Captain America: Civil War (May 6, 2016)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Am I the only one who can't call any of the Marvel films a trilogy lol I personally will never consider Cap or Iron Man a trilogy. They are anthologies though, they tie way to much into the Avengers films to think of their solo films independent from the Avengers films. Tony Stark in Iron Man 3 is a result of the Avengers, Civil War is a result from the two avengers films. I would actually like hear from someone that watched the three Cap movies without watching any other Marvel film. I feel like you would be pretty lost with the conflicts at hand lol

Oh I agree, really doesn't work as a standalone trilogy.
 
Thanks for taking the time to drop the knowledge, darthkostis. :duff
One of the best posts/rants I've read in awhile here.

tumblr_mawazmNPQZ1qhq58jo1_500.gif


What are you taking about , the comic went to a lot of places this movie was not willing to do for the sake of making it family friendly , it does not need to be an exact adaption yet I was looking for the same level of brutally and truth that people make hard choices without having to be manipulated in to making decisions. Playing dirty , back door deals that question a person's morals all that was missing. I was manipulated in to making this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

What I'm talking about? What I'm talking about?

8dZZTx6.gif



Look, I just broke down Civil War. I explored every avenue, showed scans, articles and provided links. I wrote down every single plot detail, and the movie is dang faithful to the comic. The only thing missing are the T-Bolts. That's your "dirty fighting". That and the first fight with Ragnarok where Cap activated the the EMP and got the drop on Tony. That's it. That's your whole argument. A missing scene and a bunch of C-List villains appearing for some panels.

Most of the stuff that went down in the comic are in the film. Death of innocents? Check. Super-Human Prison? Check. Big-Ass fight? Check. Personal fight between Cap and Tony? Check. The things that are missing are beyond Marvel's control, wouldn't have added anything to the plot other than convult it, and the thing most people talk about (Cap's Death) had nothing to do with CW. Or are you just gonna pretend that's not the case?

You have nothing to back up your claims, whereas I just provided everything. From the Kree-Skrull War, all the way to Bendis' New Avengers/Illuminati, to Skrull Pym, to Secret Invasion, to Dark Reign, to Captain America: Reborn. All you've is your own word, which disregards what's on the page, and a structure that tires the mind.

Cap died due to Brubaker wanting to tell the story of Bucky-Cap, the same guy who brought back Bucky, and started the whole thing. So if you want Cap to die, that should happen in Cap 4, with Skull, Fuastus, Zola and Sin as the villains. Not to mention that, if you want to be a purist, you need Osborn and Doom as well. But that part of the source material doesn't count, right?
 
Then you must hate the X-Men movies. :yess:


:lol
In that context, the major characters are Magneto and Professor X, and both are pretty spot on. So, same difference IMO.

As has been Jean Grey and Cyclops (though Cyclops wasn't given the same role he had in the comics obviously), as well as Beast. Wolvie has been neutered a bit in the comics over the years, and that's been appropriately reflected in the movies, though hopefully he'll go back to being the vicious little bastard when he gets recast. The other, more peripheral characters are hit and miss. I hope the new versions of Nightcrawler and Storm allow those characters to be better fleshed out, and for Nightcrawler in particular to have more comic-based qualities. He is a swashbuckling hero at heart, and really one of the more caring and decent characters in the history of Marvel comics. But he does have baggage from his history working for a circus and being a freak. His mopy-ness shouldn't be turned up to 11. He should use good humor and optimism to offset his freakishness that is off-putting to others.
 
tumblr_mawazmNPQZ1qhq58jo1_500.gif




What I'm talking about? What I'm talking about?

8dZZTx6.gif



Look, I just broke down Civil War. I explored every avenue, showed scans, articles and provided links. I wrote down every single plot detail, and the movie is dang faithful to the comic. The only thing missing are the T-Bolts. That's your "dirty fighting". That and the first fight with Ragnarok where Cap activated the the EMP and got the drop on Tony. That's it. That's your whole argument. A missing scene and a bunch of C-List villains appearing for some panels.

Most of the stuff that went down in the comic are in the film. Death of innocents? Check. Super-Human Prison? Check. Big-Ass fight? Check. Personal fight between Cap and Tony? Check. The things that are missing are beyond Marvel's control, wouldn't have added anything to the plot other than convult it, and the thing most people talk about (Cap's Death) had nothing to do with CW. Or are you just gonna pretend that's not the case?

You have nothing to back up your claims, whereas I just provided everything. From the Kree-Skrull War, all the way to Bendis' New Avengers/Illuminati, to Skrull Pym, to Secret Invasion, to Dark Reign, to Captain America: Reborn. All you've is your own word, which disregards what's on the page, and a structure that tires the mind.

Cap died due to Brubaker wanting to tell the story of Bucky-Cap, the same guy who brought back Bucky, and started the whole thing. So if you want Cap to die, that should happen in Cap 4, with Skull, Fuastus, Zola and Sin as the villains. Not to mention that, if you want to be a purist, you need Osborn and Doom as well. But that part of the source material doesn't count, right?

You've wasted enough time on this argument my friend. You've provided everything. There's always going to be the person who goes "yeah, but but but... (proceeds to ignore all your points)."

Let's recruit villains to add some teeth to this movie. Okay how about Loki? Oh wait he's supposed to be dead. Okay how about Iron Monger, Whiplash, or Aldridge Killian? Oh wait they're dead too. Red Skull? Malekith? Ronan? How about Yellow Jacket? What villains could have been used in this movie? How tacky would that actually be to see a team of villains that have never been shown on-screen suddenly appear in this movie. What a mess that would be.

Ant-Man trying to sabotage Iron Man's suit from the inside seems pretty "dirty" to me and serves the same purpose as Cap placing that device on Tony via handshake.

Would anyone really want to see "dirty" fighting involving cloning in this movie?

The comic event pulled from decades of Marvel comics. The movie could only pull from less than a decade of movies. I'm not trying to ride darthkostis tail coat but CW did a darn good job of fitting the source material into the MCU given the resources to pull from.
 
In that context, the major characters are Magneto and Professor X, and both are pretty spot on. So, same difference IMO.

As has been Jean Grey and Cyclops (though Cyclops wasn't given the same role he had in the comics obviously), as well as Beast. Wolvie has been neutered a bit in the comics over the years, and that's been appropriately reflected in the movies, though hopefully he'll go back to being the vicious little bastard when he gets recast. The other, more peripheral characters are hit and miss. I hope the new versions of Nightcrawler and Storm allow those characters to be better fleshed out, and for Nightcrawler in particular to have more comic-based qualities. He is a swashbuckling hero at heart, and really one of the more caring and decent characters in the history of Marvel comics. But he does have baggage from his history working for a circus and being a freak. His mopy-ness shouldn't be turned up to 11. He should use good humor and optimism to offset his freakishness that is off-putting to others.

I feel like that's exactly how he was portrayed in X2. It's really a shame we might not see Alan Cumming in that role ever again.
 
I liked him in X2, but that was not how he came across at all to my eyes. He was like an abused puppy, looking for affection and support from everyone. But they gave him the gentle soul, which was great.
 
I liked him in X2, but that was not how he came across at all to my eyes. He was like an abused puppy, looking for affection and support from everyone. But they gave him the gentle soul, which was great.

I think earlier on in the movie he was like that when he was speaking with Storm but to me, the rest of the movie he was the comedy relief and was pretty damn heroic.
 
Spoiler Spoiler:
Spoiler Spoiler:


ZoxaywN.gif


I see darthkostis is blowing people away with his comic knowledge :lol

Spoiler Spoiler:
Spoiler Spoiler:



Just another day in the office for darthkostis. :lol

enYNqtP.gif
 
You've wasted enough time on this argument my friend. You've provided everything. There's always going to be the person who goes "yeah, but but but... (proceeds to ignore all your points)."

Let's recruit villains to add some teeth to this movie. Okay how about Loki? Oh wait he's supposed to be dead. Okay how about Iron Monger, Whiplash, or Aldridge Killian? Oh wait they're dead too. Red Skull? Malekith? Ronan? How about Yellow Jacket? What villains could have been used in this movie? How tacky would that actually be to see a team of villains that have never been shown on-screen suddenly appear in this movie. What a mess that would be.

Ant-Man trying to sabotage Iron Man's suit from the inside seems pretty "dirty" to me and serves the same purpose as Cap placing that device on Tony via handshake.

Would anyone really want to see "dirty" fighting involving cloning in this movie?

The comic event pulled from decades of Marvel comics. The movie could only pull from less than a decade of movies. I'm not trying to ride darthkostis tail coat but CW did a darn good job of fitting the source material into the MCU given the resources to pull from.

I know it's fruitless, but it just pisses me off when folks ramble on and on, and when confronted with facts they just ignore it and keep on singing their tune. This isn't subjective like, say, liking a movie or not, this has a straight, clear cut answer, and that was it. Do I need to go and pull my whole Civil War/Dark Reign/Siege/Brubaker Cap files and post them here?!
 
I think earlier on in the movie he was like that when he was speaking with Storm but to me, the rest of the movie he was the comedy relief and was pretty damn heroic.
Well all the good guys are heroic. It's the type of heroism that distinguishes him in the comic world. He was not the carefree, Errol Flynn-type. He cracked a few jokes here or there, but it wasn't the same. When he talks with Mystique, it's still more of the same from his earlier scene with Storm. Mousy and cautious with low self-esteem.
 
And to comment on the "no one died" argument. Rhodey's fall essentially symbolized Goliath's death. It was the moment that the conflict shifted from a disagreement among friends to a war with real, life-changing consequences.

If the same point can be proved without having to off a character, why kill him?

I've seen people on here call it toothless. I'd say "killing" a character that NO ONE believes is dead is even more toothless. Almost as if to say, "ohh yeah, we took the movie there, deep stuff huh?" but everyone KNOWS you have the emergency chute ready to deploy. Superman's "death" and American Sniper funeral ending was a "oh brother, give me a break" moment for me that was just there so they could say they were faithful to the comic.
 
Back
Top