Captain America: Civil War thread

[SCRawl]

My daughters were at a friends' house for the afternoon, so I grabbed the opportunity to see the film, and very much enjoyed it.

One (not very spoilery) thing, re: Aunt May and her not being an older woman. It actually makes more sense, doesn't it? Unless she's supposed to be his great aunt, she ought to be something like 10-35 years older than Peter, which puts her at 51 years old, tops. Probably more like late thirties/early forties, which is where we see her in the film.

[Crazedwraith]

She's only his aunt by marriage so really she could be any age. Ben parker's usually depicted as the older brother with a decent gap between him and Peter's dad.

[SCRawl]

She's only his aunt by marriage so really she could be any age. Ben parker's usually depicted as the older brother with a decent gap between him and Peter's dad.

If Peter's father was 30 years older than Peter, and Ben was 20 years older than that -- around the largest gap possible between full siblings -- then that's 66, and assuming Ben married a woman of roughly his own age, we get to the age we're used to. I don't think that the Spider-Man mythology suffers by having his parents be a little younger than 30 when he was born, or having Ben not be quite so unusually older than Peter's father. It opens up a few more story possibilities, as well.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I just got back from the pictures and loved it. The only issues I had were minor- them making a point of showing Pepper being absent like they did in Ultron. I get it was to show the cost to Tony Stark but still.

Does the cradle seen in Ultron still exist? Because that seems like it could do a decent job of fixing up Rhodey

Did anyone else think for a moment that Scarlet Witch was going to tear the mind stone from Vision's head?

The text that would appear on screen hurt my eyes a bit.

Overall it is a far better film than Dawn of Justice

It looks like the next Amazing Spiderman film will be called Homecoming.

[Crazedwraith]

She's only his aunt by marriage so really she could be any age. Ben parker's usually depicted as the older brother with a decent gap between him and Peter's dad.

If Peter's father was 30 years older than Peter, and Ben was 20 years older than that -- around the largest gap possible between full siblings -- then that's 66, and assuming Ben married a woman of roughly his own age, we get to the age we're used to. I don't think that the Spider-Man mythology suffers by having his parents be a little younger than 30 when he was born, or having Ben not be quite so unusually older than Peter's father. It opens up a few more story possibilities, as well.

Indeed. It certain changes the traditional dynamic, there would be less 'Peter worrying about his frail old aunt' but that's certainly not a bad thing.

[ArmorPierce]

[takes deep breath]

TRR, you're letting your political preconceptions cause you to jump to conclusions. Again.

ArmorPierce, you're a meathead. Again.

Democrats don't have a monopoly on being organized. Republicans don't have a monopoly on believing that individuals have rights. Republicans aren't the only ones who get to object if you claim the government

Yes, it is a common trope for supper heroes to ignore authoritarian rules and to engage in vigilantism. I didn't state that the film is intentionally weighing in the political debate between democrats and Republicans.

I am drawing the parallel in my mind. I am applying real life political views and philosophy to weigh in on their motives and actions.

Simply put, captain America is completely in the wrong here. If the governing system was heavily corrupt, he may have a point, but there is no evidence of that.

[Simon_Jester]

ArmorPierce, you're still being a meathead. "Authoritarian rules" are not somehow only a left-wing thing, except in right-wing anarcho-libertarian narrative. Ignoring authoritarian rules is not 'right wing' or 'left wing.' It is 'anti-authoritarian.'

The character of Captain America has had a persistent anti-authoritarian streak since at least the 1970s or so, from what I know. And in that time, the left and right have alternated back and forth repeatedly over which party's turn it is to be anti-authoritarian.

[ArmorPierce]

ArmorPierce, you're still being a meathead. "Authoritarian rules" are not somehow only a left-wing thing, except in right-wing anarcho-libertarian narrative. Ignoring authoritarian rules is not 'right wing' or 'left wing.' It is 'anti-authoritarian.'

The character of Captain America has had a persistent anti-authoritarian streak since at least the 1970s or so, from what I know. And in that time, the left and right have alternated back and forth repeatedly over which party's turn it is to be anti-authoritarian.

Pro-individualism and deregulation ARE right-wing concepts. He specifically states in the movie that we must take individual ownership of our actions rather than passing it on to an organization as part of the reason him being against the accord.

You can say that he is taking a right-wing anti-authoritarian position regarding governance and regulation.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

One question that was raised, is this: is Crossbones really dead? After all the trouble HYDRA went to in saving him in the wake of TWS, it seems a bit pointless to then kill him off by suicide bomb in the opening act. Though to be fair, he did a lot during that time.

[SCRawl]

One question that was raised, is this: is Crossbones really dead? After all the trouble HYDRA went to in saving him in the wake of TWS, it seems a bit pointless to then kill him off by suicide bomb in the opening act. Though to be fair, he did a lot during that time.

The suicide bomb was probably never more than a plan B, but almost any gambit which involves removing Steve Rogers from the board is a favourable one for HYDRA (or what's left of it).

[Crazedwraith]

And it would probably have worked had Steve been alone. Or had anyone other than Wanda with him.

[Simon_Jester]

Pro-individualism and deregulation ARE right-wing concepts.

Individualism is NOT a right-wing concept. Specifically, individual rights and freedom to control one's lifestyle are distinctly left-wing concepts, or are attributed to the left at least as often to the right.

"Deregulation" of corporations may be a right-wing concept in modern US politics but it is totally irrelevant to the plot of the movie.

If you know anything whatsoever about politics other than the slogans chanted on TV in the last five years or so, you wouldn't keep beating this drum.

You can say that he is taking a right-wing anti-authoritarian position regarding governance and regulation.

No, you can, because "right wing" is just a word to you, it doesn't actually mean anything.

[hunter5]

[takes deep breath]

TRR, you're letting your political preconceptions cause you to jump to conclusions. Again.

ArmorPierce, you're a meathead. Again.

Democrats don't have a monopoly on being organized. Republicans don't have a monopoly on believing that individuals have rights. Republicans aren't the only ones who get to object if you claim the government

Yes, it is a common trope for supper heroes to ignore authoritarian rules and to engage in vigilantism. I didn't state that the film is intentionally weighing in the political debate between democrats and Republicans.

I am drawing the parallel in my mind. I am applying real life political views and philosophy to weigh in on their motives and actions.

Simply put, captain America is completely in the wrong here. If the governing system was heavily corrupt, he may have a point, but there is no evidence of that.

Yeah because discovering Hydra had infiltrated significant portions of both SHIELD and the United States government is not evidence of heavy corruption.

[Gandalf]

I think this sort of debate would be made easier if we knew what the Sokovia Accords actually said. It can't be the superhero registration act, because a lot of the Avengers don't have superpowers. Does it just restrict the formal organisation of The Avengers, meaning that they could all turn to freelance superheroing?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I thought of a theory about Bucky's mechanical arm- it's possible that it wasn't made entirely of Vibranium, since by its nature it has to have a bunch of servos and other components that aren't made of the material. It may well have a Vibranium outer shell, but even the smallest gap between the segments will allow a portion of the repulsor blast through and destroy its internals.

It's probably a coincidence, but there's a superficial similarity between Bucky's arm and the Destroyer from Thor.

[RogueIce]

I think this sort of debate would be made easier if we knew what the Sokovia Accords actually said. It can't be the superhero registration act, because a lot of the Avengers don't have superpowers. Does it just restrict the formal organisation of The Avengers, meaning that they could all turn to freelance superheroing?

They would be given tasks by a UN Committee, anyone who didn't sign on could just retire from the superhero gig, no hard feelings.

If they went freelance they'd be treated like anyone else who takes the law in their own hands. Basically it mostly took away the whole "we look the other way for superheroes" aspect of it all, and said that if the Avengers wanted to continue Avenging, they could do so under UN oversight and supervision. At least that was my takeaway from it, the movie didn't exactly delve into the details.

Which...is not that unreasonable? I mean yeah Steve is justifiably leery given his experiences with the WSC and SHIELD-turned-Hydra and all that, plus his general outlook and the issues we all know exist within the current UN framework and typical politics. But the Sokovia Accords do make sense from the general public's perspective so it's hard to say they were wrong per se y'know?

I think that's a strength of the movie, really. Both sides are right (and wrong) in their own ways, and we can see their points of view and really neither Tony or Steve can say their perspectives are 100% right. Even Tony acknowledges the Accords are imperfect and have their downsides but compared to the alternative and the inevitable global response to the Avengers running around unchecked long-term, they were the best option they had, in his view.

[Elfdart]

My daughters were at a friends' house for the afternoon, so I grabbed the opportunity to see the film, and very much enjoyed it.

One (not very spoilery) thing, re: Aunt May and her not being an older woman. It actually makes more sense, doesn't it? Unless she's supposed to be his great aunt, she ought to be something like 10-35 years older than Peter, which puts her at 51 years old, tops. Probably more like late thirties/early forties, which is where we see her in the film.

When I read the comic books many years ago, I always assumed May and Ben were his great aunt and great uncle, because they had white hair and looked to be retirement age. So yes, I was surprised to see Aunt May as a MILF.

Anyway, every time I see Marisa Tomei, I keep thinking of My Cousin Vinny. I expected her to tell Peter "Sure you'll do fine as a superhero...


...as long as you don't FUCK UP!"

[ArmorPierce]

Pro-individualism and deregulation ARE right-wing concepts.

Individualism is NOT a right-wing concept. Specifically, individual rights and freedom to control one's lifestyle are distinctly left-wing concepts, or are attributed to the left at least as often to the right.

"Deregulation" of corporations may be a right-wing concept in modern US politics but it is totally irrelevant to the plot of the movie.

If you know anything whatsoever about politics other than the slogans chanted on TV in the last five years or so, you wouldn't keep beating this drum.

You can say that he is taking a right-wing anti-authoritarian position regarding governance and regulation.

No, you can, because "right wing" is just a word to you, it doesn't actually mean anything.

The entire point to my comparison to democrats and republicans is that I am drawing parallels to actual real politics occurring today and apply actual political views.

Belief in social oversight of individual actions is a left wing concept. Individual rights is a more nuanced issue and is not inherently in conflict with social oversight.

Captain America declares that he is against socialized oversight because he feels that responsibility is exercised best at an individual level. This reflects an anti-authority anti-regulation pro individualistic quasi-libertarian view.

Please keep in mind that the accord does not require them to individually comply with any action that they disagree with... although the consequences may mean that they might be required to exit their superheroing careers that wasn't exactly made clear. What was made clear was that they would no longer be permitted to unilaterally engage in missions without oversight and approval, but there would be no repercussions for simply deciding the accord was not for them.

[Terralthra]

Pro-individualism and deregulation ARE right-wing concepts.

Individualism is NOT a right-wing concept. Specifically, individual rights and freedom to control one's lifestyle are distinctly left-wing concepts, or are attributed to the left at least as often to the right.

"Deregulation" of corporations may be a right-wing concept in modern US politics but it is totally irrelevant to the plot of the movie.

If you know anything whatsoever about politics other than the slogans chanted on TV in the last five years or so, you wouldn't keep beating this drum.

You can say that he is taking a right-wing anti-authoritarian position regarding governance and regulation.

No, you can, because "right wing" is just a word to you, it doesn't actually mean anything.

The entire point to my comparison to democrats and republicans is that I am drawing parallels to actual real politics occurring today and apply actual political views.

Belief in social oversight of individual actions is a left wing concept. Individual rights is a more nuanced issue and is not inherently in conflict with social oversight.

Except for abortion. And birth control. And purchasing sex toys. And who one marries. And who goes to which bathroom.

[ArmorPierce]

Individualism is NOT a right-wing concept. Specifically, individual rights and freedom to control one's lifestyle are distinctly left-wing concepts, or are attributed to the left at least as often to the right.

"Deregulation" of corporations may be a right-wing concept in modern US politics but it is totally irrelevant to the plot of the movie.

If you know anything whatsoever about politics other than the slogans chanted on TV in the last five years or so, you wouldn't keep beating this drum.

No, you can, because "right wing" is just a word to you, it doesn't actually mean anything.

The entire point to my comparison to democrats and republicans is that I am drawing parallels to actual real politics occurring today and apply actual political views.

Belief in social oversight of individual actions is a left wing concept. Individual rights is a more nuanced issue and is not inherently in conflict with social oversight.

Except for abortion. And birth control. And purchasing sex toys. And who one marries. And who goes to which bathroom.

But then again, all those forms of discrimination and oppression were defeated, legalized or made illegal through social oversight, and is continuously monitored by social oversight to ensure that those individual rights are not revoked.

The current argument made in favor of allowing folks to revoke these rights is the gratuitous assertion of supposed individual rights to be free from social oversight and allowed to choose who they serve or what have you.

[Balrog]

I think that's a strength of the movie, really. Both sides are right (and wrong) in their own ways, and we can see their points of view and really neither Tony or Steve can say their perspectives are 100% right. Even Tony acknowledges the Accords are imperfect and have their downsides but compared to the alternative and the inevitable global response to the Avengers running around unchecked long-term, they were the best option they had, in his view.

Agree 100% with the way it started off, although it seemed by the end of the movie they were leaning more towards "Steve was right" with the way things turned out (superGitmo, proof Bucky was framed, etc.)

Part of me was expecting (and sorta hoping) Tony would kill Bucky, expecting this Civil War theme would continue for a few more movies. However the way it did end means it would be much easier and quicker for the band to get back together again whenever Thanos shows up.

Also, more Ant-Man/Spidey banter, plz?

[biostem]

Now, see, what they should have done was to keep someone in reserve strictly for the purpose of keeping civilians safe. I think the problem is that with everyone focused on fighting, they easily lose sight of the collateral damage.

[Crazedwraith]

Which...is not that unreasonable? I mean yeah Steve is justifiably leery given his experiences with the WSC and SHIELD-turned-Hydra and all that, plus his general outlook and the issues we all know exist within the current UN framework and typical politics. But the Sokovia Accords do make sense from the general public's perspective so it's hard to say they were wrong per se y'know?

I think that's a strength of the movie, really. Both sides are right (and wrong) in their own ways, and we can see their points of view and really neither Tony or Steve can say their perspectives are 100% right. Even Tony acknowledges the Accords are imperfect and have their downsides but compared to the alternative and the inevitable global response to the Avengers running around unchecked long-term, they were the best option they had, in his view.

Along with his bad experiences with the WSC/Shield/Hydra (and Agents of Shield sbow Hydra had infiltrated both of the first two) theres also the fact the Sokovia accords make the action or inaction of the Avengers on the agreement of 27 differeny countries. If Cap has to wait for the equivilent of an UN treaty before he can even pick up his Shield well... the avengers lose any hope of quick action or heading things off. Imagine if Loki or Ultron got enact the first few steps of a plan with no opposition at all.

[biostem]

Which...is not that unreasonable? I mean yeah Steve is justifiably leery given his experiences with the WSC and SHIELD-turned-Hydra and all that, plus his general outlook and the issues we all know exist within the current UN framework and typical politics. But the Sokovia Accords do make sense from the general public's perspective so it's hard to say they were wrong per se y'know?

I think that's a strength of the movie, really. Both sides are right (and wrong) in their own ways, and we can see their points of view and really neither Tony or Steve can say their perspectives are 100% right. Even Tony acknowledges the Accords are imperfect and have their downsides but compared to the alternative and the inevitable global response to the Avengers running around unchecked long-term, they were the best option they had, in his view.

Along with his bad experiences with the WSC/Shield/Hydra (and Agents of Shield sbow Hydra had infiltrated both of the first two) theres also the fact the Sokovia accords make the action or inaction of the Avengers on the agreement of 27 differeny countries. If Cap has to wait for the equivilent of an UN treaty before he can even pick up his Shield well... the avengers lose any hope of quick action or heading things off. Imagine if Loki or Ultron got enact the first few steps of a plan with no opposition at all.

Or if a country that is part of the U.N. were to be covertly taken over, and some sort of doomsday weapon/ritual/project were undertaken - they simply tout their sovereignty and refuse to let the Avengers in.

Now, see, if I were Stark, I'd simply setup Avengers HQ on the equivalent of an oil platform in international waters, (though I suppose that wouldn't solve the problem, as long as Stark, Rogers, and the others that are U.S. citizens wanted to remain as such).

[FaxModem1]

Now, according to Agents of SHIELD, Hydra has been utterly destroyed except for one small town led by an ancient Inhuman with mind control powers over other Inhumans. So if Crossbones wasn't working for Hive, who was he working for?