Monker wrote:Sure, he is trying to guilt trip the rest of the team into following him...manipulation and control.
Thanks for finally agreeing with me. It wasn't so hard now, was it?
Monker wrote:But, that is not HIS only reason for wanting to have the accords.
Spencer is the catalyst. I already said that.
Monker wrote:Oh, stop it. Spiderman was brought in for the same reason Wonder Woman was brought in - to set up a solo movie.
That’s the third big screen incarnation of Peter Parker in less than 15 years, too. However you perceive Wonder Woman, she was long overdue.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Are you for real?

Rogers gives his nutshell reasoning at the table. It's barely a couple sentences long. He says the Avengers should remain private so that they're where they're needed. Otherwise, they could be needed somewhere and not be there. He EXPLAINS why he doesn't feel the Avengers should be under U.N. control. He doesn't need to go beyond that. It's a perfectly compact, thorough explanation. Rogers knows what's it like to be a government puppet, and he clearly doesn't wish to be one again. Captain America ultimately stands for freedom. DUH.
But, again, that's not what is motivating him. The speech at Peggy Carter's funeral is explaining exactly what is going on inside of CA.
Those lines originate directly from Cap’s spiel in the comic, except virtually all their impact was lost by having Sharon recite them. That was nearly a facepalm moment for me (I know it had no such effect on you).
As for what “motivates” Cap, this sums it up perfectly:
“For as long as I can remember…I just wanted to do what was right. I guess I'm not quite sure what that is anymore. And I thought I could throw myself back in and follow orders, serve. It's just not the same.”
(
The Winter Soldier)
“[Tony,
you chose to do that.] 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 sands are still our own.”
(
Civil War)
Oh, hey, let’s not forget:
"I know I'm asking a lot, but the price of freedom is high, it always has been, and it's a price I'm willing to pay. And if I'm the only one, then so be it. But I'm willing to bet I'm not."
We can move on from that now.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Stark thinks everyone should do what he says, and why he says. Which is sign the Accords. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.
Stark wants control of the Avengers and thinks he is their leader. Rogers wants to be true to himself and his values...and becomes the true leader because of it. They are contrasting characters - which is good writing, good story telling, and they made good use of it in the movie....unlike BvS, which fumbles time after time.
Again, thanks for agreeing with me, your side-swipe at
BvS notwithstanding.
Monker wrote:Me...and you, and anybody else who saw the movie. If you reread my quote I said it was foreshadowed...you just didn't see the full scene. To explain it in baby-talk, they had a scene shown several times in the movie where Bucky runs a car off the road. He then goes to the car, opens the trunk, and takes a suitcase. That is the end of the repeated scene. In the end, they repeat it, except they add the reveal that it is Stark's parents and Bucky let's his father die, and murders his mom.
Talk about a hot load. It’s a Hail Mary and I’m not alone in that view. Pretty cool of Bucky to not bother wearing his mask on that assignment, either — so there can be NO DOUBT.

Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:You're overemphasizing a BASIC revenge motive as high art.
No, I'm not. I am explaining that this theme ran through the entire movie. It wasn't a "Hail Mary" tacked on at the end to desperately achieve some drame...like snapping the villein's neck at the end. The end was obviously written first, and everything else in the movie built up to that moment, the fight scene, and Black Panther's words of wisdom at the end. THAT is good story telling.
If that’s all it takes for you, you might like the remake of
Pete’s Dragon. I hear they wrote the end first.
Monker wrote:Ah, well, I essentially quoted the first Avenger's movie. So, you must be in some other universe.
Don’t worry, Homer, the context is dead center and wearing a top hat. Your attempts to rebut/refute always reveal a straw man. The fact remains that if the scene had been revised to de-nerf Iron Man, he’d have neutralized them both with any given combination of stun-based weapons at his disposal. Steve’s in maximum condition, but he’s not indestructible. His duds aren't constructed of vibranium mesh like BP's are. (Bucky shot him up in
TWS, remember?)
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:I'll tell you exactly why Iron Man didn't use the full arsenal in his suit to take down two ground-based guys, shield or no shield: because they didn't WRITE it that way. I guess you're not smart enough to realize that. Otherwise Bucky would've lost that arm a lot sooner.
Wow.
Indeed. Go review
Iron Man, Iron Man 2 and both
Avengers, etc. Reacquaint yourself with everything he’s capable of.
Monker wrote:I thought it was possible for CA to die, but never Bucky. However, I do like this ending better. The Avengers are no more and is basically operating the same as SHIELD. Coulson even implied that fact in the last SHIELD episode. But, whatever, you are just critiquing to critique...and that's fine.
That's one hand I won't bet on. Tony put Ross on hold and didn’t take one look at the contents of Steve’s parcel and toss it in the bin. That means Steve’s already over it, and Tony’s getting over it. Don’t be surprised if the next Avengers movie opens with them all meeting at Starbucks to hash things out over a round of soy lattes on Tony.

Monker wrote:Yeah, so? I never said, or thought, he would.
“Yeah, so” War Machine is lying inert on the ground, with Tony hunched over him with
that look on his face. It was obvious something heavy’d just gone down. You thought they were doing Iron Yoga?
Monker wrote:What 'died' is the Avengers as a group. But, of course, you don't recognize that.
Pssssh. Only until the beginning of
Infinity War, if that. Don’t be surprised if a post-scene in
Black Panther shows Tony, Steve, Sam and Rhodes (with an assist from Stark’s tech) doing the funky chicken. Stakes? What stakes?
Monker wrote:And, I also said that Marvel could now get by with it because the audience is invested in the phase one movies, or even phase two now. They don't need a to tell a bunch of backstory for CA or IM...the audience already knows and is invested in those characters. So, they can afford to introduce Black Panther - and do a good job of it. Or, use it as the launch for Spiderman - and they did a good job of that, too.
Batman needs less of an introduction than any of those characters. Wonder Woman’s movie is coming soon. (Why do I have to keep saying this?) JL cameos are exactly that. The movie’s objective was to present the
Trinity in action. Mission accomplished.
Monker wrote:DC failed at the very basics because there was not enough time to tell the story, and get the audience invested in all of these characters all at once. That is why BvS is so fucked up. And, it's not just me saying it...a lot people are. I just don't need some paid reviewer to tell me what plainly obvious. The last review that RWF posted is exactly my POV, and what I have been saying since BvS was announced.
WTF are you talking about? “Not enough time.” The ENTIRE movie = Superman and Batman and odds, with Wonder spice. There aren’t thirteen characters. Intro, flashback, present day. Luthor manipulates. Title bout. Warehouse smash-up. Doomsday. Denouement. What did you FAIL to understand in all of that?
Monker wrote:And, you are still a hypocrite if you praise Wonder Woman and critique Spiderman.
Firstly, I already proved you to be the real hypocrite here. For such a wannabe shill, go buy some Disney stocks already. Secondly, I don’t like the way Spider-Man was shoehorned into the movie because he deserves better — and because, more importantly, Black Panther stole the freakin’ show, anyway. The movie has a grip of characters. Spider-Man is Marvel’s Batman. They don’t need to put in any extra effort to sell him.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:You even said you read that Spider-Man had an entire half-hour devoted to him to set him up.
That is an absolute lie. I said his total screen time was about a half hour.
Same difference. That amount of time is what set him up for the MCU. Baby talk for you.

Monker wrote:I think it works perfectly the way it is and there is no need to remove Spiderman. I think most people would slap you for saying that...and call you a hypocrite for praising Wonder Woman.
Says the hypocrite.

“I can do this all day.”