I hope we don't already have a thread like this, but I thought it'd be fun to have a thread of crazy/funny/weird/bad screenshots. Show off that really high health or pulled off combo or whatever crazy thing you've seen lately.
This one caught me off guard because it seemed like my play wouldn't be a game crippling play. Anyway, poor conduct aside, my opponent conceded on turn three because of this...?!?! (I crossed out his name because I don't want to call him out in public like that, hopefully I didn't miss his name anywhere)
Anyway, put some more fun pictures up if you have them!
Yeah, revenge for murdered parents is totally silly!
But that's not why they started fighting.
I liked the scene where Stark sees the murder of his parents and learns that Buckey did it. It had tension and actually served up a good reason for the final confrontation between Stark and Captain America.
But the earlier fight scenes? Particularly that big showdown between all the super-heroes?
Heck, Stark choosing to extend an olive branch to Captain America after he learns that Buckey isn't responsible for the bombing doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, the bombing, and the existence of Buckey in general, isn't the key reason for the Sokovia Accords. It's Scarlet Witch inadvertently killing a bunch of civilians while trying to save Captain America and other civilians. It's Stark creating Ultron and ultimately leading to the destruction of Sokovia and the death of many people. From the way the film presented it, Stark's guilt over it goes over the edge only when that mother accuses him of murdering her son.
So, Stark and Captain America are ultimately fighting over responsibility. But for some absurd reason Stark is willing to cause a spectacular amount of collateral damage, when a large part of his guilt comes from the collateral damage caused by his actions. You'd think that Stark wouldn't be willing to do that.
Hence the reason I think the conflict is manufactured. The two have good reasons to be at odds with one another, but to the point of coming to blows? I don't know.
italofoca already summed it up well, but the airport fight isn't a go-for-the-throat beat down. It's Iron Man trying to stop Captain America before the government(s) come after him because he knows they won't pull their punches. That fight makes perfect sense in the context of the film and Hawkeye/Black Widow even make a joke about it. Face it, Civil War is a fun, fairly competently made film.
*raises hand*
I'm supporting Trump. To me, the democrat platform is constructed on a base of total bull***** (Wage gap, the rainbow of nonexistent -isms, blaming the rich for our problems) that are either a waste of time to address or will actively harm our nation and economy. While Trump is a complete inconsiderate ass, hes neither corrupt like hillary or bat***** insane like sanders. TBH, I'd like to know what's wrong with you when off-the-cuff statements are a more serious concern to you than being under FBI investigation or the Clinton "foundation" (or any other hillary scandal) or relying on 5% growth annually and a debunked economic plan?
.
I still don't understand why people think the democrats are some sort of burden on the economy when we've flourished under one for the last 7 years (we've flourished under republicans in the past, I'm not entirely convinced the government has that strong of a pull on the economy).
The wage gap is real. I cannot believe you think it's not. There's tons of stats to back it up.
But, since you brought up BS tactics, what about the republicans fear politics? They've been telling people to be afraid of terrorists (more pedestrians are killed each year in the US than have been killed this century by terrorists and that includes 9/11). They've been telling people to be afraid of crime, despite nearly three decades of falling crime rates. They told us the ACA would bankrupt the country, it didn't. They tell us illegal immigrants are a burden on the economy, they aren't.
I haven't read much in this thread because I'm just hopeful that we, as a nation, come to our senses and not elect this moron president, but he had to go and slander my hometown (Ferguson). Maybe he should visit the place before he talks about its "crime rate." Please tell me there's no legit Trump supporters in these forums. And if there are, WTF is wrong with you?!?!!?
Was Obi-wan Kenobi a "background character" in Episode 4?
No, but he was pretty clearly a supporting character who existed to say some wise things and then die.
Now, this was fine, because we'd only just been introduced to him that film. If, however, we'd spent three films with him as a central character and grown attached to him, we'd all have been pissed off by the treatment of his character in A New Hope.
to trying to tell me that Obi-wan has a character arc that doesn't exist.
This conversation is dumb. I feel like I'm being trolled.
We are agreeing to disagree that Han Solo was (mis)handled by Episode 7. Period.
Describe, in a least a little detail, his character before and after his "arc" and tell me what about him changed. Just asking me if he's the same person before and after he dies isn't telling me anything. For the record, I don't think he's a different person at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. If you're referring to him being willing to sacrifice himself for the rebellion (and if that's the case why not just say that instead of being vague?), he's already sacrificed his life to live on the backwoods planet of Tattooine. I'm pretty sure he's been a martyr his whole life.
What's the title of the film? "A New Hope."
Is Obi-Wan a man of hope when we meet him? We see him living as a hermit in a hovel in what is basically the ass-end of the galaxy. He's crazy Old Ben, the strange wizard who lives in what even the people of Tatooine consider to be in the middle of nowhere.
We later learn that this man was once a great knight and hero of the Clone Wars. That he was once a great Jedi Knight. But something happened. He trained a student named Darth Vader, who lead to the extinction of the Jedi. Since then he's seen the Old Republic die off and the Empire usher in a dark time.
So no, he's not a man of hope. He's a man who has nothing to look forward to but the past.
Literally none of this is expressed in the film. We don't know that he was a "great Jedi knight". We know that he knew Luke's father and that he fought in a war, but we don't know anything about his character prior to what we see in the film. You are inventing things that aren't there.
Obi-wan is Luke's mentor from the first moment he steps into the frame until even after his death. The first thing Obi-wan does with Luke is give him a lightsaber! Do you think he would have done that if he wasn't planning on teaching him the ways of the Force?! That's it. He's a supporting character. He is little more than a plot device.
Elaborate because I think you're waaaay off base with this.
I'm not. Is Obi-Wan the same character at the start of A New Hope as he is at the end of A New Hope? He is not. Indeed, is Obi-Wan the same character from the start of the fight between him and Darth Vader A New Hope as he is at the end of that fight when he decides to sacrifice himself? He is not.
Therefore, he has an arc.
Now, I'm not saying it's a Walter White-level arc (sidenote: there really need to be more Breaking Bad-Star Wars mashups), but it is a character arc.
Elaborate better.
Describe, in a least a little detail, his character before and after his "arc" and tell me what about him changed. Just asking me if he's the same person before and after he dies isn't telling me anything. For the record, I don't think he's a different person at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. If you're referring to him being willing to sacrifice himself for the rebellion (and if that's the case why not just say that instead of being vague?), he's already sacrificed his life to live on the backwoods planet of Tattooine. I'm pretty sure he's been a martyr his whole life.
EDIT: Do some work before you post a response to this, please. Just saying "he is a different person at the end of the film than the beginning" isn't describing his character arc. I don't know what you're trying to communicate to me.
I disagree with most of your points. Civil war juggles multiple characters so much better than DoJ its uncanny. When they do introduce characters it feels organic and everything flowed properly.
Just what exactly flowed well with Spider-man's introduction in the film? It was pretty freaking obvious that scene was added simply because they wanted to get Spider-man into the movie (and so into the MCU). The idea that Stark needs to bring in one singular super-hero to even the odds is silly. The man has an entire factory churning out autonomous suits in AoU. Why the hell didn't he just get a whole bunch of them to go take down Captain America?
Because it wouldn't have created the big action sequence of the film, that's why. But that scene makes no real sense to me either, for the reasons that Blinking_Spirit mentioned.
And why the flying **** would Ant-man agree to go help Captain America?
And why the **** is Vision, heralded to be this epic superpower, basically the equivalent of a nuclear deterrent in the ultimate showdown against the Big Bad (Thanos), reduced to being a character that feels oddly similar to Data from TNG and fighting Barton of all people? Seriously? The artificial being who has one of the Infinity Stones on his head, has the right state of mind to lift Mjolnir, is comprised entirely of vibranium, can somehow create a cape out of thin-air, fights... Barton. The guy with the bow and arrow.
Oh, and he's somehow incapacitated, even momentarily, by Scarlet Witch.
My impression of the film-
It was just a silly film. The real major problem I have is that the conflict between Rogers and Stark just seems really manufactured to serve the plot. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but I just don't think there's an actual reason they'd be so at odds with one another.
Yeah, revenge for murdered parents is totally silly!
Actually, I think people would have been fine with Han Solo getting the Obi-wan treatment since he already has a larger place in the Star Wars universe. Agree to disagree.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Obi-Wan treatment." Are you talking about Han being made to be less prominent, or Han not getting a character arc? Because Obi-Wan has a character arc in A New Hope.
Yeah I know, and I agree it would have been too much to make it exactly like the comics. But I do wish they'd have put more time into the non-fighting part of the story. Specifically the impact it had on the characters lives away from being a super hero. But I suppose that too wouldn't have fit in the time constraints they had to work with. Mostly I'm just bummed about the way Spiderman was used. In the comics he was central to the story in a big way.
specifically the way he switched sides half way through the story. In the movie he's not pivotal to the story at all and the movie wouldn't have been any different at all had he not been in it.
But like I said, I like it overall and I'll add it to my collection when it comes out for purchase.
It would have been super cool to see the spider man armor suit from the comic for sure perhaps a bit out of place though.
I thought that's what they were implying we would see in future movies with the after credits scene.
I have one very major disagreement with your BvS comparison.
Baron Zemo's entire story line was dedicated to his mission. Every scene that featured him intended to drive his narrative and his mission forward. Lex Luthor's ridiculous plan of pitting Batman and Superman against one another wasn't a part of the story until almost 3/4ths of the way into the film and that only happened after Batman stole the kryptonite before Lex could. Lex's plan also only is revealed in literally one scene and none of the leg work is shown for how he got there (how does he know everything about Superman and his secret identity??!?! he never earned that information!!!!).
Yes, Civil War is a crowded film, but it manages to juggle those elements so much better than BvS that to compare the two is, IMO, ridiculous. On top of that, it's actually fun to watch unlike pretty much every film Zack Snyder has ever directed.
Was Obi-wan Kenobi a "background character" in Episode 4?
No, but he was pretty clearly a supporting character who existed to say some wise things and then die.
Now, this was fine, because we'd only just been introduced to him that film. If, however, we'd spent three films with him as a central character and grown attached to him, we'd all have been pissed off by the treatment of his character in A New Hope.
Put simply, there's no way in hell you'd get away with treating Han Solo the way you treated Obi Wan in A New Hope. Not only is Han Solo someone the audience is too attached to, but seeing what has happened since Return of the Jedi to Luke, Leia, and Han Solo - characters we know and love - is the whole appeal of a sequel trilogy to Star Wars.
So Han needs to be a bigger character than Obi Wan in A New Hope, and this necessitates a character arc. And if Han's going to have a son who went to the Dark Side, then he should have an arc, especially if he's going to die. You don't just kill Han Solo without giving him a round in the spotlight, he's damn sure earned it.
And yes, they could have had Han just say wise things, but Han... I mean, he could have been the whole General Solo bit and not been a scoundrel, but would we have really wanted that? Don't you want Han Solo to be the space cowboy? I know I do.
Actually, I think people would have been fine with Han Solo getting the Obi-wan treatment since he already has a larger place in the Star Wars universe. Agree to disagree.
That said, I'm not the only one who feels his arc in Episode 7 is stupid. The guys at the Cracked podcast said the same thing. So, maybe you would feel cheated of Han Solo character moments had they taken a different route with him, but my guess is that you'd be in the minority.
There's no reason for him to be apart from Leia and back to no good. Even if his son had turned to the Dark Side there's no real reason that he had to be written back into being a scoundrel except that's what they wanted to do.
First of all, Han was never not a scoundrel. Let's be real here.
He doesn't need any of the things you described as being a part of his new arc because he comes into this film with all that we already know about him.
Again, I don't see how it isn't sloppy writing to have a major character in the Star Wars universe come back and just be a background character.
Was Obi-wan Kenobi a "background character" in Episode 4?
There's no reason for him to be apart from Leia and back to no good. Even if his son had turned to the Dark Side there's no real reason that he had to be written back into being a scoundrel except that's what they wanted to do.
First of all, Han was never not a scoundrel. Let's be real here.
This one caught me off guard because it seemed like my play wouldn't be a game crippling play. Anyway, poor conduct aside, my opponent conceded on turn three because of this...?!?! (I crossed out his name because I don't want to call him out in public like that, hopefully I didn't miss his name anywhere)
Anyway, put some more fun pictures up if you have them!
I still don't understand why people think the democrats are some sort of burden on the economy when we've flourished under one for the last 7 years (we've flourished under republicans in the past, I'm not entirely convinced the government has that strong of a pull on the economy).
The wage gap is real. I cannot believe you think it's not. There's tons of stats to back it up.
But, since you brought up BS tactics, what about the republicans fear politics? They've been telling people to be afraid of terrorists (more pedestrians are killed each year in the US than have been killed this century by terrorists and that includes 9/11). They've been telling people to be afraid of crime, despite nearly three decades of falling crime rates. They told us the ACA would bankrupt the country, it didn't. They tell us illegal immigrants are a burden on the economy, they aren't.
Who's telling lies?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/18/donald-trump-somehow-thinks-ferguson-and-oakland-are-dangerous-like-iraq/
to trying to tell me that Obi-wan has a character arc that doesn't exist.
This conversation is dumb. I feel like I'm being trolled.
We are agreeing to disagree that Han Solo was (mis)handled by Episode 7. Period.
Literally none of this is expressed in the film. We don't know that he was a "great Jedi knight". We know that he knew Luke's father and that he fought in a war, but we don't know anything about his character prior to what we see in the film. You are inventing things that aren't there.
Obi-wan is Luke's mentor from the first moment he steps into the frame until even after his death. The first thing Obi-wan does with Luke is give him a lightsaber! Do you think he would have done that if he wasn't planning on teaching him the ways of the Force?! That's it. He's a supporting character. He is little more than a plot device.
Elaborate better.
Describe, in a least a little detail, his character before and after his "arc" and tell me what about him changed. Just asking me if he's the same person before and after he dies isn't telling me anything. For the record, I don't think he's a different person at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. If you're referring to him being willing to sacrifice himself for the rebellion (and if that's the case why not just say that instead of being vague?), he's already sacrificed his life to live on the backwoods planet of Tattooine. I'm pretty sure he's been a martyr his whole life.
EDIT: Do some work before you post a response to this, please. Just saying "he is a different person at the end of the film than the beginning" isn't describing his character arc. I don't know what you're trying to communicate to me.
Elaborate because I think you're waaaay off base with this.
What?!!?
I have one very major disagreement with your BvS comparison.
Actually, I think people would have been fine with Han Solo getting the Obi-wan treatment since he already has a larger place in the Star Wars universe. Agree to disagree.
That said, I'm not the only one who feels his arc in Episode 7 is stupid. The guys at the Cracked podcast said the same thing. So, maybe you would feel cheated of Han Solo character moments had they taken a different route with him, but my guess is that you'd be in the minority.
LOL! I misased the word "not" in there!
Was Obi-wan Kenobi a "background character" in Episode 4?
???!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!
HAN SHOT FIRST! How is that not a "scoundrel?"