Comics Creators

Marvel Movies & TV General Discussion


Fantasy movies are often quite slapdash about any kind of consistency, and that’s ok if you’re enjoying it, and irritating if you’re not.

Most movies (whatever their genre) only work in bits and pieces anyway, but they work well enough to keep our attention and we accept the bits that don’t work.

Films that work 100% of the time are very rare, theoretically they should be the “Best Picture” award winners every year, but it’s not that simple.

I’m struggling to think of any superhero film, even the ones I like a lot, that would be close to 100% consistent? Maybe ‘Logan’?

But then ‘Logan’ is a very familiar “ex-cop/soldier/spy who gets into trouble to save someone” but with mutants so it’s following a well established path and it sticks to it well.


(Hate to break it to you, but there isn’t a new story out there, just fancy new ways to tell it.)


That is the one thing Bryan Singer does better than anyone. Obviously he would hit a peak with this in the Quicksilver DOFP sequence but in X2 he had the stuff you mentioned, and Professor X in the mall, Magneto’s breakout, stuff like that. Contemporary superhero films could learn a lot from the inventive ways Singer portrays powers and also how he keeps his films grounded enough that the powers evoke wonder.

I’m not sure X2 would be as highly regarded today but it definitely felt like it took the genre a leap forward when it came out.


I shouldn’t have put First Class and the Wolverine on there. They’re both like 2/3rds of a good movie but crumble in the third act.

I do think they’re on par with most Marvel films, but then I suppose I’m down on the average Marvel film more than most.


I know, but not the point I was making.

Sometimes the “fancy” breaks the story, and fantasy films are a little more liable to that, because they’re a further step removed from reality already.


That’s quite charitable for First Class.


I think fantasy movies in particular have so many moving parts that we pay attention to a lot more, it’s harder to connect all the dots, whether as viewers or filmmakers. That’s why “set pieces” get an inordinate amount of attention, the showstopping scenes that are typically focused on action (an idea as old as movies themselves). So the attention then wanders to whether or not these kinds of scenes make any sense when viewed as a whole, or the material around them that provides context. Sometimes I think we ask too much and sometimes not enough. The toughest and therefore easiest to overlook achievement is not to notice. But it’s worse if you have too much time to think, or not enough. If a movie has no down time, if it’s just one long sequence, it becomes exhausting. Plenty of directors have been confused on that. Last summer’s Valerian was above all else simply exhausting. The Hobbit movies were more exhausting than exhilarating.

Anyway, I think we think good filmmaking is different than it actually is. Plenty of people here just want to be entertained. Even when they know the movie is probably junk, they don’t mind, because it generally did exactly what they wanted it to. They complain mostly when it doesn’t. And then they come up with a ton of examples about what was done wrong that they otherwise overlook in the stuff they like, because the overall effect is itself different.

As for “Best Picture” quality films, I would argue that it’s rare a best picture quality film is actually acknowledged as a best picture quality film. Often there are biases that get in the way, and you can see for yourself that people rarely agree, and the choices are rarely popular. This is not at all to say a best picture quality film has to be popular. But we tend to assume popularity means quality. Except when we don’t. But that’s another topic.


Yeah that’s pretty much Singer’s X-Men movies in a nutshell, a couple of amazing scenes in not-so-amazing movies. But those scenes? Yup, very good and memorable. Unfortunately, a couple of good scenes don’t make for a good movie =/


The irony is that for once, Tony was trying to be humble. To admit that super-heroes - and he himself! - need checks and balances.

And what people tend to forget is that his is actually the sensible position. What Cap is basically saying is that the Avengers shouldn’t obey any laws and just do whatever they want, which is actually not something you can just do in global politics. So Tony is trying to find a system in which they can work (which they had when Shield and Fury were around). Also, if Cap had just brought Bucky in, the movie would’ve been over in minutes. They try to give him motivation not to with OhGodWhatIsZemoDoing, but really he could’ve easily left Bucky with the police/Ross, and taken the other Avengers along with him to stop Zemo. Movie would’ve been only half as long if Cap hadn’t made somem really bad decisions.


At least partly because Tony was a high-handed and secretive asshole about the whole thing.

So not just self-righteous, he has other qualities.


Except the only reason Stark agrees with the Accords is guilt, because it gives him the perfect excuse to admit his guilt without admitting weakness, because they’re not technically aimed only at him, but every superhero. Stark is the one who created Ultron and is thus directly responsible for everything he did.

What Steve objects to isn’t following orders (he was a soldier, after all), but following bad leadership, which is what Winter Soldier was all about, what his buddy Bucky’s story symbolizes across two movies. The Accords in theory mean a system of accountability, but in reality they’re a purely reactionary measure that punish effect instead of cause. If Scarlet Witch accidentally affects collateral damage, she’s made to seem like a bad guy. That’s messed up. What the Accords ought to have done is address the problem itself, rogue individuals like Stark who create problems like Ultron and the massive destruction of Sokovia.

But Stark is still completely incapable of admitting that. And Steve is thusly torn by friendships, by loyalties, and that’s the real problem of the modern world for him. In the crystal moral clarity of WWII, there was no doubt about the enemy. Being a soldier, being a super-soldier, meant a clear cut target. And Steve is facing what the audience knows to be a clear cut target now. But Stark isn’t, and that’s the problem.

But there are people who will try to argue otherwise, and that’s the bigger problem, and the state of the world for all of us.


And it’d be fine if that had been the argument in the movie, only it wasn’t. The argument Cap makes is literally that he doesn’t want to follow anybody else’s orders, or accept any legal limits. This is what he says:

What Steve objects to isn’t following orders (he was a soldier, after all), but following bad leadership, which is what Winter Soldier was all about, what his buddy Bucky’s story symbolizes across two movies.


Yeah, that’s because the movie wants the viewer to be mostly on Cap’s side, and in order for that to work, Tony has to mess everything up so the fact that he has the better argument doesn’t matter.


eh… I dunno, I sort of understand the reversal of positions for both Steve and Tony, but damn, I still get whiplash by it all… Well, Steve’s switch had a bit more developpement to it… Tony is just having a severe emotional reaction and it feels kinda fake.

Anyways, Civil War was just a bad “means-to-an-end” story… Even though no one will admit it, I think it got tinkered with in ways that weren’t planned, much like it’s DC counterpart… kinda funny all things considered.


Yup, the whole plot of Civil War is a bit of a mess. Which is a shame, since I thought the dialogues were well-written and I loved how the action was shot.


For me Steve was on the fence for Civil War, but what flipped him was the effort to arrest Bucky. Everyone else on his side was just following him, rather than making up their own minds.


FFS! Run it back! Robert Redford and Garry Shandling were HYDRA!

That would mess up anybody’s perception of authority!


Which again, in context, for Steve means the events of Winter Soldier, Avengers, everything he’s experienced in the present day. Otherwise it really doesn’t make any sense, as again this is a WWII soldier we’re talking about, someone who desperately wanted to serve. Steve doesn’t represent that anymore. He’s become the Vietnam America. And for the character and these movies, there’s got to be an explanation that doesn’t actually involve Vietnam. So instead his turnaround involves Bucky, the Accords.


“Carrie Coon is Proxima Midnight,” co-director Joe Russo revealed in a new video interview (below), “and you may know her from season three of Fargo or the Leftovers.”


Ah, crap, sorry, I messed up posting the quote from the movie. I wanted to quote this:

Lt. Col. James Rhodes: Sorry, Steve, that… that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations we’re talking about. It’s not the World Security Council, it’s not S.H.I.E.L.D., it’s not Hydra. […]
Steve Rogers: […] If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don’t think we should go? What if there’s somewhere we need to go and they don’t let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.

Steve is actively rejecting democratic institutions, he’s saying he doesn’t want to be bound by international law. It’s not a position anyone could realistically support, which is why the movie has to make Tony look bad and give Cap a lot of additional motivation not to come in at any of the times he theoretically could with no harm done.