Movie Fights: Civil War vs. Dawn of Justice

Alright, I understand that technically, this post should be called Movie Fights: Captain America: Civil War vs. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, but I didn't name it that because, well, first of all: that's a really long title. Too long. Secondly, there are way too many colons in there. And finally, I for one have had enough of these ridiculous movie subtitles. Call it Batman vs. Superman OR call it Dawn of Justice, but don't do both! That's just confusing! It's like cramming two movies' worth of material into one rushed, confusing theatrical cut... wait a second.

Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me start again: This is the much-awaited (maybe) comparison of Marvel's Captain America: Civil War, and DC's Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Now, on the surface, these two movies seem to have a lot in common. They’re both big-budget summer action films where superheroes who should be working together fight instead, because of a relatively petty issue that they could easily resolve by communicating if they really tried. However, these movies have a lot of sizable differences, which add up to make them into two very different films.

I’ll tackle Batman v. Superman first.

To start, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is long. It’s a long movie, and I swear not a minute of it is wasted. It’s stuffed to the gills with plot. There are at least two and half different plotlines in the theatrical cut alone; I hear there are even more in the director’s cut. Most of the plot is setup for Batman and Superman fighting; and boy is there a lot of setup. I don’t want to spoil any of it, but let me just say: there are more villainous machinations and philosophy-rationality discussions in Batman v. Superman than there are actual brawls between Batman and Superman. In addition to all the philosophical rhetoric and plot twists, there’s also a generous amount of setup for future DC movie-universe films. I’m not a hardcore DC fan, so I didn’t catch all of the hints while I was watching the movie, but I got at least some of them. And then, of course, there’s a subplot meant to set up the DC’s incoming Justice League movie.

All this adds up to a film so full of things happening that it’s hard to follow everything at once. Batman v. Superman is so dense, so stuffed with important plot pieces that my only impression walking out of the theater was “sensory overload”. It took me the better part of two weeks to really work through everything I vicariously experienced in the movie. For a movie called Batman v. Superman, there’s a lot of expositing, a lot of storytelling twists and turns, and not a lot of fight scenes. (In fact, 90% of the fighting is relegated to the last half hour of the movie. The rest of the movie only has a Superman rescue montage and like one scene of Batman doing Cool Stuff.)

So Batman v. Superman is too much material crammed into not enough space, with a much darker tone than you would think given the subject matter. Let’s look at Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War.

Unlike DC, Marvel has already established a strong movie brand and found their niche as far as storytelling goes. They’ve got a handle on the tone of their movies, and though I think the actual writing in their films has been going downhill of late, they know what works for them.

So Captain America: Civil War is, in essence, more of the same. It’s got all of the characters you know and love from the previous movies. It’s got peppy, fun-to-watch action scenes sprinkled throughout, along with snappy, humorous dialogue. It’s got a smattering of thought-out character moments, and a plot that makes sense if you don’t think about it too much. In short, it’s got everything we’ve come to expect from Marvel over the past few years.

To be honest, I enjoyed Civil War a lot more than Batman v. Superman. Civil War was a lot less complicated, easier to follow, and didn’t require as much active thought from me. It also had a more light-hearted tone. Batman v. Superman is dark and gritty and believes that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Civil War believes that power corrupts, but ultimately justice can be served if we try hard and commit to it. That’s a big difference in tone right there, but that’s not the end of it. Batman v. Superman is almost entirely consumed with its philosophy—that power is a corrupting influence with no moral compass, no matter a person’s intentions. By contrast, Civil War doesn’t touch on its own philosophy hardly at all, and even contradicts itself at points. What it comes down to is that Civil War doesn’t take itself half as seriously as Batman v. Superman, so it’s more fun to watch.

The thing is, though, I don’t think either of these movies is really the best it could have been, and ultimately neither of them are a completely enjoyable presentation of what they promised. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any movie that promises me Batman and Superman fighting each other has a heck of a premise to live up to. The same goes for Civil War: the filmmakers had a lot to set up if they were going to get me to believe that the Avengers would really split apart and fight each other. Both movies tried to live up to their premises, but neither of them accomplished it really well. Batman v. Superman spent too much time on the buildup. It’s so dark and complicated that by the time it gets to the actual fight, you hardly even care anymore. Civil War didn’t spend enough time building things up; it presented a philosophy of sorts for both sides of the conflict, but then had the characters contradict themselves multiple times. Essentially, Civil War seesawed back and forth between a dark, serious plotline and the upbeat, enjoyable action sequences we’ve come to expect from Marvel. It couldn’t pick a tone, and I think that was its major flaw.

I do think both of these movies are worth watching. Civil War certainly isn’t the worst movie Marvel’s ever made, and it did have its share of worthwhile moments. Batman v. Superman is… an experience. I actually did enjoy it, but not all of it. If you watch it for anything, watch for Ben Affleck as Batman and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. They were definitely the highlights.

Both these movies are worth watching, but I think they both represent missed potential on the parts of their studios. To quote the Honest Trailer, Batman v. Superman “burned through like six movies’ worth of good material”, and suffered for it. It was too rushed, trying to get us to care about too much in too short a time span. By contrast, it was obvious that Civil War was, at least in part, riding the wave of popularity Marvel has accrued with its past movies. It’s my personal opinion that the writing in Marvel movies is starting to go downhill, simply because Marvel knows that any movie they slap their name on will sell like hotcakes. Essentially, they’re getting lazy, instead of using that branding potential to break new ground and explore new territory film-wise.

In closing: both of these movies represent their respective studios’ shortcomings. Captain America: Civil War rides a wave of previous successes, not bothering with internal consistency because the writers know people won’t care; it’s Marvel, and Marvel movies are good. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice tries desperately to build up everything in the DC universe at once, hoping that something will stick and get people to come back for the next DC film. So both of these movies have their good points, but neither reached their full potential. Neither of them could decide exactly what they were trying to do. Maybe they’re more similar than I thought. 

Movie Fights: Guardians of the Galaxy vs. The Lightning Thief

For some reason, this week has been a Bad Movie Week for me. And when I say that, I mean that my sister and I somehow finished two phenomenally bad movies in the same week. However, as I told my sister while we were watching Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief: there are two types of bad movies. There are good bad movies, and bad bad movies. And as it just so happens, I watched one of each this week. So here I am to put my classical education to work in the real world and compare those two movies.

I’m going to start with the first installment in the Percy Jackson and the Olympians movie series. Before I get into this, I’d just like to make a note: the Percy Jackson series is very near and dear to my heart, because I started it when I was young, and the writing only improved as I continued reading it into teenager-hood. It’s a good series that blends Greek mythology and modern wit with great characters.

Anyone who’s followed my blog for a length of time knows that few things rile me as much as a movie adaptation desecrating a book that I love. So it is with great loathing and bitter glee that I am about to rip into this laughable excuse for an adaptation.

To start with, I feel that everyone reading this should know that Rick Riordan, the author of the Percy Jackson series, publicly disowned the movies. (Sadly, there’s a second movie. I haven’t seen that one.) As a writer who would love to see some of my ideas on the big screen, that’s a pretty bad sign right there. And oh, let me tell you: the movie was just as bad as I anticipated based on the author’s sentiment alone.

To start, they butchered the characters. Usually I’m not a huge stickler for movie characters looking exactly the way they did in the book, but the one time I actually cared about that, the movies went and changed the character. Anyone who has read the Percy Jackson books knows: Annabeth being a brunette is as much an oxymoron as a warm snowflake. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

This movie changed pretty much the entire plot of the book, and had to throw in a bunch of extraneous scenes and details just to support that change. I get that they might not have been able to replicate the book’s plot exactly, but they surely could have done better than they did. They took out the actual villain from the books and used the decoy villain, the guy who didn’t actually do it, as the actual villain. Like I said, they took out a ton of plot from the books, and then stuffed a bunch of nonsensical filler in to try and hide the gaps. That’s not the only problem, though.

Not only is the plot terrible, but the writing in general is just insipid, and the writers utterly butchered nearly every aspect of Greek mythology they could get their hands on. They flat-out ignored every aspect of worldbuilding from the books. They ignored stuff from the original mythology, like the actual conduct of Hades’s and Persephone’s relationship, and the fact that Hades is more of a grumpy introvert than a fire-breathing demon lord. Also, the characters were flat as week-old soda. Percy had none of his sarcasm or snappy repartee from the books. Annabeth was… smart, I guess… but had none of her depth or insight. Grover had some great lines—he was one of the few things I enjoyed about the movie—but he also lacked any and all depth. The movie was over all badly written and a shameless cash-grab only loosely based on the books.

But hey, the special effects were pretty good.

In conclusion, don’t watch The Lightning Thief. Don’t ever watch it. Just read the books and pretend the movie(s) don’t exist. The Lightning Thief is a bad bad movie, and I utterly hated it.

Fortunately, that wasn’t the only movie I watched this week.

The other movie I saw was Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy, which I’d been wanting to watch for some time. I’d heard it be called “Marvel trying to do Star Wars”, and maybe that was meant to be a derogatory description, but it just intrigued me more. Plus, it has space pirates. Space pirates are one of my favorite fiction things, and you wouldn’t believe how hard it can be to find things that are about them, so that was also a plus.

I don’t know how close Guardians of the Galaxy is to the original source material. I do know that by most rubrics, it’s a bad movie. I mean, it’s corny. It’s nonsensical. It’s silly. It’s just a little bit surreal. (Which is fitting, I guess, because from what I’ve read the original comics were one heck of a drug trip. You think I’m joking, but I’m not. Look it up.)

The point is, Guardians isn’t a good movie, or even a really well-written one. But it’s fun. It’s big and it’s loud and it’s colorful and it’s funny and it doesn’t take itself seriously. The protagonist is about as generic as they come, yet he’s relatable enough that I enjoyed watching him. The point is, Guardians of the Galaxy is by all measurements a bad movie, but it’s a good bad movie. It owns the silliness, the absurdity of the premise, and it just has fun with it. Yeah, it’s a bad movie, but I like it. I can like bad stuff.

(There you go, Dad. It’s in writing. Happy now?)

There’s not a lot of a difference between The Lightning Thief and Guardians of the Galaxy. By all logic, I should despise the both of them. But The Lightning Thief took one of my favorite book series and tossed it in the mud, so yeah, I’m never touching that movie again, not even with a ten-foot pole. Guardians of the Galaxy took a really weird, nonsensical premise and made it into a fun, silly movie. Sure, it’s not a good movie. I wouldn’t say it’s even as good as Ant-Man. But—much like its protagonist—it’s able to muster enough charm, jokes, and good looks to bluff its way through my common sense and critical analysis. So there’s that. I wouldn’t recommend Guardians of the Galaxy to anybody I know. I will make fun of everything in that movie because it’s the corniest film I’ve seen in a long time.

But I am definitely going to watch it again.

Movie Fights: Ant-Man vs. Pacific Rim

[My review of Pacific Rim] [My review of Ant-Man]

Good morning, everyone! Or, well, good whatever-time-of-day-it-is-where-you-are. Today I'm debuting the first in what will hopefully be an extended category of blog posts, sorta similar to my History Recaps. Movie Fights is a series where I put my classical education to work in the real world and write out a comparison of two movies. Today I'll be talking about a pair of action movies. One features a guy who uses a super-suit to shrink down to an inch tall, and the other is about giant robots slugging it out with giant alien monsters.

As you can see, I'm taking my classical education very seriously.

On the surface, Ant-Man and Pacific Rim don't seem that similar. One is a superhero movie, and the other is more of a general sci-fi action movie. Of course, they're both popcorn summer flicks that you wouldn't think to put a lot of thought into the first time you saw them. To be fair, I have only seen Ant-Man once, but if you've read my review you know I put a lot of thought into it. I've seen Pacific Rim like... four times? So I've had time to analyze it.

So today I'm going to compare the two. Specifically, I'm planning to look at how these two films handled their female characters and characters of color.

Let's start with Ant-Man.

Ant-Man tells the tale of Scott Lang (played by Paul Rudd), a down-on-his-luck thief with a cause who, now that he’s out of jail, is having trouble finding employment. Luckily he’s able to crash with some friends, but he doesn’t quite have the money to pay child support, which means he’s mostly cut off from his young daughter.

That’s the initial setup of the movie. It’s Scott Lang’s story, first and foremost. He’s the main character. He’s a good main character, and Paul Rudd plays the part very well, but he’s nothing new. Nothing groundbreaking. Hollywood loves their white male protagonists, and Marvel especially loves their white male protagonists. Playing opposite Rudd is Evangeline Lilly as Hope Pym, the high-powered corporate executive estranged-from-her-father daughter of Hank Pym.

I like what Evangeline Lilly did with this role. Like most of the actors in this film, she exceeded my expectations and breathed life into a character that wasn’t all that original. My problem is with the way this character was written, because while Hope Pym has a lot of cool character traits, she’s not really a complete character. In the end, she only really exists to prop up the stories of Scott and Hank. Scott and Hank both have their own story arcs; Scott’s is most prominent, seeing as he’s the main character, but Hank has a progression too, and weirdly enough, both Scott’s and Hank’s arcs are very closely tied to Hope’s character. Yet Hope is the only main character, aside from the villain, who doesn’t have her own story arc. Yes, she does reconcile with her father towards the end of the movie, but overall it feels like that’s more for Hank’s benefit than for Hope’s character growth.

I’d like to contrast this with the way Pacific Rim treated its protagonists. At first glance, the main character of Pacific Rim is Raleigh Becket, played by Charlie Hunnam. For the most part, Raleigh seems like your average white male action movie protagonist. He’s a somewhat world-weary veteran Jaeger pilot, who, due to the traumatic loss of his brother in a battle, is not eager to get back to piloting. But he has to, in order to save the world, so he comes back to the world of Jaeger piloting. That’s where he meets Mako Mori, a hopeful pilot.

On the surface, Mako Mori seems to have a similar narrative purpose to Hope Pym. She’s a very integral part of Raleigh’s story, and for about the first half of the movie you assume that that’s it, that it’s Raleigh’s story, not Mako’s.

But as the story progresses, we learn more and more about Mako and her adoptive father, who happens to be a former Jaeger pilot and Raleigh’s commanding officer. We learn Mako’s backstory, we learn what drives her and why she’s so eager to become a real pilot, and by the end of the movie, it’s Mako Mori who has achieved her goals and become a full-fledged character in her own right. It’s Mako Mori who has a concrete story arc and really blossoms by the end of it.

(Raleigh appears to have his own arc—overcoming his hang-ups and trauma about getting back in a Jaeger—but that doesn’t really develop. Actually, once he meets Mako and forms a relationship with her, he seems to settle into his old career with a new ferocity. It’s an interesting dynamic.)

Ant-Man seems to be attempting to tell a father-daughter story with Hank and Hope, but because Pacific Rim allows to Mako Mori to be her own character, and really develops the bad and the good of her relationship with her father, it tells a much better story. That’s the crux of the matter, I think: Pacific Rim allows its heroine to be her own person, her own character, with a backstory and motivations outside of her relationship with Raleigh Becket. Oh, Raleigh and Mako are close, and I love how their relationship develops, but Mako is never forced to sacrifice any part of her character to advance Raleigh’s story. She’s her own person, and she’s treated as such.

Ant-Man… well, as I said, the actors did a lot with what they were given, but the writing isn’t anything to crow about. And Hope Pym? She’s written as a side character meant to be a part of Scott’s story. She’s not given her own arc or her own impetus. On one level, that’s fine. Every story needs supporting characters. Not every character in a story can have their own arc. On another level, though, the treatment of Hope Pym is disappointing, because it’s almost always a female character that receives this type of sidelining in action movies. (The Lego Movie did this too. I love it to pieces, but The Lego Movie did this exact thing with Wyldstyle.)

Women are less likely to be the hero in a contemporarily written story than men are. Women of color are a lot less likely to be the hero, or even be included in the story in the first place. In my opinion, this is (one of the reasons) why Pacific Rim is better-written and more well-rounded movie than Ant-Man is. Pacific Rim gives us Mako Mori, a Japanese woman who is allowed to be the hero of her own story, a Japanese woman who is allowed to be a fully fleshed-out character just like her co-lead. I liked Ant-Man, but it didn’t do this. It stuck to the old formula of using a female character to support and prop up a male hero, just the way many Marvel films so far have. For this reason, I firmly believe that of these two movies, Pacific Rim is the better story.

(Postscript: Ask me about my other, more minor, compare/contrasts of these two movies. I was going to talk about other stuff, but this issue is near and dear to my heart, so it took the forefront. Oh well.)