LogFAQs > #968009855

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Yeah, it was more akin to both Batman v. Superman and Civil War getting criticized for their respective villains having nonsensical evil plans. BvS probably became more infamous for it because of how Luthor's bombastic personality stands out from the movie's otherwise grimdark tone (also not entirely on topic but I unironically think Eisenberg made a better Lex Luthor in The Social Network than when he actually played Lex).

Yeah, I'm still amazed by how much of a slow-motion trainwreck the rival DCEU has become. Combine that with Sony's meme-worthy efforts to make its own Spider-Man cinematic universe and it seems like MCU movies will continue to do well if only to provide people with their superhero fix. Drat.

See I don't really agree with that.

So I think Lex and Zemo both could have been replaced outright if they wrote the story just a little different.

But that's where the similarities end.

Why I find Lex a little less plot devicey is because they're at least using a character with defined character traits and motivations where it could fit it into his motivations and be played that way. Lex's presence itself also adds something to the movie, for better or worse depending on how you feel about the idea of Eisenberg as Lex. Zemo on the other hand, not really a well defined character in my opinion, and just sort of exists entirely as an excuse for the heroes to fight over the Sokovia Accords. You could remove him from the movie entirely and I think it would be virtually identical-- Bucky only needs something to put the frieght car into motion and that could be literally anything, after that point the movie can more or less play out the same as long as you have Tony see that footage somehow.

But yeah imo both of their plots made sense, it's just how necessary the character was to grease the wheels on the plot and whether the character felt out of place or like they added anything aside from that grease or not.