Captain America: Civil War (2016)

[Morrigan2575]

Tony did know about the prison and probably helped create it. His suprise was that it was being using to imprison his friends. He even says something to that effect. It was supposed to be used to for the "bad guys".

It seems like you're all over the map on this one and, I'm not really sure what your issue is. Does Wanda have a reason to hate Stark after the events of Civil War? Possibly.  He did imprison her against her will in the Avengers Compound.  He did have a hand in the under water prison. Although, i'd argue that she knew the risks but, there was definitely something more going on with Wanda in that prison cell versus the others. Now is that Stark's fault? No but, i can see how Wanda might hypothetically direct her anger at Stark.

Of course this is all pointless speculation since we have no idea what will happen in Infinity War or how any of these people will react when they reunite.  The only thing we know (based on Civil War) is that Tony/Steve will probably be good.

[Perfect Xero]

One of the failings of Civil War is that it never really addresses Wanda's status. Why isn't she in jail for her actions in Age of Ultron? How is she living on US soil without a visa?

Why does Captain America think that a criminal who helped cause numerous deaths shouldn't be "interred"?

[Jazzy24]

55 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Tony did know about the prison and probably helped create it. His suprise was that it was being using to imprison his friends. He even says something to that effect. It was supposed to be used to for the "bad guys".

It seems like you're all over the map on this one and, I'm not really sure what your issue is. Does Wanda have a reason to hate Stark after the events of Civil War? Possibly.  He did imprison her against her will in the Avengers Compound.  He did have a hand in the under water prison. Although, i'd argue that she knew the risks but, there was definitely something more going on with Wanda in that prison cell versus the others. Now is that Stark's fault? No but, i can see how Wanda might hypothetically direct her anger at Stark.

Of course this is all pointless speculation since we have no idea what will happen in Infinity War or how any of these people will react when they reunite.  The only thing we know (based on Civil War) is that Tony/Steve will probably be good.

I was reading discussions on how Wanda is still angry at Tony from AOU and how she will probably be angry at him about being locked up. And I was wondering why Wanda would be specifically mad at Tony about the underwater prison(Clint also or anybody)

Just wandering if I missed something major between Tony and Wanda. 

[stealinghome]

I believe Civil War stated explicitly that Tony designed the underwater prison.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

One of the failings of Civil War is that it never really addresses Wanda's status. Why isn't she in jail for her actions in Age of Ultron? How is she living on US soil without a visa?

Why does Captain America think that a criminal who helped cause numerous deaths shouldn't be "interred"?

She could live in the US because she became an Avenger when Ultron endangered her city and the world and before the Sokovia Accords conference I would bet that President Ellis saw it as political gold to have the Avengers based in the USA. And while you say "criminal" I would counter that the twins are the same as Captain America, soldiers of Sokovia who volunteered for their version of super soldiers treatments and fought the vigilante Avengers invading their land because they suspected a link to Hydra existed in the Age of Ultron.

[Perfect Xero]

If the president let her into the country so she could be an Avenger then, presumably, her having not signed the Accords and, therefore, no longer being an Avenger would have had a major impact on her legal status in the US. Which is my point, if her "interment" was going to be such a pivotal point in the movie, then her status after AoU needed to be addressed and clarified instead of being ignored and left for the audience to guess at with a few vague lines during an argument between Tony and Steve.

Why she initially signed up is irrelevant to whether or not she's a criminal. She knowingly aided Ultron is purchasing stolen Vibranium (which was also part of Ultron's plan to wipe out the entire human race), and also in the maiming of Klaw because Klaw said something that pissed him off.

She then intentionally triggered a Hulk event, putting the population of an entire city in danger and causing a huge amount of damage. The only reason that she's not directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths is that that guy she hates for a kind of dumb reason risked his life to stop the Hulk's rampage.

All of this also happened in a country that isn't Sokovia so she'd be just as much of a vigilante as the Avengers.

[ChelseaNH]

4 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

And I was wondering why Wanda would be specifically mad at Tony about the underwater prison(Clint also or anybody)

Clint expressed it pretty well -- Tony tries to force the "right" solution down people's throats because he believes he knows what is best for people (i.e. the Accords).  Tony hasn't done such a great job of running his own life, but he has a propensity for deciding what other people need to do.

Tony created Ultron; why is he any less culpable than Wanda for the damage that resulted?

[Perfect Xero]

When Tony and Banner created Ultron they created something that saw the Avengers and all humanity as "monsters" that needed to be destroyed and held a particular hatred for Tony. The exact opposite of what Tony wanted to create.

When Tony and Banner created Vision they created something that valued life and wanted to protect it. The exact thing that Tony wanted to create with Ultron.

What's the variable? Could it be that Wanda, who saw the Avengers as monsters and wanted to see them destroyed and held a particular hatred for Tony had just used her powers to influence and manipulate Tony's brain?

Edited September 23, 2016 by Perfect Xero

[Advance35]

Quote

She then intentionally triggered a Hulk event, putting the population of an entire city in danger and causing a huge amount of damage. The only reason that she's not directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths is that that guy she hates for a kind of dumb reason risked his life to stop the Hulk's rampage.

I still haven't forgotten this.  Her actions cost Bruce Banner is freedom, because of what she did he had to go on the run as a fugitive again when it seemed he had worked hard to build himself some semblance of a life (not an especially fullfilling and exciting one but.. he seemed content), all gone. 

Wanda will never have any moral high ground in reference to any other Avenger in my eyes.

[scriggle]

The variable with Vision was Thor. He gave Vision the boost with his powers.

[JustaPerson]

She and Pietro did betray Ultron when they realized that he intended to eliminate the human race which I supposed counts for something. The only explanation I can come up with is that the Avengers vouched for her and her role in helping them, which convinced officials to allow her to stay without a visa provided she works with the Avengers and lives on the compound. 

[Dandesun]

Wanda is a troubling character. Period. They make her so ridiculously powerful in the most ambiguous ways and then get caught in a merry-go-round of trying to explain her, control her, explain her, control her...

I find myself rather liking Wanda in the MCU despite all the problems that come with her even though I don't have that strong emotion towards her in comics continuity. Let's just say, I have yet to forgive 616!Wanda for almost committing genocide against mutants because of her own self-loathing and Daddy issues.

MCU!Wanda doesn't have quite the same problem. I think she was most definitely misguided in Ultron and going after the Avengers (but Tony in particular) without fully having the whole story. (I do think it's weird that Tony continuously has Stark Industries emblazoned on everything he sold to the government. Is that normal for the manufacturer to have that more pronounced than the country that is deploying it? For that matter, wouldn't terrorist organizations remove the label however they could so they could claim responsibility for whatever they're doing? Having Stark's name on the stuff you use to further your specific agenda seems to be burying the lede in a big way. Of course, then we wouldn't have the It's So Easy to Blame Tony option for, you know, everyone who needs that out.) I think she probably got into Tony's head at the beginning and that's why she was able to say things like Ultron got his inability to tell the difference between saving the world and destroying it from Tony.

You can kind of understand the argument because Tony never does things by half measures. "A suit of armor around the world." No. Dude. I'm sorry. That is just flat out not the answer. Bruce was right in that argument. "Sounds like a cold world, Tony."

Tony doesn't trust Wanda because she totally fucked with his head. Wanda doesn't trust Tony because she doesn't trust his motives or his ability to know when to stop. Steve is the one who gave the Maximoffs a chance and Steve's also the one who totally understood their motivation in the first place (not that she would know that because she wasn't there but it's true, he absolutely did.) So Tony 'retires' and Steve is the one in charge of the Avengers... works with Wanda over her abilities and how to use them with the team... offers her a shoulder when things go badly in Lagos... and then in comes Tony again with the Accords and 'we need to be put in check... whatever form that takes.' He puts her under house arrest without even telling her or talking to her about it and she winds up in a Stark-made underwater prison, drugged up and in a straight jacket.

Tony isn't necessarily the cause of all of these problems... he's just the face of them. At least to her. I get it.

[Perfect Xero]

10 hours ago, scriggle said:

The variable with Vision was Thor. He gave Vision the boost with his powers.

I think that all Thor did was provide electricity to the cradle after Quicksilver had unplugged it.

I watched AoU again earlier, and based on the deleted scenes I think the variable is meant to be the Jarvis Vs Ultron programs used as a base. In one of the deleted scenes Tony and Bruce are talking about what went wrong and Bruce basically says that the problem they gave Ultron to solve (protect the world) was too big and too open. Jarvis has more narrow and focused goals so provided a better base to build on.

That said, I don't think that Tony would have pushed to create Ultron the way he did if Wanda hadn't messed with his mind first.

So, bringing it back to Civil War, I'm not sure why Wanda gets to play Karma Houdini because she turned on Ultron when she realized that Ultron was going to murder everyone on Earth, including herself. What other option did she have at that point? Even Doctor Doom would have been working with the Avengers in that situation. She had a hand in every bad thing that happened in AoU, but seems to not be held the least bit accountable for it within the Civil War narrative.

[ChelseaNH]

1 hour ago, Perfect Xero said:

Wanda gets to play Karma Houdini because she turned on Ultron when she realized that Ultron was going to murder everyone on Earth

She gets to play Karma Houdini because she could have just hidden and been safe, but she risked herself to fight for Sokovia.  Again, that was Clint with the speech -- if you out there and you fight, then you're an Avenger.  Which is essentially the same option he offered Natasha.

[Perfect Xero]

11 minutes ago, ChelseaNH said:

She gets to play Karma Houdini because she could have just hidden and been safe, but she risked herself to fight for Sokovia.  Again, that was Clint with the speech -- if you out there and you fight, then you're an Avenger.  Which is essentially the same option he offered Natasha.

She fought to save her own life, because Ultron's plan was going to kill everyone on the planet. There was no "safe" place for her to go. Even if she was fighting for Sokovia she showed her complete lack of concern for the lives of non-Sokovians when she intentionally put the Hulk into a mindless rage state and unleashed him on Johannesburg. So the idea that she was willing to fight for her own life and her people shortly after she was ready to kill anyone else on the planet just to make the Avengers look bad is hardly a point in her favor IMO. It just shows that she was a giant hypocrite.

This is easy to forget because, of course, Whedon ignored it at the end of AoU and the Russos decided to just ignore all of it in Civil War and portray her as a poor child who has never done anything wrong and needs pep talks and is unjustly "interred" because of her powers and not her numerous criminal actions.

[VCRTracking]

That's why Pietro's death was necessary for me to accept her being part of the team at the end. She paid the price her for her part in bringing Ultron to life and assisting him. Most of the Avengers except Cap and Hawkeye had not so clean pasts they were trying to make up for by being heroes . I think she was definitely trying to make up for her crimes by joining the team and helping others. She was on her way until Lagos. She saved Cap and the people on the street from Crossbones suicide bomb but unintentionally caused casualties in the building.

Edited September 24, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Perfect Xero]

Pretty sure that Pietro is the one who actually paid that price ...

The character never expressed one bit of regret or remorse for her actions in the previous film. It makes no mention of her trying to atone. For that matter they never even mention her brother. If they did directly mention those things then they'd have to deal with the reality that it's probably legally and morally right for her to be "interred" after everything she did.

Instead everything in Civil War is framed in terms of how unfair it is that people are afraid of her powers (and not, you know, all of the awful and horrible things that she did with those powers). The movie ignores all of that and absolves Wanda of her sins and frames her as a victim of prejudice, all so team Steve can have a reason to keep fighting against being held accountable for his actions and having to respect the wishes of other people and other nations when they disagree with him.

[Morrigan2575]

It has been 5 years of Wanda (and others) acting as Avengers, paying their due, etc.   I don't have a problem with accepting that she's reformed, changed for the better and, is part of the team.  I didn't have a problem seeing her as a victim of circumstances in this movie either. 

As for not feeling guilt or remorse in AoU, I have to disagree.  The scene where Clint and Wanda are hiding out and, he gives her the "Avengers" pep talk, starts out with her being very remorseful and guilt ridden "this is all my fault, what have i done" etc.

One of the things i thought this movie did well was not paint any Avenger(ish) character as strictly hero or villain. I may not agree with all of their choices but, I understood their motivations and could sympathize with them.  

I don't think Tony is a Villian but, I can understand why Clint or Wanda might consider him one.

I  don't think Panther was right in going after Bucky but, I totally understood why he did.

I don't think Tony was right to want to kill Bucky and, that Bucky was as much a Victim as the Stark's. However, I absolutely understood why Tony lost control. His line "I don't care, he killed my mom" totally broke me.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[stealinghome]

Wanda was pretty clearly horrified by Ultron once she was able to look into his mind in AoU. She didn't turn on him to save her own skin/Pietro's, she turned on him because "killing the world" was not the bill of goods he sold her when she joined up with him and she found him morally reprehensible at that point. I mean, didn't Ultron say he'd keep her and Pietro alive if they served him? (Been a while since I've seen AoU.) Making a choice to fight Ultron and possibly die because it's the right thing to do, versus serving him and living, doesn't scream "making the self-interested choice" to me.

I take the point about Wanda not paying for her actions with regard to Ultron, and I agree that that would have been a better "legal" fight for the team to be disagreeing over in CA:CW than the Accords (wherein the Avengers saving New York in Avengers 1, and Steve saving the whole world in CA:TWS, were framed like they were BAD things, those naughty Avengers!!!). At the same time, whether we agree or disagree with the philosophical approach, the entire MCU is predicated on the notion that you can earn redemption for the shitty things you do--what matters is the choices you start making now, as opposed to all the shitty choices you made before now. That's been the ongoing theme of Tony's movies. That's the theme of Thor 1. That's Natasha's whole storyline/character arc across every movie she's been in. Etc etc etc. After several years of service as an Avenger, I don't see why that should be any different for Wanda than for Natasha, or Thor--or Tony, who is almost as big a Karma Houdini as Wanda imo.

Edited September 24, 2016 by stealinghome

[Wynterwolf]

Interesting piece of info from Seb's panel at Wizard World Austin today regarding the line Bucky said to Tony that he 'remembered them all'.  He said he played that more as Bucky realizing that one of the three of them was going to die down there, and that it was his way of telling Tony what he knew he wanted to hear, to get him to go after him (and not Steve), basically giving up, giving himself up to end the conflict.  (Link to tweet of panel)

[VCRTracking]

Agree so much with Morrigan2575 and stealinghome's posts. 

Edited September 24, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Jazzy24]

5 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

It has been 5 years of Wanda (and others) acting as Avengers, paying their due, etc.   I don't have a problem with accepting that she's reformed, changed for the better and, is part of the team.  I didn't have a problem seeing her as a victim of circumstances in this movie either. 

As for not feeling guilt or remorse in AoU, I have to disagree.  The scene where Clint and Wanda are hiding out and, he gives her the "Avengers" pep talk, starts out with her being very remorseful and guilt ridden "this is all my fault, what have i done" etc.

One of the things i thought this movie did well was not paint any Avenger(ish) character as strictly hero or villain. I may not agree with all of their choices but, I understood their motivations and could sympathize with them.  

I don't think Tony is a Villian but, I can understand why Clint or Wanda might consider him one.

I  don't think Panther was right in going after Bucky but, I totally understood why he did.

I don't think Tony was right to want to kill Bucky and, that Bucky was as much a Victim as the Stark's. However, I absolutely understood why Tony lost control. His line "I don't care, he killed my mom" totally broke me.

If Wanda and Clint think Tony is a villain  than they can both shove it.  Clint knew what he was doing when he disappointed his kids to go break the law and than has the audacity to be mad at Tony like he didn't know what he was getting into. He along with any memeber of "Team Cap" can shut the hell up concerning anything Tony. 

And Wanda shouldn't say anything to Tony having violated him mentally, tried to kill his friends and intentionally caused deaths when she set off Bruce in Africa then uses Tony's facility to eat and sleep for months. 

Tony is in no way at fault for Wanda and Clint in the underwater raft. 

[Wynterwolf]

13 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

If Wanda and Clint think Tony is a villain  than they can both shove it.  

I think they disagree strongly with some of his actions and choices, but I don't think they see him as a villain.  I certainly don't.  I don't see any of this as that black and white, and trying to frame it that way, I think, does a disservice to the complexity of the issues and the various perspectives.  They all made choices that had unintended consequences, understandable ones give the various circumstances, but that's why I found the story so realistic and believable and gut wrenching on all their parts.  No one was the villain, they were all trying to do what they thought was best at the time.  

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Tony is in no way at fault for Wanda and Clint in the underwater raft. 

He isn't, but he is or appeared to be supporting the side that condones the Raft. Yes people with superpowers should have oversight but locking them up without a trial is wrong. What I like about the movie is it doesn't lay clearly which side was right. Up until the reveal of Zemo's real plan, it looks like Cap was right. Both sides can be seen as sympathetic.

[Perfect Xero]

It was less than 24 hours after their fight at the airport. Every single criminal on the planet who is caught is held in lockup. The Avengers are not people who can be held in a county jail while awaiting trial and represent major flight risks if released.

The problem with the movie is that one side is right, so they have to stack the deck against that side to have an excuse for the other side being seen as anything other than dangerous lunatics. That's why the person put in charge is Thunderbolt Ross, that's why Wanda's crimes are ignored and any fear of her is framed as prejudice, even the person who is supposed to be the main representative of the Accords has to break them because the movie goes out of its way to show that Cap is the one who is right by having Ross ignore facts and a potential threat to world security. That's why Ross's presentation starts out with him showing clips of New York and DC and not Sokovia and Lagos (and, again, Johannesburg is completely left out to protect Wanda). The best argument that anyone in the movie is allowed to make in favor of the Accords basically comes down to "It's better to keep one hand on the wheel even if we don't like it."

5 hours ago, stealinghome said:

Wanda was pretty clearly horrified by Ultron once she was able to look into his mind in AoU. She didn't turn on him to save her own skin/Pietro's, she turned on him because "killing the world" was not the bill of goods he sold her when she joined up with him and she found him morally reprehensible at that point. I mean, didn't Ultron say he'd keep her and Pietro alive if they served him? (Been a while since I've seen AoU.) Making a choice to fight Ultron and possibly die because it's the right thing to do, versus serving him and living, doesn't scream "making the self-interested choice" to me.

I take the point about Wanda not paying for her actions with regard to Ultron, and I agree that that would have been a better "legal" fight for the team to be disagreeing over in CA:CW than the Accords (wherein the Avengers saving New York in Avengers 1, and Steve saving the whole world in CA:TWS, were framed like they were BAD things, those naughty Avengers!!!). At the same time, whether we agree or disagree with the philosophical approach, the entire MCU is predicated on the notion that you can earn redemption for the shitty things you do--what matters is the choices you start making now, as opposed to all the shitty choices you made before now. That's been the ongoing theme of Tony's movies. That's the theme of Thor 1. That's Natasha's whole storyline/character arc across every movie she's been in. Etc etc etc. After several years of service as an Avenger, I don't see why that should be any different for Wanda than for Natasha, or Thor--or Tony, who is almost as big a Karma Houdini as Wanda imo.

Wanda was horrified when she realized that Ultron was killing all of the humans and not just some of the humans. If Ultron had only been targeting the US and its western Europe allies I doubt that she would have given a damn about the innocent people in those countries, she certainly didn't seem the least bit concerned about all of the people in Johannesburg she put in danger.

She was upset because her home was being attacked and she was seeing people that she knew in danger.

Tony produced weapons for the US military. When Tony realized that his weapons were being sold to terrorists and enemy states (by Stane) and being used against civilians he shut the whole thing down at great cost to the value of his company. He was almost murdered for this.

Natasha was taken as a child and was groomed to be an assassin by her own government.

Bruce loses control of his own body/mind.

Thor, yes, was punished by Odin, but has never been anything other than a strong force for good while on Earth so this is the standard that others judge him by.

Bucky was brainwashed.

Wanda, by comparison, set out of her own volition to intentionally kill innocent people because those people were born in the wrong place or had the wrong friends. By all appearances in AoU she was not tricked into it or brainwashed into it. I don't think that her situation is comparable to any of the other Avengers.

Civil War presents (IMO) a brand of protagonist relative morality. Wanda tries to murder people and she's a poor victim of prejudice, Tony tries to murder someone and it's no big deal, because he was upset at the time and Steve didn't tell him about his parents and they have to get everyone back in place where they can work together in Infinity War. Cap operates under the principle that might makes right, because if he disagrees with someone he can just punch people in the face better than anyone so he doesn't have to listen to them.

[stealinghome]

Quote

The problem with the movie is that one side is right, so they have to stack the deck against that side to have an excuse for the other side being seen as anything other than dangerous lunatics. That's why the person put in charge is Thunderbolt Ross, that's why Wanda's crimes are ignored and any fear of her is framed as prejudice, even the person who is supposed to be the main representative of the Accords has to break them because the movie goes out of its way to show that Cap is the one who is right by having Ross ignore facts and a potential threat to world security. That's why Ross's presentation starts out with him showing clips of New York and DC and not Sokovia and Lagos (and, again, Johannesburg is completely left out to protect Wanda). The best argument that anyone in the movie is allowed to make in favor of the Accords basically comes down to "It's better to keep one hand on the wheel even if we don't like it."

So anything that shows the very real flaws with the Accords as portrayed in the movie is considered "stacking the deck" against them, instead of actually pointing out the Accords' very real flaws? I can't agree. Now, if you want to argue that the Accords should have been designed differently to make a more compelling movie, I would be in 500% agreement on that point (though I think there would also be no movie if the Accords were designed better, lol, since all the characters would agree on them and there would be no conflict). I've posted at length on this thread before about why I think the Accords, as presented in this movie, are uber-dumb and make everyone in the movie--on both sides--look uber-dumb, so I won't rehash that here. But given the Accords as presented in the movie, I can't agree that Tony's side, which basically amounts to "the Avengers are the UN's bitch now," is clearly right. In fact, I'm surprised that anyone can think "the Avengers are the UN's bitch now" is a good idea. It would take about 0.5 seconds for the Avengers to start being used as political pawns, which they should never ever be. In fact, I took that to be precisely the whole point of the Thunderbolt Ross subplot. It's not stacking the deck against the Accords if the movie illustrates a problem with the Accords that Tony was too short-sighted to take into account--what happens when they are placed under the control of a corrupt supervisor with an agenda that leads him to make poor, world-endangering decisions?--but that then presents a big problem for the Avengers.

Quote

Wanda was horrified when she realized that Ultron was killing all of the humans and not just some of the humans. If Ultron had only been targeting the US and its western Europe allies I doubt that she would have given a damn about the innocent people in those countries, she certainly didn't seem the least bit concerned about all of the people in Johannesburg she put in danger.

...

Tony produced weapons for the US military. When Tony realized that his weapons were being sold to terrorists and enemy states (by Stane) and being used against civilians he shut the whole thing down at great cost to the value of his company. He was almost murdered for this.

Natasha was taken as a child and was groomed to be an assassin by her own government.

...

Wanda, by comparison, set out of her own volition to intentionally kill innocent people because those people were born in the wrong place or had the wrong friends. By all appearances in AoU she was not tricked into it or brainwashed into it. I don't think that her situation is comparable to any of the other Avengers.

Yes, I agree that Wanda had no problem with Ultron killing at least some people from the US/Western Europe at the movie's start. Which, to me, is exactly the same thing as Tony being 500% cool with the fact that he was producing weapons that were killing huge amounts of people, since he thought his weapons were killing the "right" people. Tony only stopped contracting with the US government when he realized that his weapons were being pointed at the "wrong" people (namely him!). Which is the same thing as Wanda doing a heel turn re: Ultron when she realized he was...wait for it...going to kill the "wrong" people (namely everyone who disagreed with him!). And like Tony, Wanda put herself in great personal danger--and in fact lost someone she loved--by changing her mind and going over to the other side; in fact, I'd argue that Wanda put herself in more immediate, clear danger than Tony did when he decided to stop working with the US gov't. Tony didn't know his life would be threatened, Wanda most certainly did. So I would actually say that Tony and Wanda are QUITE similar in that regard.   The only real difference is who they consider the "right" and "wrong" people. For Tony, Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the "right" people to be aiming his weapons at, while the US and its allies are the "wrong" people; for Wanda, the US and Western Europe (especially Stark) were the ones tearing her country apart, the forces she enlisted to fight--Eastern Europe in need of protection from destructive US/Western European forces (and I do think it's important context that Wanda saw herself as, essentially, a soldier in an active war for most of AoU--that's the point of Steve's exchange with Maria--that the twins saw themselves as soldiers in a war).

It's funny you bring up Natasha, because I actually do see some continuities between her and Wanda. I totally agree that Wanda wasn't brainwashed, but wasn't the implication that she and Pietro volunteered for/were recruited by HYDRA when they were still minors? Not young enough to be what we would consider classic child soldiers, but not old enough to make a truly informed, adult decision (there is a core to Wanda that is childlike, very naive--she says to Ultron "You said we would destroy the Avengers, make a better world," as if it would be that easy!). Easy pickings for HYDRA recruiters because they were so clearly traumatized. And then I'm sure HYDRA really fucked with their heads once they got their mitts on the twins. It doesn't excuse anything Wanda did, but to me it makes her actions more understandable, and thus easier to accept her when she switches sides and expresses true regret, horror, guilt, etc. (That all said, I most definitely agree that Natasha is far less culpable for her actions while a brainwashed Red Room child agent than Wanda is for hers.)

I do agree, however, that the subsequent MCU movies are going to sweep all of the fallout that SHOULD come from CA:CW under the rug, and never deal with it properly/realistically, because there's no way they could do it realistically and still have a functioning team. Another big weakness of the movie.

Edited September 25, 2016 by stealinghome

[Raja]

32 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

 

It's funny you bring up Natasha, because I actually do see some continuities between her and Wanda. I totally agree that Wanda wasn't brainwashed, but wasn't the implication that she and Pietro volunteered for/were recruited by HYDRA when they were still minors? Not young enough to be what we would consider classic child soldiers, but not old enough to make a truly informed, adult decision (there is a core to Wanda that is childlike, very naive--she says to Ultron "You said we would destroy the Avengers, make a better world," as if it would be that easy!). Easy pickings for HYDRA recruiters because they were so clearly traumatized. And then I'm sure HYDRA really fucked with their heads once they got their mitts on the twins. It doesn't excuse anything Wanda did, but to me it makes her actions more understandable, and thus easier to accept her when she switches sides and expresses true regret, horror, guilt, etc.

 

I don't know if the twins were recruited by Hydra or if they were recruited by the Sokovian Army  which unknown to them was being run by the Red Skull-Dr. Whitehall- von Strucker wing of Hydra.

[Perfect Xero]

I think it's very different, Stark sold weapons to the US military on the faith that they'd be used under the rules of engagement and war, aka not used to target civilians. Tony's "wrong people" were not just him it was innocent people in the middle east who had been put in harms way. He shuts down and stops selling weapons to anyone to try to make sure his weapons wouldn't fall into the wrong hands again.

Wanda intentionally put civilians in danger as part of her quest for ... revenge or whatever on a weapons manufacturer who had already openly admitted that he was wrong to sell weapons and given it up.

Yes, they staked the deck against the basic idea the Accords represent and they didn't design the accords better because they didn't want a more compelling movie, they made the Accords a poorly defined set of powers run by a Hulk villain because they wanted a story where Captain America is unquestionably the hero fighting against the evil UN against his dumb friends who are too stupid to see that he's right.

On another note:

After the airport battle Steve and Bucky are already in the air and head to Siberia in their stolen Quinjet.

Meanwhile, Tony takes Rhodey to have medical tests done, has a conversation with Natasha (back at the Avengers compound in the US?), gets the report about the dead psychologist, argues about it with Ross, goes to the Raft via helicopter, talks to Sam, and then takes off for Siberia.

Tony arrives in Siberia a minute or so after after Steve and Bucky so they can all be there together to watch the video. Sure.

On yet another note:

Bucky: "I'm not going to kill anyone." 20 seconds later he tries to drop a cop over the banister to his certain death. Knocks some random civilian off his motorcycle while the guy is driving in the other direction. Throws a steel beam like a javelin at Spider-Man's head when he wasn't looking.

It's almost like they started out wanting to show that Bucky was still dangerous, but then realized that would make Steve look bad, so they then completely ignored it.

[Jazzy24]

11 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

I think it's very different, Stark sold weapons to the US military on the faith that they'd be used under the rules of engagement and war, aka not used to target civilians. Tony's "wrong people" were not just him it was innocent people in the middle east who had been put in harms way. He shuts down and stops selling weapons to anyone to try to make sure his weapons wouldn't fall into the wrong hands again.

Wanda intentionally put civilians in danger as part of her quest for ... revenge or whatever on a weapons manufacturer who had already openly admitted that he was wrong to sell weapons and given it up.

Yes, they staked the deck against the basic idea the Accords represent and they didn't design the accords better because they didn't want a more compelling movie, they made the Accords a poorly defined set of powers run by a Hulk villain because they wanted a story where Captain America is unquestionably the hero fighting against the evil UN against his dumb friends who are too stupid to see that he's right.

On another note:

After the airport battle Steve and Bucky are already in the air and head to Siberia in their stolen Quinjet.

Meanwhile, Tony takes Rhodey to have medical tests done, has a conversation with Natasha (back at the Avengers compound in the US?), gets the report about the dead psychologist, argues about it with Ross, goes to the Raft via helicopter, talks to Sam, and then takes off for Siberia.

Tony arrives in Siberia a minute or so after after Steve and Bucky so they can all be there together to watch the video. Sure.

On yet another note:

Bucky: "I'm not going to kill anyone." 20 seconds later he tries to drop a cop over the banister to his certain death. Knocks some random civilian off his motorcycle while the guy is driving in the other direction. Throws a steel beam like a javelin at Spider-Man's head when he wasn't looking.

It's almost like they started out wanting to show that Bucky was still dangerous, but then realized that would make Steve look bad, so they then completely ignored it.

I just hope that once we see Tony again in Spiderman that he's written with some growth. And in Infinity War the Russo brothers doesn't make Tony a fallout guy to the greatness that is Steve Rogers. 

I actually worry for how they will write Tony in Infinity War. They also need to remember that this is a Avengers movie not another Captain America movie. 

[KatWay]

Quote

After the airport battle Steve and Bucky are already in the air and head to Siberia in their stolen Quinjet.

Meanwhile, Tony takes Rhodey to have medical tests done, has a conversation with Natasha (back at the Avengers compound in the US?), gets the report about the dead psychologist, argues about it with Ross, goes to the Raft via helicopter, talks to Sam, and then takes off for Siberia.

Tony arrives in Siberia a minute or so after after Steve and Bucky so they can all be there together to watch the video. Sure.

Unless I forgot something, that's a good point. No way does that work out continuity wise. Unless Tony can teleport.

[scriggle]

11 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Stark sold weapons to the US military on the faith that they'd be used under the rules of engagement and war, aka not used to target civilians. Tony's "wrong people" were not just him it was innocent people in the middle east who had been put in harms way. He shuts down and stops selling weapons to anyone to try to make sure his weapons wouldn't fall into the wrong hands again.

Tony was disengaged enough from his business that Stane was able to sell to "bad guys" right under his nose. Also is AoU, I don't remember the details but it's established that Tony knew a black market arms dealer.

11 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Wanda intentionally put civilians in danger as part of her quest for ... revenge or whatever on a weapons manufacturer who had already openly admitted that he was wrong to sell weapons and given it up.

She saw her family killed and was trapped in the rubble with an unexploded Stark bomb for days. Why is her wanting revenge on Tony different than Tony wanting revenge on Bucky for killing his parents? Both events are years in the past. Both are trying to do better.

Also Wanda initially was fighting for her country.  Hence Steve's line "What kind of monster would let a German scientist experiment on them in order to protect their country?". When Hill says they're not at war Steve points out they (Wanda & Pietro) are. As pointed out above, Wanda (& Pietro) turned on Ultron to fight with the Avengers.

11 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Yes, they staked the deck against the basic idea the Accords represent and they didn't design the accords better because they didn't want a more compelling movie, they made the Accords a poorly defined set of powers run by a Hulk villain because they wanted a story where Captain America is unquestionably the hero fighting against the evil UN against his dumb friends who are too stupid to see that he's right.

Imagine that. Captain America being the hero of his own movie.

IMHO, Steve was right about the Accords. It might have seemed like it only applied to the Avengers as they were the ones asked to sign it but its full title, The Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals, gives the game away. Significantly Steve is the only one shown reading the phonebook of legalese that was sprung on them.  Sprung on them by Ross who has wanted so badly to replicate the super soldier serum and who thinks of Thor and Hulk as weapons. And Tony's sign now and we'll amend it later is pure bullshit.  That's not how contracts work and Tony should damn well know that.

But then Tony does as he pleases all the time.  When Ross refused to look at the evidence Tony had, Tony broke the Accords he signed and supposedly believed so strongly in to do what he believed was the right thing to do.  And he suffered no consequences for breaking the Accords; he should be in the raft too. But he's not.  That probably has nothing to do with the fact that he's a powerful billionaire, right?

Yeah, the plot was too fucking convoluted and required incredible amount of luck to work, that's poor writing.

11 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Bucky: "I'm not going to kill anyone." 20 seconds later he tries to drop a cop over the banister to his certain death. Knocks some random civilian off his motorcycle while the guy is driving in the other direction. Throws a steel beam like a javelin at Spider-Man's head when he wasn't looking.

It's almost like they started out wanting to show that Bucky was still dangerous, but then realized that would make Steve look bad, so they then completely ignored it.

Considering what we'd been shown the winter soldier to be capable of, he was holding back. Holding back against people that were out to kill him on sight. He's defending himself and Steve. Just as Steve is defending him. This is a comic book movie; comic book physics apply. Crossbones survived a helicarrier and a building falling on him.  He should have been well and truly dead after Cap2.

52 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

I actually worry for how they will write Tony in Infinity War. They also need to remember that this is a Avengers movie not another Captain America movie. 

IMHO they needed to remember that Cap3 was a Captain America movie instead of IM4/Avengers3 which is what it felt like to me.

[VCRTracking]

The movie doesn't lean toward either side IMO but Cap fans and Iron Mans are always going to think it does against their guy. As the Honest Trailer said, one is "dickishly stubborn" and the other is "stubbornly dickish".

[Jazzy24]

18 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

The movie doesn't lean toward either side IMO but Cap fans and Iron Mans are always going to think it does against their guy. As the Honest Trailer said, one is "dickishly stubborn" and the other is "stubbornly dickish".

I don't care who was right or wrong(though I do agree with oversight). And I'm more Team Cap I'm just protective of Tony when it all comes down to it. 

My dislike is when characters like Clint blame Tony for their predicament when they jumped into the situation "knowing" that they would be breaking the law. I will take issue with anyone taking digs at Tony in the next Avengers movie for anything cause he's not the only one who was involved in the mess that was Civil War. 

And Bucky needs to go away, far away.

[KatWay]

I think the movie definitely leans towards Cap being right, because he always is. The government was made up of corrupted, immoral dicks & the end of the movie seemed pretty definite that while Cap maybe shouldn't have been so stubborn he was right to refuse the accords etc. Tony is the one who's on the ground as Steve & Bucky heroically leave, Natasha called him out, etc.

I still think the real life idea of superpowered beings running around doing as they please would not fly, but it's comic world & the government officials in charge are without fail unreasonable if not downright evil so it makes sense to shun them.

I do agree that Clint of all people calling out Tony was dumb, because he wasn't even involved inititally. He chose to come back and chose to fight on the side of those working against the government. And then he acts betrayed that there were consequences for that? Not that the underwater prison was okay, but what did he expect, a slap on the hand & back to his countryside home?

[stealinghome]

Quote

IMHO they needed to remember that Cap3 was a Captain America movie instead of IM4/Avengers3 which is what it felt like to me.

So much word. This movie really should have been Avengers 3, leading to Avengers 4 with the Infinity War.

Quote

IMHO, Steve was right about the Accords. It might have seemed like it only applied to the Avengers as they were the ones asked to sign it but its full title, The Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals, gives the game away. Significantly Steve is the only one shown reading the phonebook of legalese that was sprung on them.  Sprung on them by Ross who has wanted so badly to replicate the super soldier serum and who thinks of Thor and Hulk as weapons. And Tony's sign now and we'll amend it later is pure bullshit.  That's not how contracts work and Tony should damn well know that.

I think part of the problem is that Tony was born with an immense amount of privilege. In the past, Tony probably has been able to throw enough money at any problem and get out of it. He wants out of a contract? Just pay the penalty, or pay off the right person, or threaten to take his brain power elsewhere, and voila, he's out with no repercussions. I really don't think he gets that it doesn't work like that for anyone else in the world--or that it's too dangerous to gamble the fate of the world on the belief (not the knowledge) that you can change the rules whenever you please and everyone will just kowtow to it.

Quote

But then Tony does as he pleases all the time.  When Ross refused to look at the evidence Tony had, Tony broke the Accords he signed and supposedly believed so strongly in to do what he believed was the right thing to do.  And he suffered no consequences for breaking the Accords; he should be in the raft too. But he's not.  That probably has nothing to do with the fact that he's a powerful billionaire, right?

Tony being hypocritical? Well I never. ;)

Honestly, they really should have switched the Tony and Steve roles for this movie. I know it's not how it goes in the comic books, but for the MCU, I would have believed much more strongly in a Steve who wanted to trust the government and a Tony who was skeptical.

[kili]

Quote

Not that the underwater prison was okay, but what did he expect, a slap on the hand & back to his countryside home?

He might have expected access to a lawyer. Why is he even subject to the accords?I thought he was not an enhanced being. He is just a guy who is good with a bow and arrow. Can the government now subject any talented person to the accords? Must they suddenly be subject to the whims of the UN? Go here don't go there? No free will once we determine you are subject to these accords. Mess up and we'll put you in a prison without any due process?

[scriggle]

11 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

Honestly, they really should have switched the Tony and Steve roles for this movie. I know it's not how it goes in the comic books, but for the MCU, I would have believed much more strongly in a Steve who wanted to trust the government and a Tony who was skeptical.

I'm not sure if even that would've worked.

Steve has always questioned orders. His trust in the government has been sorely tested and he's found that the government is not trustworthy. Using him as a performing monkey in Cap1. SHIELD using the tesseract to create weapons in the Avengers. All of Cap2.

And Tony, well he's the one who told the government to fuck-off in IM2.

Basically doing the Civil War story line was a bad idea all around.

[stealinghome]

28 minutes ago, scriggle said:

I'm not sure if even that would've worked.

Steve has always questioned orders. His trust in the government has been sorely tested and he's found that the government is not trustworthy. Using him as a performing monkey in Cap1. SHIELD using the tesseract to create weapons in the Avengers. All of Cap2.

And Tony, well he's the one who told the government to fuck-off in IM2.

Basically doing the Civil War story line was a bad idea all around.

I agree that Civil War was a bad idea from the outset, but in the MCU, I could have believed a Steve who was working with the government (not as its lackey) to try to design and implement the Accords. Someone who wanted to reform SHIELD, and the government more generally. A Steve who believes that the safest hands are their own, and thus they need to institutionalize that they keep both hands on the wheel.

And honestly, doing it the other way would have created more compelling "friends turning on friends" scenarios IMO, because Rhodey and Tony would've been on opposite sides and Tony would have been leading at least some people who really don't like him. And Team Cap could have had major tension between T'Challa and Steve over Bucky had they done the Bucky story slightly differently.

Edited September 25, 2016 by stealinghome

[scriggle]

12 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

but in the MCU, I could have believed a Steve who was working with the government (not as its lackey) to try to design and implement the Accords. Someone who wanted to reform SHIELD, and the government more generally. A Steve who believes that the safest hands are their own, and thus they need to institutionalize that they keep both hands on the wheel.

Yeah, at least something like that would've been interesting.

Edited September 25, 2016 by scriggle
spelling

[Kel Varnsen]

So here is what i am wondering. If Cap doesn't trust the governments of the world to govern super heroes why does he trust them to govern everyone else? Because he hasn't tried to overthrow any government or the UN as far as i know. 

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Honestly, they really should have switched the Tony and Steve roles for this movie. I know it's not how it goes in the comic books, but for the MCU, I would have believed much more strongly in a Steve who wanted to trust the government and a Tony who was skeptical.

That would work if you disregard one person's character evolution while thinking the other was incapable of any.

[stealinghome]

21 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

So here is what i am wondering. If Cap doesn't trust the governments of the world to govern super heroes why does he trust them to govern everyone else? Because he hasn't tried to overthrow any government or the UN as far as i know. 

Probably because a normal person can't destroy a small country?

More seriously, we've never gotten any hint that Steve dislikes the US' legal system, its medical system, its system of electing its officials and President, its social aid programs, its disaster relief programs, its military systems (a few corrupt generals aside), etc etc, we could go on and on about the pieces of the US government and institutionalized systems that Steve seems to have no beef with. The only element of the government we've seen Steve actively show unhappiness with in the modern day is the part of the government that deals with superpowered threats/people/etc (thinking SHIELD/the WSC and the tesseract in Avengers 1, SHIELD/the WSC and the surveillance/targeting airships in CA:TWS, and the UN and "The Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals" in CA:CW). I don't think a proper response to "unhappiness with how the government deals with a very small group of superpowered beings and/or threats" would be to pull a bunch of governments down....

That DOES bring up the thorny question of whether the Avengers should go into countries run by evil dictators and topple the governments there--which I would LOVE to see the movies take on as a philosophical question, but you know they will never touch with a ten foot pole.

Quote

That would work if you disregard one person's character evolution while thinking the other was incapable of any.

Not really. I don't think it "disregards" Steve's increasingly distrustful stance toward the government across the current MCU movies to say that I could envision a Steve that is so distrustful of government by CA:CW that he thinks he and the Avengers should step in and (peacefully, obviously) push for reform, because that's the only way that the government is going to get better, especially when it comes to the Avengers/other superpowered groups. Remember when Steve in Age of Ultron said something like "This is what SHIELD should be"? And when he says "The safest hands are still our own"? Have him follow that impulse so that he wants to make nuSHIELD be what he thinks it should be.

Given that Tony broke the Accords the moment they became inconvenient for him and seems, if the end of the movie is any indication, to be continually disregarding them, I would actually argue that he really hasn't changed his stance much over the course of the MCU as-is where government is concerned.

Edited September 25, 2016 by stealinghome

[Raja]

3 hours ago, kili said:

He might have expected access to a lawyer. Why is he even subject to the accords?I thought he was not an enhanced being. He is just a guy who is good with a bow and arrow. Can the government now subject any talented person to the accords? Must they suddenly be subject to the whims of the UN? Go here don't go there? No free will once we determine you are subject to these accords. Mess up and we'll put you in a prison without any due process?

I have argued since The Avengers that the no look shots he, Hawkeye/Clint Barton, pulled off against the Chitari warriors do suggest he is enhanced or Inhuman even if he didn't know it. 

 

The theoretical ideal of accords say that I should be on Team Iron Man. The execution in practice perhaps the large print from the airport fight to Agents Of SHIELD season premiere says I am on Captain America's team. And now that my Blu-ray arrived it is almost time for a refresher viewing.

[Perfect Xero]

4 hours ago, scriggle said:

Tony was disengaged enough from his business that Stane was able to sell to "bad guys" right under his nose. Also is AoU, I don't remember the details but it's established that Tony knew a black market arms dealer.

Tony made the mistake of trusting that the man who been a close family friend and business partner of his father for most of his life wasn't screwing him over. And he said that he'd met Klaue "at a convention", but hadn't done business with him.

Quote

She saw her family killed and was trapped in the rubble with an unexploded Stark bomb for days. Why is her wanting revenge on Tony different than Tony wanting revenge on Bucky for killing his parents? Both events are years in the past. Both are trying to do better.

Also Wanda initially was fighting for her country.  Hence Steve's line "What kind of monster would let a German scientist experiment on them in order to protect their country?". When Hill says they're not at war Steve points out they (Wanda & Pietro) are. As pointed out above, Wanda (& Pietro) turned on Ultron to fight with the Avengers.

Aside from the amount of time to process the information, it wasn't different. Which is why turning Tony into a would be murderer at the end of the movie was really fucking awful, especially when they then shrugged it off like it wasn't a big deal in the next scene.

Quote

Imagine that. Captain America being the hero of his own movie.

Which is why the Civil War plot shouldn't have been done, especially not as a solo movie. If you have to make one side the "hero" you've betrayed the basic premise of it being an ideological divide where neither side is "wrong". If both sides don't come out of the movie looking either equally good or equally bad, then you've done it wrong. The movie ends with Steve as the hero who did the right thing and Tony as the idiot who admitted that Steve was right, but then got into a completely unrelated fight with him because of Zemo's nonsensical plan that inexplicably worked, but Steve gets to be the bigger man and write him a nice letter, just so we're sure we know that Steve is the hero.

[Dandesun]

On 9/24/2016 at 11:14 AM, Wynterwolf said:

Interesting piece of info from Seb's panel at Wizard World Austin today regarding the line Bucky said to Tony that he 'remembered them all'.  He said he played that more as Bucky realizing that one of the three of them was going to die down there, and that it was his way of telling Tony what he knew he wanted to hear, to get him to go after him (and not Steve), basically giving up, giving himself up to end the conflict.  (Link to tweet of panel)

Aw... but he clearly forgot that Steve 'I Can Do This All Day' Rogers, the giant reckless jerk, was still there, too, and sure as fuck wasn't going to let Bucky down again. Those two idiots... always jumping in front of bullets for each other.

I do love hearing how actors interpret scenes. I always find that fascinating.

[Advance35]

Quote

Aside from the amount of time to process the information, it wasn't different. Which is why turning Tony into a would be murderer at the end of the movie was really fucking awful, especially when they then shrugged it off like it wasn't a big deal in the next scene.

I thought they were different in that Tony's actions were directed at Bucky.   That was a one on one fight when he just found out that Bucky had smashed his father's head in and strangled his mother.   Wanda tried to kill a number of people or just didn't care that a number of people were going to die as a result of her actions.

I'm hoping if we ever see the characters together, Bruce Banner maintains his apathy towards her after everything she cost him.

I had issues with both points of view but I think I would have leaned more towards Tony's side in the end.

[ChelseaNH]

On 9/24/2016 at 2:04 AM, Perfect Xero said:

She fought to save her own life, because Ultron's plan was going to kill everyone on the planet.

She could have let the Avengers handle Ultron.  That's their job, after all.  She didn't have anything decisive to contribute to the battle.  She did have something to contribute to the evacuation, getting all those people to leave in an orderly fashion.  That wasn't about saving her own life.

As for Clint, we know that he was mad at Tony, who instigated the Accords, which led to the fracture in the team, but it's not clear to me that he considered Tony the proximate cause of being in the Raft.

[Dandesun]

I'm going to have to watch it all again (aww) but Clint calling Tony a futurist... that's straight from the comic books. Tony wanted the Registration Act because he calls himself a 'futurist' and it's the only path he sees that's viable. But I don't recall that coming in anywhere in the movies.

As for the whole 'Criminals? Criminals, Tony, is that the word you're looking for?' part... it came off to me in some respects as Clint calling out Tony for honestly not thinking things through regarding the Accords and what that would mean for people who don't sign them. Tony was surprised that they were all there. WHY? Why was he surprised? Because he didn't think Ross would throw his friends in jail? That the Accords didn't actually have anything set in them that detailed what would happen to super people if they acted outside the Accords? The guys who says 'Whatever form that takes, I'm game' is then SURPRISED by people being incarcerated without trial?

And people think Steve's naive? 

[Perfect Xero]

Clint helped a wanted fugitive escape arrest, steal an aircraft, and wreck a major airport in the process. Those would all be valid reasons to arrest him with or without the Accords.

The fact that Clint seems to think that he shouldn't be in jail after doing all of that should be presented as the exact sort of dangerous arrogance that is the reason they need the Accords in the first place.

Civil War would be like if they made a movie that was all about how the police shouldn't be forced to wear body cams because they'll get in the way of the honest cops doing their job.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

I'm hoping if we ever see the characters together, Bruce Banner maintains his apathy towards her after everything she cost him.

 Tony, Natasha, Wanda, Clint, Bruce and Bucky have done bad things. Three of them weren't in control, the other three were. All have tried to make up for it.

Quote

Which is why the Civil War plot shouldn't have been done, especially not as a solo movie. If you have to make one side the "hero" you've betrayed the basic premise of it being an ideological divide where neither side is "wrong". If both sides don't come out of the movie looking either equally good or equally bad, then you've done it wrong. The movie ends with Steve as the hero who did the right thing and Tony as the idiot who admitted that Steve was right, but then got into a completely unrelated fight with him because of Zemo's nonsensical plan that inexplicably worked, but Steve gets to be the bigger man and write him a nice letter, just so we're sure we know that Steve is the hero.

This is one interpretation of the movie. To a lot of people Tony came off very sympathetic.
 

Quote

 

Clint helped a wanted fugitive escape arrest, steal an aircraft, and wreck a major airport in the process. Those would all be valid reasons to arrest him with or without the Accords.

The fact that Clint seems to think that he shouldn't be in jail after doing all of that should be presented as the exact sort of dangerous arrogance that is the reason they need the Accords in the first place.

Civil War would be like if they made a movie that was all about how the police shouldn't be forced to wear body cams because they'll get in the way of the honest cops doing their job.

 

Not really.

Edited September 26, 2016 by VCRTracking