|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 12, 2017 8:29:28 GMT
No, it isn't besides the point. The title of the film is Captain America: Civil War, and guess who the main character is, whose name and actor get top billiong? Captain America and Chris Evans. Its Cap's movie. The others are supports in it. It is Captain's story and movie. Therefore, it is a Captain America movie. It can't be called The Avengers because Captain America is the main character. Deal with it. Screen time in and of itself is meaningless. There is no debate. This was a Captain America movie. What makes Captain America the main character? That he was in it the most because he was in The Avengers movie the most as well. Iron Man was a main character in The Avengers movies and was top billing so why did that have to be called The Avengers? The movie isn't just Captain America's story. The story as officially described by Marvel is "Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War” finds Steve Rogers leading the newly formed team of Avengers in their continued efforts to safeguard humanity. But after another incident involving the Avengers results in collateral damage, political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability, headed by a governing body to oversee and direct the team. The new status quo fractures the Avengers, resulting in two camps—one led by Steve Rogers and his desire for the Avengers to remain free to defend humanity without government interference, and the other following Tony Stark’s surprising decision to support government oversight and accountability."Sounds more like it's about The Avengers rather than specifically Captain America no? It was a story that began due to actions caused by The Avengers. Revolved around a rift between The Avengers. The main villain in that movie and all his actions were about splitting The Avengers. Of which Captain America led the one side and Iron Man the other side hence them being the two main characters. This was essentially the same as the comic story line so why was that just called Civil War? No I don't care about that part. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 8:35:11 GMT
No, it isn't besides the point. The title of the film is Captain America: Civil War, and guess who the main character is, whose name and actor get top billiong? Captain America and Chris Evans. Its Cap's movie. The others are supports in it. It is Captain's story and movie. Therefore, it is a Captain America movie. It can't be called The Avengers because Captain America is the main character. Deal with it. Screen time in and of itself is meaningless. There is no debate. This was a Captain America movie. What makes Captain America the main character? That he was in it the most because he was in The Avengers movie the most as well. Iron Man was a main character in The Avengers movies and was top billing so why did that have to be called The Avengers? The movie isn't just Captain America's story. The story as officially described by Marvel is "Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War” finds Steve Rogers leading the newly formed team of Avengers in their continued efforts to safeguard humanity. But after another incident involving the Avengers results in collateral damage, political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability, headed by a governing body to oversee and direct the team. The new status quo fractures the Avengers, resulting in two camps—one led by Steve Rogers and his desire for the Avengers to remain free to defend humanity without government interference, and the other following Tony Stark’s surprising decision to support government oversight and accountability."Sounds more like it's about The Avengers rather than specifically Captain America no? It was a story that began due to actions caused by The Avengers. Revolved around a rift between The Avengers. The main villain in that movie and all his actions were about splitting The Avengers. Of which Captain America led the one side and Iron Man the other side hence them being the two main characters. This was essentially the same as the comic story line so why was that just called Civil War? No I don't care about that part.  And if you go by any basic summery of The Lord of the Rings, the likes of Aragorn, Gandalf, and even Merry and Pippin won't sound like they're very important to the plot, either. Sorry, but no, that's just a superficial way of looking at the film. As someone who's actually watched the film and paid attention to it, I can say with all certainty that it was an Captain America film. His emotional journey is the driving force of the film, and hell, by the third act, all the politics and crap are stripped away and turns into a very personal struggle between him, Bucky, and Tony Stark. I think you do care about that part, because there is no other reason to try denying that this is Cap's movie. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 12, 2017 10:23:01 GMT
And if you go by any basic summery of The Lord of the Rings, the likes of Aragorn, Gandalf, and even Merry and Pippin won't sound like they're very important to the plot, either. Sorry, but no, that's just a superficial way of looking at the film. As someone who's actually watched the film and paid attention to it, I can say with all certainty that it was an Captain America film. His emotional journey is the driving force of the film, and hell, by the third act, all the politics and crap are stripped away and turns into a very personal struggle between him, Bucky, and Tony Stark. I think you do care about that part, because there is no other reason to try denying that this is Cap's movie. The Lord of the Rings wasn't named after any one character, it was about a group. That was Marvels official synopsis of Civil War and reading it you can see the plot is all about the incident that The Avengers caused and the rift between them. Where the movies main villain was all about tearing apart The Avengers not specifically Captain America. It's not a story about Captain America, it's a story about The Avengers where Captain America and Iron Man are the stand out characters. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 12, 2017 13:32:43 GMT
The only thing that proves is that Captain America had the whole crew as his supporting cast. It was a Captain America film and you are never going to convince any of us otherwise. he convinced me,...well...if I did not actually see this movie and that observation was common sense that is. A film infamous for sidelining it's central character and his story and foes (Hydra) in favor for randomly shoehorning in 2 origin stories (Iron Mans' Spiderboy and Black Catman), Iron Man's past mommy issues and his buddy's faux death etc. What were they thinking, like "Batman vs Suoerman comes out we, we will have to top that by throwing everything into the Cap film, hahahahaha"...? I wonder what the poor guy on your avatar thought when reading that script. See, your problem is that you're still view how the MCU works from an outdated perspective. A Shared Universe means that you don't wrap things up in a neat little package and what starts in one movie can end up affecting other characters in their own movies. That's the lazy way out, when you have a whole universe and not just one series one films within that universe. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 12, 2017 15:33:24 GMT
he convinced me,...well...if I did not actually see this movie and that observation was common sense that is. A film infamous for sidelining it's central character and his story and foes (Hydra) in favor for randomly shoehorning in 2 origin stories (Iron Mans' Spiderboy and Black Catman), Iron Man's past mommy issues and his buddy's faux death etc. What were they thinking, like "Batman vs Suoerman comes out we, we will have to top that by throwing everything into the Cap film, hahahahaha"...? I wonder what the poor guy on your avatar thought when reading that script. See, your problem is that you're still view how the MCU works from an outdated perspective. A Shared Universe means that you don't wrap things up in a neat little package and what starts in one movie can end up affecting other characters in their own movies. That's the lazy way out, when you have a whole universe and not just one series one films within that universe. Nah, he's right and you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 12, 2017 15:59:23 GMT
See, your problem is that you're still view how the MCU works from an outdated perspective. A Shared Universe means that you don't wrap things up in a neat little package and what starts in one movie can end up affecting other characters in their own movies. That's the lazy way out, when you have a whole universe and not just one series one films within that universe. Nah, he's right and you're wrong. thanks, and not just I, it's the everlasting struggle between MCU "Marvel is always right" Fanboys vs. Facts. Who will win this... |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 12, 2017 16:06:28 GMT
See, your problem is that you're still view how the MCU works from an outdated perspective. A Shared Universe means that you don't wrap things up in a neat little package and what starts in one movie can end up affecting other characters in their own movies. That's the lazy way out, when you have a whole universe and not just one series one films within that universe. Nah, he's right and you're wrong. Forgot you were from Bizarro world, thanks for the reminder.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 16:33:11 GMT
And if you go by any basic summery of The Lord of the Rings, the likes of Aragorn, Gandalf, and even Merry and Pippin won't sound like they're very important to the plot, either. Sorry, but no, that's just a superficial way of looking at the film. As someone who's actually watched the film and paid attention to it, I can say with all certainty that it was an Captain America film. His emotional journey is the driving force of the film, and hell, by the third act, all the politics and crap are stripped away and turns into a very personal struggle between him, Bucky, and Tony Stark. I think you do care about that part, because there is no other reason to try denying that this is Cap's movie. The Lord of the Rings wasn't named after any one character, it was about a group. That was Marvels official synopsis of Civil War and reading it you can see the plot is all about the incident that The Avengers caused and the rift between them. Where the movies main villain was all about tearing apart The Avengers not specifically Captain America. It's not a story about Captain America, it's a story about The Avengers where Captain America and Iron Man are the stand out characters. If the story wasn't about Captain America, they would have just named it The Avengers. Pure and simple. Its a Captain America film. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 12, 2017 16:39:49 GMT
The Lord of the Rings wasn't named after any one character, it was about a group. That was Marvels official synopsis of Civil War and reading it you can see the plot is all about the incident that The Avengers caused and the rift between them. Where the movies main villain was all about tearing apart The Avengers not specifically Captain America. It's not a story about Captain America, it's a story about The Avengers where Captain America and Iron Man are the stand out characters. If the story wasn't about Captain America, they would have just named it The Avengers. Pure and simple. Its a Captain America film. It's about The Avengers as well so it could have been called Avengers: Civil War. Then it would have made more money too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 16:43:57 GMT
If the story wasn't about Captain America, they would have just named it The Avengers. Pure and simple. Its a Captain America film. It's about The Avengers as well so it could have been called Avengers: Civil War. Then it would have made more money too. Nope. If it was about The Avengers that's what they would have called it. But Captain's story, and the film is named for him. Nope. It would have the same amount of money. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 12, 2017 16:50:36 GMT
Nah, he's right and you're wrong. Forgot you were from Bizarro world, thanks for the reminder. But you would think that regardless of which one of us is from Bizarro world. So what if you're the one who is? (Spoiler: it's you.) |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 12, 2017 16:59:41 GMT
It's about The Avengers as well so it could have been called Avengers: Civil War. Then it would have made more money too. Nope. If it was about The Avengers that's what they would have called it. But Captain's story, and the film is named for him. Nope. It would have the same amount of money. Well it was about The Avengers, that's not questionable. The vast majority of the plot was because of The Avengers. There wouldn't have even been a movie if it wasn't for The Avengers involvement. And of course it would have made more money. Unless you're saying that it would have been the second Avengers movie in a row to suffer from diminishing returns. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 17:04:15 GMT
Nope. If it was about The Avengers that's what they would have called it. But Captain's story, and the film is named for him. Nope. It would have the same amount of money. Well it was about The Avengers, that's not questionable. The vast majority of the plot was because of The Avengers. There wouldn't have even been a movie if it wasn't for The Avengers involvement. And of course it would have made more money. Unless you're saying that it would have been the second Avengers movie in a row to suffer from diminishing returns. Nope. It was Captain America, that's not questionable. The vast majority of the meat is about his emotional struggles and him trying to save Bucky. Why do you want to diminish CA: Civil War's win over BvS so much? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 22:13:01 GMT
GIVE HELMET THE HAWKEYE!
Wait... What are we talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by merh on Nov 12, 2017 22:20:03 GMT
Nope. If it was about The Avengers that's what they would have called it. But Captain's story, and the film is named for him. Nope. It would have the same amount of money. Well it was about The Avengers, that's not questionable. The vast majority of the plot was because of The Avengers. There wouldn't have even been a movie if it wasn't for The Avengers involvement. And of course it would have made more money. Unless you're saying that it would have been the second Avengers movie in a row to suffer from diminishing returns. It was a Cap story. It dealt with Cap & Bucky & Falcon-Cap support cast. Other characters can appear in other characters' comics. There can even be Marvel Team Up like Ragnarok But this was Cap issues. Cap story. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 13, 2017 5:16:29 GMT
So now we can just giggle any time a DC fan brings up the "iconic" word. That apparently means nothing. Bats, Supes, and WW are no match for the might of Iron Man, Cap, and various other characters in cameo roles. Not even close really....BvS was 280 million or so behind. It's going to be interesting to watch the goal posts move again after JL is released and doesn't gross as much as Avengers movies. How will DC fans try and spin that one into "not being a JL movie"? I guess maybe that Superman isn't in it very much? Let's go with that one for now. They are iconic. Everyone knows that. Just because they're the most iconic doesn't mean they will make the most money. Spider-man is iconic and his Amazing Spider-man movies made less than Deadpool. So did Spider-man Homecoming in a fair comparison as well. The Avengers weren't just in the Airport scene. They were in the opening scene in Wakanda. They were in the scene at Avengers Tower. Some of them appeared in the scene where Winter Soldier was brainwashed and escaped. There were a few scenes with Vision and Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye being in one of them. They were in the prison scene and yes the Airport scene. They may not have been in it as much as the actual The Avengers movies but it ain't nothing like the 30 seconds that Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg appeared in. Justice League was never going to gross anywhere close to Avengers level money either. Like I said, we can just giggle at that "iconic" claim any time we hear it because it obviously doesn't mean anything. And since Batman movies with the Joker gross more than Batman movies without the Joker we can just start calling TDK a "Batman and Joker movie". |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 13, 2017 5:23:00 GMT
What is the title of the movie in question? But that's not true. Black Widow was in it for 12 minutes, the same as Hawkeyes screen time in Avengers and not far off Thor's screen time in Age of Ultron. Scarlet Witch had 10 minutes. Spider-man was in it for 8 minutes about the same as Vision in Age of Ultron. Vision also had more screen time in Civil War than Age of Ultron. Falcon had 10 minutes and War Machine had 7 minutes also more than in Age of Ultron. Poor "iconic" Batman, Superman, and WW. They are no match for the might of Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Falcon, War Machine, and Black Panther. How times have changed when a DC fan has to make such excuses to explain away how the MUCH bragged about "Holy Trinity" could not stand up against a group of B-listers called the Avengers. Better hope Marvel doesn't include Ghost Rider and Blade in the next movie. Poor DC would collapse completely against such an onslaught of Marvel characters. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 13, 2017 5:26:54 GMT
If the story wasn't about Captain America, they would have just named it The Avengers. Pure and simple. Its a Captain America film. Marvel even called it "Captain America 3" in China. Does Marvel know they were trying to fool everyone into thinking it was an Avengers movie? The other characters certainly were left behind at the end when the most pivotal and emotional scenes happened. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 13, 2017 7:03:32 GMT
If the story wasn't about Captain America, they would have just named it The Avengers. Pure and simple. Its a Captain America film. Marvel even called it "Captain America 3" in China. Does Marvel know they were trying to fool everyone into thinking it was an Avengers movie?Uh, yeah. They do.  |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 13, 2017 19:58:12 GMT
Marvel even called it "Captain America 3" in China. Does Marvel know they were trying to fool everyone into thinking it was an Avengers movie?Uh, yeah. They do. Thank you. There they are again putting "Captain America" right in the title. All they had to do was call it "Avengers: Civil War". But they didn't do that...and there is a reason for it. It's like an issue of Capt America with Iron Man as the guest star and one page featuring a big fight with other characters. |
|
