Captain America: Civil War (2016)

[SeanC]

17 minutes ago, nksarmi said:

They needed to find a way to work in partnership with the Avengers, not try to control them.

No, they don't.  The Avengers are not a sovereign entity.  They are people, and as such are as subordinate to government as everybody else.  The state monopoly on the use of force is one of the cornerstones of modern democratic government.

[nksarmi]

17 minutes ago, SeanC said:

No, they don't.  The Avengers are not a sovereign entity.  They are people, and as such are as subordinate to government as everybody else.  The state monopoly on the use of force is one of the cornerstones of modern democratic government.

I'm not applying real world rules here because it doesn't work. I mean, no government on Earth can ask Thor to answer to it or really Vision. Most of the other members are Americans. So if the Avengers are only beholden to the government of their citizenship - the rest of the world would feel mighty freakin' screwed. I can only assume that's why they used the UN here, but that doesn't work either. Are you really going to wait around for the UN to vote on a course of action when the world is falling apart?

Because of the type of issues the Avengers face - they need to act with the speed of an elite military unit that can be put into play by an executive order. Otherwise they will be completely ineffectual. So who has the right to make that order? The U.S. President? The head of SHIELD? A UN committee of just a few people? Would Tony sit on that committee? They didn't even try to spell it out in such a way that it would make sense for Steve or anyone else to sign it and that's before we get to Steve's natural distrust due to the fact that Hydra infiltrated SHIELD and other major governments.

It seems that a far more practical approach would be to ask the Avengers to sign a treaty with the UN countries and in fact - treat them like a sovereign unit. It's unconventional but it's probably better that they not be beholden to America first or just the five permanent members of the UN or whatever. It would be better to form a treaty with them with terms/conditions and an outline of action if those terms/conditions were violated, etc...

Edited May 12, 2016 by nksarmi

[SeanC]

22 minutes ago, nksarmi said:

I'm not applying real world rules here because it doesn't work. I mean, no government on Earth can ask Thor to answer to it or really Vision. Most of the other members are Americans. So if the Avengers are only beholden to the government of their citizenship - the rest of the world would feel mighty freakin' screwed. I can only assume that's why they used the UN here, but that doesn't work either. Are you really going to wait around for the UN to vote on a course of action when the world is falling apart?

They said that actions would be authorized by a small committee, I believe.  Given how there's tons of precedent for this sort of thing with military units, I don't think time is unreasonable (particularly since it would take time for the Avengers to get to most locations anyway).  And Steve never objects to it on the grounds of timing, his objection is solely placing the Avengers subordinate to government.

[nksarmi]

15 minutes ago, SeanC said:

They said that actions would be authorized by a small committee, I believe.  Given how there's tons of precedent for this sort of thing with military units, I don't think time is unreasonable (particularly since it would take time for the Avengers to get to most locations anyway).  And Steve never objects to it on the grounds of timing, his objection is solely placing the Avengers subordinate to government.

If they said committee, I missed it. But then I would think the answer would be that Steve and Tony would both be allowed to sit on that committee.

[Dandesun]

Can I also just say that I love Falcon's little bird drone? And how he calls it Redwing? Which is the name of his actual bird in the comics? In the comics, Falcon can actually talk to birds and Redwing is his actual falcon buddy... who was also a member of the Pet Avengers (which was an amazing comic book.) I admit that the second I saw the little drone deploy and it started flying about I thought 'Redwing!'

I also agree with the extreme leap it took to accept that there was any kind of camera on some nondescript road in 1991 that would allow the various close up angles so we could see Bucky kill Howard and Maria. I mean, come on. I know it was for the sake of the drama but... seriously... that was ridiculous.

I also wonder just how much of Tony's PTSD is mixed up with his raging guilt that makes him such a massive over-corrector. I'm inclined to think his PTSD started in the first Iron Man and was just exacerbated in Avengers. What's more, he puts these ridiculously high expectations on himself, 'a suit of armor around the world' 'peace in our time' and seems to believe that he can fix it so there's never any collateral damage. Steve was a soldier who saw people falling in every battle... he knows you can't save everyone. He lost his best friend early on and then couldn't even drink the pain away because his metabolism was too high so he had to figure out how to fucking deal with it. His line in the movie about trying to save everyone you can and how that doesn't always mean everybody came from a guy who learned that very early on. What's more, he continued with the line about how you couldn't let that beat you down otherwise you wouldn't be able to save anybody.

As I've said many times before, Steve and Tony are just drastically different people and that's where the majority of the conflict comes from; two guys from two different places, two different worlds, two different mentalities trying to do what they think is right even though they disagree on what that is.

[stealinghome]

Quote

And Steve never objects to it on the grounds of timing, his objection is solely placing the Avengers subordinate to government.

I would argue that a committee isn't going to change the calculus any, because eventually, the Avengers would still be made into political pawns. Do they get to go in and pull down sovereign governments if the committee decides that a certain country needs to be conquered because the leader is pissing them off? Do they get to step in and prevent democratic processes to keep in power leaders that are advantageous to the committee? What if they're ordered to commit genocide because the committee says they have to? What if a massive natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami, hurricane) hits and they are told by the committee NOT to go save lives because it's politically disadvantageous for some reason? The next time the World Security Council says "we're going to nuke New York, abandon all the citizens there," should the Avengers do it even if they think they can win the battle and save more lives? The World Security Council was a selected committee, too...look how well they worked out. The potential for misuse is just far too big.

I agree that there needs to be some form of oversight for the team, but completely signing their autonomy away would be a disastrous, ill-advised move. And eventually, it would blow up in their faces bigtime--even if it's just because at some point, they WILL disobey orders to save lives, and then their enemies will be able to prosecute them by saying "blah blah disobeyed orders, they need to be thrown in jail" even if it was for the greater good. And let's not pretend this wouldn't happen. The US government already tried it on Steve and Natasha at the end of Winter Soldier.

I really think nksarmi's solution makes the most sense. Have the Avengers be a sovereign entity that enters into treaties with the UN/other nations. So there's accountability but still autonomy, and the team can push back against being used for particular agendas. And, frankly, they can hold the rest of the world accountable, too.

ETA because I'm not sure I was clear: I actually think placing the Avengers under control of a small committee in some ways heightens the potential for misuse because that is a smaller set of special interests they'd be under the control of, and there would be less checks and balances on corrupt committee members. If it's a committee of 5 and there's 1 corrupt guy and he corrupts/blackmails 2 others...you're really up a creek. And you're prioritizing whatever those 5 people care about--or don't care about--most.

Edited May 12, 2016 by stealinghome

[NoWillToResist]

5 hours ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Anthony Mackie's Falcon really comes into his own as an Avenger here ... Though when did he get bullet/repulser proof? He's not an "enhanced person," he just has wings, right? 

 

THANK YOU. Every time the humans were getting punched by super-strength people and zapped and whatnot, I sat there all "...how are they even conscious?" I know that Wanda told Clint that she saw he was pulling his punches with Natasha, but the others? How does a human take hits from superior strength individuals and shrug it off?

4 hours ago, frenchtoast said:

My handwavium for the reason they didn't speak up is because the last mission they went on, a rather small mission albeit with large consequences, ended with innocent people dying. It wasn't some huge invasion or big apocalyptic event and the local authorities may have been able to handle it without the collateral damge.

IIRC, they were expecting the guy to attack somewhere else and realized at the last minute that he was attacking that country's version of the CIC. The guy stole a biological sample. If the UN had their wish, the Avengers would never have been there, that guy would have grabbed that vial and either made a weapon or sold it to someone else who would have and untold numbers of humans would have been killed. That, IMO, is why the whole "we want to control when to send in the Avengers" was utter horseshit.

Edited May 12, 2016 by NoWillToResist

[Crs97]

Quote

I also agree with the extreme leap it took to accept that there was any kind of camera on some nondescript road in 1991 that would allow the various close up angles so we could see Bucky kill Howard and Maria. I mean, come on. I know it was for the sake of the drama but... seriously... that was ridiculous.

Perhaps Bucky had a handler to ensure he killed the Starks, and that person filmed it.  Otherwise, a random camera set up on a rural road doesn't make any sense, which by the way . . . The Starks left their penthouse (I assume in NYC) to head to the airport (I assume, since they were going to the Bahamas by way of DC).  Why were they on a deserted rural road?  What is rural between downtown Manhattan and the airports?  Or were they driving to DC and then taking the plane?

[Bruinsfan]

4 hours ago, frenchtoast said:

Also, I think Vision explained it well, too. The bigger the heroes, the bigger the damage. The more supers there are, the more damage and fallout there is.

I thought it was particularly telling that the Vision caused the most collateral damage in that battle—he collapsed the airport's air traffic control tower to block two people running toward a plane, when melting the lock on the quinjet's hatch would have worked more effectively. And he fired on a non-enhanced human in response to an order to knock out a jetpack with enough force to completely disable a suit of Iron Man armor (you know, things that have stood up to blows from the Hulk and Thor's hammer without their occupants being maimed). So he at least definitely needs to be subject to oversight and perhaps confined to base except for potentially world-ending situations. And Iron Man started lobbing explosive missiles at people running on the ground rather than using repulsors or sound cannons well before anyone had gotten hurt in the fight—so much for concerns about casualties or property damage. (Ant-Man and Scarlet Witch got pretty wild in the fight too, but in their cases it seemed to be reactive rather than them initiating the escalation.)

[JessePinkman]

I just re-watched the scene and there was only one angle of the security camera footage of the Starks getting killed. I think some may be confusing movie editing (such as the editor zooming in for our benefit/stylistic choice on Bucky's face in the footage) with multiple camera angles.

Also I don't believe the Starks were heading on a vacation at all, why would Howard bring super soldier serum on vacation?

And Vision's optic beam (or whatever it's called) was meant to disable Sam's ability to maneuver his wings, Rhodey tells Vision to turn him into a "glider", not actually hurt him but that same blast hitting directly into a core reactor caused a much more disastrous...reaction.

[frenchtoast]

Howard said they had to stop at the State Department or something before getting to the airport.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

I also agree with the extreme leap it took to accept that there was any kind of camera on some nondescript road in 1991 that would allow the various close up angles so we could see Bucky kill Howard and Maria. I mean, come on. I know it was for the sake of the drama but... seriously... that was ridiculous.

The closeups were in the flashbacks. The video was always shot from a middle distance but you could hear the audio which was probably enough for Tony. Hearing your mother getting the life choked out of her would be horrifying.

People say having Tony so much in the movie makes it seem like Iron Man 4, but he's different than he usually is in the Iron Man movies. He doesn't act like the Tony we know until the scenes with Peter and he isn't in the suit until the airport scene. He's guilt ridden and self-righteous most of the time.

Edited May 12, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Dandesun]

The interesting thing about his scenes with Peter was that when Peter was explaining why he went out and fought... that was all #TeamCap. He did it because he should, because he has powers and if he doesn't use them, people get hurt. And he uses those powers at his discretion. That is everything Steve was saying.

And Tony convinced Peter that Steve was wrong but thought he was right and that made him dangerous.

Yeah.

[nksarmi]

25 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

The interesting thing about his scenes with Peter was that when Peter was explaining why he went out and fought... that was all #TeamCap. He did it because he should, because he has powers and if he doesn't use them, people get hurt. And he uses those powers at his discretion. That is everything Steve was saying.

And Tony convinced Peter that Steve was wrong but thought he was right and that made him dangerous.

Yeah.

Well Steve never had a chance to tell Peter his side, but he sure came away liking him. Peter's "when you can do the things I can do and you don't, and the bad things happen, then it's your fault" is totally the mindset that would side with Team Cap - Peter just didn't know that.

In regards to Vision hitting Sam/War Machine - I thought Tony being pissed about that definitely showcased how emotionally unstable he was in the movie. Yes, his friend was hurt but that in NO WAY was Sam's fault. All Sam did was avoid getting hit by a shot Tony ordered (I think). And if that shot did so much damage to War Machine - I'm not certain it wouldn't have killed Falcon, no matter what Vision intended.

But Tony was being completely irrational to blame Sam there. He got a little snippy with Vision but just barely. I'm going to say Tony's break with Pepper and his guilt over Ultron really messed him up in this movie and it was obvious the whole time not just when he started walling on Cap and Bucky at the end.

Of course, I also think that Steve's really bad experience with Hydra has made him a lot less trusting than he once was and this caused him to be a little less diplomatic than he is probably capable of being. So really the two men are products of the experiences they have had across all these movies. It will be interesting to see if they can come to a middle ground in the future or if they will just work together because the world is going to need them to.

[JessePinkman]

27 minutes ago, nksarmi said:

In regards to Vision hitting Sam/War Machine - I thought Tony being pissed about that definitely showcased how emotionally unstable he was in the movie. Yes, his friend was hurt but that in NO WAY was Sam's fault. All Sam did was avoid getting hit by a shot Tony ordered (I think). And if that shot did so much damage to War Machine - I'm not certain it wouldn't have killed Falcon, no matter what Vision intended.

I don't think he was blaming Sam specifically, he was lashing out at Team Cap and Sam was right there.

And Rhodey ordered the shot. He said "Vision, target his thruster. Turn him into a glider." Hitting War Machine's arc reactor, which was shown when Cap destroyed Tony's, is what caused Rhodey to lose all power to his suit.

It's like if you intend to shoot someone in the shoulder and hit their head instead, makes a big difference.

[Perfect Xero]

33 minutes ago, nksarmi said:

Well Steve never had a chance to tell Peter his side, but he sure came away liking him. Peter's "when you can do the things I can do and you don't, and the bad things happen, then it's your fault" is totally the mindset that would side with Team Cap - Peter just didn't know that.

In regards to Vision hitting Sam/War Machine - I thought Tony being pissed about that definitely showcased how emotionally unstable he was in the movie. Yes, his friend was hurt but that in NO WAY was Sam's fault. All Sam did was avoid getting hit by a shot Tony ordered (I think). And if that shot did so much damage to War Machine - I'm not certain it wouldn't have killed Falcon, no matter what Vision intended.

But Tony was being completely irrational to blame Sam there.

War Machine was injured while trying to subdue a group of criminals who were resisting arrest. If the criminals don't resist arrest then James is not hurt.

If the writing hadn't been all about protecting Steve and making him look completely right, justified, and pure in all his actions then a member of his team would have been more clearly responsible, instead we got "LOL!Vision the super advanced AI just can't do anything right, poor Sam!"

[ChelseaNH]

46 minutes ago, Perfect Xero said:

we got "LOL!Vision the super advanced AI just can't do anything right, poor Sam!"

Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, you might want to rethink that "we."

[Perfect Xero]

12 minutes ago, ChelseaNH said:

Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, you might want to rethink that "we."

The mouse enjoyed the final act more than I did ...

[Jazzy24]

Awwww myTony. 

I wonder why no one has mentioned that he needs help for his PTSD.

[nksarmi]

3 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

I don't think he was blaming Sam specifically, he was lashing out at Team Cap and Sam was right there.

And Rhodey ordered the shot. He said "Vision, target his thruster. Turn him into a glider." Hitting War Machine's arc reactor, which was shown when Cap destroyed Tony's, is what caused Rhodey to lose all power to his suit.

It's like if you intend to shoot someone in the shoulder and hit their head instead, makes a big difference.

I original thought War Machine ordered the shot but then I wasn't sure. But either way - really not Sam's fault.

And Perfect Xero - I actually have a hard time considering them a group of criminals. Just because Ross and the UN called them that doesn't mean Tony should think of them that way. My only problem with that scene was that when Steve started trying to talk - Tony didn't start trying to listen and the two of them didn't conceive of a plan to check out Siberia then. I mean sure the fight scene at the airport was great but it required these people who have fought and bled together to no listen to each other at all. I'm sure Tony could have stalled Ross if the plot wanted him to.

But I'm trying to ignore little details like this because I know this was all about action over dialogue and I kind of expect that of movies like this.

[VCRTracking]

If the movie was really positing Steve as completely right and not at all fault they could have had Tony's final scene lying defeated as Steve walks away with Bucky then later rescuing his team from the Raft. Instead we get to see Tony returning to the Avengers compound, helping Rhodey use something he invented to help him walk and Rhodey telling him even though he got hurt he still believes the Accords were the right thing to do. We wouldn't have gotten Steve sending the letter to Tony. Yes you can say Steve was being the bigger man, but the bigger man admits when he's wrong. He should have told Tony about Bucky killing his parents long before. The final shot we get of Tony is looking at the phone Cap gave him to call if he needs him and not answering Ross' call about the escape.

Edited May 13, 2016 by VCRTracking

[raven]

11 hours ago, benteen said:

This I had a problem with.  The fact that Steve and the others just sat there and took it from Ross without uttering a single word to defend themselves drove me nuts. 

I overall enjoyed the movie but agree this was frustrating.  I guess they weren't thinking about making it Honest Trailer proof like with TWS.

I think Steve finds out that Bucky killed the Starks in this movie.  Steve asks Bucky what Zemo wanted to know (after he activates Bucky and all of that) and Bucky tells him "about a job in 1991" and Steve says (angrily) that there's more to it, meaning for Bucky to tell him about that job.  We cut away but I assume Bucky tells him exactly what happened.  So Steve knows what that will do to Tony, esp in the context of everything else going on.  Remember also that (I think) Martin Freeman's character basically laughs at Steve when Steve asks if Bucky will get a lawyer.  I wouldn't trust those people either.

It feels like Ross and co were waiting for the time to spring the accords on the Avengers because they have some nefarious purpose.  There should have been discussion, these are people who have risked themselves to save the planet from threats that no one else could stop.  As others have mentioned, if aliens drop out of the sky again, are they going to wait while the council debates a plan?  My detail oriented self needed to know more; it was all too vague for me.

12 hours ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Though when did he get bullet/repulser proof? He's not an "enhanced person," he just has wings, right?  

He would wrap his wings around himself to repel bullets; a cool upgrade I figured, which I thought was a neat touch.  It's Natasha I always wonder about, she gets flung around a LOT and bounces right back up.   We're never getting a Black Widow movie are we?  I think Nat is interesting and complex and enjoy SJ's portrayal of her. I'd totally be on board with her and Bucky together; I never really felt her and Banner.

I also loved Bucky & Sam in the car, Giant Scott at the airport and Nat refusing to thank Redwing in the beginning of the movie. I liked Vision and Wanda together, though I'm not particularly interested in either one.  Some of the CGI was too much - all of the long falls off of things and bouncing around.  Black Panther was a great addition and I'm looking forward to his movie.  I think Bucky is ridiculously hot (unless they cut his hair) but T'Challa was giving him a run for his money in that department. 

Spiderman was Ok was I guess.  I did LOL at how Tony was flubbing around his "insanely hot aunt".  I don't think it was cool of Tony to bring a teenager to the airport - his guilt would have been turned up to 11 if PP got hurt instead of Rhodey, but the kid would still be hurt.  It was consistent with Tony's character thought I think.  He needs Pepper back ASAP.   He was petty about the shield but I get it.  He's always been a little immature. 

I think the movie did a decent job of showing both sides; I'm on Cap's side because I don't trust anybody and the accords were way to vaguely explained for me.  I need to read the document first  :)

Edited May 13, 2016 by raven

[scarynikki12]

Quote

We're never getting a Black Widow movie are we?

Marvel's making some noise about considering it but I think no decision will be made until they see the numbers from Wonder Woman.  If that movie is super successful (which I hope because I thought she was awesome in BvS) then I could see them finally doing it.  They did cancel Inhumans, so there's a slot free in their planned lineup.

[Perfect Xero]

59 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

If the movie was really positing Steve as completely right and not at all fault they could have had Tony's final scene lying defeated as Steve walks away with Bucky then later rescuing his team from the Raft. Instead we get to see Tony returning to the Avengers compound, helping Rhodey use something he invented to help him walk and Rhodey telling him even though he got hurt he still believes the Accords were the right thing to do. We wouldn't have gotten Steve sending the letter to Tony. Yes you can say Steve was being the bigger man, but the bigger man admits when he's wrong. He should have told Tony about Bucky killing his parents long before. The final shot we get of Tony is looking at the phone Cap gave him to call if he needs him and not answering Ross' call about the escape.

Tony himself gives up on the Accords at the start of the 3rd act. When Ross* refuses to follow the evidence Tony found that would prove that Steve and Bucky are after a legitimate threat he proves Steve's entire point about "the best hands are still our own" aka "we can't trust the people they'd put in charge to do the right thing". Tony breaks the Accords and sneaks off to aid Steve and Bucky, they only come into conflict again because of the Winter Soldier tape making Tony "snap" and go on a rampage. Tony refusing to pick up the phone for Ross at the end is Tony ignoring the accords once again. Steve wins the ideological argument that the movie was built around.

Steve also takes the blame for not clocking Crossbones's vest with Wanda. Steve takes the blame for things to try to make other people feel better and because he has almost impossibly high standards for himself. So it's no real surprise that he tries to make Tony feel better and put some of the blame onto himself. It just makes Steve come off like the bigger man and the better leader and like Steve holds himself to such a high standard that no one else could ever live up to.

What was Steve's failing? Not going to Tony and telling him about WS killing his parents? Something he could have only possibly confirmed during a time where Tony was in the middle of trying to arrest them while they were trying to stop (what they believed to be) a major threat? Not going to him with possible unconfirmed suspicions after CA2?

Steve screws-up by letting himself be a little distracted by his brainwashed best friend and missing a few things, Tony screws-up by going into a rage and trying to kill someone. Personally I don't consider those two things comparable on the scale of screw ups.

*Which, on the subject of ol' Thunderbolt, is one of the issues that people brought up with Ross since he was first shown to be the one leading Accords during the first trailer. In the real world the notion of a small military unit operating without any oversight is pretty absurd, but if the guy they want to put in charge of that unit is the dude who created the Abomination and wanted to capture the Hulk to use him as a weapon, suddenly it swings things way back the other way.

[nilyank]

Quote

Though when did he get bullet/repulser proof? He's not an "enhanced person," he just has wings, right?  

Tony probably made some improvements to his suit when Sam joined the Avengers.

[Jazzy24]

So what state is the Avengers Compound in? 

And the Avengers Tower is not the same as Te compound right? 

[Bruinsfan]

I believe they said upstate New York at the end of Age of Ultron and in Ant Man. Avengers Tower is in Midtown Manhattan.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Steve screws-up by letting himself be a little distracted by his brainwashed best friend and missing a few things, Tony screws-up by going into a rage and trying to kill someone. Personally I don't consider those two things comparable on the scale of screw ups.

When one's a guy who once jumped without hesitation on what he thought was a live grenade in order to save his fellow recruits in his first movie and the other guy is someone who sold weapons with no compunction in his first movie, those particular screwups are about even. They are both based on human, understandable emotions.

Edited May 13, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Jeebus Cripes]

10 hours ago, Dandesun said:

The interesting thing about his scenes with Peter was that when Peter was explaining why he went out and fought... that was all #TeamCap. He did it because he should, because he has powers and if he doesn't use them, people get hurt. And he uses those powers at his discretion. That is everything Steve was saying.

And Tony convinced Peter that Steve was wrong but thought he was right and that made him dangerous.

Yeah.

I thought the look on Tony's face during Peter's speech was particularly telling. There was a sadness there that I read as him hearing those words and knowing it was totally a Steve Roger's thing to say. Or maybe I just read his expression wrong. ::shrugs:: 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Jeebus Cripes

[Perfect Xero]

57 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

When one's a guy who once jumped without hesitation on what he thought was a live grenade in order to save his fellow recruits in his first movie and the other guy is someone who sold weapons with no compunction in his first movie, those particular screwups are about even. They are both based on human, understandable emotions.

So, Steve is such a paragon of virtue that ... his more minor screw-ups are given more weight in the narrative?

Also, Tony was selling weapons to the US military, which I guess you can argue about that position being right or wrong or naive (though considering that Steve was a solider in the US military and then for SHIELD is kind of a push), but he believed his weapons were being used to do good and protect American lives. It was Stane who was going behind his back and selling his weapons to terrorists and enemy states who then used the weapons against innocent villagers and American troops that was the issue. Which, really, is very similar to the situation that Steve, Natasha, Clint, and Fury all found themselves in when SHIELD was revealed to be a front for Hydra.

[JBC344]

7 hours ago, raven said:

I overall enjoyed the movie but agree this was frustrating.  I guess they weren't thinking about making it Honest Trailer proof like with TWS.

I think Steve finds out that Bucky killed the Starks in this movie.  Steve asks Bucky what Zemo wanted to know (after he activates Bucky and all of that) and Bucky tells him "about a job in 1991" and Steve says (angrily) that there's more to it, meaning for Bucky to tell him about that job.  We cut away but I assume Bucky tells him exactly what happened.  So Steve knows what that will do to Tony, esp in the context of everything else going on.  Remember also that (I think) Martin Freeman's character basically laughs at Steve when Steve asks if Bucky will get a lawyer.  I wouldn't trust those people either.

It feels like Ross and co were waiting for the time to spring the accords on the Avengers because they have some nefarious purpose.  There should have been discussion, these are people who have risked themselves to save the planet from threats that no one else could stop.  As others have mentioned, if aliens drop out of the sky again, are they going to wait while the council debates a plan?  My detail oriented self needed to know more; it was all too vague for me.

He would wrap his wings around himself to repel bullets; a cool upgrade I figured, which I thought was a neat touch.  It's Natasha I always wonder about, she gets flung around a LOT and bounces right back up.   We're never getting a Black Widow movie are we?  I think Nat is interesting and complex and enjoy SJ's portrayal of her. I'd totally be on board with her and Bucky together; I never really felt her and Banner.

I also loved Bucky & Sam in the car, Giant Scott at the airport and Nat refusing to thank Redwing in the beginning of the movie. I liked Vision and Wanda together, though I'm not particularly interested in either one.  Some of the CGI was too much - all of the long falls off of things and bouncing around.  Black Panther was a great addition and I'm looking forward to his movie.  I think Bucky is ridiculously hot (unless they cut his hair) but T'Challa was giving him a run for his money in that department. 

Spiderman was Ok was I guess.  I did LOL at how Tony was flubbing around his "insanely hot aunt".  I don't think it was cool of Tony to bring a teenager to the airport - his guilt would have been turned up to 11 if PP got hurt instead of Rhodey, but the kid would still be hurt.  It was consistent with Tony's character thought I think.  He needs Pepper back ASAP.   He was petty about the shield but I get it.  He's always been a little immature. 

I think the movie did a decent job of showing both sides; I'm on Cap's side because I don't trust anybody and the accords were way to vaguely explained for me.  I need to read the document first  :)

Actually Steve finding out about Bucky "possibly" killing Tony's parents is from The Winter Soldier.  When Zola (Toby Jones) is revealing to Steve and Natasha that Hydra has infiltrated Shield, he says that The Winter Soldier has been completing many jobs for them over the years.  While he is explaining this, we see a newspaper flash revealing that the Starks have been murdered.  Implying that Bucky probably murdered them.  Which is why when Tony asks Cap about it, his initial reaction is that he wasn't sure, considering the source material.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

So, Steve is such a paragon of virtue that ... his more minor screw-ups are given more weight in the narrative?

Yep. But also when Colonel Phillips threw the dummy grenade at the recruits Steve jumped on it without hesitation. It was an incredibly brave and heroic thing to do, but also very reckless. Steve had risked jail to enlist falsely five times just to join the army and was finally given a chance to fight but was willing to throw it all away in a second. A more experienced and post-serum Steve would probably throw or kick the grenade away. In Civil War his decision to help Bucky was a more deliberate and thoughtful action. He had time to weigh the risks but did it anyway.

Tony is a genius and brilliant at inventing but businesswise wasn't on the ball when it came to where his weapons were being sold. In the end of Civil War he immediately acted without thinking, fueled by anger, grief and feeling betrayed. If Cap had found away to incapacitate his suit right away Tony would've raged for a bit but he would have calmed down and seen reason eventually. Unfortunately Cap could only engage in a fistfight with him and that just made Tony more angry and the situation worse.

Edited May 13, 2016 by VCRTracking

[raven]

4 hours ago, JBC344 said:

When Zola (Toby Jones) is revealing to Steve and Natasha that Hydra has infiltrated Shield, he says that The Winter Soldier has been completing many jobs for them over the years. 

Zola does imply that the Starks (and Fury, not knowing he's alive) were killed by Hydra, but he never mentions the Winter Soldier.  And at this point Steve doesn't know Bucky is the TWS.  He could have made that connection later, but I don't think we would have had the scene in Civil War when he tells Bucky to tell him about the 1991 job.  From a film making perspective, I think the intention was to surprise the audience that 1) Bucky did it and 2) he had told Steve and/or possibly 3) have those in the audience who already figured it out anticipate these reveals in the movie.  I think we were supposed to feel Tony's shock and anger along with him, so I stick more with 1 & 2.  The emotional beats worked for me because I didn't see it coming though I know a lot of people did.

Edited May 13, 2016 by raven

[frenchtoast]

For me, the hints dropped during Winter Soldier made me believe that Bucky killed the Starks. First we hear Zola talking about history, then we get two images of Winter Soldier, then we get Zola saying, "History was changed" and then we see footage/files of Stark's death and Fury's death. Given that at that point it was thought that Fury was dead and that Winter Soldier had killed him, it was easy to draw the same conclusion for the Starks. 

In fact,  I mentioned Winter Soldier killing the Starks in the car going to see Civil War. (We also watched Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron two days before seeing the movie). It was something I had a feeling would be brought up and it was. And for my spoilerphobic husband (who wouldn't even watch the tv ads!) this was not spoiling anything in the movie. This was something that we figured would be brought up.

Was it something that Steve could verify? No. Was it strongly implied? Yes, and I think Steve believed it, too. And I understand why didn't talk to Tony about it. It was painful and it wouldn't do anything to help him. Also, he wasn't 100% sure that Zola wasn't screwing with him and why give Tony any more pain when he wasn't absolutely sure and he couldn't prove it.

[NoWillToResist]

12 hours ago, raven said:

It feels like Ross and co were waiting for the time to spring the accords on the Avengers because they have some nefarious purpose.  There should have been discussion, these are people who have risked themselves to save the planet from threats that no one else could stop.  As others have mentioned, if aliens drop out of the sky again, are they going to wait while the council debates a plan?  My detail oriented self needed to know more; it was all too vague for me.

...

I think the movie did a decent job of showing both sides; I'm on Cap's side because I don't trust anybody and the accords were way to vaguely explained for me.  I need to read the document first  :)

 

I was so annoyed that the main conflict in this movie hinged on the stupid Accords. Dude turns up at the Avengers compound, gives them shit for some property damage and minor collateral after they've twice saved the entire damned planet, thumps a doorstop of a document on their table, gives them like 24 hours to (read it? and) comply and...no one either laughs him out of the room or tells him to sit his ass down? I mean, really? What, exactly, was the puny little UN going to do? Half of them can't be locked up effectively, so what was their plan? If the UN wished to appeal to the Avengers' inherent humanity, then why were they being treated like criminals? The whole thing was a farce and the fact that ANY of them signed the Accord by that ridiculous deadline was a bunch of 'fuck off' from me. Tony and his gang agree that some oversight should be required? Ok, fine. But then you work WITH the UN on the document to point out the, no doubt many, flaws in their document. After everything they've witnessed, they honestly think that committees and govt's are humanity's best protectors?

Sadly, I was rooting for the purple faced baddie (Galactus?) to beam on down, start fucking shit up, and have the Avengers just chill and be all "oh, sorry, humanity; we'd love to help but the UN is still trying to get all its committee members together to discuss the best way we should try to save everyone. Our hands are tied. Red tape, amirite? They'll probably decide on an action plan in about 6 months. We'll be in Tahiti while we wait for the decision. Peace out, fuckers!. Best of luck!"

 

4 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Also, Tony was selling weapons to the US military, which I guess you can argue about that position being right or wrong or naive (though considering that Steve was a solider in the US military and then for SHIELD is kind of a push), but he believed his weapons were being used to do good and protect American lives. It was Stane who was going behind his back and selling his weapons to terrorists and enemy states who then used the weapons against innocent villagers and American troops that was the issue. Which, really, is very similar to the situation that Steve, Natasha, Clint, and Fury all found themselves in when SHIELD was revealed to be a front for Hydra.

Which IMO just totally proves Cap's point that putting the Avengers' powers under the control of such entities is a recipe for disaster. And further makes me think that those who signed it are fucking idiots...

Edited May 13, 2016 by NoWillToResist

[benteen]

The UN has been treated like a powerful and respected organization in Marvel Comics since the 60s, which is laughable as they have been one of the most corrupt and ineffectual organizations on the planet for a great many years now.

For whatever reason, the Avengers were under UN authority for decades though I don't know if that's still the case now.

[OakGoblinFly]

On 5/11/2016 at 0:51 AM, Perfect Xero said:

I understand what Tony's motivation was supposed to be, I'm simply saying that the motivation they provided is not an acceptable excuse for his actions for me.  Being angry about a bad thing that happened to you in your past being an excuse to kill an innocent is the sort of motivation that villains take from tragedy.

No one is excusing Tony's behavior; what they are saying (I think) is that his going off the rails at the end of the movie and attacking Bucky is perfectly understandable.  While Tony might have known on an intellectual level that Bucky was mind-controlled into murdering the Starks; his emotions (already frazzled) overrode his intellect and he want to hurt the guy that “killed my mom.”  Once Tony started beating on Bucky, and then Steve, adrenaline, rage, and frustration made it nearly impossible for him to stop.

[OakGoblinFly]

20 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Can I also just say that I love Falcon's little bird drone? And how he calls it Redwing? Which is the name of his actual bird in the comics? In the comics, Falcon can actually talk to birds and Redwing is his actual falcon buddy... who was also a member of the Pet Avengers (which was an amazing comic book.) I admit that the second I saw the little drone deploy and it started flying about I thought 'Redwing!'

I loved Redwing too - and I'm not gonna lie, I gave a litte "squeee" when he appeared on screen - I had a good chuckle at Falcon's "You can pet him" too.

[OakGoblinFly]

6 hours ago, JBC344 said:

Actually Steve finding out about Bucky "possibly" killing Tony's parents is from The Winter Soldier.  When Zola (Toby Jones) is revealing to Steve and Natasha that Hydra has infiltrated Shield, he says that The Winter Soldier has been completing many jobs for them over the years.  While he is explaining this, we see a newspaper flash revealing that the Starks have been murdered.  Implying that Bucky probably murdered them.  Which is why when Tony asks Cap about it, his initial reaction is that he wasn't sure, considering the source material.

No, we see a headline saying the Starks were killed in a traffic accident, nothing about murder (or even suspected foul play).  We do hear Zola comment that Hydra “arranged” for things to help nudge their plan along.   Steve, Natasha, and the audience are left to infer that the Winter Solider did in fact murder the Starks.   

[NoWillToResist]

8 minutes ago, OakGoblinFly said:

No, we see a headline saying the Starks were killed in a traffic accident, nothing about murder (or even suspected foul play).  We do hear Zola comment that Hydra “arranged” for things to help nudge their plan along.   Steve, Natasha, and the audience are left to infer that the Winter Solider did in fact murder the Starks.   

I honestly never connected Bucky to the Starks' death since it was advertised that they died in a car accident; I just assumed that Hydra had arranged for the accident (e.g. ran them off the road or tampered with the vehicle). Seemed too pedestrian for the Winter Soldier, especially since I was under the impression that the WS used untraceable Russian bullets (like Natasha revealed). He had a 'calling card' of sorts. Car accidents weren't really his M.O.

But now that I think about it, I don't understand how their deaths were ruled accidental. Unless Hydra infiltrated the local police department and no autopsies were done, did no one question how Mrs Stark died via strangulation...in a car accident? Wouldn't a blow to the head have made more sense since that could be covered up by the accident?

[Crs97]

I think what is important is that when Tony asked Steve if he knew Bucky had killed his parents, he basically said yes.  In his apology letter, he acknowledges that he knew and didn't tell Tony because he thought it would be easier for Tony, but now acknowledges that it was to make things easier for himself.  So the canon is that Steve knew with time enough to tell Tony if he had wanted to.

[NoWillToResist]

41 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I think what is important is that when Tony asked Steve if he knew Bucky had killed his parents, he basically said yes.  In his apology letter, he acknowledges that he knew and didn't tell Tony because he thought it would be easier for Tony, but now acknowledges that it was to make things easier for himself.  So the canon is that Steve knew with time enough to tell Tony if he had wanted to.

Oh I don't think anyone disagrees that Steve knew...the question is simply WHEN. Was it in the last movie or this one (when he'd got Bucky trapped in the arm vise and Bucky was divulging info)? Personally, I'd assume the latter since Bucky was in no danger from Tony in the last movie so there wasn't really any need for Steve to keep that secret; Bucky was in the wind. But once Steve HAD Bucky with him in this movie, Steve was in full PROTECT BUCKY mode (for good reason).

I guess the other part of this is that, if Steve knew in Cap2, then so too did Natasha, no? She didn't say anything either, even though she was on Tony's side here. Seems like that's info she'd have dropped at some point in this film if she'd known...

Edited May 13, 2016 by NoWillToResist

[JBC344]

Actually the whole reason that Steve's initial response was "I wasn't sure" when Tony first asked him is because of what happened in The Winter Soldier.   Forgive my recollection of the Zola scene in Winter Soldier but my point still remains, that is where Steve got the idea that Bucky "may have" killed the Starks, which is why his initial response was I wasn't sure.

Steve seeing the video with Tony confirmed his suspicions of what Zola was "implying/inferring/hinting at" in Winter Soldier.

My take was that Steve got clues of Bucky's involvement with the Starks murder but wasn't necessarily going to run to Tony with that information because, he wasn't 100% sure it was true and didn't want to open that can of worms.

[Perfect Xero]

For whatever reasons Steve and Sam were keeping their search for Bucky from the other Avengers in AoU.

1 hour ago, NoWillToResist said:

I honestly never connected Bucky to the Starks' death since it was advertised that they died in a car accident; I just assumed that Hydra had arranged for the accident (e.g. ran them off the road or tampered with the vehicle). Seemed too pedestrian for the Winter Soldier, especially since I was under the impression that the WS used untraceable Russian bullets (like Natasha revealed). He had a 'calling card' of sorts. Car accidents weren't really his M.O.

But now that I think about it, I don't understand how their deaths were ruled accidental. Unless Hydra infiltrated the local police department and no autopsies were done, did no one question how Mrs Stark died via strangulation...in a car accident? Wouldn't a blow to the head have made more sense since that could be covered up by the accident?

I assume that Hydra/SHIELD covered everything up. SHIELD itself was not publicly known as of the first Iron Man movie, so there's no way that even a non-Hydra controlled SHIELD would have allowed the death of their founder to be attributed to foul play and draw more questions/media attention.

[Dandesun]

Zola's "Accidents will happen" comment in Winter Soldier alluded very firmly that Howard and Maria did not actually die by accident. But, as has been mentioned, Steve did not know at that time that Bucky was even alive much less Hydra's favorite asset to use. And I would agree that sending the Winter Soldier to quietly kill two people in a sedan strikes me as rather strange considering the sheer amount of commotion he caused getting at Nick Fury and then going after Steve, Natasha and Sam.

In comparison, killing Howard and Maria was a freaking walk in the park and something that could have easily have been done by tampering with brakes or steering or something. That being said, I think they did a good job establishing WHY the Winter Soldier was sent after Howard. He had some extremely important items in his possession. (Although I'm fairly certain Peggy dumped the last of Steve's actual blood into the Hudson River back in the 1947 but... whatever.) And I found myself rather disappointed in Howard there... driving a regular old sedan, those blood packets just in a suitcase in the trunk. Did he get lazy in his old age or something? All of that strikes me as wildly out of character for Howard. There's driving under the radar, sure, but there's also... you know... being Howard Stark and protecting yourself and your inventory.

And the whole video on the street still sticks in my craw. I get that it was for the pure drama aspect of it but I still feel it was ridiculous. Bucky shoots the camera out after all of that? Was the video just to confirm that he got the goods and killed Howard and any witnesses? Wouldn't his returning with the blood packs be confirmation enough? Plus, again, based on what we saw in the Winter Soldier, I'm surprised that Bucky didn't leave that entire part of the forest road on fire. I also agree with the idea that Maria died of asphyxiation as opposed to a collision and that's a bit on the sloppy side for Hydra as well. Couldn't it have been enough for Bucky to cause the 'accident' that killed them? No, they had to make it that much more personal.

I don't know... none of that sits right from a story point of view for me. It's all a little too convenient. It bugs.

[nksarmi]

Personally, I never connected that Winter Soldier killed Tony's parents. I got that Hydra was responsible - but I didn't connect that to Bucky. I think that's what Steve was saying because his line was "I didn't know it was him" meaning he had found out that Tony's parents were murdered by Hydra but not how or why. I think that's what he was apologizing for at the end of the movie - allowing Tony to keep thinking his parents died in an accident instead of knowing that Hydra had them killed. He thought he was sparing Tony from knowing his parents were murdered. I think the "but I was really sparing myself" was just the idea that maybe Steve suspected (even though I didn't) that Bucky could have been involved and he just wanted to find his friend without any questions or investigations.

[OakGoblinFly]

I woudl think Bucky returning from his mission with the suitcase from the Starks' trunk is only proof that he obtained the "product" - not of the kill.  My head cannon says that the camera was there to provide the proof that the Winter Soldier killed the Starks.

[Perfect Xero]

Considering how much protection and weaponry Fury had in his car as Director of SHIELD Howard probably went down way too easy. You'd think that he'd at least have had some basic protections like bulletproofing the doors and glass.

Winter Soldier, however, was probably very low profile in most of his missions, keeping in mind that he's still nothing more than a "myth" in the intelligence community at the start CA2. In Winter Soldier, however, Hydra is moving to their endgame and are out to remove Fury, the most paranoid man in the world, as quickly as possible. If they failed their first attempt they wouldn't get another shot, so they had no choice but to go big.

On another note, it's actually kind of odd that Tony would still think it was just a car accident that killed his parents, Iron Man 1 and 2 very strongly implied that Stane had Howard killed because he was going to move the company away from weapons and focus on cheap clean energy as he was close to a breakthrough with the ARC reactors.

[romantic idiot]

On 11 May 2016 at 2:01 AM, Perfect Xero said:

So, the other major problem I had with the movie: Zemo's entire plan is the most ridiculously convoluted Xanatos gambit ever.

 

His plan is to lure Tony, Steve, and Bucky all to the old Winter Soldier base and show them a video of Winter Soldier killing Tony's parents.

First he dresses up like Bucky and bombs the UN to flush Winter Soldier out. The only reason that Steve is even able to go find Bucky before he is either killed by the police or escapes and goes on the run is that Sharron Carter illegally passes information along to him after Peggy's funeral. If that doesn't happen the whole plan falls apart. If Peggy Carter doesn't die when she does the plan probably falls apart too.

Then the airport fight happens. If Steve or Bucky is arrested there Zemo's entire plan falls apart. If members of Steve's team other than just him and Bucky are arrested there his plan is hurt, as they'll doubtless accompany him and Bucky to the base. If Falcon isn't captured the entire plan falls apart because no one is there to pass information along to Stark.

If Ross acts like anything other than a cartoon and agrees to investigate the lead Tony found then the whole plan falls apart.

If Tony doesn't break the accords and go to help Steve the whole plan falls apart.

If Tony already knows that Winter Solider killed his parents (and how does Zemo know this when Tony doesn't?) the whole plan falls apart.

If Tony doesn't snap and go all RAGEKILL on Bucky the whole plan falls apart.

Zemo's plan working requires that he perfectly predict how every major player in the MCU will act as well as how every conflict will unfold.

I think that depends on what one thinks is Zema's plan. I thought his was to tear the Avengers apart and have them at each others throats. He could also be reasonably sure that Cap America (though I don't know how) would be on Bucky's side, so in the fight, some of them might make it to Russia. So for me, Zema had already succeeded the minute he detonated the bomb and they went after Bucky. If Bucky were killed, Steve would be hurt, the Avengers would be divided, and they would suffer. And he'd find another way to make them suffer. In activating Bucky he made sure they'd have to fight the authorities to follow him (and it was a good bet that the authorities would not listen to the Avengers - because look at man in charge). Then once he got there, he set up the video, thus ensuring that regardless of who saw it, there would be rift in the Avengers between Tony & Cap, who were the obvious leaders in NY and in Sokovia. At least this is how it is in my head. 

On 12 May 2016 at 6:14 PM, nksarmi said:

This doesn't really work for me either and I sat in the theater fuming on their behalf as Ross did his little slide show.

Because the Avengers were assembled to handle an other worldly enemy. Sure, you could argue that Winter Soldier was Russia's response to Captain America. And there are probably other villains out there that would rise up in response to each individual hero. But that isn't what was going on here. In most of these cases - there was a serious failure of the authorities and the Avengers rose up in response.

First SHIELD messes around with things it doesn't understand and gets Loki's attention (and Thannos?). That's the authorities failing.

The Avengers assemble as a response not in causality. (oh yea side note here - the authorities tried to NUKE NYC and the Avengers prevented that too!)

Then SHIELD and the US government (and probably the UN as well) completely fails tor realize an enemy has corrupted it and Captain America (with a bit of help from Fury) has to take it down. Again, Captain America is the response not the cause. Authorities failed here.

Skipping ahead to the start of this movie - Steve is working to apprehend Crossbones (?) and stop him from stealing a bioweapon. This is not an instance where the Avengers developed the bioweapon and someone decided to steal it. No, the Avengers were protecting what authorities failed to secure.

So in reality - the only true failure of the Avengers in all of these cases is Ultron and Sokovia. And I'm sorry but that is Tony and Banner's failure. Authorities probably wouldn't have prevented Tony from doing that. Given what we've seen, that's the one thing the UN probably would have sanctioned. So I don't really put anyone who died in Age of Ultron on Captain America or the others because it really wasn't there fault. It was Tony's but it's also not a mistake I think would have been prevented by these Accords. And it also wasn't a matter of a big evil rising up against the Avengers. It was again an instance of messing with something you don't completely understand.

 

So yea there isn't some kind of cosmic balancing act going on here. And this certainly isn't the Batman argument of escalation (ie you put on the mask so all the crazy villains tried to up you). In the vast majority of instances the Avengers are the reaction, not the cause. And I think the Avengers have done so much to minimize bad things (like nuking NYC) that I don't think you can say damage and fallout have been worse because they don't let "normal" people deal with the problems. Flat out - Ross and all the countries backing the Accords were wrong. They needed to find a way to work in partnership with the Avengers, not try to control them.

While I agree with this, I'm not sure that the Avengers would think this way. I mean, these are superheroes - they have a super developed sense of responsibility to begin with, or they wouldn't do what they do. I'd figure that each death, each failure would hurt these men (and women), so I wasn't surprised that they felt responsible, even if they weren't the cause behind most of these. So again, it felt fitting, not jarring, to me. It felt cruel on the Government's part, but I was not surprised that it worked. 

[Bruinsfan]

Note that Ross got Stark behind the Accords long before approaching anyone else with the document as more or less a done deal. So basically, the person most likely to give the government(s) the finger under other circumstances was being faced with the fact that every death in Sokovia could be laid directly at his feet either because of the battle or for creating Ultron in the first place. And Thor, the one Avenger who's actually trained in responding to interplanetary invasions and global threats, was conveniently absent from the whole process and unable to point out the necessities of response speed, in-the-moment judgment calls, and collateral damage.