Captain America : Civil War spoilers from post 480

Bacchus · 13-05-2016 10:21am

I don't think it matters that the objective was not to kill. The balance was off in the fight in a number of ways
- Vison was on the sidelines and could have occupied Wanda
- Since Wanda had noone really challenging her, she could have easily taken IM and War Machine out of the fight at the start
- IM was underpowered in this fight. So was War Machine.

I'm probably making it sound like it's a bigger issue than it really is (it's just my only flaw in the movie). There were a lot of good match ups in it.... Ant-Man more than matched up against Spiderman and then IM. Spiderman taking on Falcon and WS was great. The Spiderman - Cap scrap was great. Hawkeye and Black Widow were obvious opponents. Black Panther had his moments against WS and Cap. Giant-Man was the perfect distraction tactic. It just faltered a bit when you have Vison not taking on Wanda (and as a consequence Wanda not winning the fight on her own), War Machine struggling to take on Falcon and IM not dominating proceedings like he would normally do. The only thing in defense of IM not being so dominant is that Ant-Man possibly did significant damage... it just wasn't clear if that was the case.

Penn · 13-05-2016 11:51am

Bacchus wrote: »

I don't think it matters that the objective was not to kill. The balance was off in the fight in a number of ways
- Vison was on the sidelines and could have occupied Wanda
- Since Wanda had noone really challenging her, she could have easily taken IM and War Machine out of the fight at the start
- IM was underpowered in this fight. So was War Machine.

I'm probably making it sound like it's a bigger issue than it really is (it's just my only flaw in the movie). There were a lot of good match ups in it.... Ant-Man more than matched up against Spiderman and then IM. Spiderman taking on Falcon and WS was great. The Spiderman - Cap scrap was great. Hawkeye and Black Widow were obvious opponents. Black Panther had his moments against WS and Cap. Giant-Man was the perfect distraction tactic. It just faltered a bit when you have Vison not taking on Wanda (and as a consequence Wanda not winning the fight on her own), War Machine struggling to take on Falcon and IM not dominating proceedings like he would normally do. The only thing in defense of IM not being so dominant is that Ant-Man possibly did significant damage... it just wasn't clear if that was the case.

It's always been a long-standing tradition in comics (and now by extent, comic movies) that when superheroes fight each other, neither win. They both get hits in but usually (not always, but usually) it's either a draw or something happens to break up the fight. It's because showing one hero defeating another makes the beaten hero look weaker.

Not saying that's what happened here, and you have to consider how much of the action may have happened off-screen given how many heroes were in the fight, but Scarlet Witch was the only one who could have realistically matched up to Vision. If Vision was shown beating her, the fight as a whole wouldn't have looked even.

Bacchus · 13-05-2016 12:14pm

Penn wrote: »

It's always been a long-standing tradition in comics (and now by extent, comic movies) that when superheroes fight each other, neither win. They both get hits in but usually (not always, but usually) it's either a draw or something happens to break up the fight. It's because showing one hero defeating another makes the beaten hero look weaker.

Not saying that's what happened here, and you have to consider how much of the action may have happened off-screen given how many heroes were in the fight, but Scarlet Witch was the only one who could have realistically matched up to Vision. If Vision was shown beating her, the fight as a whole wouldn't have looked even.

I don't mind a draw, or that the objective was to get Cap and WS on the plane. The distraction of Giant-Man was even quite good in achieving that. However, given how superior IM's team were I think they got away quite easy in the end. This was particularly so as we see the all powerful Vision just casually watching them get away. 90% of that whole action sequence was fine but it's just those moments where you wonder why doesn't Vision just fly over there and stop them or why doesn't Wanda just dismantle IM's suit that, to me feels like they missed something in showing Wanda and Vision going head to head. Vision wouldn't have easily beaten Wanda but they would have largely cancelled each other out while still letting Wanda have a few last ditch saves of her teammates.

Anyway... I've talked to much about something that is only a minor complaint in an otherwise excellent movie.

brianregan09 · 13-05-2016 1:19pm

I think they went to good lengths to show humanity appearing in Vision so much so that he was starting to have feelings for Wanda (hence why he didn't take her down) and the fact they messed up at the end hitting rhodey instead of Falcon

13-05-2016 1:47pm

Why do you think that Vision would beat her though?

RedemptionZ · 13-05-2016 1:49pm

Sorry just to go off topic but MCU related: Is Jane Foster now written off in Thor 3?

Bacchus · 13-05-2016 1:58pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do you think that Vision would beat her though?

I think they'd be an even enough contest but Wanda would win in the end. Vision would at least slow her down though. As I said, the two big hitters that could both have ended the fight quickly were either sidelined or played down. If I'd change anything in that battle, it'd be to include a fight between them.

As for IM, maybe the damage done by Antman could have been emphasized because I thought he seemed a bit absent. I'll probably need to watch again to follow who was doing what.

Bacchus · 13-05-2016 2:02pm

brianregan09 wrote: »

I think they went to good lengths to show humanity appearing in Vision so much so that he was starting to have feelings for Wanda (hence why he didn't take her down) and the fact they messed up at the end hitting rhodey instead of Falcon

Another reason why it'd have been great to see them on opposing sides. I've a feeling there's some footage on the cutting room floor of them facing off.

Foxtrol · 13-05-2016 2:09pm

brianregan09 wrote: »

I think they went to good lengths to show humanity appearing in Vision so much so that he was starting to have feelings for Wanda (hence why he didn't take her down) and the fact they messed up at the end hitting rhodey instead of Falcon

This.

Aside from him going out of his way to try to protect her earlier in the move, they made a point of it when he said that he had never felt distracted like that before, when they were consoling each other.

B.A._Baracus · 14-05-2016 12:06am

Saw this eariler tonight. Considering it's runtime it didn't drag. Overall I would say it's a very decent movie. But maybe I am just getting a little tired of the superhero formula to say it's awesome.

On a side note it was funny that the americans couldnt say Lagos right :pac: They kept saying la-goss instead of lay-goss. Considering that the movie has a scene in that city you'd think they'd get the name right! :pac:
But of course in true hollywood fashion that scene was shot in good ol' Atlanta I just read.

17-05-2016 5:43pm

Better than past Marvel ventures but that's a bit like saying that only breaking one leg is preferable to breaking both. Less a Captain America film and more Avengers 3, Civil War is exactly what you expect, it's loud, flashy and nowhere near as thrilling or smart as it thinks it is.

Civil War is dumb fun that wishes that it was so much more, the script is knowingly winking at the audience and the set pieces decent though the over reliance on CGI once again hinders proceedings given many of the films bigger moments a real made for TV feel.Though at least it looks and feels cinematic, past Marvel films have all shared the same bland aesthetic that felt like Marvel were desperate to keep their TV and Films devours looking identical, only no one told Marvel that they should strive to make their TV look cinematic,not make their films look like a 90s sitcom. Civil War at the least looks like it belongs on a big screen.

The Russo Brothers stage their action well and show Joss Whedon up for the over rated hack he became when he bowed down to Marvel as a director for hire. Shame that many of the character moments fall flat, Stark's realization that there are consequences to his actions feels forced when you consider that over the course of the various films he's killed at least a few hundred people and never once cared. To have him suddenly heartbroken over the death of one person feels forced, though I suppose that in the past he's been killing minorities mainly so perhaps to Stark only American lives matter.

It does lay the groundwork for the Civil War though the whole thing feels so forced and fast that one can't wish that the writers let things play out slower. We've no sooner heard of the acord before lines are drawn and the producers have found a way to shoehorn in every supporting superhero they can as well as introduce two new recruits, The Black Panther who is one of the films highlights and Spiderman who has to be the most annoying and irritating addition to the series. Yes, they've rebooted Spiderman yet again and this time they've managed to make him more grating and awful than anyone though imaginable.

Civil War thankfully has a few aces, Captain America himself remains the only Marvel hero whose genuinely likable and whose fate you can care about. Black Panther is a great addition and should hopefully be allowed to shine in his solo outing as the character is ripe with possibilities. Daniel Bruhl is great as the villain, though he has so little to do that much like the baddies in Thor 2 you have to wonder what happened. Did they force reshoots so as to give some fan favorite a little more screen time and then cut Zemo's scenes. Maybe it's just me but the human element of the story and the impact the heroes actions have on ordinary people is far more interesting than watching CGI versions of the Avengers hitting one another in a rather unconvincing manner.

Captain America: Civil War isn't a great film but it's a step up for Marvel and hopefully one that they will build on. It's a by the numbers big blockbuster and there's nothing wrong with that, just don't go expecting anything more from it.

Foxtrol · 17-05-2016 9:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Shame that many of the character moments fall flat, Stark's realization that there are consequences to his actions feels forced when you consider that over the course of the various films he's killed at least a few hundred people and never once cared. To have him suddenly heartbroken over the death of one person feels forced, though I suppose that in the past he's been killing minorities mainly so perhaps to Stark only American lives matter.

Stark has constantly struggled with innocents he killed and/or didn’t manage to save, in fact he is pretty much obsessed by it. This was his driver in IM3, in constantly trying to improve his suits, and again the force behind him building Ultron. He has even repeatedly shown remorse for arms that his company built, during his playboy years, which were used by others to kill innocents.

Civil War isn’t the first time he’s heartbroken over a death, it’s the first time he’s accepted that by acting unilaterally he might be actually making things worse rather than better. That’s a huge difference and shows a big shift in the character.

17-05-2016 10:20pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Stark has constantly struggled with innocents he killed and/or didn’t manage to save, in fact he is pretty much obsessed by it. This was his driver in IM3, in constantly trying to improve his suits, and again the force behind him building Ultron. He has even repeatedly shown remorse for arms that his company built, during his playboy years, which were used by others to kill innocents.

Civil War isn’t the first time he’s heartbroken over a death, it’s the first time he’s accepted that by acting unilaterally he might be actually making things worse rather than better. That’s a huge difference and shows a big shift in the character.

I thought that IM 3 was about Starks struggle with post traumatic stress and never really got the impression that it was due to the deaths of innocent people. I felt that it came more from the fact that Stark realised that in the grand scheme of things he was nothing more than a speck, that out there in the universe there is more than he will ever know about. I've not seen IM 3 in some time but if I recall he only really gets motivated to do anything about the Mandarin when his friend is injured.

18-05-2016 7:47am

Well.

At least this incarnation of Spiderman is better than the last.

Bacchus · 18-05-2016 7:56am

I think Stark's progression has been a highlight of the series...
IM1 - Playboy arms dealer. Realizes the suffering and pain he causes. Decides to do something good with his life.
IM2 - A bit of a growing up with the responsibilities of being Iron Man and his intro to the Avengers initiative. Also shows how much disregard for authority he has, not sharing tech.
Avengers - Starts out full on "I'm awesome, I'm never gonna lose". Eventually sacrifices himself to save the world but realizes how insignificant and helpless he really is by doing so.
IM3 - There's a combo here of PTSD (from Avengers) and a growing obsession with saving the world by building more suits. In the end, destroys suits to give him a clean start.
Avengers 2 - He is still obsessed with protecting the world and saving lives (his new drones designed to manage crowds when the Avengers are in action). Creates Ultron as the perfect shield so that the Avengers are no longer needed but backfires spectacularly.
CA: CW - Finally concedes that he can't protect the world from the baddies or from the Avengers themselves. It's the next step in his attempts to save the world... by handing control over to someone who can do better. Coming from IM1/2, that's a big shift in attitude, and IMO it was handled quite well over the 6 movies (though I think the transition from IM3 to A2 could have been better).

I don't think his transition isn't so much to do with the lives lost due to his actions but more about his inability to protect the world. Avengers 2 in particular was the final straw, his master-plan to protect everyone cost thousands of lives.

18-05-2016 8:37am

Vision just doesn't seem right, to me.

Penn · 18-05-2016 8:45am

Bacchus wrote: »

I don't think his transition isn't so much to do with the lives lost due to his actions but more about his inability to protect the world. Avengers 2 in particular was the final straw, his master-plan to protect everyone cost thousands of lives.

Actually in CW they show a death toll for all the events Ross shows them. The death count for all of them is surprisingly small. If I remember right, only about 80 people died in New York in Avengers 1 and about 180 died in Sokovia in Avengers 2.

Bacchus · 18-05-2016 11:03am

Penn wrote: »

Actually in CW they show a death toll for all the events Ross shows them. The death count for all of them is surprisingly small. If I remember right, only about 80 people died in New York in Avengers 1 and about 180 died in Sokovia in Avengers 2.

That's nuts really....

New York invasion - Chunks taken out of buildings (by Hulk, crashing ships and the big monster ship) and aliens going *pew pew* *pewpewpew* all over the shop. Only 80 people died!?

Sokovia - the city is lifted up and dropped from a mile high. Only 180 died!?

Penn · 18-05-2016 11:47am

Bacchus wrote: »

That's nuts really....

New York invasion - Chunks taken out of buildings (by Hulk, crashing ships and the big monster ship) and aliens going *pew pew* *pewpewpew* all over the shop. Only 80 people died!?

Sokovia - the city is lifted up and dropped from a mile high. Only 180 died!?

New York - Well they did make a big point about keeping everything contained to a three-block radius and helping the cops evacuate buildings. And while chunks were taken out of buildings, only one building was actually shown collapsing. I agree though, it seems low.

Sokovia - It showed them largely evacuating the whole city before the final fight even began. While we only got short clips of it, I'd say most of the city was empty. Then whoever was left was rescued during the fight as we saw. Ultron didn't care about them evacuating the city, because his plan was an extinction level event anyway. As for the city being dropped, it was completely broken apart and the city seemed to be surrounded by mostly forest/woodland, as well as the lake/sea. So most of the debris probably didn't cause that much damage (bar Zemo's family obviously).

I guess in a way, it can kinda be justified how low the numbers are, but they still seemed unnecessarily low. Like if you said 500 in New York and 2,000 in Sokovia, they're still huge and realistic death tolls to justify the Sokovia Accords without being high enough that people are calling for the Avengers to be put to death.

Mickeroo · 18-05-2016 11:51am

From just watching the films I would have expected the New York death toll to be higher than the Sokovia one.

Penn · 18-05-2016 1:04pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

From just watching the films I would have expected the New York death toll to be higher than the Sokovia one.

I dunno. Even with the flying monster, they mostly just skimmed against the sides of buildings. And when the one Thor and Hulk were on crashed in Grand Central Station, the place was empty. They kept it all relatively confined to one area.

Sokovia, they didn't know that Ultron was going to lift the city, so how much of the city the Avengers actually evacuated and whether those people were still in the radius of where the debris from the exploded city landed (considering you have a small city-worth of people trying to evacuate through a small number of roads, I'm sure there were probably a few trafic jams), meant that the potential casualties would have been pretty high.

18-05-2016 1:04pm

I mean.. a three block range in New York is still thousands and thousands of people. The World Trade centre was two buildings and 3,000+ died in that ...

pixelburp · 18-05-2016 1:27pm

At the risk of over-analysing, it's a consistent problem with those Superhero films that insist of trashing entire cities for its jollies: for me, there's always a bit of dissonance between what we can clearly see is an apocalyptic level of urban damage, against the convenience of a low casualty rate. It also tends to be easier to believe something ostensibly fictitious or fantastic like a flying snake monster, because it requires an investment into the fiction, than it is believing a city or city block could evacuate in the space of time the carnage takes place.

Bacchus · 18-05-2016 1:55pm

pixelburp wrote: »

At the risk of over-analysing, it's a consistent problem with those Superhero films that insist of trashing entire cities for its jollies: for me, there's always a bit of dissonance between what we can clearly see is an apocalyptic level of urban damage, against the convenience of a low casualty rate. It also tends to be easier to believe something ostensibly fictitious or fantastic like a flying snake monster, because it requires an investment into the fiction, than it is believing a city or city block could evacuate in the space of time the carnage takes place.

In fairness, CW and Ant-Man are recent entries to the MCU that did not resort to this type of mass destruction finale.... though Ant-Man did end with a climatic fight on a passenger train in which entire carriages are flung (by the hero!) as missiles.

pixelburp · 18-05-2016 1:59pm

Bacchus wrote: »

In fairness, CW and Ant-Man are recent entries to the MCU that did not resort to this type of mass destruction finale.... though Ant-Man did end with a climatic fight on a passenger train in which entire carriages are flung (by the hero!) as missiles.

Absolutely, Civil War was a breath of fresh air, not saying that there aren't attempts to move away from the sort of destruction I mention. I wonder if they kept those New York / Sokovia figures quite low because anything resembling the actual number of deaths probable in such events would have made Captain America's position fairly untenable.

CramCycle · 18-05-2016 2:15pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Absolutely, Civil War was a breath of fresh air, not saying that there aren't attempts to move away from the sort of destruction I mention. I wonder if they kept those New York / Sokovia figures quite low because anything resembling the actual number of deaths probable in such events would have made Captain America's position fairly untenable.

Only reason I can think of,

If Slovakia was high, IM would be up on Manslaughter, possibly should have been anyway, if not Genocide. Hardly a court room drama they want. Would have been pro accords either way but Tony would be in chains, still should be.

New York I don't know why they didn't let it be higher, none of the Avengers chose NY, that was Loki, a huge death toll that could have been much worse would have been in their favour, particularly for the Caps argument of ability to mobilise without red tape. This would have been very anti accord.

Penn · 18-05-2016 2:22pm

pixelburp wrote: »

At the risk of over-analysing, it's a consistent problem with those Superhero films that insist of trashing entire cities for its jollies: for me, there's always a bit of dissonance between what we can clearly see is an apocalyptic level of urban damage, against the convenience of a low casualty rate. It also tends to be easier to believe something ostensibly fictitious or fantastic like a flying snake monster, because it requires an investment into the fiction, than it is believing a city or city block could evacuate in the space of time the carnage takes place.

Definitely a problem throughout Phase 2. Iron Man 3 and Ant Man weren't too bad, by CA:TWS dropped three huge enemy ships into the ground (CW also noted that death count around 20 civilians), Thor had a huge enemy ship crashing into the ground in London, and Guardians of the Galaxy, while not Earth, definitely killed a whole bunch of civilians with... an enemy ship crashing into the ground.

Thankfully and hopefully they reached the pinnacle of that idea with AoU by instead lifting the ground up and having it crash into the ground and will stick to more personal final battles in the individual films, saving the huge explosive ones for actual Avenger movies.

Zubeneschamali · 18-05-2016 2:28pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I wonder if they kept those New York / Sokovia figures quite low because anything resembling the actual number of deaths probable in such events would have made Captain America's position fairly untenable.

Ultron was going to destroy the world - a billion deaths would be cheap to stop him The issue there was that Tony Stark created Ultron, not that too many people died in Sokovia.

In New York, the people overseeing Shield wanted to nuke NY and kill 100,000+ people, Stark, Fury and the Avengers saved at least that number by rejecting oversight orders before the count from aliens conquering the Earth is iincluded.

Captain America himself, acting alone, saved the major cities of the USA from being HYDRA-bombed in WWII.

In Winter Soldier, the people overseeing SHIELD turned out to be superNazis.

All in all, Captain America has a watertight case against allowing oversight (in the MCU).

Dave_The_Sheep · 20-05-2016 7:23am

And of course, Captain America has to win the fight in the end, self righteous sanctimonious bore that he is. Better for Tony to have batter the two of them, come to his senses and let them leave as he realises that the people he gave oversight to weren't who he thought they would be (after seeing Clint and the rest imprisoned under the sea etc). But no.

I really enjoyed the film, but that last few minutes were sh*te.

Also, conspicious lack of Vision at the airport and to a lesser extent Wanda. That's the problem when you have two characters able to stomp the other team on their own I suppose. Still, if Wanda gets to interfere to save her teammates a hiding, then it's fair Vision would get to to the same. Again, no - because otherwise Team Iron Man would have knocked Team Cap around the place (Vision/Wanda being absent).

20-05-2016 8:11am

I mean, realistically they weren't going to have him beaten in his own movie.

You know what I liked about this? The fact that there was no world-ending fight at the end. At least not for the actual world, but world-ending for the Avengers.

Zubeneschamali · 20-05-2016 8:21am

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Also, conspicious lack of Vision at the airport and to a lesser extent Wanda.

I thought it was clear that Vision and Wanda had a bit of a Thing, and were holding back. If either of them waded in at full power, only the other one could stop them.

And was shooting down Rhodey an accident, or did vision have his doubts, too?

20-05-2016 8:24am

What exactly is the extent of Vision's powers? I'm assuming that gem in his forehead is an infinity stone, so is he on par with the Hulk and Thor in strength/power?

Penn · 20-05-2016 8:26am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And was shooting down Rhodey an accident, or did vision have his doubts, too?

Almost definitely an accident. You can see the guilt he has after when talking to Tony and seeing what happened to Rhodey. He was distracted because he was holding Wanda.

If Vision had doubts or was to help Steve & Bucky escape, he had the ability to do so without hurting anyone.

20-05-2016 8:30am

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

And of course, Captain America has to win the fight in the end, self righteous sanctimonious bore that he is. Better for Tony to have batter the two of them, come to his senses and let them leave as he realises that the people he gave oversight to weren't who he thought they would be (after seeing Clint and the rest imprisoned under the sea etc). But no.

I really enjoyed the film, but that last few minutes were sh*te.

Also, conspicious lack of Vision at the airport and to a lesser extent Wanda. That's the problem when you have two characters able to stomp the other team on their own I suppose. Still, if Wanda gets to interfere to save her teammates a hiding, then it's fair Vision would get to to the same. Again, no - because otherwise Team Iron Man would have knocked Team Cap around the place (Vision/Wanda being absent).

You get that this is a Captain America film and not an Iron Man or Avengers one???

Zubeneschamali · 20-05-2016 8:31am

Penn wrote: »

If Vision had doubts or was to help Steve & Bucky escape, he had the ability to do so without hurting anyone.

Without giving himself away? I'm not so sure.

20-05-2016 8:32am

http://imgur.com/KLnLIME

Very applicable.

Dave_The_Sheep · 20-05-2016 9:03am

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean, realistically they weren't going to have him beaten in his own movie..

Indeed. Mind you, having him convince Tony that he was wrong to sign the Accord would be seen as a win for Captain America, even if Tony let him go at the end. It just seems a more satisfactory ending to me - but perhaps one without as much sequel potential.

corkexile wrote:

You get that this is a Captain America film and not an Iron Man or Avengers ine???

No, I missed that entirely, it being in the title and all. Personally, I think it's a **** title. Avengers: Civil War would be far more appropriate, given they're nearly all large characters in it. That one has flown the coop though.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

I thought it was clear that Vision and Wanda had a bit of a Thing, and were holding back. If either of them waded in at full power, only the other one could stop them.

Yes, indeed; I got that impression too. However, there were bits of Wanda saving her 'teammates' from getting a hiding. She actually did something. Vision didn't even appear until the end when he accidentally shoots down Rhodey.

Penn · 20-05-2016 11:03am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Without giving himself away? I'm not so sure.

I don't think he's someone who would care about giving himself away or not. He sided with Iron Man because he felt the Sokovia Accords were justified. He'd do whatever he felt was right and take whatever consequences came, not try and play both sides.

He'd have no reason to purposefully take out Rhodey (and quite possibly kill him in doing so) while trying to make it look like an accident. Such an action would be a huge departure from his character.

Zubeneschamali · 20-05-2016 11:10am

Penn wrote: »

I don't think he's someone who would care about giving himself away or not. He sided with Iron Man because he felt the Sokovia Accords were justified. He'd do whatever he felt was right and take whatever consequences came, not try and play both sides.

But as noted above, he didn't actually do any of that. He could have defeated Captain America and his whole team easily (apart from Wanda). He pulled his punches at the airport, and the only significant thing he did was the "accident".

So if he could have done it, but didn't, we have to think that he decided not to.

20-05-2016 11:11am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But as noted above, he didn't actually do any of that. He could have defeated Captain America and his whole team easily (apart from Wanda). He pulled his punches at the airport, and the only significant thing he did was the "accident".

So if he could have done it, but didn't, we have to think that he decided not to.

Why?

Zubeneschamali · 20-05-2016 11:14am

Deleted User wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But as noted above, he didn't actually do any of that. He could have defeated Captain America and his whole team easily (apart from Wanda). He pulled his punches at the airport, and the only significant thing he did was the "accident".

So if he could have done it, but didn't, we have to think that he decided not to.

Why?

Why did he decide not to beat Cap's team? Because he likes them (especially Wanda), and sympathizes with them, despite officially agreeing with the accords.

Penn · 20-05-2016 11:20am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But as noted above, he didn't actually do any of that. He could have defeated Captain America and his whole team easily (apart from Wanda). He pulled his punches at the airport, and the only significant thing he did was the "accident".

So if he could have done it, but didn't, we have to think that he decided not to.

Everyone pulled their punches at the airport. None of them wanted to hurt anyone else. He tried to block access to the Quinjet but Wanda was able to let Cap & Bucky get through. After that, as he says himself, he was distracted because Wanda was hurt. Tony asked him to fire on Falcon to get him off their tails, he missed because Falcon dodged and it hit Rhodey.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it would be quite a leap for his character with no other signs pointing to him hitting Rhodey (and potentially killing him) on purpose or trying to help Cap & Bucky escape (while trying to hide that fact so Tony doesn't know). It makes the most sense that he simply missed.

Nervous Wreck · 20-05-2016 2:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is the extent of Vision's powers? I'm assuming that gem in his forehead is an infinity stone, so is he on par with the Hulk and Thor in strength/power?

Essentially he's powerful enough that strength doesn't really come into it.

Penn · 20-05-2016 3:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is the extent of Vision's powers? I'm assuming that gem in his forehead is an infinity stone, so is he on par with the Hulk and Thor in strength/power?

Aside from using the gem as a laser or whatever, his main power is ability to change his density. He can weigh practically nothing (allowing him to fly). He can become extremely heavy (which is what Scarlet Witch did to him while escaping with Hawkeye, she used his own power to make himself so heavy he fell through all the floors). He can change his density to practically zero and phase through anything. He can change it to become so solid he's practically unbreakable. I'm guessing it can also give him a huge amount of physical strength, though not sure what that would be compared to Thor or Hulk.

The limits of it are obviously yet to be determined, as is what would happen if the mind stone was removed (which I'd say is likely to happen in Infinity War when Thanos manages to get all the infinity stones).

20-05-2016 4:11pm

Is that what Scarlet Witch did to him? I really thought it was just that her forcefield whatsit pushed him down. But she manipulated his power? That really wasn't explained very well ..

Nervous Wreck · 20-05-2016 4:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that what Scarlet Witch did to him? I really thought it was just that her forcefield whatsit pushed him down. But she manipulated his power? That really wasn't explained very well ..

Really? I got that immediately... When she starts working her mojo on him, the mind stone goes red, indicating she's controlling it to manipulate his powers.

Riddle101 · 20-05-2016 4:58pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Really? I got that immediately... When she starts working her mojo on him, the mind stone goes red, indicating she's controlling it to manipulate his powers.

Admittedly I missed that bit too. I thought she used her telekinesis to push him through the floor or something.

FunLover18 · 20-05-2016 10:44pm

Andrew Ellard has done some really good Tweetnotes on this.

jigglypuffstuff · 21-05-2016 6:49pm

I heard a few people saying everyone was pulling there punches in the airport scene

Tbh.. When Cap put spiderman away...how was he to know that he had superhuman strength.... I mean Tony knew.. But Cap?

Nervous Wreck · 21-05-2016 6:57pm

pone2012 wrote: »

I heard a few people saying everyone was pulling there punches in the airport scene

Tbh.. When Cap put spiderman away...how was he to know that he had superhuman strength.... I mean Tony knew.. But Cap?

Spider-Man webbed both of Cap's arms and was able to stop him going for his shield. Also managed to pull Cap's legs out from under him. Neither would be easy to do and would give Cap a good indication of Spidey's strength levels.

Captain America : Civil War *spoilers from post 480*

Comments

Captain America : Civil War spoilers from post 480