Captain America: Civil War

[Glebe]

^While I admittedly haven't actually seen any of the Fantastic Four movies[nb]And that of course includes the Roger Corman one, natch.[/nb] - the 2005 film and it's sequel look really silly and the awful press the recent reboot got put me off it - I reckon it's time 20th Century Fox did a deal with Disney, a la Columbia Pictures with Spidey. It'd be nice to see the X-Men in the official Marvel Cinematic Universe too, although to be fair Fox has had a made a good fist of the X-Men franchise so far (apart from The Last Stand).

Actually, I'm generally not a huge superhero fan (although I do enjoy a good superhero movie, otherwise I wouldn't be posting so enthusiastically in this thread, obviously), but I'm certainly a bit of a Batman fan, and I reckon DC could start giving Marvel a run for it's money on the big screen. They're little a bit late to the party in regard to establishing an expanded movie universe, and Man of Steel was a bit shit to be honest, but like a big fanboy sucker geek I have to admit that Batman v  Superman has reeled me in. And though I'm none too familiar with the Suicide Squad comics, and didn't like the sound of a Batman spin-off featuring a cameo from the Joker, I absolutely love the film's trailer and have even begun to warm to Jared Leto's Joker.

[Dr Rock]

Age Of Ultron is great. I had to watch it twice to come to that opinion. On the third watch it's even better.

[greenman]

Not too different from the first film I'v say, entertaining but not especially deep and cluttered blockbuster, villain wasn't nearly as good though.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Not too different from the first film I'v say

If anything, I'd say it's rather too similar - particularly the final battle. Perhaps Whedon was trying get meta, or something. It also lacked the sense of novelty and build up that made the first Avengers seem like such a big deal (plus I saw it on a grim rainy morning, in a half empty cinema - as opposed to a packed cinema, on a balmy evening like the first film).

I wasn't blown away by Ant-Man, either. It's a minor shame, as last year's were possibly the two best films the studio has made so far. I'd be interested to hear a full account of why Edgar Wright left the film. The Avengers crossover scene seemed like too piffling a thing to quit over.

[Famous Mortimer]

There is no battle between DC and Marvel for most people though, in the same way there is no battle between Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. There is room for both sets of films and the good ones will do well and the bad ones won't, in the main. The only thing Marvel have to worry about is Marvel, and their quality control and what talent they get in to write and direct their films

But conflict! How will all the geek-news sites get their page views without it?

[Mister Six]

Avengers 2 was severely undercooked, and I'l bet you could make a three or four hour supercut with all the extant footage that would be a lot more dramatically satisfying, albeit far too long.

Obvious stuff that seemed to have gone missing:

* The rivalry between Quicksilver and Hawkeye, so that Quicksilver sacrificing himself to save Hawkeye and the kid actually has some dramatic impact.
* A proper motivation for Ultron.
* Loads of thematic stuff about Tony's "kids" (Ultron and The Vision, obviously, but also Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch essentially being "born" through the childhood trauma that Stark Industries' weapons created), so that him creating Ultron as a kind of redemptive measure actually makes sense.
* Conflict between Tony and Thor/tech vs magic, so that the creation of Ultron, who is a synthesis of the two, brings the team together.
* Thor presumably having any kind of storyline at all.
* Some serious threat to the cohesion of the team. Having them start to fall apart, then be pulled back together, is a no-brainer but it doesn't really happen here at all. This would also give Captain America something to do (he should surely have had a storyline about struggling to fill Nick Fury's shoes, no?).

The only characters with a coherent storyline and character development are Black Widow and Bruce Banner, and they get, what, five scenes together? If that?

^While I admittedly haven't actually seen any of the Fantastic Four movies[nb]And that of course includes the Roger Corman one, natch.[/nb] - the 2005 film and it's sequel look really silly and the awful press the recent reboot got put me off it - I reckon it's time 20th Century Fox did a deal with Disney, a la Columbia Pictures with Spidey.

The 2005 film was great tonally, but a total misfire of a script. Didn't watch the follow-up, nor the GRIMDARK recent one. Marvel movies proper could do a great job of a light, crazy Fantastic Four film, along the lines of Guardians of the Galaxy. But I suspect that Guardians and Doctor Strange will fill in the "goofy, big concept" niche in the Marvel roster for now.

It'd be nice to see the X-Men in the official Marvel Cinematic Universe too, although to be fair Fox has had a made a good fist of the X-Men franchise so far (apart from The Last Stand).

Oof, I dunno. Wolverine: Origins? That franchise is strong enough that they won't need Marvel, though, and in Agents of Shield and their Netflix shows (Daredevil and Jessica Jones), Marvel are establishing their own "gifted" pseudo-mutants to fill that slot.

[Glebe]

Not too different from the first film I'v say, entertaining but not especially deep and cluttered blockbuster, villain wasn't nearly as good though.

I had high hopes for it after the first one, and James Spader as Ultron sounded interesting. Sadly he was wasted on what turned out to be a weak character.

Oof, I dunno. Wolverine: Origins? That franchise is strong enough that they won't need Marvel, though, and in Agents of Shield and their Netflix shows (Daredevil and Jessica Jones), Marvel are establishing their own "gifted" pseudo-mutants to fill that slot.

Duh, I forgot about the Wolverine films! I still haven't seen Wolverine: Origins, but The Wolverine was beautifully looking, had a couple of interesting things going on and a welcome, serious tone (

Spoiler alert

although the Viper character being squeezed in kinda ruined it... I know it's the X-Men universe an all, but, y'know...),

[close]

but just kinda went nowhere, and

Spoiler alert

the Days of Future Past tease really cheapened the ending

[close]

.

[Johnny Textface]

Post-credits probably

God yeah absolutely.

Dark room, bit of web on the floor or something, maybe a wisecrack. Pure nerd cocktease.

[Head Gardener]

[Dr Rock]

Avengers 2 was severely undercooked, and I'l bet you could make a three or four hour supercut with all the extant footage that would be a lot more dramatically satisfying, albeit far too long.

Obvious stuff that seemed to have gone missing:

* The rivalry between Quicksilver and Hawkeye, so that Quicksilver sacrificing himself to save Hawkeye and the kid actually has some dramatic impact.
* A proper motivation for Ultron.
* Loads of thematic stuff about Tony's "kids" (Ultron and The Vision, obviously, but also Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch essentially being "born" through the childhood trauma that Stark Industries' weapons created), so that him creating Ultron as a kind of redemptive measure actually makes sense.
* Conflict between Tony and Thor/tech vs magic, so that the creation of Ultron, who is a synthesis of the two, brings the team together.
* Thor presumably having any kind of storyline at all.
* Some serious threat to the cohesion of the team. Having them start to fall apart, then be pulled back together, is a no-brainer but it doesn't really happen here at all. This would also give Captain America something to do (he should surely have had a storyline about struggling to fill Nick Fury's shoes, no?).

The only characters with a coherent storyline and character development are Black Widow and Bruce Banner, and they get, what, five scenes together? If that?

The 2005 film was great tonally, but a total misfire of a script. Didn't watch the follow-up, nor the GRIMDARK recent one. Marvel movies proper could do a great job of a light, crazy Fantastic Four film, along the lines of Guardians of the Galaxy. But I suspect that Guardians and Doctor Strange will fill in the "goofy, big concept" niche in the Marvel roster for now.

Oof, I dunno. Wolverine: Origins? That franchise is strong enough that they won't need Marvel, though, and in Agents of Shield and their Netflix shows (Daredevil and Jessica Jones), Marvel are establishing their own "gifted" pseudo-mutants to fill that slot.

I'd love to see a four hour cut with all that, but you wouldn't get it it in an Avengers comic (maybe a little in thought bubble form, to be fair), the solo films should have more of that, with Avengers films being more of a fast moving battle royal. Perhap it had too many elements in it that were like the previous, but as I say, a second watch made me me more of a fan. The Vision was a triumph, the action scenes full of originality, and its pace as fast and frantic as, well, an Avengers comic. Your mileage etc

[Glebe]

* Thor presumably having any kind of storyline at all.

I believe there's a deleted scene that explains all that

Spoiler alert

confusing gubbins in the cave.

[close]

It was nice to see Idris Elba make the cut, though.

http://www.slashfilm.com/marvel-passed-on-a-neil-gaiman-and-guillermo-del-toro-doctor-strange-movie

I know next to nothing about Doctor Strange, but Gaiman and del Toro teaming up would have been an interesting proposition.

[Mister Six]

I'd love to see a four hour cut with all that, but you wouldn't get it it in an Avengers comic (maybe a little in thought bubble form, to be fair)

Yeah, but most superhero comics are shite, throwaway nothings that exist to maintain franchises and suck money out of the pockets of the fifteen people who still buy them regularly.

Superhero movies are supposed to be self-contained adventures that provide a satisfying story first and foremost, and do franchise maintenance in the background.

Avengers films being more of a fast moving battle royal.

The first Avengers film worked as a knockabout crossover because even though the plot was essentially just the equivalent of toys being banged together in a bathtub, but it still had solid character arcs for most of its team members: Tony learns to put others before himself; Cap learns that he does have a place in the modern world (and develops respect for Tony too); Bruce Banner makes the decision to use his powers positively, and to stop exiling himself; Thor resigns himself to the fact that he cannot persuade his brother to go back to how things were; Hawkeye redeems himself for being controlled at the start of the movie; Black Widow something something I forget. Even Nick Fury gets a small but pivotal scene in which he shoots down one of the nuke planes, helping to save the city.

Oh, and obviously there's the whole "the team comes together and learns to fight as one" business.

So yeah, there was the Thor v Cap fight, the Hulk v Thor fight, and so on and so on, but there was also a solid and engaging (if slight) framework around which all of these "battle royale" scenes were placed.

Avengers 2 didn't have any of that framework beyond the Hulk/Black Widow plot. It was little more than a collection of scenes smooshed together. And while the individual scenes were mostly fun, it lacked a proper emotional payoff or engagement.

That's not Whedon's fault - Marvel needed to cool its jets and just let him make the damn movie.

[greenman]

I'd guess the problem Whedon had is that he wasn't dealing with characters who's stories could be so easily crystallised into a limited amount of time at that point. The Thor/Loki fued, Starks arrogance, Banners mistrust of his nature, Black Widows guilt, Cap dealing with the time shift, etc.

By the time of the sequel I would say many of the characters were either not carrying as much drama or what drama they were carrying was a bit more complex, plus of course the villain needs to be introduced. In that situation I don't think its an unreasonable response to limit what time you spend on character to a handful(Stark, Widow, Banner, Hawk).

Not to be too critical, I felt both were perfectly serviceable blockbusters, the second suffered IMHO mostly from the first being rather overpraised.

[Mister Six]

Yeah, but as I say, none of them have actual character arcs except BW/Hulk. That includes Tony (who appears to have completely gone back on his decision to quit being Iron Man in Iron Man 3, and who redeems his decision to haphazardly put together an artificial intelligence by, er, haphazardly putting together an artificial intelligence) and Hawkeye. I've mentioned above a bunch of storylines/themes that were either definitely cut (Hawkeye/Quicksilver rivalry) or notable by their absence (the stuff with Stark's "kids" - Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Ultron and then The Vision). The whole point of a film[nb]Well, a Hollywood blockbuster, anyway; different rules apply for arty stuff.[/nb] is to give your characters some emotional distance to travel, and the job of the screenwriter is to make that happen.

If your movie is so crammed with stuff that you don't have time to include an actual story then you need to dial it the fuck back. But obviously Marvel had a bunch of stuff they were determined to include, as did Whedon, and we ended up with this curate's egg as the compromise.

[Mister Six]

(Sorry to keep rambling on about this. I'm glad you enjoyed the movie.)

[greenman]

When were talking about character dramatic progression in the first film of course as you say it is pretty dam limited to the degree I'm not sure its absence from a few of them was actually missed that much.

Where they do differ I spose is that I think its easier to see how the second film could have been something more. The original really didn't have much behind it other than being an action romp with very limited character stories to tell, the sequal did arguably have a bit more substance to its character motivations but as you say chose mainly to focus on things exploding.

[Mister Six]

Well I missed it, and most people I know felt underwhelmed by the film for that reason, or for a reason they couldn't entirely place but ultimately seemed to be down to it feeling "lightweight". I think it's easy to underestimate how important this stuff is to a film, even if it's done in the most minimal style possible (cf. The Avengers and Pacific Rim).

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

The first Avengers was a very clear culmination of the series up to that point - both in terms of plotlines and nerd anticipation. Age of Ultron was more like a detour on the way to fighting Thanos.

[Glebe]

International trailer.

That trailer works a lot better for me. Much more precise.

[Glebe]

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR Is Testing Through The Roof.

Well that sounds promising.

[Glebe]

Came across this on my usual geek-site rounds:

Why Spider-Man Could Actually Exist, According To Science.

[Glebe]

Super Bowl trailer.

It's all kicking off now, mate. Gratuitous Johannsson arse shot, there.

[Glebe]

'Captain America: Civil War': Martin Freeman's Role Revealed.

This is my fifth post in this thread in a row. No one else arsed?

[kidsick5000]

There's not much to say.
The trailers have been thankfully sparse. There's a only a mild relation to the comic Civil War.
Me, I'm just hoping the Russo Brothers can make it two for two, cos I loved Winter Soldier.

[Mister Six]

Yeah I wasn't interested in this at all - it looked like it was making the same mistake as Avengers 2 and (possibly) Superman v Batman in trying to cram a million characters into a story, introduce a bunch of new ones, set up future movies and try to have some kind of self-contained plot. But the trailer made it clear that it's going to have the relationship between Cap and Bucky, and Cap and Stark at its core, and that gives me a lot of confidence that it won't be a hollow exercise in franchise maintenance interspersed with meaningless big action scenes.

[Glebe]

Yeah I wasn't interested in this at all - it looked like it was making the same mistake as Avengers 2 and (possibly) Superman v Batman in trying to cram a million characters into a story, introduce a bunch of new ones, set up future movies and try to have some kind of self-contained plot. But the trailer made it clear that it's going to have the relationship between Cap and Bucky, and Cap and Stark at its core, and that gives me a lot of confidence that it won't be a hollow exercise in franchise maintenance interspersed with meaningless big action scenes.

Yep, Age of Ultron stunk the place up, but this actually looks a lot more like it.

[Glebe]

Some articles and interviews:

Quint sees some Giant-Sized Action on the set of CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR!

They also referenced movies like Fargo, Rumble Fish, Se7en and The Godfather (as well as a shout out to Brian De Palma movies in general) as influences on this one, either in tone or in execution.

If Winter Soldier was a political thriller, they view Civil War as a psychological thriller.

Hmm...

Best Thing You'll Read Today: Anthony Mackie talks Falcon, Civil War, Earth, Wind & Fire, the horror that is Birmingham, Alabama and Grindr!

On-set Interview: Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen give updates on Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch!

On-set Interview: Chris Evans and Sebastian Stan try to figure out what they can and can't say about Captain America: Civil War!

The Touching Moment Anthony Mackie Realized He Was An Avenger.

[Glebe]

...

On-set Interview: Robert Downey Jr calls Captain America: Civil War "The Godfather of Superhero Movies!"

The Russos talk filmic influences, character motivations, tech specifics and so much more from the set of Captain America: Civil War!

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

New trailer including Spidey - www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKrVegVI0Us

[Swoz_MK]

Ant-Man riding one of Hawkeye's arrows gave me a sticky-uppie