Captain America: Civil War (2016)

[Athena]

Hey everyone, can you please think more carefully when replying and consider if the point or your opinion has already been made here. While no one has broken any rules, it does seem everyone who wants to state their opinion has already done so. If you disagree with other posters, please consider moving on or changing the subject. While the Accords, Steve, and Tony were central to the film, the discussion is becoming circuitous after 2-3 pages. Consider taking a step back for a little bit. Thank you.

[Dandesun]

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.

Groot!Gasp

Good point. Everyone's got dead people. That doesn't give them the right to make everyone else dead, too.

Man. Rocket is fucking wise.

[Jazzy24]

7 hours ago, raven said:

 

He also uses his influence to bring in Peter Parker - sorry, not a good look for him when 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.   

What's wrong with bringing in Peter? 

Yes he's a kid but he's been Spiderman for six months and have delt with dangerous situations. Now I don't think Tony would have bought the kid if it was anyone else but the Avengers, they weren't fighting to the death at the airport and once it got dangerous Tony told Peter that he was done. 

Now Peter was the most strongest person there also the most inexperienced but I don't think Tony was particularly wrong to bring him in, I don't think he should have been there at all IMO. 

Here's the thing though, will Tony be wrong in Spiderman Homecoming for mentoring Peter and keeping his secret from Aunt May and encouraging a 16yr old to fight crime? 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Jazzy24

[KatWay]

Quote

Good point. Everyone's got dead people. That doesn't give them the right to make everyone else dead, too.

Man. Rocket is fucking wise.

This isn't something that happened way in the past & holding on to a grudge, this was Tony finding out right that minute that his mother was murdered by the guy standing next to him while they were all watching it happen on video, but sure, that experience is very common, happens all the time.

[ChelseaNH]

37 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

What's wrong with bringing in Peter? 

The army allows 17 year olds to enlist, but they require parental consent.  Peter is by no means an adult.  He fights crime at a local level; he has no basis for evaluating the consequences of getting mixed up in an international incident.

If Tony is so gung-ho for the Accords, why is he so careful to shield Peter's identity?  Why not get him signed up right away and have him participate out in the open, all nice and legal-like? 

[kili]

I do have some sympathy for Tony at the end and can understand the reasons why he snapped. By the end of the movie, Tony has lost his entire support system.

The movie makes clear that one of Tony's biggest regrets is how he left things with his parents their last night on earth. Losing them has had a formative effect on his core personality. He both competes with and rebels against a man who is not there to acknowledge either - he bounces against a ghost. And he misses his mother deeply. Pepper leaving him effects him on many levels - not only does he lose somebody he loves, but the key person in his support system. He knows that she has left due to his own actions.  In addition, her leaving marks a failure in his competition with his Dad who was able to calm down and make a marriage work.

Tony has also lost Jarvis. The human Jarvis must have made a large impression on Tony growing up for him to imbue his AI with Jarvis's presence. AI Jarvis was a link to the past, a steadying voice in his ear and provided a sense of family. AI Jarvis was attacked by Tony's own creation and sacrificed itself to help save the world from that creation (Ultron). That comforting entity which has been a voice in Tony's life from birth is gone.

So, he has no parents, no wife and no father substitute. But he stills has his family substitute in the Avengers. A group of comrades who he fights alongside and forms bonds with. People who understand some of what he is going through with being a superhero. But even there, his lab partner amongst the group (Banner) is in the wind and the guy you can party with (Thor) is too. 

Tony is feeling guilty about Ultron and feeling a bit lost (with most of his support network gone), so when the Accords come up, they probably seem like the easy fix to him. He can atone for his past while also leaving the tough decisions up to somebody else. And maybe Pepper will come back. But, the Accords split the existing group pretty evenly. Cap, Sam and Hawkeye (SW, WS and AM are too new/unknown to Tony to be part of his support system ) are on one side, but Tony has got Natasha and Rhodey.  By the end of the airport battle, he doesn't even have them. Spiderman was on his side, but he just met him and he is 15 and he gets sent home. Vision is a new Avenger and is still learning how to be human - he's not friend/support network material yet. Natasha helps out the other side and then goes into hiding. Rhodey gets seriously injured so more guilt there and he probably shouldn't be leaned on for major support. Meanwhile, those Avengers on Cap's side are still loyal to him and angry with Tony. 

Tony decides to go help Cap fight the new enemy and when he gets there, he finds out that the guy standing right in front of him  is the one who killed his parents. And Cap, the straightest arrow he knows, knew about it. We can argue what Cap knew when and whether he could have or should have told Tony earlier, but from Tony's point of view, that is the last straw. Cap is the last beam in his support system to fall.  "He's my friend. I thought I was too".

It is very significant that the first blow Tony strikes is at Cap. A blow that would have killed a normal man. Tony has just snapped at that point and he does intend to kill - certainly to kill Bucky and he is willing for Cap to be collateral damage. The shifting look on his face when Cap brings his shield down to crush the arc reactor? Brilliant acting by Downey. You can see so many things written on his face. At first he thinks he is going to die and then he's surprised that he isn't dead and then he realizes that Cap was never in the fight to kill him, just stop him. As Cap walks off, he tries once more to engage by telling him to leave his shield and Cap just drops it and goes.

Tony is all alone.

[Kel Varnsen]

Also if Cap has problems trusting governments with respect to how they handle super powered people, what was he going to do if they had captured Crossbones? Lock him in the basement of the Avengers Compound?

[kili]

Quote

Also if Cap has problems trusting governments with respect to how they handle super powered people, what was he going to do if they had captured Crossbones?

Cap does not object to super powered people being jailed under existing legislation where there are checks and balances to ensure due process and humane treatment. He objects to how The Accords imprison people without due process or  guarantee of humane treatment There appears to be no checks and balances under The Accords.

Cap was trying to apprehend Crossbones before The Accords were introduced.

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, kili said:

I do have some sympathy for Tony at the end and can understand the reasons why he snapped. By the end of the movie, Tony has lost his entire support system.

The movie makes clear that one of Tony's biggest regrets is how he left things with his parents their last night on earth. Losing them has had a formative effect on his core personality. He both competes with and rebels against a man who is not there to acknowledge either - he bounces against a ghost. And he misses his mother deeply. Pepper leaving him effects him on many levels - not only does he lose somebody he loves, but the key person in his support system. He knows that she has left due to his own actions.  In addition, her leaving marks a failure in his competition with his Dad who was able to calm down and make a marriage work.

Tony has also lost Jarvis. The human Jarvis must have made a large impression on Tony growing up for him to imbue his AI with Jarvis's presence. AI Jarvis was a link to the past, a steadying voice in his ear and provided a sense of family. AI Jarvis was attacked by Tony's own creation and sacrificed itself to help save the world from that creation (Ultron). That comforting entity which has been a voice in Tony's life from birth is gone.

So, he has no parents, no wife and no father substitute. But he stills has his family substitute in the Avengers. A group of comrades who he fights alongside and forms bonds with. People who understand some of what he is going through with being a superhero. But even there, his lab partner amongst the group (Banner) is in the wind and the guy you can party with (Thor) is too. 

Tony is feeling guilty about Ultron and feeling a bit lost (with most of his support network gone), so when the Accords come up, they probably seem like the easy fix to him. He can atone for his past while also leaving the tough decisions up to somebody else. And maybe Pepper will come back. But, the Accords split the existing group pretty evenly. Cap, Sam and Hawkeye (SW, WS and AM are too new/unknown to Tony to be part of his support system ) are on one side, but Tony has got Natasha and Rhodey.  By the end of the airport battle, he doesn't even have them. Spiderman was on his side, but he just met him and he is 15 and he gets sent home. Vision is a new Avenger and is still learning how to be human - he's not friend/support network material yet. Natasha helps out the other side and then goes into hiding. Rhodey gets seriously injured so more guilt there and he probably shouldn't be leaned on for major support. Meanwhile, those Avengers on Cap's side are still loyal to him and angry with Tony. 

Tony decides to go help Cap fight the new enemy and when he gets there, he finds out that the guy standing right in front of him  is the one who killed his parents. And Cap, the straightest arrow he knows, knew about it. We can argue what Cap knew when and whether he could have or should have told Tony earlier, but from Tony's point of view, that is the last straw. Cap is the last beam in his support system to fall.  "He's my friend. I thought I was too".

It is very significant that the first blow Tony strikes is at Cap. A blow that would have killed a normal man. Tony has just snapped at that point and he does intend to kill - certainly to kill Bucky and he is willing for Cap to be collateral damage. The shifting look on his face when Cap brings his shield down to crush the arc reactor? Brilliant acting by Downey. You can see so many things written on his face. At first he thinks he is going to die and then he's surprised that he isn't dead and then he realizes that Cap was never in the fight to kill him, just stop him. As Cap walks off, he tries once more to engage by telling him to leave his shield and Cap just drops it and goes.

Tony is all alone.

This honestly made me sad. 

I hope the next time we see Tony he's in a much better place and I hope he doesn't regress in Infinity War. 

Sucky part about this is that Tony will never trust the Avengers. 

[Perfect Xero]

10 minutes ago, kili said:

It is very significant that the first blow Tony strikes is at Cap. A blow that would have killed a normal man. Tony has just snapped at that point and he does intend to kill - certainly to kill Bucky and he is willing for Cap to be collateral damage.

I disagree, aside from Tony having a good idea of how much damage Steve can take, this is the same movie where Bucky says he won't kill anyone and then puts a battering ram on his robot arm and hits normal human police officers with it, hits a guy with a cement block so hard that it shatters, and clotheslines a random citizen off a moving motorcycle. Steve's various punches, kicks, and shield strikes send normal humans flying like they just got hit by a truck. He throws his shield at a cop, hitting him in the head, and it continues past him and lodges itself a foot deep in the wall behind him. Given that no one brings up the dozen or so police officers and the one random citizen that Steve and Bucky have just killed, brain damaged, and/or paralyzed for life, I don't think the blow Tony hit Steve with would have done anything more than knock a normal man out of the fight at worst in MCU physics.

Tony repeatedly uses non-lethal methods against Steve, restraints, bringing rubble down in front of him, ect ...

So, in short, the Russos can't even portray a guy "snapping" right. But they were only ever hanging Tony's entire character out to dry to make Steve look better, so that's no surprise.

The comic ends with Steve about to murder Tony until he's stopped, they could have done that here, but then Steve would have come out of it looking less than perfect, and we can't have that.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, kili said:

Cap does not object to super powered people being jailed under existing legislation where there are checks and balances to ensure due process and humane treatment. He objects to how The Accords imprison people without due process or  guarantee of humane treatment There appears to be no checks and balances under The Accords.

Cap was trying to apprehend Crossbones before The Accords were introduced.

If the government can't be trusted to manage the Avengers because they might be corrupt then how can they be trusted to keep a criminal like Crossbones in jail and not let him out as needed? 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Kel Varnsen

[kili]

Quote

If the government can't be trusted to manage the Avengers because they might be corrupt then how can they be trusted to not let a criminal like Crossbones out of jail if and when they feel he is needed. 

Checks and balances.

US Constitution (and other non-totalitarian governments): Checks and Balances

The Accords (and totalitarian governments): No Checks and Balances

Checks and balances are created into the system to prevent the government from doing whatever the hell they feel like doing. Good governments function perfectly fine with checks and balances. Evil governments can be prevented from doing a great deal of harm with checks and balances. Good governments will probably still be good with no checks and balances. Evil governments are free to do very, very bad things without checks and balances. History is littered with both.

[ChelseaNH]

17 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

If the government can't be trusted to manage the Avengers because they might be corrupt

Steve's stated objection was not that government was corrupt, but that nations have their own agendas.

[raven]

3 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

What's wrong with bringing in Peter? 

Yes he's a kid

This is why.

I'm sure Tony didn't expect Rhodey to become paralyzed due to friendly fire, but it happened.   At least Rhodey knew the arguments and the stakes...Peter came in because he was flattered by Tony and probably hero-worships him.   Somehow I don't think the nuances of what was going on was explained to him.  Peter has experience as Spiderman but it's early...he treats it as fun lark.  He's a teenager, not thinking of life and death.    He didn't get really hurt and stopped when he got banged up a bit more than he's used to - really, if what happened to Rhodey had happened to Peter, it would have made Tony look reallly bad.

So if Tony didn't expect anything really serious to happen, why bring the kid in at all?  It's just another misstep in the movie IMO...they wanted to show a cool new Peter Parker (and yes, he was fun) but when I stop to think about it, it doesn't make Tony look good to me.  I do think Tony can be a good mentor since they both have tech as well as being a hero in common.  I just want Tony to drop the self-pity and stop acting out on his pain, which is shown as the painest pain of anyone ever.

1 hour ago, Perfect Xero said:

So, in short, the Russos can't even portray a guy "snapping" right. But they were only ever hanging Tony's entire character out to dry to make Steve look better, so that's no surprise.

I do kind of agree here.  The movie should have inspired us to debate about the Accords and their details, but we don't GET any details so instead we talk about the characters, or the convolutions to get them to fight or whatever.    I don't think Tony was completely hung out to dry, there are plenty of people who sympathize and feel more in agreement with him.  I'm not one :) but I don't hate the character and I think he has a lot of room to grow from this experience; I do like that he is shown to feel remorse over some of his actions (Cap could use a little more of that); I just don't think Tony should drag others into his redemption.  I liked all of his bonding scenes with Rhodey and thought he had a good rapport with Peter, I just wish he wouldn't have brought him to the fight, or at least seen him struggle over the decision. 

Anyway, I feel like I'm being a little repetitive and Athena asked us not to - so what would the ideal Accords look like?  Who should be overseeing them?  Can we all agree that Ross is not a good choice?  What about new powered people, would it apply to someone like Black Panther?  What if a country is violating human rights but doesn't want the Avengers to interfere?  They're not supposed to be world police, are they, so what are the parameters?

I don't read comics so I don't know the history or how it works in them - how would they apply to Thor, who's not even from this planet?  Maybe because I'm into details but these are some of the things I would have liked to have seen in the movie.  I guess details are boring, heh. 

Quote

Man. Rocket is fucking wise.

I didn't even want to see GotG because I thought a talking raccoon and a tree would be dumb - but it's my fave movie of them all and Rocket my fave character, go figure.  Groot :(

Edited September 29, 2016 by raven

[Perfect Xero]

In the comics they had the Super Human Registration Act, which was really different than the Accords in the movie. It was a US only law that basically required all the Supers to register with SHIELD and undergo training/evaluation to make sure they could use their powers without putting others at risk, ditto for anyone using super advanced/alien technology. It was passed in response to a group of D-List heroes engaging some D-List villains and ending up with Nitro (whose power is that he's a human bomb) exploding and taking out an entire elementary school.

So, theoretically, someone like Thor could come to the US, but couldn't use his powers unless he was registered. Maybe. The different comics had a tendency to be all over the place with regard to what the SHRA allowed and what powers it gave SHIELD.

In the comics it was actually Maria Hill who was running SHIELD/the SHRA side during Civil War. Of course, Hill running things in the movie wouldn't have instantly set up the Accords as untrustworthy like Ross did, so ...

[stealinghome]

Quote

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.

Hee. Which is, no lie, probably the most unbelievable thing in the whole MCU!

Quote

Anyway, I feel like I'm being a little repetitive and Athena asked us not to - so what would the ideal Accords look like?  Who should be overseeing them?  Can we all agree that Ross is not a good choice?  What about new powered people, would it apply to someone like Black Panther?  What if a country is violating human rights but doesn't want the Avengers to interfere?  They're not supposed to be world police, are they, so what are the parameters?

This is a great question. Off the top of my head:

-2-3 Avengers need to be in the room when the Accords are hammered out, obviously. Their collective lawyer(s) as well. I agree with whoever said forever ago that the Avengers need to be treated like a sovereign entity. Have them be recognized as a sovereign entity and sign a treaty with the UN that applies to all UN members.

-If the Avengers are going to be associated with the UN in some form, I do think that everyone would benefit from a clear delineation of what the Avengers do and don't do. I would say that they DON'T topple governments or participate in government-toppling movements, nor do they endorse any politicians (as a team; obviously, Tony or Natasha or Steve or whomever are free to throw their individual vote and name behind someone/some cause if they so choose). Ie they don't violate any nation's sovereignty. In a case of massive human rights abuses (say a huge genocide), they can go in if and only if BOTH they AND the UN vote yes, and their scope is strictly limited to stopping the genocide. They DO fight off any alien attacks or superpowered beings, investigate any supersoldier programs (ie Red Room) to make sure they're not abusive and evil, and they DO fight HYDRA whenever another head rears up. Obviously if someone like The Mandarin comes gunning for one of them, they are allowed to defend themselves and follow the source of the threat. I do think it's reasonable to say that if the Avengers are going somewhere and think a fight might develop, they need to notify their liaison, who notifies local forces (see below); however, there needs to be VERY strict protocols about how that information gets disseminated to local law enforcement so that an entire op can't be blown sky-high, whether inadvertently or intentionally, by a local cop.

-They don't get blamed for collateral damage that results from them fighting off EITHER unexpected alien/superhuman attacks OR governmental mismanagement that would lead to massive loss of life (coughHYDRAinSHIELD). Nor are they blamed for things that they are forced to do while brainwashed or under the influence of mind-altering drugs taken unwillingly.

-Who do they liaise with? I would say a major global military leader, one chosen by the UN delegates en masse. However, it needs to be clear that this person is in an advisory/liaison role only--the Avengers are a self-governing entity, this person doesn't own them. But they should liaise with this person in good faith: keep them in the loop, invite them to team meetings and training, etc.

-If a team member is found to have broken the Accords in some fashion, they ARE granted due process and will be tried by the ICJ/ICC/some offshoot thereof. The Avengers ARE allowed an ad hoc member on this trial (T'Challa and Thor would be good candidates). None of this "hahaha a lawyer wut?" bullcrap.

Edited September 30, 2016 by stealinghome

[benteen]

Quote

In the comics it was actually Maria Hill who was running SHIELD/the SHRA side during Civil War. Of course, Hill running things in the movie wouldn't have instantly set up the Accords as untrustworthy like Ross did, so ...

That was my first introduction to the Maria Hill character.  She was the one who deliberately provoked Captain America and tried to get his supports for the Act BEFORE the bill was even voted on in Congress.  She had her forces attack him and her actions guaranteed that Cap didn't support the SHRA.  The Maria Hill character in the movies is a lot different.

[Eegah]

And of course, Mark Millar stated afterwards that he had never intended any moral ambiguity, and just wanted Iron Man to be the one who was right while Cap was wrong. Because he doesn't have a MySpace page.

[Danny Franks]

12 minutes ago, Eegah said:

And of course, Mark Millar stated afterwards that he had never intended any moral ambiguity, and just wanted Iron Man to be the one who was right while Cap was wrong. Because he doesn't have a MySpace page.

Well it's a shame that most of the other writers at Marvel didn't get that. Nearly every one of them who wrote Tony during and after the Civil War wrote him as varying degrees of asshole. Of course, to Mark Millar, that's what a hero is.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

And of course, Mark Millar stated afterwards that he had never intended any moral ambiguity, and just wanted Iron Man to be the one who was right while Cap was wrong. Because he doesn't have a MySpace page.

To be fair, Paul Jenkins was the one wrote that particular story in Civil War: Front Line where reporter Sally Floyd chastised Steve for not knowing Americans because he wasn't familiar with current pop culture nonsense. God I never hated a character as much as Sally Floyd after that.

Now they have Civil War II where Tony is the reasonable one while Carol Danvers(Captain Marvel) is the asshole, using the precognative powers of an Inhuman to prevent future catastrophies. Like Minority Report, Carol's side goes after people and detaining them in case they might do something bad.

Great.

Edited October 1, 2016 by VCRTracking

[benteen]

Ugh.  Sally Floyd.  A character best forgotten and I think Marvel has forgotten her.  The "American Idol" speech is a true low point in recent comics.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/29/2016 at 3:17 PM, kili said:

Cap does not object to super powered people being jailed under existing legislation where there are checks and balances to ensure due process and humane treatment. He objects to how The Accords imprison people without due process or  guarantee of humane treatment There appears to be no checks and balances under The Accords.

Cap was trying to apprehend Crossbones before The Accords were introduced.

But that was one of the reasons The Accords came up at all, because they were trying to apprehend Crossbones, who was armed with a bomb which they didn't know about. He tried to detonate it and take Steve with him, only Wanda intervened, and then miscalculated by tossing Crossbones into a nearby building, where the bomb exploded, killing and wounding various noncombatants, resulting in more attention being focused on the Avengers in general.

FWIW, the initial question "Will there always be collateral damage when enhanced humans are involved?" isn't inherently troubling. The entire reason Zemo risked so much to re-awaken the Winter Soldier is because his whole family died as a side effect of one of the Avengers' attempts to keep the world safe, and while Tony, Natasha, Steve, etc are human, they have abilities and equipment that set them apart from your average prole. And Thor is a god and Banner is a guy who turns green and becomes three or four times his normal size when he gets angry enough. If they make a mistake, if they slip up, people who have nothing to do with the fight will probably get hurt.

[ChelseaNH]

21 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

He tried to detonate it and take Steve with him, only Wanda intervened, and then miscalculated by tossing Crossbones into a nearby building, where the bomb exploded, killing and wounding various noncombatants

... inside the building, instead of killing and wounding various noncombatants in the market.  Also, my impression is that she was trying to get Crossbones up and clear of the crowd; his proximity to the building wasn't intentional.  She came into a bad situation and failed to make it appreciably better, but she's not at fault for the bad situation.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, ChelseaNH said:

... inside the building, instead of killing and wounding various noncombatants in the market.  Also, my impression is that she was trying to get Crossbones up and clear of the crowd; his proximity to the building wasn't intentional.  She came into a bad situation and failed to make it appreciably better, but she's not at fault for the bad situation.

She is not responsible though she took the guilt upon herself. But then the world held the Avengers responsible for not aiding the Nigerian police who may have been able to secure a primeter or do other things that police do when they expect a fight is going to happen and just going in secret on their own

[Cobalt Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Raja said:

She is not responsible though she took the guilt upon herself. But then the world held the Avengers responsible for not aiding the Nigerian police who may have been able to secure a primeter or do other things that police do when they expect a fight is going to happen and just going in secret on their own

This is what I was trying to say, apparently not very well. Attempting covert operations in broad daylight with scads of people around looks cool onscreen, I  guess, and I guess the news about the humanitarian effort in Lagos wasn't public knowledge either since that was what drew so much heat onto the Avengers, that they accidentally caused people who were also trying to help others to be hurt. It isn't Wanda's fault, and it isn't Steve's fault either, even though Crossbones did manage to momentarily flummox him by using Bucky's name.

But then again it wasn't Tony's fault that Alfre Woodard's character blamed him for her son's death at the beginning of the movie either. Even though she blamed him, even though he blamed himself, even though that was his impetus to consider The Accords in the first place. But they all blame themselves on some level, and it doesn't matter if the responsibility is really theirs or not. Without all of the relevant information (this guy is strapped with a bomb, the locals are dealing with rescue efforts, there's way too many people around here to be doing this to begin with) the likelihood that uninvolved people will be hurt is at least eighty percent.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Cobalt Stargazer
with apologies to Ms. Woodard

[Watermelon]

3 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

This is what I was trying to say, apparently not very well. Attempting covert operations in broad daylight with scads of people around looks cool onscreen, I  guess, and I guess the news about the humanitarian effort in Lagos wasn't public knowledge either since that was what drew so much heat onto the Avengers, that they accidentally caused people who were also trying to help others to be hurt. It isn't Wanda's fault, and it isn't Steve's fault either, even though Crossbones did manage to momentarily flummox him by using Bucky's name.

But then again it wasn't Tony's fault that Viola Davis' character blamed him for her son's death at the beginning of the movie either. Even though she blamed him, even though he blamed himself, even though that was his impetus to consider The Accords in the first place. But they all blame themselves on some level, and it doesn't matter if the responsibility is really theirs or not. Without all of the relevant information (this guy is strapped with a bomb, the locals are dealing with rescue efforts, there's way too many people around here to be doing this to begin with) the likelihood that uninvolved people will be hurt is at least eighty percent.

That was Alfred Woodard

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Duly editing. Thanks for the correction, @Watermelon

[romantic idiot]

On a different note, caught a rewatch on a flight and I realised that the movie clearly states that the Sokovia blow up was Zuma's plan B. So IMO, that lends credence to the train of thought that Zuma's plan wasn't a fixed one that had to happen exactly the way he wrote it, but rather a more flexible one with built in contingencies based on how the different players would react. 

[scriggle]

2017 Critics Choice Awards Nominations

BEST ACTION MOVIE

• Captain America: Civil War
• Deadpool
• Doctor Strange
• Hacksaw Ridge
• Jason Bourne

BEST ACTOR IN AN ACTION MOVIE

• Benedict Cumberbatch – Doctor Strange
• Matt Damon – Jason Bourne
• Chris Evans – Captain America: Civil War
• Andrew Garfield – Hacksaw Ridge
• Ryan Reynolds – Deadpool

BEST ACTRESS IN AN ACTION MOVIE

• Gal Gadot – Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
• Scarlett Johansson – Captain America: Civil War
• Margot Robbie – Suicide Squad
• Tilda Swinton – Doctor Strange

Congrats to CEvans and ScarJo on their nominations.

[KatWay]

I thought Chris did good work in Civil War but RDJ (who I don't always love bc he can rely on the same old quirks) acted circles around him. Chadwick did great work too. And Scarlett? I feel like she was barely even in Civil War. Some of these choices are...odd. Even for the Action Movie genre.

Edited December 3, 2016 by KatWay

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I'm puzzled and disappointed myself, because I feel like Elizabeth Olsen should have gotten a nomination. Wanda's arc in this movie was smaller than Steve's and/or Tony's, but Olsen makes newly being a superhero seem rooted in reality. Maybe she wasn't physical enough, since I know that Natasha did a lot of the hand-to-hand stuff in fights? I don't know.

[Bruinsfan]

I'm not too concerned about Johansson's nomination though, I'd say the nomination process is just a formality with Tilda Swinton on the list.

[blueray]

I finally saw this movie thanks to Netflix.

It was pretty good, however the beginning was kind of slow. Maybe because I already knew about the accords since I've seen Agents of Shield. Once it picked up it was great. I liked the new spiderman who added some comic relief and am looking forward to his movie. I had to look up who "antman" was as I've never seen it (on my list to see). Anyhow, the fights were good and it was a good movie. I forgot halfway through that it was suppose to be a "captian America" movie as it felt more like the avengers. I wonder how the government would treat Thor. Would he have to sign as well?

Edited January 5, 2017 by blueray

[frenchtoast]

21 minutes ago, blueray said:

I finally saw this movie thanks to Netflix.

It was pretty good, however the beginning was kind of slow. Maybe because I already knew about the accords since I've seen Agents of Shield. Once it picked up it was great. I liked the new spiderman who added some comic relief and am looking forward to his movie. I had to look up who "antman" was as I've never seen it (on my list to see). Anyhow, the fights were good and it was a good movie. I forgot halfway through that it was suppose to be a "captian America" movie as it felt more like the avengers. I wonder how the government would treat Thor. Would he have to sign as well?

I'm tired, and I fell down the stairs a few days ago and am still sore in some places. This is all to apologize for this bad, terrible, awful joke.

I think the government would see Thor as an illegal alien. 

I'm sorry. I'll go to bed now....

[Bruinsfan]

I think they'd treat Thor as an allied visiting head of state. That seemed to be Nick Fury's approach in the first movie, and seems wise considering he represents an advanced society and has personal destructive power exceeding the Hulk's (he provided/channeled the energy that blasted Sovokia to smithereens) combined with centuries of combat training and near limitless mobility.

[ChelseaNH]

1 minute ago, Bruinsfan said:

I think they'd treat Thor as an allied visiting head of state.

Pretty sure that's not how Ross wants to treat him.

[scriggle]

Quote

I forgot halfway through that it was suppose to be a "captian America" movie as it felt more like the avengers.

That's my biggest issue with it. It's more an Avengers3 or IM4 than Cap3. I feel like Cap's story didn't get the treatment it deserved because Feige wanted to one up DC and Batman v Superman and they sacrificed the last Cap movie to do it. Tony Stark & Thor got 3 films focused primarily on the titular character. Cap3 is a true ensemble, aka Avengers, movie. Cap was on screen for just over 30 minutes and just a couple minutes more than Tony Stark. I feel cheated by that. And I'm still bitter about it.

Quote

Pretty sure that's not how Ross wants to treat him.

Ross asked if Cap knew where Thor and Banner were and then compared not knowing to losing nuclear weapons. So yeah, he wouldn't be treated as head of state but as a dangerous weapon they wanted to control.

Edited January 5, 2017 by scriggle

[Cobalt Stargazer]

5 hours ago, scriggle said:

That's my biggest issue with it. It's more an Avengers3 or IM4 than Cap3. I feel like Cap's story didn't get the treatment it deserved because Feige wanted to one up DC and Batman v Superman and they sacrificed the last Cap movie to do it. Tony Stark & Thor got 3 films focused primarily on the titular character. Cap3 is a true ensemble, aka Avengers, movie. Cap was on screen for just over 30 minutes and just a couple minutes more than Tony Stark. I feel cheated by that. And I'm still bitter about it.

Not to crank up this debate again, but I feel kind of obligated to point out that most of the focus Tony got made him the asshole of the piece. He was the one who insisted the others should go along with the Accords out of misplaced guilt, or as Clint says later knowing what's best for everyone else whether they like it or not. He tried to pressure Cap into signing the documents, and it was only because he let it slip about Wanda being under house arrest that Steve didn't give in, which he might have depending on what could be amended. Rhodey nearly ends up a cripple because Vision tried to clip Sam's wings and missed, and yet strangely enough he tells Stark that he signed the Accords because he believed in them and still believed in them. So I guess that makes Rhodey a jackass too.

Meanwhile, Steve gets to claim the moral high ground - opposing not only checks and balances but also the attempts to apprehend Bucky. Not shoot on sight, despite T'Challa's heartfelt wish to put an end to Barnes, but apprehend. That Ross scoffed at the idea of lawyers isn't indicative of anything except that Ross is an ass, as we see later when Zemo has been jailed. To a guy like that, it doesn't matter who it is - Bucky, Zemo, Wanda, Thor, they're all problems that need to be contained and controlled until they tow the line he wants them to tow. And only one of those four is (currently) a villain.

Last but not least re Steve, he withholds the information about Tony's parents, and really, you would think that with all of Cap's talk about how the Avengers shouldn't keep secrets about important things from one another, he would have done otherwise. Remember Steve bitching Tony out during Ultron about not informing the others about what he and Banner were up to? Remember Steve complaining to Nick about keeping Natasha's other mission a secret in Winter Soldier? Apparently full disclosure is actually defined as "just as long as it doesn't involve Barnes". But of course Tony has to be the asshole, because otherwise Mr. Morality might look bad and that must never happen. I mostly like Steve and think he's a great character, but if that's what "focus" does for a character, maybe the MCU should've kept it to themselves.

[scriggle]

I agree Tony is the ass of the movie. ?

I've made my arguments for Cap and his choices a number of times in this thread so I won't rehash them all again.

What I'm saying is Civil War should've been an Avengers movie and not the final installment of the Cap trilogy. I feel that Cap fans were deprived of the completion of Cap's arc. It's not like Cap's story will get any significant amount of attention in the upcoming Infinity War or Avengers 4 because they're so overloaded with characters. Though I'm sure Tony (and probably Dr. Strange) will get a significant spotlight in both. That prospect leaves me less than thrilled.

[Crs97]

I'll start this by saying I happen to be a Tony Stark fan.  RDJ is featured so heavily in the upcoming movies because when you look at the top seven highest grossing Marvel movies, Iron Man is a lead in six of them, three of which are the Iron Man stand-alones.  If you want other characters to be featured more prominently, get more people to their movies.  Then you are speaking the language Marvel understands!

[scriggle]

26 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I'll start this by saying I happen to be a Tony Stark fan.  RDJ is featured so heavily in the upcoming movies because when you look at the top seven highest grossing Marvel movies, Iron Man is a lead in six of them, three of which are the Iron Man stand-alones.  If you want other characters to be featured more prominently, get more people to their movies.  Then you are speaking the language Marvel understands!

I know that's why they do it. But making everything revolve Tony and his manpain in non-IM movies gets repetitive and boring. I want focus on other characters too, especially in their titular movies the focus should be on that character.

I'd argue if they'd done a straight Cap3 building on the success and critical acclaim of Cap2 which is widely held to be the best of MCU movies it would have made IM1 money (318M) or even GotG money (333M) without Tony Stark in a major role. So roughly 75M less domestically than Civil War. And probably close to 900M worldwide. Subtract the 40M & % they paid RDJ....

[morakot]

Plus Chris Evans has the best ROI in Hollywood -- he's cheaper than RDJ AND doesn't need his entire household (and furniture) moved to Atlanta for filming. Yes, scriggle, I'm bitter too.

[Bruinsfan]

What, you mean there are people besides me not chomping at the bit to see Iron Man: Homecoming (Oh Hey, Some Kid Named Peter Might Appear Too)?

[stealinghome]

Yeah, I can't lie, CA:CW made me decide that I'm not going to go see any future non-Avengers team movie in which Iron Man appears. Avengers team movies are fine, but not individual character movies in which Iron Man appears. The writers just won't be able to resist making him the central character or at worst a co-lead, and there's no way I want that much of Tony Stark being obnoxious in my life, no matter how good RDJ is in the role.

[Jazzy24]

7 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

What, you mean there are people besides me not chomping at the bit to see Iron Man: Homecoming (Oh Hey, Some Kid Named Peter Might Appear Too)?

That movie will be awesome!!! 

Tony and Peter's relationship plus T'Challa were the best things in Civil War. They should do a fourth Captain America installment though. 

[morakot]

Marvel owes me a movie about a day in the life of Steve Rogers - doing laundry, working out, spending time with friends who don't wear metal suits but who might have interesting conversations... He could even spend time with a kid from Queens...

[Lantern7]

I'm good with Tony. I felt that I could see his side in the movie, as opposed to being the bad guy in the Civil War comic. And I think this version was a lot more fun to read.

It's interesting that the Marvel properties have troubles living up to the first movies in the sequels . . . except for Cap. A Steve/Bucky road movie might be fun to watch, even if the homoerotic overtones are taken out.

[morakot]

Who pays the Avengers now? If it's Stark Industries, I guess that means that they are Tony's employees, not necessarily his friends.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, morakot said:

Who pays the Avengers now? If it's Stark Industries, I guess that means that they are Tony's employees, not necessarily his friends.

Didn't Tony basically say as much in Age of Ultron. After Maria Hill called him boss he says that Cap is the boss he is just the guy that pays for everything.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 1/5/2017 at 3:59 PM, scriggle said:

I agree Tony is the ass of the movie. ?

I've made my arguments for Cap and his choices a number of times in this thread so I won't rehash them all again.

What I'm saying is Civil War should've been an Avengers movie and not the final installment of the Cap trilogy. I feel that Cap fans were deprived of the completion of Cap's arc. It's not like Cap's story will get any significant amount of attention in the upcoming Infinity War or Avengers 4 because they're so overloaded with characters. Though I'm sure Tony (and probably Dr. Strange) will get a significant spotlight in both. That prospect leaves me less than thrilled.

While I don't disagree, and while in a perfect world I would rather that Tony not be an ass, given the choice between Tony being an ass and Steve being a hypocrite, I'll take the former over the latter each and every time. :-)

I do wonder a bit what RDJ was told before filming started. It seems unlikely that anyone came right out and said to Downey, "We're going to give Tony a lot to work with in this movie, but we're also going to take a fair-sized dump on him because Steve must remain morally pure." I think where we're actually disagreeing is that you're talking about quantity and I'm talking about quality. Which is fine, but I don't think it was necessary to make Stark so out and out wrong about the Accords just to create a rift in the Avengers. Or to make an annoying straw man character like Ross the face of the government. Martin Freeman did what he could with what they gave him, but let's be honest and say that Ross was less a real character than he was an amalgam of everything that's wrong with bureaucracy. And therefore just another obstacle for Heroic!Steve to thwart.