result of the Avengers' reckless actions, Cap doesn't want to be held accountable and doesn't want oversight. That's just absurd. They say actions speak louder than words and Cap's actions in Civil War basically said "Fuck the people. I'm Captain fucking America and I'm stronger than the people so I can do whatever the fuck I want whenever I want and I don't have to answer to the people for it. I'll decide what's best for the people because I'm Captain fucking America. And fuck the Constitution. I don't believe in the Constitutional right to trial by jury. I'm not going to allow any fucking jury of the people to decide if my BFF is guilty of double-murder. I'll be the judge and jury and decide who's guilty and who isn't because I'm Captain fucking America." Cap really was a tyrant in Civil War. Cap appointed himself judge and jury and wanted to be the one to decide what's best for the people. And history has shown time and time again that's often the 1st step towards tyranny - one single individual who's so power-hungry that he ignores the law and appoints himself to be the one to decide what's best for the people. The same government that was plague with Hydra, an Nazi organization? The same government that also wanted to nuke a heavily populated city (New York) with no concern for a nuclear fallout? Yeah I take cap side easily.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 13:32:42 GMT
Civil War was worse. There was no real need for Iron Man and Cap to fight because Cap's position is indefensible and it just made Cap look really bad. It's hilarious how MCU fans try to defend the trash that was Civil War by defending Cap's position. The government passed the Sokovia Accords requiring that the Avengers to have oversight and be held accountable for their reckless actions that got people killed who wouldn't have been killed if not for the reckless actions of the Avengers. But Cap didn't want to have to answer to the people so Cap said "I don't trust the government so that exempts me from abiding by their laws." It's no different than if the government passed a law requiring stricter regulations and registration for assault rifles and guns and some paramilitary psycho says "I don't trust the government so that exempts me from abiding by their laws." If the police chased a suspect through a crowded market and got into a shootout with the suspect in a crowded market and many innocent civilians died in the crossfire, people would demand the police be held accountable and demand better oversight to prevent it from happening again. But when the Avengers chase a criminal through a crowded market and many people die as a direct result of the Avengers' reckless actions, Cap doesn't want to be held accountable and doesn't want oversight. That's just absurd. They say actions speak louder than words and Cap's actions in Civil War basically said "Fuck the people. I'm Captain fucking America and I'm stronger than the people so I can do whatever the fuck I want whenever I want and I don't have to answer to the people for it. I'll decide what's best for the people because I'm Captain fucking America. And fuck the Constitution. I don't believe in the Constitutional right to trial by jury. I'm not going to allow any fucking jury of the people to decide if my BFF is guilty of double-murder. I'll be the judge and jury and decide who's guilty and who isn't because I'm Captain fucking America." Cap really was a tyrant in Civil War. Cap appointed himself judge and jury and wanted to be the one to decide what's best for the people. And history has shown time and time again that's often the 1st step towards tyranny - one single individual who's so power-hungry that he ignores the law and appoints himself to be the one to decide what's best for the people. The same government that was plague with Hydra, an Nazi organization? The same government that also wanted to nuke a heavily populated city (New York) with no concern for a nuclear fallout? Yeah I take cap side easily. DC-Fan/Ken's the kind of guy who'd think Cap rebelling against the Government in 1984 would make him the bad guy.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Dec 7, 2017 15:02:19 GMT
The reason for Captain America and Iron Man clashing, what it meant to see them clash and the end result of it was just done in a better way. There was no real need for Batman and Superman to have to fight and it just made Batman look like the bad guy. Then it was resolved and the conflict was put to an end in such a shoddy way. It should have focused more on Lex Luthor manipulating Batman in order to turn against Superman. That should have stayed the conflict until the end where it would have been resolved in a much better way and then Lex Luthor would have been sentenced for his crimes at the end. No Wonder Woman and no Doomsday. Exactly. The point of conflict made no sense. Batman hated Superman because he saw the destruction Kryptonians are capable of. Yet, he's attacking the one Kryptonian that was actually fighting to save the world. And then Superman was against Batman because he didn't approve of Batman's violent tactics. Yet, we saw at the beginning Superman killing a terrorist by slamming him through a wall at superhuman speed. He's just as violent. It seems the only reason they they had to fight was because the movie is called Batman v. Superman.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 17:05:30 GMT
The reason for Captain America and Iron Man clashing, what it meant to see them clash and the end result of it was just done in a better way. There was no real need for Batman and Superman to have to fight and it just made Batman look like the bad guy. Then it was resolved and the conflict was put to an end in such a shoddy way. It should have focused more on Lex Luthor manipulating Batman in order to turn against Superman. That should have stayed the conflict until the end where it would have been resolved in a much better way and then Lex Luthor would have been sentenced for his crimes at the end. No Wonder Woman and no Doomsday. Exactly. The point of conflict made no sense. Batman hated Superman because he saw the destruction Kryptonians are capable of. Yet, he's attacking the one Kryptonian that was actually fighting to save the world. And then Superman was against Batman because he didn't approve of Batman's violent tactics. Yet, we saw at the beginning Superman killing a terrorist by slamming him through a wall at superhuman speed. He's just as violent. It seems the only reason they they had to fight was because the movie is called Batman v. Superman. And Batman's whole "1%" thing went out the window as soon as it occurred to him that this alien menace might have a mom. With wishy-washiness like that no wonder Gotham is still a Hellhole.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Dec 7, 2017 17:15:11 GMT
It was because as Captain America said, there would be times when The Avengers would be needed but the government might say no. This was something that occured in the comic when they had to infiltrate Dr Doom's country of Latveria even though the government wouldn't allow them to. I don't read Avengers comics, but if that's what happened in the comics, then that's even further proof that Cap is wrong and Cap's position in Civil War is indefensible. Latveria is an independent country so an unprovoked infiltration of their country is a violation of their sovereign right as an independent country and could be considered an act of war. Think about it. An American citizen named Captain America, a former soldier in the US Army, infiltrates an independent country like Latveria (or in Civil War's case, Sokovia). The obvious question is "Is he committing this illegal 'act of war' against an independent country on behalf of and with the full endorsement of the US government?" This is why BvS is much better than Civil War. Age of Ultron began with the Avengers invading a HYDRA outpost. But the HYDRA outpost was in Sokovia. So basically, the Avengers violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation by illegally invading that country and attacking residents of that country without provocation. And Tony Stark unilaterally decides to create Ultron without any discussion with or permission from global leaders. But Age of Ultron never addresses the ramifications of such an illegal act of aggression by the Avengers or a unilateral decision by Stark that endangered the lives of every human being. By contrast, in BvS Senator Finch raises the issue of the ramifications of Superman's actions: "To have an individual engaging in these state-level interventions should give us all pause." "I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally." "In a democracy, good is a conversation, not a unilateral decision." "How far will he take his power? Does he act by our will or by his own?"There are ramifications to Superman's actions. "We have international laws. On this Earth, every act is a political act." Does Superman act with the consent and will of the people or does he act by his own will (like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers do)? Are Superman's actions to be interpreted as American? What are his boundaries? What rules will he maintain or break? Also them fighting made sense because Captain America was aiding a fugitive, though he was the only one who knew about Bucky's brainwashing and innocence And Cap is wrong again and Cap's position is indefensible. Bucky killed 2 people (Howard and Maria Stark) with his own hands. That's a fact that's indisputable. The only fact that was in dispute was why Bucky killed them. Cap believes that Bucky was brainwashed and therefore shouldn't be held accountable. But that's for a jury to decide. That's why the Constitution guarantees every defendant a trial by jury. So every defendant has their chance to present their case to a jury. So if Cap believed that Bucky was brainwashed and therefore shouldn't be held accountable, then he should respect the Constitution, like a good American would, and hire a good lawyer to defend Bucky in court. But Cap didn't believe in the Constitution and didn't want Bucky's fate to be decided by a jury of 12 people. So Cap appointed himself judge and jury, and history has shown time and time again that's often the 1st step towards tyranny. Also, some MCU fans claimed that Bucky wasn't getting a trial, but that's false. (They also claimed that the government wanted Bucky dead only and had no intention of arresting him alive, but that's also false as proven by the fact that they did arrest Bucky alive and didn't just shoot and kill him when they had the chance.) Bucky was arrested in public after a chase through a crowded street so there were plenty of witnesses who saw Bucky arrested. That means the press would demand access to the trial to report on it. So there was no way the government could cover up Bucky's arrest and not grant Bucky a trial. Bucky was definitely going to get a trial and get his chance to present his case to a jury, as guaranteed by the Constitution. But Cap didn't believe in the Constitution so Cap spit on the Constitution and acted like a tyrant by appointing himself judge and jury. None of this matters. Civil War is just the better movie. Seriously. We can throw this all out and in the end, one movie is just far more entertaining and better done than the other. That is it.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Dec 7, 2017 17:18:12 GMT
Exactly. The point of conflict made no sense. Batman hated Superman because he saw the destruction Kryptonians are capable of. Yet, he's attacking the one Kryptonian that was actually fighting to save the world. And then Superman was against Batman because he didn't approve of Batman's violent tactics. Yet, we saw at the beginning Superman killing a terrorist by slamming him through a wall at superhuman speed. He's just as violent. It seems the only reason they they had to fight was because the movie is called Batman v. Superman. And Batman's whole "1%" thing went out the window as soon as it occurred to him that this alien menace might have a mom. With wishy-washiness like that no wonder Gotham is still a Hellhole. Ha, too true. It's almost as if he couldn't possibly fathom another person having a mom named Martha.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 7, 2017 18:10:16 GMT
And Batman's whole "1%" thing went out the window as soon as it occurred to him that this alien menace might have a mom. With wishy-washiness like that no wonder Gotham is still a Hellhole. What would have happened if Batman's mom was named Florence? One dead Superman ... and game over. The entire plot of BvS revolved around both mothers having the same name. It's really hard to fathom anything more retarded. Maybe resurrecting Superman in the next movie is more retarded. It's a close call.
|
|