The Artisan
Member
tl;dr at the bottom
Yesterday I watched it, courtesy of Netflix. Captain America: Civil War is supposed to be Captain America 3. The title of the movie is Captain America, the subtitle is Civil War. What I have been saying since long before the film ever came out, that they're exploiting captain america's 3rd solo film slate as civil war because they knew it'd do Avengers numbers if they did so, and they banked on it; RDJ was paid $40m for this movie because they thought if it outdid cap2, it'd be because of him.
People keep saying that no, Cap is the main character, this is Cap 3, this is a solo Cap film, not an Avengers film, not an ensemble film, not a crossover but I can't buy any of that. That's not how this film was marketed.
How can you possibly get the majority of the audience to feel like this is supposed to be a solo Captain America movie, when the entire time the film was marketed as "Whose side are you on? hashtag team Iron Man or hashtag team Cap?" - they wouldn't have done that if this film was supposed to be perceived as a Cap film first and foremost. In fact, Tony Stark is practically the second most important character in this movie. With just a few tweaks, this movie could've had an alternate and appropriate title, Iron Man: Civil War.
I've said that line to other people, casual moviegoers at least and they've agreed. Because of how the MCU is structured, it's difficult to even watch solo films as standalone. There's enough that happens between cap 1 and 2 and 3, that watching them back to back might not come off as fully cohesive. One could argue, that you're not supposed to watch them back to back like that, but a counterargument would then be that it disqualifies the superhero trilogy as one of the best, because of that. I don't really have an opinion on that, other than saying that its hard to consider a standalone trilogy.
When I say Avengers numbers, I mean billions of dollars. Imo, IM3 did Avengers numbers. Phase 1 overall was perpetuated by Iron Man, he was the only major character to get 2 films, the only titular character of that film series that didn't get a stupid "Iron Man will return" message at the end (maybe TIH didn't do that, Cap1 may not have but its after credits scene was nothing more than a teaser for Av1), and I think considering all that, because it was the first film after Av1, audiences were thrilled to see what happened next. Would've been interesting to see if Thor 2 or cap2 came first before IM3.
And that's what cap3 did as well. Avengers numbers. Not as high as I expected but either way, it does not in any way feel like a "solo" captain America movie. This is further supported by a really really old rumor, about how Avengers 2 was supposed to be the Infinity War, and Avengers 3 was supposed to be Civil War. It's a really old rumor and I don't have many sources to support it, the only ones I did find:
http://www.redcarpetnewstv.com/avengers-3-might-be-civil-war-movie/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tp08q5Qhg
It's a really old rumor but it makes sense to me, and I think Spiderman has something to do with it. This blessed deal that we got 2 years ago announcing Spiderman in the MCU, of course Disney was trying to get Sony to agree to it for years, perhaps at that time they weren't able to do it so they had to shift their plan around, and decided to make Av2 the filler "Age of Ultron" instead - yes, I said filler, because that's exactly how I felt about it.
And instead of having the civil war be an official Avengers installment like it always should have been, the slate was put on the "solo" Captain America 3. And it comes before the Infinity War.
I find it overrated, because of how low key this whole "civil war" was. Papa Doc even says to cap during the movie "this isn't the real fight." The "civil war" of this movie was a distraction from what cap was really after this whole time, but the writers wrote conveniently enough to have Tony not listen to Steve and show up there late, alone, and then learn the truth about Bucky and get angry about it all. There really was just one battle of this whole war, which was the airport scene, so it is hardly a war at all.
Now, it is disappointing that the MCU is doing this kind of stuff among other things, but I'm not saying cap3 was a bad movie; it was just disappointing. To compare it to the other major versus-crossover film this year, bvs, both of these films were disappointing, but that film was bad. I could at least enjoy cap3.
tl;dr
Captain America 3 shouldn't have been about the Civil War. If they were continuing the winter soldier storyline, then the entire movie should've focused on that, instead of having Crossbones as such a wasted character. He could've been around with Baron Zemo till the end of the film where cap has his tossup and Bones gets to have an actual vengeful battle instead of that sorry-ass send-away scene at the beginning of the film. I get why they did that... to have Scarlet Witch try to save people but start a conflict; but that happened because the writers made it so.
Captain America 3 does not feel like a solo captain america movie. It feels like Disney exploiting the 3rd solo cap film slate as an Avengers storyline because Disney knew it would do Avengers numbers if they did that, and it did; and they even banked on it. Just Tony Stark's presence alone was supposed to guarantee a billion dollars in the box office.
Now, for those of you who loved it, enjoyed the shit out of it, more power to you...you got what you wanted. However, I have often noticed on GAF and elsewhere on the net that if someone tries to come up with an unpopular opinion, they're always told about how wrong they are to have it. But I have to say my piece.
What do you think?
Yesterday I watched it, courtesy of Netflix. Captain America: Civil War is supposed to be Captain America 3. The title of the movie is Captain America, the subtitle is Civil War. What I have been saying since long before the film ever came out, that they're exploiting captain america's 3rd solo film slate as civil war because they knew it'd do Avengers numbers if they did so, and they banked on it; RDJ was paid $40m for this movie because they thought if it outdid cap2, it'd be because of him.
People keep saying that no, Cap is the main character, this is Cap 3, this is a solo Cap film, not an Avengers film, not an ensemble film, not a crossover but I can't buy any of that. That's not how this film was marketed.
How can you possibly get the majority of the audience to feel like this is supposed to be a solo Captain America movie, when the entire time the film was marketed as "Whose side are you on? hashtag team Iron Man or hashtag team Cap?" - they wouldn't have done that if this film was supposed to be perceived as a Cap film first and foremost. In fact, Tony Stark is practically the second most important character in this movie. With just a few tweaks, this movie could've had an alternate and appropriate title, Iron Man: Civil War.
I've said that line to other people, casual moviegoers at least and they've agreed. Because of how the MCU is structured, it's difficult to even watch solo films as standalone. There's enough that happens between cap 1 and 2 and 3, that watching them back to back might not come off as fully cohesive. One could argue, that you're not supposed to watch them back to back like that, but a counterargument would then be that it disqualifies the superhero trilogy as one of the best, because of that. I don't really have an opinion on that, other than saying that its hard to consider a standalone trilogy.
When I say Avengers numbers, I mean billions of dollars. Imo, IM3 did Avengers numbers. Phase 1 overall was perpetuated by Iron Man, he was the only major character to get 2 films, the only titular character of that film series that didn't get a stupid "Iron Man will return" message at the end (maybe TIH didn't do that, Cap1 may not have but its after credits scene was nothing more than a teaser for Av1), and I think considering all that, because it was the first film after Av1, audiences were thrilled to see what happened next. Would've been interesting to see if Thor 2 or cap2 came first before IM3.
And that's what cap3 did as well. Avengers numbers. Not as high as I expected but either way, it does not in any way feel like a "solo" captain America movie. This is further supported by a really really old rumor, about how Avengers 2 was supposed to be the Infinity War, and Avengers 3 was supposed to be Civil War. It's a really old rumor and I don't have many sources to support it, the only ones I did find:
http://www.redcarpetnewstv.com/avengers-3-might-be-civil-war-movie/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tp08q5Qhg
It's a really old rumor but it makes sense to me, and I think Spiderman has something to do with it. This blessed deal that we got 2 years ago announcing Spiderman in the MCU, of course Disney was trying to get Sony to agree to it for years, perhaps at that time they weren't able to do it so they had to shift their plan around, and decided to make Av2 the filler "Age of Ultron" instead - yes, I said filler, because that's exactly how I felt about it.
And instead of having the civil war be an official Avengers installment like it always should have been, the slate was put on the "solo" Captain America 3. And it comes before the Infinity War.
I find it overrated, because of how low key this whole "civil war" was. Papa Doc even says to cap during the movie "this isn't the real fight." The "civil war" of this movie was a distraction from what cap was really after this whole time, but the writers wrote conveniently enough to have Tony not listen to Steve and show up there late, alone, and then learn the truth about Bucky and get angry about it all. There really was just one battle of this whole war, which was the airport scene, so it is hardly a war at all.
Now, it is disappointing that the MCU is doing this kind of stuff among other things, but I'm not saying cap3 was a bad movie; it was just disappointing. To compare it to the other major versus-crossover film this year, bvs, both of these films were disappointing, but that film was bad. I could at least enjoy cap3.
tl;dr
Captain America 3 shouldn't have been about the Civil War. If they were continuing the winter soldier storyline, then the entire movie should've focused on that, instead of having Crossbones as such a wasted character. He could've been around with Baron Zemo till the end of the film where cap has his tossup and Bones gets to have an actual vengeful battle instead of that sorry-ass send-away scene at the beginning of the film. I get why they did that... to have Scarlet Witch try to save people but start a conflict; but that happened because the writers made it so.
Captain America 3 does not feel like a solo captain america movie. It feels like Disney exploiting the 3rd solo cap film slate as an Avengers storyline because Disney knew it would do Avengers numbers if they did that, and it did; and they even banked on it. Just Tony Stark's presence alone was supposed to guarantee a billion dollars in the box office.
Now, for those of you who loved it, enjoyed the shit out of it, more power to you...you got what you wanted. However, I have often noticed on GAF and elsewhere on the net that if someone tries to come up with an unpopular opinion, they're always told about how wrong they are to have it. But I have to say my piece.
What do you think?
