Captain America: TFA, TWS, & Civil War
- Thread starter X-SOLDIER
- Start date
Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
Sup guys. In light of how much my views improved on the rewatch of BVS, I felt in the interest of fairness, I ought to give Civil War another shot. My initial thoughts were mixed to negative the first time, if I remember right. So:
Wow, RDJ can act. He really has to run the gauntlet of all kinds of emotions in this movie from moment to moment, and does a great job of it.
Zemo's plan is still a giant chain of impossible coincidences, but, meh, I'll take it.
"Better watch your back with this one... there's a chance he might break it!" Waaaaay out of line, Hawkeye.
One thing I'm really having problems with this watch is how US centric it is, to be honest. I was actually kind of surprised at how bad it was. Normally, it doesn't bother me, I just assume something was worked out behind the scenes. SHIELD and the World Security Council you can assume have global jurisdiction, but here they're using real organisations and setting them up as strawmen, but they're only able to do that ignoring everything about how they actually work.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force is a thing... in the States. The movie version is operating out of Berlin. If it's a version of the States one, then there are serious jurisdictional issues here. If it's a movie only global organisation, why is nobody being listened to except the US Secretary of State? Everyone's acting like only he is calling the shots, and the only figures we see in management are Americans.
The US Secretary of State is able to send the German police (with orders to 'kill on sight') to apprehend a suspect in Romania. Imagine how that meeting went 'Hey guys, I need you to very publicly commit like four very serious crimes, and you're not even under my authority, is everyone okay with that?'
We see no reps from Nigeria, Germany, Austria, or Romania through any of this. All prisoners are taken to the US run Raft, under the Secretary of State, regardless of where their crimes were committed.
Even with my very rudimentary knowledge of how the UN works, I do not see 117 countries signing accords that give the US Secretary of State the power to do whatever the hell he wants. The word 'committee' would be in there somewhere. I don't think we ever hear it said in the script.
This would be ridiculously nitpicky most of the time, but the entire theme of this movie is about nations asserting their sovereignty. They're using real organisations and making the point that oversight by them is a bad thing, but they're only doing it by completely ignoring how all of them actually work. It's a very well made movie, for all that, but very difficult to like.
Zemo's plan is still a giant chain of impossible coincidences, but, meh, I'll take it.
"Better watch your back with this one... there's a chance he might break it!" Waaaaay out of line, Hawkeye.
One thing I'm really having problems with this watch is how US centric it is, to be honest. I was actually kind of surprised at how bad it was. Normally, it doesn't bother me, I just assume something was worked out behind the scenes. SHIELD and the World Security Council you can assume have global jurisdiction, but here they're using real organisations and setting them up as strawmen, but they're only able to do that ignoring everything about how they actually work.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force is a thing... in the States. The movie version is operating out of Berlin. If it's a version of the States one, then there are serious jurisdictional issues here. If it's a movie only global organisation, why is nobody being listened to except the US Secretary of State? Everyone's acting like only he is calling the shots, and the only figures we see in management are Americans.
The US Secretary of State is able to send the German police (with orders to 'kill on sight') to apprehend a suspect in Romania. Imagine how that meeting went 'Hey guys, I need you to very publicly commit like four very serious crimes, and you're not even under my authority, is everyone okay with that?'
We see no reps from Nigeria, Germany, Austria, or Romania through any of this. All prisoners are taken to the US run Raft, under the Secretary of State, regardless of where their crimes were committed.
Even with my very rudimentary knowledge of how the UN works, I do not see 117 countries signing accords that give the US Secretary of State the power to do whatever the hell he wants. The word 'committee' would be in there somewhere. I don't think we ever hear it said in the script.
This would be ridiculously nitpicky most of the time, but the entire theme of this movie is about nations asserting their sovereignty. They're using real organisations and making the point that oversight by them is a bad thing, but they're only doing it by completely ignoring how all of them actually work. It's a very well made movie, for all that, but very difficult to like.
Obsidian Fire
Ahk Morn!
- AKA
- The Engineer
I have to say I spent this entire movie banging my head against a metaphorical wall. There's so much stuff that goes ignored so that most people can present themselves as being in control of the situation when they aren't. If anything, I'd say Steve "wins" because Tony refuses to admit that he can't be in control of the situation. And Steve is a lot better with focusing on things he can influence vs focusing on things he can't so he doesn't come off as being extreme as Tony is.
Anyway, sorry if this comes off as a bit of a rant...
This was how I felt going into the move: https://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=691142&postcount=404
TLDR: Good Samaritan laws exist for a reason... And I really wouldn't want anyone who thinks super-humans are like atomic bombs writing laws about them...
Anyway, sorry if this comes off as a bit of a rant...
This was how I felt going into the move: https://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=691142&postcount=404
The thing that most annoys me is that everyone acts like the staus quo of the MCU is "Heroes act, Villains react" when it really the opposite. The people who choose where and when fights take place are the villains, and the heroes are kinda forced to fight them where ever they find them. To me the entire Accords felt like the UN was decided that since they can't make the villains pay monetarily for all the damage that was caused bringing them in, they're going to make the people fighting the villains pay. The fact that the Avengers never get to pick where they fight their battles really puts a kink into the whole Accords thing for me. I mean, what are they supposed to do to not run afoul with the Accords? Wait for the villains to go somewhere that's not urban? The entire Accords runs on the idea that the heroes pick their battles, when they really don't have that luxury. Honestly, what the Accords really amount to is "don't try fighting supervillians, your bank account can't take it".
The other thing is that anything trans-dimentional is ignored. There's literally nothing Earth can really do to prevent something like New York from happening again, and there's nothing about how Loki was the one really behind all the damage in New York. Or anybody bringing up some throwaway line about it or what the Avengers should have done in that case to minimize the damage. And if Doctor Strange and Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy are anything to go by, there's more problems of this type coming. Somebody should be thinking about non-Earth villains and how to handle those (especially those who escape Earth). Problem is, admitting to all that means admitting nobody on Earth has control over it.
I think part of this stems from a scaling issue to be honest. Given how big Earth is vs. tracking technology, it's possible to keep track of where people are. This leads to people having to deal with the perceived consequences of their actions when the people tracking them find them. Once the other dimensions and outer space are brought in, this becomes a lot harder to do. One of the reasons Guardians of the Galaxy works is that the galaxy is too big for Nova Corps to keep tabs on all of it. Nova Corps has no idea where the Guardians are when they're at Knowwhere because they'd be spread too thin if they tried to be everywhere. It's probably also why both the Guardians and the Ravengers are let go at the end. Yeah, it's true that they saved the day, but that's no different then what the Avengers have done on numerous occasions. What is different is that Nova Corps can't rebuild and go after them at the same time becasue outer space is too big. On Earth, the scale is small enough that the UN can do both.
Why yes, I am looking forward to the UN's reaction to meeting Nova Corps...
The other thing is that anything trans-dimentional is ignored. There's literally nothing Earth can really do to prevent something like New York from happening again, and there's nothing about how Loki was the one really behind all the damage in New York. Or anybody bringing up some throwaway line about it or what the Avengers should have done in that case to minimize the damage. And if Doctor Strange and Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy are anything to go by, there's more problems of this type coming. Somebody should be thinking about non-Earth villains and how to handle those (especially those who escape Earth). Problem is, admitting to all that means admitting nobody on Earth has control over it.
I think part of this stems from a scaling issue to be honest. Given how big Earth is vs. tracking technology, it's possible to keep track of where people are. This leads to people having to deal with the perceived consequences of their actions when the people tracking them find them. Once the other dimensions and outer space are brought in, this becomes a lot harder to do. One of the reasons Guardians of the Galaxy works is that the galaxy is too big for Nova Corps to keep tabs on all of it. Nova Corps has no idea where the Guardians are when they're at Knowwhere because they'd be spread too thin if they tried to be everywhere. It's probably also why both the Guardians and the Ravengers are let go at the end. Yeah, it's true that they saved the day, but that's no different then what the Avengers have done on numerous occasions. What is different is that Nova Corps can't rebuild and go after them at the same time becasue outer space is too big. On Earth, the scale is small enough that the UN can do both.
Why yes, I am looking forward to the UN's reaction to meeting Nova Corps...
Let me be upfront that Tony is one of the characters I like the least out of the Avengers. He's probably the character who causes me to bang my head against a wall the most. Usually because I wish he would just leave stuff that isn't engineering or stopping supervillains alone. People and society are not the robots he acts like they are. And he's got a really bad habit of projecting his own reasons for why he does stuff onto other people. Either he's projecting how he needs someone else to act as his conscious/check on his "superpower" and how he can turn his "superpower" off onto all the other superheroes or he's projecting his own experiences with dealing with trauma onto other people with trauma. So do I think he has a point? Yes. Problem is, he's a total "my way or the highway" kind of guy when it comes to implementing the good points he does have. And he's got enough money to actually do it. So people are willing to listen to him. So if his ideas turn out to be wrong, they go wrong big time.
I think what gets me about Tony is that he has such a good idea about how he feels about what he's gone though that he ignores how other people feel when it's different from how he feels about an issue. It's like he does what he wants and hopes they agree with hm when he's done. The scene that really drove this home is that last scene where he comes across all the other winter soldiers. It doesn't matter to him that Bucky had a 1/10th chance of being the one to kill his parents and that somebody else was ultimately responsible. What matters to him is that Bucky was the one who personally killed them and he wants him dead. If there's one thing I hope Tony finally learns from all this, it's that he can't control how people think/behave even if he thinks it's for their own good.
Steve, for all his position comes across as being naive, simply doesn't have the pull that Tony does. And that really limits how much potential damage he can cause. He'll never be the kind of guy who will get people to endorse his ideas at a state level, but that's not what matters to him either. What matters to him is sticking up for the individuals that get forgotten. And from his perspective, the Accords are forgetting that the Avengers are people, not just weapons. The writers probably don't think about this in regard to Steve's character, but from his perspective, WWII has been over for less then a decade. And he spent a good chunk of that time over in Europe. There's no way he's forgotten how badly forgetting people are people can go. I do find it interesting that at the end of Civil War he's doing the reverse of what he was doing in Europe in WWII (breaking people out of a Shield prison instead of a Hydra one).
So yeah, I mostly agree with Steve becasue the scope of his position affects way less people then Tony's does. Steve's position is not a end-all solution becasue it's not supposed to be, so it leaves room for individual circumstances. Tony's fight is both too personal and large for me to be comfortable backing it. I would like to see what he could come up with if he actually took into account what the other Avengers think about his ideas.
The person who really wins the Civil War though is T'Challa (obviously). He's the only one who's clear-headed enough to hand in the villain (who the Accords should probably really addressing) to the proper authorities. Up until that point though... that would have been a great publicity stunt to show the world why the Accords are needed. How would the Accords deal with the King of Wakanda after all the damage he did?
I think what gets me about Tony is that he has such a good idea about how he feels about what he's gone though that he ignores how other people feel when it's different from how he feels about an issue. It's like he does what he wants and hopes they agree with hm when he's done. The scene that really drove this home is that last scene where he comes across all the other winter soldiers. It doesn't matter to him that Bucky had a 1/10th chance of being the one to kill his parents and that somebody else was ultimately responsible. What matters to him is that Bucky was the one who personally killed them and he wants him dead. If there's one thing I hope Tony finally learns from all this, it's that he can't control how people think/behave even if he thinks it's for their own good.
Steve, for all his position comes across as being naive, simply doesn't have the pull that Tony does. And that really limits how much potential damage he can cause. He'll never be the kind of guy who will get people to endorse his ideas at a state level, but that's not what matters to him either. What matters to him is sticking up for the individuals that get forgotten. And from his perspective, the Accords are forgetting that the Avengers are people, not just weapons. The writers probably don't think about this in regard to Steve's character, but from his perspective, WWII has been over for less then a decade. And he spent a good chunk of that time over in Europe. There's no way he's forgotten how badly forgetting people are people can go. I do find it interesting that at the end of Civil War he's doing the reverse of what he was doing in Europe in WWII (breaking people out of a Shield prison instead of a Hydra one).
So yeah, I mostly agree with Steve becasue the scope of his position affects way less people then Tony's does. Steve's position is not a end-all solution becasue it's not supposed to be, so it leaves room for individual circumstances. Tony's fight is both too personal and large for me to be comfortable backing it. I would like to see what he could come up with if he actually took into account what the other Avengers think about his ideas.
The person who really wins the Civil War though is T'Challa (obviously). He's the only one who's clear-headed enough to hand in the villain (who the Accords should probably really addressing) to the proper authorities. Up until that point though... that would have been a great publicity stunt to show the world why the Accords are needed. How would the Accords deal with the King of Wakanda after all the damage he did?
TLDR: Good Samaritan laws exist for a reason... And I really wouldn't want anyone who thinks super-humans are like atomic bombs writing laws about them...
lithiumkatana17
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- Lith
I actually watched this movie with Mr. Lith last night for... maybe the third time? Actually sitting down and watching the whole thing at once and not skipping to my favorite parts I mean.
I don't think I ever posted my thoughts in here after the movie came out, but even after some time has passed, I still feel like Spiderman was shoehorned in. Black Panther's presence felt more logical than Peter's did. Sorrynotsorry.
I always leaned more towards Steve rather than Tony to begin with (mostly because Tony doesn't seem to learn) but I think this film definitely sealed the deal for me when Tony, out of desperation, goes and recruits Peter Parker. And he's what... 16 in this film?
Yeah, I get that Spiderman is one of the Avengers in the comics and all that, and he's capable of amazing things despite his age, but just the idea of going and recruiting someone who's still a child seems pretty selfish and reckless on Tony's part to me.
I enjoyed the film nonetheless, and loved the dynamics between Cap and Bucky, among other things. I still maintain that TWS is the best Captain America film; and one of the best films in the MCU period. In the top 5 at least.
I don't think I ever posted my thoughts in here after the movie came out, but even after some time has passed, I still feel like Spiderman was shoehorned in. Black Panther's presence felt more logical than Peter's did. Sorrynotsorry.
I always leaned more towards Steve rather than Tony to begin with (mostly because Tony doesn't seem to learn) but I think this film definitely sealed the deal for me when Tony, out of desperation, goes and recruits Peter Parker. And he's what... 16 in this film?
Yeah, I get that Spiderman is one of the Avengers in the comics and all that, and he's capable of amazing things despite his age, but just the idea of going and recruiting someone who's still a child seems pretty selfish and reckless on Tony's part to me.
I enjoyed the film nonetheless, and loved the dynamics between Cap and Bucky, among other things. I still maintain that TWS is the best Captain America film; and one of the best films in the MCU period. In the top 5 at least.
Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
I lean team Stark, partly because the movie tries so hard to make Pro-Accords look bad while glossing over things like
The thing about the Sokovia Accords is, it's a book. We don't really know how they work, there could be all kinds of distinctions. The Avengers needed to be in New York. Lagos, not so much.
The people on the ground in ww2 probably didn't know about a lot of that, because it only was confirmed afterwards. The thing about wartime is that every side always spreads stories about how evil the enemy are, so it's very hard to know whether that atrocity you heard about actually happened or not.
He was never meant to get into actual combat, so much as snipe from the wings.
Wanda unleashing the Hulk on Johannesburg.
The people on the ground in ww2 probably didn't know about a lot of that, because it only was confirmed afterwards. The thing about wartime is that every side always spreads stories about how evil the enemy are, so it's very hard to know whether that atrocity you heard about actually happened or not.
He was never meant to get into actual combat, so much as snipe from the wings.