10 Reasons Captain America: Civil War Beat Batman v Superman

I've talked about this in the past, but the conflict between Batman and Superman makes no sense. The whole point of the dichotomy between Batman and Superman is that they're supposed to be like night and day.

Batman is someone who works outside the law, he remains in the shadows, and he uses fear as a weapon. Superman works with authorities, he operates right out in the open, and he always tries to set people at ease.

That's the dichotomy. But in BvS, it's Grimdarkman versus Grimmerdarkerman. Superman gets mad at Batman because Batman brands criminals. Yet Superman slams them through thick concrete at superhuman speed, so how is that any better? There's a great deal of hypocrisy in the way both Batman and Superman view the other.

In Civil War, the conflict between Steve and Tony, and their respective supporting players, works. They ask serious questions about what limits, if any, the Avengers should have. They question their place in the world. And neither has any real answers. Steve doesn't blindly go against the UN, nor does Tony blindly support them, and likewise for the rest of the Avengers.

Even with the epic fight scenes, the Russos manage to explore these questions in depth, questions which have no easy answers. And it all keeps building until it gets to that crescendo moment where we see Captain America and Iron Man go all-out.

In short, the conflict in Civil War works because these characters are well developed. The same can't be said for BvS.