This year, Warner Bros. and Marvel Studios were on a collision course for box office supremacy. Both studios released movies where one hero was pitted against another. While a lot of people preferred Marvel’s release of Captain America: Civil War, I thought Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice was actually the better movie. To properly argue my position (that may or may not incite involuntary teeth-grinding in Civil War die-hards), here are six reasons why I preferred the showdown between the Man of Steel and the Dark Knight over Cap and shellhead’s spat.
6) Batman V Superman Had Consequences
The opening scene in Batman V Superman showing Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) witnessing the fight between Superman (Henry Cavill) and General Zod (Michael Shannon) from Man of Steel – and the anger in his eyes after seeing the Wayne Financial building collapse – not only showed you the motive for Bruce/Batman hating Superman, it also set the tone for the rest of the movie; the subplot dealt with the fallout of the events of Man Of Steel. No matter what happened, with Batman and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) in the picture now, things weren’t going to be the same for Superman.
Captain America: Civil War, on the other hand, had no consequences. Sure, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) weren’t friends anymore, but Steve sent that letter saying if Tony ever needed him, he’d be there for him. So after all that fighting and arguing, Steve still offers Tony a helping hand? Really?
5) Gal Gadot Rocked the House
All everyone was talking about before BVS hit the screen was how Ben Affleck would do as Batman compared to Christian Bale or Michael Keaton. But after it came out, people were very happy with Affleck’s performance AND Gal Gadot’s show-stealing turn as Wonder Woman. I’ll admit I did not expect Gadot to be as great as she was. Granted, I did not have high expectations for Gadot walking in to the movie, but after I was amazed!
4) The Fight Between Superman and Batman was Better Than the Berlin Airport Battle
To me, the signature scene from Batman V Superman was the showdown between Superman and Batman. It was like the Frank Miller mini-series the Dark Knight Returns came to life! It had everything: suspense, blood, misdirection and drama! Know what the Berlin Airport battle had? Heroes quipping over each other left and right. “Everybody’s got a gimmick,” wacka-wacka! Does every punch need to have a punchline attached to it? No. A little more on the characters who appeared in this scene later.
3) Captain America: Civil War’s Plot Shifted Focus
OK, the main plot of the movie was supposed to be about the Superhuman Registration Act and how all the Avengers and superheroes we know in Marvel were to register with the US Government, a point of contention Cap and Iron Man didn’t see eye to eye on. That was the focus of the whole movie…until it became about how Cap was protecting a framed Bucky from Iron Man (and his group of Avengers) who was charged with taking him in to face (bogus) charges on the UN bombing in Vienna. The SRA had no factor in the rest of the movie. It should’ve been called Captain America: The Fugitive. Say what you want about the plot of Batman V Superman, but at least the aspect of the public fearing and hating Superman was a constant.
2) Most of Captain America: Civil War’s Characters Had ZERO Effect on the Plot
Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane and Martha Kent all had vital roles in Batman V Superman. If any of them weren’t in the movie, the plot would’ve been completely different. Can’t say the same for most of the characters in Civil War. What did Hawkeye, Ant-Man, the Vision, even Black Widow or Spider-Man add to the movie? Honestly think about it. If none of them were in the movie, the outcome would’ve been absolutely the same.
“But Keith, the airport battle was awesome!”
Yeah, but did it effect or progress the plot of the movie? Nope.
1) Zack Snyder Is A LOT More Faithful to the Source Material Than People Think
One of the main complaints from the casual movie-goer was that BVS director Zack Snyder “didn’t respect the source material.” Guess what? He is probably the most faithful director Warner Brothers could have asked for. Watchmen proved that. There are so many things in BVS that are right out of the comics, like the exchange Batman had with the guy who was holding Martha Kent hostage…
Lex’s line about the word “psychotic”…
The entire fight with Superman and Batman…
And the Flash’s costume in the dream sequence right out of the video game Injustice: Gods Among Us.
So yeah, Snyder respects the hell out of the source material.
I know my opinion might be different from everyone else’s, so that’s why I would love to hear from you in the comments section below!
Stop writing. You’re not good at it.
List automatically invalid. Try actually watching the movie and stop pretending a letter insta-fixed everything. It didn’t.
Will Rhodey regain full use of his legs without cybernetic implants? Will Vision simply “get over” his apparent PTSD? Will Tony ever really trust himself or his own instincts again? Will Clint ever be allowed to see his family again, or Scott? I mean Scott’s a multiple offender and this could land him in even more serious trouble, and even if the others DO come back, there’s still a very good chance they’ll be made to stand trial in a court of international law.
Heck, that’s not even touching on whether Bucky will ever be allowed to live in peace even IF his brainwashing triggers are undone, to say nothing of the political implications of Wakanda granting asylum to a group of international fugitives.
There were consequences at the end of this movie that will be felt in others, just as this movie was full of consequences from past films.
I’d also like to point out: the gun scene up there? He shot the guy in the shoulder. The fight with Superman and Batman was nothing like the fight from The Dark Knight Returns, in any capacity. Especially not the ridiculous means by which it ended; it was also ridiculously short for being the crux of the entire movie.
As for respecting the source, I wouldn’t call Batman deciding Superman has to die because he doesn’t trust him “respecting the source”. I wouldn’t call Superman brooding and acting like saving people is a chore and hassle he’d almost rather not deal with “respecting the source”. I wouldn’t call Lex Luthor being a jittery caffeinated spaz “respecting the source”, or Superman still killing too after they promised he wouldn’t, or Batman murdering and torturing willy-nilly, only coming to that point after a fight that saved the entire planet because he lost people he knew via them being retconned into the building, then questioning the intentions of the being who’d originally offered himself up TO the Kryptonian invaders to avoid this, only for them to start terraforming anyway.
This reads like a lot of fanboy dreck, and very little substance is offered. Mostly a load of cliches and memes.
BUT HEY UR COOL BRO CUZ U LIKE EDGY HEROES UNLIKE CHILDREN WHO LIEK MARVEL AMIRITE?!
Than what was Tower of Babel/ JL Doom about? Batman has the ways to take down the whole team for what? Because if the get out of line he doesnt intend to use it to stop them? The only difference is that he knew the JL already in JL ToB. In BvS, he didn’t know Sups and saw him “get out of line” with his own 2 eyes. It’s the same approach he would take to Darkseid if he felt he was a threat to humanity. That is accurately in line with source material, right?
Batman’s methods of taking down “the whole team”
1. Were originally nonlethal and modified to try to be.
2. Required help to pull off because it was in case any one MEMBER went rogue and needed to be apprehended. Batman needed no plan for himself as the others, as superhumans, could take him down if needed without too much trouble.
Batman always takes precautions, and his trust must be earned, but he does not actively seek to murder anyone who might POSSIBLY be a threat.
I don’t think point six was meant to reference the side cast of heroes, though. If you think of point six and point two as sort of tied together, then this makes more sense. In saying that there were no consequences, only Cap and Tony were referenced because as the main characters, they did not suffer too great a loss by the end of the movie. And while Bucky is now in Wakanda, there is hope for his recovery of sorts, so things are not as horrible as they were made out to be at the climax of the movie.
Yes, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Vision and so forth will have to face repercussions for taking part in this (so-called) Civil War, but they weren’t who he was referring to when discussing consequences. Honestly, I felt as though a lot of their stories were only made to cause them problems so that it could impact their own movies, and that their involvement was more for selfish reasons of the writers. It’s like what Cinema Sins pointed out before the airport battle: if he spent his whole solo movie in fear of preserving his relationship with his daughter, why would Ant-Man give that up for Captain America? It completely undoes his solo efforts, but no one talks about that because that fight scene was entertaining.
Civil War, in my opinion, should not have been called Civil War. That comic is much too monstrous to be condensed into a solo movie title – if anything, it should have been down in two parts as an Avenger movie at some point, if they were really that gung-ho about including it in the MCU. But because it was handled the way it was – and 2016 is the year of group superhero films (sorry no one told Doctor Strange) – it felt as if a lot of the supporting cast barely made an impact on the film and for that reason, they should not be included in countering the point about consequences, since it only highlights just how much of collateral damage they all were.
Excellent points. I was really disappointed with “Civil War.” It was more “Avengers 2.5” than “Captain America 3,” which is what it should have been.
I agree with ya bud, but I know we’re in the minority….. I hated the jokes, how were we supposed to take the battle seriously if they didn’t?
Oh yeah I know I basically beat ya death Tony but I’ll help ya of you need me…. and I’m gonna break the law again to bust those guys outta prison
Cap went against everything he was supposed to stand for…. for one person…. which it at odds of his whole character Development since the first avenger
I like civil war a lot but BvS IMHO felt like it mattered.
I enjoyed both movies, but appreciate the effort BvS put in to targeting a more mature intelligent audience. However seeing the longer cut it was a little too complex and those bits added context to other parts of the movie but made it a little too much. But the story and all its complexities was about batman v Superman or some other party pitting them against each other to get “Batman v Superman”
I love the Marvel movies too but what I don’t like is what was mentioned above about characters in there that added nothing. It started with Winter Soldier, a great movie and severe consequences to the MCU felt across all platforms TV and Movies however, the winter Solidier had very little to do with that and didn’t change the plot or outcome at all. Was Should have been called return of Hydra or Hydra Stikes Back and maybe Bucky could be a reveal at the end. Civil war should have scaled down the extra characters, and being mostly about Bucky could have been called Winter Soldier. Then as a result it prompts the registration act and puts the two main Hero against each other for the next Avengers movie or a standalone title, Marvel Civil War. I think there is a bit of rushing by Marvel and Civil war title just a bit of marketing to sell a movie very early on. Fun stuff but seems aimed at the masses and dumbed down a little. I’ll still see them all and don’t take sides with DC or Marvel, everyone should enjoy them both because they are different and niether is trying to be the other.
Comments are closed.