Why did Ant Man get involved? - Captain America: Civil War (2016) Discussion

[–] nillindeiel 8 years ago

Because Captain America asked for his help (refer to how much he was fanboying for Captain America).

Also, remember, he was not brought in with the expectation that they were going up against Tony's team. What happened at the airport was unplanned. He was brought in because Cap, Falcon and Bucky - who do not have their usual Avengers level resources - believed that 5 psycho super soldiers with the skills and capabilities to topple governments overnight were in danger of being awakened and they needed help to stop it (and they felt like they couldn't turn to the Avengers because of the restrictions of the Accords).

Nillindeiel

Agent Hill: ...Then aliens invaded New York and were beaten back, by among others, a giant green monster, a costumed hero from the 40's.... and a god.

Agent Ward: I don't think Thor is technically a god.

Hill: Well...you haven't been near his arms.

~Agents of SHIELD; Season 1 Episode 1 "Pilot"

reply

[–] Lord_Stark 8 years ago

Ahhh this makes perfect sense thank you.

reply

[–] bluehex 8 years ago

Why did Ant Man get involved?

Same reason as T'Challa and Spiderman - to start PR on his next solo movie, which comes out soon.

I'm too old for this sh*t...

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

And for fanservice, which is also why Clint is involved.

reply

[–] DesiredFX 8 years ago

Yeah, never mind that there are perfectly valid story reasons for Scott, Clint, and T'Challa to be involved.

(Spider-Man's a little shakier, because basically Tony only wanted him for his webbing.)

#TeamZemo

reply

[–] bluehex 8 years ago

Eh. I'll give you T'Challa, but the rest of them? Not so much... Numbers were needed so that they could copy the relevant comic splashscreen, but the story would have gone just fine without them.

So there is a visual reason and a promotional reason, but both of them Doylist. Can't think of a Watsonian one.

I'm too old for this sh*t...

reply

[–] DesiredFX 8 years ago

Without Clint and Scott, Cap had himself, Falcon, and Bucky to go up against five Winter Soldiers. Numbers were needed for a mission in which they were significantly outnumbered, given the power level of the anticipated opponent.

Cap figured he could get Wanda to join, since she didn't sign the Accords, but he needed someone to get her out of the Avengers compound--or, as it turns out, to get her to get herself out of the Avengers compound. Clint had access to the compound, ergo he was a good choice.

Sam brought up Scott because he had experience with Scott and knew he would be a valuable teammate in a fight against enemies with Bucky's level of power.

Recruiting those three gives them 6 on 6 if you count Zemo.

There's your story reason, Watson.

#TeamZemo

reply

[–] bluehex 8 years ago

Nah. There are reasons and then there is explaining away. Anything can be explained away, of course. But an excuse does not a reason make.

In other words, yes, it is clear they could be there; that doesn't make them necessary for the story (and best illustration is the fact, that Cap and Bucky ended up going to Siberia on their merry own, anyway...). In fact, the entire airport battle is quite a bit forced and unnecessary; but that's another discussion.

A whole bunch of other people could have been there, for the exact same reasons you listed: padding the numbers. But the movie did just fine without them. Are you really arguing that the narrative would fall apart if, say, Clint was not there? Or even Wanda, for that matter?

They're all just padding for the splash screen.

I'm too old for this sh*t...

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

Nothing is necessary for the story except barebones structure.

The airport battle isn't forced and unnecessary, it's about the tension that the entire film has build up.

You're acting as if the point of a film is to tell a straightforward account of events trying to get to the conclusion. The Russos wanted to tell an engaging story that built off of the relationships and dynamics developed during the entire history of the MCU. The beginning, middle, end and everything in between is important.

Your reasoning is flawed. I could strip off 75% of a film and the narrative wouldn't "fall apart". But having Ant Man and the rest makes perfect sense and it adds to the movie. Especially since the Accords greatly affect Wanda and Clint and each side needed to recruit additional players to increase their chances of success (Cap to defeat winter soldiers and Iron Man to capture Cap & Bucky).

You personally thought it was unnecessary. However, the writers and directors didn't and neither critics and most audience members.

reply

[–] bluehex 8 years ago

Nothing is necessary for the story except barebones structure.

And, as many writers have stated, a well written story is not the one where you can't add anything more; it's one where you can't take anything out.

I could strip off 75% of a film and the narrative wouldn't "fall apart".

Not of a good one. A well made movie absolutely needs every scene that's in it.

The airport battle isn't forced and unnecessary, it's about the tension that the entire film has build up.

Except there is no tension whatsoever. Throughout the film, there is no tension or conflict between anyone except Tony and Steve. These people don't want to fight each other; have no reason to fight each other (unless looking good in a tight costume counts). Avengers are not in conflict with each other. At all. They made different choices with the Accords, but they mutually respect those choices. All that makes the "battle" something resembling a training exercise rather than combat. They even take care not to hurt each other too much.

The Russos wanted to tell an engaging story that built off of the relationships and dynamics developed during the entire history of the MCU.

Oh, really? I guess you missed the featurette where they explain how they wanted to re-create the splash page as accurately as possible, then?

But having Ant Man and the rest makes perfect sense and it adds to the movie.

All it adds is clutter. All of them can be there; none of them have to be there. The airport scene works just as well, if not better, with just Cap, Bucky, Tony and T'Challa.

Especially since the Accords greatly affect Wanda and Clint

Wanda, yes, but Clint? He happily retired within first five minutes of Accords announcement. He's got a perpetual house remodeling project and a family to look after. Basically, Clint doesn't give a rat's arse and is not in any danger of anything.

and each side needed to recruit additional players to increase their chances of success

Yup, this brings us back to padding numbers. But story requires that they go to Siberia alone, so - unnecessary padding of numbers.

BTW, do drop the attitude. Condescension doesn't make you look smarter, quite the oposite.

I'm too old for this sh*t...

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

And, as many writers have stated, a well written story is not the one where you can't add anything more; it's one where you can't take anything out.

Which writers? Quotes?

Except there is no tension whatsoever. Throughout the film, there is no tension or conflict between anyone except Tony and Steve.

We must have not watched the same movie. There's the conversation had after Ross has left. There's the tension between Black Panther and those keeping him from Bucky. The only individuals not involved in this conflict/tension are Ant Man, Spider-Man and Hawkeye.

Avengers are not in conflict with each other.

Then you missed the arguing? You missed the kitchen discussion between Wanda and Vision?

Oh, really? I guess you missed the featurette where they explain how they wanted to re-create the splash page as accurately as possible, then?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. What I said was also in the audio commentary which I watched.

All it adds is clutter. All of them can be there; none of them have to be there. The airport scene works just as well, if not better, with just Cap, Bucky, Tony and T'Challa.

It doesn't add clutter and you are literally the only person I have seen make this complaint. The fact that is the favorite scene for most movie goers and a highlight in reviews should make you question this statement as some kind of fact.

Basically, Clint doesn't give a rat's arse and is not in any danger of anything.

It affects the people he cared about and the person he took responsibility for, Wanda. Do you not realize that she is the center of the Accords? She is the one who is being held captive? And the strongest connection she has is with Clint, even moreso than Cap. And he's happily retired? Was there any doubt he would volunteer if needed? It's obvious in that he shows up when called upon in this film. This affects him as well.

But story requires that they go to Siberia alone

It does not. It only requires them going alone if you know the twist. So this is another example of flawed logic.

BTW, do drop the attitude.

No attitude. You're just being obtuse because my points are fairly obvious.

reply

[–] DesiredFX 8 years ago

There are reasons and then there is explaining away.

Discussion over, then, due to stubbornness on your part.

#TeamZemo

reply

[–] bluehex 8 years ago

Relly? can't see a difference between someone who feasibly could find themselves in a certain place and someone who MUST be in that place for the story to work? Because that's the difference I am talking about.

I'm too old for this sh*t...

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

I'm with you, for what it is worth.

reply

[–] bluehex 8 years ago

Thanks.

I'm too old for this sh*t...

reply

[–] Abraxas88 8 years ago

If he just wanted Peter for his webbing, couldn't Tony just ask to borrow his shooters?

reply

[–] DesiredFX 8 years ago

Probably, but he knew that Peter had practice using the web shooters with some speed and accuracy. It's sort of like when Rhodey or Pepper first wore the Iron Man armor: without practice, they were limited.

Peter tells us that "Mr. Stark" instructed him to stay out of the action and web people up from the sidelines, and Tony makes a point of showing Peter the webbing he found and telling him how impressive it is, so it seems like that ability is the main reason he recruited him.

#TeamZemo

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

And how would Tony use it? He has less than 72 hours to apprehend Cap & co.

reply

[–] Abraxas88 8 years ago

They're shooters. Point and shoot. Desired made a good point about not having time to practice with them. It could also be that Peter wants to maintain the formula a secret. The issue I have is that after Peter telling him about using his powers Tony expected him to sit by the sidelines and not get involved. Either Tony was being extremely naive or just didn't care enough to think twice to bring a teen to a grown up fight.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

I think it's hubris of expecting this kid to just listen because I'm freaking Iron Man.

And I don't think it's that easy as pointing and shooting, especially since Iron Man is not nearly as agile as Spider-man and doesn't have the same affinity towards it.

reply

[–] Abraxas88 8 years ago

I agree about Tony's arrogance. Tony may not be as agile but has proven to be very accurate with his weaponry and it wouldn't have been hard to add it to his suit. The biggest issue with this would be the time constraint. Tony didn't have enough time to incorporate the webbing to his suit. He would have left the accuracy to Friday as Tony has a tendency to depend too much on his technology.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

But T'Challa had an in story explanation. He wanted revenge on Bucky for his dad's murder. Even Spiderman made sense in a way, that Tony recruited him to the Avengers and so he was part of the team. It's not a specific motivation but he's part of the team now and this is their fight. But there's no real reason why Ant Man would want to go up against the Avengers on Cap's behalf. Everyone else on his side has a personal connection to him.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

But T'Challa had an in story explanation. He wanted revenge on Bucky for his dad's murder.

And T'Chaka was killed (with Bucky being framed) to justify including T'Challa in the movie, with his own arc that is there to setup his own movie/pandering above all else, rather than any real necessity.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Exactly. Because, you know, all characters should enter the MCU on their own and not be introduced in someone else's movie just like Hawkeye and Black Widow.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

Because Hawkeye had a big role in Thor, with an independant arc and multiple fight scenes. He also got a movie in the same phase.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

He did? What independent arc was that and which fight scenes were those again?

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

He didn't, which is my point.

justanicknamed was sarcastically (unless I am mistaken) pointing out that Hawkeye had a (cameo) role in Thor as precedent to T'Challa's heavy involvement in Civil War. The situations aren't really the same.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

Point taken. I legit did not remember Thor. Only saw it once.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Wow. Just.....wow.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Just because it is legal in several states does NOT mean you should be smoking pot 24/7.

reply

[–] DesiredFX 8 years ago

Pandering?

T'Challa is critical to the way the story plays out and carries the weight of the film's themes.

#TeamZemo

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

Yes. Pandering.

T'Challa is there so that T'Challa can have a storyline about wanting revenge and then learning to not let revenge destroy him. And to make people turn up for Black Panther, in cinemas 2018.

You could swap out T'Chaka for the chancellor of Germany and it'd work out the same.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

You could swap out T'Chaka for the chancellor of Germany and it'd work out the same.

No, it wouldn't because he would be some random chancellor.

The emotional weight is created by the significance of the character. And it has to be a fictional nation that we cannot attach any prior knowledge or pretense to.

It's a big *beep* deal because it's the king of Wakanda. It wouldn't be as big a deal if it were anyone else other than the president of the US and even then it wouldn't have the emotional weight b/c the U.S. government does not give the filmmakers a blank slate or a blameless victim.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

No, I'm pretty sure Germany's chancellor being killed by Bucky would generate as much threat to Bucky and Cap.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

No, I'm pretty sure Germany's chancellor being killed by Bucky would generate as much threat to Bucky and Cap.

Then you have no idea of the place of Wakanda in the MCU and Marvel universe at large.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

Right. Who the *beep* gives a crap about the head of a G8 state.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

Right. Who the *beep* gives a crap about the head of a G8 state.

Compared to the most advanced nation in the world, not comparable.

Also it's not (edit)about the threat to Bucky and Cap. It's the fact that a nation so powerful and so neutral was speaking out in favor of the Accords, despite their philosphy of not getting involved. It would be as if the Gandhi or MLK was assassinated. That's the figure of T'Chaka in the MCU. The German Chancellor isn't even close.

He is a revered figure and it gives credence to Ross and Stark in opposition to Cap.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

There is a chance you might be out of touch with a reality.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

There is a chance that you don't understand what the Marvel Cinematic Universe is....

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

No, I understand it fine.

I understand the MCU is a film series, one that didn't previously establish T'Chaka as revered. He's a new character and he gets blown up soon after being introduced.

You on the other hand, labor under the belief that it is only a big deal if the king of Wakanda. Heads of state gets assassinated every day. Or something.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

I understand the MCU is a film series, one that didn't previously establish T'Chaka as revered. He's a new character and he gets blown up soon after being introduced.

The nation of Wakanda was already established and the importance of Wakanda. The film established how revered its king was.

You on the other hand, labor under the belief that it is only a big deal if the king of Wakanda. Heads of state gets assassinated every day. Or something.

It's a big deal that the king of Wakanda supports the Accords. It gives the measure credibility. Otherwise, we have already seen how world leaders were corrupted in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

You said he could have been replaced with anyone. I have already explained that that is false. If you want to counter with a reason why I'm wrong, go ahead. But this universe and the material it is based on make King T'Chaka bigger than any other political leader and it gives the directors and writers a character that carries no negative connotations or presuppositions from the audience.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

The nation of Wakanda was already established and the importance of Wakanda. The film established how revered its king was.

And in real life, the importance of Germany, the UK, and other G8 countries are common knowledge to everyone, not just comic book nerds.

But when was it established that T'Chaka is revered despite being until recently isolationist? Was it when Banner struggled to pronounce Wakanda?

It's a big deal that the king of Wakanda supports the Accords. It gives the measure credibility. Otherwise, we have already seen how world leaders were corrupted in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

It showed a bunch of Americans as corrupt. Hell, the Indian and Chinese WSC members were against HYDRA, even when threatened.

I have already explained that that is false. If you want to counter with a reason why I'm wrong, go ahead.

You've explained nothing but insist that a fictional country is obviously (to you) important and other (real) countries don't matter apparently.

How do you imagine the reaction to the UK's PM assassination being different?

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

And in real life, the importance of Germany, the UK, and other G8 countries are common knowledge to everyone, not just comic book nerds.

This isn't real life.... and to reflect real life as it is instead of the MCU would ignore what they have been building for 8 years.

But when was it established that T'Chaka is revered despite being until recently isolationist?

In this film how he is addressed and his position in the world. You can rewatch.

It showed a bunch of Americans as corrupt. Hell, the Indian and Chinese WSC members were against HYDRA, even when threatened.

It showed the council as corrupt. Those members objecting to the specific actions of Redford's character do not make them innocent or guilty. This was also expanded on in Agents of SHIELD, which I don't blame anyone for not watching. Regardless, world leaders (not just in the US) have been infiltrated by Hydra as well.

You've explained nothing but insist that a fictional country is obviously (to you) important and other (real) countries don't matter apparently.

I've explained that T'Chaka cannot be replaced by anyone else in this universe. If you can equate him to anyone else, feel free. However, you can't because that's simply how it is and simply how it has been established in the cinematic universe and the comics.

How do you imagine the reaction to the UK's PM assassination being different?

Because the UK PM is not an important character in the MCU.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

Because the UK PM is not an important character in the MCU.

You answered How? with Because. Bravo.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

You answered How? with Because. Bravo.

Thanks. I had already stated that it's less about the assassination and more about the Accords.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

This isn't real life.... and to reflect real life as it is instead of the MCU would ignore what they have been building for 8 years.

It is understood that the MCU is just like our world, except where it is shown to be different. We don't need to be spoon fed everything.

And T'Chaka wasn't anywhere in those 8 years.

It showed the council as corrupt. Those members objecting to the specific actions of Redford's character do not make them innocent or guilty. This was also expanded on in Agents of SHIELD, which I don't blame anyone for not watching. Regardless, world leaders (not just in the US) have been infiltrated by Hydra as well.

Yeah, I'm gonna need something better than AoS.

Which world leader was shown to be involved with HYDRA?

I've explained that T'Chaka cannot be replaced by anyone else in this universe. If you can equate him to anyone else, feel free

The prime minister of Japan, prime minister of UK, prime minister of Canada, POTUS, etc.

Anyone of them could have supported the Sokovia Accords. The assassination of any of them would have lead to a massive manhunt.

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

And T'Chaka wasn't anywhere in those 8 years.

He wasn't, but Wakanda and Vibranium have been established for 6-7 years now. The importance of the nation has been established.

Which world leader was shown to be involved with HYDRA?

It doesn't have to be a specific leader. The audience already knows that governments can and have been infiltrated and that leaders have agendas. That is enough to question any nation, particularly because we know those leaders can be corrupt in our own world. This is about Wakanda leading the Accords.

The prime minister of Japan, prime minister of UK, prime minister of Canada, POTUS, etc.

Anyone of them could have supported the Sokovia Accords. The assassination of any of them would have lead to a massive manhunt.

It's not about the manhunt. It's about

A) Wakanda and T'Chaka supporting the accords gives it more credence than any random world leader with his/her own agenda, etc. Wakanda is the most advanced nation in the MCU and is known for its neutrality. This gives balance to the Cap v. Iron Man argument. There needs to be weight on Iron Man's side to make this film work.

B) T'Chaka and Wakanda give the film a blank slate with no previous emotional associations. They can establish a character and nation whatever way they want without any previously held thoughts by the audience getting in the way aside from what has been established in the comics and previous films & tv shows. There is no world leader of any nation as revered as T'Chaka is presented in the MCU. To portray a leader of a real nation that way would counter what we know about real life. You're arguing with some kind of misguided logic about what would happen if a real political leader was assassinated. That doesn't matter (especially since those leaders are not on the same level as T'Chaka in the MCU). What matters is the emotion that the Russos are evoking here and the story they are building around the Accords and the Avengers conflict.

C) Even if you want to talk about the manhunt, there would not be the same kind of manhunt as there would be with the king of Wakanda. This nation is rich and powerful beyond anything that exists in reality. And the manhunt isn't even a major part of the story.. it is the personal revenge sought by Black Panther that ties into the overall theme of revenge and personal conflict splitting alliances and friendships. That would not exist if you replace T'Chaka with anyone else. And it would take even more work for the Russos to create the same emotional response and justify the tie-in to the film's plot and motif.

But you're not going to change your mind, so there's no point in arguing.

reply

[–] sopnd 8 years ago

He wasn't, but Wakanda and Vibranium have been established for 6-7 years now. The importance of the nation has been established.

Technically, the importance of Vibranium was established 70 years ago, as we saw Howard Stark explain its properties and how rare it is in the first Cap movie, when he gives Steve the shield.

(Cool how it comes back full circle with Tony yelling how the shield didn't belong to Steve, that his dad made it, when we the audience was actually there and saw the exact moment that Tony was talking about.)

reply

[–] cjp2157 8 years ago

I mean when the first Captain America movie came out 6-7 years ago.

reply

[–] sopnd 8 years ago

Yeah, the movie going audience found out about Vibranium during CA:TFA. But its importance to and in the MCU, which you were discussing with the OP (or whoever that commenter was), spans decades. Wakanda is extremely crucial to the MCU and has been for more years than we were aware of it.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

And T'Chaka wasn't anywhere in those 8 years.

Where has Dr. Strange been for the past 8 years? Where were the twins in the time before they were introduced? Have they introduced every last world leader so far?

Yeah, I'm gonna need something better than AoS.

Which world leader was shown to be involved with HYDRA?

Don't be an azzhole. It was shown in AoS that the one who ordered the nuke strike was Hydra. In addition, the head of SHIELD was the head of Hydra as we saw in CA:TWS.

The prime minister of Japan, prime minister of UK, prime minister of Canada, POTUS, etc.

None of which are monarchies which have a "national protector" with super powers and a personal reason for avenging the King's death.

reply

[–] CthulhuWept 8 years ago

T'Challa is there so that T'Challa can have a storyline about wanting revenge and then learning to not let revenge destroy him.

Ridiculous sentence. A character is in the story so that he can have a storyline, and that's pandering?

Hans Gruber is in Die Hard only so that he can have a storyline about stealing a bunch of bearer bonds and faking his death.

Han Solo is in A New Hope only so that he can have a storyline about getting paid to deliver Obi Wan and Luke somewhere in exchange for enough money to pay off his debt to a gangster.

Quint is in Jaws only so that he can prove himself against the biggest, baddest "porker" in the ocean.

Seriously, does it hurt to not think this much?

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

Hans Gruber is in Die Hard so he can be an antagonist to John McClane, who is the protagonist. He plays a pivotal role. He is someone for John McClane (out protagonist) to struggle against. He provides the conflict.

Han Solo is in Star Wars because he is one of the protagonists.

Never seen Jaws, sorry.

One thing those movies have in common is that they're original properties, with no prior precedent for who such a story is about.

Captain America is, allegedly, supposed to be about this one guy called Captain America or something.

Is Black Panther learning to let go of revenge important to Cap's development?

All it contributes is a post-credits scene where Bucky is hiding out in Wakanda. And god knows what that's going to lead to.

Probably a pretext to have BP in Cap 4 in addition to BP2, because god forbid that Cap be reason enough to see a Cap movie.

reply

[–] CthulhuWept 8 years ago

I was drawing attention to your ridiculous statement that putting a person in a story just to have a story is pandering. That's why ALL characters are in stories, so that they will have stories.

But since you're apparently switching gears, I can follow you down this path. You're saying in this post that, if BP isn't allowed to have a story that doesn't affect Cap's development, then only the protagonist of a movie is allowed to have a narrative arc. This is just as ridiculous as the previous statement.

Secondary characters can have arcs that have nothing to do with the protagonist. This doesn't make them useless, it provides them with their own stories. If they affect the protagonist's development, all the better, but it's not necessary.

Is Al Powell getting over shooting the kid in Die Hard necessary for McClane's development? No, it isn't.

Is the tension between Morpheus and Commander Lock over Niobe in any way connected to Neo's development? No, it isn't.

Is anything that happens to Merry and Pippin after they're separated from the Fellowship important to the development of Frodo? No, it isn't.

When more characters than just the protagonist and antagonist have narrative arcs in a story, it fleshes them out as characters, making them less like two-dimensional stand-ins that could have been played by extras. More than one or two stories in a film creates depth.

reply

[–] nillindeiel 8 years ago

When more characters than just the protagonist and antagonist have narrative arcs in a story, it fleshes them out as characters, making them less like two-dimensional stand-ins that could have been played by extras. More than one or two stories in a film creates depth.

 well said 

Nillindeiel

Agent Hill: ...Then aliens invaded New York and were beaten back, by among others, a giant green monster, a costumed hero from the 40's.... and a god.

Agent Ward: I don't think Thor is technically a god.

Hill: Well...you haven't been near his arms.

~Agents of SHIELD; Season 1 Episode 1 "Pilot"

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

I was drawing attention to your ridiculous statement that putting a person in a story just to have a story is pandering. That's why ALL characters are in stories, so that they will have stories.

Yeah, but we're discussing something else a little different. This isn't a story that exists on its own.

Secondary characters can have arcs that have nothing to do with the protagonist

Can? Yes. Have to? No.

Is Al Powell getting over shooting the kid in Die Hard necessary for McClane's development? No, it isn't.

A fairly minor "arc". He's still there to primarily act as McClane's ally.

Is the tension between Morpheus and Commander Lock over Niobe in any way connected to Neo's development? No, it isn't.

Is anything that happens to Merry and Pippin after they're separated from the Fellowship important to the development of Frodo? No, it isn't.

Bold move, citing the Matrix sequels.

But both are sprawling ensemble works. Both with a primary protagonist, sure, but ensemble works.

The Cap movies were supposed to be solos, allegedly. But they changed that up so that it is more The Matrix than Die Hard, in order appeal/pander/cater/whateveryouwanttocallit to a larger audience. One aspect of that was bringing in Spider-Man and Ant-Man, another was Black Panther.

Different aspects, same mindset. I don't see them "creating depth" by giving arcs to non-Avengers/non-headliners.

But you know what you like, I know what I like.

reply

[–] CthulhuWept 8 years ago

Can? Yes. Have to? No.

And this is one of the "cans". Secondary characters CAN have arcs unrelated to the protagonist's development. BP's arc falls into this category. It's not necessary for him to contribute to Cap's development.

A fairly minor "arc". He's still there to primarily act as McClane's ally.

Sure. Never said it was major. But it's still an arc wherein he gets over his past trauma in order to help his new friend. McClane doesn't grow as a character because of it. In fact, I'd say McClane is the reason that Al does the growing. This is similar to Cap actually being the reason that BP decides not to go through with killing Zemo. Cap affects BP in the same way that McClane affects Al, and neither of these secondary characters'arcs affects the protagonists' arcs in their respective films.

But both are sprawling ensemble works. Both with a primary protagonist, sure, but ensemble works.

I used those examples because they each feature secondary characters with strong narrative arcs of their own that are unrelated to the principal protagonist. It's harder to see the LotR movies as "solo" movies, but the Matrix movies are centered almost solely on Neo and the things that happen to him. At the same time, the peripheral characters have their own stories that are happening, some of them having nothing to do with Neo.

The Cap movies were supposed to be solos, allegedly. But they changed that up so that it is more The Matrix than Die Hard, in order appeal/pander/cater/whateveryouwanttocallit to a larger audience. One aspect of that was bringing in Spider-Man and Ant-Man, another was Black Panther.

Changing a story to include things that weren't in it before isn't a bad thing in and of itself. And adding Spider-Man and Black Panther isn't about pandering. It's about world-building. Marvel is continually building their universe, and the best way to do that is to introduce characters and events in one movie that will play out in another. BP and SM being in CW is Marvel's way of cutting a bit out of their solo films in the way of origin and getting on with the story. It doesn't hurt CW to have them there, and it helps the subsequent solo movies. This isn't pandering, it's smart storytelling.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

We've had cameos and bit parts for BW and Hawkeye, and these are characters without their own movies. Compare Ant-Man, Spider-Man, and Black Panther, who do/will.

And come on, the last thing the world needs is an intro to Spider-Man.

This degree of "world building" is restricted to Captain America movies, post CATFA. I'd be more agreeable if it wasn't.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

No, because the theme was about revenge and responsibility. T'Challa wanted revenge upon TWS.

Then, at the end, he takes responsibility for Bucky's safety by hiding him in Wakanda.

Not that Wakanda is a 3rd world sh!t hole, but duty and honor and such mean more there than in Germany (for instance). Had the chancellor's father been killed, there wouldn't have been a change in the leadership of Germany. And, while the chancellor would have mobilized whatever police / security he had to capture the killer, he wouldn't have done so himself.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

No, because the theme was about revenge and responsibility. T'Challa wanted revenge upon TWS.

If those themes aren't coming through Cap's own arc, those themes perhaps weren't best for a Captain America movie.

Had the chancellor's father been killed, there wouldn't have been a change in the leadership of Germany.

We need a change of leadership because... ?

I was talking about the chancellor himself getting killed, anyway.

And, while the chancellor would have mobilized whatever police / security he had to capture the killer, he wouldn't have done so himself.

And ... ?

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

If those themes aren't coming through Cap's own arc,

They are.

We need a change of leadership because... ?

I was talking about the chancellor himself getting killed, anyway.

The point is, the king of Wakanda was killed. Because of that, T'Challa went after Bucky for revenge. It wouldn't be the same with the chancellor getting killed. Yes, they'd go after the killer, but not in the way T'Challa did.

reply

[–] King_Gene_Hunt 8 years ago

ut not in the way T'Challa did.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Right. Because the chancellor of Germany is an elected official, not a king whose country has a 'national protector' tied to its history.

reply

[–] Vulturesofculturegolf 8 years ago

I'd say it's because the Accords would force him to be accountable for his actions as well, risking incarceration, again, in any future battles.

It's established he's a big fan of Captain America in the movie, and that Falcon was looking to recruit him at the end of Ant-Man. If you're a good guy, with a supersuit who tries to do the right thing, you'd definitely go with Hawkeye if he asked you to help the Avengers stop some Evil super soldiers.

He's also clearly honoured at being asked to join the team, and is no doubt happy to fight against Tony Stark, given his mentors, Hank Pym, hatred of Howard Stark, and by extension, Tony.

reply

[–] Milk_Tray_Guy 8 years ago

and is no doubt happy to fight against Tony Stark, given his mentors, Hank Pym, hatred of Howard Stark, and by extension, Tony.

Never even thought of that one.

All for a box of chocolates...

reply

[–] WeirdRaptor 8 years ago

Remember in Ant-Man how Scott only truly came on board with what Pym was trying to do because he realized he would be protecting his daughter's future from becoming a chaotic wasteland ruled by a Neo-Nazi death cult? He's putting himself on the line again for the exact same reason.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

[–] Lord_Stark 8 years ago

Good point!

reply

[–] WeirdRaptor 8 years ago

Yep. The thing to remember about Scott Lang is that he's a dad, which is going to be a huge factor into his future decisions as a superhero as well. It's a unique trait among the perpetual bachelors that make up his peers.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

[–] isabel_pink 8 years ago

Aside the other reason people explained I would also say that something that has to do against Stark would help him decide to join CA team.

reply

[–] AtheismBecauseReason 8 years ago

What don't you get about Captain America asking him to help?

reply

[–] EaterOfSin 8 years ago

Cap could no longer rely on the complete team to hunt Zola, and Falcon knew a guy. He clearly respects and trusts Cap, and was even known to break laws to do what is right. Hence Falcon contacted him.

reply

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 8 years ago

Ant Man fits here as do all we've met because it's their superhero personae on the block.

Ant Man & Spiderman's humour also works as the writers/producers blu commentary points out - they have zero vested interest in the dire Bucky angle, thus they can get away with lightening the mood. They also stand out because they're the only pair, one for each side, who had that ability this time.

...top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

reply