RedWingFan wrote:Spoiler filled review and reasons why Civil War succeeded and B v S failed. This goes into a lot of detail into the plot of Civil War. So go see it and then read this. Curious to know what everyone thinks of it. It explained my thoughts perfectly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/ ... c0b57a46bb
Mr. Tassi is off the mark on a number of things.
One of these conflicts has been years in the making, while the other was developed over the course of an hour, at best. We have almost a decade invested into these specific Marvel characters at this point, so when Iron Man turns against Captain America after being allies for so long, it actually means something. We feel the weight of that conflict, while in Batman V. Superman, these are characters we essentially just met, and the idea that they would be slugging it out with each other almost has to rely on some sort of stupid misunderstanding rather than years of character development that’s led to this point.
In order to make some kind of point, Derek, I mean Paul, ignores the fact that a a year-and-a-half passes between Bruce Wayne's first glimpse of Superman and Zod — and the resultant destruction of their battle — and the days that step down to their confrontation. (There is large text on the screen to let viewers know. Maybe Paul shouldn't have been looking at his phone at the time.) If it isn't painfully obvious to Tassi, he's a plum idiot. It doesn't matter that "we" (the audience) "just met them" any more than it mattered when we met Indiana Jones and Belloq at the beginning of
Raiders of the Lost Ark, and yet we somehow perfectly understood how those two guys were rivals and enemies, not friends.
Also, what else was "developed over the course of an hour, at best" over on the MCU's court? The conflict between Daredevil and Punisher (in Season 2 of DD's show). And I've heard nothing negative with regard to that.
That’s the other great thing about Civil War. The conflict actually makes sense, and you can see both sides of the argument. While I think Captain America is on the “more right” side, as it certainly does not seem like a good idea to simply let the UN dictate precisely what the Avengers do or do not do, Tony’s side isn’t nonsensical. He feels crushing guilt from all these events, and while the Sokovia Accords themselves are flawed (watch them get thrown out the window the second Thanos shows up), it’s his way of trying to do something, anything to absolve himself of shame. And if something goes wrong the next time, maybe he can blame the UN instead of himself.
Actually, Stark comes off like a complete asshole. Stark's guilt bubbles over but he wants the other Avengers to atone for his sins. He wants to placate his sudden penchant for shoegazing by getting everyone to agree with him. When Rogers doesn't, Tony essentially becomes a bully. THEN he does something that not only doesn't fit the already-overstaffed and overstuffed roster of the film, it's outright assholish. He recruits Peter Parker to exploit him for his abilities. Peter is now his little ho-bag in return for perks to come. He takes a street-level teenager and throws him into the midst of a transcontinental conflict.
The fact is Black Panther's role was upgraded and then downsized again in order to wedge Spider-Man into the movie. They should've just kept things as they were. As it is, the movie is essentially a series of battles and there were plenty of players. By the time you get to the "threesome" (IYKWIM), you don't care because the airport battle's in your rearview.
Tony’s side of the story is particularly fascinating. It’s the guilt of the deaths combined with a recent split from Pepper, and just when you think he and Captain America get past the Sokovia spat, the film pulls a hard left to reveal that a brainwashed Bucky killed Stark’s parents years ago, and Captain America kept some of the details covered up.
Now that is an effective reason to have a superhero vs. superhero brawl. Captain America tries to explain to Tony that Bucky didn’t know what he was doing, but Stark just says “I don’t care, he killed my mom.” That kind of motivation works. That’s what creates believable conflict with actual stakes to it.

Except now it comes down to "Bucky killed my parents! And you knew!" "But it wasn't him! He was programmed by Hydra!" "I'm gonna fuck him up!" "No, WE are gonna fuck you up! He's
my friend!" (And this is too-conveniently staged by one Helmut Zemo with too-convenient security cam footage that somehow was able to record the event on a desolate road that sends Tony over the edge.) They battle. Iron Man suddenly can't take down two ground-based guys. (What happened to the projectiles that fire out of his retractable shoulder launchers?) So you have this forced drama that kind of leads nowhere when it suddenly...ends, with no resolution.
Oh, but wait. There IS a Disney-fied resolution. Steve sends Tony a FedEx package with a burner phone and a "Let's be pals again" note, completely deflating the fiasco we just witnessed.
In contrast, we have the entirely incoherent struggle of Batman V. Superman. It starts out the same way, with Bruce Wayne believing Superman is dangerous due to the innocents that die in his wake, and because if he ever turned against humanity, he’d be impossible to stop. The problem is that his solution is to just straight up murder Superman, which, even if this is a new version of Batman, goes against everything we’ve ever known about the character.
Wow. This guy, this "author"...is an imbecile. It's not about "straight-up murdering
Superman," it's about eliminating a threat nobody has a leash on. It's about fear of the unknown. It's about eradicating something
alien you feel is a threat to those who cannot defend. It's only when Bruce recognizes the humanity in Clark/Kal/Superman that he realizes he's doing the wrong thing. If he were Tony Stark, he would've just kept going and impaled Superman through the larynx.
It’s the opposite in Batman V. Superman. This is a movie that feels overcrowded with just three heroes. While I may have had no issue with the Gal Gadot’s version of Wonder Woman as she was presented, the fact remained that the movie did not give her an actual reason to be in the film. She felt tacked-on, and her biggest moments include opening a bunch of email attachments to discover other future JLA members, and participating in the Doomsday fight in a way that negated most of the conflict they were trying to set up (If Wonder Woman can chop up Doomsday with her magic sword, why exactly do they need this Kryptonite spear?). The film was already bursting at the seams with just Clark and Bruce, but Diana Prince was extra baggage by herself. I can’t imagine how a full JLA film would feel at this point.
Well, well. Finally, this guy exposes himself. Can you say "shill"? He must have stock in Disney. Wonder Woman has no reason to be in
BvS? She feels "tacked on"? She can just "chop up Doomsday" with her magic sword? Sure, the same way I guess Scarlet Witch should've been able to levitate Crossbones in the
other direction in order to avoid the destruction caused by the bomb he was using to blow himself up. But then you wouldn't have a pissed-off King T'Chaka speaking at the U.N., in order to get blown up so that T'Challa can go after Bucky. It's called
story, dickwad!
And Spider-Man has a reason to be in
Civil War, though they wrote him OUT and then wrote him back IN? Come on. Spider-Man was there for one reason only: to sell tickets. To reboot him.