MovieChat Forums > Wonder Woman (2017) Discussion > Fun fact: Patty Jenkins was originally g...

Fun fact: Patty Jenkins was originally going to direct Thor 2

posted 8 years ago by littleyellowfish
29 replies | jump to latest

Wow, I never liked the Thor movies anyway, but damn, you know thinks have hit the fan for those movies when a director would rather work on a DCEU film.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mx334 8 years ago

Was one of those things from hearing Natalie Portman would only work with her. Some story mess up with the thing and Natalie let go in this new one. Wasn't really a big chemistry going on,and really they need to go with changing times and have a larger minority cast. That one person in the distant with only one line is over with.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

Well, as long as Portman and MCU Jar-Jar are out of the picture, I'm fine with it.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] ThisGuy4000 8 years ago

I think most of us here were already aware of that. She allegedly left due to creative differences.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

I thought I'd share it since I literally just found out.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] Hassan_Scarborough 8 years ago

The question is was Marvel right to let her go.

I don't see a lot of diversity in that WW cast and Heimdal had a great role in Thor 2.

And Portman isn't known for being accommodating to minorities. No offense to her and Jenkins.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

Well considering how bad Thor 2 turned out to be, maybe she made the right call when she decided to steer clear of it.

Honestly I was disappointed, I've been a fan of the character for years and Thor was a good movie (even with a few problems), but Thor 2 was honestly terrible.

Its villain made no sense, it ran on stupidity, it had several characters acting out of character, it focused far to much on a severely underdeveloped romance and it ended up playing a poor old man suffering from a breakdown induced by trauma and PTSD for laughs (How did they think that was a good idea?)

Still I'll give it its due, Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston was well on form, and it at least gave good development to Thor and Loki's relationship (the only relationship anyone had any interest in).

[–] ThisGuy4000 8 years ago

Most people would still consider that movie to be a win for Marvel, seeing as how it has an RT score above 60% though. Of course, it's also the lowest rated film in the MCU, alongside the 2008 Hulk movie, so there's that.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

Suit themselves.

I stand by my statement its a bad film. If they want to rebut my points, I'm happy for a discussion.

But it was a pretty bad film.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

Its villain made no sense, it ran on stupidity

That's pretty much 90% of superhero movies, so I can't really say that.

it had several characters acting out of character

I think that complaint would have had more gravitas to it if we actually knew the characters, instead of just cutting to unfunny humans every time. BTW, which characters specifically did you mean, if not all of them?

and it ended up playing a poor old man suffering from a breakdown induced by trauma and PTSD for laughs

That was painful, but it's still funnier than anything Jar-Jar Binks... oh, I mean Darcy Lewis, did in it, coming from a huge fan of Kat Dennings' movies before this.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

That's pretty much 90% of superhero movies, so I can't really say that.

I disagree. In most superhero movies, even with bad and underdeveloped villains you normally get some (if vague) idea of there personality and there goals, and these usually stay consistent or at least only change once. Plus they normally have some twisted explanation behind there actions.

Malekith is all over the shop. First he starts a massive genocidal war planning to use a doomsday weapon to wipe out all species...despite his race apparently not being in any danger whatsoever before he tried to wipe out all the other species.

His motivation is the dark elves existed before the stars...yet the light clearly doesn't damage them or cause them any discomfort and space is filled with vast starless dark patches that they could easily relocate to considering they have the technology to hibernate for million of years no problem, with none of there technology even showing a sign of age...yet for some reason they don't.

Then Malekith personally kills the majority of his species to save himself, after going all out to save his species...And still tries to blame the Asguardians for the dark elves nearing extinction...plus he in the first few minutes dooms the dark elves to extinction reguardless as there are now only seven or eight of them left, all males meaning everything else he does throughout the movie is pointless...And his followers who just watched there leader doom them all to death don't seem to care.

And that's just in his introduction.

The guy has no personality, no set goals or abilities. No logic behind his actions. He's just a general antagonist. He has nothing in common with his comic book counterpart and is a waste of the actors talent.

And going on to the plot...well everyone acts like an idiot throughout.

Heck it starts with Malekith acknowledging his doomsday weapon is ready to use, then standing around not using it, until after Asguardian's have stolen it.

And he only gets it back cause Thor purposely takes it to him (when if he had laid low for two days it would have been rendered useless for another several million years) believing for some reason he could destroy it when his much more powerful father and grandfather failed.

And that' just two examples. The whole movie is pretty much full of this.

I think that complaint would have had more gravitas to it if we actually knew the characters, instead of just cutting to unfunny humans every time. BTW, which characters specifically did you mean, if not all of them?

Several of them. Odin goes from a wise and intelligent king to an arrogant xenophobic warmonger (even between scenes he goes from talking about how they are not any better and must respect humans to openly disrespecting and lording his superiority over them), the only explanation is that Odin is a massive hypocrite, which completely undercuts the message of the previous movie.

He also seemed to forget that he used to love Loki. I mean I can understand him imprisoning him, but he acted like he was never even his son. Which again goes against the character of the previous movie.

Thor is suddenly so deeply in love with Jane he's willing to risk existence for her...despite only knowing her for two days a year ago and previously valuing his duties to the point he barely mentioned her. Sif goes from being his mate to apparently being in love with Thor herself...yet never mentioning it in the several thousand years they knew each other.

And yeah there is a way to much focus on said unfunny humans.

That was painful,

Indeed it was fact they tried to play that as if it was hilarious was in horribly poor taste.

Its something you would expect from the 1950's.

but it's still funnier than anything Jar-Jar Binks...oh, I mean Darcy Lewis, did in it, coming from a huge fan of Kat Dennings' movies before this.

Yeah she was a pretty big let down. She was much better in the last movie.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

Malekith is all over the shop. First he starts a massive genocidal war planning to use a doomsday weapon to wipe out all species...despite his race apparently not being in any danger whatsoever before he tried to wipe out all the other species.

I know a lot of people have been comparing him to Ronan from GOTG, but I honestly felt Ronan was a much better villain, and is one of my favorites in the series. Sure, he's nowhere near as interesting as his comic counterpart but there's still a clear motivation.

a waste of the actors talent.

Well, to be totally honest, it's pretty clear Christopher Eccleston was phoning it in and didn't even want to be there. On paper, most of Malekith's lines are clearly meant to be read with hammy, over-the-top delivery, but Eccleston sounds like he's falling asleep.

Thor is suddenly so deeply in love with Jane he's willing to risk existence for her...despite only knowing her for two days a year ago and previously valuing his duties to the point he barely mentioned her

I'm also starting to realize. Natalie Portman's sci-fi movies always involve her becoming more weak and dependant as the films go on. She goes from a no-nonsense, smart, respectable scientist to a bimbo-like, love-sick puppy who has apparently not stepped off the couch for two years. At least with Padme it made sense for her to be more vulnerable in ROTS because she was heavily pregnant.

it was fact they tried to play that as if it was hilarious was in horribly poor taste. Its something you would expect from the 1950's.

Yeah. I know that I and others used to troll this board saying the slavery joke at the end of the first trailer was bad taste due to the BLM campaign and the fact that black people were being heavily discriminated against at the time the film takes place. But what they did with Selvig in TDW was basically this: https://youtu.be/0ncjPvJJPFI?t=149

Yeah she was a pretty big let down. She was much better in the last movie.

Nah, not really. She was tolerable at least. The quality of comic relief sidekicks often varies on what the film is. Kat Dennings is a funny actress and Darcy Lewis is a humorous character. But in the Thor movies the others characters don't make over-the-top jokes every two seconds, at least not in the first one. So when she makes a dumb joke, it's jarring and stupid.

But if Darcy Lewis was Tony Stark's secretary in the Iron Man movies, her humor would fit a lot better and she'd be like the Brick Tamland of the film. I wouldn't mind seeing Darcy Lewis again, just not in a Thor movie. Maybe Ant-Man and The Wasp or Infinity War would be good, since then she'd get to interact with the humorous characters and would feel perfectly in place.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

I know a lot of people have been comparing him to Ronan from GOTG, but I honestly felt Ronan was a much better villain, and is one of my favorites in the series. Sure, he's nowhere near as interesting as his comic counterpart but there's still a clear motivation.

Yeah, Ronan wasn't the deepest or most interesting villain, but he was ten times better than Malekith.

Malekith is at the very least one of the worst comic book villains I've ever seen. At least Mr Freeze was enjoyable through the sheer campiness, Killian was pathetic but he did have a clear plan. And Enchantress wasn't that impressive or memorable but at least she had a understandable motivation (if your used to being treated like a goddess, then are made a slave for someone who is far far weaker than you, its not hard to understand the desire to remind everyone who kneels before whom).

Malekith doesn't even have an ounce of logic behind him. It seems the only reason the Dark Elves are endangered is cause he's their king. But the movie doesn't see self aware enough to realise this.

Well, to be totally honest, it's pretty clear Christopher Eccleston was phoning it in and didn't even want to be there. On paper, most of Malekith's lines are clearly meant to be read with hammy, over-the-top delivery, but Eccleston sounds like he's falling asleep.

True, but its a chicken and egg thing. Is he phoning it in cause he realised how wasted his character is and just wants to get this over with. Or is the character wasted cause he's phoning it in?

I'll probably go for the first.

I'm also starting to realize. Natalie Portman's sci-fi movies always involve her becoming more weak and dependant as the films go on. She goes from a no-nonsense, smart, respectable scientist to a bimbo-like, love-sick puppy who has apparently not stepped off the couch for two years. At least with Padme it made sense for her to be more vulnerable in ROTS because she was heavily pregnant.

Yeah that's true. She didn't really have an identity in this film, she was reduced to being a plot device. I mean she's supposed to be a scientist, and her response to a scientific phenomena is to start chucking things in it like a teenager with a sinkhole?

I wonder if that's why she doesn't want to come back.

Nah, not really. She was tolerable at least. The quality of comic relief sidekicks often varies on what the film is. Kat Dennings is a funny actress and Darcy Lewis is a humorous character. But in the Thor movies the others characters don't make over-the-top jokes every two seconds, at least not in the first one. So when she makes a dumb joke, it's jarring and stupid.

But if Darcy Lewis was Tony Stark's secretary in the Iron Man movies, her humor would fit a lot better and she'd be like the Brick Tamland of the film. I wouldn't mind seeing Darcy Lewis again, just not in a Thor movie. Maybe Ant-Man and The Wasp or Infinity War would be good, since then she'd get to interact with the humorous characters and would feel perfectly in place.

Yeah, your absolutely right. She didn't fit the tone, cause the movies had a more serious overall less humorous tone. How did I not notice this before?

And yeah I'm all for her appearing in another movie where she would fit better. Though honestly I do like the more serious tone better, one of my problems with later marvel movies is what used to be the levity that made them fun to watch, has grown to the point that it makes it impossible to take certain scenes (heck whole parts of the movie) seriously.

Nothing destroys tension more than characters treating it like a joke.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

Yeah, Ronan wasn't the deepest or most interesting villain, but he was ten times better than Malekith.

I think Ronan would have been better off if they'd kept him alive. That way they could adapt his on-off relationship with the Avengers, and make him into an anti-hero, kind of like a space Punisher.

And Enchantress wasn't that impressive or memorable

If I can be totally honest, the main reason that happened was because of the casting. I get Malekith's casting since Eccleston is my third favorite Doctor, but why is Cara Delevingne playing a villain? I guess if Megan Fox and Kate Upton could be actresses anybody could, and Jai Courtney finally got to prove himself in Suicide Squad, but she doesn't have the talent needed to pull off what should be a threatening villain role. It seems even the people involved thought this since they constantly hyped up a six-minute cameo by the Joker. Eccleston on the other hand is a good actor but for Malekith he's obviously just phoning it in, so if he doesn't care, we don't care.

Yeah, your absolutely right. She didn't fit the tone, cause the movies had a more serious overall less humorous tone. How did I not notice this before?

I think it's the same mistake George Lucas did with Jar-Jar. Much like the Original Trilogy and The Force Awakens, the humor in the other MCU films comes from the interactions and banter between the characters. More than one person has a funny line and they have great chemistry. I didn't like AOU that much (you'll find out why below) but they at least got one thing right, and that was the chemistry. They just didn't execute it well.

Wheras with Darcy and Jar-Jar, all the jokes come from that person, and despite how much of a killjoy they are, they're obviously in the film because Lucas and Marvel (and/or Brannagh and Taylor) looked through focus groups and said "hey what do audiences like these days? CGI creatures/Kat Dennings? Let's put that/her in the movie!" and film constantly cuts away from the other characters under the false impression that Darcy Lewis is likable and charming.

I kind of hated Suicide Squad, I felt like it was kind of forcing it's humor down you much like TDW and AOU. I'd have preferred something closer to the 2015 Comic-Con trailer, but tone-wise it was at least better than the second trailer onward implied.

After Kat Dennings' awful work in this, the trailers for SS made me worried that the same thing was happening with Harley Quinn, since she seemed to have 2/3 of Dennings' problems already. Casting based solely on what's popular with focus groups? Check. The majority of the humor comes from her? Check. But while Suicide Squad is only marginally worse than Thor 2, at least the film itself divided it's humor among most of the cast, and while it did at times still feel like Harley Quinn: The Movie, the characters got somewhat equal amounts of screentime and focus.

Though honestly I do like the more serious tone better, one of my problems with later marvel movies is what used to be the levity that made them fun to watch, has grown to the point that it makes it impossible to take certain scenes (heck whole parts of the movie) seriously. Nothing destroys tension more than characters treating it like a joke.

I know this sounds like a review, but I really didn't like AOU. While it's a good movie, I guess, and is better than Man Of Steel, which I didn't think was that bad, it was very obnoxious with how it tried to distance itself from MOS. The characters making jokes all the time is obviously due to complaints about Superman never smiling, and the amount of emphasis on saving civilians, while still justified, was due to complaints about the Metropolis fight.

But even then, they make even worse mistakes than MOS did. They make a big deal out of consequences, despite the fact that they not even mention Quicksilver again after his death, and let the mastermind of the villain's plot join the team at the end of the film without any consequences whatsoever. Come on, you guys! She intentionally set the Hulk loose on Johannesburg. That's basically murder! I think Scarlet Witch suffered more consequences when she accidentally killed a couple of people (and undoubtedly saved dozens others) in Civil War.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

I think Ronan would have been better off if they'd kept him alive. That way they could adapt his on-off relationship with the Avengers, and make him into an anti-hero, kind of like a space Punisher.

Yeah that would have been more interesting. But maybe they had already gone to far to do that. I mean in the comics Ronan is ruthless and prejudice, but he does care for his own species, and isn't after outright genocide.

This version was hypocritical, arrogant and only seemed to care about killing. Going back from that is a tall order.

If I can be totally honest, the main reason that happened was because of the casting. I get Malekith's casting since Eccleston is my third favorite Doctor, but why is Cara Delevingne playing a villain? I guess if Megan Fox and Kate Upton could be actresses anybody could, and Jai Courtney finally got to prove himself in Suicide Squad, but she doesn't have the talent needed to pull off what should be a threatening villain role. It seems even the people involved thought this since they constantly hyped up a six-minute cameo by the Joker. Eccleston on the other hand is a good actor but for Malekith he's obviously just phoning it in, so if he doesn't care, we don't care.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

I think it's the same mistake George Lucas did with Jar-Jar.

Yeah, when you put it like that, I agree.

I know this sounds like a review, but I really didn't like AOU. While it's a good movie, I guess, and is better than Man Of Steel, which I didn't think was that bad, it was very obnoxious with how it tried to distance itself from MOS. The characters making jokes all the time is obviously due to complaints about Superman never smiling, and the amount of emphasis on saving civilians, while still justified, was due to complaints about the Metropolis fight.

But even then, they make even worse mistakes than MOS did. They make a big deal out of consequences, despite the fact that they not even mention Quicksilver again after his death, and let the mastermind of the villain's plot join the team at the end of the film without any consequences whatsoever. Come on, you guys! She intentionally set the Hulk loose on Johannesburg. That's basically murder! I think Scarlet Witch suffered more consequences when she accidentally killed a couple of people (and undoubtedly saved dozens others) in Civil War.

I completely agree. Really I felt they messed up a lot of things about the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Them ignoring her causing all that damage in Johannesburg is particularly noticeable. Its almost as if they forgot it happened once they got there fight scene.

Another problem was they hopelessly overestimated the sympathy and ease there backstory would grant them. I mean yes its very tragic they lost there family, and had to endure a war torn country, and were trapped for several days in a room with an active bomb. However trying to kill someone just cause there company made said bomb isn't justified. Especially when you seemingly exonerate the people who actually fired the bomb and only cared about hurting the person who made it. Trying to kill them, there colleagues and friends for the same reason is way over the line.

Sympathy only works if the suffering is related to there crimes. Likewise there is the problem they both seem either thick or so consumed with vengeance it effects there sanity. I mean first they let former Nazi's turned terrorists turn them into weapons, then they blindly follow a dangerous robot without ever question all cause they think it will help them?

Surely somewhere along the lines a couple of red flags should have popped up. Such as the fact there new employer was so unstable he cut a man's arm off for a single non insulting comment, such as him mercilessly killing the guards so he could have steal a scientists invention which apparently had nothing to do with there plans. Such as him killing there old boss (if they knew Baron Strucker was evil, why did they work for him and let him use them)?

And as you point out they suddenly change dramatically half way through the movie. First there so consumed with revenge they don't care about civilian causalities, they enrage the Hulk to ravage the city to provide them with a distraction to escape, they don't care when Ultron murders people etc. Then they realise Ulton has lied to them, and suddenly there panicking at civilians being endangered. It feels like there different people suddenly. It would be a lot easier to understand them if they didn't suddenly flip on how much revenge has consumed them at the exact moment the narrative wants us to accept there heroes now.

And as you say its all forgotten, she suffers more for an accident that led to a few people dying, over the several thousand who would have died if they hadn't interfered, then she does for endangering an entire populated city.

Though to be fair that's one of my few problems with Civil War. Its a good movie sure, but honestly a lot of the regulation parts feel taped on. The reasons behind it are brushed over, the seeming negligence to justify it hopelessly overblown, and in the end it never goes any further than being an excuse to get Steve and Tony arguing.

It feels like a wasted plot line, when it could have been its own movie.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

Another problem was they hopelessly overestimated the sympathy and ease their backstory would grant them.

I know. Fox did a similar problem with Angel Salvadore in X-Men: First Class. I loved this movie, but she's probably the worst-written character. She was clearly supposed to be a tragic hero who fell to the dark side due to being sick of all the mockery, but she had little to no character beforehand.

It wasn't until the scene before she joins Shaw where she mentions to Raven how fed up she is of being stared at. This is like, her first line of actual dialogue in the film, and she suddenly betrays them in the next scene. And because the scene where she talks to Raven is slapped in to a comedic scene for no apparent reason, you see the betrayal coming from a mile away. You can't just give forget to give her a character and a motivation for turning evil until two whole minutes before she turns evil!

And even then, she comes off as less of a "fallen Angel" and more of a selfish b***h. Darwin dies trying to save her, and she just forgets all about it. Much like the twins going from vengeance-consumed to suddenly caring about civilians, Angel goes from being a quiet-but-nice person to an emotionless evil minion in about two minutes.

I mean first they let former Nazi's turned terrorists turn them into weapons, then they blindly follow a dangerous robot without ever question all cause they think it will help them?

Yeah. There's two things I didn't get about that.
1. The Maximoff twins are apparently Jewish. Why would they work with the most obvious Nazi stereotype ever?
2. That robot acts just like an evil Tony Stark. You know, that guy they're trying to kill?

a lot of the regulation parts feel taped on. The reasons behind it are brushed over, the seeming negligence to justify it hopelessly overblown, and in the end it never goes any further than being an excuse to get Steve and Tony arguing.

If I could be totally honest, I thought the political stuff was surprisingly well done, especially in comparison to both the original CW comic and BvS. Not only do both sides have a somewhat justifiable point, but it's also not the real reason they turn on each other. I do like that's it's a personal betrayal that turns Stark against Cap, but I will admit this kind of makes the political side irrelevant to their last fight.

One thing I don't get, though. The whole point of the Sokovia Accords existing is because the Avengers apparently don't take enough care for civilian casualties. So why would they name it after the one incident where they did care about casualties, and one of the Avengers actually died preventing one.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

And even then, she comes off as less of a "fallen Angel" and more of a selfish b***h. Darwin dies trying to save her, and she just forgets all about it. Much like the twins going from vengeance-consumed to suddenly caring about civilians, Angel goes from being a quiet-but-nice person to an emotionless evil minion in about two minutes.

I completely agree with you. Angel has no character before she turns on them, so it hardly makes her remotely sympathetic. Likewise Shaw is himself a massive obvious hypocrite.

Yeah. There's two things I didn't get about that.
1. The Maximoff twins are apparently Jewish. Why would they work with the most obvious Nazi stereotype ever?

Yeah, I remember reading a lot of fan complaints about that. Still they seemed to have retconned them to being Catholic (we see a cross hanging in her room) but then there also a lot of complaints about them doing that.

And honestly the Nazi's weren't exactly kind to Catholics in eastern Europe either. Or Eastern Europeans in general. The idea of them being so willing to get into bed with them is kind of silly.

It might have worked if they tried to suggest Hydra had moved past Nazism, but Strucker and there aims suggest they really hadn't changed in slightest.

2. That robot acts just like an evil Tony Stark. You know, that guy they're trying to kill?

Yeah exactly. Not to mention the fact Ultron is himself one of Stark's creations. Yet they join him without him doing anything other than saying he wants Stark to suffer. Don't they ever stop to consider why he's doing anything, it just makes them look stupid.

If I could be totally honest, I thought the political stuff was surprisingly well done, especially in comparison to both the original CW comic and BvS. Not only do both sides have a somewhat justifiable point, but it's also not the real reason they turn on each other. I do like that's it's a personal betrayal that turns Stark against Cap, but I will admit this kind of makes the political side irrelevant to their last fight.

Well that's sort of my problem. It is well done at first, but its overall irrelevant. Not just to the last fight, but pretty much to movie once Bucky is reintroduced.

It stops being mentioned after Ross illegally imprisons everyone else. And while it not being the reason for them to turn each other is good, it means that that the entire plotline isn't used for anything other than starting up the tensions between Steve and Tony (again).

While both sides do get a good point, the actual arguments for and against the agreement, or much of what the agreement means is brushed over. And in the finished film its almost entirely irrelevant.

Overall it just feels like wasted potential. They had a storyline which could have made a complicated and truly game changing story, yet they didn't use it for anything other than backdrop.

And to be honest, its unlikely it will ever be revisited.

One thing I don't get, though. The whole point of the Sokovia Accords existing is because the Avengers apparently don't take enough care for civilian casualties. So why would they name it after the one incident where they did care about casualties, and one of the Avengers actually died preventing one.

Really the whole idea they didn't take care of civilian casualties had its problems. I mean they claimed that in a grand total of three city wide crisis less than three hundred people died.

That's tragic, but if they really saved so many thousands of people in these disasters, then frankly no one has any right to suggest there failing to save civilians.

While the idea they need regulations is understandable, they never actually give Stark or his side a chance to explain exactly how the regulations are supposed to minimalize casualties. From the sounds of it, honestly you would expect it to increase the number of casualties as now they would have to wait for approval before trying to save people.

All the previous disasters were averted by them arriving right on time. If they now can't, well you have to wonder how deaths will occur while the bureaucrats processed the forms.

Likewise part of the agreement was they couldn't be held responsible for any damage they caused the government would take care of it, so speaking realistically, why would that deter them? I know there heroes and all, but in real life if you know you have immunity your going to be tempted to exploit it.

Really there were a lot edges to the regulations that are never actually elaborated on. Heck the team don't even ask what the limit of the governments control is, or who they will be answering to (they make several vague mentions to the united nations but the whole thing seems to be run by General Ross and his cronies).

Then the film implies the entire arrangement was just a front for General Ross to take control of the Avengers. Which you have to admit is one of the laziest ways to solve an argument that they never actually argued properly out there.

Honestly I think they named it after Sokovia cause they wanted a disaster they could pin on them, reguardless of who was actually responsible or what they did to help the actual civilisation.

All in all, I think the regulations would have worked a lot better if they had given it its own film.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

they join him without him doing anything other than saying he wants Stark to suffer. Don't they ever stop to consider why he's doing anything, it just makes them look stupid.

It's actually kind of weird. Pietro is actually shown to have some doubts about it e.g. why didn't Wanda just kill Stark when he was getting the Scepter. Pietro knows they have no grudge against the other Avengers, only him, so why does Wanda go through all this trouble to make everyone except herself suffer?

Not just to the last fight, but pretty much to movie once Bucky is reintroduced.

Well, technically, the Accords were still relevant at that point due to "Bucky" bombing the signing and the fact that they wouldn't be allowed to investigate Zemo's plans in time, especially when Bucky thinks that he's planning to wake up the other soldiers.

It stops being mentioned after Ross illegally imprisons everyone else. And while it not being the reason for them to turn each other is good, it means that that the entire plotline isn't used for anything other than starting up the tensions between Steve and Tony (again).

Well, one of the things I'm glad about is the confirmation that Phase 3 and especially Infinity War will show us the effects of the Accords on the other heroes. At first I was worried that the Avengers Civil War would be resolved simply by Steve's not-apology letter, but I'm glad that the film will have lasting consequences e.g. the fact that Cap is no longer Cap.

From the sounds of it, honestly you would expect it to increase the number of casualties as now they would have to wait for approval before trying to save people.

Also, didn't the government try to massacre New York with a nuke in 2012? What right do they have to say that the Avengers are irresponsible?

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

It's actually kind of weird. Pietro is actually shown to have some doubts about it e.g. why didn't Wanda just kill Stark when he was getting the Scepter. Pietro knows they have no grudge against the other Avengers, only him, so why does Wanda go through all this trouble to make everyone except herself suffer?

Yeah your absolutely right. I mean I think she didn't kill with the Scepter, cause she was hoping messing with his mind would cause him to kill himself. But that kind of means everything Ultron did is to an extent her fault, yet she or anyone else for that matter never brings this up afterwards.

Really her motivations and actions don't make much sense together, that's kind of another problem the movie had, people acting strangely for the story to work. Like Ultron just imprisoning Black Widow over killing her.

Well, technically, the Accords were still relevant at that point due to "Bucky" bombing the signing and the fact that they wouldn't be allowed to investigate Zemo's plans in time, especially when Bucky thinks that he's planning to wake up the other soldiers.

I suppose technically. But the problem is, well from that point they didn't need the accords.

If they took them out not to much would be different. In this scenario Zemo frames Bucky for blowing up the united nations building killing a lot of innocent people, Tony wants him arrested to face justice, while Steve believes he's been framed.

He finds out he has been framed but can't prove it, meanwhile Zemo stages an event and manipulates the System to turn everyone against Bucky so everything is now rigged against him and convinces Tony he's dangerous.

Tony who doesn't know he's been framed and manipulated ends up thinking Steve is being blinded by there former friendship and can't see that Bucky is now a dangerous terrorist etc.

You can see it playing out much the same without the accords. Don't you agree?

Well, one of the things I'm glad about is the confirmation that Phase 3 and especially Infinity War will show us the effects of the Accords on the other heroes. At first I was worried that the Avengers Civil War would be resolved simply by Steve's not-apology letter, but I'm glad that the film will have lasting consequences e.g. the fact that Cap is no longer Cap.

Oh yeah me to. That was a very welcome relief. To be honest I excepted them to forgot them all together. They could do, after all the Accords only ever applied to the Avengers rather than heroes in general.

Still until I see how they use them and how well, I'm going to keep a healthy scepticism.

To be honest I'm ever worried about how long the lasting consequences will last.
I mean they made sure Steve never actually crossed any lines that couldn't be easily pardoned away.

They covered any actions he made against the government by making it clear Ross really was corrupt and exceeding his authority.

Also, didn't the government try to massacre New York with a nuke in 2012? What right do they have to say that the Avengers are irresponsible?

Exactly. It just undercuts the message even more.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

You can see it playing out much the same without the accords. Don't you agree?

I guess so. Though I think the Accords are just there to tie everything together, I think it makes the character's developments from previous movies more noticeable. Tony obviously has to agree to it due to the guilt over all the mistakes he made, and Steve isn't going to agree because for all he knows it might be another Project Insight. And this is the first time in eight years they've even come close to acknowledging The Incredible Hulk.

It also helps to show us that Steve and his way of thinking is outdated. He compares Wanda's state to imprisonment, when that actually was the safest option for her. Take last year's Paris attacks for example. After ISIS killed all of those people, the number of unprovoked attacks and hate crimes against Muslim men and women spiked dramatically. Hell, in the original comic Human Torch was put in a coma because of what happened to that school.

Oh yeah me to. That was a very welcome relief. To be honest I excepted them to forgot them all together. They could do, after all the Accords only ever applied to the Avengers rather than heroes in general.

I've also heard speculation that the Avengers will be just as mad at Cap as they are at Tony. This also makes me happy because I was worried this would be like the comic where Cap's always right, mainly because in this one he lead them into a non-existent battle and got them arrested all because he couldn't let go of his past life, and even then he willingly gives up something that he's arguably had longer than Bucky, so was it really all worth it?

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

I guess so. Though I think the Accords are just there to tie everything together,

Yeah that's really all they were. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the film and thought it was overall good. It just felt like they could have, nay have should have done more with the idea.

I think it makes the character's developments from previous movies more noticeable. Tony obviously has to agree to it due to the guilt over all the mistakes he made, and Steve isn't going to agree because for all he knows it might be another Project Insight. And this is the first time in eight years they've even come close to acknowledging The Incredible Hulk.

Oh yeah, I agree with that although with Tony it looks like he keeps learning the wrong lesson, after a lot of his mistakes have been down to him making knee-jerk reactions to problems without properly thinking through whether its the best idea or what the potential consequences it might have I.e. him challenging the Mandarin on national TV, him building Ultron etc.

I can understand and sympathise with his want to improve but he seems to miss why what he did went wrong. Hopefully this time its finally sunk in.

It also helps to show us that Steve and his way of thinking is outdated. He compares Wanda's state to imprisonment, when that actually was the safest option for her. Take last year's Paris attacks for example. After ISIS killed all of those people, the number of unprovoked attacks and hate crimes against Muslim men and women spiked dramatically. Hell, in the original comic Human Torch was put in a coma because of what happened to that school.

I agree, but the problem is the movie acts like he is right and she is being unfairly imprisoned. Even the sympathetic Vision more or less admits (I'll be honest the movie wasn't that kind to Vision either, he seemed a bit slow and submissive which is odd cause he was supposed to be this patron of wisdom and compassion).

I've also heard speculation that the Avengers will be just as mad at Cap as they are at Tony. This also makes me happy because I was worried this would be like the comic where Cap's always right, mainly because in this one he lead them into a non-existent battle and got them arrested all because he couldn't let go of his past life, and even then he willingly gives up something that he's arguably had longer than Bucky, so was it really all worth it?

I'm all for them calling Steve out for his mistakes, and all for him making them. Just as long as they don't go over board, after all its alright blaming him for causing a problem but he did give all of them the offer to sit it out, they chose to join him, follow him and fight for him. So if they can criticise him for being wrong, but what happened to them was there own choices.

Likewise I'm not sure he can be blamed for them being arrested, I mean sure going against the accords would have caused them legal problems, but they chose to do that and he had no way of knowing that Ross was really corrupt enough to illegally imprison them in a specially made prison and leave them to rot.

I hope its not just speculation, cause no one not even great heroes should be above criticism. But so far Steve's kind of has been.

Civil War does end with him apparently being right the accords were a terrible idea after all. Which would have been fine if they actually gave the arguments for or against it some focus, and didn't have it end with it actually being another Project Insight.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

I agree, but the problem is the movie acts like he is right and she is being unfairly imprisoned.

There is that, but it does at least point out the fact that Wanda didn't want to leave the compound, and Barton was initially breaking her out against her will. It wasn't until he gave her a second pep talk in one year, though arguably this one is more deserved, and Vision captured Barton that she was basically forced to change her mind.

Plus even throughout the film Cap himself is shown to contradict himself and become quite a hypocrite, though not yet on the scale of Ross or Wanda in AOU. This isn't a criticism though, because it feels intentional. This is one of the best examples of how you deconstruct a superhero.

In The Winter Soldier, Cap criticized SHIELD for not trusting or compromising, but half the conflicts in Civil War happened because he was unwilling to compromise.

He says Stark shouldn't put Wanda under protection since "she's just a kid", but I guess it's perfectly fine for him to bring this kid on a dangerous mission she clearly wasn't prepared for, which resulted in the deaths of several people and Wanda being branded a public menace. And then bringing her on a mission which would have resulted in her being fully arrested so even Stark couldn't help her.

Vision was slow and submissive which is odd cause he was supposed to be this patron of wisdom and compassion

I actually liked what they did with Vision since they were making him more human. Throughout the film, you see he's actually trying to "fit in" with everyone else. He's trying to cook, tries to use doors when he can and tries to have friendly conversations without speaking like a British Vulcan. It's not until he gets distracted by Wanda, fires an abnormally powerful blast and injures Rhodes that he truly makes a human error.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

There is that, but it does at least point out the fact that Wanda didn't want to leave the compound, and Barton was initially breaking her out against her will. It wasn't until he gave her a second pep talk in one year, though arguably this one is more deserved, and Vision captured Barton that she was basically forced to change her mind.

I suppose. But that could just be seen as her hesitating. If say she had later brought up she wasn't sure she made the right choice, it would have conveyed the sentiment a lot better.

Plus even throughout the film Cap himself is shown to contradict himself and become quite a hypocrite, though not yet on the scale of Ross or Wanda in AOU. This isn't a criticism though, because it feels intentional. This is one of the best examples of how you deconstruct a superhero.

In The Winter Soldier, Cap criticized SHIELD for not trusting or compromising, but half the conflicts in Civil War happened because he was unwilling to compromise.

He says Stark shouldn't put Wanda under protection since "she's just a kid", but I guess it's perfectly fine for him to bring this kid on a dangerous mission she clearly wasn't prepared for, which resulted in the deaths of several people and Wanda being branded a public menace. And then bringing her on a mission which would have resulted in her being fully arrested so even Stark couldn't help her.

Yeah you make a lot of good points. But honestly I'm not sure if its as intentional as you think it is. After all no one does call him out for any of his contradictions, even though he makes several. And not just the characters support him, the narrative supports as well.

As such even when he clearly is mistaken, you could be excused for assuming he's right.

Though to be completely fair I don't exactly blame him for being unwilling to compromise on accords. It wasn't like there really was a compromise, the deal was either they agreed to them or they retired and potentially went to prison.

If say there had been an option to discuss the accords over, let them have there own say first and come to some sort of agreement then I imagine he would have gone for it. But his options were either blindly agree to a restriction which he and the others had been given no say in and didn't trust. Or refuse and get in legal trouble.

Its another thing that makes me think the movie wants us to agree with him.

I actually liked what they did with Vision since they were making him more human. Throughout the film, you see he's actually trying to "fit in" with everyone else. He's trying to cook, tries to use doors when he can and tries to have friendly conversations without speaking like a British Vulcan. It's not until he gets distracted by Wanda, fires an abnormally powerful blast and injures Rhodes that he truly makes a human error.

Oh yeah I was fine with him trying to be more human. Its just a few things I had a problem with. For instance he agrees to the accords a bit to quickly. I know he gives his reasons but when you think about it, they sound more like he should be in favour of taking a moment out rather than going one way or another. Heck even he admits he's unwilling to claim there is a link, yet he never hesitates to support them.

And as you say in the end it was a very human error, but it still feels a bit much. I mean say he actually had hit Falcon, as he was much lighter armoured that Rhodes he would probably have killed him. Even if he didn't a fall from that height probably would have.

This is a guy who didn't even want to kill Ultron. As such even for a mistake, it still feels like he wouldn't have fired if there was even a chance he could have killed him.

Really if they had allowed him to be neutral in this affair it would probably have felt more in character.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

If say there had been an option to discuss the accords over, and come to some sort of agreement then I imagine he would have gone for it. But his options were either blindingly agree to something he had no say in and doesn't trust. Or refuse and get in legal trouble.

To be totally honest there were several scenes where they're discussing them, and it sounds good enough. Stark even mentioned that if he got Steve to sign, then they'd let Tony reinstate him, Wilson and Wanda. It's just Steve was acting kind of childish and wanted Wanda released (and potentially endangered) right now. These things do take time when handled peacefully, but he wanted everything his way now, which was no different from what Ross and the government wanted. Tony was just trying to think of what was best for the Avengers, and he saw the safest option as "do it before it's done to us later".

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

To be totally honest there were several scenes where they're discussing them, and it sounds good enough.

Oh no your misunderstanding me. that's just them discussing it with each other about whether they're going to sign up or not.

I meant if he got the option to discuss the accords themselves and what they entailed. I mean what basically happens is General Ross turns up at there door one day, shoves a massive agreement in there face that they clearly weren't consulted or even told about, and says if they don't sign they're out of the job.

Then they are given around three or four days to agree. (Heck I bet you Ross did it deliberately to ensure they didn't get much chance to disagree)

Stark even mentioned that if he got Steve to sign, then they'd let Tony reinstate him, Wilson and Wanda. It's just Steve was acting kind of childish and wanted Wanda released (and potentially endangered) right now.

I agree that was more than a bit unreasonable.

Tony was just trying to think of what was best for the Avengers, and he saw the safest option as "do it before it's done to us later".

Yeah he was. I sympathise with Tony, but to be completely fair he did jump into the agreement a bit to soon.

That as I said is Tony's problem. When faced with issues he's not sure how to deal with, he embraces the first extreme solution far to quickly.

Steve's problem is that he's to reluctant to embrace outside solutions.

Really what they should have done was try to negotiate with the government over what the accords would entail, or at least request more time to discuss and examine it before they agreed.

Similar to how when someone takes over a smaller business, the smaller business has these matters worked out before the sale takes place.

With them, the sale had already taken place and they had to either get on board or get lost. Is it any wonder it went so wrong?

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

I mean what basically happens is General Ross turns up at there door one day, shoves a massive agreement in there face that they clearly weren't consulted or even told about, and says if they don't sign they're out of the job.

I was confused by that actually. If the UN has apparently been planning this since Sokovia, why didn't the team hear about it until now?

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

I don't know, my best guess is Ross manipulated events to keep them in the dark. Cause he never wanted them to sign the agreement, he wanted to capture and exploit them.

Honestly I have to wonder, how did Ross get so high up? He's corrupt, uncaring and cost the army probably millions in resources in a futile chase, over a problem he created.

Who thought giving him more power would be a good thing?

Still I'll give him credit, he's very good at baiting dogs.

[–] littleyellowfish 8 years ago

Who thought giving him more power would be a good thing?

Apparently it was Matthew Ellis, you know the president Tony and Rhodey rescued in Iron Man 3. Makes you think what would have happened if Killian had gotten away with it.

We should probably talk about this on the Civil War thread though, because this is getting off topic.

"How come nobody's ever tried to be a superhero?" - Dave Lizewski, 2010.

[–] mddwbsst 8 years ago

Apparently it was Matthew Ellis, you know the president Tony and Rhodey rescued in Iron Man 3. Makes you think what would have happened if Killian had gotten away with it.

That it does. I can only assume Ross had a lot of successful cover ups that no one in government knows about.

We should probably talk about this on the Civil War thread though, because this is getting off topic.

Yeah your right. Still it was nice chatting, thanks for the discussion.

[–] politicidal 8 years ago

...yea...

What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.