cao:
Parrotibaba just dey shine teeth. ....And the DC quotes, dude...LWKMD.

Kaycee7:
I'm sure it has been in the works before Bvs but I think Moneyallowed has cleared the issue. Bvs just pushed up the schedule but you make it sound like Marvel heard DC was doing a Superhero Vs movie and suddenly whipped up Civil War from space.




Sure of what, exactly?

Minemrys:

"this marvel vigilante is a one man reign of terror."
"you d0n't get to care what the right thing is. Nobody cares about DC taking on the Marvel man"

parrotibaba:
You know Perry Fishburne was probably right



"Nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the batman "




That's right on the money Morpheus!

Shittaakeem:
Civil war shows exactly why BVS failed



1). Civil War’s Central Conflict is Earned
and Coherent

Civil War and Batman V. Superman aren’t
only just about heroes fighting one another,
one of the core issues is the same as well,
heroes being responsible for collateral
damage. It’s the reason Bruce Wayne hates
Superman (as he watches his building get
demolished in the Zod fight) and why the
Avengers are split down the middle by the
Sokovia Accords (based on the destructive
events of Avengers 1 and 2 , Winter Solider,
and now Scarlett Witch accidentally
blowing up a building in the opening of
Civil War ).


The problem? 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.


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.


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.

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.

For Superman’s part, he doesn’t really even
seem to have motivations, other than
getting people to stop hating him, and
stopping specific threats when they pop up.
That’s in part because the character barely
has forty lines in his own movie, so how
much motivation can you really establish
there? (Fun fact: Spider-Man has more
lines in Civil War than Superman did in
BvS). Making him fight Batman through…
essentially blackmail, is poor motivation,
and though the fight itself was exciting, the
reasons for it were stupid. Civil War bests
BvS in many ways, but in this area in
particular.

2) Civil War’s Villain Has Clear Motives
and a Creative Plan

Honestly, Batman V. Superman’s biggest
problem wasn’t even either of the two
heroes, it was its villain, Lex Luthor. Not
just because Jessie Eisenberg’s portrayal
seemed off (Mark Zuckerberg tripping on
meth), but because nothing he did made
any sense .

Why does Lex hate Superman? We’re
never given a reason, other than vague
speeches about gods and power. Why does
Lex want Superman to murder Batman,
someone else he doesn’t know at all? Why
does Lex build Doomsday? Why does Lex
more or less just want to murder and
destroy everything? None of this is ever
made clear. Lex, one of the DC’s smartest,
most capable villains, is reduced to a poor
man’s version of the Joker, creating
anarchy for anarchy’s sake.

In Civil War , Zemo is an entirely different
story. If you didn’t even know the guy’s
name by the end of the movie, I wouldn’t
blame you, nor should you be expected to
recognize him in the comics. He’s a
nobody. He’s a Sokovian spy whose family
was killed in the chaos sowed by the
Avengers fighting Ultron. He wants
revenge.

It’s a simplistic motive, but Zemo ends up
being probably one of the best and most
effective villains I’ve ever seen in a
superhero movie. I love Loki as much as
the next person, but Zemo’s plan to split
the Avengers through an almost impossibly
simple plan is genius. He frames Bucky for
the UN explosion, igniting tensions already
set aflame by the Sokovia Accords, which
by itself practically cleaves the team in half.
He re-activates Bucky for real this time,
reinforcing the split, and leading to an all-
out brawl between the two sides. And then
in his final stroke, just when you think he’s
about to activate an army of super-soldiers
for a big brawl that reunites the Avengers,
he simply kills the potential supervillains
instead, reveals what he knows about
Stark’s parents’ death, and watches Captain
America and Tony Stark almost murder
each other.

He understands that he has no real strength
himself, and could never hope to fight the
Avengers directly, so he makes them fight
each other. He is the most subtle
supervillain that’s ever been in a movie
like this, but in terms of actually achieving
what he set out to do, he’s one of the most
successful, and one that’s done the most
direct damage to the team, even if no cities
were leveled in the process.

3)) Civil War is Expansive but Not Bloated

I mentioned before that this is effectively
an Avengers film, given the massive size of
the cast. And it is massive. Yes, Captain
America and Tony Stark headline, but the
film also prominently features War
Machine, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Black
Panther, Falcon, Ant Man, Vision, Scarlett
Witch and Spider-Man as heroes. Hulk and
Thor are missing, but that’s actually more
heroes than the Avengers films themselves.

Somehow, despite this, the film does not
feel bloated or overcrowded. It isn’t just
because we enjoy seeing these heroes slug
it out (the airport fight is one of the best in
superhero movie history), but because
when these characters are given scenes,
they’re tight and effective.

Black Panther is
expertly woven into the narrative
throughout, and somehow, with everything
else the movie is doing, it serves as a great
set-up for his own standalone film. Vision
and Scarlett Witch are given touching, sad
moments together.

Ant Man steals the
show with a half dozen lines of joke-
dialogue.

Spider-Man is introduced in one
of the movie’s best scenes as Tony Stark
meets Peter Parker, and is the most fun
part of the main fight. And of course, the
main conflict between Cap and Iron Man
throughout the film is powerful and
effective. It’s a lot going on, but the
directors have juggled it all expertly.
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.

4) Civil War’s Resolution is Uncomfortable,
but Logical

Again, Civil War takes the expected ending,
the Avengers reunite to fight Zemo’s super
soldiers, and turns it on its head, as Captain
America and Iron Man brutally attack each
other. In the end, there’s no repairing the
fracture, not fully, anyway.

Captain
America has to literally break his captured
Avenger friends out of prison, and Tony
Stark is left to pick up the pieces at home
base, with most of his team having
deserted him.
Even if it’s obvious where this is heading,
the Avengers being forced to come together
to beat Thanos in Infinity War , I like that
Civil War didn’t try to mend all its fences.

Given everything that happened, it
wouldn’t have made sense. In contrast, we
have the now-infamous “Martha” moment
in Batman V. Superman , where the two
stop fighting because Batman realizes their
mothers have the same name. Five minutes
later, Batman is rescuing the mother of the
man he was just trying to kill. It makes
close to no sense, and by the end, everyone
is best friends.

Of course, that isn’t how it ends, which is
another problem with BvS. Killing
Superman for some attempt at shock value
accomplishes nothing. No one believes that
Superman will die two movies into the new
DCCU. Hell, even the movie itself can’t
resist teasing his resurrection before the
movie even ends.

That was just Zack
Snyder wanting to kill him to build in more
Christ mythology (because Superman
definitely needs more of that) and to do
something in keeping with the “darkness”
of his created universe.


Civil War easily could have pulled an
ultimate “shock value” card and killed
Captain America or Tony Stark (Cap is
actually killed in the comics storyline). Or
they could have pulled a Harry Potter and
killed a few minor characters in the
conflict, like Hawkeye or Vision. They did
neither. The biggest physical casualty is
War Machine, who will probably be fine
thanks to Tony’s tech, but the film lets the
biggest death speak for itself, the death of
the Avengers as a team. And they didn’t
need to literally murder Tony or Cap to
make that point.

Civil War is a phenomenal film, and very
well might be Marvel’s best ever, which is
really saying something. There’s a reason
movies like this are held up to a gold
standard, and at this point, DC is going to be
lucky if they can produce a film that’s even
half this effective. That’s not fanboy talk,
that’s just coming from someone who likes
well-made movies, great characters and
coherent stories. And right now, only
Marvel has all of those things. We’ll see
what the future holds.

Written by Paul tassi for Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/05/09/captain-america-civil-war-shows-exactly-why-batman-v-superman-failed/#71301bfb46bb

Minemrys:

in superman's dying breath
"save...marvel!" lolx.

cao:

Superman: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

UPDATE: How could I forget AngryJoe's quote, "Let's give Marvel the D.C. licenses and let them do the stories."

Minemrys:

Dc could win. What do u think?

cao:

It looks like DC would win if Marvel Studios were handling them. AngryJoe is a proper Superman fanboy and the fact that he pointed out that Marvel were able to do with Captain America what DC/WB couldn't with Superman in BvS speaks volumes. If DCEU actually take their time, they could do great things. Oh well, let's see Suicide Squad & Wonder Woman. DC fanboys can't keep using the gritty realistic humour-less excuse, if the film is good, it's good, regardless of its humour.

We've come a long way from barely seeing comic book superhero films to getting at least 2 a year (or should I say at least 4, since DC & Marvel will always release at least 2 each). CW had 12 superheroes, 12! And they did a better time allocation than BvS that had 3 and it was a CA film with mostly Cap's point. If you had told my younger self I'd be watching a live action superhero film with 12 supes, I'd have wet myself. DCEU better get pointers from Paul Dini, stat.

Minemrys:

in stephen amell's green arrow voice "Kaycee7, you have failed this city!"

Rimini:
I don't know what it is with DC, their movies aren't gripping, infact I could say they are not well made or constructed. I couldn't sit through BVS without yawning; the only highlight probably was the appearance of wonder woman. Now I feel the wonder woman movie will be a flop.

Marvel gets people... if ant man could make up to 500mil despite how simple the movie was, (and I could get mama to watch it) Dc has to change their creative producer.

Kaycee7:
** Sprays him with upgraded vertigo **
* In Count Stormare's voice * " Let me reveal the face of your worst fear! "

Minemrys sees Justice League bombing at the box office, screams and enters coma.

Minemrys:

the problem with getting superman right isn't in his pers0nality. Its in his powers, he's over powered and he doesn't have c0ol villains like batman or flash n0r g0od st0rylines. To write a character like supes, you either appeal to a certain kind or n0ne. If u dumb him down to make him interesting, people will c0mplain <in this age when no one really wants the christopher reeves supes>. They dumbed supes down in jl cart0ons and people c0mplained. If they made supes brute to l0ok c0ol, others would c0mplain<M0S for example>. To me getting supes right is u need a villain thats str0ng en0ugh to beat or kill supes, smart and has a s0mewhat c0ol pers0nality that u could cheer for <ofcourse thats different fr0m brainiac, lex, darkseid. I guess supes should be taken to the supernatural side other than the sci fy route> and a g0od st0ryline that reflects the character's pers0nality and the era he lives in and an intelligent writer. N0t snyder obviously.

Kaycee7:
I haven't watched BvS so i can't judge Eisenberg's performance but I know that Alexander Luthor is one of the most interesting and dangerous Superman villains. They could use him like Loki, make him both a Supes villain and a JL villain.

Kaycee7:
We are not talking about money, bro. BvS raked in a good profit, less than expected, but good. We are talking about the critical performance of the movie.

Rimini:


If people liked it, they'll go see it. Firstly the trailer was a huge flop. I felt they gave away too much. I had high hopes... but it was all washed away, then critcs reviews too just kept on dousing that fire. This not only happened to me... but others as well I believe.
A good movie should keep me seated and on the edge of my seat, not waiting for it to end.

adamondroc:
Have you done your confessions today?
The much awaited Oh! Boy Comedy web series has arrived....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ETd8vpD96o
#OhBoyMyMarriageConfession Visit our website for more: www.sharemyfame.com.ng

TonySpike:
X-men: Apocalypse has just been hammered with mixed reviews: 52% on rotten tomato, 50% on Metacritic. Anyone thinking what I'm thinking? It seems 'Misney' is set to take over the X-men franchise from FOX. I won't be surprised if Misney was waiting to hear this news all the way. Deadpool 2 is the next franchise that will go down soon.

parrotibaba:
It's going to take a lot of arm wrestling and cash moving around before Disney and marvel studios gets ahold of the x-men franchise. Fox is still sweating from handing the spiderman franchise to Disney and I won't imagine them still itching to give out more not after the huge success of deadpool. I think the problem that apocalypse have is that it became a Jennifer Lawrence movie rather than an x-men movie. Anyways I still expect it to make just enough money to continue future x-men movies.

TonySpike:
X-men: Apocalypse has just been hammered with mixed reviews: 52% on rotten tomato, 50% on Metacritic. Anyone thinking what I'm thinking? It seems 'Misney' is set to take over the X-men franchise from FOX. I won't be surprised if Misney was waiting to hear this news all the way. Deadpool 2 is the next franchise that will go down soon.

TonySpike:

So Jennifer Lawrence has been an unlikeable actress or what? I'm not sure this movie will make much though. Maybe somewhere over $600 million. This particular X-men iteration will end up giving CW more financial legs because of bad word of mouth.

parrotibaba:
It's going to take a lot of arm wrestling and cash moving around before Disney and marvel studios gets ahold of the x-men franchise. Fox is still sweating from handing the spiderman franchise to Disney and I won't imagine them still itching to give out more not after the huge success of deadpool. I think the problem that apocalypse have is that it became a Jennifer Lawrence movie rather than an x-men movie. Anyways I still expect it to make just enough money to continue future x-men movies.

parrotibaba:
Not an unlikeable actress but this movie is so focused on her in ways unimaginable because she has suddenly become this huge star after the hunger games success. Check online and you will see some many x-men fans complaining about this. Mystique is supposed to be a villain, in fact a sub villain in x-men and not the one that leads the x-men.