|
Post by mstreepsucks on Jan 22, 2023 14:56:37 GMT
I say no. And I have actually seen it one time.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 22, 2023 16:58:30 GMT
Its ok
|
|
|
Post by James on Jan 22, 2023 17:34:49 GMT
Yes. And I have seen it multiple times.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Jan 22, 2023 18:35:19 GMT
Not for me. The idea of feuding members resulting from an internal split was good on paper but I didnt love the execution. Tony, Cap and Tchala had legitmate beef but the other members picking sides felt random and a bit forced.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jan 22, 2023 18:36:25 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jan 22, 2023 19:26:52 GMT
Yes. Iron Man and Captain America's viewpoints was interesting. One favors government insight over superhero involvement while the other believes superheroes shouldn't have to wait for UN approval but work independently. Both sides are not entirely wrong, but it's hard to find a middle ground in the discussion. Regardless, Vision's statement that their "very strength invites challenge" which manifests into destruction is pretty profound. However, Ant-Man and Spider-Man had no real agency and only sided with Iron Man or Captain America because they were told to.
Helmut Zemo was an excellent villain. He had a good motivation and had no superpowers of his own to challenge the Avengers. Instead, he had them fight amongst themselves. However, the third act fight was kind of weak. Was Zemo anticipating Iron Man to show up so he could show him the murder video of his parents?
Black Panther was another excellent addition to the roster of Marvel superheroes. Again, he had a good motivation to avenge his father and seek revenge. Instead of him being a token black character shown to look cool and intimidating, he had a nice little character arc that mirrored Zemo's.
Other than that, the fight sequences and stunt work were really good. Unfortunately, the cinematography (most particularly, the color grading) does this movie no service. Everything looks so grey and muted so no vibrant colors stand out. Overall, it's a really good Marvel film.
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Jan 22, 2023 19:31:34 GMT
No it's not good, and the airport scene might be the most embarrassing of any MCU movie.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 22, 2023 19:43:58 GMT
Yes it was good, and I don't think people realize just how difficult it was to pull something like that off.
I doubt we'll ever see another one like it anytime soon, at least not one that successfully done.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jan 22, 2023 19:47:56 GMT
I think so. The caveat is it really leapt out as one of the first movies that can't be enjoyed without the others. It also seemed much less like a sequel to the other Captain America movies and more like a sequel to something else, which in my opinion is par for the course with the way the franchise was going, so I'd say it was good, but also the beginning of less user-friendly MCU movies.
I for sure like it, though. It was the beginning of veering away from the straight line it set for itself. Backstage shenanigans saw to it to include Spiderman, which worked out for the better, but they could have done without it. It still cooks for me because the action scenes are fun and heavy, the team is gelling, and perhaps most importantly, it swaps Captain America and Iron Man out as characters, and uses their dueling personalities to show the moral conflict. It's also a good entry, imo, because it stops the party dead short and challenges its own universe to consider how much damage superheroes are doing to the world, and how their good deeds hold the world random for gratitude despite their collateral damage.
But yes, I think it's good. Also for me personally, it was really the first movie that made it apparent the MCU and superhero movies were taking over. Until then, they still seemed niche, but the popularity of Civil War made it clear to me these movies are mainstream now.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jan 22, 2023 21:15:32 GMT
Yes but I wont call it great.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 22, 2023 22:20:24 GMT
Yes. Iron Man and Captain America's viewpoints was interesting. One favors government insight over superhero involvement while the other believes superheroes shouldn't have to wait for UN approval but work independently. Both sides are not entirely wrong, but it's hard to find a middle ground in the discussion. Regardless, Vision's statement that their "very strength invites challenge" which manifests into destruction is pretty profound. However, Ant-Man and Spider-Man had no real agency and only sided with Iron Man or Captain America because they were told to. Helmut Zemo was an excellent villain. He had a good motivation and had no superpowers of his own to challenge the Avengers. Instead, he had them fight amongst themselves. However, the third act fight was kind of weak. Was Zemo anticipating Iron Man to show up so he could show him the murder video of his parents? Black Panther was another excellent addition to the roster of Marvel superheroes. Again, he had a good motivation to avenge his father and seek revenge. Instead of him being a token black character shown to look cool and intimidating, he had a nice little character arc that mirrored Zemo's. Other than that, the fight sequences and stunt work were really good. Unfortunately, the cinematography (most particularly, the color grading) does this movie no service. Everything looks so grey and muted so no vibrant colors stand out. Overall, it's a really good Marvel film. Vigilantes - and that's what they are - don't have the right to do what they do. Their actions themselves are illegal, but they were tolerated because they saved people. But when the damage started getting bigger and people's livelihoods were destroyed and people died? This is a problem. There's outrage over a rogue cop, but heroes can get away with it because we like them? Nah. Maybe a different scale/measuring stick because of what they do, but outright get away with it? I can walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face. If I get caught, I'm going to jail. Strange can wipe out the memories of millions of people and....nothing.
You're right, very good movie. It examines some very interesting issues, has a great villain, and was practically an Avengers movie. Due for a re-watch, now that you mention it.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 23, 2023 4:28:03 GMT
Absolutely. I'm a fan of in-between stories as it were, like Age of Ultron & CW, where not everything is a sing song black & white piece of work. Cap & Bucky v Iron Man was tremendous. Black Panther had his finest action moments for me in CW.
I think I've it #3 to be honest, MCU.
1. Age of Ultron 2. Infinity War 3. Civil War
|
|
|
Post by leviathan on Jan 23, 2023 10:17:30 GMT
Winter Soldier was better.
Also they shouldve gone with the superhuman registration act-this became watered down and not as personal as revealing your identity. Also squeezing in Zemo in there was weird. I like Zemo in the Falcon and Winter Soldier series though
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 23, 2023 19:33:00 GMT
Yeah, it's pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 23, 2023 20:37:00 GMT
Yes. Iron Man and Captain America's viewpoints was interesting. One favors government insight over superhero involvement while the other believes superheroes shouldn't have to wait for UN approval but work independently. Both sides are not entirely wrong, but it's hard to find a middle ground in the discussion. Regardless, Vision's statement that their "very strength invites challenge" which manifests into destruction is pretty profound. However, Ant-Man and Spider-Man had no real agency and only sided with Iron Man or Captain America because they were told to. Helmut Zemo was an excellent villain. He had a good motivation and had no superpowers of his own to challenge the Avengers. Instead, he had them fight amongst themselves. However, the third act fight was kind of weak. Was Zemo anticipating Iron Man to show up so he could show him the murder video of his parents? Black Panther was another excellent addition to the roster of Marvel superheroes. Again, he had a good motivation to avenge his father and seek revenge. Instead of him being a token black character shown to look cool and intimidating, he had a nice little character arc that mirrored Zemo's. Other than that, the fight sequences and stunt work were really good. Unfortunately, the cinematography (most particularly, the color grading) does this movie no service. Everything looks so grey and muted so no vibrant colors stand out. Overall, it's a really good Marvel film. Technically, Cap had two viewpoints that were explored here. The first is that he didn't trust a government entity to ethically handle a group of superpowered individuals. Like, what happens if the government asks them to kill a specific target that they didn't agree with? Or what happens when there's a worldwide threat but the government was too busy with red tape before they could send the Avengers in (which is pretty much what happened with those remaining Winter Soldiers potentially getting woken up)? The second viewpoint is that he saw an innocent man, a friend nonetheless, that the government was trying to kill without due process. And Cap couldn't just stand by and watch an innocent man die. It was a well done movie because you could see how both sides were right but how they were also both wrong.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 24, 2023 1:28:28 GMT
Compared to how BvS botched practically every story point it tried, Civil War was excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jan 24, 2023 1:33:10 GMT
Yes. Iron Man and Captain America's viewpoints was interesting. One favors government insight over superhero involvement while the other believes superheroes shouldn't have to wait for UN approval but work independently. Both sides are not entirely wrong, but it's hard to find a middle ground in the discussion. Regardless, Vision's statement that their "very strength invites challenge" which manifests into destruction is pretty profound. However, Ant-Man and Spider-Man had no real agency and only sided with Iron Man or Captain America because they were told to. Helmut Zemo was an excellent villain. He had a good motivation and had no superpowers of his own to challenge the Avengers. Instead, he had them fight amongst themselves. However, the third act fight was kind of weak. Was Zemo anticipating Iron Man to show up so he could show him the murder video of his parents? Black Panther was another excellent addition to the roster of Marvel superheroes. Again, he had a good motivation to avenge his father and seek revenge. Instead of him being a token black character shown to look cool and intimidating, he had a nice little character arc that mirrored Zemo's. Other than that, the fight sequences and stunt work were really good. Unfortunately, the cinematography (most particularly, the color grading) does this movie no service. Everything looks so grey and muted so no vibrant colors stand out. Overall, it's a really good Marvel film. Vigilantes - and that's what they are - don't have the right to do what they do. Their actions themselves are illegal, but they were tolerated because they saved people. But when the damage started getting bigger and people's livelihoods were destroyed and people died? This is a problem. There's outrage over a rogue cop, but heroes can get away with it because we like them? Nah. Maybe a different scale/measuring stick because of what they do, but outright get away with it? I can walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face. If I get caught, I'm going to jail. Strange can wipe out the memories of millions of people and....nothing.
You're right, very good movie. It examines some very interesting issues, has a great villain, and was practically an Avengers movie. Due for a re-watch, now that you mention it.
There's no easy answer to this, which is why I prefer a middle ground approach. The Avengers and other superpowered individuals should be registered. Since they are not operating under any government department or law enforcement agency, they are inherently vigilantes. After the fall of SHIELD, they are technically a private entity funded by Stark Industries. However, I can understand Captain America's distrust in government institutions, especially one like the United Nations. There can be too much bureaucracy and red tape when waiting for a UN panel approval. Let's say, a supervillain strikes a major city and wrecks havoc. Under the Accords, the Avengers would have to wait for approval from the UN panel. If no decision is made within at least an hour, this only gives the supervillain more time to accomplish their nefarious deed, which could lead to more casualties. Several lives could be saved if the Avengers can arrive on the scene sooner, but this is not always a guarantee. Collateral damage is inevitable with or without the Accords depending on the situation. In my honest opinion, the Avengers and other heroes that want to fight crime should be registered, but should a world-threatening event occur, they should be allowed some extra leniency to go in there to contain the situation and save as many lives as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 24, 2023 3:14:27 GMT
Vigilantes - and that's what they are - don't have the right to do what they do. Their actions themselves are illegal, but they were tolerated because they saved people. But when the damage started getting bigger and people's livelihoods were destroyed and people died? This is a problem. There's outrage over a rogue cop, but heroes can get away with it because we like them? Nah. Maybe a different scale/measuring stick because of what they do, but outright get away with it? I can walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face. If I get caught, I'm going to jail. Strange can wipe out the memories of millions of people and....nothing.
You're right, very good movie. It examines some very interesting issues, has a great villain, and was practically an Avengers movie. Due for a re-watch, now that you mention it.
There's no easy answer to this, which is why I prefer a middle ground approach. The Avengers and other superpowered individuals should be registered. Since they are not operating under any government department or law enforcement agency, they are inherently vigilantes. After the fall of SHIELD, they are technically a private entity funded by Stark Industries. However, I can understand Captain America's distrust in government institutions, especially one like the United Nations. There can be too much bureaucracy and red tape when waiting for a UN panel approval. Let's say, a supervillain strikes a major city and wrecks havoc. Under the Accords, the Avengers would have to wait for approval from the UN panel. If no decision is made within at least an hour, this only gives the supervillain more time to accomplish their nefarious deed, which could lead to more casualties. Several lives could be saved if the Avengers can arrive on the scene sooner, but this is not always a guarantee. Collateral damage is inevitable with or without the Accords depending on the situation. In my honest opinion, the Avengers and other heroes that want to fight crime should be registered, but should a world-threatening event occur, they should be allowed some extra leniency to go in there to contain the situation and save as many lives as possible. There's also the inverse of what happens when the UN orders the Avengers to attack someone they actually think is innocent? Like, let's say the UN ordered the Avengers to kill every last Talocan because they think its a danger to other countries?
|
|
|
Post by leviathan on Jan 24, 2023 7:39:41 GMT
Compared to how BvS botched practically every story point it tried, Civil War was excellent. Lol yeah BvS was bad
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 25, 2023 4:16:47 GMT
There's no easy answer to this, which is why I prefer a middle ground approach. The Avengers and other superpowered individuals should be registered. Since they are not operating under any government department or law enforcement agency, they are inherently vigilantes. After the fall of SHIELD, they are technically a private entity funded by Stark Industries. However, I can understand Captain America's distrust in government institutions, especially one like the United Nations. There can be too much bureaucracy and red tape when waiting for a UN panel approval. Let's say, a supervillain strikes a major city and wrecks havoc. Under the Accords, the Avengers would have to wait for approval from the UN panel. If no decision is made within at least an hour, this only gives the supervillain more time to accomplish their nefarious deed, which could lead to more casualties. Several lives could be saved if the Avengers can arrive on the scene sooner, but this is not always a guarantee. Collateral damage is inevitable with or without the Accords depending on the situation. In my honest opinion, the Avengers and other heroes that want to fight crime should be registered, but should a world-threatening event occur, they should be allowed some extra leniency to go in there to contain the situation and save as many lives as possible. There's also the inverse of what happens when the UN orders the Avengers to attack someone they actually think is innocent? Like, let's say the UN ordered the Avengers to kill every last Talocan because they think its a danger to other countries? I'm fairly certain the UN only orders defensive &/or aid missions. Probably not even defensive, just protection for neutrals... I forget.
|
|