Captain America: Civil War thread

[FaxModem1]

Actually, I'd love to see them do a light comedy episode that was just Coulson getting stressed out dealing with administrative problems.

I for one, would love to see an entire episode titled "April 15th", with Coulson, May, Fitz, Simmons, and the rest filling out W-2s and figuring out exactly where they stand financially while also dealing with, say, Stilt-Man.

[NeoGoomba]

I'm actually hoping that this will be joked about in the upcoming Damage Control show. Some comedic, sideways looks at the activities of the superhero club, and the logistics of maintaining and cleaning up after them.

Just imagine the poor guys stuck on the phone, dealing with insurance companies after helicarriers rain down upon D.C., or after the Hulk and Abomination wreck Harlem.

[Tsyroc]

I didn't know they were doing a Damage Control show. That could be awesome. I really hope they have a few super powered blue collar workers on staff. I love the idea of someone with super powers finding a way to use them in a job where they essentially just punch the clock and go to work and then go home at the end of the day.

[SCRawl]

I, too, didn't, know that Damage Control was coming up, but I will concur that the concept could make for a funny, excellent show. I recall the limited series in the comics, and yeah, it was good for some laughs. Like the worker who finds a glowing orb, touches it, gains some super powers and flies off on a quest, whereupon his colleague calls it in saying something like "Home base, we just had an Origin..."

[Gandalf]

New trailer is up

So it looks like it's a bunch of heroes versus another bunch. If there's no actual villain pulling the strings and it's actual conflict between the characters, this has the potential to be the best film they've done.

Time to dust off the "I'm with x" sigs.

[Adrian McNair]

New trailer is up

So it looks like it's a bunch of heroes versus another bunch. If there's no actual villain pulling the strings and it's actual conflict between the characters, this has the potential to be the best film they've done.

Considering that Daniel Brühl is playing Baron Zemo (with Brock Rumlow/Crossbones presumably serving as his second in command) you might want to revise that assessment. It's probably more likely that he'll be the one responsible for the incident that leads to Steve and Tony coming to blows. Not that I have a problem with a villain manipulating things from behind the scenes. I don't see it as a deal-breaker.

For me, this film is going to be a litmus test of whether or not the Russo Brothers can handle the Avengers: Infinity War two-parter. Winter Soldier was a great film, my favourite in the MCU. If anyone can adapt this kind of material, it's them. And it has the potential to be far better than the average at best storyline that it's based on.

Between this, Deadpool, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad and Doctor Strange it's going to be a busy year for comic book adaptations.

[Crown]

I don't mean to be a wet blanket, and I certainly don't want to rain on anyone's parade over the hype for this movie but I have to ask; am I the only one not really "interested" (for lack of a better word) in this movie due to the let down of Avengers 2? Like out of all the comic book movies coming out this year, this is the one where I'm most like "eh" about (compare that to BvS, Suicide Squad, Deadpool and X-Men Apocalypse or Daredevil Season 2 - which counts as long ass comic book movie).

[Adrian McNair]

I don't mean to be a wet blanket, and I certainly don't want to rain on anyone's parade over the hype for this movie but I have to ask; am I the only one not really "interested" (for lack of a better word) in this movie due to the let down of Avengers 2? Like out of all the comic book movies coming out this year, this is the one where I'm most like "eh" about (compare that to BvS, Suicide Squad, Deadpool and X-Men Apocalypse or Daredevil Season 2 - which counts as long ass comic book movie).

That's completely understandable. With Age of Ultron I get the feeling that Whedon was overwhelmed by both the material and studio demands. It was a sprawling, messy film as a result. In the case of Civil War you've got a different team of writers and directors. Based on everything that's been divulged it looks to be a more personal, focused story.

There's also the oft-mentioned prospect of superhero fatigue. At what point does all of this become too much of a good thing? Will Marvel ever be able to overcome the established formula?

[Gandalf]

I wouldn't say I'm "meh" about the film, but cynical about their ability to handle it well.

Civil War has the potential to be a great story about everyone's differing reactions to the events of these films. But so did Winter Soldier, and we all saw how that turned out. It was a great story about security, freedom, fear and hope. Good characters were pitted against one another in a philosophical match that sort of continued on from Avengers. But that all got pissed away when it was decided that the bad guys were just Hydra goons and that the heroes were right all along, and that those who disagreed were pseudo-Nazi cultists.

[Gaidin]

So. As a guy who's not gotten to read much more than a good wiki summary on Civil War(comics) for a bunch of characters. Does it not seem like they're sort of pulling a Bourne Idenity with this one? Take the two lead characters to pit against each other, the characters MCU has established as theirs for the teams and then tell the Civil War story that tells itself for the MCU in 2-2.5 hours.

I could be totally off here. But I'm not sure I'm seeing the comic's sometimes loved sometimes hated story to fear.

[Alkaloid]

Yeah, AoU and Winter Solder were just dull and I'm not confident of the MCUs ability to sell a character driven movie with an ensemble cast this big. I'd say it's the ideal vehicle to return Coulson to the big screen but I get not doing it, they just can't have the screen time to deal with the fallout.

The thing that's different about the MCU is that Downey Jr really is the face of the franchise to most people. Having him all of a sudden become some weird fascist arsehole like they supposedly did in the comics (not having read them I can't really say, but the brief synopsis I've read doesn't paint him in a good light) is not a great commercial decision. All the trailers up to this point seem to indicate Stark is fairly reasonable until someone kills Rhodes, and about the one things the films have portrayed consistently about Stark is that threatening or hurting one of his 3 friends makes him a bit vindictive and revengey.

I do like the breakdown of the two sides though, they all seem to fit. Everyone has a reason to side with or against Cap or Stark except Romanov and Barton, and I can easily see them splitting up to try and keep both sides acting reasonably and provide at least one line of communication between them.

[Iroscato]

I fucking love that shot of Stark using his Iron Man glove to block Bucky's bullet. I'm really curious to know the context behind why Bucky would straight-up try and execute Stark like that. Maybe Baron Zemo got in his head and re-activated his Winter Soldier programming?

[Gaidin]

I fucking love that shot of Stark using his Iron Man glove to block Bucky's bullet. I'm really curious to know the context behind why Bucky would straight-up try and execute Stark like that. Maybe Baron Zemo got in his head and re-activated his Winter Soldier programming?

I'd like to think it's a little more characteristically complex than that. More a legit conflict and argument than anything else, much less a throwback to Winter Soldier programming. I think that'd just be lazy. Either way, it gets heated, even gets a little violent, though it does start with Stark having the glove on before he's even in the room because, hey, this is the Winter Soldier. At some point Bucky's got him at gunpoint and Stark goes for the gun because glove, and Bucky's soldier/assassin instincts do the rest.

Or so I hope. But damn I'd love to know the full context.

[Adrian McNair]

Yeah, AoU and Winter Solder were just dull and I'm not confident of the MCUs ability to sell a character driven movie with an ensemble cast this big.

I'm legitimately curious about this one. With Age of Ultron I can understand, even though I enjoyed it in purely an escapist sense. That was a very packed film and it had scenes that just dragged (the Barton family home portion of things) or were odd (Thor going for some MCU-foreshadowing skinny dipping. Apparently it was going to be even stranger based on what I've read). But why do you think that Winter Soldier was dull?

[The Romulan Republic]

I actually liked the scenes with Barton's family. They don't really feel like they fit with the rest of the film, but they do make a nice break from the fight scenes and didn't drag any more than the interminable final battle scene did at times, I think.

Also, it adds a ray of optimism into Black Widow's otherwise rather depressing life. I mean, its pretty clear that Barton's family basically is the closest thing she has to a family. It adds a nice dimension to her backstory.

[Adrian McNair]

I actually liked the scenes with Barton's family. They don't really feel like they fit with the rest of the film, but they do make a nice break from the fight scenes and didn't drag any more than the interminable final battle scene did at times, I think.

Emphasis mine. That's ultimately the problem. It's out of place. Aside from the team interactions and banter (which could have occurred in another setting) it felt like a waste of time. I think I identified most with Thor's reaction to that environment (particularly when he was looking at that kid with thorough disinterest). I just wasn't a fan.

As for the final battle it had its moments but I can understand and somewhat agree on that score. There was room for improvement (it was still better than the Barton family nonsense that I struggled to give half a shit about. Barton is without a doubt the most superfluous, expendable member of the team. Bring in more super-powered muscle, damn it). The first action set-piece where the team is storming Strucker's castle was more entertaining (as was the Hulkbuster/Hulk brawl). Civil War looks as though it might rectify this with a more personal conflict. Hopefully with Infinity War it'll just be Thanos against the team (it's not as though someone that powerful needs to delegate after all).

The ironic thing is that I remember reading complaints about Iron Man 1 and 2's climatic fights being too short on this very board.

Also, it adds a ray of optimism into Black Widow's otherwise rather depressing life. I mean, its pretty clear that Barton's family basically is the closest thing she has to a family. It adds a nice dimension to her backstory.

No, "the ray of optimism" as you put it, should stem from her interactions with the team not from some family that was shoehorned into the film and never acknowledged or built-up to before.

Whedon really dropped the ball with Widow's backstory (along with the ill-conceived romance with Banner. Seriously, they have absolutely no chemistry!). It was just so disappointing that the big revelation about Natasha was that she was rendered sterile by the Red Room program. The trailers made it seem as though there would be far more significant revelations but there weren't any. What was wrong with adhering to the comics?

[Adam Reynolds]

The ironic thing is that I remember reading complaints about Iron Man 1 and 2's climatic fights being too short on this very board.

I really don't see why that is the case. Those fights were generally a nice length.

Personally I found the middle action sequences in The Winter Soldier(on the overpass ambush) and The Avengers(helicarrier attack) more interesting than the finales. It was also because those fights were about survival rather than victory and were thus more dramatically interesting. The finale of the first Iron Man in particular was closer to this in scope and thus nicer on that front.

Too many Marvel movies have been about saving the world as oppose to a smaller scope that is often more effective.

[The Romulan Republic]

Emphasis mine. That's ultimately the problem. It's out of place. Aside from the team interactions and banter (which could have occurred in another setting) it felt like a waste of time. I think I identified most with Thor's reaction to that environment (particularly when he was looking at that kid with thorough disinterest). I just wasn't a fan.

I disagree, sort of. I think it added something to both Barton and Natasha, but didn't mesh terribly well with the rest of the film/franchise.

As for the final battle it had its moments but I can understand and somewhat agree on that score. There was room for improvement (it was still better than the Barton family nonsense that I struggled to give half a shit about. Barton is without a doubt the most superfluous, expendable member of the team.

From an in-universe perspective, no more than Natasha (arguably less so, as I think his relationship with Natasha helps to humanize her and having strong platonic friendships between male and female characters is underused compared to the nigh-obligatory romance plot).

Out of universe, of course, Nat is less expendable because she's the token female/female sex appeal (well, I guess one of two now that Wanda's joined the Avengers). As crass as that is (its not my attitude, but I'm pretty sure its part of the Marvel executives' attitude).

I also think its nice to have some non-superhuman/barely superhuman characters. Show that the "ordinary" characters can still contribute.

Bring in more super-powered muscle, damn it).

Well, if you would prefer powerful "bad asses" with flashy powers over interesting characters... please don't ever be a writer.

But seriously, you can have a great superhero with fuck all for superpowers. Batman being the obvious example.

The first action set-piece where the team is storming Strucker's castle was more entertaining (as was the Hulkbuster/Hulk brawl). Civil War looks as though it might rectify this with a more personal conflict. Hopefully with Infinity War it'll just be Thanos against the team (it's not as though someone that powerful needs to delegate after all).

Personal conflicts can work, but only if it makes sense for the personalities in question to be fighting.

And I suspect Thanos will have lackies, because I don't know if they can pad out just him vs. everybody else to fill two whole films very well.

The ironic thing is that I remember reading complaints about Iron Man 1 and 2's climatic fights being too short on this very board.

Well, I don't recall weather I felt that way at the time. Now, however, I would say Iron Man 1's was a bit short, but 2's was plenty long enough, and nicely varied.

No, "the ray of optimism" as you put it, should stem from her interactions with the team not from some family that was shoehorned into the film and never acknowledged or built-up to before.

Team interactions are all very well, and we got some of that in the film, but its not quite the same, and it doesn't have to be either/or.

And why does it matter that it wasn't covered before? Every idea has to be introduced at some point, and not everything needs to be massively foreshadowed.

Whedon really dropped the ball with Widow's backstory (along with the ill-conceived romance with Banner. Seriously, they have absolutely no chemistry!).

Eh... chemistry is going to be subjective to some extent. I don't personally care for the romance, but I don't think it should be terribly surprising coming from Whedon. He's had a thing for the "dangerous/destructive romance between action girl and monster" ever since Buffy/Angel. I don't like it, but anyone who knows Whedon should be able to see it coming a mile away. Which is part of why I don't like it, actually.

It was just so disappointing that the big revelation about Natasha was that she was rendered sterile by the Red Room program.

I didn't very much care for it either. I find it cliche and arguably sexist, and to do it well might have benefited from spending more time on developing that aspect of her character, how it affects her.

That said, I don't find your subsequent arguments very convincing.

The trailers made it seem as though there would be far more significant revelations but there weren't any.

As Whedon presumably did not run Disney or Marvel's marketing division, he cannot be held responsible for dishonest advertising.

What was wrong with adhering to the comics?

Do you have any complaint about Romanov's backstory that does not boil down to generic "Waaahhh, they changed it so its bad!" fan whining?

The films are never exactly like the comics, and they never could be. They are adaptations/alternate continuities, and I accept them for what they are.

[Adrian McNair]

I disagree, sort of. I think it added something to both Barton and Natasha, but didn't mesh terribly well with the rest of the film/franchise.

And I disagree with your disagreement. I couldn't care less about them. You don't approve? Tough shit. Contrary opinions can be annoying like that.

From an in-universe perspective, no more than Natasha (arguably less so, as I think his relationship with Natasha helps to humanize her and having strong platonic friendships between male and female characters is underused compared to the nigh-obligatory romance plot).

I've never had any issues with their dynamic and yeah we don't see enough platonic male/female relationships in Hollywood. Someone should rectify that, I suppose. There's always television if they don't.

Out of universe, of course, Nat is less expendable because she's the token female/female sex appeal (well, I guess one of two now that Wanda's joined the Avengers). As crass as that is (its not my attitude, but I'm pretty sure its part of the Marvel executives' attitude).

Seeing her as nothing more than eyecandy is definitely crass and fucking stupid. There's nothing wrong with appreciating her tremendous beauty on the other hand. I certainly do.

I also think its nice to have some non-superhuman/barely superhuman characters. Show that the "ordinary" characters can still contribute.

We already have those in the form of Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Jane Foster, Eric Selvig, Darcy Lewis, Sharon Carter, Betty Ross, Jemma Simmons, Leopold Fitz, etc. Need I go on? No? Okay then. Enough about Barton's irrelevant family already.

Look, take any melee based hero in the comics. Am I supposed to believe that a mere unempowered hand-to-hand combatant is going to have any value beyond being a distraction when going up against a threat like Thanos? The moment this type of character runs into a telekinetic he or she is fucked. Or someone in Thor/Hulk's weight class. Or a magic user. Or any metahuman/Enhanced that isn't a glass cannon. Street-level and spy-based heroes should stay in the settings where they belong instead of trying to tussle with veritable demi-gods (except for Daisy Johnson, she's more than welcome to transition into the cinematic end of things at any time).

It's one of my pet peeves in comics. And before you bring up Barton and Natasha's contributions in the Avengers films let me forestall that line of attack. Neither of them were ever directly responsible for taking down the big bad. That came down to the actual superheroes (The Hulk, Thor, Scarlet Witch and the Vision). They purposely made the Chitauri Grunts and Ultron Sentries underpowered so they'd have something to do.

Well, if you would prefer powerful "bad asses" with flashy powers over interesting characters... please don't ever be a writer.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was subtlely referencing the coming of Captain Marvel, among others. I would have assumed that solid characterisation would've been a given. Implicit. Apparently not in your case. You do realise you can have both of those things, right? They're not mutually exclusive.

I find it rich that the guy who can't differentiate between the words "there," "their," "they're" and keeps using "weather" in the place of "whether" is lecturing me about writing. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all of that. You're in dire need of a Grammar Slam.

But seriously, you can have a great superhero with fuck all for superpowers. Batman being the obvious example.

I don't consider Batman to be a great superhero. Call me a snob but I prefer my superheroes to actually be super. I don't have anything against non-powered vigilantes like the Green Arrow in the proper context. But once they get taken out of their wheel-house it starts to get thoroughly absurd and suspension of disbelief straining.

Batman's a street-level hero at best and even then his efforts to clean-up Gotham have been a mixed-bag at best (I feel that his anti-killing stance in the case of unrepentant psychopaths like the Joker or Victor Zsasz to be a weakness and a moral failing). But when he starts to act in any capacity beyond strategist/team planner with the Justice League that's when matters become extremely contrived (see my gripe about mundanes above).

Personal conflicts can work, but only if it makes sense for the personalities in question to be fighting.

If you can't see the obvious tensions that have developed between Iron Man and Captain America as grounds for a most personal conflict then I don't know what to say to you. The trailer for Civil War was practically screaming it out.

And I suspect Thanos will have lackies, because I don't know if they can pad out just him vs. everybody else to fill two whole films very well.

One or two are perfectly fine but as Age of Ultron implied in this scene it's more likely that Thanos is going to take a far more direct approach.

Well, I don't recall weather I felt that way at the time.

Every time you fail to correct this blindingly obvious mistake (and at least one other) I die a little inside.

Now, however, I would say Iron Man 1's was a bit short, but 2's was plenty long enough, and nicely varied.

It's not a complaint I share. I just brought it up because the art of staging a superhero/villain dust-up is a delicate balance. If it's too short people will consider it be anti-climactic. Too long and boredom will ensue.

Team interactions are all very well, and we got some of that in the film, but its not quite the same, and it doesn't have to be either/or.

It does in this case. This is The Avengers, not "the Barton Family Chronicles". With this many superheroes and characters in general screen-time is at a premium.

And why does it matter that it wasn't covered before? Every idea has to be introduced at some point, and not everything needs to be massively foreshadowed.

I don't mean a massive, overly elaborate build-up like what they've been doing with Thanos. One or two lines in the first Avengers movie could have cleared this up just fine.

Eh... chemistry is going to be subjective to some extent. I don't personally care for the romance, but I don't think it should be terribly surprising coming from Whedon. He's had a thing for the "dangerous/destructive romance between action girl and monster" ever since Buffy/Angel. I don't like it, but anyone who knows Whedon should be able to see it coming a mile away. Which is part of why I don't like it, actually.

Thanks for stating the inherently obvious.

That said, I don't find your subsequent arguments very convincing.

And I've never found any of your arguments to be convincing in the slightest. How unfortunate.

As Whedon presumably did not run Disney or Marvel's marketing division, he cannot be held responsible for dishonest advertising.

But he can be criticised for poor writing, which I have done. And you have. So why are we still talking about this?

Do you have any complaint about Romanov's backstory that does not boil down to generic "Waaahhh, they changed it so its bad!" fan whining?

Excuse me? Are you not capable of reading between the lines? Did you not read this part in the link? Let me bold and italicise it for you, just to be extra clear.

The Black Widow has been enhanced by biotechnology that makes her body resistant to aging and disease and heals at an above human rate; as well as psychological conditioning that suppresses her memory of true events as opposed to implanted ones of the past without the aid of specially designed system suppressant drugs.

That's what was sorely missing. I wanted to see Natasha, the ageless assassin. Not Natasha the barren and angst-ridden type who puts her infertility in the same category as being a killer (that was a very clumsily-written scene). It would have also neatly corrected that minor plot-hole in Winter Soldier about her being born in 1986 and working for the KGB. Thanks to Agent Carter we know that the Red Room program has been around since before World War Two at least. Plus, she could have been Russia's attempt to counter the existence of Captain America and the Winter Soldier.

The films are never exactly like the comics, and they never could be. They are adaptations/alternate continuities, and I accept them for what they are.

And you think I don't? One of the most inspired changes in the MCU was changing Bucky's age to be similar to Steve's. It made them true brothers and nicely avoided the troubling child-soldier issue that Bucky's comic-book counterpart presented. Making Natasha a super-soldier is only a net-positive in my book.

But everything needs to be spelled out with you, doesn't it? Be a little bit more condescending, why don't you?

[Crown]

I actually liked the scenes with Barton's family. They don't really feel like they fit with the rest of the film, but they do make a nice break from the fight scenes and didn't drag any more than the interminable final battle scene did at times, I think.

Emphasis mine. That's ultimately the problem. It's out of place. Aside from the team interactions and banter (which could have occurred in another setting) it felt like a waste of time. I think I identified most with Thor's reaction to that environment (particularly when he was looking at that kid with thorough disinterest). I just wasn't a fan.

As for the final battle it had its moments but I can understand and somewhat agree on that score. There was room for improvement (it was still better than the Barton family nonsense that I struggled to give half a shit about. Barton is without a doubt the most superfluous, expendable member of the team.

Regarding Barton and his family in AoU I agree with you, and I think there are a few factors in play;

• We're not Americans. The actor playing Barton (Jeremy Renner) has a much bigger fan following in the US than for those of us outside of it. He's a regular on the late night sell talk shows and he's been in the Mission Impossible series and Bourne series (and industry gossip was that he was meant to have been tipped to 'take over' either of those franchises at some point). Bot for those of us outside the US, he's just an ancillary character.
• The other reason, it was just poor writing (a symptom common in the whole movie, but given what Whedon has delivered before and what the rumours are surrounding the problems he had with AoU this I lay at the feet of the studio). Or what Aristotle would refer to as an "improbable possibility" from the full quote; "Accordingly, the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities. The tragic plot must not be composed of irrational parts." Which in clear terms is agreeing with what you pointed out above; it came out of nowhere (improbable) even if it is something that could conceivably exist (a family). The fact it was just dumped on us hurt the passing and narrative.
• Lastly more in regards to the movie as a whole; the villain sucked. Loki is a good villain. Kingpin in Daredevil was a fantastic villain. Ultron was ultimately lame, bland, boring and un-inspired. And unlike in Guardians of the Galaxy where Rhonin was all those things as well, our heroes were suffering from poor writing competing screen time for development and strained dialogue.

[Adrian McNair]

Regarding Barton and his family in AoU I agree with you, and I think there are a few factors in play;

• We're not Americans. The actor playing Barton (Jeremy Renner) has a much bigger fan following in the US than for those of us outside of it. He's a regular on the late night sell talk shows and he's been in the Mission Impossible series and Bourne series (and industry gossip was that he was meant to have been tipped to 'take over' either of those franchises at some point). Bot for those of us outside the US, he's just an ancillary character.

I haven't been blown away with Hawkeye or Renner's portrayal of him at all. Every time I see him in the MCU I keep thinking that they could excise him from the proceedings and nothing of consequence would be lost. Moreover I'm just not impressed with Renner as an actor. Period. He doesn't seem to have much range and he's hogging the limelight that other underrated performers deserve to be in. Maybe I just haven't been viewing the right films. What do you think of him?

[*]The other reason, it was just poor writing (a symptom common in the whole movie, but given what Whedon has delivered before and what the rumours are surrounding the problems he had with AoU this I lay at the feet of the studio). Or what Aristotle would refer to as an "improbable possibility" from the full quote; "Accordingly, the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities. The tragic plot must not be composed of irrational parts." Which in clear terms is agreeing with what you pointed out above; it came out of nowhere (improbable) even if it is something that could conceivably exist (a family). The fact it was just dumped on us hurt the passing and narrative.

I couldn't agree more. It was an impediment to the progression of the narrative. Something went pear-shaped behind the scenes.

[*]Lastly more in regards to the movie as a whole; the villain sucked. Loki is a good villain. Kingpin in Daredevil was a fantastic villain. Ultron was ultimately lame, bland, boring and un-inspired. And unlike in Guardians of the Galaxy where Rhonin was all those things as well, our heroes were suffering from poor writing competing screen time for development and strained dialogue.[/list]

I think what hurts the character the most is that he's just too much of a wise-cracker. While Spader did a great job with what he was given, the scatter-brained and goofy approach really undercut his menace. In the comics Ultron is an Avengers-grade threat who has imperiled all life on the planet multiple times, has actually succeeded in one timeline (the Age of Ultron event that the film shares a name with and nothing else) and went on to conquer an entire interstellar empire with an army of Phalanx (the Kree in the Annihilation: Conquest storyline). He's constantly upgrading himself into increasingly deadlier forms and he doesn't have the decency to stay dead when you destroy him (there's always a spare Ultron shell lying around or a copy of his program on a computer somewhere). Tom Kane's take on him in Earth's Mightiest Heroes is very much on-point.

Whedon wanted to differentiate his depiction of Ultron, believing the comic-book version to be too one-dimensional. Unfortunately, he ended up skewing things too far towards another extreme. It's a shame because Ultron did have the potential to break the Marvel mediocre supervillain curse (is that the common term? I'm shamelessly stealing it regardless of whether or not it is). It feels like a significant character has been wasted and given the one-off treatment.

As for the villains you've listed they have the benefit of greater screen-time and development than any of the other one-note antagonists we've seen. Loki appeared in three films with a fourth on the way (Thor: Ragnarok) and was buoyed by Tom Hiddleston's charisma. Fisk had an entire season with the possibility of subsequent appearances (there's no way he's going to remain imprisoned). As I understand it you're not a fan of Agents of SHIELD (believe it or not it has improved significantly since the first half of season one) but it too has done a better job of handling its villains than the movies.

They've really got their work cut out for them with Thanos. I have no idea how they're going to pull it off.

[The Romulan Republic]

I actually liked the scenes with Barton's family. They don't really feel like they fit with the rest of the film, but they do make a nice break from the fight scenes and didn't drag any more than the interminable final battle scene did at times, I think.

Emphasis mine. That's ultimately the problem. It's out of place. Aside from the team interactions and banter (which could have occurred in another setting) it felt like a waste of time. I think I identified most with Thor's reaction to that environment (particularly when he was looking at that kid with thorough disinterest). I just wasn't a fan.

As for the final battle it had its moments but I can understand and somewhat agree on that score. There was room for improvement (it was still better than the Barton family nonsense that I struggled to give half a shit about. Barton is without a doubt the most superfluous, expendable member of the team.

Regarding Barton and his family in AoU I agree with you, and I think there are a few factors in play;

• We're not Americans. The actor playing Barton (Jeremy Renner) has a much bigger fan following in the US than for those of us outside of it. He's a regular on the late night sell talk shows and he's been in the Mission Impossible series and Bourne series (and industry gossip was that he was meant to have been tipped to 'take over' either of those franchises at some point). Bot for those of us outside the US, he's just an ancillary character.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this has nothing to do with my opinion of Barton. I barely know Renner outside of his work for Marvel and that one episode of "Angel" he played a guest villain on, and I wouldn't really consider myself a fan of the actor (or the character Barton for that matter). I just see some merit in the stuff with Barton's family.

But if you really want to turn this into some sort of America vs. the world thing...

Well, that's kind of sad.

[*]The other reason, it was just poor writing (a symptom common in the whole movie, but given what Whedon has delivered before and what the rumours are surrounding the problems he had with AoU this I lay at the feet of the studio). Or what Aristotle would refer to as an "improbable possibility" from the full quote; "Accordingly, the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities. The tragic plot must not be composed of irrational parts." Which in clear terms is agreeing with what you pointed out above; it came out of nowhere (improbable) even if it is something that could conceivably exist (a family). The fact it was just dumped on us hurt the passing and narrative.

Could its introduction have been handled better? Yes.

Did it add something positive to the movie? I would say yes.

[*]Lastly more in regards to the movie as a whole; the villain sucked. Loki is a good villain. Kingpin in Daredevil was a fantastic villain. Ultron was ultimately lame, bland, boring and un-inspired. And unlike in Guardians of the Galaxy where Rhonin was all those things as well, our heroes were suffering from poor writing competing screen time for development and strained dialogue.[/list]

To be honest, I only find Loki interesting most of the time because of Tom Hiddleston's acting. The character as written seems inconsistent and at times boring.

Their is exactly one major MCU villain I'm familiar with who really interests me as a character, and that's Grant Ward (okay, maybe, to a lesser extent, his ex-boss Garret too) from Agents of Shield. And even their, they kind of dropped the ball for a while.

MCU has kind of bland villains generally.

Edit: Okay, Winter Soldier's villains were pretty good. Except for Redford's character.

[The Romulan Republic]

I haven't responded to all of your post here because this is plenty long enough as it is. I've tried to focus more on the main points I felt needed to be addressed. This has already taken up a lot more time than I wanted it to. Apologies if I missed anything important.

And I disagree with your disagreement. I couldn't care less about them. You don't approve? Tough shit. Contrary opinions can be annoying like that.

And where did I ever say you didn't have a right to your opinion? You have just as much right to it as I have to dispute it, which is kind of the fucking point of a discussion forum.

As far as I can see, you're just being a petty, snide, posturing, wannabe tough guy asshole.

I've never had any issues with their dynamic and yeah we don't see enough platonic male/female relationships in Hollywood. Someone should rectify that, I suppose. There's always television if they don't.

Good to know.

This, for me, is perhaps Hawkeye's main contribution to the MCU.

We already have those in the form of Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Jane Foster, Eric Selvig, Darcy Lewis, Sharon Carter, Betty Ross, Jemma Simmons, Leopold Fitz, etc. Need I go on? No? Okay then. Enough about Barton's irrelevant family already.

Fair point that their are a lot of that kind of character.

But I do think Hawkeye's family is a bit different from a lot of the ones you listed because it gives a glimpse of what the hero's ordinary life is like when they're off-duty. Makes an interesting contrast and adds a new layer to the characterization.

Look, take any melee based hero in the comics. Am I supposed to believe that a mere unempowered hand-to-hand combatant is going to have any value beyond being a distraction when going up against a threat like Thanos? The moment this type of character runs into a telekinetic he or she is fucked. Or someone in Thor/Hulk's weight class. Or a magic user. Or any metahuman/Enhanced that isn't a glass cannon. Street-level and spy-based heroes should stay in the settings where they belong instead of trying to tussle with veritable demi-gods (except for Daisy Johnson, she's more than welcome to transition into the cinematic end of things at any time).

Useless as direct combatants maybe. Useless in all roles? Even leaving aside canon fodder minions, I can think of some ways to use these characters. Avengers, for example, had Captain America in a tactician role at times. I'd like to see that played up, as well as Black Widow as a spy.

Whedon's actually pretty good about this sometimes. Giving the non-superhuman characters something to do.

Oh, and I'd welcome absolutely any main character on Agents of Shield onto the big screen. Or any of the Avengers for a cameo on the show. Its deeply irritating that they don't overlap more.

It's one of my pet peeves in comics. And before you bring up Barton and Natasha's contributions in the Avengers films let me forestall that line of attack. Neither of them were ever directly responsible for taking down the big bad. That came down to the actual superheroes (The Hulk, Thor, Scarlet Witch and the Vision). They purposely made the Chitauri Grunts and Ultron Sentries underpowered so they'd have something to do.

And of course, Black Widow only figured out closing Loki's portal and managed to get vital intel. out of Loki. That's nothing at all.

But bottom line, I care a lot more about what the characters bring in terms of character interactions and non-combat abilities than I do about what powers they have.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was subtlely referencing the coming of Captain Marvel, among others. I would have assumed that solid characterisation would've been a given. Implicit. Apparently not in your case. You do realise you can have both of those things, right? They're not mutually exclusive.

Of course not, you condescending twit. But a lot of people seem to act like they are.

You know, the people who complain about characters being angsty or emo because they have human emotions.

I find it rich that the guy who can't differentiate between the words "there," "their," "they're" and keeps using "weather" in the place of "whether" is lecturing me about writing. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all of that. You're in dire need of a Grammar Slam.

Does my spelling have any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my argument? If so, explain how. If not, I'm going to call ad hominem.

And frankly, I'd rate characterization and plot over a few spelling errors when it comes to writing fiction, but that's just me.

I don't consider Batman to be a great superhero. Call me a snob but I prefer my superheroes to actually be super. I don't have anything against non-powered vigilantes like the Green Arrow in the proper context. But once they get taken out of their wheel-house it starts to get thoroughly absurd and suspension of disbelief straining.

You can argue over weather Batman qualifies as a Superhero, but in my opinion he is an interesting enough character, and brings enough to the table, that he's worth having along with the powerhouses regardless.

In particular, he makes an excellent foil for Superman.

Batman's a street-level hero at best and even then his efforts to clean-up Gotham have been a mixed-bag at best (I feel that his anti-killing stance in the case of unrepentant psychopaths like the Joker or Victor Zsasz to be a weakness and a moral failing). But when he starts to act in any capacity beyond strategist/team planner with the Justice League that's when matters become extremely contrived (see my gripe about mundanes above).

Thanks for showing you don't get Batman's character very well.

If you can't see the obvious tensions that have developed between Iron Man and Captain America as grounds for a most personal conflict then I don't know what to say to you. The trailer for Civil War was practically screaming it out.

I don't know. It would take a lot to sell them actually trying to kill each other after everything they've been through, and it would be even harder to pull of without making one or both permanently less sympathetic.

Of course, that's part of the tragedy of civil war- friends and family turned against each other. It can be done well. Time will tell if it will be. I'd prefer not to judge off teasers. Its not like a teaser has never been misleading.

Thanks for stating the inherently obvious.

Obvious or not, they're valid points, and relevant to the topic.

And I've never found any of your arguments to be convincing in the slightest. How unfortunate.

Interesting phrasing. I hope you are not allowing animosity over previous threads (I can't honestly remember the last time I argued a point with you) colour your interpretation of my posts, or your responses.

But he can be criticised for poor writing, which I have done. And you have. So why are we still talking about this?

Because you seemed to be criticizing Whedon for what was on screen not living up to what the trailers suggested.

Like you said, I have no problem with criticizing Whedon for his own writing issues.

Excuse me? Are you not capable of reading between the lines? Did you not read this part in the link? Let me bold and italicise it for you, just to be extra clear.

The Black Widow has been enhanced by biotechnology that makes her body resistant to aging and disease and heals at an above human rate; as well as psychological conditioning that suppresses her memory of true events as opposed to implanted ones of the past without the aid of specially designed system suppressant drugs.

That's what was sorely missing. I wanted to see Natasha, the ageless assassin. Not Natasha the barren and angst-ridden type who puts her infertility in the same category as being a killer (that was a very clumsily-written scene). It would have also neatly corrected that minor plot-hole in Winter Soldier about her being born in 1986 and working for the KGB. Thanks to Agent Carter we know that the Red Room program has been around since before World War Two at least. Plus, she could have been Russia's attempt to counter the existence of Captain America and the Winter Soldier.

Well, I would argue that both approaches have their merits, your condescending jackassery aside, but I'll give you this- you're right about Black Widow's infertility being handled poorly, and if it patches up a continuity error effectively, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

And you think I don't? One of the most inspired changes in the MCU was changing Bucky's age to be similar to Steve's. It made them true brothers and nicely avoided the troubling child-soldier issue that Bucky's comic-book counterpart presented. Making Natasha a super-soldier is only a net-positive in my book.

But everything needs to be spelled out with you, doesn't it? Be a little bit more condescending, why don't you?

Pot calling the kettle black.

However, if I misinterpreted your position, I'm sorry.

So if its not the status quo, but that particular aspect of Natasha's character, you're attached to, let's examine that:

You think Natasha the super soldier is great? Fine. But do that, and get rid of Hawkeye, who you've so thoroughly disparaged, and you're running short on Avengers who are actually ordinary humans. Kind of risks sending the message "Humans are irrelevant now that the super humans are here."

Edit: I mean, if, at the end of the day, you just don't like Hawkeye and his family... fine. That's a matter of personal taste, obviously. Ditto if you only like superheroes with actual superpowers. Etc. But I hope you can appreciate that their are alternative approaches which are not necessarily less valid. Personally, I think the Justice League would be a hell of a lot less interesting without the God Damn Batman. And I think that there's a place in a film like Avengers for non-superpowered superheroes and ancillary characters who, without adding anything to the action, add to the characterization and themes (even if Whedon admittedly could have handled it better).

[Crazedwraith]

I didn't mind Hawkeye's family, and I'm very glad they didn't go the same way as the characters they're based off from the Ultimates line. Though they might still.

Still with Avengers: Age Of Ultron Hawkeye's subplot was very clearly based on the issues Adrian McNair is talking about. What good is an Archer compared to gods and power armour and super-soldiers. I'm not really sure that they answered that very well. It's shown that Hawkeye is perhaps the most normal, the most emotionally grounded of all the Avengers but that never really has a defining moment where this saves the day or rallies the team. His best moment is the one with Scarlet Witch but that's one where he himself highlights the crappyness of his powerset.

The badass normal's teamup mission to China with him as mission control/air-support. Really worked to show off all the normal hero's effectiveness. And his 'superpower' of being well, really aware of his surroundings at all time. (which let him escape SW's brainwashing earlier)

But Adrian has a point. Drone made from StarkTech (and improved from their) should really be scratched by explosive arrows or being thumped by Cap and Shield. But hey, action film.

I don't think there's a problem with low-power or unpowered superheroes but teaming them with high power heroes really is a writing challenge to keep everyone relevant without the contrivances to do so being obvious.

[Tsyroc]

[*]Lastly more in regards to the movie as a whole; the villain sucked. Loki is a good villain. Kingpin in Daredevil was a fantastic villain. Ultron was ultimately lame, bland, boring and un-inspired. And unlike in Guardians of the Galaxy where Rhonin was all those things as well, our heroes were suffering from poor writing competing screen time for development and strained dialogue.[/list]

That's my main problem with the movie. I was expecting Ultron to be this scary unstoppable insane machine, and there were hints of that, but he was making quips. I watched the movie with the commentary and they were going on about how they liked Spader's improvised reaction to Klaw getting his hand cut off. WTF?! Ultron shouldn't have cared enough to react. I guess, the character's personality was a bit too human for me. Despite having read many, many comic stories with Ultron the ones that stick the most in my head are the more recent ones where he 1). wipes out all humans in a country, 2). takes over the Earth/wipes out nearly all humans, 3). Takes over the Phalanx causing all sorts of interplanetary destruction and chaos before blowing it for the idea of the "perfect organic body" (Adam Warlock).

So the whole dropping a city on the world fit with the nutso Ultron but somehow they managed to suck out what was fun in the first Avengers and at the same time feeling that Ultron might actually succeed. It could just be me suffering from comic book movie/show fatigue. There are a lot of them these days.


As for Civil War. I hated the recent trailer. It really favors Tony's side being the correct side. Maybe they will balance that out later with a trailer that favors Cap's side, but I wasn't enthused about them using even a variation on this storyline from the beginning. In the comics it was a fucking mess because you had the political and philosophical opinions of far too many writers just swirling around in what was just a giant excuse to have various heroes fight each other...again. At this point I should be glad that Marvel/Disney doesn't on the rights to the X-Men or we'd end up with that piece of crap X-Men vs. Avengers sooner or later.

The early trailers appeared to give a decent basis for the conflict between Cap and Tony, although I still don't get why Tony would be all gung-ho to go after Cap. I can see him being in favor of supporting the accords but putting a team together to go after Cap's formerly brainwashed buddy? That seems like the totally arrogant asshole Stark that was part of the problem with the comic story. Movie Stark has been arrogant but it seems a big switch for him to appear to support the government's side so strongly.