By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 29 May 2016
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:
method114 said:

This isn't true at all. The dilemma between both sides is very understandable and believeable in civil war. In bvs it's poorly written and makes batman and superman look like children. Seriously at one point batman is chasing down criminals and superman stops him just to have a talk and doesn't even help stop the bad guys made no sense at all. Batman vs superman also had two major story lines going in that movie and tried to cram them into one movie jus because. Civil war didn't try to do that and focused on one story line. I actually prefer the dark tone of the DC universe but his movie was just not well done. People like you keep coming out and trying to defend it there is a reason your in the minority. There is no double standard. Next time DC should focus on one story Line at a time and make them believable. Like superman should have bee introduced to red kryptonite and gone rogue that would have made bvs believable but it would have take more time introducing it and it would have taken away from the doomsday story they wanted to cram into the end of the movie. Something that should have been its own movie. You don't cram the death of superman into a batman vs superman movie.

The dilema maybe believeable but its execution is far from it and in some cases more outlandish than in BVS, if people like me are defending BVS in your own words then people like you are guilty of double standards. CW focused on one storyline and came out with the same flaws as BVS and the latter had 40 or so minutes cut from its cinema release for a director's cut mind you.

Case point, people said outside of Batman and Superman that Wonder Woman really had no business in the movie yet Spiderman in CW is the most shoehorned character between the movies but its fine in the eyes of your camp, the villain in CW was basically a cameo appearance through out with only 5 minutes dedicated to explaining his motive, he's one of the most insignificant villains I've watched in any comic book movie and is porbably the worst. He essentially was a weak plot device to get the heroes to fight, well that and Captain America going off his rocker at the mention and sight of Bucky and your camp complain about the lack of fleshing out the story in BVS not to mention the villain's plan was so face/palm worthy and silly it's laughable. They focused on one storyline and ended up making one of the most significant sagas in the Marvel comics history end up being a watered down mess that in end seemed inconsequencial which is ironic as the whole fiasco was built on the consequence of their actions, the storyline by default was already in trouble due to the license conflict between Marvel and Fox. The film is essentially just an excuse to have heroes fight rather than the actual storyline and event it's based off.

As I said it's not a bad film but it's no different to its counterpart as it also shares the same flaws don't give a shit if that hurts the feelings of any fan here yourself included as I don't have a preference between these companies, both films are practically the same to me in their flaws.

*Spolers* First off, I'm not sure exactly what the licensing conflict with Fox has to do with anything... Deadpool wasn't in Civil War, X-Men had a brief cameo where they basically said fuck off (which was a ridiculous thing for the X-Men to do but then there were only like two xmen at that point).  The only Fox characters that had anything to do with Civil war are the Fantastic Four, and even they weren't a big part of it.  Reed Richards' role is redundant with Iron Man's, and the whole point of Sue being there is to be like OH SHIT EVEN THE FANTASTIC FOUR ARE FIGHTING EACHOTHER! THIS IS SUPER SERIOUS YOU GUYS!  Johnny spends the whole time in a coma while Ben peaces out.     

That's not to mention that Civil War was a kind of terrible story in general with all parties acting way out of character for the sole purpose of poking and prodding eachother into battle.  The whole point of the story is for Millar to make a statement about Bush era politics, with Iron Man playing the super villain.  *Spoilers* cloning Thor, releasing brainwashed superheroes into battle, locking people in an alternate dimension with no due process... Shitty story that made comics unreadable basically till Hickman started on Avengers and remembered that super heroes are supposed to do heroic things now and then, and actually showed heroes dealing with moral dilemmas that weren't so forced.

Moving beyond the civil war comic books, people are not criticising Batman Superman more because of double standards.  Both movies are bound to have similar flaws, because they're both action movies, both superhero movies, and are also both movies where superheroes battle eachothers.  The flaws you'd point out in either are typical of action movies.  The difference is degree.  Punching someone in the face is a violent crime.  So is murder.  One carries a steeper penalty...

For example, you say they didn't do justice to the Civil War storyline? (Not sure how you expected anything close to a direct conversion of a story that took place over the span of about 100 comics involving well over 100 characters in the first place.) Well Batman vs Superman crams the Death of Superman story into ten minutes (and don't really have the death part) after they're done butchering the Dark Knight Returns story.  That's a twofer.

The villain was just a cameo appearance you say?  How about Doomsday who appears at the very end of the story with no more motivation than "grrrr Doomsday mad" (though to be fair he's just as shitty in the comics).  And how about the fact that Zemo has about 40 lines of dialogue in the movie.  Superman has 43.  And he's one of the leads!  He's in the title!  Look over Supes' lines and then explain to me how his motivations are more well defined than Zemo's https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4f9ivz/superman_only_has_a_total_of_43_lines_of_dialogue/.  

And Zemo wasn't the focus on the movie.  The movie was called Civil War, implying a focus on the battle between the Avengers.  The marketing promised a movie focusing on conflict between the Avengers.  And lo and behold, the movie was about conflict between the Avengers.  I mean they could have dragged a villain out of the Earth for a "heroes unite to fight a common threat" cliche ending, but they chose not to.  Probably cause that'd suck noodle.

Zemo had a purpose, and he served that purpose.  But he was not the primary antagonist.  Iron man was the primary antagonist, and his screentime was consistent with that role.

As for others issues you didn't specifically mention, did Cap and Iron Man not communicate perfectly?  Maybe.  But Superman said literally three sentences in his attempt to dissuade Superman.  Was Spider-man shoehorned?  Maybe, but not nearly to the extent of Flash or Aquaman.  Did some things change from the Civil War storyline?  Maybe.  But there was nothing as eggregious as Batman branding and killing people, or Superman being willing to kill an innocent man... or anything as bad as "nobody stays good in this world".  

As for their being 40 minutes of cut footage, that's something we call editing.  And it's part of what makes a movie good or bad.  Whatever magic may have been in those 40 minutes, it's not in the version we saw, so it's kind of irrelevant.  Plus, I'm really not sure what they could have had that was so great if they had time for "Lois and the magic bullet".

And I'm not sure exactly what was wrong with Zemo's plan.  Seemed as good as the average super hero movie plot.

So yeah.  You can try to match up flaws, but the flaws on one side are much more severe.