Captain America: Civil War (2016)

[Matt K]

So I saw it this weekend and I really enjoyed it.  That said, Black Panther is by far my favorite character and they got him completely right.  He's smart and driven but by the end he's also made the first step to being a good King, sacrificing his own desires to do the right thing.  I'm actually just amazed at how right they got his character.  The contrasts between him and Tony were pretty good at the end and honestly, T'Challa should be leading the Avengers the next go around (although Cap should be field team leader).  

I'm really looking forward to the Black Panther movie and surprisingly also to the Spider-man movie (the last one I saw was the second movie back in '04).  They really did a good job with Peter, especially given the small amount of time he had.  

Also a surprisingly good use of Zemo despite the complete change in background.  They really nailed his personality as well and he's the only bad guy so far to actually have a win at the end.  

I also think the movie did a good job of setting up the conflict and making it clear why Tony took the side he did and same with Cap.  For Tony, it actually made good use of the shared continuity of the movies and it's nice to see that in some ways, Tony never got over what happened to him in Afghanistan.  He's still reeling from the idea that his works could be used to hurt innocents.  We see in IM 1 that he immediately shuts down weapon production.  And here 8 years later, similar situation although in some ways even worse given how many good intentions he had not to make the same mistake again.  And I think the movies have done a pretty good job of setting up Tony as thinking the Avengers are his team and to some degree he's right.  He funds them, his properties are their bases of operations and to some degree they're his friends.  

Overall the movie had some flaws (some of the dialogue was a little too on the nose, I'm looking at you, Sharon's eulogy) but I think the good character work made up for any deficiencies in the story.

 

ETA: Oh, and I also liked that despite the Avengers showing up and Tony having a decent amount of screen time, this was a Cap movie more so than anything else.  We get Cap's supporting cast, we get the more political stuff that's more inherent in Cap stories and the movie really revolved around Cap and his choices more so than anything else.  Tony was the sympathetic antagonist more than anything else.  

Edited May 16, 2016 by Matt K

[tennisgurl]

That was a tough watch you guys. Definitely the most intense and serious of the Marvel movies so far, without a lot of joking or snappy one liners (they were there, but things were a lot more serious this round), and genuinely really hard to watch at times. I love all the Avengers, and I hate watching them fight. I went in Team Cap, and I still left Team Cap (mainly because I think its still unfair to blame Bucky for what he did the Winter Soldier, and because that creepy underwater prison the members of Team Cap was put in was messed up, and Team Tony seemed ok with them being imprisoned there without trail) but I sympathized with Team Tony, and understood where they were coming from. Hell, Steve was about to sign the accords himself before he found out Wanda was on house arrest. In a perfect world, it would be best if they could find some kind of compromise, where there is some oversight, but the Avengers are not used exclusively as a UN property. I feel like if there were less high emotions, things would have worked out a lot better.

I loved seeing Peter, and the brief appearances by Scot and Clint. They added some fun to what was otherwise a serious story. I worry about them though. I hope they get back to their families soon, but I guess that will be hard of they are fugitives with Cap.

I thought the movie was really well shot (the shaky cam was just ok, but did not really bother me), and had some interesting angles going on, without calling too much attention to the direction. The story is a lot more important, and I thought the story was really well done and interesting, complete with a memorable villain (it helps that I always love the actor who blames Zemo. He can be most very likable and also very scheming), and it was very much a Captain America story, even though I wish we had gotten to spend more time with him. 

Overall, I am really interested in seeing where the MCU goes after this. Its clear that, while the letter Cap sent Tony left room for a reconciliation, things are going to get REALLY awkward when all the good guys come together to inevitably fight Thanos. This is the first time a lot of them have even met, and it was in a fight. How will Bucky and Tony be on the same team? What will the next conversation between Clint and Natasha be like? Or Clint and Tony? Will Wanda and Vision ever become a thing after this? And when the hell will they bring Pietro back to life?!?!    

Edited May 17, 2016 by tennisgurl

[Perfect Xero]

Did the movie indicate that they weren't getting trials? Criminals have to be held somewhere before a trial can be set up.

On 5/15/2016 at 5:34 AM, phalange said:

Also, I'm surprised Tony wasn't at the funeral. I find it really hard to believe that he didn't know Peggy while growing up since she and Howard were good friends. You'd think he would want to be there.

I think that this was a real missed opportunity. Tony being at the funeral would have been an organic way to remind us that Steve and Howard had known each other during the war and set up the whole brother Vs brother thing. Tony losing someone else who was connected to his parents would have played in to his story arc.

Also, as someone who loves the Howard/Peggy and Peggy/Jarvis friendships from Agent Carter I just really, really wanted them acknowledged in the films.

[frenchtoast]

9 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Did the movie indicate that they weren't getting trials? Criminals have to be held somewhere before a trial can be set up.

I think that this was a real missed opportunity. Tony being at the funeral would have been an organic way to remind us that Steve and Howard had known each other during the war and set up the whole brother Vs brother thing. Tony losing someone else who was connected to his parents would have played in to his story arc.

Also, as someone who loves the Howard/Peggy and Peggy/Jarvis friendships from Agent Carter I just really, really wanted them acknowledged in the films.

I may be remembering wrong, but I thought that there was a brief side mention (delivered by Martin Freeman) that Bucky was basically going to be held and nope, no lawyer or trial. As for actual Avengers, I think Wanda being held under house arrest and not being allowed to leave because she hadn't signed was indicative that they weren't going to be afforded the rights of representation or trial. It was sign or "retire". Or, as Steve said in Winter Soldier, "Hold a gun to everyone's head and call it protection". It could have been made a bit clearer, because while their gear was being taken away, they were allowed to wander that building. I think that was in the hopes that they would sign the Accords.

I think because of the time frame, and how short it was, they were being a little loose with what was going on, and Tony especially was getting Ross to back off a bit so that he could persuade the others. But then the airport fight happened and it all went to shit.

I guess I'll just have to go see the movie again. Darn.

My question is--was it mentioned in the movie that Tony designed/built the Raft? Because I told  my mom that and she was shocked. But I don't know if I got that from the movie or reading all the smart people here.
 

[Wynterwolf]

1 hour ago, frenchtoast said:

My question is--was it mentioned in the movie that Tony designed/built the Raft? Because I told  my mom that and she was shocked. But I don't know if I got that from the movie or reading all the smart people here.

I am vaguely remembering that too, so I think it was somehow mentioned briefly by Tony.  But yeah... have to see it again to make absolutely sure.  Drat.  

[JTMacc99]

Robert Downey Jr. does such a good job with the little things. His interactions with Peter Parker were just what I would expect from Tony Stark. And even better, "Your unusually attractive aunt" and "Aunt Hottie" made me laugh out loud the way he was so easily distracted by a pretty girl but still on point with what he was doing there.  Heh. And by the way, Marisa Tomei is definitely an unusually attractive aunt.

I did enjoy this movie. I think the only thing that bothered me was that one would think that Tony would eventually understand that the Winter Soldier was a weapon that was fired at his parents, not unlike the weapons he used to make.

[Wynterwolf]

6 minutes ago, JTMacc99 said:

I did enjoy this movie. I think the only thing that bothered me was that one would think that Tony would eventually understand that the Winter Soldier was a weapon that was fired at his parents, not unlike the weapons he used to make.

I think he'll get there.  Right now, his feelings of guilt (which he's been carrying since we've known movie!him), and his acutely fresh pain over various things are overriding everything else.  I'm going to wait patiently for him to realize that BARF is the perfect tool to help Bucky, and for that to become the bridge between him and Cap being able to reconcile.  And yes, my rose-colored glasses make everything quite pretty.  

[JTMacc99]

Yes, of course that makes sense.

Tony is a problem solver, and that's exactly the way he would deal with an emotional problem. Turn to the logic of science. (Among other things, that's why he can't keep a girl.)

[Wynterwolf]

Yes!  He's definitely a fixer.  But I'm not sure yet what the full issues are between him and Pepper... I am doubting that he really has a good handle on exactly why they're 'taking a break'.  I suspect there's a lot more to it than he realizes, not the least of which, in Fury's absence, he was trying to handle something that he is not at all suited for:  Politics.  And from what they showed, he wasn't getting any help to deal with that from any of the other Avengers.  They just let Tony try to fill Fury's shoes without understanding the ramifications of that for Tony.    

[Jazzy24]

54 minutes ago, JTMacc99 said:

Robert Downey Jr. does such a good job with the little things. His interactions with Peter Parker were just what I would expect from Tony Stark. And even better, "Your unusually attractive aunt" and "Aunt Hottie" made me laugh out loud the way he was so easily distracted by a pretty girl but still on point with what he was doing there.  Heh. And by the way, Marisa Tomei is definitely an unusually attractive aunt.

I did enjoy this movie. I think the only thing that bothered me was that one would think that Tony would eventually understand that the Winter Soldier was a weapon that was fired at his parents, not unlike the weapons he used to make.

I'm really looking forward to Spiderman Homecoming with Tony being Peter's mentor though I hope they allude to Tony getting help after everything that's happened to him. He doesn't need to be mentoring anybody with the issues he has. 

And I do hope he gets to that place where he understands that Bucky was forced to do those horrible things and come to terms with it and be able to stand beside Bucky in battle and forgive him for something he had no control over. 

[Jazzy24]

27 minutes ago, Wynterwolf said:

Yes!  He's definitely a fixer.  But I'm not sure yet what the full issues are between him and Pepper... I am doubting that he really has a good handle on exactly why they're 'taking a break'.  I suspect there's a lot more to it than he realizes, not the least of which, in Fury's absence, he was trying to handle something that he is not at all suited for:  Politics.  And from what they showed, he wasn't getting any help to deal with that from any of the other Avengers.  They just let Tony try to fill Fury's shoes without understanding the ramifications of that for Tony.    

Fury defiantly needs to be back in charge of the Avengers. Civil War would have never happened with him there because of his abilities to deal with the politics and the Avengers on a personal level. 

[Wynterwolf]

52 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

And I do hope he gets to that place where he understands that Bucky was forced to do those horrible things and come to terms with it and be able to stand beside Bucky in battle and forgive him for something he had no control over. 

I think part of the reason he's having a hard time with it, is because of the guilt he still feels over Ultron.. his situation in that regard and Bucky's are really similar.  So he can't really think about forgiving Bucky until he can forgive himself, and he's just not in a place yet where he can do that.  Maybe mentoring Peter could help him with some unbiased outside perspective?  

ETA: Or maybe... if he can look at the logic, and eventually forgive Bucky, that could make it easier for him to forgive himself... hmmmm.  I did mention I am absolutely thinking about all this waaaay too much, right?  

Edited May 18, 2016 by Wynterwolf
More thinky thoughts

[Bruinsfan]

2 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

Robert Downey Jr. does such a good job with the little things. His interactions with Peter Parker were just what I would expect from Tony Stark. And even better, "Your unusually attractive aunt" and "Aunt Hottie" made me laugh out loud the way he was so easily distracted by a pretty girl but still on point with what he was doing there.  Heh. And by the way, Marisa Tomei is definitely an unusually attractive aunt.

I did enjoy this movie. I think the only thing that bothered me was that one would think that Tony would eventually understand that the Winter Soldier was a weapon that was fired at his parents, not unlike the weapons he used to make.

Well, we weren't shown him sending the Vision and a bunch of Iron Legion robots to comb the planet for Bucky, so it's possible that understanding came pretty quickly after he lost the fight with Cap. I doubt they'll be exchanging friendly repartee anytime soon, but his angry Barnes-is-to-blame-and-must-be-killed approach was probably abandoned as soon as his adrenaline high wore off.

[Wynterwolf]

3 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

but his angry Barnes-is-to-blame-and-must-be-killed approach was probably abandoned as soon as his adrenaline high wore off.

Yeah, that reaction was definitely heat of the moment.  He originally came there to help them, until Zemo stuck the knife in further and twisted.  

[VCRTracking]

I also didn't get the feeling that Tony back at Avengers compound was obsessed with finding Bucky to kill him at the end. He was more trying to pick up what's left of the Avengers and helping Rhodey rehabilitate.

[Perfect Xero]

10 hours ago, frenchtoast said:

I may be remembering wrong, but I thought that there was a brief side mention (delivered by Martin Freeman) that Bucky was basically going to be held and nope, no lawyer or trial. As for actual Avengers, I think Wanda being held under house arrest and not being allowed to leave because she hadn't signed was indicative that they weren't going to be afforded the rights of representation or trial. It was sign or "retire". Or, as Steve said in Winter Soldier, "Hold a gun to everyone's head and call it protection". It could have been made a bit clearer, because while their gear was being taken away, they were allowed to wander that building. I think that was in the hopes that they would sign the Accords.

Wanda is a weird case though, in Age of Ultron she's working for Hydra and then is working for Ultron as he goes around killing people and stealing Vibranium. I would think that her not being in jail in the first place might have been conditional on her service in the Avengers.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Perfect Xero said:

Wanda is a weird case though, in Age of Ultron she's working for Hydra and then is working for Ultron as he goes around killing people and stealing Vibranium. I would think that her not being in jail in the first place might have been conditional on her service in the Avengers.

I guess I need to re watch, but I have been waiting for free TV on Age Of Ultron, but wasn't she a dupe and a loyal soldier of Serkovia? Her leaders just happened to be the Hydra within that security/military service.

[Perfect Xero]

I think she was a dupe initially with Hydra, but once Ultron shows up and she believes that he's going to kill the Avengerss she throws in with him knowingly.

IM has a line after Cap calls keeping her at the compound internment along the lines that she's not a US citizen and the government had refused to issue her a visa. So it's possible that they worked out something between the government and the Avengers to keep her out of jail.

[scriggle]

23 minutes ago, Perfect Xero said:

I think she was a dupe initially with Hydra, but once Ultron shows up and she believes that he's going to kill the Avengerss she throws in with him knowingly.

IM has a line after Cap calls keeping her at the compound internment along the lines that she's not a US citizen and the government had refused to issue her a visa. So it's possible that they worked out something between the government and the Avengers to keep her out of jail.

What Tony says is something along the line of they don't give visas to weapons of mass destruction.  And that was why she was being kept at the Avengers' compound, basically under house arrest with Vision as her warden.

That leads to an interesting question.  They were given the choice to sign the Accords or retire.  Clint retired.  How does Wanda retire?  It's not like she can turn off her powers.  Is she going to be kept under house arrest or worse forever?

[Which Tyler]

10 hours ago, scriggle said:

What Tony says is something along the line of they don't give visas to weapons of mass destruction.  And that was why she was being kept at the Avengers' compound, basically under house arrest with Vision as her warden.

That leads to an interesting question.  They were given the choice to sign the Accords or retire.  Clint retired.  How does Wanda retire?  It's not like she can turn off her powers.  Is she going to be kept under house arrest or worse forever?

She retires the same way as anyone else - by not working any more. It's not like Clint can turn off being good with a longbow; or Steve could turn off being strong; but they're perfectly capable of not being a vigilante anymore.

 

The biggest problem with this film (IMO) is also what made it a film at all. Whoever drafted the accords had to be holding an idiot ball larger than Tony's ego to get where they did. Had the accords said something like "When the Avengers have intel that needs action we will alert the relevant authorities (law enforcement, military, political) in the relevant country, and co-ordinate with them. For non-enhanced threats, then we will provide back-up for local forces; when enhanced threats, we request back-up from local forces. If the sovereign nation does not want us acting within their borders then we will not do so (or face the consequences)".

Basically, it's an absolute no-brainer that sovereign states want to be treated like sovereign states; it's an absolute no-brainer than using military force without permission (or hell, even alerting) the locals is an act of war; it's an absolute no-brainer that a degree of oversight and co-operation is necessary for a group like the avengers. Equally, it's an absolute no-brainer that individuals aren't going to react well to a fait-accompli of "you're my bitch now" for reasons of... err... plot?

Had the accords been drafted with even half an ounce of common sense; then they would have been signed by everyone; Bucky would have been captured; sprung by Zemo and captured again - all with very little bloodshed. The team would have been united when they received intel about the other 5 winter soldiers; and they'd have arrived to find the 5 corpses as a team. Tony would have seen that video of his parents whilst surrounded by a full and functional support network; and in the absence of someone obvious to blame and lash out at. It would have made rather a boring film, however; so the idiot ball was held, nurtured and held on tightly.

As it is, the team is split - and will likely remain so for Avenger 3.0; where team Stark will take on the big bad and lose; then for Avengers 3.5 Team Cap will join up with Stark, present a united front, and defeat the big bad. It's the only possible way of needing 2 films to tell the story, especially if the avengers have to lose the first act but win the final. The only alternative is that they face the big bad united and lose; change nothing in order to face the big bad a second time; but things happen to go differently; which... yeah - that's not going to be happening.

[NoWillToResist]

13 hours ago, scriggle said:

  They were given the choice to sign the Accords or retire.  Clint retired.  How does Wanda retire?  It's not like she can turn off her powers.  Is she going to be kept under house arrest or worse forever?

I thought Clint had retired between the last Avengers movie and this one? I thought the Accords were introduced in Civil War, after Clint had already peaced out...?

[VCRTracking]

Clint had retired. That's why he didn't vote on whether to sign the Accords or not.

So this Guardian essay bemoaning superhero movies taking over and why audiences don't want more thoughtful, less "shallow" films loses me in one sentence:

Quote

"Wouldn’t Captain America: Civil War be a more interesting movie if Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) fought over, say, the affections of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), whose approval they are both clearly jockeying for anyway?"

[Wynterwolf]

Egad.  Fortunately, I think the world wide boxoffice numbers show that opinion to be completely unfounded.  

[scriggle]

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

She retires the same way as anyone else - by not working any more. It's not like Clint can turn off being good with a longbow; or Steve could turn off being strong; but they're perfectly capable of not being a vigilante anymore.

 

The biggest problem with this film (IMO) is also what made it a film at all. Whoever drafted the accords had to be holding an idiot ball larger than Tony's ego to get where they did. Had the accords said something like "When the Avengers have intel that needs action we will alert the relevant authorities (law enforcement, military, political) in the relevant country, and co-ordinate with them. For non-enhanced threats, then we will provide back-up for local forces; when enhanced threats, we request back-up from local forces. If the sovereign nation does not want us acting within their borders then we will not do so (or face the consequences)".

Basically, it's an absolute no-brainer that sovereign states want to be treated like sovereign states; it's an absolute no-brainer than using military force without permission (or hell, even alerting) the locals is an act of war; it's an absolute no-brainer that a degree of oversight and co-operation is necessary for a group like the avengers. Equally, it's an absolute no-brainer that individuals aren't going to react well to a fait-accompli of "you're my bitch now" for reasons of... err... plot?

Had the accords been drafted with even half an ounce of common sense; then they would have been signed by everyone; Bucky would have been captured; sprung by Zemo and captured again - all with very little bloodshed. The team would have been united when they received intel about the other 5 winter soldiers; and they'd have arrived to find the 5 corpses as a team. Tony would have seen that video of his parents whilst surrounded by a full and functional support network; and in the absence of someone obvious to blame and lash out at. It would have made rather a boring film, however; so the idiot ball was held, nurtured and held on tightly.

As it is, the team is split - and will likely remain so for Avenger 3.0; where team Stark will take on the big bad and lose; then for Avengers 3.5 Team Cap will join up with Stark, present a united front, and defeat the big bad. It's the only possible way of needing 2 films to tell the story, especially if the avengers have to lose the first act but win the final. The only alternative is that they face the big bad united and lose; change nothing in order to face the big bad a second time; but things happen to go differently; which... yeah - that's not going to be happening.

But that's just it.  She didn't sign and ended up under house arrest because of her powers.

I agree.  The way the Accords are presented is a huge problem.  We have no idea what exactly the accords say.  What the movies tells us is that they mean the Avengers can only go where the UN authorizes. And Ross, for some unknown reason, appears to be the one that was put in charge of the Avengers.

Quote

I thought Clint had retired between the last Avengers movie and this one? I thought the Accords were introduced in Civil War, after Clint had already peaced out...?

Maybe he did.  But he's listed a signatory on the Accords along with Tony, Steve, Rhodey, Natasha, Wanda, Vision, and Sam.

Edited May 19, 2016 by scriggle

[KatWay]

Quote

So this Guardian essay bemoaning superhero movies taking over and why audiences don't want more thoughtful, less "shallow" films loses me in one sentence:

  QUOTE

"Wouldn’t Captain America: Civil War be a more interesting movie if Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) fought over, say, the affections of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), whose approval they are both clearly jockeying for anyway?"

Yeah, whenever I think "what would make this film even better?" the first thing that comes to mind is always "a love triangle!". 

[VCRTracking]

Quote

I agree.  The way the Accords are presented is a huge problem.  We have no idea what exactly the accords say.  What the movies tells us is that they mean the Avengers can only go where the UN authorizes. And Ross, for some unknown reason, appears to be the one that was put in charge of the Avengers.

The Raft is probably a US facility. Also the Avengers are based on US soil and all except Wanda and Thor are US citizens.

In the Agents of SHIELD episode that tied in to Civil War, they say besides controlling the Avengers, the Accords require all enhanced individuals to be registered and monitored.

Edited May 19, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Wynterwolf]

1 hour ago, scriggle said:

Maybe he did.  But he's listed a signatory on the Accords along with Tony, Steve, Rhodey, Natasha, Wanda, Vision, and Sam.

I suspect that's because of the informal way The Avengers are organized as a group (not related to The Accords), he has fought with them and is probably considered 'enhanced', so his name is on the list whether he's currently active or not.  He would probably have to sign something specific stating that he was retired in lieu of signing as an active participant willing to abide by The Accords.

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, scriggle said:

But that's just it.  She didn't sign and ended up under house arrest because of her powers.

Yes, but by not signing she is, in essence, taking temporary leave - making her an illegal imigrant.

Of course, the house arrest thing was way OTT - and again, an example of an idiot ball for purposes of plot; they needed something to push her into team "I'm right because I'm me, and I am special"

[Perfect Xero]

Tony tends to go into sarcastic quip mode, so it's possible that "they don't give visas to weapons of mass destruction" was his way of saying, "Wanda aided Ultron in an attempt to kill us and used her powers to trigger a Hulk incident that caused a whole lot of damage and (probably) caused a bunch of casualties, so, no, they won't just let her loose in the US."

It would seem logical to me that her residency in the US and possibly her not being in jail already has been made contingent on her working with the Avengers.

Of course if the movie doesn't just gloss over what Wanda did in AoU and the logical fallout from it, then team Cap's position starts to look less reasonable, so they reduce the other side of the argument to a vague quip and toss around a loaded word like internment instead.

[Lilacgirl128]

I see a lot of places talking about how the difference between Steve and Tony with the Accords is that Steve accepts responsibility  for the Avengers actions and Tony just wants to put it in others hands, but that doesn't make sense to me. When has Steve actually accepted responsibility for what they have done. Telling Wanda that what happened in Lagos is on him isn't taking responsibility, taking responsibility is accepting the consequences for your actions, like for instance be willing to accept what the people and countries you have hurt are trying to tell you and maybe being open to some kind of dialog with them, ie an international accord. Did Steve even talk to the Nigerian or Wakandan governments after what happened to apologize and see what they needed from the Avengers for what happened?  Did he help with Sokovia or Washington after what happened? What about the void that SHIELDs disintegration left? Has he ever faced any of the consequences the world has faced since all of this Avenger stuff started? Because it seems to me that Tony has always been a little better on the dealing the actual repercussions of what happens in the Avengers world and therefore has never been the one who doesn't take responisbilty.

[anna0852]

52 minutes ago, Lilacgirl128 said:

I see a lot of places talking about how the difference between Steve and Tony with the Accords is that Steve accepts responsibility  for the Avengers actions and Tony just wants to put it in others hands, but that doesn't make sense to me. When has Steve actually accepted responsibility for what they have done. Telling Wanda that what happened in Lagos is on him isn't taking responsibility, taking responsibility is accepting the consequences for your actions, like for instance be willing to accept what the people and countries you have hurt are trying to tell you and maybe being open to some kind of dialog with them, ie an international accord. Did Steve even talk to the Nigerian or Wakandan governments after what happened to apologize and see what they needed from the Avengers for what happened?  Did he help with Sokovia or Washington after what happened? What about the void that SHIELDs disintegration left? Has he ever faced any of the consequences the world has faced since all of this Avenger stuff started? Because it seems to me that Tony has always been a little better on the dealing the actual repercussions of what happens in the Avengers world and therefore has never been the one who doesn't take responisbilty.

Thank you! You just managed to put into words what I've been thinking. Tony is the one that has established the humanitarian relief foundations and the Iron Legion and most of the tech the Avengers have been using. What exactly have Steve done to take responsibility beyond saying 'I'm right, you're wrong' when he hears something he doesn't like?

[Dandesun]

7 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Clint had retired. That's why he didn't vote on whether to sign the Accords or not.

So this Guardian essay bemoaning superhero movies taking over and why audiences don't want more thoughtful, less "shallow" films loses me in one sentence:

 QUOTE

"Wouldn’t Captain America: Civil War be a more interesting movie if Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) fought over, say, the affections of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), whose approval they are both clearly jockeying for anyway?"

Odin's Ravens... they have got to be joking. No, actually it would NOT be a more interesting movie if Cap and Tony were swinging their dicks around for Natasha to pick one over the other. That is flat out imbecilic!

And anyway, it wouldn't be believable. Steve and Bucky are in love!! There's a fucking three movie arc that shows it and it's so ridiculously obvious in Civil War that I cannot fathom someone suggesting that Steve's remotely interested in Natasha that way. I mean... really! But, hey, it's always nice to see someone attempt to reduce one of the few female characters into nothing more than a trophy to win.

It's like X-Men: First Class. That movie is a god-damn tragic love story between Charles and Erik. The entire Captain America trilogy shows us a love story, too. Yes, Steve loved Peggy. But he loves Bucky, too. And he loved Bucky first. And last. And always.

Sorry Tony.

[MisterGlass]

On 5/18/2016 at 8:10 AM, frenchtoast said:

I may be remembering wrong, but I thought that there was a brief side mention (delivered by Martin Freeman) that Bucky was basically going to be held and nope, no lawyer or trial.

Steve asked if Bucky would be getting a lawyer and Freeman's character snorted in a 'how naive are you' way.

10 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

So this Guardian essay bemoaning superhero movies taking over and why audiences don't want more thoughtful, less "shallow" films loses me in one sentence:

Quote

"Wouldn’t Captain America: Civil War be a more interesting movie if Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) fought over, say, the affections of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), whose approval they are both clearly jockeying for anyway?"

I cannot believe that.  One of the many excellent parts of CA:The Winter Soldier was that it had a developing, platonic relationship between Cap and Black Widow.  That was a tense, clever movie that didn't need to rely on a cheap trope or superheroics alone.  Why insist on a shallow romantic comedy instead?  As though we don't have a slew of bad love triangle movies every year.  And that was one of the least appealing parts of the second season of Agent Carter.

Black Widow needs her own movie with none of this juvenile nonsense.  ETA: And I don't mean that she shouldn't have a relationship, just that she shouldn't be a sidelined pawn in a romantic competition.

Edited May 20, 2016 by MisterGlass

[JenMcSnark]

4 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Odin's Ravens... they have got to be joking. No, actually it would NOT be a more interesting movie if Cap and Tony were swinging their dicks around for Natasha to pick one over the other. That is flat out imbecilic!

And anyway, it wouldn't be believable. Steve and Bucky are in love!! There's a fucking three movie arc that shows it and it's so ridiculously obvious in Civil War that I cannot fathom someone suggesting that Steve's remotely interested in Natasha that way. I mean... really! But, hey, it's always nice to see someone attempt to reduce one of the few female characters into nothing more than a trophy to win.

It's like X-Men: First Class. That movie is a god-damn tragic love story between Charles and Erik. The entire Captain America trilogy shows us a love story, too. Yes, Steve loved Peggy. But he loves Bucky, too. And he loved Bucky first. And last. And always.

Sorry Tony.

I'm not a Stucky Stan, but this post is epic!  

[JenMcSnark]

Regarding Clint, Cap asks Natasha if Clint had signed (after Peggy's funeral) and Nat responds "He says he's retired."  I took that to mean he formally retired because of the Accords.  Before, I think he was just spending more time with his family, although he did indicate he was retiring at some point.

[stealinghome]

Okay, I just got back from seeing the movie, and I have to join the contingent that was underwhelmed. This movie wasn't bad, by any stretch, but there's a LOT of idiot ball holding you have to overlook, at a certain point the plot really loses cohesion because there's about three movies wrapped into one here, and it really should have been Iron Man 4 because the plot is "Tony is an idiot"/"Tony feels manpainy manpain"/"Tony is a jerk" on wash-rinse-repeat and like halfway through Steve becomes a bystander in his own movie. And it's disappointing, because the seeds of a GREAT Steve/Natasha/Sam/Bucky(/Sharon) movie were here, one that would be a worthy successor to Winter Solider, but it got buried under all the other stuff.

First, I have to say that Rhodey needs to get his head checked at the end of the film, 'cause it was obviously also hurt when he fell from the sky if he still thinks the Accords were worth it. The Accords were a giant failure and sorry, but that's more on Team Iron Man than Team Cap. When you're given what, 3 days to read a 500-page document that essentially says "you're our bitch now or else," you laugh William Hurt out of the room and tell him you're taking two weeks to read it over and consider and the UN can just wait on the people who have saved the world multiple times now, or they can go save the world themselves the next time aliens start invading the planet. You also roll your eyes when most of the footage he shows of your team's "disasters" represents failures of his own government after which your team had to clean up. I felt like I was in bizarro world watching the team mutely take responsibility for...saving the world? Because the US government--who Ross represents--fucked up badly multiple times? What planet are you living on where you think multiple colossal screw-ups means that the government should have MORE control over the team? (Not to mention General Ross isn't exactly blameless on the enhanced human front either.) Why wasn't Steve allowed to point that out? Doesn't that just demolish the case for the Accords? Sokovia is absolutely on Tony and Bruce, agreed, but Manhattan and DC--and, I would argue, Nigeria, given that Wanda was trying to prevent a bomb going off in a crowded square? Yeah, no, not unless most of the people of the world want to be living under either alien or HYDRA control right now. So fine, Tony and Bruce can go off and put themselves under the UN's control (that they'll promptly disregard the moment it becomes inconvenient because hypocrisy, as Tony himself points out), but don't drag the rest of the team into it.

Don't get me wrong: I actually do believe there needs to be oversight. I'm on board with the very, very general idea of the Accords. And I think pretty clearly Steve would have agreed to oversight too, hence his talk about contingencies, I think he called them--but the thing is, "oversight" isn't "complete and utter control." And when the body that wants to own you has a track record as bad as the US/World Security Council (which is basically the UN, however much they're now pretending it's not), "you're our bitch now or else" is not something these superpowered people should be agreeing to. I mean, it's actually irresponsible. Notice how Team Iron Man had no response to Steve's "and what do we do the first time they tell us to do something we know is wrong?" If you can't answer that question, you shouldn't be signing the document. This is, like, Adult Life 101. If you don't sign now, you can always change your mind (or negotiate) and sign later. But you can't take anything back--or demand a unilateral amendation of a document--once you've signed it.

Further, the absolute failure of the Accords was completely played out by the events of this movie. Thank goodness Zemo didn't actually want to release the Russian super-soliders, because if he wanted to he could have, because the UN/Ross were totally incompetent--even AFTER the frame-job was revealed, which, wow, their idiocy knows no bounds. I'm so glad they issued a "shoot on sight" order for the Winter Solider and denied him his right to a lawyer (and yes, very specifically Martin Freeman says that they're not giving him legal counsel) and thereby got to the bottom of Zemo's plot...not. Yes, they seem super competent, and very worthy of controlling the Avengers...not. The plot of this movie is one big morality tale as to why signing all of your superhero rights away is a bad idea. Colossally stupid even for Tony. I loved when Clint dropped some big old truth bombs on Tony in the prison, and wished that all the prisoners had given him even more. I hope Clint kicks Tony's ass the next time he sees him (Steve too, I can't believe he let Tony off the hook at the end of the movie). Also, frankly, I wish Steve had left his shield behind at the end by throwing it at Tony and knocking him out. Tony was just intolerable all movie. I'm past cutting him slack because he has PTSD and all the emotional maturity of a 5-year-old. Get to therapy and get yourself together. Good on Pepper for escaping that sinking ship. And it really irritates me that at the end, Tony gets to live comfortably in the Avengers compound while everyone else is theoretically on the run. Argh. It's too bad RDJ is the cash cow, because they're just shoving him in everywhere now. I really hope that in the next Avengers movie, everyone who was Team Cap is like "yeah, go save the world Team Iron Man, we're sitting it out on Asgard because we're ~retired and don't want to be ~criminals. And have fun, rest of the world, hope you get saved! And that the special UN council can meet with enough lead time to authorize the Avengers to go save the world, lest they have to sit around on their hands while aliens take over the planet waiting for the UN to give them the okay! We'll be over here getting super drunk on Asgardian beer and eating popcorn as we watch."

However, once you overlook the idiocy of the whole big plot of the movie...which is hard to do...there was a lot to like here. I thought Elizabeth Olsen in particular really shone; she was one of the best parts of AoU and was even more interesting here. I like that the MCU is kind of channeling the X-men's classic "save a world that hates us" dilemma through her character, it's clever and something that, as a "small-scale," more personal concern, I'd like to see explored more. She's a character that would really benefit from a Netflix series. And I feel like there's a surprising amount of depth to her character that they could mine if they so chose. I would watch the hell out of a Scarlet Witch buddy movie with Cap, Black Widow, or Hawkeye. Speaking of, I LOVED Natasha in this film and wish she hadn't faded out in the last third--she was perfect in trying to play both sides as best she could to keep the team together, and "keeping the team together" being her ultimate goal is a character note that is perfect. Because pretty much the whole time we've known her, she's been the one person who's recognized that they need to be united as a team more than anything else. Her little "We're still friends, right?" to Clint underscored that really well too. (Also, it's clear they're her found family, which makes me happy.) I want to see more of her and Clint mentoring Wanda particularly. After being very meh on Sebastian Stan in the previous two films, I finally found myself warming up to him here, and wish the movie had been given over to way more of Bucky's story. There's so, so much to be mined there, the pathos is incredible and I like that Bucky owns and feels guilty for the things that not-him did. I also liked Sharon--she was impressive in the one fight scene tag-teaming with Nat--and man, what I would give for a "Ladies of the MCU" movie starring Nat/Wanda/Maria/Sharon/Pepper/a time-traveling Peggy, no dicks allowed. Which, sniff, Peggy, it hurts my soul that she died in the present day, though I understand why the movie did it. Love that Steve was a pallbearer. But back to Sharon, I actually thought the Russos did a pretty good job of developing her in the limited time they had given the 500 other plot balls they had to juggle...BUT I wish they'd held off on the kiss. It felt too obligatory and not entirely earned. And frankly, despite myself, I can't help but ship Natasha/Steve over Sharon/Steve, because their relationship is the far more compelling and layered. When Nat came to Peggy's funeral because she didn't want Steve to be alone? My allergies acted up a little.

I really, really liked Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa, though I'm not sure how much I liked T'Challa, if that makes sense. Still, I'll probably go see the Black Panther movie. And I hope they bring Zemo back at some point, because he was actually a halfway decent villain, which is better than the MCU has done in a while. His self-awareness was refreshing. On the flip side, I'm still not feeling Vision. He's just not bringing anything interesting to the team right now other than as a deus ex machina imo. And I hope they don't full-on go for Wanda/Vision in the MCU, because even the little hints of it in this movie kind of grossed me out a bit.

Steve was great when the movie was about him, which wasn't as much as it ought to have been. Chris Evans really is oddly perfect for the role.

I agree that the shaky cam was used a little too much, but I thought the first extended battle sequence with Crossbones, and then the Winter Soldier's escape from Martin Freeman's little jail, were really well done. I was actually less impressed with the airport and Siberia fights, they were too CGI. CA:TWS' action scenes were so good because they were mostly live-action, as the first two set pieces here were. Keep it all live action!

So: not a bad movie in all, but disappointing because it could and should have been better. It doesn't crack my top echelon of MCU movies.

[Shannon L.]

Quote

"Wouldn’t Captain America: Civil War be a more interesting movie if Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) fought over, say, the affections of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), whose approval they are both clearly jockeying for anyway?"

Dear God....I love a good romance and don't mind the occasional love triangle, but it would have been so out of place in this movie. What a ridiculous suggestion!  Not once did I ever see Tony or Steve romantically interested in Natasha!  I mean, Tony is a flirt, and Steven obviously enjoyed the playful, somewhat flirtatious banter with Natasha, but I didn't see any of it as serious, nor did the characters themselves.

Quote

what I would give for a "Ladies of the MCU" movie starring Nat/Wanda/Maria/Sharon/Pepper/a time-traveling Peggy, no dicks allowed.

That would be cool.  For now, though, I'll take a Black Widow movie. 

[Fukui San]

It would have been as bad as Black Widow falling in love with the Hulk for no reason and bonding over the fact she's a monster too cause she can't have any children!

[benteen]

If there's any relationship I'd like to see Natasha in, it's with Bucky and that is because of the comic books.  But I have to think that Guardian author was joking about the love triangle thing.  I hope so at least.

Quote

 Did Steve even talk to the Nigerian or Wakandan governments after what happened to apologize and see what they needed from the Avengers for what happened?

This is an excellent question and one I'm curious about.  I would assume he didn't go running when that building was destroyed.  He specifically called Sam to help out with the rescue efforts.  But did he at least attempt to talk to the governments to apologize?  Natasha apologized to T'Chacka at the signing of the Accords but I wouldn't have expected her to do it before Steve since he's the leader of the team.

Yes, when it comes to Wanda, that's when Steve's position is at its weakest.  She's the one who messed with the brains of both Tony and Bruce, which caused a LOT of damage.  She and her brother worked with Ultron.  What happened at Lagos was an accident, without a doubt.  Still, a pattern of accountability has clearly emerged when Wanda is involved and her actions in AoU did legitimately cause a lot of death and destruction.  She should be held accountable for that.

[Wynterwolf]

3 hours ago, benteen said:

Yes, when it comes to Wanda, that's when Steve's position is at its weakest.  She's the one who messed with the brains of both Tony and Bruce, which caused a LOT of damage.

Steve identified with her and Pietro's situation, he viewed it very similar to his own as far as choosing to take the serum to help stop the Nazis in WWII.  It was clear in the beginning of AoU that Sokovia wasn't important to anyone and was basically stuck in the middle of the fight between bigger powers, so they were the embodiment of 'collateral damage'.  She was young, isolated except for her brother, and only partially trained, she wanted to stop the fighting and save her country (which she blamed Tony for helping to destroy).  She thought that showing Tony that fighting would cause the death of all his friends would make him stop, she didn't account for the demons he was already carrying and how that would affect the way he'd react to her attack.  She wasn't experienced enough to understand the potential consequences of her actions, but I never saw any malicious intent, even though she did clearly cause harm (much like every other Avenger has at one point or another).  

Edited May 20, 2016 by Wynterwolf
additional context

[Bruinsfan]

23 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

Egad.  Fortunately, I think the world wide boxoffice numbers show that opinion to be completely unfounded.  

That and a brief read of the story by anyone who's not desperately looking to pair all the Avengers up romantically like a 13-year-old fanfic writer on Tumblr. Does the Guardian writer get upset when war movies, political thrillers, and other assorted dramas don't use soap opera tropes to insert romance subplots for their main characters?

[stealinghome]

Quote

Yes, when it comes to Wanda, that's when Steve's position is at its weakest.  She's the one who messed with the brains of both Tony and Bruce, which caused a LOT of damage.  She and her brother worked with Ultron.  What happened at Lagos was an accident, without a doubt.  Still, a pattern of accountability has clearly emerged when Wanda is involved and her actions in AoU did legitimately cause a lot of death and destruction.  She should be held accountable for that.

I mostly agree with Wanda's responsibility for Sokovia, but by the end of the movie the details of Nigeria had mostly faded from my mind--why is everyone so hot to trot to blame Wanda for the bomb? She was trying to defuse it slash get it away from the crowded square full of civilians--is the idea supposed to be that using her power to try to defuse it magnified the explosion somehow?

[ChelseaNH]

18 hours ago, Lilacgirl128 said:

maybe being open to some kind of dialog with them, ie an international accord

The accord wasn't a dialog, though.

[Dandesun]

11 hours ago, JenMcSnark said:

I'm not a Stucky Stan, but this post is epic!  

I didn't think I was, to be honest! I think Civil War has simmered in my head ever since I saw it and then I went back and watched First Avenger and Winter Soldier and... it's just all there. Perhaps it's not as obvious as Charles and Erik in the X-movies but then, neither Charles nor Erik were all that good at subtlety.

I guess I'm just on board the Stucky train hard-core now. It's weird because I would have been all for Bucky/Nat since I love comic!them but, at the same time, the MCU is not the 616 Marvel Universe (or whatever it is now that they've done the Secret Wars thing that wiped out all the other alternate universes? Where's the fun in that?) I mean, in the comics Bucky was gone for decades. He was just this kid from Cap's past... a tragic tale of what happens when you take 12 year olds to war (not exactly that but you get the idea) and Steve's longest running relationship was with Sharon Carter. It's pretty much the opposite in the MCU. Steve and Bucky's friendship is one of the first things we see. When Steve finds out that the 107th was killed/taken captive behind enemy lines he dropped everything to go find Bucky. And when he does rescue him... Bucky's smile... "Steve... Steve..." and then when the place is exploding and only Bucky got across the beam and was just as adamant about saving Steve. "No! Not without you!" Now, you can make a lot of arguments on friendship/brothers-in-arms and all that but if you look at the whole picture of these three movies... it's not that big a leap to take.

It gets amped up in Winter Soldier big time. I mean... just look at that movie. "That man on the bridge... I knew him..." "Even when I had nothing, I had Bucky." People, that's romantic stuff there. People telling Steve that Bucky may not be the guy to save but rather to stop and Steve already knowing he can't do that. Practically crying "Please don't make me do this" when facing Bucky on the last Insight hellicarrier. Saving Bucky when part of the exploding hellicarrier... dropping his shield and refusing to fight... "I'm with you to the end of the line." Those panicky expressions on Bucky's face the first time Steve sees him and also when Steve's refusing to fight and just lets him pound away to 'finish his mission.' And then Bucky saving Steve? 

And then this one? Steve risks everything for Bucky. Everything. And at the end... with his arm sheared off Bucky still grabs at Tony to keep him from repulsor ray-ing Steve (and gets a kick in the face for his effort) and then Steve picks him up and drops the shield again. Steve would give up everything for Bucky... that's a god-damn love story.

The other thing to look at... they're both super-soldiers but Steve volunteered... Steve also chose to go into the ice at the end of First Avenger. Hell, you look back on it and you know they both ended that movie in the same way: enhanced and in the ice... but Bucky never had a choice and Civil War could be seen as Steve risking so much to allow that for Bucky. At the end? It's Bucky's choice and Steve looks like he's losing a piece of himself all over again but, at least there's hope. Bucky made this choice to protect Steve from himself because all of Hydra's shit is still inside of him. And, dudes... "I don't know that I'm worth all of this to you, Steve." Fuck my life... love story.

Look, Steve loved Peggy. No question about that. She meant the world to him... but Bucky is somehow even more. And Bucky certainly liked the ladies. Maybe these are just two straight dudes who happen to be wildly in love with each other. It happens... but as much as I wouldn't be able to buy this concept in the comics (although I did love Sam and Bucky talking about Steve after he got de-aged into young, virile Steve again because that was delightful) the fact is that Steve's relationship with Bucky in the movies is one of his prime driving forces/motivations.

So, yeah, that's apparently my dissertation on how I became a hardcore Stucky fan without even realizing. Fucking 'ships sneaking up on me in the night.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Yes, when it comes to Wanda, that's when Steve's position is at its weakest.  She's the one who messed with the brains of both Tony and Bruce, which caused a LOT of damage.  She and her brother worked with Ultron.  What happened at Lagos was an accident, without a doubt.  Still, a pattern of accountability has clearly emerged when Wanda is involved and her actions in AoU did legitimately cause a lot of death and destruction.  She should be held accountable for that.

This is why Pietro's death, while sad was necessary. Pietro dies a hero and gets to be redeemed that way, while Wanda is punished, not just with her twin's death but also knowing she set events in motion that led up to it.

Quote

It would have been as bad as Black Widow falling in love with the Hulk for no reason and bonding over the fact she's a monster too cause she can't have any children!

They give a reason, all her friends are fighters and Bruce does everything to avoid the fight. And she says she's a monster not because she can't have children but because that insured she wouldn't have any attachments and be a more ruthless killer. People who complain about Natasha being in a romance really mean they Nat to be with someone she can have awesome after-combat sex with like Steve or Clint and that her relationships be bordering on the "fuckbuddy" and "booty call" level.

Quote

at a certain point the plot really loses cohesion because there's about three movies wrapped into one here, and it really should have been Iron Man 4 because the plot is "Tony is an idiot"/"Tony feels manpainy manpain"/"Tony is a jerk" on wash-rinse-repeat and like halfway through Steve becomes a bystander in his own movie

.I don't think of it that way because previously when Tony messes up and feels manpain in his movies or the Avengers, he's still the protagonist. He creates Ultron but then later creates the Vision to balance it. In Civil War except when he realized Bucky was framed and before he saw the tape Tony is the antagonist throughout most of the movie. The problem with Steve as a movie character is he has no arc. He has always been a good guy and any manpain he does have, he(like a lot of men in his generation) keeps it inside. He never acts on it. He only reacts when there's a problem to solve.

Edited May 20, 2016 by VCRTracking

[NoWillToResist]

On 5/19/2016 at 0:30 PM, VCRTracking said:

So this Guardian essay bemoaning superhero movies taking over and why audiences don't want more thoughtful, less "shallow" films loses me in one sentence:

Dear God. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.

On 5/19/2016 at 1:03 PM, KatWay said:

Yeah, whenever I think "what would make this film even better?" the first thing that comes to mind is always "a love triangle!". 

...right? Ugh. Every time a movie or tv show tries to shoe horn in a triangle, my interest drops exponentially.

On 5/19/2016 at 1:34 PM, VCRTracking said:

The Raft is probably a US facility. Also the Avengers are based on US soil and all except Wanda and Thor are US citizens.

 

Isn't Natasha Russian?

18 hours ago, anna0852 said:

Thank you! You just managed to put into words what I've been thinking. Tony is the one that has established the humanitarian relief foundations and the Iron Legion and most of the tech the Avengers have been using. What exactly have Steve done to take responsibility beyond saying 'I'm right, you're wrong' when he hears something he doesn't like?

Tony or Stark Enterprises? Because if he's doing good works via his company, that's a tax write off, isn't it?

To be fair, it's not like the UN approached the team to work together to come up with a solution; they presented a 'done deal' document with no input or consultation with the affected group, and told them to, essentially, sign it or else.

Cap was helping to clean up Loki's intergalactic mess in Avengers, Tony's mess in Avengers 2, Shield's Hydra mess in Cap 2, and (IMO) trying to prevent the murder of a friend in Cap 3.

That said, I do agree that the Avengers could/should use some of their super-powered selves to help with rebuilding etc.

I'm not trying to say that Cap is blameless in all this but I think his history certainly supports why he has zero trust in agencies and governments...

Edited May 20, 2016 by NoWillToResist

[Perfect Xero]

I would have liked to have seen War Machine and Vision involved in the opening Avengers vs Crossbones sequence, at least giving us one chance to see the iteration of the team that we were shown at the end of AoU. I understand that from the narrative of a Captain America movie the focus was always going to be on Natasha splitting off and not Viz or Rhody, but it would have been nice to get teamwork from them before they got split up by the plot.

I also think that how you frame the references to New York and DC is a key tone thing. If you take it as them blaming the Avengers for those events then it's insane, alternatively you could frame it as: "Hey, look, all this crazy stuff started happening over the last couple of years with aliens attacking from a hole in the sky and the people we trusted to keep us safe turning out to be a Nazi sleeper cell and helicarriers falling from the sky. You guys stepped in and saved a whole lot of people and that's good, but people were already scared out of their minds over it. Then all this other stuff has happened with Sokovia, which was kind of your fault, and Lagos, that might have been avoidable if you'd had local support working with you. People are scared, nations are scared, we need to do something to show that you're not placing yourselves above them, that you're willing to be held accountable and work with them."

[Lilacgirl128]

After watching the movie again today I was even more appalled by the complete lack of communication between everybody. There is just no way that the UN got together to create the Accords without the world, and by extension the Avengers themselves, knowing and it being all over the 24 hour news networks and being debated constantly on social media. Plus the Avengers just don't seem to communicate, especially Steve and Tony. So much could have been fixed if they had just talked to each other like teammates would.

Also the logistics of how everyone is getting around is strange. How long do all those London to Vienna to Bucharest to Berlin trips take, because they seem to be like 15 minutes away from each other in the movie. And did Clint really go from his farm to Upstate New York for Wanda then to California for Scott and then to Germany. Was all this flying commercial? And they did it all in 24 hours? Tony at least has the Quinjet for his trip to NY and back. And then how slow are Steve and Bucky flying the Quinjet to Siberia. In the time their trip takes, Tony goes to the hospital with Rhodey, gets an initial diagnosis, flys a helicopter to the Raft (which appears to be in the middle of what I assume is the Atlantic Ocean), meets with the prisoners, and then flys to Siberia himself, getting there not long after them. Plus they are in his Quinjet, why did he even need to go see Sam about where they were going, shouldn't he be able to track it?

After Bruce flew off with one you would think he would have put in a better tracking system in the Quinjets(though my head cannon was that he could have tracked Bruce, he was just respecting his wish to disappear, which this movie seems to dispell if Tony is not lying to Natasha).

And when Tony says "so was I" about being Steve's friend that wasn't how I saw their interactions on screen. They have a weirdly intense relationship but I wouldn't call it friendship. They don't seem to have talked ever when not actually on screen and those aren't exactly friend type talks they have been having over three movies. And so much of this movie could have been fixed if they had just talked to each other. The communication was so bad between all the sides, UN, Avengers con, Avengers pro.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Crossbones sequence, at least giving us one chance to see the iteration of the team that we were shown at the end of AoU. I understand that from the narrative of a Captain America movie the focus was always going to be on Natasha splitting off and not Viz or Rhody, but it would have been nice to get teamwork from them before they got split up by the plot.

From Scott saying "Something just went inside me!" when Vision phased through him I don't think he's known to the public. If he goes on missions it would be either be secret ones and if they really need his level of power. I get that though. If the world knew Tony created Ultron, I don't think they'd look at Vision, an android he also created and is even more powerful and think "Yeah, THIS one's okay."

(Which makes me also Vision doesn't go out to the nearest Banana Republic to buy those slacks and sweater but probably orders them online.)

Edited May 20, 2016 by VCRTracking

[stealinghome]

Quote

And when Tony says "so was I" about being Steve's friend that wasn't how I saw their interactions on screen. They have a weirdly intense relationship but I wouldn't call it friendship. They don't seem to have talked ever when not actually on screen and those aren't exactly friend type talks they have been having over three movies. And so much of this movie could have been fixed if they had just talked to each other. The communication was so bad between all the sides, UN, Avengers con, Avengers pro.

I agree. As I've been processing, I think part of the reason I couldn't get really into the movie is that, except for Natasha, none of the people fighting were ever shown on-screen to be true friends. I would classify them as teammates-who-are-friendly, but not FRIENDS. Tony and Steve have spent the better part of three movies at each other's throats, basically everyone else has had maaaaybe two minutes of screentime together in the past, and while the movie tried hard to sell the Wanda/Vision and Sam/Rhodey friendships in limited screentime, I wasn't buying what they were selling. And then, while I thought that it worked perfectly as a character note, Natasha's ultimately working with both sides also meant that the one legitimate source of emotional conflict the movie had (Nat vs Steve and Clint) went away. So you were left with a bunch of people fighting who, if not strangers, have never seemed to LIKE each other all that much. Which is way less compelling.