|
Jenny Angel posted:It's a little more complicated than this! I agree that the movie defaults to the personal because it's hopelessly out of its depth in terms of anything resembling policy, but that's not to say that it ditches the political wholesale - in fact, it makes some surprisingly good-faith efforts to bridge that gap through visual language. In a Marvel movie, of all things! I'm talking about the location cards on the establishing shots here - they're huge, they're sterile, they're occlusive of the landscapes behind them, they evoke the imagery of oversaturated, interchangeable poster design that flattens visual identities. YOU DON'T GET TO 500 MILLION FRIENDS WITHOUT LAGOS - PRESENT DAY and so on. The effect is to render the huge range of locations anonymous and interchangeable, such that who gives a poo poo if we're currently in CLEVELAND specifically, what matters is that the personal is becoming the political by infecting another city I think I've felt this about the MCU for a while but never knew how to put this into words. I don't even remember where the Iron Man movies were set, LA?
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:And that's not Tony's fault. "The world's narrative hates you and everything you do with the fury of a thousand suns" is not an issue you can hold against the person in question. It's a problem everyone seemingly wants to enable, rather than resolve. Everyone in these movies sucks up to the boss and that seems nuts to me. This is a movie at least in part about worshipping a heroic genius who takes power little by little in secret, yet that doesn't get knocked as Randian. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 20:49 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
The only characters you can make a case for doing that are Vision, Rhodey, and Ross, and the first two have attacked Tony at some point, while the third one gives him deadlines and makes ultimatums. Edit - oh and Peter, who is figuratively on the first day of the job. Nodosaur fucked around with this message at 20:51 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:It's not that long ago he made Ultron. Tony is also dangerous, sure. Considering his position it's not feasible to imprison him, and he's probably bribing the people who would make that decision anyway so they don't want to either.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think I've felt this about the MCU for a while but never knew how to put this into words. I don't even remember where the Iron Man movies were set, LA? Well they're shot in Georgia to look like Not-Georgia
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Still not sure what the hell Ant-Man and Spider-Man were doing in this fight that neither of them had any stakes in. They had fun moments but they were pretty much useless to the plot; all they really did was inconvenience the other side of the fight for a bit.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Still not sure what the hell Ant-Man and Spider-Man were doing in this fight that neither of them had any stakes in. They had fun moments but they were pretty much useless to the plot; all they really did was inconvenience the other side of the fight for a bit. I think they could've done more to give Ant-Man actual motivations (although I liked the "you'll be outside the law" "yea what else is new") but I liked that they gave Spidey lines that indicated he was indoctrinated by Stark. Otherwise I don't mind every single person not having stakes in a fight, you don't need soldiers or henchmen in fights to have proper motivations.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Oh, we're talking about the book version of Jurassic Park? Yeah, I'm not interested in what a guy who invalidates his own premise at the end of his second novel by saying "science is always changing, don't listen to Ian Malcolm, his words have no meaning to us everyday folks" has to say about the ethics of progress. i'm not using either the film or novel as an example narrowly, but both are rather succinct ideological critiques of utilitarian rationalism, global capitalism, and scientism. whether or not science changes or malcolm is epistemologically infallible doesn't really enter into it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Cavelcade posted:They want to fight each other because one side wants to get to an airplane and the other side wants to stop them (and also apprehend Bucky). It's easy to explain straightforward motivations. Batman wants to fight Superman because he sees him as a version of himself with the powers of a god and he knows what he would do with them. Superman doesn't want to fight Batman, though he does want him to stop. Even when he should have a reason to, he doesn't want to. In the end he only fights to protect himself. I didn't mean motivations as a group. I meant why each character picks the side they pick and why some of their allegiances change as the goals of each side change and come into conflict with their own motivations. Most of their motivations are simple, but they stay consistent, and they're worn on the characters' sleeves, and it gives the film a solid grounding considering how overstuffed it is. SunAndSpring posted:Still not sure what the hell Ant-Man and Spider-Man were doing in this fight that neither of them had any stakes in. They had fun moments but they were pretty much useless to the plot; all they really did was inconvenience the other side of the fight for a bit. Ant-Man is star-struck, and Spider-Man wants to impress his new patron.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:i'm not using either the film or novel as an example narrowly, but both are rather succinct ideological critiques of utilitarian rationalism, global capitalism, and scientism. whether or not science changes or malcolm is epistemologically infallible doesn't really enter into it. The thesis statement at the end of Chricton's duology renders all of the stuff Chrichton says about chaos theory and the responsible application of science moot, where a more worldly man tells some kids that since we didn't know we were made of atoms a hundred years ago, we shouldn't hold any stock in whatever Ian Malcolm, effectively the voice of the series' themes, is saying. What science and society "knows" will change, drat people with this facts and ideas about things, just live your life and everything will be okay.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:The thesis statement at the end of Chricton's duology renders all of the stuff Chrichton says about chaos theory and the responsible application of science moot, where a more worldly man tells some kids that since we didn't know we were made of atoms a hundred years ago, we shouldn't hold any stock in whatever Ian Malcolm, effectively the voice of the series' themes, is saying. What science and society "knows" will change, drat people with this facts and ideas about things, just live your life and everything will be okay. good thing the movie we got out of it involves malcolm finally being validated by his worst enemies but just sleeping through it. The Lost World is a really funny movie and good.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Policy has a face. Abstract decisions about UN jurisdiction and the like trickle down to effects on people, and shaping the world people grow up in and the values that they hold. And the politicians who make these decisions are also individuals who have been shaped in turn. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:good thing the movie we got out of it involves malcolm finally being validated by his worst enemies but just sleeping through it. The Lost World is a really funny movie and good. You mean the one where the evil Walt Disney character Chrichton created is turned into a well meaning naturalist trying to prevent the abuse of the artificial ecological preserve full of man-eating monsters? That one?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I didn't mean motivations as a group. I meant why each character picks the side they pick and why some of their allegiances change as the goals of each side change and come into conflict with their own motivations. Most of their motivations are simple, but they stay consistent, and they're worn on the characters' sleeves, and it gives the film a solid grounding considering how overstuffed it is. Sure, but you directly contrasted this with BvS. In CW the motivations were there to drive the conflict, which is what the movie is interested in exploring. In BvS the motivations of the characters are what the movie is largely interested in exploring. They weren't using it for the same end, either within the story or the commentary they were going for, though it's fine to say that the end they were going for didn't resonate for you. For me, the motivations of the characters were too shallow to be particularly interesting, which is a shame because the end of the comic arc it's based on resonated with me strongly because in the end, Cap surrenders because his motivation for starting the civil war conflicted with his motivation for being a hero. In this one, there's no matching internal civil war for the characters, other than Black Widow.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:You mean the one where the evil Walt Disney character Chrichton created is turned into a well meaning naturalist trying to prevent the abuse of the artificial ecological preserve full of man-eating monsters? That one? yeah, it's wicked funny.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Captain America : Civil War can be seen as a allegory for gun control and government's using false flag operations to institute gun control. The Sokova accords may as well be a bill to limit the use of gun control, Bucky is used as a scape goat for a false flag operation, and Iron Man is a techno futurist liberal who believes the guns need to be taken away. Captain America stands up for no registry because he embodies the 2nd amendment.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Wanda's house arrest is not just about public perception or "scaring people". She's considered actually dangerous, and for good reason really. She's no more inherently dangerous than any of the other Avengers. Her powers don't just randomly go off and suddenly the world has no Twinkies after she read the ingredients and was repulsed. Black Widow seems far more likely to beat the poo poo out of some random person on the street than Wanda does, and Bruce Banner is a walking rage bomb one flaming rear end in a top hat on the street away from turning into an avatar of destruction. poo poo, Tony Stark will actively gently caress with you outside his Iron Man persona simply because it amuses him. The danger of Wanda Maximoff is that she doesn't have quite as much control over the limits of her powers as she thinks. Ultron is a chaos effect of loving with Tony, and the Lagos bomb is the result of her thinking she could control the suicide bomb for longer than she could. Walking around a supermarket or a mall poses no danger. PostNouveau posted:Ant-Man is star-struck, and Spider-Man wants to impress his new patron. Ant-Man also comes to the conflict with the anti-Stark bias of Pym, the guy who gave him a second chance and whose daughter he's dating(?), firmly in hand. Meanwhile Peter is a super genius inventor kid being recruited by the patron saint of super genius inventors.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Cavelcade posted:Sure, but you directly contrasted this with BvS. In CW the motivations were there to drive the conflict, which is what the movie is interested in exploring. In BvS the motivations of the characters are what the movie is largely interested in exploring. They weren't using it for the same end, either within the story or the commentary they were going for, though it's fine to say that the end they were going for didn't resonate for you. Ah, I see your point, although I don't think BvS had as much interest in exploring its characters inner lives as you think. And there's more internal conflict in Civil War, particularly with Cap, Stark, Black Panther and Wanda, than you give it credit for. But you're right they are fundamentally different movies despite both being about slamming action figures together.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Ah, I see your point, although I don't think BvS had as much interest in exploring its characters inner lives as you think. And there's more internal conflict in Civil War, particularly with Cap, Stark, Black Panther and Wanda, than you give it credit for. But you're right they are fundamentally different movies despite both being about slamming action figures together. Yeah, I'm being a uncharitable to it. There's more internally going on than I said. I'm just mad at Bucky for going under when he should be getting therapy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:yeah, it's wicked funny. Yes, the swelling emotional score that plays at the movie's conclusion as the Tyrannosaurs teach their child to hunt is hilarious. What biting satire. TLW's film is very friendly to rich people who meant well but made mistakes along the way:
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I just saw someone on another forum describe Civil War as the anti-manpain film, in that it both offers and refuses the Batman Trope. In other words, Civil War the film sides with those who are moving past grief or dealing with pain in responsible ways, and against those whose grief perpetuates the cycle of violence. I really like and agree with this analysis.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:She's no more inherently dangerous than any of the other Avengers. Her powers don't just randomly go off and suddenly the world has no Twinkies after she read the ingredients and was repulsed. How do you know that? And more importantly, how is anyone in the movie supposed to know that?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Cavelcade posted:Yeah, I'm being a uncharitable to it. There's more internally going on than I said. I'm just mad at Bucky for going under when he should be getting therapy. Despite him being the lynchpin of two of the best Marvel movies, I'm loving sick of Bucky. Wakanda's a technologically advanced state that would probably have people who could at least take a shot at deprogramming him, but I'm fine if they just put him on ice indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
I think Rumlow's bomb would have killed far more people had Wanda let it detonate in the middle of the marketplace.PostNouveau posted:Despite him being the lynchpin of two of the best Marvel movies, I'm loving sick of Bucky. Wakanda's a technologically advanced state that would probably have people who could at least take a shot at deprogramming him, but I'm fine if they just put him on ice indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I think Rumlow's bomb would have killed far more people had Wanda let it detonate in the middle of the marketplace. This is probably true, but I think it's fair for T'chaka to call them out on the fact that she ultimately traded Wakandan lives for Lagosian ones (and Cap's).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:This is probably true, but I think it's fair for T'chaka to call them out on the fact that she ultimately traded Wakandan lives for Lagosian ones (and Cap's).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
I think a few people here are confusing character flaws with movie flaws. Of course Wanda is not inherently dangerous. We know that, because we're omniscient bystanders. To the in-universe world, she's a powerful meta-human who just caused the death's of a couple of dozen people, and who they really know nothing about. It's completely rational for Ross and the general public to be scared of her. They didn't see the circumstances of the bombing like we did. And they don't know the limits of her powers, because neither does she.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I feel that Ross may have used Alfre Woodard's character as a tool to persuade Stark to consider signing the accords. It's not stated outright, but she says she works for the State Department, he's the Secretary of State, and we know he has a thing against at least the Hulk. I don't think it'd be difficult for him to use the resources at his disposal to find out if any State Dept. employees lost family in the incidents and then get one to volunteer to confront Stark.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Wanda's scary powers are definitely part of the catalyst, but I think it's the unilateral proactiveness and lack of international supervision that folks like Ross and T'Chaka are taking the most issue with. In their minds, that translates directly to "irresponsibility," which is the direct cause (as far as they are concerned) for the casualties and consequences. Even if Wanda hadn't been there, Rumlow still may have taunted Cap about Bucky and then gotten the suicide bomb off.
BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:It's totally unfair because Wanda did her absolute best to protect lives. I don't think anyone in the film is questioning that she was doing her best. The fact remains that she put people in the embassy in harms way in an effort to save others. Of course this is going to raise questions about how these Avengers operations are being run, and whether supervision can help prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Yes, the swelling emotional score that plays at the movie's conclusion as the Tyrannosaurs teach their child to hunt is hilarious. What biting satire. you have to remember that in addition to functioning as a satire of neoliberal scientism, the movies function equally as satire of masculinity, intrinsically pointing up the fallacy of patriarchy. malcolm is not supposed to only be this, like, prophet of god telling it like it is to 'the Man.' it's deeply written into his character that this is partly about libido for him: his perpetual leather jacket, sunglasses, and slick hair; his insistence that science is "penetrative" and what hammond is doing is "the rape of nature"; his flirting with dr. sattler; his multiple failed marriages; the idea that, because he's a mathematician, he's dealing with something 'real' while all grant does is speculate, etc. now, combine this with the fact that the premise of the 'mad science' behind jurassic park is a reversal of Adam's rib - as dr. wu says, all invertebrae are implicitly female and only become male because of 'hormones' and cultural constructs. when malcolm is having his bemusing monologue about 'man killing god and dinosaurs killing man' or whatever, it's sattler who mocks him for completely excluding women from the paradigm of 'man vs. nature.' because nature takes the place of marginalized, demonized femininity in jurassic park. life finds a way, but only because masculinity is meaningless - it springs forth spontaneously from this foreign, monstrous feminine. the lost world is compromised because it's largely a retread of the first film's 'family in crisis' motif, but it has the added benefit of occurring largely from malcolm's own perspective, and thus takes on this Bringing Up Baby quality, except with a T. rex instead of a leopard. malcolm begins the movie 'yawning' because he's sleepless, and ends the movie getting the best sleep of his life next to his girlfriend and daughter. the point is that hammond has completely co-opted his and grant's jive from the last movie, and all that's left for him to due is accept that while what hammond did to him was terrible, 'exterminating' the other victims - the monsters themselves - will not restore the life which he was always neglecting anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
That word filter rly throwing me off
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I hadn't seen any of these in a while and definitely had a "whoa there, Steve" moment because I couldn't remember whether Tony had solved his heart issue. Sounds like somebody didn't watch the Chinese release of the Iron Man 3 with a half hour subplot about how Iron Man loves China and Chinese doctors are the best and their medical science is the only thing that can save Tony Stark oh God please let us into the Chinese market we want all your money so badly 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
To be fair, Wanda is probably one of the most powerful individuals in the MCU currently. I don't think we even know the full extent of her powers yet
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Maybe I missed something obvious, but how did Cap know Tony's parents were killed by Bucky?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
To answer the Hawkeye question, he's back at work instead of Retired To A Log Cabin With His Wife And 2.5 Kids because they never existed. You will not see them again. They were a half-hearted hand wave from Joss Whedon to explain why he and Black Widow can't be a thing because Black Widow is totally free to pursue this shoehorned romance with Bruce Banner which makes Age of Ultron twice as dumb as it already is. Also, why wouldn't people clap during movies? They're in a theater.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
GarudaPrime posted:Maybe I missed something obvious, but how did Cap know Tony's parents were killed by Bucky? Zola all but stated so in The Winter Soldier.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
GarudaPrime posted:Maybe I missed something obvious, but how did Cap know Tony's parents were killed by Bucky? Winter Soldier. Zola said Hydra killed the Starks, and given the movie that means it was Bucky who did the job.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it would be a lot harder to influence a stable, grounded scientist working with peers as equals into building a genocide bot than it was to do it to Tony Stark. Since I like contrasting the film with the comic, the role of Vision is played by Stark/Reed's bio-cyborg clone of Thor in the comics. The first time it's deployed, it kills Goliath. Tony and Reed basically play the role of Dr. Doom in the comic 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Just got done watching. Absolutely loved the movie. I skimmed the thread but a few thoughts I wanted to toss out: I am 1,000% on board with Spider-Man Millenial Edition. The idea of Peter Parker as a YouTube celebrity sounds incredible. Also on board with Aunt "so-hot-that-it-needs-to-be-addressed" May. Who was the terrorist guy in the opening sequence? Does he have a comic analogue? I thought Deadshot but that can't be right. My only real quibbles were that like Ultron CW suffers structurally in that there's a bunch of moving parts to set up other movies, but I think they've mostly ironed that out with engaging characters and dialogue. The end revelation seemed a little deus ex machina but I'm cool with it. Edit: oh so it was in winter soldier? Kinda makes sense then.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:37
|
|