One of the biggest problems with superhero team-up movies is making sure that they don’t feel like a paint-by-numbers action kaboom where the only benefit is familiar characters. And the main way to make sure that doesn’t happen is to make said familiar characters emotionally invested in the current conflict’s outcome, beyond the whole we-must-win-the-day schtick.
What I’m saying is, this movie should really be titled Captain America: HELP WE ARE ALL FULL OF FEELINGS. And that’s a very good thing.
Spoilers for the whole film below.
It’s frankly astounding that any film can contain so many separate, distinct character arcs, and still come out clean. That said, Civil War doesn’t quite feel like a single story, more a series of vignettes interspersed with some very imaginative action sequences. That’s not to say that the film lacks cohesion, only that any film with this many main characters usually ends up with a slight Love Actually vibe. (I just compared a Marvel movie to Love Actually. Apparently, anything is possible in this bizarre universe we live in.)
For those who are familiar with the comics, the narrative of the movie might come as something of a surprise. Rather than a Registration Act that requires superheroes to give up their secret identities (something of a redundancy in the MCU when so many of them don’t bother), the government regulation that our heroes are asked to consider is at the behest of the United Nations, who would like control of when and how the Avengers are deployed. Tony thinks this is a good idea, Steve does not. Then Peggy Carter passes away, and her niece Sharon shares a quote from her aunt at the funeral—one that advises a young Sharon to compromise until she cannot, and then stand firm and make the world bend to her. Needless to say, Steve takes that advice to heart.
Joss Whedon had initially said that he wanted the second Avengers film to be a deeply personal affair, and many comics fans assumed that he was going to tackle the Civil War arc as a result. Instead, we got Age of Ultron, which was enjoyable in some aspects, a bit of a mess in others, and not anywhere near as personal as we might have expected. Now we have Captain America: Civil War, a film in which every single character decision is deeply personal, deeply emotional. What’s impressive about the undertaking is how everyone’s points of view are entertained, and while there might be certain characters you agree with overall, no one is depicted as entirely unsympathetic or even entirely wrong. It’s an inevitable step between a team full of vastly opposing personalities, but a painful one.
At the core of this fight are Captain America and Iron Man, and deciding whose “team” you’re on is a far woollier choice than audiences might have expected. It’s easy to blame Tony Stark for these proceedings because Tony is egotistical and arrogant, even when he means well, and that makes him appear at fault more often than not. But the film is good at showing the places where Steve Rogers is uniquely unbendable, places where he could compromise and chooses not to, places where his righteousness is less appealing. The truth of the matter is that Steve doesn’t want the Avengers under UN control because Steve Rogers doesn’t trust anyone. In response to idea of these Sokovia Accords, he feels obligated to point out that every member, every country has their own agenda. Which is a fair point, but fails to include the fact that all people generally do, himself included. Captain America doesn’t really trust the will of the people—he thinks it’s far safer for the Avengers to use their own judgment on what missions they take. This is in keeping with Steve’s development in the MCU, particularly as it pertains to Winter Soldier; when he tried to put his trust in the system, it turned out that Hydra was behind that system all along.
On the other side of this we have Tony Stark, who, despite being overly-insistent that all problems are his problems, is mainly desperate to keep his friends safe. That is his primary motivation throughout the entire process, a motivation that makes more sense when we learn that his relationship with Pepper Potts hasn’t been working out. (On the one hand, I’m hardly surprised given his recent activities, on the other hand NO YOU TAKE IT BACK.) These are the only people that Tony Stark has in the whole world, but he doesn’t know how to get that across. Or rather, he chooses not to get that across because most of his personal relationships end in abnegation, death, or, you know, attempted murder (thanks, Obadiah!). To his credit, these are problems that he is clearly trying to work through at the outset; we discover that Tony has developed an immersive virtual reality therapy app of sorts, one that allows people to reach into their memories and relive traumatic events with better outcomes to receive closure. He shows an entire room of students his final memory of his parents, and manages to tell his father that he loves him before Howard and Maria drive to their deaths.
Both Tony and Steve have viable reasons for thinking that they’re doing the right thing. Both of them make serious errors in judgment as a result: Tony puts Wanda under house arrest, and Steve causes a fair share of collateral damage in effort to help Bucky escape capture. Both of them wish they could compromise their way out of this, but both of them have wildly different ideas about what compromise should entail. And then Bucky is hijacked, and Steve is useless for negotiations from that point forward—particularly once Bucky tells him that their current enemy Col. Helmut Zemo (Daniel Brühl) seems to be after the other five Winter Soldiers programmed by Hydra.
Steve Rogers’s fight with Hydra has been a fascinating sticking point for the character throughout these films. Because they turned out to be the power behind S.H.I.E.L.D., the protective organization that Howard Stark and Peggy Carter built, and also behind Bucky’s brainwashing into the Winter Soldier, Captain America’s stake in dismantling Hydra is personal beyond his role in fighting them during WWII. Bucky is most personal of all these offenses, Steve’s only living link to his past once Peggy is gone, his best friend throughout the majority of his life. Which makes it all the more interesting that even Bucky calls Steve on his devotion by the end of the film, positing that he’s not worth so much trouble. Of course, from a personal standpoint, Bucky is… but his comment could almost be read an in indictment of Steve’s unwillingness to take pause and think where his best friend is concerned.
From the springboard of Tony and Steve, we come to the other Avengers, who all have different stakes in this fight. Sam Wilson has been on board with helping Cap find his pal since day one, but having the Winter Soldier in the back of their getaway car turns out to be even less enjoyable than he imagined. (The prickly camaraderie that develops between Bucky and Sam is easily one of the highlights of the film.) Rhodey is on Tony’s side due less to their long friendship than to his respect for chain of command, every inch the respectable soldier—let’s be honest, regulation is everything he’s been asking for from Tony since Iron Man 2. Vision believes there is a correlation in the escalation of threats to the multitude of super peoples, and believes that oversight could only help. Hawkeye backs Steve because he’s never been Tony’s biggest fan in the first place, and nothing defines Clint Barton so well as being a perpetual underdog. Ant-Man joins Cap because he’s just jazzed to be there. (Also, Hank Pym isn’t exactly a fan of the Stark family.) Black Widow plays her cards close as always, but the truth is easy to discern in the few words she chooses to say: The Avengers have become her family. All she really wants is for that family to stay whole, even if it means being regulated. But once she realizes that Steve won’t be won over, she backs off, giving up on the hope that the conflict will be resolved easily.
The person in this film who feels most done wrong by is Wanda Maximoff, on both a real-world level and a storytelling level. She is badly treated once the conflict is underway because of her near-unlimited and dangerous powers, a treatment made worse for the fact that Vision—the one supervising her house arrest—appears to have a crush on her. On the one hand, Vision is young by existence standards, making it easy to read his attentions as boyish and harmless. On the other hand, it’s discomfiting that Wanda should be held at bay by someone harboring such feelings, and these attentions make Vision seem manipulative and controlling at the very least. She gets the last word, telling him that she cannot control the fear she instills in others, only her own fear. But it doesn’t change the fact that the movie seems at a loss for what to do with Wanda’s power, and that alone feels circumspect in a universe harboring figures like Thor and the Hulk.
In the midst of these characters that we know, we are gifted two new faces—T’Challa of Wakanda, and Peter Parker of Queens. Black Panther’s arrival to the MCU is a long time coming, and Chadwick Boseman plays him with incredible poise and grace. We get all of two minutes’ introduction to him and his father and the position of Wakanda in this world, and that’s really all we need to get invested (though we obviously want much more). Because T’Challa believes that Bucky is responsible for his father’s death, it seems as though we’re in for a standard revenge plot. Yet it is Black Panther alone who is able to put aside his all-consuming desire for vengeance, and step away before it is too late. It is a perfect introductory arc, in keeping with what comics fans know of T’Challa, a man known for his intelligence and consideration. It’s going to be hard to wait for that solo film now.
Our surprise package comes in the form of a brand new Spider-Man, which confused a fair share of viewers leading up to the film’s release, seeing as he was being played by Andrew Garfield only two years ago. But Tom Holland’s take on Parker is finally as young as Spider-Man was at his inception, a teenager being played by an actual teenager. (For the record, Peter is supposed to be fifteen years old, and Holland was seventeen when he was cast.) What’s more, this is the first version of Spider-Man who appears to come from a visibly lower class bracket; he lives in an old, crowded building in Queens, his room is cramped and awkwardly shaped, and nothing that he owns looks new. Holland’s awkwardness lends Peter an authenticity that audiences have never seen on screen; Spider-Man’s one-liners are more a product of nervousness than true wit. And Tony’s first meeting with the wonder kid makes it abundantly clear that they have a future as mentor and apprentice—not only is Tony the right guy to upgrade Peter’s equipment, but they have something key in common: they both chose to become superheroes due to an overpowering sense of guilt. (Peter tells Tony than when someone with his kind of powers chooses not to use them, people get hurt, an obvious reference to the death of Uncle Ben.)
The Avengers-on-Avengers remix battle is one of the most entertaining fight sequences that a Marvel movie has ever produced, and that’s mostly down to a sharp balance of levity and pain. This has a lot to do with the fact that very few of these people are personally angry with each other, and a few of them have no emotional investment in the fight whatsoever. Ant-Man merely does what’s asked of him, with no particular upset toward anyone who knocks him down a peg. Spider-Man is going on Tony’s orders, and only aims to capture, never to wound. Hawkeye and Widow are basically play-fighting, to the point where Wanda tosses Natasha out of the way because Clint was “pulling his punches.” For all the real fear bound up in this fight, there’s an equal amount of love that simply can’t be quashed.
That all comes to a close when Cap and Bucky get away on the Avenger’s jet, with War Machine and Falcon in pursuit. Tony orders Vision to take down Falcon, but he’s distracted by Wanda’s injuries and misses, hitting Rhodey instead and sending him into a free fall. Watching him hit the ground as Iron Man and Falcon struggle to reach him is sickening, and while Rhodey survives the fall, his immobilizing injuries make him the true casualty of this war. Ever the soldier, he later tells Tony that he stands by the choices that he made, that he has always known the risks of combat and continued to do his job. It’s an absolution of sorts, but not one that Tony Stark is likely to take to heart.
The final act comes when Tony receives the information he needs to confirm Cap’s story, proof that Bucky was not responsible for the UN bombing that killed T’Challa’s father. But the extra information that Steve and Bucky were going on proves to be a red herring; Zemo, an oddly silent villain through the tale’s proceedings, has killed off the remaining Winter Soldiers, and offers up something else instead—footage of a mission taken on by the Winter Soldier in 1991. Footage of James Buchanan Barnes murdering Tony’s parents. And when Tony asks the most important question of all—whether or not Steve knew Bucky had done this—Steve Rogers is not able to give his usually noble answer. Instead, he has to admit that he protected his friend, and has known all along.
All superhero villains tend to be more interesting when they have a real personal connection to the people they are trying to destroy. It’s the reason why Ronan and Ultron are ultimately less engaging than Loki and The Mandarin. In Zemo, we have someone who is not acting out of a desire for power or glory, but a man who simply wants to ruin the Avengers’ lives for ruining his. And in his strange wisdom, he knows precisely how to do it. He knows exactly what buttons to push. He knows that Tony Stark will want to kill Bucky Barnes for murdering his mother (not his parents, not his father, his mother), and he knows that Steve Rogers will never allow that to happen.
And while Tony’s revelation is immediate and horrific, it is Steve that we’re to watch. Because the movie isn’t called Iron Man: Civil War, is it? It’s not even called Avengers: Civil War. It’s got Captain America’s name on it because this movie is ultimately here to teach us something about him.
What we have—as we always did—is a beautifully unique rendition of a character who would have been easy to paint in a stale, dull hue. This version of Captain America postulates that the true way to be “the greatest” American is to be an individualist, albeit a truly empathetic one. Steve Rogers really isn’t much of a team player in a universal sense; he’s not a “good little soldier”; he’s only a good leader when backed by a crew that is well-suited to his particular way of doing things. He’s anti-establishment at a fundamental level, which is a refreshing thing to reinforce in a hero whose origins are bound up in nationalism. So he fights to rescue his best friend—who deserves a second chance—at the expense of every other relationship he has forged, because it’s the right thing to do. When Tony tells Steve that he doesn’t deserve the Captain America shield, Steve chooses to discard it, and this seems to work on two levels; first off, Tony has conflated the image of Captain America with the man Steve Rogers (which is to be expected, given how Howard built the man up to his son as a figure to emulate); secondly, Steve has no difficulty casting aside the symbol that is Captain America, particularly in that moment, if it means saving Bucky’s life. And this is central to everything that makes Steve the man who can wear that uniform in the first place—as the saying goes, no one who is capable of getting themselves elected president should be allowed to do the job.
Steve Rogers is Captain America because he doesn’t really want to be Captain America. With or without that shield, everyone will always know it.
And by the end of the film, Steve pointedly understands that as well. The letter he leaves Tony is half apology, half self-realization. He acknowledges that withholding information on the death of Tony’s parents was a selfish move on his part. He acknowledges that he has always been a man apart from others, and that in this capacity, the Avengers belong more to Tony than they ever have to him. But he also acknowledges that he cannot walk away from Tony Stark, or their friends. That he cannot leave the role of Captain America, he can only pause his portrayal of it. So he gathers their team and tells Tony that they will wait for his call.
Because Natasha was right, this is their family. A family that Steve Rogers is more than happy to safeguard—on his own terms.
Emmet Asher-Perrin had so much excess adrenaline after watching that movie, she probably could have stopped a moving car, too. You can bug her on Twitter and Tumblr, and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
I have other thoughts, so I’ll probably comment later when I have more time, but for now: I want a Sam and Bucky road trip short immediately.
And of course Steve writes Tony a letter rather than texting or emailing or anything of that nature. Because he’s Steve.
One thing I found interesting about Wanda’s house arrest is that Tony and Vision had to know that they couldn’t really detain Wanda if she wanted to leave. Vision wasn’t there to physically keep her locked away, but to do so emotionally (which is maybe worse).
I love that, as you point out, each superhero in this movie has a very good reason for doing what he or she is doing. Even down to Spider-Man and Ant Man, both just so excited to be taking part.
Just need to point out something that drove me nuts – the night I saw the movie, I decided to read some reviews. The review from Time.com was generally favorable and a fine review, but the reviewer didn’t seem to understand Wanda’s powers. “… Scarlet Witch, under house arrest for possible misuse of her fire-starting powers.”
Argh. So this reviewer seems to think that Wanda was directly responsible for the explosion at the start of the film.
So yes, this is frustrating to me, but also interesting and a bit meta – here’s a member of the media at large who has completely misunderstood what happened (even though she had the advantage of hearing Wanda say, only moments before “You know I can move things with my mind, right?”) and essentially blames her for the explosion.
So, just like the media would (does) misconstrue real-world events! I can just see some talking head on a news network talking about how “This…this Scarlet Witch person, she can set fire to things with her mind, is that right?”
Edited to add:
@2 “He’s not waiting for Tony’s call to return to the Avengers, he’s waiting for Tony’s call in case Tony’s Avengers need help from his Avengers.”
While I don’t really disagree with you, what “Tony’s Avengers” do you mean? Tony, Black Widow, and Vision? War Machine probably isn’t suiting up anytime, soon, Black Panther doesn’t seem to be interested in joining up, and Spider-Man won’t likely be Avenging anytime soon either (he’s got Homecoming to worry about! And homework!)
I suppose maybe Thor and Hulk, though if they return and find out Tony is running the Avengers and Cap is off doing something else, they might not be too interested in helping Tony. Especially if his first task for them is to sign a document.
“You wish the future king of Asgard to put pen to this parchment that another shall control my actions?!”
“Tony, *I* can’t control…the other guy. You think me signing my name on a piece of – jeez that’s a lot of paper – you think that’s going to change anything?”
Reviewers not being able to pay attention to things that are obvious is infuriating.
I’d come up with this analogy just before seeing the movie, and its events only helped reinforce it for me:
Sometimes the Avengers are firemen, and sometimes they’re policemen. I am quite comfortable with Steve’s view while they work as firemen, and lean toward’s Tony’s (new) view when they are policemen.
Examples:
1) Invasion of New York: it’s a fire. It’s practically a natural disaster. Waiting for or requiring permission to combat it seems nuts. Firemen don’t need a warrant, they just need to see fire. Similar situations: the Abomination, any time a super-villian has already landed and begun wreaking havoc. Yes, it’s only reactive, but it’s also pretty clear-cut. You know who the bad guys are because they’re already shooting.
I tend to think of the final battle with Ultron in Sokovia as more of a fire-fight than a police action, albeit a fire that Tony helped to kindle. Oops.
2) Storming the Hydra base at the beginning of Ultron (or the opening sequence of CW): it’s a police action. They’re working as a super-powered SWAT team. Why not liaise with local law enforcement? Would Nigeria really want Crossbones to steal a bioweapon? Does Sokovia really want a Hydra base just outside the city? And if they do…then international pressures ought to be applied before a pre-emptive strike, at the very least.
In circumstances like #2, it really shouldn’t be hard to get a warrant from the UN committee…and if it is, then there are larger issues of corruption/accountability that need to be addressed first. Having a veto on where to be sent seems like a no-brainer too.
In circumstances like #1, anyone attempting to prevent intervention seems obviously to not have the public good at heart. Secretary Ross conflating the two kinds of encounters in his briefing to the Avengers ticked me off.
Street level vigilante-ism and inflitration/espionage missions ought to fall under #2, but I’m ok with Spiderman chasing purse snatchers and Black Widow sneaking around playing James Bond without that same kind of government oversight. This is probably a personal flaw. :-)
…and apparently I’ve had a lot of thoughts about it. Very interested to see how it all plays out in the Marvel Timeline. The Sokovia accords aren’t going away, but I’m guessing some BIG fires break out during the Infinity movies. Amnesty will probably be required.
Or the fires break out in space, where the Earth-based authorities have no jurisdiction.
My big takeaway from the film, and why I fall on Cap’s side of things, ultimately, is that they went straight to the shoot-to-kill option on Bucky based solely on a crapshit photograph in a universe in which people have holographic masks. No investigation, no due process, just shoot to kill, and even when Cap manages to get him arrested instead of executed, the notion of getting him a lawyer is met with derisive laughter.
Totally realistic in a world that got to compound post-9/11 hysteria with post-Chitauri invasion hysteria, but that’s still an appalling abrogation of fundamental human rights, to condemn Bucky to death based on a single shitty piece of surveillance with no investigation whatsoever. I don’t blame Cap for going rogue at that point. How can the same people who engage the hunt for the Winter Soldier for a crime he didn’t commit say the Avengers are the ones who need to be regulated with a straight face?
(I have other thoughts on the film, which I posted to my blog. Feel free to go there and read, I don’t want to steal Em’s thunder……)
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
Yes! To that summation at the end. That was totally my interpretation of Steve’s surrendering of the shield. And I loved that Tony is left, still racked at the end, but at least a little wiser about himself.
As I recall, Steve didn’t admit to knowing it was Bucky. What he admitted to was knowing that Tony’s parents’ deaths were murders, rather than a car accident. (I believe Steve’s exact line was, “I didn’t know it was him.”)
There needs to be a word to explain the Sam-Bucky dynamic.
“Bronemies”?
I went in on neither team. (My answer was a riff on 2014’s Godzilla: “I’m Team Serizawa. I believe that nature has a power to restore balance. Let them fight!”) After seeing the movie, and reading a number of dunderheaded critiques claiming that the movie made Captain America a douchy Ayn Rand libertarian, I came to fall on the side of Team Cap. Not because I believe that superheroes should be answerable to no-one, but because the conditions of the Sokovia Accords were unconscionable: No “enhanced” person (And who defines that term? How do you define it?) can take action unless specifically ordered to by the United Nations.
I’ll make this simple with a visit to my local newspaper, the Boston Globe.
Yesterday, in Milton, Massachusetts, an Audi A4 on the on ramp from Route 495 to Route 195 when the car went over the guardrail and burst into flames. A passing driver managed to pull the victim out of the vehicle before emergency services arrived.
Had that passing driver been Steve Rogers — or Tony Stark, or Clint Barton, or any other superhero — the Accords would have forbidden them from taking that action. The UN hadn’t sent them there. They had no mandate to act, and therefore would be forbidden to do so — not despite, but because of the fact that they are uniquely well-suited to save lives.
That’s not a rule of law that protects public safety: It’s a rule of law that puts the public at risk!
A different, more thought-out and nuanced set of accords — as herewiss13 says above, one that regulates their activities as policemen while leaving them free to act as firemen — might yet win my approval.
Even there, we run into problems. If you see a mugging, you’re entitled to intervene. (You might even be obligated. Didn’t someone’s uncle once tell him, “With great power comes great responsibility?”) Why should the Vision or Ant Man be forbidden to do so? Factor in krad‘s point above: Crimes are being committed by the state, and by law enforcement: James Buchanan Barnes is targeted for extrajudicial execution — isn’t that what Hydra/S.H.I.E.L.D. and its Insight Helicarriers were destroyed to prevent? (Okay, those were to be carried out millions at a time, but still…) Steve learned an important lesson then: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How can he trust some UN panel to be better than S.H.I.E.L.D.?
I agree with the fireman/policeman analogy, but what nobody has mentioned yet (unless I missed it) is the thought that the Avengers could be *ordered* to do something. It’s bad enough to consider the Avengers NOT taking action when Thanos comes marching in, but what about when the Avengers are ordered to take out rebel insurgents in a foreign country because they have a WMD? Then we found out that they actually stole the WMD from a corrupt dictatorship that pressured the UN council or whatever to send in the Avengers. THAT’s what scares Cap, I think, in addition to the rest. And rightfully so.
This is the ONLY question I had after the movie – HOW did Steve know? WHEN did he know? He was on ICE at the time of the actual event of their deaths. The only thing I can figure out is that he has been doing his own research on Hydra while searching for Bucky, and he found out some details that weren’t publicly known. His note at the end of the movie admits that he knew about their murder, and he knew it was Bucky, and he chose not to share that information with Tony out of protection of Bucky and himself rather than taking his friend Tony’s feelings into account.
But he couldn’t have been aware at the time of the incident. So, anything he knew he would have only known in the very recent past.
@7 – krad: I agree that going after Bucky in that way was ridiculous, but that still doesn’t mean that the Avengers should be allowed to operate without oversight, waltzing into sovereign nations like they do.
@13 During Winter Soldier, when he and Natasha are in the bunker with the computerized Dr. Zola, he (Zola) shows a bunch of newspaper clippings while stating how Hydra shaped the world while hiding within S.H.I.E.L.D. They say something to the effect of “BS, someone would have seen. Someone would have stopped you.”
Then we see a clipping of the “car accident” while Zola intones “Accidents…will happen.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5FZkuu9vII
So he knew Hydra took out Tony’s parents. He “didn’t know it was Bucky” but when Tony says “Don’t bullshit me, did you know?!” he has to admit that yeah, it would have been the Winter Soldier that made the “accident” happen. So rather than wishy-wash, he just admits to it.
At the time of the deaths it’s impossible for Cap to know, since he was on ice, it was 1991. But he would have known it was a HYDRA thing… what I don’t know is why that wouldn’t have been part of the HYDRA info Black Widow dumped on the net.
The truth of the matter is that Steve doesn’t want the Avengers under UN control because Steve Rogers doesn’t trust anyone.
I highly disagree with this. Steve doesn’t want the Avengers under outside control, because he doesn’t want responsibility for the actions to reside under outside control. Removing responsibility from the Avengers will ultimately create Avengers who aren’t afraid of the consequences of their actions, because they can’t be held accountable for decisions they aren’t making anymore.
Steve causes a fair share of collateral damage in effort to help Bucky escape capture.
He wasn’t trying to help Bucky escape capture, he was there to make sure they didn’t summarily execute Bucky, which they totally intended on doing.
Steve’s unwillingness to take pause and think where his best friend is concerned.
Steve was the only one thinking here. He’s the one who suspected the psychiatrist, where everyone else ASSUMED Bucky was just evil.
Yet it is Black Panther alone who is able to put aside his all-consuming desire for vengeance, and step away before it is too late.
T’Challa grows more in his small appearance here, than Tony has in 6 movies.
Tony’s first meeting with the wonder kid makes it abundantly clear that they have a future as mentor and apprentice
Nice try on attempting to recapture the magic Tony had in IM3. I’m definitely looking forward to Spiderman more than I was.
but he’s distracted by Wanda’s injuries and misses, hitting Rhodey instead
No, Sam dodged.
I really enjoyed this movie; I like movies that provide dilemmas or positions that really make you think. I appreciate that this film didn’t really show which stance was “right” and which was “wrong” as there really isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a clear answer.
Having said that, I have far more issues with Iron Man’s stance and his methods then I do Cap’s. Both character’s beliefs are rooted in ego, but Cap’s stance is a logical development and progression from the 4 previous MCU movies he’s played a prominent role in (Cap 1 to Avengers to Cap 2 to Avengers 2): the people in authority often make questionable, self-serving choices and can potentially abuse or exploit that authority for their own ends (the World Council electing to nuke New York, Hydra infiltrating and then overtaking SHIELD from within). Cap has learned to distrust people in charge.
However, Iron Man’s stance is a 180 degree turn from his character’s development in the MCU and reeks of hypocrisy and a sense of condescending superiority complex mixed with paternalism (which actually kind of does fit Stark’s personality). Stark has been the character that has scoffed at oversight and external/internal checks-and-balances the most (Iron Man 2, Avengers 1 and –by far– Avengers 2 are the best examples of this). 1 grieving mother Stark has never met before in his life is supposed to change his opinion, where the counsel of his friends and loved ones did not? I couldn’t buy it, which made it very hard for me to support his stance.
I’ve read at other places that the only true hero of the movie is T’Challa and I agree with that. I’m definitely not “Team Iron Man” and I lean more towards “Team Cap,” but I am firmly in the land of “Team Panther.”
I really enjoyed Spider Man in this film and think that Marvel and the actor did an excellent job in his portrayal. But his stance either seems incredibly naïve, or just doesn’t make sense when thought out. Did he sign the Accords? Otherwise, how the heck can he be there, fighting and signing on to Stark’s belief (that “ You (Cap) are wrong. That you think you’re right. Makes you dangerous)?” Does Spidey lack that much self-awareness to see that statement could/should apply to any/all of them? (We know that Stark does, but does Spidey too?) How could a minor legally sign the Accords without his legal guardian’s approval? And if he did’nt sign the Accords, then he is also breaking the law and should turn himself in.
Also, did Spidey think the wording of the Accords through at all? He gives Stark a speech about (paraphrasing) how having the power to stop things and then not acting to stop it makes you responsible. But that’s exactly what signing the Accords would do. The hero CAN’T act; they need to be directed to act. Him signing the Accords means he would need to stop being Spider Man and operate in New York (unless we’re supposed to believe that the UN would allow a 15 year old to do that). So he effectively retires himself? Right before his movie comes out in a couple of years? Yeah, the writers may not have thought that one all the way through…
Anyway, I really enjoyed this movie, but there were so many questions that arose from the character’s actions that at times made me shake my head, before continuing to watch.
“When you have these powers and don’t use them people get hurt and it’s your fault” is the whole quote I believe. It is something that resonates with RDJ’s take on Stark I believe. He feels responsible for all the people his weapons killed. He feels responsible for all the people hurt as collateral in the Avengers fights. He feels like he needs to “build a suit of armor around the world”.
The difference I felt between the two, Parker and Stark, is that Peter is still young and naive and wants to live up to his ideals. Stark is much more weighted down with all the guilt from the exponentially greater body count. He keeps going between doing wildly crazy stuff (Ultron) to wanting to hand off the responsibility of his actions to someone else (Civil War and the UN oversight). Stark isn’t a team player but he want to be, he doesn’t like authority but doesn’t want to always be the guy responsible for the body count.
Stark definitely sees Peter as an ideal version of what he wishes he could be. After the airport fight it’s apparent Stark feels bad about putting a kid in harms way but he did it anyway. Warmachine even asks during the fight how old Spiderman is which was played as humor but also goes to show no one else knew who was under the mask. I can’t see any of the participants on either side of the fight letting a 15 year old kid participate except Stark.
The movie really balanced serious/humorous really well. I am hoping that DC’s Suicide Squad manages to find a good balance. If we can get both studios putting out movies like Civil War on a regular basis it would be amazing.
I’m not entirely in agreement. T’Challa just has an inmensely better upbringing, so he’s able to learn from his mistake quicker than Tony does. But Tony has grown a lot.
And Sam dodges, but the point is, Vision’s mind calculates firing solutions so quickly that Sam shouldn’t have been able to dodge, he dodge because Vision was distracted by his caring for Wanda.
@19 – Kiminiak: The grieving mother is just a fulcrum, Tony has definitely been influenced by his friends and other experiences, this was just a turning point. (It’s obvious he was trying to explore his deeper issues, as we see in the therapy invention he’s trying on himself. He’s just doing it the most Tonyest way possible.)
And of course, Spidey didn’t think things through, because even if he’s a genius, he’s still a kid. I’m pretty sure the writers considered that thoroughly, and that’s why Spider-Man will have the police after him in his own movie. Still, the Sokovia Accords seemed to be (I’m extrapolating here, since we didn’t get to read them) about operations on a more global scale, about the Avengers barging into whatever country they feel like when they’re after a villain. What Spidey does is already ilegal in real life, and it’s ilegal in the MCU’s New York, as we’ve seen with Daredevil.
@21
But Tony has grown a lot.
Tony(all movie pretty much): “Let’s not make this personal”
Tony(last five minutes): “This is personal”
T’Challa learns what Tony already should have learned, vengeance doesn’t solve anything. All it does is fracture and divide.
Vision’s mind calculates firing solutions so quickly that Sam shouldn’t have been able to dodge
That’s not what happened, that’s not how Vision “works”. We’ve seen Sam use that same maneuver, shutting of his wings and going into freefall. Wanda had nothing to do with why Vision missed. Vision missed because plot, Tony needed to understand the stakes. Just what do you think would have happened if Sam hadn’t dodged? Sam would be dead now. Tony’s gotten so used to be invulnerable, he didn’t consider the consequences of a deadly strike against someone without his armor. So he had to see how devastating it could be to someone WITH his armor.
T’Challa had the benefit of learning that Bucky was not responsible for his father death in a far better situation than Tony learned about his parents (and again, T’Challa seems to have had an infinitely better upbringing). You’re not making a fair comparison there.
And Vision specifically admits he missed because he was distracted, the way his character acts, he would have obviously said “Mr. Wilson dodged my shot” if that was the only factor involved. His shot was to incapacitate Sam’s wings; if it had hit as intended, it wouldn’t have hurt him, the intention was to force him to glide, and thus, stop pursuing War Machine. The shot was only crippling for War Machine because he was not the intended target, and Sam dodged, while Vision was not able to compensate because he was distracted.
You might not agree with the decisions the writers made, or the way the directors chose to portray it, but they specifically say on screen what happened.
@21 – Re: Tony – He may have been shown exploring his issues with his parents onscreen, but there is no evidence shown of him developing an understanding that he needs some type of oversight or check on his own actions. This did not occur at the end of Avengers 2 or in any of the movies, really. You can project that it happened sometime off-screen, but there is nothing in the story of any of the movies (again, including the ending of Avengers 2) to show that Tony Stark feels he needs to answer to anyone other than Tony Stark. Actually, in Civil War Tony Stark continues to demonstrate that -in almost every other way- he doesn’t believe that he should answer to anyone else (even him pleading with Ross for 36 hours appears to be Tony requesting it for what Tony believes is Steve’s benefit, not Tony’s). The movie itself shows exactly what Stark thinks about the Accords and the oversight of others: he ignores it when he finds it inconvenient (chasing after Cap & Bucky to Siberia, potentially when he recruited Spidey)
Re: Spidey – of course he’s a kid, which is why I’m asking about him signing the Accords. If the writers had “considered that thoroughly” then the only way he would have been able to sign and join Stark and the rest in Germany would have been with the consent of his guardian. When Peter would have given up to the government (and Aunt May!) his secret identity. Which clearly didn’t happen since we see him continue to lie to Aunt May during the post-credit scene. So there’s that major inconsistency…
Also, a kid in the MCU would have grown up idolizing both Cap and Iron Man. A smart kid with a strong moral code like Peter, would likely have reflected a little bit about why Cap is wrong and thinks he’s right. A kid with Peter’s sense of responsibility would definitely call BS on an adult trying to tell him that their way is right but someone else’s way is wrong without some type of context and evidence (thereby discussing the Accords, UN Bombing, Cap and Bucky); unless that adult straight up lied to them and/or manipulated them for their own gain (Which, if so, reinforces that Tony doesn’t believe in the spirit of oversight in any way. Also, Tony’s fulcrum is the death of one grieving mother’s son, so he decides to place another woman -who he also briefly interacted with- place her adopted son in harm’s way about a week later?)
Finally, the movie seems to show that the Accords are about enhanced being allowed to act only when given direction to do so in any situation. Otherwise you’re arguing that the Accords weren’t motivated by –and would therefore potentially allow or retroactively sanction– the Avengers actions in the alien invasion in New York and the helicarriers in DC. Which defeats the purpose of Ross’s presentation. If the US is a signee, then they are one of the 117 nations that will not allow enhanced activity on their soil, unless the UN provides authorization to do so. And yes, vigilantism is illegal already, but that didn’t stop the UN from drafting the Accords to reiterate/clarify that fact so I don’t really get your point…
Are you sure the writers considered this thoroughly, or is it more likely they just completely missed the contradictions and decided to include Spidey in a cool, but clunky and contradictory, way?
@23,
T’Challa had the benefit of learning that Bucky was not responsible for his father death in a far better situation than Tony learned about his parents
Except Tony has always known, that Bucky was NEVER responsible for anything he may have done while prisoner to HYDRA. The fact that he just now learned HYDRA killed his parents, and forced Bucky to do it, doesn’t change the fact that he still knew Bucky was never responsible for his actions.
they specifically say on screen what happened.
No they don’t. How is Vision supposed to “adjust” the shot, when Sam dodged AFTER he made it.
The fact that Vision blamed himself doesn’t mean he is right, it means he’s young and naive and quick to take blame for things that aren’t his fault, especially if it might make Tony feel better.
And you can’t “cripple” Sam’s wings they don’t work like that(of course the suits don’t work like that either, unless it’s for the sake of plot, Tony’s crashed his deadstick suit several times without a scratch). They wouldn’t have maintained their shape. Sam DOES carry a parachute, but it’s also in the pack. If the shot we saw had hit Sam, his pack would have been destroyed, no parachute, no wings. Dead Sam.
@24, No they included Spidey because it demonstrates exactly what you say about Tony, that he’s only about appearing proper than he is about being proper.
And both the invasion of NY and the attack of the Helicarriers were sanctioned activities. Nick Fury sanctioned both of those missions, and since he WAS still the legal head of SHIELD at the time, that matters. What also matters, is that Ross doesn’t seem to know that, which again demonstrates Tony’s lack of commitment to meaningful oversight. I think the use of Ross matters as well, by the writers, because it demonstrates even the people who drafted the Accords weren’t really in favor of oversight, Ross has TONS of baggage in regards to acting inappropriately.
And I think this can indicate more about Steve’s mindset is as well. He knows Tony is more concerned with appearances here, especially with Tony’s statement that “whatever they decide to do to keep us in check, I’m game”. I first interpreted that as an indication of how far gone Tony is in this, but actually it’s the opposite. He doesn’t care what restrictions they agree to, because at the end of the day, Tony does not feel obligated to follow them.
Then with Ross, a man who has violated regulations over a personal vendetta, spearheading the effort, he knows this is not a serious undertaking on behalf of the US, it’s a flimsy bandaid.
Steve is certainly not about to sign on to anything he doesn’t fully intend to uphold, so the fact that Tony would sign on and then break his word would bother Steve on a personal level.
I agree that the specific nature of the Accords was wrong, but I also believe that some kind of checks and balances on power are always necessary to prevent abuse. The Avengers should be answerable to someone, although I agree with the “firefighter” analogy that they should have a free hand to react to a crisis. Perhaps the answerability should focus more on how they’re trained and what rules of engagement they follow, rather than needing permission to act or not.
I felt that Tony had a more memorable arc here than Steve, since Steve was mostly focused on Bucky, and Bucky’s pretty dull. On the other hand, Falcon is awesome. Mackie has been a scene-stealer since the start of Winter Soldier. I’d love to see Sam Wilson, Captain America in the movies at some point. Natasha was great with what she had. T’Challa was impressive and I loved where his arc ended up. Vision was cool, but bordering on creepy at times, but maybe that’s how he should be? Wanda was a little bland, and I’m not sure why Hawkeye was needed. (Gi)Ant-Man was cool. Zemo was possibly the most nuanced MCU movie villain yet, but I’m not sure why they even called him Helmut Zemo, when he’s basically a completely different character. Sharon Carter was mainly of value to evoke Peggy Carter, but I would’ve rather seen more Peggy. (I cried at her funeral, even though there’s still a slim chance we’ll see more of her on TV.)
Spidey actually wasn’t as cool as I’d hoped. He’s got the motormouth, but he doesn’t have Spidey’s humor. He should be dropping jokes and bad puns and insults as readily as Tony does. Maybe that’s something he’ll learn from Tony in the next movie. I also wish they’d seeded him earlier, like having Tony’s opening presentation be at Midtown High.
And this is the first time I’ve seen Martin Freeman in something where he didn’t steal the show. That’s partly the American accent, partly the total cipher of a character he played. Why was he even here? To set up a larger role later, yes, but they did that with at least two other characters as it was.
@19/KiManiak: I think Tony’s attitude makes perfect sense, because it’s a reaction against his mistake in creating Ultron, in exactly the same way that getting out of the weapons business 8 years ago was a reaction against his mistake in selling weapons profligately. Tony even explicitly made that comparison in the movie. If he could change then, he can change now. He blames himself for the damage Ultron did, and he wants the Avengers under control because he wants himself to be under control. But, as usual, he took it too far, came to regret that in turn, and tried to do damage control. So in that sense, he didn’t change.
That said, Tony comes off much better and more nuanced in his attitudes here than he did in the comics. Here, the more extreme measures like the superhero prison are the work of Ross and… Ross (there are two Rosses in this movie, Thunderbolt and Everett), and Tony is uncomfortable with them and sees the Accords as a way to keep the government from doing even worse. (Which I believe was how J. Michael Straczynski explained Tony’s motives in the Civil War tie-in Spidey comics he wrote, even though the other Civil War writers approached it differently.)
I agree with you, though, that Spidey should’ve been on Team Cap, philosophically speaking. I would’ve liked to see him switch sides like in the comics.
Quoth Christopher: “Zemo was possibly the most nuanced MCU movie villain yet, but I’m not sure why they even called him Helmut Zemo, when he’s basically a completely different character.”
I disagree completely, but then I just recently reread Helmut Zemo’s first appearance as the new Baron Zemo (as opposed to as the Phoenix) during the DeMatteis/Zeck run on Captain America, which is the definitive establishment of Zemo as he’s mostly known these days. The Zemo of Civil War is of a piece with the Zemo of circa Captain America #275, who doesn’t want to rule the world or take over the country, his sole focus is to destroy Captain America’s life the way Cap destroyed his.
He didn’t have the direct connection to Cap’s WW2 past that the comics’ Zemo has, but the 2010s timeframe combined with Bucky’s completely different “death” in the MCU makes that impossible in any case.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
@28/krad: I guess I’m only familiar with the cartoon versions of the character.
Zemo was the Phoenix? Huh?
Yeah, in his very first appearance in Captain America #168 he called himself Phoenix — this was in 1973, a few years before Jean Grey took on that name in Uncanny X-Men. He was believed killed when he threw Cap’s shield, missed, and it rebounded and knocked him into a vat of Adhesive X. However, he survived because his costume was insulated–however, he wasn’t wearing his mask, so his face was horribly disfigured, as was revealed when he reappeared in Captain America #275 in 1982. Zemo’s MO in those early days was always revenge against Cap for what he did to his father Heinrich (who was the one directly responsible for Bucky’s “death”) and to Helmut himself.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
“The truth of the matter is that Steve doesn’t want the Avengers under UN control because Steve Rogers doesn’t trust anyone.”
That is a misconception that the movie itself points out is wrong. Steve’s faith is in people, not organizations. In other words, not groups of people. He does trust individuals. He doesn’t trust agencies to have control over his actions.
By the way, Emily, the review was spot on, and I agree with so much of it. Just that one little nitpick. What Steve doesn’t trust is giving up his own sovereignty.
Tony is trying to pass of responsibility for his power, wealth and abilities to someone else. Because he is crushed under the weight of his own choices. He can’t bear the collateral damage that his choices have caused.
Steve is not willing to pass that burden off on someone else, because he’s not willing to stand by and watch something happen when he could stop it, because he’s given the responsibility to someone else. That is what would crush Steve Rodgers, and he knows it.
@32: Pardon me, but are we sure that Steve ever had to face the consequences of his choices? Who’s the public face of the Avengers, having to stand the public scrutiny (and probably the court of law) that would follow from the havoc they wrecked in Wakanda? For all we know, Tony Stark is the one that had to deal with the backlash for that (since most of the resources seem to come from him, he’s also probably the one that’s liable for any damages claims brought forward against them).
As Natasha notes to Cap at some point during the movie, his solution to unpleasant things mostly seems to consist of punching them. Looking at the way he dealt with Bucky being ordered apprehended, that’s pretty much the only way he seems to see (because giving up and letting the rest of the team go to Siberia instead never seems to cross his mind). Trying to find evidence to exonerate Bucky isn’t a priority for him, making me wonder what he would have done if the Winter Soldier had actually bombed the UN.
@24 – KiManiak:
Have we not established that Tony’s kinda reckless?
We’d need to see the text of the Accords, but despite what they say, it’s possible that each country can authorize the Avengers to act within their territory unilaterally.
There’s a substantial difference between a quasi-military strikeforce like the Avengers unilaterally deploying into any country they like, and a single man beating up criminals in his own neighborhood.
I can’t be sure, of course, since I’m not privy to their thoughts, but I can infer their intentions.
@25 – Aeryl:
That’s not an intelectual decision, that’s an emotional one, so I can understand how he could take that route at the time.
Again, the effect of the shot as initially calculated and aimed by Vision would not have been the same as its accidental effect on Rhodey. Vision was ordered to incapacitate Sam’s wings (meaning his propulsion system, specifically, and not the wings themselves) to force him to glide. Tony specifically says something like “Turn him into a glider.” I’m seeing the movie again tomorrow, but I’m absolutely certain of what I saw and heard in the film.
@27 – Chris:
Exactly.
Yes, please. And he has great chemistry with Evans and Stan.
Man, I cried too.
As far as I remember, it might have gotten out of hand as the crossover progressed, but Tony was pro-reg from the start so the heroes would have an inside man to curb the government’s excesses.
@28 – krad:
I guess he could still discover he’s descended from a Baron Zemo that had his life ruined when Cap fought HYDRA in WWII and takes up the mantle later? :)
Looking at the way he dealt with Bucky being ordered apprehended,
No one ordered that Bucky be apprehended, they ordered that Bucky be killed. So yes, punching things is vastly preferable to killing them.
(because giving up and letting the rest of the team go to Siberia instead never seems to cross his mind)
Because Bucky is the only one who knows where it is. That was why Zemo had to interrogate him.
Trying to find evidence to exonerate Bucky isn’t a priority for him,
Because he isn’t Batman? He’s not a detective? His priority is keeping Bucky alive.
if the Winter Soldier had actually bombed the UN.
Depends. Did he bomb it because he actually felt the need to, or was he commanded to?
@MaGnUs
so I can understand how he could take that route at the time.
Not after spending the entire movie telling everyone he knows best.
Vision was ordered to incapacitate Sam’s wings (meaning his propulsion system, specifically, and not the wings themselves) to force him to glide.
And we’ve never been shown that is possible. But we have been shown that the propulsion system is compact, and intricately tied in to his wings, making a simple disabling shot unlikely. Tony likely designed the new EXO suit, so perhaps he knows it could be done, and perhaps Vision worked enough on it that he understands how to disable it. It was still a risk, one that didn’t hit home for Tony until Rhodey was caught up in it.
Classic Tony.
No one ordered that Bucky be apprehended, they ordered that Bucky be killed. So yes, punching things is vastly preferable to killing them.
I’d have to look at the specific wording to be sure, but from the way the GSG9 went in, they were not there as a kill squad – no snipers, no heavy ordnance, just assault rifles and stun grenades. From what I understood, they were authorized to kill him (and advised to do so if he resisted arrest, which is sensible considering how dangerous he is). You noticed how nobody took a shot at him once he was subdued by War Machine?
Because Bucky is the only one who knows where it is. That was why Zemo had to interrogate him.
So why not have him give them the location? Unlike Zemo, he would presumably tell them willingly.
Because he isn’t Batman? He’s not a detective?
You’re right, he’s a soldier. So why does he have so much trouble following orders and integrating himself into a command structure? At the same time, he also cannot be bothered to ask any of his more competent friends (like Natasha or ) to look into the matter for him – instead, Tony is the one that puts resources into that.
His priority is keeping Bucky alive.
Not just alive (otherwise, he would have returned him to the GATZ) – for somewhat undiscernible reasons, he came to the conclusion that he also had to keep Bucky out of there, turning himself into a criminal by hiding a suspected terrorist and known danger to public safety (even if Bucky Barnes was not responsible for his own actions, the at that time unknown extend of his programming means he’s too high a risk; exactly the conclusion Bucky himself drew at the end of the movie).
I’d say that incident proves that Captain America actually needs some kind of oversight – because he cannot be trusted to put his personal feelings aside, and uncompromisingly follows his own agenda without regard for the stakes of other people.
@33:
Yeah, I have no idea what you are getting at. I never mentioned facing consequences, I was explaining how I see their worldview.
@36 Aeryl
In general I’m in agreement with what you’re posting, but I think the “ordered him apprehended” part was AFTER the “We have orders to shoot on sight” – that is, when Team Iron Man was to go after them. They were to “Bring in Barnes, Rogers, and Wilson.”
Exactly. Zemo’s plan hinged on finding out where the tape was. I mean maybe his plan involved getting Iron Man to come to Siberia, but I doubt it. He’d only had a lead of a few hours on Cap and Bucky, so he found the place, got in, killed the additional Winter Soldiers, and was maybe planning to leave with the tape when he became aware that he was being followed. I don’t think his plan hinged on Iron Man, Cap and Bucky all being there.
@38
From what I understood, they were authorized to kill him
They were told to shoot on sight.
At the same time, he also cannot be bothered to ask
Actually, he did ask and was brushed off until he escaped with Bucky the second time, when the new evidence turned up.
for somewhat undiscernible reasons, he came to the conclusion that he also had to keep Bucky out of there
It’s not undiscernable at all, he knew IN THERE, was someone with the ability to activate Bucky, that means out of there and only given access to people Steve trusts means Bucky and the public are infinitely safer.
I’d say that incident proves that Captain America actually needs some kind of oversight
I don’t see that Steve disagrees with that. His specific objection came from having the responsibility of decision making taken out of the hands of the Avengers. As was aptly compared above, do you think the fire dept should have to get international approval before the come put out a fire?
@40, T’Challa was still a wild card though. Tony wanted to take him in alive, no proof T’Challa felt the same way.
@24:
Actually, the scene with the dead boy’s mother at the beginning of the film acts as him being called to account for his actions. And if you expect that the characters can only progress onscreen in order to be “earned” well, even with 10 hours of screen time, thats not a legitimate amount of time to learn ANYTHING of value in REAL life. So…
@25:
How do we know Tony has known anything of the sort? How do we even know he knows Bucky and the Winter Soldier are the same person prior to the events of this movie? How do we know he knew, prior to the events of this movie, that the Winter Soldier was a programmed, hypnotized person, and not jut Hydra’s answer to Cap? Are w to assume that Steve told him all of this over indian food off-screen? Cap and Falcon have been quietly looking for Bucky on their own, without help from the rest of the team. It seems to me that Cap kept this a secret from Tony, along with his knowledge of Howard Stark’s murder. Which is grade A stupid on Cap’s part. He doesn’t think clearly where Bucky is concerned. That’s been established.
@26;
THAT I agree with wholeheartedly, except I think Tony is more motivated by expunging his guilt than anything else. He wants it to be someone else’s decision and responsibility when things go sideways. He says as much in the movie.
@39: Sorry if I’ve been unclear: My contention is that Cap’s worldview, as you’ve painted it, is pretty cheap if he never had to deal with the collateral damage his actions caused. We know that Tony had to deal with the fallout, and that it’s one of the reasons why he’s pro-accords.
@41: I’d say that incident proves that Captain America actually needs some kind of oversight
I don’t see that Steve disagrees with that.
He doesn’t face the authorities after becoming a criminal; instead, he becomes a fugitive. Looks to me like he’s still avoiding the consequences.
His specific objection came from having the responsibility of decision making taken out of the hands of the Avengers.
I think we’re looking at different aspects of the same problem here: for you, the accords would shift the responsibility for the Avengers’ operations to the UN; for me, it would establish accountability for their operations – because before the accords, the actions of the Avengers seemed to be up to the whims of their members. Cap’s involvement in the whole Bucky Barnes affair pretty clearly shows the problems with that; what’s to stop another Avenger from intervening in whatever the heck they want, I’m pretty sure there are some more weapons manufacturers (like Tony Stark) that Scarlett Witch could rough up.
As was aptly compared above, do you think the fire dept should have to get international approval before the come put out a fire?
The problem with that comparison is that they’re not just a fire department, they are a private little army – how happy would you be if a Russia-based military force would invade the USA to apprehended known war criminals? That’s the reason why the UN are trying to deal with the Avengers, to establish some kind of grounds for their actions that wouldn’t cause an international crisis every time they showed up.
Good review. I think the comparison of the film to “Love Actually” was very apt. Some of the same techniques of braiding together different storylines into a thematically coherent narrative can be seen in both movies. And, as can be seen by the many failed imitations of “Love Actually” that have hit the theaters in subsequent years, doing that effectively is a tall order.
Reading all the news leading up to the film, I was concerned about how it would work, since it seemed overstuffed with extra characters and storylines. Captain America is my favorite character, and I very much wanted to see a movie about him; not a movie that bore his name, but relegated him to guest star status. But it worked, and worked very well. The introduction of the rebooted Spider-Man, and the Black Panther, were handled deftly, and with great economy. The story of the three Cap movies forms a coherent narrative that was given an epic capstone. The Russo brothers deserve a lot of credit.
One of the best things about the film is its moral ambiguity. In general, there are no heroes and villains, only protagonists and antagonists. The movie does not try to paint things in black and white, and even the ending resisted tying things into a tidy knot. Many people see Captain America as a bland character, but the movies showed that even those who try to do the right thing face very compelling challenges. And this film shows that, as a character, Cap captures the American spirit; he is not a man who simply follows orders, instead he is even willing to disobey orders in pursuit of doing the right thing. America is, at its heart and at its best, a land of individuals. And the film very clearly portrays him as a soldier; dedicated to protect his comrade in arms, whatever the cost. The speech that Sharon gave at the funeral is drawn from a speech Cap gave himself in the Civil War comics, and it is one of the best distillations of his character that I have ever read (I think that J. Michael Strazinski wrote it in one of the Spider-Man books that tied into the Civil War series).
I was glad he got to kiss Sharon, as previous movies denied him the chance to kiss his love interest (while he got to kiss the blond WAC clerk and Black Widow in those films, he didn’t ever get that first date with Peggy). The one loose end I wanted to see wrapped up at the end of the movie was for Sharon to appear either in freeing the others from the Raft, or in the scene in Wakanda. I really want to see Sharon and Steve together–95 years old is too long to wait to have a first date…
@45/AlanBrown: That’s right — the speech was based on Cap’s speech to Spidey from Amazing Spider-Man #537. I thought it was familiar…
hat it’s one of the reasons why he’s pro-accords.
Except Tony isn’t pro-accords. He breaks them the first chance he gets, and his entire attitude about it, indicated he had to intention of being beholden to them. Tony is pro “being seen doing something, even if it is an empty gesture”
He doesn’t face the authorities after becoming a criminal;
Neither did Harriet Tubman. So what?
for me, it would establish accountability for their operations
I am not opposed to accountability. What I’ve said, repeatedly, is that taking the decisions out of the Avengers hands creates Avengers who don’t care about the consequences of their actions, because the decision rested with someone else.
what’s to stop another Avenger
You seem to misunderstand what laws do. Laws don’t stop people from breaking them, the Avengers can sign the accords all day, and break them, just like Tony did. All the Accords does is provide a way for Avengers to be punished. Which Steve didn’t object to. Just having the ability to decide WHEN to intervene taken away from them. Again, I ask, do you think the fire department should wait for permission to come put out your house?
The problem with that comparison is that they’re not just a fire department, they are a private little army
Yes, and for instances when THAT is going to happen, like the strike on the HYDRA base, they should coordinate with local authorities. Where exactly is the evidence that they didn’t do that, BTW?
@AlanBrown, he did get to kiss Peggy in CAFA.
This week’s Agents of SHIELD addressed something about the Accords that this movie kinda glossed over, because no one in the movie except for Spiderman has a secret identity.
But the Accords also established registration. And Coulson, who once oversaw SHIELD’s Index, is opposed, because he knows the dangers of when a list falls into the wrong hands. There are also several Inhumans on the show who are living double lives. One is a Colombian woman who knows that if she ends up on a list, the corrupt government will give her name to the cartels, whose business she has been disrupting with her new powers. Another is a gay man who already faces persecution, and doesn’t want to face more.
So it’s cool to see that the ramifications of the Accords are being examined beyond just the immediate impact to the Avengers, who don’t really care about registration, because they operate in the spotlight, not the shadows.
Aeryl@47:He doesn’t face the authorities after becoming a criminal;
Neither did Harriet Tubman. So what?
I’m unclear what Harriet Tubman has to do with abetting a suspected terrorist. My point was that Cap doesn’t face the legal consequences of his actions; that looks pretty much like the opposite of taking responsibility for them.
You seem to misunderstand what laws do. Laws don’t stop people from breaking them, the Avengers can sign the accords all day, and break them, just like Tony did. All the Accords does is provide a way for Avengers to be punished. Which Steve didn’t object to. Just having the ability to decide WHEN to intervene taken away from them.
So, what is it? Do the accords take away the ability of the Avengers to decide whether to intervene? Or do they just provide the grounds for holding them accountable if they decide to do so without authorization? You can’t have it both ways.
To reiterate: So far, there doesn’t seem a way for people to take the Avengers to task, because they operate under no international legal obligations (and how far US legal limitations apply to them is unclear). The accords would change that. They would establish grounds for the Avengers to intervene in foreign countries, without having to ask for individual permission every time they run an op.
Again, I ask, do you think the fire department should wait for permission to come put out your house?
If it’s armed and part of a foreign army, yes – in fact, that’s how every international operation of rescue services works when they’re part of the armed forces, because everything else would simply constitute a case of invasion. The matter you repeatedly seem to overlook is that the Avengers are very much a private army without a clear mandate, and nobody wants to have that kind of force around.
@38 – Thorvald:
The problem is, Cap is not an actual soldier. Depending on the version you read or watch of his origin, if he did get any basic training at all, it was just for show (since Pvt. Steve Rogers could not reveal he was Captain America), and any actual military training he he underwent for his role as Captain America was with him knowing (despite his moral compass) that he was a special snowflake, and not a regular soldier. He’s never actually been a real soldier, just an adventurer working for the military (at first, and then as a superhero) with a military sounding name and soldier trappings.
@44 – Thorvald:
That’s exactly the problem the Team Cap fans are failing to see here, as it was with readers that supported Steve when the Civil War comic came out. They can only root for unregistered, unsupervised heroes because they know the heroes they read on the page and see onscreen are actually heroes, but they’d be the first to complain about paramilitary squads striking against criminals in real life. Police action, of any kind, and even fire departments, need oversight and accountability.
You don’t get a pass just because you have a cool codename and a flashy costume.
@45 – Anthony:
The Russos deserve to direct all of the Avengers and Cap films forever. Even a Falcon solo film, or a Falcon/Bucky one. Heck, I don’t really like Community much, but I’m going to watch the episodes they directed.
@47 – Aeryl:
“Yes, and for instances when THAT is going to happen, like the strike on the HYDRA base, they should coordinate with local authorities. Where exactly is the evidence that they didn’t do that, BTW?”
Not there, but in Nigeria, it’s pretty clear they just barged in on their own.
@48 – Aeryl: Please beware of posting Agents of SHIELD spoilers here, I haven’t watched the episode, and I avoid the relevant thread until I have… and this is not an AoS thread. (Not that I think that what you posted so far qualify as spoilers, mind you.)
Yeah, that’s cool, I only wish there had been even a cursory mention or reference to AoS in CW.
@49/Torvald_Nom: “I’m unclear what Harriet Tubman has to do with abetting a suspected terrorist.”
Are you kidding? As far as the Southern slave-owners were concerned, she was a terrorist. She was an outlaw depriving slave-owners of their “property” and undermining their economy, she was willing to use force and firepower in pursuit of this goal, and she collaborated with John Brown in organizing his armed raid on Harpers Ferry and would have participated in it if not for illness.
I agree there should be some structure for international permission and oversight. But it’s pretty clear that the Accords were a hasty and flawed overreaction, much like the overreaches of the USA PATRIOT Act after 9/11. I’d say there’s a difference between the Avengers cooperating with foreign governments to obtain clearance to operate in their territory and the Avengers being subordinate to a UN council that makes all the decisions about their activities. As is so often the case in life, this is an instance of the wrong solution to the right problem. Just because the problem legitimately exists, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way of addressing it.
@torvald Nom
Do the accords take away the ability of the Avengers to decide whether to intervene? Or do they just provide the grounds for holding them accountable if they decide to do so without authorization? You can’t have it both ways.
I agree you can’t have it both ways, but the Accords tried to. They want to be able to control what the Avengers did, AND to punish them for failing their mission after the fact. The Accords would be perfectly fine if it mandated training and guidelines for behavior, but taking the decision making AWAY from the Avengers would be disaster.
They would establish grounds for the Avengers to intervene in foreign countries, without having to ask for individual permission every time they run an op.
No, the would have to get individual permission, that was Steve, and Sam’s, big problem.
@MaGnUs
need oversight and accountability.
And nobody is saying they don’t. But do you think the Colombian government(as presented in the MCU) should get a list of all Colombian enhanced. Or that they should get final say over whether the Avengers can come in and stop the cartels from distributing a version of cocaine laced with a super soldier serum?
And again, laws don’t stop people from acting. The US, following the law, should not have gone after Bin Laden. We did anyway, and were willing to face the consequences after the fact, because that’s how this works. The Accords were an attempt to preempt the Avengers ability to act, not JUST about holding them accountable after the fact.
Yeah, that’s cool, I only wish there had been even a cursory mention or reference to AoS in CW
They did, who did you think the great expansion of enhanced individuals Vision referred to was talking about?
@CLB
Nailed it!
Part of the debate, I think, is the lack of a defined mandate for the Avengers.
Aliens pouring from the sky: Avengers.
Banker with illegal offshore accounts (ie. Panama Papers style illegality): Not the Avengers. Probably not even local SWAT.
Banker with illegal offshore accounts for Hydra: …Avengers??
Hydra is apparently different, but I’m not sure there’s a good answer beyond “because.”
I think the easiest way to describe an Avengers Mandate is “An enhanced team to counter enhanced threats.” Or possibly “existential threats,” depending. Of course, then you need to define “enhanced” and “existential”.
With a well defined mandate, deciding the level of required oversight/authorization becomes easier. Who is going to veto action against an Alien God-King descending from the sky? Or a Hulk stomping around an urban center?
By either definition, I’m not sure their initial CW mission in Nigeria was warranted. It was more a grudge-match against Rumlow (and vice-versa, apparently: else why wear a suicide vest to a bio-weapon heist?)
A situation similar to the Amazing Spider-man movie regarding the imminent deployment of a (lizard-y) bio-weapon seems much more clear-cut…even if reaction is less satisfying than preemption.
As for registration: there would need to be guarantees against reprisal, etc. from home governments which don’t appear to exist. If an enhanced person isn’t protected from imprisonment or weaponization/special drafting, then there’s not a lot of incentive to _not_ be a criminal. ‘Tell us who you are…and then we’ll do what we like with you.” No thanks.
@50: IIRC, Cap was part of the Allied forces during WWII, even if he operated with a lot of leeway. That would make him a soldier, wouldn’t it?
@51: Ah, thanks for explaining that. I’m not particularly well-versed in US history (due to not being an American), so that didn’t ring a bell. Although comparisons with people like Murat Kurnaz or Lakhdar Boumediene seem more appropriate; after all, Bucky is suspected of bombing the UN, not being a slave. Makes me wonder how the US would view somebody who tried to break people out of Guantanamo.
Aeryl@52: …the Accords tried to. They want to be able to control what the Avengers did, AND to punish them for failing their mission after the fact.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here: Do you believe that investigating whether they screwed up after a mission went sideways is wrong? That’s standard procedure for every decent modern military force, so I fail to see the issue here.
They would establish grounds for the Avengers to intervene in foreign countries, without having to ask for individual permission every time they run an op.
No, the would have to get individual permission, that was Steve, and Sam’s, big problem.
Are we missing each others point here? Currently, the Avengers have to ask the local government for permission, otherwise, they have to expect to be met with military force wherever they show up; the accords would give them grounds to operate on foreign soil on the sole discretion of the UN.
And again, laws don’t stop people from acting. The US, following the law, should not have gone after Bin Laden. We did anyway, and were willing to face the consequences after the fact, because that’s how this works.
Yeah, that’s debatable – parts of the government responsible for that should probably be considered war criminals (starting a war of aggression, torturing prisoners of war), but as far as I know, nothing has happened on that account.
@34:
“Have we not established that Tony’s kinda reckless?”
Yes, often established. So again, how was some stranger’s story a turning point, if Tony continues to take reckless action when he makes a mistake (as evidenced later in Civil War)?
“I can’t be sure, of course, since I’m not privy to their thoughts, but I can infer their intentions.”
Yet in your post @21 you stated “I’m pretty sure the writers considered that thoroughly,” in an apparent refutation of when I questioned whether or not the writers may have thought Spidey’s actions all the way through. If you’re not privy to their thoughts, then what are you basing your (apparently decreasing) belief that you are somehow in tune with what the writers intended?
I do agree with @27 that Spidey should’ve been with Team Cap, from a philosophical standpoint and it would’ve been interesting to see him switch sides, mirroring the comics.
@43:
“Actually, the scene with the dead boy’s mother at the beginning of the film acts as him being called to account for his actions.”
How is this different than the multiple other times people (some of them, a lot closer to Starkthan some random woman he meets at an elevator) tried to hold him accountable for his actions in previous movies (or even this one)? This wasn’t the first time he was “being called to account,” so why is this different? The last time we see Tony in AoU, he builds a “murderbot” and after being called to account for it, his solution was to “build” another one! Fortunately things turned out better the second time, but it has been constantly reinforced that whenever Stark tries to deal with his problems, he puts it on himself to build/create something to help solve them. (ETA: to clarify, Stark didn’t necessarily “build” the Vision, so much as “complete” him and attempt to install his AI into it)
So what led to this character switch of Stark relying on others to account for his actions this time? Only logical answer: it serves the plot; it’s not actually a natural development of the character.
@TorvaldNom
Do you believe that investigating whether they screwed up after a mission went sideways is wrong?
No, as I’ve explained like FIVE times now. What I think is wrong, is taking away the Avengers ability to decide WHEN they should step in. If they are only attack dogs, sent out at someone else’s command, with their powers and abilities, it removes the responsibility from their actions. Avengers who don’t care about consequences, because they no longer make the decisions, is a very dangerous thing.
Currently, the Avengers have to ask the local government for permission,
No, they don’t.
but as far as I know, nothing has happened on that account.
No, negotiations were made with Pakistan on that.
@47 Now that you have jogged my memory, I guess Cap and Peggy did kiss in First Avenger. Just before he jumped onto the flying wing bomber, right?
@50 and @54 Cap was definitely a soldier in WWII, albeit a commando, in a special operations unit. And he fought for years, from about ’42 right up to ’45, and probably saw more combat in that time than many soldiers see in a much longer career, spending most of his time on the pointy end of the spear. And the fact that he was a soldier is something that has been increasingly emphasized in recent years, both in the comics, and in the MCU. For example, arming Steve with a .45 in the First Avenger movie was something the comics had previously avoided. And there was just an article in Army Times that discussed just how much back pay he might have been owed when he was finally thawed out. So not just super, but a super soldier.
AlanBrown: Yeah, right before he jumped on the plane, followed by Cap looking at the general, and Tommy Lee Jones gruffly saying, “I’m not gonna kiss you!”
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
@57/AlanBrown: Yeah, I don’t think Cap was all that violent in the original comics. I just read an article about a story in the second issue of Captain America, in which Cap and Bucky traveled to Germany to find a kidnapped scientist (with Cap going undercover as an old woman for some reason) and stumbled upon Hitler and Goering. Bucky beat them up, and then there was a newspaper headline saying that Hitler and Goering were found stuffed in an ashcan. So… yeah. That happened.
@43: “How do we even know he knows Bucky and the Winter Soldier are the same person prior to the events of this movie?”
The news announcer covering the UN bombing knew it. It seems unrealistic under those circumstances to suppose that Stark *didn’t* know it.
@50: “I only wish there had been even a cursory mention or reference to AoS in CW.”
In a way, there was: Bucky’s response to his command word sequence (translated) is “Ready to comply.” That language has never appeared in the Marvel movies, but it’s all over AoS season 2 as part of HYDRA’s brainwashing technique.
@43 @60
Plus Maria Hill knew, Nick Fury knew, Black Widow knew. And there also doesn’t seem to be any indication that Steve was hiding the fact that he was looking for Bucky, he and Sam talked about at Tony’s house! Just because he didn’t fill Tony in on things like his father’s death doesn’t mean that he didn’t tell everyone his friend from childhood was still alive and brainwashed by HYDRA.
Great words EMILY!…..Can’t add anymore to what you already said….you summed up the movie beautifully :). I will add that I have fears hearing the reviews on the X-men movie that the ensemble cast of those characters are lacking in the intimacy area unlike the Cap movie , and are due to fail miserably… I wish they were not. But that is a discussion for another day… :)
@52 – Aeryl:
“But do you think the Colombian government(as presented in the MCU) should get a list of all Colombian enhanced”
No, and I did not said that.
“who did you think the great expansion of enhanced individuals Vision referred to was talking about?”
Yes, and there’s also Daredevil, and Luke Cage, and Jessica Jones, and Kilgrave, etc, etc. He was including the Inhumans, but I wanted something meatier. Mayhaps I should have said “something other than a cursory indirect mention”.
@53 – herewiss13:
“Banker with illegal offshore accounts (ie. Panama Papers style illegality): Not the Avengers. Probably not even local SWAT.”
I just heard from a friend in Panama, they raided an office near his. It wasn’t local SWAT, it was US forces.
“Hydra is apparently different, but I’m not sure there’s a good answer beyond “because.”“
HYDRA recruits and traffics in Inhuman and other alien/enhanced weaponizable resources. It’s not “because”.
@54 – Torvald_Nom:
Yes, he operated with US soldiers, but he wasn’t an actual soldier. He was always a special operative.
@55 – KiManiak:
“If you’re not privy to their thoughts, then what are you basing your (apparently decreasing) belief that you are somehow in tune with what the writers intended?”
This is not a well-thought out and corrected essay, it’s a a comment section in a blog. Don’t bring up that I used “pretty sure” at first and “can’t be sure” later in comments I wrote hours or days apart. What I meant is that what I wrote was my opinion, based on my observations of what the filmmakers included on screen, and what I can extrapolate from that.
61 – Scott_MI: Yeah, that is really not enough. :)
I took the whole “Vision was distracted” line to be more about the power of the shot than that it missed. This could be a total fanwank on my part but it looked to me that a shot that was powerful enough to rip open War Machine’s suit and shatter the arc reactor would have pretty much vaporized Falcon’s whole flying apparatus (and possibly his spine). In a sense it was lucky that Falcon dodged or he would have been a straight up casualty since he’s not completely wrapped in protective armor.
That said, I like the theory above that he didn’t do anything wrong and is just blaming himself due to his youth and inexperience. Its possible it was just a flat out mistake to bring such a big gun to the fight if the intention was not to severely harm anyone… can’t really “aim to wound” with the equivalent of a tank. That’s what I liked so much about the fight, it starts out almost playful and just escalates and escalates as neither side is willing to back down.
Very nice review! I agree with almost all of your analysis. I do have one correction to the following passage (sorry if this has already been pointed out):
“And when Tony asks the most important question of all—whether or not Steve knew Bucky had done this—Steve Rogers is not able to give his usually noble answer. Instead, he has to admit that he protected his friend, and has known all along.”
As I recall, Tony asked Steve if he knew. Steve replied that he knew, but not that Bucky had done it. Steve knew that Howard and Maria were murdered, but not who killed them.
(I posted this comment earlier but it seems to have disappeared for some reason.)
Vision, War Machine and Falcon were all doing different things at different times for different reasons. The actions of no one individual caused what happened. It is the fog of war. In combat, stuff happens, and it is often stuff you never intended to have happen. That’s why, even in a fight where a lot of people are trying to pull punches, nasty things can happen.
I read this post along with the comments last night. I also finished “The Bands of Mourning”. The result? This morning, I dreamt that I was dating Tony Stark, who also just happened to be a Coinshot.
(It was a VERY good dream :D )
@67/AlanBrown: I’m not sure it really works for an artificial superintelligence like the Vision to claim the “fog of war” excuse. Bottom line, he used excessive force. Nobody wanted anyone’s life to be endangered, but he tried to shoot a flier out of the sky.
So am I the only one who was getting a bit of an Arrested Development-era Michael Cera vibe from Spidey?
(Loved the movie; and the actual Civil War (Cap & Iron Man & Bucky in the Russian bunker) was kind of a gut-punch; the airport brawl, although kind of entirely proving Tony’s point via the medium of property damage, was generally good-natured scuffling, at least until the very end.)
He’s an artificial superintelligence, but he also has feelings. F*E*E*L*I*N*G*S :)
Artificial: yes. Intelligent: yes. Superintelligent: has that been proven?? I’m not sure Vision has demonstrated anything beyond a vaguely Vulcan intellect. Jarvis _might_ have been leaning that way, but Vision is now inhabiting a body. Very different OS and hardware platform.
The truth of the matter is that Steve doesn’t want the Avengers under UN control because Steve Rogers doesn’t trust anyone.
I think its more nuanced than that. Steve obviously trusts Black Widow, Falcon, Hawkeye, etc in a fight. I think its that he doesn’t trust people who have no skin in the fight. The UN dorks would be sitting in a committee room somewhere, disconnected from events, ordering people around. Its hard to put trust in people beyond your circle when you’ve had events like Winter Soldier thrown at you.
As for Steve being a soldier, I have to comment based on 24 years in the military. You can be a soldier or you can be a “soldier”. Cap was a “soldier”. By that I mean he wore the uniform and fought in the battles, but he never did the same training as soldiers. When did he do basic training? In First Avenger it looks like a week or two at best of pushups and running around, not actual basic training. Steve never lived or served like the other guys in the army; he was special from the beginning. So yeah, he was in the Army, and you call people in the Army soldier, but Cap’s deal was different hence the “soldier”. (kinda sideways, but a soldier is in the Army; call a Marine a soldier and you deserve whatever happens to you)
@73
I think its that he doesn’t trust people who have no skin in the fight.
I know you and I aren’t always on the same page(or do I have you confused with someone else), but YES THIS. That’s what I keep coming back to with my statement that if you take away the responsibility of their decisions away from the Avengers, you get Avengers who don’t care about the consequences of their actions.
As the people with skin in the game, they are a lot less likely to get involved in something if they don’t need to, but as you say, people with no skin in the game are a lot more likely to start seeing them as a one size fits all solution.
@64
“This is not a well-thought out and corrected essay, it’s a a comment section in a blog. Don’t bring up that I used “pretty sure” at first and “can’t be sure” later in comments I wrote hours or days apart. What I meant is that what I wrote was my opinion, based on my observations of what the filmmakers included on screen, and what I can extrapolate from that. “
A few quick points:
-I find it rather humorous that in a post where a commenter is trying to make their point by literally quoting something I previously said, that same commenter is demanding that I not quote (or “bring up”) something they previously said to call them on their contradictions and inconsistencies.
-This space is whatever one wants to make of it, whether it be a quick comment, an essay or a collection of inconsistent and somewhat contradictory statements. Within the rules/policies of this forum, each commenter is welcome to make contradictory points if they like, just like each commenter is welcome to -politely- call others out for doing so.
-Thanks for sharing what you “meant,” even if it differs from what you said originally, when you were trying to rebut what I wrote as my opinion (based on observations that I actually spell out @19 & @24). I am stating, once again, that the writers may not have thought out Spidey’s actions all the way through. Other than your yet-to-be-clarified “observations” of what was on screen and “what (you) can extrapolate from that,” there is still nothing of substance from your comments in our conversation that actually challenges or refutes that.
@70/hoopmanjh: Michael Cera’s the guy from Scott Pilgrim, right? I really don’t like him much. Tom Holland was much more agreeable. He did remind me of a young Tobey Maguire, though, which isn’t great; I liked Maguire’s Peter Parker well enough, but he wasn’t really playing Peter Parker, he was playing Tobey Maguire. So far, Andrew Garfield is still my favorite screen Spidey, despite the deficiencies of the movies he was in. Although maybe seeing a whole movie with Holland could change my mind.
@72/herewiss13: The Vision is the hybrid of JARVIS and the AI software from the Mind Stone, the same software that produced Ultron. I see no reason to doubt that his mental powers are as exceptional as his physical ones. At the very least, he should be able to think, process, and calculate far faster than a human and thus not be as likely to be affected by “the fog of war.” Not to mention that it’s more like “the fog of a serious disagreement among friends.”
@73 – ragnarredbeard: Thank you for not leaving me alone on the “soldier” =/= soldier thing for Cap. And about calling a Marine a “soldier”; in Spanish the word “militar” can just mean you’re in the armed forces, so we’ve can avoid those things.
@76 — ChristopherLBennett — Yes, Michael Cera was also in Scott Pilgrim, but that was a few years after Arrested Development, during which he was quite a bit younger. I thought Maguire was good, at least in the two good Raimi movies. I haven’t really given Garfield a fair shake yet, I admit.
First off, this is a really great summation and includes lots of tasty things to think over. But I do want to make note of a small detail: Cap doesn’t drop the shield when Tony says he doesn’t deserve it. He drops the shield when Tony says that his /father made that shield./
He still trusts his own judgement (too much), but he acknowledges the hypocrisy of carrying a shield/weapon forged by the victim of the man he’s protecting. He’s also acknowledging Tony’s right to his anger and sense of betrayal, which is spelled out in the letter as well.
It doesn’t change any of the points in your essay, but I think it adds another interesting layer to them.
I would like to see the whole Gyrich storyline from the 80’s Avengers, where a government monitor is assigned to watch over the Avengers, and they keep clashing or tricking him.
@80/scott1: They could do that storyline with General Ross, or maybe Everett Ross (there are two Rosses!), but the rights to Gyrich presumably belong to Fox, since he sort of appeared in the first X-Men movie (or rather, Mystique first appeared impersonating Gyrich, whom she’d killed earlier). Although maybe he’d fall into the same split-rights category as Quicksilver, and Fox doesn’t seem to be using the character.
I find Tony’s comment about the shield at the end to be fueled by nothing more than his whiny rich-boy rage that something hasn’t gone his way. Even his voice in that moment manages to crack and pitch like a whiny teenager. Perhaps the comment has larger character meaning for Steve that the audience is supposed to take away, but for Tony, it’s a moment of fury that Steve is walking away and taking Bucky with him, and Tony lashes out, trying to take something away from Steve. “That thing, that symbol of everything you’ve become, it’s not yours, it’s MINE because MY FATHER made it! You don’t belong to you, you belong to ME!”
It’s stupid and whiny and arrogant and said in a moment of enraged desperation. And I think he regrets it later. But it’s still the moment that made me leave the theater completely done with Tony Stark.
@82/celestineangel: No, I think I have to agree with Suzannekmoses on this one. Tony is saying “The man the Winter Soldier murdered made that shield, so you don’t have the right to carry it in the Winter Soldier’s defense.” And Steve accepted that he was right, that at the very least it was deeply insensitive to Tony to keep the shield.
@82 and @83 However he expressed it, I think Tony had plenty of good reason to be in pain at that moment, and was not being whiny. After all, he had just found out that his parents were murdered, and who killed them, and that a comrade has been protecting the murderer.
In any case, given time, Tony should be able to accept that Bucky doesn’t have any fault in his parents’ murder; moreso since he wants to be absolved of the deaths of the people caused by the bombs he built (like Wanda’s parents).
Why did agent Carter have to die now? Because otherwise Stave would have come to talk to her about his doubts, and might not have followed through on his rebellion. Peggy is dead, and now Steve doesn’t have a choice but to stick with the only other surviving person from his own time. Same thing for Tony: the movie could have just ignored Pepper Potts, but instead underlines her absence. And without her, Tony does stupid things. And I loved how this movie solved the inconsistency between Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron: now Tony doesn’t feel the need for his armours anymore, but the need to use them to fight; and that decision has real consequences on his relationship with Pepper. The movie relies on both Cap and Tony doing stupid things, and it’s interesting that they do so because their emotional centre has been taken away.
But nothing in the movie makes it seem like the Sokovia Accords are a bad thing. Zemo’s plan is so specific that it doesn’t change anything to the general idea. Of course even the UN could commit mistakes, especially when its members are personally attacked, but that doesn’t mean supervision is a bad thing. The only thing I disagree with in what we know of the Accords is that the Avengers don’t get a right to withdraw from missions they disagree with, or that they don’t get a say in how they want to handle the mission: the problem with the mission to capture Bucky is that the people sent after him were instructed to shoot on sight, which makes sense considering how dangerous he can be (but as krad pointed out, doesn’t justify the lack of investigation beforehand), but that order can’t work for Cap. Then when he’s been captured once, does Cap think there will be another guy masquerading as a psychiatrist who would want to activate Bucky’s trigger? There was no reason not to cooperate, except for the fact that the Accords were too constraining.
The decision to put Wanda under house arrest was interesting, because apart from the Vision, she’s the only one in the movie who doesn’t rely on anything to be powerful (Cap has his shield and Spidey his web-shooters which aren’t such a big part of who they are as super heroes; but most importantly even with them they can’t be considered as living weapons). She’s just accused of collateral damage, which does require an investigation, but not a house arrest. The problem is that people can’t help but be scared of her. This situation would certainly have happened sooner if Banner hadn’t disappeared after Age of Ultron, as it is the same problem for him.
Clint is not against Tony or with Cap, he’s siding with Wanda. He still feels responsible for the death of her brother, and only intervenes to free her; she is even more important than siding with Natasha. Ant-Man’s side makes sense: he’s first reaction to entering the MCU was that they should call the Avenger, and Pym taught him his distrust of anyone. Hank Pym is the only one who raises good objections to the Accords (albeit in a previous movie): once they are subjected to a controlling authority, Pym particles, like Cap’s shield become “government property”, and they are not free to decide who gets to use it anymore. That’s exactly the objection Stark opposed to Fury in Iron Man 2, before he realised in Age of Ultron that his own hands were not the safest either. As long as they are the ones on the field, they are keeping one hand on the steering wheel, as Black Widow says, but if they relinquish the source of their power, they lose all control.
@5: great analogy! There are indeed some situations that don’t allow delaying.
@19: Spidey’s position makes sense (his legal position, less so). With great power comes great responsibility; that responsibility is too much for a teenager, so why wouldn’t he want to put the power and responsibility in the hands of people he trusts? Whether he’s right to do so, that’s another question. But at his age, it would make sense for him to be an idealist.
@79: Despite all the references in the MCU to the relations between Cap and Howard, I had never made that connection. Howard Stark was his friend, that puts his decision not to tell Tony about his murder in a completely different perspective.
“The decision to put Wanda under house arrest was interesting, because apart from the Vision, she’s the only one in the movie who doesn’t rely on anything to be powerful”
Cap doesn’t need his SHIELD, he has powers of his own thanks to the super soldier serum, and Spidey has even greater powers. You say it yourself about Cap and Spidey (even if you wrote “with them” instead of without them). That sentence makes no sense.
@86/Athreeren: But that’s not what Spidey’s credo means to him. “Great responsibility” doesn’t mean passing the buck to someone else. That’s what he did with the Burglar — stood back and let the police handle it because he thought it wasn’t his business. And Uncle Ben died as a result. So Spidey’s driving belief is about personal responsibility. As long as he has the power to make a difference, he feels morally compelled to use it, to intervene personally rather than walking away. As he said in the movie, if you have the power to stop something bad and you don’t exercise it, then what happens is your fault. That’s just another way of stating Cap’s position here — “If I see a situation going south, I need to do something about it,” or however he put it. So Spidey and Cap were both voicing the same philosophy, and that makes it incongruous that Spidey was on Team Iron Man. If he’d had a chance to talk to Cap about more than what boroughs they were from, he probably would’ve decided to follow his comics counterpart’s lead and defect to Cap’s side.
“One of the biggest problems with superhero team-up movies is making sure that they don’t feel like a paint-by-numbers action kaboom where the only benefit is familiar characters. And the main way to make sure that doesn’t happen is to make said familiar characters emotionally invested in the current conflict’s outcome, beyond the whole we-must-win-the-day schtick.”
Clint and Scott had no motivation to be in the fight whatsoever. The last time they appeared on screen both men were more emotionally invested in their families. Spiderman was shoehorned into the movie because they had the rights. This sentence is just nor true. The movie did feel overwhelming, because most of the characters were only in the movie for the fight scene, and then forgotten.
@83 & 84
Except Bucky didn’t murder anyone. HYDRA murdered them, and Steve already destroyed HYDRA.
@89/Ahania: Yes, some characters are more secondary than others, but the point is that the central characters — Steve, Bucky, Tony, Natasha, and T’Challa especially, and also Wanda, Vision, Sam, and Rhodey — had relatable personal stakes. And the side characters you mention were there because of their personal ties to the core characters. Spidey was there because Tony recruited him — even manipulated him, seduced this impressionable youngster who admired him to fight for a cause that wasn’t his. And when Tony saw he’d almost gotten a 15-year-old kid injured to serve his own agenda, maybe that helped advance Tony’s journey toward realizing he’d pushed things too far. Clint was there because of his sense of obligation to Wanda, and he served as the catalyst who led Wanda to stand up for herself against the Vision. Scott was there because of his history with Sam, and as we saw in the scene in the Raft, he was also influenced by Hank Pym’s mistrust of the Stark family. Even Sharon Carter is on Steve’s side because of their connection through Peggy and through their history with SHIELD.
So you’re wrong. Even though not every character is central to the plot, they all have legitimate personal investments and in-character motivations that lead them to get involved.
By the way, it turns out the Sokovia Accords are hugely unconstitutional and unenforceable:
http://thelegalgeeks.com/2016/05/10/why-the-sokovia-accords-are-unconstitutional/
@92, Thanks of the link, that helps support my theory that nobody expected these Accords to be effective in any way, they were to be a paper shield, allowing the parties involved to do nothing, or anything, depending on the politics involved.
@92 – Nice link. Those Accords were flawed in so many ways. Also, the article points out what many on the pro-oversight side are missing: the vast majority of the major destructive events in the MCU were directly/indirectly linked to the action of some government or oversight agency, not the Avengers (with the two-time exception of Tony Stark’s actions). An oversight type body (SHIELD and the World Council) and its corruption led to the genesis of the Avengers and the vast majority of their subsequent actions.
@94/KiManiak: Still, that just proves that somebody needs to watch the watchers. Give too much power to any group, and it will go too far. That’s why I believe that the secret of America’s success over the centuries, even more than democracy, is its system of checks and balances. Every powerful group is counteracted by another powerful group or groups, so no single faction can run away with too much power and become dictatorial. (What good is a democracy, after all, if the elected leader has absolute power to dissolve the legislature, throw out the constitution, and declare himself president-for-life? The system only endures if every branch has limits on its power.)
Institutions are only as good as their members. A group that starts out run fairly and with the best of intentions can fall into less competent or less honest hands later on. So you can’t put all your eggs in one basket. You need institutions that serve as mutual checks on each other’s power.
@95 Good point about checks and balances. Maybe multiple Avenger teams could keep each other on the straight and narrow. Come to think of it, that would be something Marvel could get behind, because it would mean even more superhero movies! ;-)
@96/AlanBrown: The thing about checks and balances, though, is that the balancing institutions should be different and complementary, like the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. So it shouldn’t be just different Avengers teams. Heck, Avengers teams historically have a way of splitting and recombining anyway.
Coming soon to a theater near you: Great Lakes Avengers: The Movie!
@87: I did mean with them: even at their best, Captain America and Spiderman are not walking WMD like Banner or Scarlet Witch. Captain America is better in many ways than a normal human, but there isn’t much he can do that Black Widow couldn’t, and she’s not enhanced. Spiderman could potentially be a fearsome assassin with his powers, but there’s no way he could cause the same amount of damage as the Hulk in Johannesburg; when great destruction is pinned on him by the Daily Buggle, it’s always in a battle against another enhanced who causes most of the damage.
Okay, if you meant WMD-level, that’s cool, but that didn’t come away from my reading of your post initially.
I think Tony confused accountability with responsibility, and he historically has problems with both. The explosion caused a crisis of accountability, since there was no way for people to determine if the Avengers had acted correctly or in good faith. The bomb goes off, people die, and the Avengers retreat to their swank hideout in the US (worth noting that people accuse the Avengers of not caring when they’re clearly prone to guilt). There’s no mechanism to figure out what went wrong or what could have been done differently.
@99/Athreeren: Actually Spidey’s got a lot more brute strength going for him than a lot of people realize. There was a J. Michael Straczynski story where Spidey needed to work off some anger and did it by single-handedly demolishing an abandoned building slated for destruction that day. JMS tended to play up Spidey’s physical strength more than a lot of writers do, but he didn’t exaggerate it. Spidey’s always been extremely strong, able to lift trucks fairly easily, that sort of thing. And there’s a long tradition of showing that he can transcend the nominal limits on his strength by a sheer effort of will and desperate need. He once held up a corner of an entire skyscraper to delay its collapse.
@95) It’s interesting that the institution of Superheroing is so different than other institutions…possibly because it it supposed to be 100% altruistic. As you say, an institution only as good as its members, but, by definition, its members are pretty gosh-darn good. Future recruits are accepted by the founding members on the basis of merit and since there’s no real accrual of power (only responsibility), social climbers get weeded out, leaving only those as altruistic and meritorious as the original members.
…I speak, of course, in incredibly broad terms and with only an interested layman’s knowledge of the subject. If/where there are exceptions is what make it interesting.
It seems like a lot of inter-hero drama is about what happens in the interstices of this institutional structure. Mostly: relationships. Occasionally: celebrity. Mostly questions of power/responsibility are addressed via solo heroes because anyone who went Mad with Power or otherwise Ran Amok as part of an ensemble would be taken down by their team-members. Internal self-correction vs. external correction/oversight. While government liaisons do exist with various super-teams, they’re typically either A) something to (eventually) thwart or B) something to provide exposition, rather than a valid & necessary check (mostly because the whole premise is that non-super people cannot check super-people without their permission…and any near-successful attempt to do so (i.e. Sentinels, OMAC, etc) results in oppression).
Also: anyone corrupted by power becomes, by definition, a super-villian: so super-teams remain altruistic by self-filtering. The institution doesn’t become corrupted because corrupt individuals leave/are driven out. Typically when you see exceptions to this, you’re looking at an AU dystopia (i.e. Justice Lords).
@99/102 – While Spidey is certainly super-strong, he lacks a certain destructive momentum. He can go hand-to-hand with the Hulk (for a while), but when he gets thrown into a wall, he leaves cracks. When the Hulk is thrown into a wall, he leaves rubble. Ditto jumping around the city, etc. A rampaging Spider-man needs to be deliberately destructive, while a rampaging Hulk (or Rhino, etc.) just needs to not watch where they’re going.
@103/herewiss13: Except that heroes who do run amok, turn evil, and wreak mass destruction have a tendency to be forgiven for it and restored to the team afterward, because everything has to be back to the status quo eventually. So either they were mind-controlled or they were replaced by an alien duplicate or they’re just uneasily forgiven until the whole thing gets mostly forgotten.
And sure, Spidey would have to be deliberate about it to do a lot of damage, but that’s my point. Athreeren said he could potentially be a fearsome assassin if he turned to evil, and I’m pointing out that Evil Spidey could be a whole lot more destructive than that. Heck, with his genius, scientific inventiveness, and ability to sense and dodge any threat to his person, he could potentially be a big-league, take-over-the-world (or at least the city) kind of villain. Maybe not in Doctor Doom’s or Magneto’s class, but pretty high up there.
CLB@94 – Good point. “Pro-oversight” was probably too generic of a term on my part; I should have specified as to the model discussed in the movie, where the UN can control the Avengers and any active enhanced being. I agree that a “checks-and-balance” system would, however, be ideal if it were articulated and arranged well. Then again, SHIELD had a system that, arguably, was supposed to provide a check-and-balance to the director –The World Council– and that system was corrupted.
I actually would argue any system has the possibility of becoming corrupt or incompetent (even America’s democratic republic) if enough people in power wish to exploit the system for their own personal or political gain. The trick for any “body” is to find the best system possible and work as hard as possible to prevent corruption/exploitation from occurring. We’re flawed humans; there is no perfect system.
Also, I’ve always liked that phrase (“Who watches the watchmen”) in its various forms (watchmen, guardian, etc).
@105 Reminds me of one of my favorite Discwold quotes from Thud:
“‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Your Grace.’
‘I know that one,’ said Vimes. ‘Who watches the watchmen? Me, Mr Pessimal.’
‘Ah, but who watches you, your Grace?’ said the inspector, with a brief smile.
‘I do that too. All the time,’ said Vimes.”
…although you might have to be familiar with Samuel Vimes and his particular moral fiber to understand it.
…and really he’d be dead-set against any Superhero who wasn’t also a copper. :-)
@106/herewiss13: “…and really he’d be dead-set against any Superhero who wasn’t also a copper.”
Then I guess the entire original roster of the Metal Men would be out. ;) (Although they did add a Copper in 2007.)
Badum badum pst!
I know this thread is all but dead, yet I finally saw the movie.
Anyone else think that they will use Tony’s mind app to remove Bucky’s programing?
Sorry, I’m not a comic reader, so if that is already cannon in the books, I have no clue.
Nope, that mind app doesn’t exist in the comics (similar things do, but unrelated to Tony). Good theory.
I watched the movie a little late and just read this review now. Great job of pulling out why I loved this movie so much and writing it up in a way that almost made me feel like I was rewatching the best parts.
@109 As I remember it, Cap used a Cosmic Cube to help erase Bucky’s programming in the comics. But I could be wrong. When you get to my age, all the different storylines tend to blur together…
That is correct. But it doesn’t seem like the Cosmic Cube here is the same as in the comics.
@110-113, thanks guys for the info!
@115/Lisamarie: The movie was pretty careful about showing that the heroes’ fight didn’t cause much collateral damage. It was stated outright that Tony ordered the airport evacuated before his team moved in. There were no casualties aside from Rhodey’s injury. There may have been some in the earlier car chase, but that was mainly Black Panther’s and Bucky’s fault.
As for Zemo, IIRC, he knows about the mission, but he needs to interrogate Bucky to find the location of the bunker where the other Winter Soldiers are. Yes, the reason for Bucky’s mission was to steal Howard Stark’s knockoff supersoldier formula so as to create the other Soldiers. As for the camera, my interpretation is that Bucky was ordered to carry out the hit in view of the (traffic?) camera so that his handlers could observe and confirm the hit.
At the end of The Winter Soldier, Black Widow released SHIELD’s files to the public in order to expose Hydra’s presence. Zemo presumably got the information from there. As for the time frame, the movies generally take place in real time, with a couple of exceptions. So the fall of SHIELD was in 2014, the Ultron incident in 2015, and the Sokovia Accords in 2016.
In the comics, the Vision and the Scarlet Witch actually fell in love and got married. They even had kids somehow, but that was undone in one of comicdom’s crazier retcons.
What the heck is wrong with Tor these days? I know I had a comment that I posted, but then nothing happened…and now it’s gone.
And now my original comment is gone too….
@118 – Looking into this.
@119 – it’s kind of weird – not only did my comment at 115 disappear, but for awhile this thread completely disappeared off of the ‘My Conversations’ list too (even though I know CLB commented on it a few minutes ago). Of course, now it’s back on seeing as how I’ve commented on it again. :)
It just happened again!
Both times, I had gone in and edited a comment to fix a typo. Did edit get secretly replaced with delete?
@120/Lisamarie: Try clearing your browser cache. I’ve been having a problem with posts not appearing for days, but Keith DeCandido clued me in on the cache thing. Although it’s not a permanent fix. I also lost a previously posted comment this morning, when I tried to edit my comment in the TAS: “Bem” thread.
Oh, I meant to say “I’ve been having a problem for days with posts not appearing,” rather than having a problem with posts taking days to appear. I’m afraid to edit my previous comment, though, since it may vanish.
No, I know what you mean, because I have the same problem too (sometimes clearing the browser cache works, and occasionally it doesn’t – I’ve gone to the web masters for it and they are able to fix it) with being unable to see comments that sometimes last several days.
As a person who rather frequently updates my own posts (I get twitchy about typos or things that I just realize are unclear or that I forgot to add but don’t want to spam the thread) this could be a problem for me, haha. I think I’ll just re-post my comments and then be on my way :)
Repost of comment 115, which has now gone into the aether. But I’m glad it’s not just me, since right around this time a snarky comment of mine got modded off, so then I had to wonder if I was part of a vast conspiracy to silence me forever :)
—-
I always look forward to your reviews and get excited when I see you are the one who wrote it – I know I’m coming at this one late (yikes, nearly a year) but our lifestyle doesn’t allow for a lot of trips to the theater. As a result, we’re always about a year behind the MCU. And I’m not even attempting to try to keep up with the 5 billion TV shows. I can barely even keep up with all the media associated with Star Wars (my primary fandom). Sheesh. What a time to be alive ;)
But, I definitely really appreciated this review and the comments, because it was definitely a meaty movie and gave me a lot to think about. Is it my favorite? Probably not (I actually really enjoyed Ultron although I know that one got some flack). This is more of the grim/depressing ‘things fall apart’ trend in superhero movies I’m not that fond of – it’s definitely not the kind of movie I would watch again to feel good. But it’s still a pretty good movie.
My instinct when watching it is to say, ‘yes, they need oversight of some kind’ because the idea of an all powerful group just holding themselves accountable is…worrisome. At least it would be in real life (I guess in a way we take this for granted in pretty much all superhero movies). As a moviegoer I trust Captain America, and maybe even Tony Stark, to generally do the right thing when needed but…who is to say future Avengers will be so trustworthy? On the other hand Cap’s stance of having your own moral center and doing what is right, your own well formed conscience, the belief that when given the chance/freedom, people will do the right thing – greatly appeals to me. Given what he went through last time he put his trust in a government – I can see exactly why he is opposed to this. There’s also something to be said about committees, and the idea that they are abdicating from the responsibility of having to decide what to do with their powers (which I think is a thing with Tony). So while it seems tempting to say, yes, we need some kind of oversight, it’s also a threat to allow a group to have control over them too. Although perhaps there should be some type of balance where they need to at least get permission for going into a sovereign country, as well as be responsible for all reparations. I don’t know.
All that said, I couldn’t help but feel throughout most of this movie that WOW, a lot of damage and death due to a bunch of butthurt guys fighting over stuff and bringing their personal drama onto the world stage (and I do incude Zemo in this number)…maybe this is why the public is wary of the Avengers? Like the airport fight for example which caused how much damage and possible casualties? While I completely get that Cap cares about his friend and can even commend him for that and for wanting to fight for his redemption (as well as protect him from the people who were in favor of just summarily executing him without even bothering to investigate or listen to Cap’s suspicions as to what was going on) it just seemed after awhile somebody should have just said enough is enough – but I guess that would have also required both sides being willing to talk.
Honestly, if I had to pick a team, I’m on Team Panther – he seems to be the only person who really ‘got it’ at the end, and understood how these cycles of vengeance and retribution just keep escalating, whether it’s the villain (Zemo) or the heroes. I was kind of neutral on the idea of a Black Panther movie since I have no familiarity with the comics and had never heard of this character before, but now I’m pretty excited about it. As an aside, it’s rather refreshing to see that the one voice of reason is in fact played by a PoC, instead of resorting to the ‘Angry Black Man’ stereotype. (It’s also kind of refreshing that there are actually multiple PoC in this movie as main characters.)
A few other random thoughts (that I realize nobody will answer since everybody else is probably done thinking about this movie):
-I’m still a little unclear on where the video of Bucky killing Stark’s parents even came from. Throughout the movie, Zemo is interrogating people regarding a mission report of December 16, 1991 (which is when Bucky killed his parents). So did he already know that this had happened, and was just looking for the footage/proof, and that happens to be in the Siberian bunker? Bucky says that when he DOES finally get him, he interrogates him about the base/the other super soldiers. But maybe that’s just intended to be a misdirection and not actually what he was after…maybe I’d need to watch it again to put the pieces together. Why is there even footage in the first place? Blackmail? It also seemed super convenient that the camera was right in the car. In the flashback it also seemed like they stole something out of the trunk, but I didn’t catch what it was – some kind of serum? Was he killed specifically so they could get that and create more super soldiers, perhaps?
-Related, since we know Zemo himself wasn’t part of HYDRA, how did he even know that this footage existed? I am assuming through hacking the released HYDRA files but even so it seems like he must have had something he was looking for. I am not sure what the timeline is (how many years after Ultron this is meant to be), but after losing his family in Sokovia he wants to destroy the Avengers, so would have had to hack the files and then come up with some kind of plan based on the information he had. I suppose that’s plausible (in supervillain terms) but I’m just trying to make sense of the timeline.
-Agreed that Wanda got the shaft in this movie, especially as it should be obvious that while she wasn’t able to get the bomb completely clear, she saved all the lives on the ground. It seems like they should have stuck up for her more, instead of just putting her under house arrest. And yes, it was irrirating to see the Chitauri invasion lumped in with the other things as something the Avengers ’caused’ (you might be able to argue that for Sokovia since Ultron is Tony’s fault).
-I HATE that Cap brought Clint back into this. HATE it. Like, let this guy enjoy his family. Even after being freed, you know he can never go back. I understand that Clint himself would not be able to stay away because of his debt to Wanda but I really feel like Cap should have just left him out of it out of respect for his family.
-Likewise, I really hate that Tony brought a 15 year old kid into their drama where he is clearly in over his head, but in terms of his abilities and in terms of what he knows about the situation. WTF Tony? (As great as this incarnation of Spiderman was it really seemed like a stretch to get him involved, although I’ve enjoyed reading some of the commentary here about which side he would actually be on if he knew all of what was going on.)
-I love Ant-Man, I love Paul Rudd (does this guy ever age? Still looks like he did in Clueless) but also a bit of a stretch having him there. It makes sense that he would have a grudge against Stark, but in general, it seemed like the presence of Hawkeye, Spider-Man and Ant-Man were all a bit contrived simply so we could have a big superhero brawl at the end (which honestly didn’t do much for me. But then, I guess I’m not really the target demographic for these movies). I am honestly surprised they didn’t find some way to shoehorn the Wasp (which I wouldn’t have minded since I really want to see her in action and she got such a short stick in the Ant-Man movie), the Hulk and Thor in somehow.
-When does Black Widow get her own movie, ffs? As an aside I could definitely relate to her stance in just wanting to keep the ‘family’ together and trying to see both sides/mediate. It’s a thing I struggle with myself when it comes to strongly aligned factions where I can understand where both sides are coming from, etc.
-At some point during the movie I realized that Everett Ross was Martin Freeman and then (since we just went through a huge binge of the Hobbit special features) it was really hard for me not to picture Bilbo Baggins interrogating this guy. Random theory (that I came across while trying to google stuff to put together the timeline) – it’s possible there is some indication that Zemo did not actually kill all of the soldiers and so he knows one is still out there to rescue him/otherwise do his bidding, hence his smugness during his final scene. Of course, he has every reason to be smug even without that, since his ‘real’ plan, to split up the Avengers did work. We’ve already returned the movie to the rental place (yes, old school) so I can’t rewatch to confirm that there is an empty bay. Also…given that Benedict Cumberbatch is also now in the MCU…will there ever be some opportunity for them to interact? Ha. So that’s at least 3 franchises they now have in common.
-I completely missed that Vision might have had a crush on Wanda (I remember him being distracted, but I didn’t make a connection that it was specifically by Wanda’s injuries). It didn’t occur to me that he would be interested in forming romances (I viewed him as aromantic/asexual), specifically, although they do have similar themes to explore in their character development regarding wanting to understand their powers and overcome their own fear regarding themselves).
And repost of the comment that was the reply to the reply, but also got eaten. As it turns out saving stuff in notepad is a deeply ingrained nervous habit of mine due to problems like this (here and elsewhere).
Woo, a reply!
For the record, I do include Zemo as one of the butthurt guys causing mayhem and destuction (and we know deaths). I did hear the part about the airport being evacuated (although I probably do miss a bit from the battle scenes since there is so much going on) and consoled myself with that during the movie, but one still wonders if everybody really got away in time. Plus there are lots of other parts where they are fighting in public places, in traffic, etc – I wonder if anybody dies after the fact from injuries, if they cause car accidents, etc. And I know stuff is just stuff, but after awhile it was just kind of grating how they apparently have no compunctions at all about destroying this airport and the various planes and equipment. Not to mention all the random average person’s cars that they just throw around with impunity. Like, come on dudes. This is not your stuff! This is possibly peoples’ livlihoods. Stop using it as your own personal playground. Is Tony Stark going to buy all these people new cars? One wonders if insurance policies cover ‘acts of enhanced beings’ since as far as I know, most don’t cover things deemed ‘acts of God’ or acts of war. ;)
This is a really common trope in all action/superhero movies (and probably a big part of why people watch them) so I get that it’s kind of silly for me to harp on it, but seeing as how the MCU tries to invoke realism in that the descruction has various consequences, it then comes off as more grating when they still go all out for the big environs-destroying curb stomp battles.
Thank you for the timeline clarification! I also figured that Zemo got the info from the HYDRA leak, but the timeline is still a bit rushed – unless you think that he was encrypting and analyzing the data even before Sokovia simply because of his role as an intelligence officer before his family was killed. But assuming that, that basically means he had a year to decide to destroy the Avengers by tearing them apart, pore through the data to find something relevant, come across some reference that implies Bucky may have had a role in the Starks’ deaths and come up with this whole plan to flush Bucky out, frame him, track down the HYDRA agents to learn the code words, infiltrate his prison, figure out where the bunker and/or footage was and then lead the Avengers there. Which, that’s how supervillains roll, so I am willing to buy it, but I just like being able to piece it together :)
@116 – Chris: Vision’s and Wanda’s children actually came back into existence, they’re Wiccan and Speed from Young Avengers. Sort of.
The second comment, my original comment in this thread, has also disappeared.
@126/Lisamarie: It sounds as if part of Spider-Man: Homecoming will address how Tony Stark deals with the collateral damage of superhero battles.
@128 – aww, I always like your comments. Did you edit it recently, or has this problem been going on for nearly a year? I am pretty sure I haven’t noticed my comments disappearing and I usually check after I edit that it goes through but maybe it has….?
@130 Thanks for reposting your comments — you had a lot of interesting things to say! Let’s see if this comment shows up the way it is supposed to. Perhaps some evil villain is clogging up the internet by trying to create an alternate reality, a kind of “Framework,” which is hogging all the bandwidth.
@130 – Lisamarie: Thank you, I enjoy your comments too. I didn’t edit my comment, it was here yesterday when I first opened this thread to read new comments, then it vanished.
This movie was such a disappointment to me. I thought I would be watching a Captain America film. Instead I got an Avengers film with plot holes and a diminished characterization of Steve Rogers. Very disappointed.