Captain America: Civil War (2016)

[Perfect Xero]

34 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

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

Tony comes off as sympathetic because the movie portrays him as an emotionally damaged man who is on the verge of a breakdown who "snaps" at the end after discovering that his parents were murdered. His position on the Accords is not portrayed as sympathetic, but rather as a poor, emotionally driven choice born out of guilt.

Quote

Not really.

It's a movie where the heroes are a self appointed world police force that refuses to listen or coordinate with any overseeing agency and believes that they should not be placed in jail for breaking laws.

[ChelseaNH]

1 hour ago, Perfect Xero said:

Clint helped a wanted fugitive escape arrest, steal an aircraft, and wreck a major airport in the process.

The aircraft belonged to the Avengers organization, of which Steve was still a part, and Team Iron Man was not exactly refraining from property damage.

9 minutes ago, Perfect Xero said:

self appointed world police force that refuses to listen or coordinate with any overseeing agency

No.  Cap rejected the Accords specifically.  He was skeptical about allowing oversight by the UN but he didn't reject the concept of oversight entirely.

BTW, comic book heroes aside, dealing with jurisdictional issues while fighting global threats is an issue.  Terrorist groups are far more nimble than governments.  That's a discussion for another place, but it's a discussion worth having.

[Perfect Xero]

Steve wasn't a part of the Avengers any longer, because he refused to sign the Accords.

[scriggle]

1 hour ago, Perfect Xero said:

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.

But Clint and the others should not be held indefinitely and without due process.  That seems to be the endgame of the Accords - regulating enhanced individuals. If you're enhanced and you don't do as we say we will put you in prison without any regard to your civil rights. Clint technically isn't enhanced; in fact the only truly enhanced Avengers are Steve, Wanda, and Vision (I'm surprised the worlds' governments consider him to be a "person") along with the absent avengers - Thor, who's an alien and Bruce. The others can give up their tech and be normal people. The enhanced can not stop being enhanced. That's why the loaded word internment was used by Steve. He sees where the Accords could lead because he's seen it happen. Ross likens Thor and Bruce to nuclear weapons which tells me all I need to know about what the Accords are really all about.

Here’s an analogy. Bucky is to Hydra as the Avengers are to the Accords and by extension, to Ross. 

The complete control Hydra had over Bucky, to use as a weapon however they chose whenever they wanted, this is Ross would prefer the Avengers were. Subject to the UN panel/government control). Bucky is the result of complete government control of Supersoldiers.

So Bucky becomes a representation of Steve’s fears in regard to the Accords, the slippery slope where the enhanced are weapons to be wielded by the government.

Ross has that pesky problem of free will to contend with. Hydra neatly removed that problem. But Ross has the Raft where any enhanced can be kept and no doubt experimented on because Ross wants to recreate the serum that creates supersoldiers.

[Perfect Xero]

What evidence is there that they were being held indefinitely? Everyone who is arrested is held until they can set up a hearing and their potential danger to community and/or flight risk if released to await trial can be determined. Bucky and Cap hadn't even managed to get their super fast quinjet to Siberia yet, it's not like they'd be languishing at the raft for weeks, or days, or even hours at that point.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

What evidence is there that they were being held indefinitely? Everyone who is arrested is held until they can set up a hearing and their potential danger to community and/or flight risk if released to await trial can be determined. Bucky and Cap hadn't even managed to get their super fast quinjet to Siberia yet, it's not like they'd be languishing at the raft for weeks, or days, or even hours at that point.

When Everett Ross laughed at the thought  of the Winter Soldier getting a lawyer after War Machine captured them. The only question seemed to be which government's gulag would be utilized 

Edited September 27, 2016 by Raja

[Perfect Xero]

Bucky was arrested as the prime suspect in a terrorist attack that killed at least one head of state, which is an entirely different animal than what the others were arrested for.

[Kel Varnsen]

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎25 at 4:17 PM, stealinghome said:

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....

 

It just seems odd to me that Steve is basically saying he fully trusts the governments of the world to pass important laws that affect billions of people's every lives; laws about things like how people are taxed, or who goes to jail or how military force is used. Those things he is ok with, but if someone tries to pass a law to try and control how a person with super power acts, that can not stand because in that case the governments aren't trustworthy. How can he trust them to handle one thing and not the other? And it is not even the current governments that worry him but some sort of future scenario where the Accords might be used for evil by some government official.

Of course the other weird thing is that being a vigilante, and entering other countries secretly is generally already illegal in most places.

[scriggle]

Bucky was a suspect that the government issued a shoot on sight order for.  He was only arrested because Steve intervened. When Steve asked if Bucky would receive legal representation he was laughed at. A clear violation of his rights as a US citizen and his human rights per the UN.

The government incarcerated Zemo in the containment cell that they put Bucky in. The other Ross makes it clear that Zemo isn't receiving any due process.

Clint et al were imprisoned in the raft, a prison made to hold the likes of Loki. They were still there days/weeks later when Steve broke them out and Tony refused Ross's call. It's a fair conclusion that they're going to be held indefinitely without trial.

[scarynikki12]

One thing that stays with me is Natasha saying "it's the government's property" about Cap and Falcon's equipment when Bucky is arrested. Which government? The United States where the UN meets? Austria where the attack took place? Romania where Bucky was apprehended? Germany where Bucky was being held?  Because the UN isn't a government but an assembly of government representatives. 

I think that established regulations and oversight are a good idea for The Avengers. It's just that things like this make me think that whoever put the Accords together weren't thinking of regulations in the same way most of us were. I'm even inclined to think that Ross (who I assume helped design them until told otherwise) assumed that Cap wouldn't be on board and wanted a way to legally hunt him down, capture him, and use him to recreate the serum. A plot point of Agent Carter season 1 was Peggy hiding the vial of his blood because of the damage it could do in the wrong hands. I bet Ross wet his pants when he found out they captured Bucky and couldn't wait to experiment on him. Putting aside the powers issue, that's the other reason they had to leave out Banner. I can't see him siding with Ross on any issue much less one that can give him access to powered individuals. 

[stealinghome]

Quote

But Clint and the others should not be held indefinitely and without due process.  That seems to be the endgame of the Accords - regulating enhanced individuals. If you're enhanced and you don't do as we say we will put you in prison without any regard to your civil rights. Clint technically isn't enhanced; in fact the only truly enhanced Avengers are Steve, Wanda, and Vision (I'm surprised the worlds' governments consider him to be a "person") along with the absent avengers - Thor, who's an alien and Bruce. The others can give up their tech and be normal people. The enhanced can not stop being enhanced. That's why the loaded word internment was used by Steve. He sees where the Accords could lead because he's seen it happen. Ross likens Thor and Bruce to nuclear weapons which tells me all I need to know about what the Accords are really all about.

I agree, except I would use a stronger term--the endgame as presented in this movie is controlling enhanced individuals, full stop. "Regulation" implies they're free to take some autonomous action with some restrictions. That's not what the Accords offered. It offered complete and total control over enhanced individuals, with no recourse.

[Raja]

41 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

One thing that stays with me is Natasha saying "it's the government's property" about Cap and Falcon's equipment when Bucky is arrested. Which government? The United States where the UN meets? Austria where the attack took place? Romania where Bucky was apprehended? Germany where Bucky was being held?  Because the UN isn't a government but an assembly of government representatives. 

 

Well the US Strategic Scientific Reserve issued Captain Rogers his shield in The First Avenger and the Falcon's original flying gear was the last surviving prototype which he flew in combat in Afghanistan taken from the USAF in The Winter Soldier even if it has had Avenger and presumably Stark upgrades since then . So signatory nation to the Sokovia Accords the United States would be asking for the return of its equipment in this scenario.

[Perfect Xero]

5 hours ago, scriggle said:

Bucky was a suspect that the government issued a shoot on sight order for.  He was only arrested because Steve intervened. When Steve asked if Bucky would receive legal representation he was laughed at. A clear violation of his rights as a US citizen and his human rights per the UN.

The government incarcerated Zemo in the containment cell that they put Bucky in. The other Ross makes it clear that Zemo isn't receiving any due process.

Clint et al were imprisoned in the raft, a prison made to hold the likes of Loki. They were still there days/weeks later when Steve broke them out and Tony refused Ross's call. It's a fair conclusion that they're going to be held indefinitely without trial.

Zemo never says anything about a lawyer or due process or anything like that. Ross tells him when he's getting meals and what happens if he steps out of line. Then Ross tells him his plan didn't work and Zemo laughs and said it did.

Where else would they hold Clint and crew while awaiting trial, the county jail? There's no real evidence one way or the other if they're being held without trial or being held awaiting trial (presumably they'd all be considered too dangerous and/or too much of a flight risk to be released before trial).

[scriggle]

5 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Zemo never says anything about a lawyer or due process or anything like that. Ross tells him when he's getting meals and what happens if he steps out of line. Then Ross tells him his plan didn't work and Zemo laughs and said it did.

Where else would they hold Clint and crew while awaiting trial, the county jail? There's no real evidence one way or the other if they're being held without trial or being held awaiting trial (presumably they'd all be considered too dangerous and/or too much of a flight risk to be released before trial).

We'll have to agree to disagree.

For me, based on the points I cited above, I came to the conclusion that the governments were using the Accords to violate people's rights to due process. In fact, they way Bucky, Zemo, & Team Cap (especially Wanda who was straitjacket, collared, and looked to be drugged), violate the UN's own Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I'd even argue that the Accords themselves violate Article 4; the Accords are a fancy way of holding the Avengers and other enhanced people in servitude.

[ChelseaNH]

15 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

It just seems odd to me that Steve is basically saying he fully trusts the governments of the world to pass important laws that affect billions of people's every lives

I must have missed something -- where/how does he say that?

[JessePinkman]

This was the moment I realized Tony was an absolute douchebag.

There's a LOT in here stretching the run time to 20 minutes. But that's typical of Cinema Sins now.

[VCRTracking]

Why Captain America: Civil War Didn't Have the Comic's Ending

[Dandesun]

25 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Why Captain America: Civil War Didn't Have the Comic's Ending

Because it would have sent me into an emotional tailspin and I would have ugly cried about the fate of Steve Rogers for at least a week.

Oh... the article doesn't say that? 

Doesn't mean it's not true!

[scriggle]

31 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

Because it would have sent me into an emotional tailspin and I would have ugly cried about the fate of Steve Rogers for at least a week.

Oh... the article doesn't say that? 

Doesn't mean it's not true!

And because they didn't want to make Tony Stark an outright villain which killing Steve as in the comics would've done.

[kili]

Quote

It just seems odd to me that Steve is basically saying he fully trusts the governments of the world to pass important laws that affect billions of people's every lives; laws about things like how people are taxed, or who goes to jail or how military force is used. Those things he is ok with, but if someone tries to pass a law to try and control how a person with super power acts, that can not stand because in that case the governments aren't trustworthy. How can he trust them to handle one thing and not the other?

Isn't that in line with the US Constitution and the generally accepted basic rights? The American people allow the US government to decide how to tax people and how military force is used., but the government does not have carte blanche to control a person or tell them how to act. The US government doesn't actually get to decide who goes to jail, the court system does and that is often during a jury trial.  The government normally doesn't just get to throw people in jail willy-nilly unless we are talking about North Korea. There is a long list of checks-and-balances exactly because people don't trust governments to be all-powerful (for instance the first amendment (free speech), 4th amendment (restricts unreasonable searches and seizures), the fifth amendment (due process, no requirement to self-incriminate) and 7th amendment (trial by jury)....the list goes on).

A person with super powers was still subject to the laws of the land. The accords were putting special laws on those with super powers. It was requiring them to do the bidding of the accord policy people regardless of what they wanted to do. It takes away their free will and the right to due process. And if you don't think those all-powerful laws won't creep....they already did. Cap may be an enhanced being, but Hawkeye is just talented. Tony is also talented, but its his gadgets which make him subject to the accords. Sam and Rhodey are subject to the accords because they have gadgets.  Ordinary guys with access to gadgets lose their free will and their right to due process. That's getting closer and closer to making everybody subject to the accords.

The accords are a super version (metaphor) of various patriot acts. Suspending basic rights is something that should not be done easily, for long lengths of time or without oversight. History is littered with cases of where such things went down very, very bad paths.

Edited September 27, 2016 by kili

[Perfect Xero]

2 hours ago, scriggle said:

And because they didn't want to make Tony Stark an outright villain which killing Steve as in the comics would've done.

Steve didn't die in Civil War in the comics though, he's arrested at the end when he's about to kill Stark and a bunch of random people grab him and pull him off of Tony before he can land the killing blow, at which point Steve realizes that he's taken things too far and surrenders.

He's then assassinated on his way to a trial or a hearing of some sort weeks later in the Captain America book, which was a plan carried out by Red Skull and his operatives.

Ironically it's Bru's Death of Captain America that probably has the most sympathetic and true to his previously established character portrayal of Tony out of, basically, every Marvel book that followed Civil War.

2 hours ago, kili said:

Isn't that in line with the US Constitution and the generally accepted basic rights? The American people allow the US government to decide how to tax people and how military force is used., but the government does not have carte blanche to control a person or tell them how to act. The US government doesn't actually get to decide who goes to jail, the court system does and that is often during a jury trial.  The government normally doesn't just get to throw people in jail willy-nilly unless we are talking about North Korea. There is a long list of checks-and-balances exactly because people don't trust governments to be all-powerful (for instance the first amendment (free speech), 4th amendment (restricts unreasonable searches and seizures), the fifth amendment (due process, no requirement to self-incriminate) and 7th amendment (trial by jury)....the list goes on).

A person with super powers was still subject to the laws of the land. The accords were putting special laws on those with super powers. It was requiring them to do the bidding of the accord policy people regardless of what they wanted to do. It takes away their free will and the right to due process. And if you don't think those all-powerful laws won't creep....they already did. Cap may be an enhanced being, but Hawkeye is just talented. Tony is also talented, but its his gadgets which make him subject to the accords. Sam and Rhodey are subject to the accords because they have gadgets.  Ordinary guys with access to gadgets lose their free will and their right to due process. That's getting closer and closer to making everybody subject to the accords.

The accords are a super version (metaphor) of various patriot acts. Suspending basic rights is something that should not be done easily, for long lengths of time or without oversight. History is littered with cases of where such things went down very, very bad paths.

They're subject to the Accords because they've decided to act as vigilantes and engage in police/military type actions using dangerous powers and weapons without the consent of the local governments/police. These aren't basic rights.

The Accords can also be framed as the gun control debate with the Accords representing stricter forms of gun control.

[stealinghome]

Quote

The Accords can also be framed as the gun control debate with the Accords representing stricter forms of gun control.

Which I would argue would represent either violations of the Second Amendment and/or stances that would be deemed unacceptable in modern American society. Without trying to get too political, depending on how you want to translate the Accords into gun control, the Accords either translate to "no citizens get to have guns, ONLY the government does and ONLY the government gets to decide how to use them" OR something more like "citizens can have guns, but ONLY the government gets to decide when and how citizens use them in every.single.instance of their use, and if a citizen does something that the government doesn't like--like shoot a wild dog in the backyard, even if it's rabid and menacing a child, or shoot a gun way out in the forest and it hits the wrong tree (or maybe even the government orders you to shoot someone and you refuse because you feel it isn't right)--well, too bad, no recourse, arrest time." The first would be deemed unconstitutional and the second, in practical terms, would never fly. (at least where I live!)

Quote

 

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? 

 

This x100000000. I mean...really, what was Tony expecting? Other than a) for all his friends to get in line because he's The Great Tony Stark and Always Knows Better or b) for his friends to break the law, but the government to then look the other way, and never enforce the law it just pushed through, because the people who broke it happen to be Tony's friends and good people? (Rich white male privilege, we have a winner!!!) I think that was exactly Clint's point. I don't think he was angry at Tony because Clint himself broke the law; Clint knew what he was doing when he went to help Wanda. I think Clint was angry that Tony's short-sighted actions put him in the position of having to choose whether to break the law in the first place. Those are two different things. (I do think there was also an element of Clint being angry at Tony for splitting the group up, too.)

Edited September 28, 2016 by stealinghome

[scriggle]

It all goes back to Tony's hubris.

Looking back at the scene where Ross presents the Accords to the Avengers. Steve turns to Tony who has distanced himself from the group sitting in the corner; the look on Steve's face is one of betrayal. I could almost see the thought bubble "you knew about this and didn't tell us." Because Tony had decided the Accords were the right thing to do and everyone was going to sign on his say so.  Tony can't see beyond his wealthy white male privilege.

And later the scene with FDR's pens, he's basically trying to blackmail/coerce Steve into signing:

Quote

 

Tony Stark: Sometimes I wanna punch you in your perfect teeth. But I don't wanna see you gone. We need you, Cap. So far nothing's happen that can't be undone. Please, sign. We can make the last 24 hours legit. Barnes gets transferred to an American psych center instead of a Wakandan prison.

Steve Rogers: I'm not saying it's impossible. But there would have to be safeguards.

Tony Stark: Sure! Once we put out the PR - they're documents. They can be amended. I file a motion, have you and Wanda reinstated...

 

He's making promises he has no right to make; promises he has no authority to keep. What incentive is there for the UN/government to amend the Accords once they have what they want - all the Avengers signed on and under their control? None.

Tony is talking a good game but to him those accords are just paper. He has no problem breaking them when he wanted to do something Ross wouldn't allow him to do.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/22/2016 at 7:19 PM, 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"?

When I first read this post, I seriously thought you were talking about Bucky, not Wanda. Because it was Bucky he beat Tony half to death to protect, when he already knew how Stark's parents died. At least in Age of Ultron Wanda had the excuse of believing that Ultron was, if not a force for good, then at least was going to help her get revenge for her and Pietro. Hell, she's the one who decided 'to hell with this!' once she realized what was really afoot. I suppose she's very morally gray, but Tony saying "I don't care, he killed my mom" just about broke me too.

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, scriggle said:

It all goes back to Tony's hubris.

 Because Tony had decided the Accords were the right thing to do and everyone was going to sign on his say so.  Tony can't see beyond his wealthy white male privilege.

The same could be said about Steve and hubris. Steve was very arrogant, dogmatic and downright uncompromising in his ideas in this movie concerning the Accords. He thought that everyone was wrong especially Tony for signing. Maybe we didn't get enough focus on Steve's POV concerning everything except Bucky, but he was just as stubborn and unappealing as Tony in his decision. 

I love Steve Rogers but he is not someone I would ever sit down with and try to compromise with or take to something like the U.N meeting. Tony is not political but he's able to think in different directions something Steve has never been shown to do. Steve has ideas and morals and he's uncompromising in it never wavering and that's fine but Tony can see things differently so I can see Tony getting to the point where he's like maybe the Accords wasn't such a good idea. Steve I don't think will ever be able to think that government oversight is good no matter how good the Accords sound of are implemented he's just that uncompromising. 

And what do you mean by "Tony can't see beyond his wealthy white male privilege"? 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Jazzy24

[stealinghome]

Quote

Steve I don't think will ever be able to think that government oversight is good no matter how good the Accords sound of are implemented he's just that uncompromising. 

Steve was a hairsbreadth away from signing the Accords in this movie, though, once Tony said that they could become a negotiation instead of a top-down "this is the way it is or else" authoritarian document. Had Tony not slipped up and mentioned Wanda's house arrest, Steve in all likelihood would have signed.

[paramitch]

I loved this movie and thought it was absolutely terrific, thoughtful, and poignant. I also thought it was RDJ's best and most complex work in the series since the original "Iron Man." Sometimes I've felt like Robert was phoning it in on Tony the past few years -- not that he was bad, just sort of -- shallow. Let's face it, it's a part that fits him like a glove, and that he could probably play competently in his actual sleep.

But here I thought he was just superb. Tony is visibly more haunted and more emotional here than I think we've ever seen him since the original "Iron Man." And I just thought there was a real depth to his performance here, even in the smallest moments. Tony's astonishment and fear when Bucky pulls the trigger in that fight scene for instance, is just amazing (and Tony going into the fray against Bucky with just the suit-glove was one of the bravest things we've ever seen him do). Or his face when he's pleading with Cap to sign the papers and there's so much desperation and sadness there. Or when he says, at the end, "He killed my Mom." Again, I just thought it was some of the best and most nuanced work RDJ has ever done, and it was so great to see him give Tony so much emotion and complexity this time around.

I also thought everyone else matched him, for the most part, especially Evans, Stan, and Johansson. I wasn't all that impressed with Emily Van Camp as Sharon (and I wanted to be -- I liked her on "Revenge" for the year or so that I watched it), but I don't think she's bad. I just don't think she comes across as very interesting or charismatic. Her character is unfortunately given very little actual richness or individuality at all (much less here than in "Winter Soldier"). But I adored Bettany as Vision (the cooking! the sweaters!), and continue to think Olsen is so good as Wanda, too.

I admit that I was slightly dreading "Civil War" -- I love these characters and was afraid their motivations would simply be house-of-cards backdrops for senseless action setpieces. I was shocked and delighted to instead find that the film includes some absolutely terrific exploration of the idea of the superhero in the real world (and, most notably, in a post-9-11 world). While too many films slide right past the actual collateral damage caused by those big superhero battles (most notably, as in Zack Snyder's bloated Superman films), this film really attempted to show that there is no such thing as an acceptable loss, and that every loss of life -- even in service to moments when they're truly trying to save the world -- should affect these people deeply.

So I was so heartened and pleased that the movie didn't cheat the central conflicts. I was dubious before seeing the film that it would be able to really set up Cap vs. Tony in ways I could believe, but I quickly realized that the film was extremely true to Cap and Tony in terms of how they approach the world. Cap may be a straight arrow, but he has also always been a maverick. While Tony seems like a maverick, but he's a businessman at heart. He likes structure; he's a nest-builder anywhere he goes.

Going back to "Captain America: The First Avenger," Cap has always been a renegade (albeit a shining, super-moral one). He's always been completely willing to go his own way when he feels it's the moral choice -- for instance, his cheerful repeated use of deception to try to get into the army when declared 4-F. Or his renegade mission -- directly against orders -- to go rescue Bucky and his men, even if it led to his own death or dishonorable discharge. 

For me, these actions are a crucial part of Cap as a character, and utterly compatible with his continued decisions in Winter Soldier -- once again, Cap is completely willing to go it alone (and against his own government) if it's the right thing to do. He espouses this stance -- very much against Tony's more world-weary pragmatism -- yet again in the Avengers films.

Meanwhile, Tony has always been more cynical and pragmatic than Cap, and they have always clashed on the when and how to toe the line. Even when Tony was thumbing his nose at weapons sales and being the bad boy of the corporate world, he was still very much a part of that world and its structure. So one thing I especially liked about the events and characterizations of Captain America: Civil War is the fact that Tony is so visibly, deeply traumatized, guilt-stricken, and unsure of himself. His PTSD is palpable. For the first time, his wisecracks seem forced (in the best way), and to me, there is a real weight, a gravitas to Tony (constantly in a series of suits, looking tired and rumpled) here.  He almost comes across as the fatherly elder statesman in his scenes with Cap. Which is ironic, given that Cap is decades older and was actually his father's contemporary (and the person to whom Tony could never measure up)! Combine this with Tony's loneliness and yearning for connection despite his differences with Cap, and his visible pain that they disagree so deeply (as well as with his continued attempts to process the deaths of his parents) and the table was just really set for a rich and surprisingly moving character conflict.

And then there's Bucky. Cap is a "no man left behind" person, while Tony is someone who might very well pause to consider the potential damage, wince, and go forward accepting the loss.

And that's what I loved here because it's the heart of the struggle between the two guys. And of course it's Bucky, who (whether it's a bromance or a romance or some combination of the two, depending on your POV) is absolutely the one person Cap completely loves. And I think Cap's connection is all the more powerful because now that Peggy is gone, Bucky is Cap's one remaining tie to the world he understood and the life he had.

One item to note -- while I know the plot has been criticized, because many see Zemo's plan as requiring each plot domino to fall exactly to lead us precisely event-by-event to the end fight between Tony and Cap, I don't see it that way. Zemo's goal was to wreak havoc and to undermine the Avengers family in vengeance for his own losses (an irony I really like from a writing standpoint -- that Zemo is an avenger, if not an Avenger). Which means that any number of outcomes would have been a win for him. His job here was simply to sow discord and hate, to divide and conquer. The fact that the events in the movie ended the way they did was just one of many possible outcomes. Perhaps in others, for instance, Tony or Cap was killed in the airport standoff, or in one of the earlier Bucky battles, etc. -- any number of alternative events that destroyed the group as a result of his actions would have, I think, made Zemo perfectly happy.

Anyway, I loved it. And I very much agree with the posters who were impressed by this -- most of all, by the fact, that in that final battle, my heart was breaking because I loved them both, and I could also see that both men were right. The movie dared to be about a battle of ideologies, about ideas and ideals, and to me that's kind of amazing to discover in a superhero film.

Ultimately, for me, with the addition of Civil War, I would definitely say that the Cap trilogy is the best and most complex storyline in the entire Avengers series thus far, and is ultimately more satisfying for me than the actual Avengers films (although I like them too).

[kili]

Quote

The same could be said about Steve and hubris. Steve was very arrogant, dogmatic and downright uncompromising in his ideas in this movie concerning the Accords. He thought that everyone was wrong especially Tony for signing.

Except, Steve is right about the Accords.

Even Tony agrees because it takes him about 24 hours to start ignoring the accords and doing whatever he likes.  He learns that the Winter Soldier is not guilty of the crime and that there is a new potential threat. The Accord Policy makers don't care, still want to throw Bucky in jail without due process, are jailing non-enhanced beings without due process and can't be bothered to stop an imminent danger - all problems that Cap points out - and Tony decides to ignore the Accords and do what he thinks is right. Nat also goes against the Accords. The man whose father proposed the Accords, also goes against the Accords (and never even bothers to register himself). 

If the movie makers wanted us to seriously consider the Accords worthy, they might have had one of the main protagonists follow them, not had power-hungry bureaucrats implement them, not issued a kill-don't-arrest warrant as their first act and not laughed in Cap's face when he asked for a lawyer for Bucky.  

[Perfect Xero]

2 hours ago, scriggle said:

It all goes back to Tony's hubris.

Looking back at the scene where Ross presents the Accords to the Avengers. Steve turns to Tony who has distanced himself from the group sitting in the corner; the look on Steve's face is one of betrayal. I could almost see the thought bubble "you knew about this and didn't tell us." Because Tony had decided the Accords were the right thing to do and everyone was going to sign on his say so.  Tony can't see beyond his wealthy white male privilege.

And later the scene with FDR's pens, he's basically trying to blackmail/coerce Steve into signing:

He's making promises he has no right to make; promises he has no authority to keep. What incentive is there for the UN/government to amend the Accords once they have what they want - all the Avengers signed on and under their control? None.

Tony is talking a good game but to him those accords are just paper. He has no problem breaking them when he wanted to do something Ross wouldn't allow him to do.

We don't know what promises Tony has the right to make, what promises have been made to him, or what authority to negotiate with the other Avengers that he's been granted. We're shown him telling Steve something with no indication that he's lying so it's entirely possible that he does have the authority to make the offers that he's making.

At the end of the day the Accords are indeed just a piece of paper, which is the incentive they have to amend them, they can't control the Avengers if they aren't willing to be controlled.

On a related note, the irony of the end of the movie is that Steve is now in hiding in the nation that led the push for the Accords in the first place. He has no way of knowing what T'Challa may or may not try to get them to do in exchange.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

But isn't Steve just as filled with hubris as Tony?

Let's put aside Wanda and Bucky for a minute, although I'll get back to him before this post is over. Cap didn't just decide that Tony was wrong, he also decided that Natasha was wrong, and considering how close they'd been in Winter Soldier, that's not nothing. But sure - she's wrong, Tony's wrong, Vision's wrong, everyone's wrong except for him and anybody who follows his lead. It was his decision to pull Clint and Scott into the fight, which is what led to their incarceration, so while Tony may have been wrong to push so hard to get Steve to sign on, IMO Steve was just as wrong to start dragging other people  into the brawl like it was a damn cage match or something.

Bringing it back to Bucky, who I haven't really liked since he started showing up, it was never made entirely clear how long Steve knew about how Tony's parents were murdered died. It could have been only a little while, or it could have been since Stark was a kid since that's when it happened. We don't know because we weren't told, but Steve makes the unilateral decision that Bucky won't be punished at all, to the point that he's willing to half-kill Tony in order to protect him. So apparently when it comes right down to it, a lawyer wouldn't have been sufficient to make Steve happy, he'd rather knock the cold shit out of Tony to keep Bucky (ugh,, that name) out of trouble.

[kili]

Quote

It was his decision to pull Clint and Scott into the fight, which is what led to their incarceration,

Clint and Scott are fully functioning adults with free will. It is their decision to follow Caps request (and it was Sam who invited Scott to join). They don't appear to blame Cap for their incarceration because it was their choice. Cap used neither regulations nor extortion to get them to join. 

Quote

so while Tony may have been wrong to push so hard to get Steve to sign on,

IMO, Tony is not wrong trying to convince his friend to do what he thinks is right. He's just wrong about the Accords which are deeply flawed (which is why Tony himself eventually defies the Accords himself). 

Quote

it was never made entirely clear how long Steve knew about how Tony's parents were murdered died. It could have been only a little while, or it could have been since Stark was a kid since that's when it happened.

It is made clear. Steve found out that Tony's parents were murdered during the Winter Soldier during the Zola mind-dump. Steve couldn't have possibly have known this fact since Tony was a kid since Steve was frozen in ice until recently. Howard was alive when Steve was frozen.

Quote

Steve makes the unilateral decision that Bucky won't be punished at all, to the point that he's willing to half-kill Tony in order to protect him.

Steve makes the unilateral decision to not let Bucky be killed. If Tony would have stopped trying to kill Bucky, then Steve would have stopped too. Steve stops the fight by managing to disable the suit. 

Bucky does not deserve to be punished. He was brainwashed and had no free will when he killed the Starks. He was turned into a tool by Hydra. Once Tony was in his right mind, he would have realized that as well and felt bad if he had managed to kill Bucky.

If the Hulk had killed somebody when mind-raped by the Scarlet Witch, would the Banner be guilty or the Scarlet Witch? Banner will feel guilty, but should he be the one jailed for the crime? Should he be killed?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

5 hours ago, kili said:

Bucky does not deserve to be punished. He was brainwashed and had no free will when he killed the Starks. He was turned into a tool by Hydra. Once Tony was in his right mind, he would have realized that as well and felt bad if he had managed to kill Bucky.

If the Hulk had killed somebody when mind-raped by the Scarlet Witch, would the Banner be guilty or the Scarlet Witch? Banner will feel guilty, but should he be the one jailed for the crime? Should he be killed?

Except that Bucky thinks he should be punished to some extent. Why else resign himself back to existing under the ice until the programming Hydra put in place is no longer an issue? He tells Steve (I think) that all Zemo had to do was "say the words" and he wasn't Bucky anymore, he was the Winter Soldier. Like Bruce, who told Natasha in Age of Ultron "There's nowhere I can go where I'm not a monster", Bucky was a threat and he knew it. A controllable threat, maybe, the way Bruce and Wanda are controllable threats, but Banner (and Thor for that matter, since Tony references both of them to Nat by asking if she really thought they'd be willing to sign the Accords) were conspicuous in their absence for this movie, and I would think that being on the side of the angels with Steve gives Wanda the same kind of immunity it gives Bucky. As long as she's using her powers for good rather than evil and not sticking her fingers into someone like Bruce's brain to make them go berserk, she counts as one of the White Hats, IMO. Unless you're of the mindset that she should be killed for mind-fucking Bruce while she was operating under the delusion that Ultron was helping her in her quest for revenge, your example is kind of moot.  Particularly since Ultron only existed at all because Tony decided, as Steve put it, to win a war before it had even started.

At the very least, Steve didn't betray his friendship with Tony for Banner or for Scarlet Witch, and Cap even acknowledges that in the letter he sent Stark. He didn't want Bucky to be killed? Fine, but Tony's only advantage in a fight with Steve is his suit, and I find it difficult to blame him for not wanting to take a breath and calm down. Also, I think on some level Steve knew Bucky was right about the danger he posed, and really the fact is that all of the Avengers are threats in the wrong circumstances. My annoyance lies with what I see as unreasoning leniency when it comes to Barnes, because he seems to be the only character where everyone is like, "You can't blame him for what he did, he was brainwashed!" while holding up Bruce or Wanda (and sometimes both) as counterpoints.

[kili]

Quote

Except that Bucky thinks he should be punished to some extent.

People feel guilty about a lot of things they should not. People who survive plane crashes where other people die often feel guilty. Doesn't mean they did anything wrong sitting in their assigned seat 33A. It's human nature to think one should have or could have done more. Bucky fell from a train during a fight. While badly injured, he was captured, experimented on, tortured, brainwashed, turned into a mindless drone who followed orders and kept on ice. Where exactly did he do something wrong? For not being strong enough to survive the fight on the train? Not dying in the fall? Not escaping capture while injured? Not having the mental strength to withstand the torturous brain washing?

Quote

Why else resign himself back to existing under the ice until the programming Hydra put in place is no longer an issue? He tells Steve (I think) that all Zemo had to do was "say the words" and he wasn't Bucky anymore, he was the Winter Soldier.

Because he now knows he is not able to control himself so he wants to be neutralized until he can no longer be a threat (somebody figures out how to deprogram him). He is making the responsible choice now that he has the ability to make his own choices. He knows that if somebody else finds his brainwashing codes, he could harm somebody.  

Quote

Unless you're of the mindset that she should be killed for mind-fucking Bruce while she was operating under the delusion that Ultron was helping her in her quest for revenge, your example is kind of moot.

I actually don't believe in capital punishment, so I don't think she deserves to be killed as a punishment.

But I do think it is she who would be responsible for the deaths that Hulk might have caused while under her mind influence rather than Banner. I don't think people who have no control over their brains are responsible for what their bodies do while they are meat puppets. That's the point I was trying to make.

Wanda gets to be a white hat now because a big part of the super hero genre conventions is that of reconciliation. If you repent your ways and become a hero instead of a villain, you don't get punished. Otherwise, villains who turn good end up in prison for the next 1000 years and the writers don't get to play around with them being heroes. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by kili

[ChelseaNH]

12 hours ago, paramitch said:

many see Zemo's plan as requiring each plot domino to fall exactly to lead us precisely event-by-event to the end fight between Tony and Cap, I don't see it that way.

Me, too.  It wasn't so much a monolithic plan as a set of contingencies and hopes.

10 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

so it's entirely possible that he does have the authority to make the offers that he's making.

With Ross in the mix, I wouldn't say it was entirely possible.

11 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

At the end of the day the Accords are indeed just a piece of paper,

The Accords, like any treaty, are a negotiated agreement between a whole lot of nations.  Making changes after the fact is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.

[scriggle]

Quote

The same could be said about Steve and hubris. Steve was very arrogant, dogmatic and downright uncompromising in his ideas in this movie concerning the Accords. He thought that everyone was wrong especially Tony for signing. Maybe we didn't get enough focus on Steve's POV concerning everything except Bucky, but he was just as stubborn and unappealing as Tony in his decision.

No we didn't get enough focus on Steve's reasoning; we got focus on Tony's manpain. (I'm still bitter that there was so much focus on Tony In the last Cap movie.) It's important to note the first person to oppose the Accords is Sam, not Steve. There's just that one brief scene where Steve is shown reading the Accords prior to learning about Peggy but Steve never really tried to persuade others not to sign while Tony et al were really pushing for him to sign.

Quote

And what do you mean by "Tony can't see beyond his wealthy white male privilege"? 

Tony's wealth and power protect him from suffering consequences from his actions. 

Quote

We're shown him telling Steve something with no indication that he's lying so it's entirely possible that he does have the authority to make the offers that he's making.

Look at what he's promising. Psychiatric care instead of a Wakandan prison for Bucky. T'Challa's on board with that? The guy who wants to kill/tries to kill the man thinks killed his father. Tony is still a private citizen unless he's been acting as an agent of the government all along without telling the others (which makes him an utter bastard) then I still maintain he's has no authority to make promises.  In fact he says "I'll make a motion."  What if the motion is denied? There's no guarantee his motion will pass and based on what is known about Ross and the general corruption of the governments of the MCU, it's more likely it would be rejected. Yet Tony makes it sound like he can wave his magic wand and make it happen (because that's always worked for him before - imho Tony's been badly played by Ross and he doesn't realize it.)

The fact still remains that you don't sign something and then negotiate.  Negotiations are supposed to come first. Steve would lose what little leverage he has by signing before gaining concessions. It's evident to me that Ross et al really really want Steve in particular under their control. Once Steve signs they have what they want.  If he doesn't comply, he's sent to the raft. Which I suspect wouldn't bother Ross at all as Steve would still be under his control and he can take another go a recreating the serum.

Quote

It was his decision to pull Clint and Scott into the fight,

Clint, Scott, and even Wanda got involved because Steve asked.  But it was not about the Accords.  He asked for help in stopping Zemo from unleashing the other supersoldiers in Siberia.

Quote

Tony's only advantage in a fight with Steve is his suit, and I find it difficult to blame him for not wanting to take a breath and calm down.

His weaponized suit. A suit that withstood a both a blow from Thor's hammer and his lightning.  People seem to forget that Steve may be a supersoldier but he's still flesh and blood. Steve was fighting with his hands and shield, no weapons.

I do blame him for not taking a breath to calm down.  Watch that scene again. Tony acknowledges Bucky had been brainwashed. They watch the tape and yes, it's horrible. But Tony isn’t out of control until he asks Steve if he knew, and when Steve says yes, that’s when Tony attacks. So it seems like he's more pissed at Steve for not telling him and that he wants to punish Steve by killing Bucky (listen to the commentary about that scene.) Both Steve and Bucky fight defensively, trying to neutralize the suit. It's not until Steve is in real danger when Tony has him down and is throwing punches which shatter concrete that Bucky takes the offensive and tries to disable the arc reactor. Tony blows his arm off. Bucky is completely vulnerable at that point and Tony blasts him in the back. It's then that Steve goes on the offensive. Tony is able to get the better of Steve because of the suit. He tells Steve to stay down and is preparing to blast him, a blast that would've blown him out the opening and off the cliff, surely killing him.

So no, Tony does not get a pass from me for that last fight. That's no longer emotional heat of the moment. That's cold-blooded murder.

Edited September 28, 2016 by scriggle
typos

[Dandesun]

Clint and Scott are grown ups. Clint was a fucking SHIELD agent who has made his own interesting calls in his career (bring Natasha in against orders is the major one we know about) and probably has no illusions about red tape and the bullshit calls the upper management can make.

Tony brought in an underage kid, took him to a different country and... seriously, does anyone think for a second that Tony registered Peter with the Accords? Did Peter's legal guardian even know he was in a completely different country with a guy he just met? Tony's shit with Peter was all kinds of illegal that has nothing to do with superpowers at all.

The Accords are wildly imperfect and Steve never said anywhere that the Avengers had carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted whenever they wanted and neener neener to anyone who says otherwise. Everything about the Accords and how they were presented reeks of set up. What's more, as much as Steve is a 'no man left behind' kind of guy... he's a soldier. He fights in wars. He grew up in Depression era Brooklyn (which means he's very likely a radical because... just look at the time and place, people) in one of the poorest, roughest parts of Brooklyn at that. He was born broken (look at his list of ailments... it's wonder he ever left the house) and was kicked around his whole life. The happiest Steve ever looked was after he save Bucky in Italy and was hanging out with him and the soon to be Commandos. After that? War. Losing Bucky. More War. Putting the Valkyrie down in the ice. Alien invasions. HYDRA. More HYDRA. Collateral damage is a part of his goddamn life from jump. When people are determined to destroy, not even those who are trying to protect will succeed in eliminating collateral damage. War is hell. Steve knows that.

I continue to think it's interesting that, ultimately, this is a tale about two guys who are just wildly different in every single capacity. Steve and Tony come from different times, different worlds, different backgrounds, different circumstances and they are just fundamentally different.

I also think it's interesting how some think that the movie stacked the deck in favor of Steve when, holy crap, the comics were RIDICULOUSLY stacked in favor of Tony and his 'futurism.' I still laugh at how badly Marvel missed that mark in the comics. You want to stack the deck? Throw a bunch of 9/11 first responders at Steve to make him stop fighting Tony. It was fucking ridiculous.

Tony's a mess. Has been for awhile now. For as brilliant as he is, he's not coping with anything that his going on since his first movie. He was trying to do the right thing with the Accords but his own PTSD, the guilt ambush he got about Sokovia, losing Pepper... the guy was not in the right mindset to make decisions this major about ANYTHING. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced Tony was in the right mindset to choose between waffles or pancakes for breakfast at some parts of the film. And at the end? Yeah... he went for straight up murder for WAY too long.

Dude needs therapy and a nap.

Steve needs therapy, too. That dude's clearly got PTSD and is borderline suicidal. Maybe a little less suicidal now that he's got Bucky back but, seriously, Steve seems to have something of a deathwish. "If I can save these people... and then die... that's probably my best outcome." (Bucky, get your ass out of cryo and fuck your boy because he needs an orgasm like woah. Something that feels GOOD, dammit. Then just hug each other for about a year.)

[Jazzy24]

44 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

Clint and Scott are grown ups. Clint was a fucking SHIELD agent who has made his own interesting calls in his career (bring Natasha in against orders is the major one we know about) and probably has no illusions about red tape and the bullshit calls the upper management can make.

Tony brought in an underage kid, took him to a different country and... seriously, does anyone think for a second that Tony registered Peter with the Accords? Did Peter's legal guardian even know he was in a completely different country with a guy he just met? Tony's shit with Peter was all kinds of illegal that has nothing to do with superpowers at all.

The Accords are wildly imperfect and Steve never said anywhere that the Avengers had carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted whenever they wanted and neener neener to anyone who says otherwise. Everything about the Accords and how they were presented reeks of set up. What's more, as much as Steve is a 'no man left behind' kind of guy... he's a soldier. He fights in wars. He grew up in Depression era Brooklyn (which means he's very likely a radical because... just look at the time and place, people) in one of the poorest, roughest parts of Brooklyn at that. He was born broken (look at his list of ailments... it's wonder he ever left the house) and was kicked around his whole life. The happiest Steve ever looked was after he save Bucky in Italy and was hanging out with him and the soon to be Commandos. After that? War. Losing Bucky. More War. Putting the Valkyrie down in the ice. Alien invasions. HYDRA. More HYDRA. Collateral damage is a part of his goddamn life from jump. When people are determined to destroy, not even those who are trying to protect will succeed in eliminating collateral damage. War is hell. Steve knows that.

I continue to think it's interesting that, ultimately, this is a tale about two guys who are just wildly different in every single capacity. Steve and Tony come from different times, different worlds, different backgrounds, different circumstances and they are just fundamentally different.

I also think it's interesting how some think that the movie stacked the deck in favor of Steve when, holy crap, the comics were RIDICULOUSLY stacked in favor of Tony and his 'futurism.' I still laugh at how badly Marvel missed that mark in the comics. You want to stack the deck? Throw a bunch of 9/11 first responders at Steve to make him stop fighting Tony. It was fucking ridiculous.

Tony's a mess. Has been for awhile now. For as brilliant as he is, he's not coping with anything that his going on since his first movie. He was trying to do the right thing with the Accords but his own PTSD, the guilt ambush he got about Sokovia, losing Pepper... the guy was not in the right mindset to make decisions this major about ANYTHING. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced Tony was in the right mindset to choose between waffles or pancakes for breakfast at some parts of the film. And at the end? Yeah... he went for straight up murder for WAY too long.

Dude needs therapy and a nap.

Steve needs therapy, too. That dude's clearly got PTSD and is borderline suicidal. Maybe a little less suicidal now that he's got Bucky back but, seriously, Steve seems to have something of a deathwish. "If I can save these people... and then die... that's probably my best outcome." (Bucky, get your ass out of cryo and fuck your boy because he needs an orgasm like woah. Something that feels GOOD, dammit. Then just hug each other for about a year.)

Well Clint and Scott need to remember that they are grown men who made the decision to throw down with Steve and therefore should shut up blaming Tony, their comments to Tony in the raft was unfair. 

And I still don't care that Tony tried to kill Bucky like at all. 

[ChelseaNH]

2 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

therefore should shut up blaming Tony

For anything whatsoever, including his part in the schism?

[stealinghome]

11 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Except that Bucky thinks he should be punished to some extent. Why else resign himself back to existing under the ice until the programming Hydra put in place is no longer an issue? He tells Steve (I think) that all Zemo had to do was "say the words" and he wasn't Bucky anymore, he was the Winter Soldier. Like Bruce, who told Natasha in Age of Ultron "There's nowhere I can go where I'm not a monster", Bucky was a threat and he knew it. 

I don't think Bucky was saying that he thinks he deserves punishment in that scene. Saying "I am a threat until you guys can get the conditioning out of my brain" is nowhere close to "I am guilty, I deserve all the punishment."

Now, do I think Bucky thinks he deserves punishment? Yes, and it's the exact same scenario as Natasha, who thinks she deserves punishment for being a child who was horribly abused and twisted and violated by her government. Neither of them are responsible for what they did while brainwashed, but they feel guilty because good people feel guilty for stuff that they know intellectually isn't their fault on a fairly regular basis, and for reasons that are almost always more trivial than the deeds Nat and Bucky were forced to perform.

Quote

Making changes after the fact is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.

Not to mention that the UN would literally have no incentive to change once all the superheroes had signed. Why would they want to, when it gives them literally all the power in the relationship?

Edited September 28, 2016 by stealinghome

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, ChelseaNH said:

For anything whatsoever, including his part in the schism?

Yeah. Tony didn't pit the team against each other that was Steve. Even with the Accords there wasn't a divide just friends agreeing to disagree. That divide started when Steve started trusting certain members of the team and not others. 

Tony actually cared about the team he tried to keep them together. Steve didn't care till the very end it was all about Bucky and damn the Avengers and anyone else. 

[scriggle]

Quote

That divide started when Steve started trusting certain members of the team and not others. 

I'm not sure what this means. Who was Steve trusting? Is he supposed to blindly follow Tony's lead? Just trust Tony above all others? Hell, from what's shown on screen, they're barely friends in the MCU.  They're certainly not best friends.

Quote

Tony actually cared about the team he tried to keep them together. Steve didn't care till the very end it was all about Bucky and damn the Avengers and anyone else. 

Tony cared about assuaging his own guilt. He thought that by signing the Accords he would no longer be responsible for things because then he would just be following orders.  Because let's face it, that's what his argument amounts to. Being subject to the Accords would not somehow magically prevent collateral damage. And he tried to guilt Steve into agreeing with him.

Steve only intervened to prevent Bucky from being killed by a death squad. That was it. It was the UN/government that allowed Zemo to get past their "security" by posing as the psychiatrist they hired that led to Bucky being triggered.  From that point on, Steve was trying to stop Zemo from unleashing the other supersoldiers. He tried to explain that to Tony but Tony would not listen. I don't see any "damn the Avengers" in Steve's actions.

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

The Accords, like any treaty, are a negotiated agreement between a whole lot of nations.  Making changes after the fact is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.

I don't think it would be that hard to make changes after the fact, especially since the Avengers would have all the bargaining power in that negotiation. It would be like "Oh secretary Ross, you need the Avengers to stop an alien invasion, sure we can do that, but first we need you to delete paragraph 3 on page 522".

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎27 at 4:01 PM, kili said:

A person with super powers was still subject to the laws of the land. The accords were putting special laws on those with super powers. It was requiring them to do the bidding of the accord policy people regardless of what they wanted to do. It takes away their free will and the right to due process. And if you don't think those all-powerful laws won't creep....they already did. Cap may be an enhanced being, but Hawkeye is just talented. Tony is also talented, but its his gadgets which make him subject to the accords. Sam and Rhodey are subject to the accords because they have gadgets.  Ordinary guys with access to gadgets lose their free will and their right to due process. That's getting closer and closer to making everybody subject to the accords.

The accords are a super version (metaphor) of various patriot acts. Suspending basic rights is something that should not be done easily, for long lengths of time or without oversight. History is littered with cases of where such things went down very, very bad paths.

How do the accords require anyone to do government bidding? I mean it seems like there is choice to me, you don't want to be part of the accords, stop being a super hero.

And as part of that would people who are against the accords think that Cap's Avengers team that was in Nigeria should be arrested for their illegal actions at the beginning of the movie. Because without the protection something like the Accords might grant them, they are private citizens who illegally entered a country and then tried to assume the role of law enforcement and because of their negligence a bunch of people died. Yes they were stopping someone from breaking the law, but in order to do that they also broke multiple laws.

[kili]

Quote

How do the accords require anyone to do government bidding?

Steve is actually seen reading the accords and he says this:

"If we sign these, we surrender our right to choose. What if this Panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go?"

It sounds to me like you have to do what the Accord Supervisors want once you sign the Accords. 

Quote

I mean it seems like there is choice to me, you don't want to be part of the accords, stop being a super hero.

They were given a choice to sign or retire. We don't know if they still have the option to retire once they have signed. Once you sign on to be a soldier, you don't just get to decide to retire until your term is up and the government decides to honour that (for instance the "stop-loss" policy, the US government can unilaterally decide to extend the length of time a soldier must serve past the term he originally signed on for).  And a soldier get told what battles he must fight. A soldier signs away the right to pick and choose the battles he is sent to. 

And how exactly does Cap retire? Tony can hang up his suit, but Cap will always be enhanced. If he retires and saves a cat from a tree or an old lady from a purse snatcher, is he now in violation of the Accords?

Quote

I don't think it would be that hard to make changes after the fact, especially since the Avengers would have all the bargaining power in that negotiation. It would be like "Oh secretary Ross, you need the Avengers to stop an alien invasion, sure we can do that, but first we need you to delete paragraph 3 on page 522".

A) I think the Accords compel them to do what government tells them to do. Soldiers can't refuse to work until they get what they want without ending up in jail. Heck, the courts even order unions back to work if they try to go on strike when they are not allowed to strike or when they are protesting something they willingly signed on to or if lives are at stake.

B) Like the Avengers would let aliens invade while they conducted contract negotiations.  

Edited September 29, 2016 by kili

[Perfect Xero]

Cap retires by not entering other countries illegally and interfering with military/police actions.

[scriggle]

The full title of the Accords is A Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals. That is enough to arouse suspicion that the UN/government have no intention of limiting them to the Avengers. Enhanced people cannot stop being enhanced. Tony, Rhodey, Sam, & Scott can give up their tech and be normal people. Natasha and Clint are simply highly skilled, highly trained people.

What if the UN decides that's not enough.  That to retire, Steve has to somehow not use his powers, his supersoldier abilities? That stopping a crime he sees in progress is a violation?

It's a slippery slope and Steve has seen where that sort of things leads during WWII - internment for Japanese-Americans and concentration camps.

[stealinghome]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I don't think it would be that hard to make changes after the fact, especially since the Avengers would have all the bargaining power in that negotiation. It would be like "Oh secretary Ross, you need the Avengers to stop an alien invasion, sure we can do that, but first we need you to delete paragraph 3 on page 522".

Okay, but then if the Avengers truly aren't going to abide by the Accords, what is the point of signing the document in the first place? If the plan is to sign and then use the first available world crisis to leverage your way out of anything that you find inconvenient in the document, why don't you just say before you sign "Hi fellas, most of this document looks good, but before we sign we need you to change xyz things, and we won't fight aliens/HYDRA/etc. off until you do," and potentially a) save lots of lives that might be lost while you have to strong-arm Ross into doing what you want him to do during the next crisis, which will cost valuable time, and b) not split the team up the way Civil War did, and not create bad blood between half the team and the UN? It's not like the Avengers don't have the bargaining power of "we're the only people who can fight an alien invasion off" already.

Tony can't have it both ways. If the Accords are "just" a piece of paper that Tony & co. can apparently change willy-nilly whenever they want and don't truly have to abide by, there's absolutely no incentive to sign, because it's a stupid document and all signing gets you is a bunch of headaches. But if the Accords aren't "just" a piece of paper, if the Avengers are expected to abide by every single bullet point, the document's very real flaws need to be addressed before anyone should sign. Tony needs to have answers to Steve's "What if they tell us to go somewhere we shouldn't be going? What if they tell us not to go somewhere we need to be?" before anyone signs.

Edited September 29, 2016 by stealinghome

[Perfect Xero]

I think that it's most probable that the Russos simply have no idea how governing bodies or legal procedures actually work. Steve is the one who says that he'll consider signing on if safe guards can be added in, so Steve, who isn't an idiot, thinks it can be done. Tony confirms that it can be.

This is the same movie where the UN somehow passed a War and Peace sized document with the approval of 117 nations and none of the Avengers had even heard about it.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

18 hours ago, kili said:

Wanda gets to be a white hat now because a big part of the super hero genre conventions is that of reconciliation. If you repent your ways and become a hero instead of a villain, you don't get punished. Otherwise, villains who turn good end up in prison for the next 1000 years and the writers don't get to play around with them being heroes.

This is true enough, and I think that had Pietro not died right in front of her saving Clint and that little boy, Wanda's turnaround wouldn't have been so sudden or so complete. By then, Barton had given her the 'this is what it means to be an Avenger' speech, but it isn't until she sees her brother get shot down that she really goes all out against Ultron's robots. Maybe she's doing it in his name, as it were, or she could be doing it as atonement. Truthfully, I'm not sure it matters why she's thrown in so firmly with the good guys. It just matters that she's finally on the right side.

14 hours ago, scriggle said:

I do blame him for not taking a breath to calm down.  Watch that scene again. Tony acknowledges Bucky had been brainwashed. They watch the tape and yes, it's horrible. But Tony isn’t out of control until he asks Steve if he knew, and when Steve says yes, that’s when Tony attacks. So it seems like he's more pissed at Steve for not telling him and that he wants to punish Steve by killing Bucky (listen to the commentary about that scene.) Both Steve and Bucky fight defensively, trying to neutralize the suit. It's not until Steve is in real danger when Tony has him down and is throwing punches which shatter concrete that Bucky takes the offensive and tries to disable the arc reactor. Tony blows his arm off. Bucky is completely vulnerable at that point and Tony blasts him in the back. It's then that Steve goes on the offensive. Tony is able to get the better of Steve because of the suit. He tells Steve to stay down and is preparing to blast him, a blast that would've blown him out the opening and off the cliff, surely killing him.

So no, Tony does not get a pass from me for that last fight. That's no longer emotional heat of the moment. That's cold-blooded murder.

Except that Tony had just watched his parents being murdered in cold blood. Even if we acknowledge that it was the Winter Soldier and not Bucky committing this terrible act, Steve was fully in his right mind, and he didn't tell Tony......why? Cap made the cold-blooded decision not to tell his friend something that he knew would devastate him, and whether it was because he so clearly separates his other friend from his Mr. Hyde persona that he figured Stark would also appreciate the difference or just because he wanted to protect his darling little Bucky* from big bad Tony is kind of irrelevant to me. For all that Stark is an arrogant SOB at times, he had just witnessed in a long-distance secondhand way his dad having his head bashed in and his mom having the life squeezed out of her. And Steve knew and, what, just didn't think to mention it?

What's worth noting is that its Bucky himself who makes the clear-headed decision to remove himself from the equation by going back into cold storage. To take that necessary breath and do what's required - extricate himself from the situation completely so that he doesn't kill again. And so he doesn't get killed should Tony flip his shit around him a second time.

*I'm sure the Stucky shippers were delighted with Cap's protectiveness, so if they want to throw virtual rocks at my derision then they're welcome to do so.  I'm just glad Barnes might be out of sight for a little while.

[Spartan Girl]

Agree with you 100 percent @ColbaltStargazer. I love Steve, but his judgement isn't always good when it comes to Bucky. But to be fair, lots of people on the internet seem to share that problem, LOL.

Honestly, Bucky choosing to go back into cryo is probably the best outcome for everyone involved.

[raven]

5 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

And Steve knew and, what, just didn't think to mention it?

There's been some discussion on this already but I think Steve found out during the events of this movie that it was Bucky who killed Tony's parents - when Steve specifically asks Bucky what is on the video from 1991.  It's not clear at all and it's definitely not stated in TWS movie; it's only implied that Hydra, using the Winter Soldier had something to do with the Starks' deaths and that is BEFORE Steve found out Bucky was TWS (so not really time to put it all together).  So if Steve found out during CW; well he had other things to deal with rather than running to Tony to tell him.

Though entertaining, the movie really did a bad job with the Accords; the document is so flawed that when the discussion seems to boil down to who likes Steve or Tony better, well, that shows that there probably is bad intent in the Accords (to use the powers of the Avengers to hurt, not help).  We only get very basic questions that aren't answered.  Tony appears to be propelled by guilt - not so much though that he's not above bringing in a teenager, thus making the kid a possible target of Ross, et al - and the belief that others should go along with him because, well, he's Tony!  After what Steve's been through, he's distrustful of these oversights and wants to protect someone who won't get due process (proved during the film); I also think Steve would go to the same lengths for Natasha or Peggy or Sam.  Steve and Tony are both arrogant in believing they are right. 

I guess I'm cold and I don't dislike Tony but I wasn't really moved by "he killed my mom"  All I can hear is Rocket Raccoon "oh boo hoo, everyone's lost someone", heh.   My sympathies will usually lean towards someone who's trying to help someone else rather than someone acting out because they feel badly.   It's hard to feel sorry for Tony on this one (for me) - he's had every advantage and is not above using his influence and advantage to pressure others to sign the Accords - which really, he only wants to do because he feels guilty.  This is proved when he violates them when it's convenient.  He also uses his influence to bring in Peter Parker - sorry, not a good look for him if he's trying to be shown as the responsible one, and not the same as Sam bringing Scott - Scott is an adult.  Peter's aunt doesn't even know he's Spiderman.   This pretty much proves the Accords can't be enforced anyway - you're depending on everyone's good will to stick to them and both Tony and Natasha violate them when they want to.  There should be a different structure, with whatever oversight body there is working with the Avengers. 

Ultimately I think the movie is pretty flawed but much better than Ultron FWIW.  It's only saved because everyone is their usual entertaining selves, Black Panther is awesome and the airport fight is fun.  As always, IMO.

Edited September 29, 2016 by raven