So, we're all agreed this was better than Winter Soldier, right?

So, we're all agreed this was better than Winter Soldier, right?

absolutely not

Op wtf are u saying

What the fuck are YOU saying?

I enjoyed it more but I'd actually say winter soldier is the better movie objectively.

Nope

It was great but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Don't bother with positive Civil War threads, we've reached the point where Sup Forums says it's bad.

>objectively

How did Hawkeye get a new special made costume? He just came out of retirement.

>It was great

You're getting ahead of yourself.

He likes sleeves.

It was a 6/10. I enjoyed it, but Winter Soldier has yet to be topped.

You couldn't get anyone around here to agree on a pizza topping much less anything to do with company wars.

It's the best MCU movie yet for the next 5 months

No, I liked Winter soldier better.

Civil War wa entertaining but the plot was a mess at times and shit like Tony getting Peter didn’t feel well with the story and was unecessary.

Winter Soldier is still the best MCU movie out there.

Civil War was legit a poorly made film.

Winter Solider was a solid well paced tightly plotted movie

I kind of wonder what kind of person honestly thinks Civil War is better than Winter Solider is like in real life.

Nah, WS was better. CW was great but has not topped the GOAT comic film of the 2010's

I think it's just RDJfags. No one else could think that.

>GOAT comic film of the 2010's

That was Red not Winter Soldier. Unless you meant exclusively capeshit.

>it was great

Lol no.

Civil War was amazing but WS is much more of a coherent movie on it's own. With Civil War you have to know everything that happened in the previous Marvel movies aside from maybe Thor's to be able to get the most out of it.

>Civil War was legit a poorly made film.
[explanation not provided]

No, it did receive better reviews though than WS. Though this is probably because critics wanted to make a statement about BvS.

Don't bring BvS into this. Can't we have one simple thread without mention of the other company?

Yep. It's objectively better as well.

I think it ties with TWS and GotG for best MCU movie depending on what you want/expect from them.

Civil War was 50 times more ambitious than both the others in scope, and was put masterfully to screen. It was a harder movie to make, with a lot of 'impossible challenges' that it somehow managed to pull off.

But it's definitely missing the simplicity of TWS.

>we're all agreed
NEVER
>this was better than Winter Soldier
Hard call. Both movies had a lot of positives and very few negatives. Also you can't really put them side-by-side since Civil War was basically Winter Soldier II.

While CW juggled its expanded cast nicely, it still had that pace-breaking aside for Tony to recruit Peter. That would have been 100x better as an after-credit scene on Ant-Man instead of sticking it in the middle of Civil War. The only thing that bugged me at all in Winter Soldier, and this is an extremely small nitpick, is that one shot on the Lumerian Star where Cap is running toward the bow of the ship and runs in a door just aft of midship and then out a door just fore of it but the time he's out-of-view is about 1.5 seconds too short for the speed he was running. Everything else was perfect.

So I'll have to give this one to Winter Soldier by a slight margin.

No two people EVER agree 100% on pizza toppings. Not even the Buddy Bears.

Winter Soldier is better.

I know I am going to be hated for stating this (then again, I always loved that movie in the first place), but I actually Prefer Age of Ultron to Civil Wars.

I hate conflict that could be resolved by just listening to what the other had to say and it make the whole airport fight forced. Why I enjoyed Ant-Man and Spider man, it really felt like it was a a late addition to the script. It's the first actual time I actually felt like "Here is that new MCU character, go watch each next movie" was being slap in my face. It's really Strange, because the Russos had said they had writen Spidey in from the start and it felt like the complete opposite

All that could be glossed over, but what is more difficult to me is how it basically take Ant-man and basically void his own movie of its conclusion, where he had decided to be a more present father and live things straight. When in Jail in Civil War, it's like he don't even care his daughter see him again presented as a criminal and he now has to live on the run, cut again from her.

An other flaw is how the movie introduce itself about should we be watched over, at the risk that those watching us over get corrupt and abuse of our strength, or refuse to let us use it when we are in need, or she would remain independent, at the risk of becoming a threat ourself and risk that our subjectivity blind us from potential mistake? What make a defence force legit or not? Why is it not possible to help people in need when we have the power to? Interesting question that is sadly completely forgotten and ignored, to be replaced by the actual plot of the movie: I have to help my friend Bucky, no matter what. the initial question does not even get an allusion of answer or even a pertinent representation of both case.

(cont...)

No. I did like Civil War a lot, but Winter Soldier is still the best MCU movie for me.

I kinda wish we got a proper Cap movie to end his trilogy, Civil War really should've been an Avengers movie. It was a great Avengers movie, but it left me wanting when it comes to Captain America. Iron Man got a proper solo movie to end his trilogy, Cap should get one too.

(cont...)

Age of Ultron had the advantage to have a whole coherent script from start to finish, when everything in the story was incorporated smoothly and seemed like a natural progression of the chain of events.

And it shtick to its thematic till the end.

Additionally, it had an ending introducing a new generation of Avengers, hinting this would be the team for Phase 3, only to shatter that immediately in Civil Wars.

>MARVEL owes its movie review scores to DC
Holy paranoid schizophrenia, Batman!
They made their "statement" about BvS in their reviews for BvS. The reviews for CW were their statement on CW.
Saying "they just gave you a high score to make my low score look EVEN WORSE' is some amazingly childish bullshit, user.

>I kinda wish we got a proper Cap movie to end his trilogy, Civil War really should've been an Avengers movie. It was a great Avengers movie, but it left me wanting when it comes to Captain America. Iron Man got a proper solo movie to end his trilogy, Cap should get one too.

Agreed and this is part of why I can't really like Civil War as much as I wanted to. Just didn't feel right that Cap was more of a central figure than a main character in his own movie.

The modern Cap story is TWS - CW - IW. Basically it's the Russos' run on cap. It doesn't align with the movies numbering, but it's his basic arc, with Cap 1 being a prologue, more or less.

While it also rustles my jimmies that it doesn't match, I think that at least they are finally using the shared continuity to their advantage, which was the novel idea of the whole franchise in the first place. It's all still an experiment.


>Age of Ultron had the advantage to have a whole coherent script from start to finish, when everything in the story was incorporated smoothly and seemed like a natural progression of the chain of events.

I strongly disagree. But it does benefit of only having to tell one point of view, yet it doesn't feel twice as clear as to why characters are doing what they are doing. CW also suffers from this, but it's only for the less important characters.

Still, one thing that both AoU and CW did well was time managing so many characters. Each had their time to shine, for the most part (and disregarding actors who had had kids at the time of production), even if they aren't all equally as well written.

>yet it doesn't feel twice as clear as to why characters are doing what they are doing.
Every character's motivation in AoU made sense to me from start from finish. Noot a single time did I wonder "why is that dude doing that?". Each of their decision made sense and fitted their motivation in the context of what they knew and could do.

I never felt it was clear why Tony decided to create Vision or why the Twins had survived the experiments or why they suddenly were cool with joining Stark or why the Hulk stopped fighting Iron Man. . Ultron's schtick was never really explained outside the synopsis and interviews.

Not that it doesn't make sense, story-wise. But you have to get the whole story beat before you get it. It doesn't come from the dialogue or the acting as much. It only makes sense in the next scene, you know what I mean? In both TWS and CW I can feel those decisions coming from the characters more, so it's more fluid.

It helps that the Russos give distinct voices to their characters, whereas Whedon tens to make them all different flavours of Malcolm Reynolds and Wash. There's a disconnect between words and action that doesn't happen in Civil War. But the actions make sense, so it still isn't too bad of a movie.

I also don't hate AoU that much, but I feel that the tone was all over the place. Civil War managed to capitalize on that by making it more analytical about the previous movie.

OP here. Personally, I think that it is. It still manages to juggle all of these characters and still manage to focus on Captain America and his friendship with Bucky. I loved Zemo as a villain because he wasn't a god or an all-knowing AI, he was just a normal man with nothing to lose, I thought it was a nice change of pace in that respect. The characters and their motivations were clear from both sides and I thought it was good to sympathize with both sides of the conflict. The Russo Brothers maintain a high sense of intrigue carried on from The Winter Soldier, as well the action too, which was fantastic. If I did have one gripe however, it would be the soundtrack, and even then, this is just a small nitpick, but I would've liked to have heard Cap's theme from Winter Soldier in the movie somewhere.

>. Ultron's schtick was never really explained outside the synopsis and interviews.
forgot to come back to edit this part.
It was never very clear why Ultron was Tony 2.0, even though it was clear that he was. It's never stated in the movie. That sort of thing.

TWS is a nice clean dive into a swimming pool with no splash, and CW was a bunch of flips and twists with some minor splashing. GotG is a cannon ball.

It comes down to what you expect from it and what your mood is at the time.

I enjoyed both, but I feel that Winter Soldier was a more tightly wrapped film overall.

Civil War broke up the new Avengers before they even got off the ground.

>tfw no Vision and Wanda buddy movie

Yes, I agree. It's the best since Winter Soldier.

>With Civil War you have to know everything that happened in the previous Marvel movies aside from maybe Thor's to be able to get the most out of it.

Is this a negative? Honestly, one of the reasons Civil War is my favourite is because it rewards me for seeing the other movies. This universe is now 13 movies long and 8 years old; it is reasonable to expect the audience to be up to speed.

>It was never very clear why Ultron was Tony 2.0, even though it was clear that he was. It's never stated in the movie. That sort of thing.
Uh? It's very clear; Tony designed Ultron, therefore he got a bit of its personality. it does not need to be explained more.

Then again, I have seen many with this question, so I wonder why it's so obvious to me, but not to other.

>I never felt it was clear why Tony decided to create Vision
Tony and Scarlet Witch almost spell it out. Ultron being a failure mean he still hasn't managed to make something to protect the earth. You see even just after the break out he actually doesn't want to admit what he was doing is wrong and was necessary. He saw the specs of Vision, found out Jarvis itself had almost managed to become what he was trying to do and was damn sure he wouldn't have skipped that unique opportunity.

>or why the Twins had survived the experiments
REVENGE!

>or why they suddenly were cool with joining Stark
Because they had just learned Ultron's intend was not to destroy the Avenger, but to create an extinction event on an earth scale. They actually even weren't cool with Stark, but with Cap. The first thing she ask when they join the Avengers is to stop Tony. After Vision turned out to be a success, it was either Join the Avengers, or let Ultron destroy the world, partially because of them.

>or why the Hulk stopped fighting Iron Man.
Scarlet Witch's power was cooling down and he actually got a glimpse of the damage he had down, you can see him geting filled with remors when he saw the face of those he had almost killed, this was enough to make him stop (and, supposition, it diminished his anger enough a sucker punch from an armor he and Tony designed precisely to top theHulk actually worked).

>Ultron's schtick was never really explained outside the synopsis and interviews.
Ultron's shtic has been spelled out several time througout the whole movie and is quite clear: he want to create an extinction event that would force humanity to evolve and become stronger, while he would lead the way in the perfect Vision body. When vision was stolen from him, he kinda switched to Revenge. It was quite clear to me and didn't need anything outside of the movie to get this.

Wasn't any of this obvious?

That's what I mean. Their actions make sense on paper, but they only connect after the fact. I get that they say why, but up until creating Vision Tony seemed kind of regretful of creating Ultron. Yet it makes sense that he wouldn't be, but we're never really shown. Fury tells him that it's not his fault, but he never shows that he accepts it until he actually makes Vision. It's like there's lag between what the characters experience and what they say.

I get why all the examples I said happened, I'm just saying that some of them are never explicitly stated, which is okay for hidden meaning in film in some things, but shouldn't be okay in foreground story, especially when they are spending time making jokes all over the place. I can't really explain it, it just sort of feels more sloppy than CW.

>Ultron's schtick was never really explained outside the synopsis and interviews.
I rewrote that here I know that too, but that was explained before the movie in interviews and trailers. The movie never really makes much of an effort to tell you besides showing pictures of Tony first when he's acquiring data. It's not that it isn't explained, but it's explained too quickly for how big of a plot point it is. I think it's sloppy editing, although it's still technically there.

Again, I don't think it's that bad, I actually preferred it on a structural level to the first Avengers, but the dialogue/acting/plot feels more disconnected than CW. Maybe the lack of quiet time that they had. I think the Johannesburg and Seoul bits could've been merged in writing and the farm scene should've been extended to let the characters breathe and regroup properly. CW benefited from having that meeting where everyone exposes their point of view and the scenes immediately after Bucky is captured by the UN.

Winter Soldier founded the Stucky ship.

Civil War only reinforced it and made it worse. And it helped found #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend

In my opinion, Civil War was worse if only because of the repurcussions it brought.

>Still, one thing that both AoU and CW did well was time managing so many characters.
This is something I wish the X-Men movies did better. They throw a lot of characters into them, but most of them are glorified cameos or exist only to show off their powers and have no real story.

CW did a surprisingly good job of giving everyone a little bit of story, even if the sheer number of character subplots made it hard to properly balance them, but at least it felt like everyone had a part in it beyond showing off their powers.

With X-Men, it can be the opposite- one or two characters are handled really well (almost always Xavier and Magneto, especially in the last 3 movies) but everyone else suffers by becoming window dressing.

The biggest problem with X-Men is that the only thing about the X-Men that Singer has been around of in the last 15 years were his own movies.

He keeps repeating shit like that and delaying everything. First Class, DoFP and Apocalypse were all chances of starting anew, yet they still only have the ""team"" at the end of the THIRD fucking movie. Heck, we still haven't had a full on blue Beast, a bald Xavier and a leading Cyclops for a movie. And there's been 3.

>"Next time guise, I promise!!"

Watch the next one start with some shitty excuse as to why cykes is back at the regular glasses and Jean hasn't managed to use the Phoenix since the last time.

Enough is enough. People got tired of it. DoFP was their Avengers peak, and everything from now on will be restricted to the actors contracts that are all expiring. And after you lose Mags/Xavier, you lose it all.

Their only chance now is Deadpool 2, Wolverine 3, and New Mutants. And drop Singer already, goddamn.

Singer should do fine with a Flash movie: no team flash bullshit, just 4 or 5 main characters, good creativity for speed-related scenes, and he's probably as colourful as a Snyder-approved director would get.

Even when they have the team, the X-Men movies rarely feel like an actual team movie. They're either a Wolverine movie that also happens to have these other guys in it, or they're an Xavier/Magneto movie that also happens to have these other guys in it. Even in the movies where everyone has a role (however minor) it never feels like they're a proper team, the team dynamic is never really explored and the fact that they're a team it all is usually irrelevant. The title says "X-Men" but we're almost always in a situation where one of them is the star and of the remainder, only 2 or at best 3 even really matter.

> Or why the twins had survived the experiments.

Not revenge. Alot of emphasis on will-power which funnily enough a key element of using Chaos Magic.

It was Winter Soldier Part 2 but with some Avengers thrown in, so I guess yeah, that makes it better.

What I (the guy who said it wasn't that explicit) took from it was that Strucker used the mind gem on the twins to 'reinforce' their minds while he performed the experiments on them. They only survived because they already had strong minds to begin with (by being traumatized as kids).

That or Strucker used the stone on himself (Cho and Selvig seemed to get much more intelligent when under it's control) and then performed experiments on the twins that only survived because they had already been traumatized.

That's also what I meant by 'not clear'. It's not that they create plot holes, but they skip a bunch of information to leave you guessing, which they shouldn't in the case of such relevant things to the main plot.

It didn't detract from the movie, but it's something CW doesn't do as much, and that TWS doesn't do at all (although that one was simple).

I feel the same way. CW was a greater achievement, but I think TWS was still a better standalone film. More coherent and had more room to do what it needed with its characters.

I liked it better tha WS, yes, but you are a faggot for wanting everybody to agree with you. Go fuck yourself.

Yeah. I feel that CW basically capitalizes on the whole shared universe as well as the first Avengers movie.

It's the reason why having a shared universe can be put to good use. Its faults as a standalone movie are kind of mute, because it's not a standalone movie. It's a season finale of a multi-billion dollar serial.

But TWS is just sleek and to the point, and only features 8 or 9 relevant characters, almost, so it breathes a lot more.

There's a way of describing it in computer science: Say it's like asking for the best way of going from New York to LA, without specifying what 'best' means. It can mean cost-efficient, time-efficient, or most beautiful path or whatever.

But unless path A is better across the board than path B, then A is not strictly better than B, because "better" can mean any weighted combination of the characteristics, specifically it can just mean the only characteristic where A is not better than B. When a path is better across the board than another, we call it 'dominating' and disregard the dominated path altogether.

To me, TWS, GotG and CW are the non-dominated points in the MCU because each of them is better than the others in some ways, but not in ALL ways, and thus can't not be called 'better' than each other or even remotely rank-able by a 'betterness' metric.

It's all a moot point anyway, if you like the movie, it shouldn't matter.

TWS was better but CW was a lot more enjoyable. Also cemented Iron Man for me as the best MCU character.

Haha, I seriously doubt that is the case, user. Be ready for the storm.

Sure.

Alot of that might depend on what the mystic lore is like in Doctor Strange and on just who Mads' character is possessed by.

Given what Joe Russo has said about Wanda (potential saviour of the universe and her power being far deeper than anyone knows). I think her power being the accidental result of a lucky experiment is very unlikely.

CW was crap.

I get the feeling that they are giving her powers closer to power cosmic than magic. Especially coming form an infinity gem.

Although Olsen has talked in a podcast about how marvel managed to put Chiwetel and Tilda together in the same schedule, so maybe they'll have her at least come to them? Maybe to be told that they have no clue what she has?

I don't know, MCU Wanda is somehow weirder and less weird than comics Wanda.

Not really.

No fuck off

Positive discussion was already had, now it's just drones from other franchises trying to make a dent on it.

I do think they leave threads in Marvel movies which they then have the option of picking up later.

Another way think of it is this way...

Power, Mind, Soul, Reality, Time, Space.

But what existed before them? What would NOT form into a stone?

Chaos, perhaps?

Maybe it was chaos that created the infinity stones?

Vision says about humans thinking "order and chaos are opposites", which to me implies he is order (logic) and she is chaos (emotion), You can read the plot of AoU as Wanda breaks the order of things, then Vision creates a new order).

Theory: Vision plays the Adam Warlock role and subverts Thanos from within the gauntlet, sustained by Wanda. Strange tricks Thanos into thinking he has killed Wanda (he does exactly this in the comics btw) thus Thanos thinks he has won.
There's a whole angle of psychology they could play with Thanos there which would be faithful to the comics.

MCU Wanda, due to the total loss of her old life (in contrast to Cap clinging to his), seems pretty keen to embrace her new self. That's hugely different from comics Wanda who has little ambition.

No

Winter Soldier had a smaller cast, allowing a tighter focus.

Civil War was good but introduced characters that while important to setting up future films and the universe were superfluous to the story.

CW was pretty good especially considering the bloated cast.

Its amazing they managed to handle that many characters, especially given those characters only really appear in the first two acts.

Marcus and McFeely make each scene count; there's no waste, they get as much out of every scene as they can and the cast all do that too, resulting in everyone having good arcs.

No, but it's a close second, and i'm glad this happened instead of Cap 3 because it's, by far, the best Avengers movie, it helped move forward with a lot of characters, and it proved that the Russos, Marcus and McFeely can handle team-up movies without a problem.
It made me feel relaxed about Infinity War.

>I wonder why it's so obvious to me, but not to other.
Because you're overlooking several details.
1. Tony shows the holographic representation of J.A.R.V.I.S and then the holographic representation of the AI in the scepter for comparison. There is never a third "under construction" AI visualized, and it is the visualization of the Scepter AI that attacks the visualization of J.A.R.V.I.S
2. Ultron's first words are to ask where his body is, and where J.A.R.V.I.S.'s body is, to which J.A.R.V.I.S. replies that he is an AI and has never possessed a body. The fact that this makes Ultron very uncomfortable strongly hints that Ultron has had a body previously
3. When Thor comes in after having a dip in the magical waters of foresight, he states that everything that's happened, including Ultron, "came from the Mindstone".

All of this points to Ultron actually being the AI that was already in the Mindstone and not anything that Tony created. Tony only created an interface by which that AI could connect to terran computer systems. The AI then used that interface (after waiting for Stark and Banner to leave the room) to escape the Mindstone.

Seen from this perspective, Ultron having bits of Tony's personality makes no sense. But seen from the "Tony programmed Ultron" perspective, none of the above makes sense.

That's what you get by speding 6 years of your carreer managing the cast of AD and Community (11 and 9 main cast members if you count Dean + Chang + Oscar + Franklin).

I have a hard time imagining what a Cap 3 would be without retreading Cap 2. Zemo preparing vengeance on Cap for some reason other than Sokovia? More conspiracy?

This brought variety to both Cap's stories and the MCU as a whol.

Kill yourself. Apocalypse is a six.

Reminder that Scarlet Witch did nothing wrong.

where is scarlet witch

>2016
>still watching movie adaptions of comics

It's a concept art.
I think when the planning for the movie began, they wanted to keep the more presence that Agent 13 had in the original Cap 3 movie, but they changed her to Scarlet Witch for obvious reasons.

Agent 13's powers is that she's Black Widow but less russian and therefore less interesting

Was it ever confirmed/denied if MCU Obadiah was with Hydra?

I really hate how everything in the MCU has to be tied together by coincidences. Let something just be new.

litlerally what is even
hawkeye's character or ability? he shoots arrows well? is that literally it

The kid mid-eastern kid whose Tony saved mid IM1should reapear as a young adult tp remind Tony about all the good shit he does in spite of his fuck ups so he stops fucking up even more with his goddamn guilt complex.

Superhuman spatial accuracy.

Remember, he shot 18 on a golf course, which is one-holing even the 4 shot holes.

it wasn't crap but it certainly doesn't deserve the RT ratings it's getting, especially not compared to apocalypse. cw being rated vastly higher than apocalypse doesn't make any sense at all

still, all he does in the movies is shoot arrows well like some prancing cuckboy playing robin hood

My main issue with CW is that the argument over signing and its implications is dropped an hour into the movie. After the bombing Tony tries to get Steve to sign once again, but that's it. The movie could have happened if Zemo did about anything else to frame Bucky.

It's unfortunate that film critics aren't dedicated X-Men fanboys, and just judge films reasonably objectively.
A lot of them are Superman or Batfags, but WB is going all-out trying to cure them of it.

Stay mad.

Here's a second (you), that's all I can give your shitposting.

i mean really why doesn't tony build him a handheld railgun or something if he's so accurate

he's also the best pilot they have

Hawkeye is the shit. He is like specials forces but with trick arrows.

i'm not even an xmen or comic nerd, i just saw both and apocalypse was more enjoyable to me. cw felt kind of empty

Yes. He shot down the Heli-Carrier with one of those.

Because Singer doesn't make any effort in making the characters be loved, that's what people like of the MCU and why they liked the Quicksilver scene so much, the likeable characters.
Otherwise, they don't put much effort into that.
Plus it's obvious they had absolutely no idea of what to do regarding the plot and just covered holes with overly long action scenes.

Yes but because mah girl was in it.

Civil War was mediocre. Winter Soldier was good.