Spoilers Captain America: Civil War - Grading & Discussion

[Vendikarr]

None of his powers really manifest themselves in way that is obvious to people who don't he's blind, so he could at least probably get away with not registering as enhanced.

They may say enhanced, but they really seem to mean vigilante or villain. Of team Cap, only Wanda, Steve and Bucky are enhanced. The others use weapons or technology.

Of team Iron Man, they just have Vision and Spider-man. Again the others are just weapons or technology.

They would make Daredevil register just because he runs around in a costume.

 

[Xerxes82]

Sign on or retire, this was flat out said.

Yes, but not what was SHOWN. Wanda wasn't just allowed to retire and walk away at all. When she hadn't signed, she was interned, against her will and with no indication that it wasn't permanent.

It's an easy thing to say that you'll just let these people walk away. And for Widow, or Hawkeye, or Rhodes they probably mean it. But Wanda can't put her powers down and walk away, they're a part of her whether she likes it or not. The accords don't treat her like a person with choices, they treat her like a criminal JUST FOR EXISTING.

Yes, the Accords make a great deal of sense. Oversight, accountability. And that's how they were being sold to the populace and to the Avengers. In those terms, Team Iron Man all the way. But that's not ALL the accords were. They were also about bringing the Avengers to heel, making them tools of the politicians. It was about control.

Ross is a great example. Yes, he gives his speech about perspective and we're supposed to believe he's changed. But has he really? He wants the Accords for the exact same reason he chased the Hulk. He wants to weaponize the process. He isn't interested in heroes. He wants their powers to obey his bidding, and his agenda (or that of his boss, same thing). It's Imperialism in a post-human context, the next great arms race. Ross and those like him is precisely the thing that Cap is concerned about.

It's actually really interesting how well all concerned did in making both sides balanced. Both sides are both right and wrong in different ways. Compromise is the solution, but how much do you compromise when people are being treated like things instead of as human beings?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Yes, but not what was SHOWN. Wanda wasn't just allowed to retire and walk away at all. When she hadn't signed, she was interned, against her will and with no indication that it wasn't permanent.

That was Stark keeping her at the compound until the Logos thing blew over.

They were also about bringing the Avengers to heel

Because a group with the power of armies and no respect for sovereignty doing as they please kept in check by their morality is such a good idea. Also an organization NEVER meant to operate on their own.

Ross is a great example. Yes, he gives his speech about perspective and we're supposed to believe he's changed. But has he really?

I don't know the only thing saying otherwise is a bunch of fanboys who don't seem to like superheros being questioned.

It's Imperialism in a post-human context,

And the Avengers aren't. They weren't exactly wanted in Slovakia.

 

[Vendikarr]

One thing about the accords is that they would never become law in the U.S. The U.S. Constitution calls for treaties to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. And given the long term ramifications of giving control of super heroes to the U.N, it couldn't be an executive agreement.

Once it goes to the Senate, it's dead. Repubicans would have issue with giving control of American 'assets' to the U.N., and Democrats would need to have it specifcally spelled out what happens to those who don't wish to comply.

It would never get 67 votes.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Once it goes to the Senate, it's dead. Repubicans would have issue with giving control of American 'assets'

Iron Man 3 made it clear the Avengers weren't considered American assets.

Plus you assume the Accords weren't already okayed by Congress, or that there would be much political infighting after god knows how many members of the government were arrested for treason following their exposure as HYDRA members, or AIM members, or working for mob boss Wilson Fisk.

 

[Set Harth]

They weren't exactly wanted in Slovakia.

Let's not bring Slovakia into this!

 

[Xerxes82]

That was Stark keeping her at the compound until the Logos thing blew over.

And even then, holding someone against their will without legal authority, in the United States where she was being held, is tantamount to kidnapping.

And nobody is saying that the Avengers shouldn't be question, so take your "fanboy" strawman elsewhere. The underlying spirit of the accords is a good one. Absolutely the people of the world should expect accountability, especially for near-gods and the otherwise almost unimaginable.

It's the specifics of the Accords themselves that become problematic. I'm sorry that I'm not willing to throw away freedoms of due process and innocence until proof of guilt just to make you feel safe. The Avengers are people too. We'll never see a film out of the idea, since it would be dull, but I have no problem with something like South Africa wanting to extradite Banner for charges after the Hulk's rampage. Or of Sokovia's citizens seeking some kind of legal recompense for the devastation in their country. But that doesn't mean that just any attempt at oversight is acceptable.

Maybe that's why the film works so well for me? I sympathize with Iron Man's position, and believe him to be absolutely correct. But I see the flawed way he goes about trying to make it a reality, and I recognize that Captain America has extremely valid concerns about the larger process in place. The Sokovia Accords are a great idea poorly drafted, and placed in the hands of those who seek to execute them insofar only as their own agendas dictate.

 

[Gaith]

Yes, but not what was SHOWN. Wanda wasn't just allowed to retire and walk away at all. When she hadn't signed, she was interned, against her will and with no indication that it wasn't permanent.

As Tony implied, they probably didn't bother to present her passport to US customs officials after the Sokovia incident. Legally speaking, she probably shouldn't be in the States at all, not without applying for amnesty of some kind.

 

[Star Wolf]

That was Stark keeping her (Scarlet Witch) at the compound until the Logos thing blew over.
.

And how was that different from the Roosevelt administration with the ethnic Japanese Americans in 1942?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

^USAF Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes was already an employee of the US government at that point. He was doing his job and following orders. His role originally existed basically to get the government off of Tony's back about sharing his technology. He didn't start out as a superhero persee.

Agreed.

The difference is that as a free citizen and a professional serviceman, he can at any time *choose* to resign his commission and pursue a civilian life. Now under the act, he can probably still do that since when he's out of the suit, he's basically an ordinary person. The same is not true for Wanda, Vision, Daisy, Peter, Bruce, Jessica, Luke, Matt or any of the potentially thousands of people with innate powers beyond the human norm.

There options within the accords are to either do as they are told and *only* as they are told or face indefinite internment or onerous restrictions to nullify or contain their powers.

Translated, its a UN member nation power grab for the same absolute control Stark sought / believed in--only it zeroed in superheroes.

History in the MCU has successfully turned the tables on nations by catching them off guard with the rise of super beings, with government having no immediate means to deal with it (i.e. catch up). So the UN / paranoid nations respond in the form of an iron hand move. Absolute control (when hypocritically, they cannot and/or will not control each other).

The problem with the first part is a moral one, since as Cap points out, what if the government sends them into a situation not to do good, but to serve a political agenda? Or worse, forbid them from intervening in a tragedy because it's politically inconvenient.

Cap was correct, he's knows--probably better than anyone else living--the threat of governments using individuals or force to suit their own agendas, yet some--like his former friend--only become desperate to erase his guilt and still seek the kind of arrogant dream of a one-world power that placed him in the political / moral pit from the start.

 

[Mr Light]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
Civil War plummets 59.5% in its second weekend, while Batman vs. Superman held on strong with only a 49.1% drop despite losing 849 screens. Avengers Infinity War expected to be cancelled along with Inhumans now.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

History in the MCU has successfully turned the tables on nations by catching them off guard with the rise of super beings, with government having no immediate means to deal with it

This incorrect their means to deal with them are called the military. See Iron Man nearly getting killed by them in Iron Man or Stark's near death experience in Iron Man 3.

a one-world power

Oh so team Cap is based on idiotic conspiracy theories.

 

[Reverend]

Cap was correct, he's knows--probably better than anyone else living--the threat of governments using individuals or force to suit their own agendas, yet some--like his former friend--only become desperate to erase his guilt and still seek the kind of arrogant dream of a one-world power that placed him in the political / moral pit from the start.

I don't think Stark was at all arrogant in this.

Indeed, one of the things I really appreciated about CW is how well both POVs were represented. While I ultimately agree with Cap's sentiments more, Stark wasn't being unreasonable or unrealistic. Quite the opposite, he was being wholly rational at every turn (save that last one, which had massively extenuating circumstances.) If they had all opted not to sign the accord, something more drastic *would* have been enacted (possibly not a co-incidence that this was pushed forward while both Thor & Hulk are MIA.)
Clearly this is something that has been in the works for a while and the incident in Nigeria was just the excuse they'd been looking for. Indeed, they've probably been drafting this thing since Ultron. Generally it's not possible to get 100+ nations to agree on *anything* at short notice, much less draft a several hundred page accord, ready to be signed the day after an incident.

Mostly Stark was trying to keep the team intact as best he could, believing the alternative to be much worse. The real point of conflict for him was that he never considered Bucky was innocent and assumed Cap was acting out of blind loyalty. Indeed, if you watch the airport scene, Cap comes across as almost smugly superior while Stark is practically at his wits end; trying to keep a sinking boat afloat with chewing gum and lollipop sticks, all while Steve is happily bailing water in by the bucket load. At least that's what it looks like from where Tony is standing.
Cap's not actually being smug or superior, he's simply made up his mind and won't compromise, because on this issue, he *can't*.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

This incorrect their means to deal with them are called the military. See Iron Man nearly getting killed by them in Iron Man or Stark's near death experience in Iron Man 3.p

Oh, please. The military is no match for the collective power and abilities of superhumans. Governments know they cannot possibly stop them, other than the hope that they acquiesce to an attempt to control them. Just looking at Cap, take a look at the damage he caused in the elevator, against the jet and soldiers in Winter Soldier. He's a one-man army the most experienced fighters in the world could not handle. Nevermind what Scarlet Witch, Hulk, Thor, and others could do to any military outfit. However, instead of being trusted, the UN members want shackles on / mind control over them, with Stark happily skipping along with the go-nowhere plan.

Oh so team Cap is based on idiotic conspiracy theories.

Ultron proved that was Stark's intention, and it was never limited to that deadly creation. He is obsessed with absolute, one-world power.

 

[Trekker4747]

These accords seemed to have nothing to do with registration or anything along those lines like in the comics, it didn't for example require all super-powered persons to register with the government and become defacto agents of SHIELD.

This really only seemed to be about forcing them to operate in an official capacity for the US/UN both tying their hands and putting them on leash as well. As Steve said, the "accords" meant they could be sent somewhere where they don't want to go our could *not* be sent somewhere they are needed. Since Black Widow is an Avenger, though not super-powered, she had to sign the accords in order to continue going on Avengers missions. (Otherwise I'm guessing she'd either be release/retired or would go back to work strictly for SHIELD or whatever)

It seemed to want some kind of national accountability for when shit hits the fan, like the deaths of the missionaries or whatever. Sure, we could reason that the Avengers/Stark paid reparations to the families of the deceased and provided aide to the impacted areas there's still a matter of holding someone responsible for this stuff happening and how do you do that when you're dealing with individuals acting on their own and not under a government? (I'm guessing they're protected from extradition or something so they're not held responsible as individuals, extradited, tried, and then punished.) And even with relief provided there's still a matter of punishment to prevent things happening again. Tony Stark apparently has used life's Infinite Money cheat so providing aid is nothing to him. Everyone else goes home and then to their next job. Where's the incentive or motivation to make sure they don't F-up again?

So the accords was about putting them on a leash and tying their hands so they can't just go around doing whatever.

Moreover, it's likely the deaths caused by Wanda had nothing to do with it, it was the catalyst that pushed things over the edge but given the name of the bill it's obviously something the governments have been working on since Ultron. But it was probably the government's excuse to get the Avengers under their control for their own more sinister purposes. Now they've got the Avengers in their pocket so now they can go and fight wars in the middle-east to seize natural resources, or to control third-world dictators and such.

Sokovia and Lagos had nothing to do with anything, those incidents were for a greater good despite the collateral damages. The world was saved in Sokovia and Lagos prevented a larger disaster and the use of a biological weapon somewhere down the road. But it was enough of an excuse for governments to use it to rile people up to demand something be done and so the government could get control of The Avengers. Basically, the Sokovia Accords were the USA PATRIOT Act. While the disasters on 9/11 were real and true (and not manufactured problems blown out of proportion) the government could use that incident to get people to want and demand the government do whatever is necessary to prevent these disasters again. Boom, warrantless wiretaps, massive petabyte server montioring, data farms, and so forth.

Tony was a pawn in it too as he likely felt the idea was it good -getting them under control- not realizing the governments wanted their power - and his guilt being a driving factor. Cap saw the potential problems with it.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Oh, please. The military is no match for the collective power and abilities of superhumans.

keep telling yourself that.

Governments know they cannot possibly stop them, other than the hope that they acquiesce to an attempt to control them. Just looking at Cap, take a look at the damage he caused in the elevator, against the jet and soldiers in Winter Soldier. He's a one-man army the most experienced fighters in the world could not handle.

Snipers, drones, tanks, bombers, people actually shooting at him with guns...

Yeah, not invincible.

Scarlet Witch,

Was taken down by unpowered Hawkeye.

Hulk,

A Nuke

Thor,

According to Agents of Shield kill able via stabing

and others could do to any military outfit.

And yet, Stark needed Rhodes to call off the military before they shot his ass down.

However, instead of being trusted, the UN members want shackles

You just described them as powerful people they can't do anything against and now expect that to lead to trust and not fear.

on / mind control over them, with Stark happily skipping along with the go-nowhere plan.

What mind control, and seriously what makes you think their invincible enough not to be kill able.

Ultron proved that was Stark's intention

No it wasn't it was a defense system against aliens, seriously he flat out said it.

 

[Saga]

Avengers Infinity War expected to be cancelled

i'm not sure why you keep saying this.

 

[Star Wolf]

i'm not sure why you keep saying this.

The Marvel/DC fanboy rivalry is as real as any sports fanatic rivalry

These accords seemed to have nothing to do with registration or anything along those lines like in the comics, it didn't for example require all super-powered persons to register with the government and become defacto agents of SHIELD.

This really only seemed to be about forcing them to operate in an official capacity for the US/UN both tying their hands and putting them on leash as well. As Steve said, the "accords" meant they could be sent somewhere where they don't want to go our could *not* be sent somewhere they are needed. Since Black Widow is an Avenger, though not super-powered, she had to sign the accords in order to continue going on Avengers missions. (Otherwise I'm guessing she'd either be release/retired or would go back to work strictly for SHIELD or whatever)

It seemed to want some kind of national accountability for when shit hits the fan, like the deaths of the missionaries or whatever. Sure, we could reason that the Avengers/Stark paid reparations to the families of the deceased and provided aide to the impacted areas there's still a matter of holding someone responsible for this stuff happening and how do you do that when you're dealing with individuals acting on their own and not under a government? (I'm guessing they're protected from extradition or something so they're not held responsible as individuals, extradited, tried, and then punished.) And even with relief provided there's still a matter of punishment to prevent things happening again. Tony Stark apparently has used life's Infinite Money cheat so providing aid is nothing to him. Everyone else goes home and then to their next job. Where's the incentive or motivation to make sure they don't F-up again?

So the accords was about putting them on a leash and tying their hands so they can't just go around doing whatever.

Moreover, it's likely the deaths caused by Wanda had nothing to do with it, it was the catalyst that pushed things over the edge but given the name of the bill it's obviously something the governments have been working on since Ultron. But it was probably the government's excuse to get the Avengers under their control for their own more sinister purposes. Now they've got the Avengers in their pocket so now they can go and fight wars in the middle-east to seize natural resources, or to control third-world dictators and such.

.

The movie only focused on that the Agents of SHIELD in its function as a linking and fill in the blanks show for the MCU expanded upon the other sections of the accords.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

But it was probably the government's excuse to get the Avengers under their control for their own more sinister purposes. Now they've got the Avengers in their pocket so now they can go and fight wars in the middle-east to seize natural resources, or to control third-world dictators and such.

Sigh, when all else fails to make a point go for bullshit conspiracy theories.

Sokovia and Lagos had nothing to do with anything, those incidents were for a greater good despite the collateral damages.

Yeah, that was how HYDRA sold their mass murder plan, so no thanks.

The world was saved in Sokovia and Lagos prevented a larger disaster and the use of a biological weapon somewhere down the road.

Falcon and Widow stoped that, Scarlet Witch and Cap just fought Crossbones and ended up[ with Wanda accidently tossing an explosion ball at some aid workers.

But it was enough of an excuse for governments to use it to rile people up to demand something be done and so the government could get control of The Avengers.

They don't have to be riled up, people were already getting pissed off at the Avengers. Notice how in Agents of Shield the Watchdogs are a popular despite blowing up government buildings and they fucking hate the Avengers.

Basically, the Sokovia Accords were the USA PATRIOT Act. While the disasters on 9/11 were real and true (and not manufactured problems blown out of proportion)

This isn't a manufactured problem. Cities actually are being blow up here.

 

[Gaith]

i'm not sure why you keep saying this.

Notice how he didn't note that in its second weekend of release, Box Office Mojo is projecting a final ~430m domestic take, or 100m better than BvS, which it has already bested by some 70m worldwide.

Civil War is now pretty much guaranteed to become the MCU's fourth billion-dollar movie, following the Avengers films and Iron Man 3, and the first billion-dollar movie of 2016. The lesson is clear from the movie besting its DC rival by 31 points on Metacritic: quality pays off.