Captain America: Civil War thread

[Terralthra]

I think it's important to keep in mind that Captain America predates WWII. He's straight out of the New Deal political era, which indicates he has a very specific understanding of what the Great Depression was like and how the government helped the poorest during those times. He also missed the Red Scare entirely, so he never acquired the negative connotations of socialism and communism that many militaristic patriotic types did in the 50s-70s.

It's entirely likely that Captain America is a Socialist, given his focus on justice and caring for the little guy. He's almost certainly pro-union, at the very least. Someone on Tumblr wrote a fanfic from that perspective, and it fits super well, in my opinion.

[Imperial Overlord]

Other than the cybernetic arm and training, is Bucky enhanced in any other way?

Yes. He was experimented on by Hydra when he was captured in the first Captain America movie. We don't know if anything else happened to him while the Soviets and Hydra had him (besides the awesome cyber arm), but considering he's a physical match for Cap he's definitely jacked up.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh God that is like the MOST SATISFYING AND HILARIOUS FANFIC I HAVE EVER READ with the possible exception of like two people who are friends of mine.

I also feel sorry for poor Cap and the bananas thing. You can get bananas... "in name only."

The "no longer my problem!" reaction, also, is fucking hilarious.

[libertyjim]

Hi guys been a while. I'm not here to argue about whether Cap is or isn't a right wing man and/or a republican because frankly I don't care about that. [SPOILERS obviously]

The real question here is who is right? I personally do actually side with Cap on this one. Funny thing is I prefer Iron Man as a character (and my friend was the inverses of myself on the matter). I must admit that I can't help but be a little subjective on the matter because I empathise with a vigilante if they're just good people trying to do what they can to help/protect people (like Cap). If I was such an individual I doubt I could stand to do nothing when people needed me no matter what any authority figure told me nor could I stand to order that individual to stay home and not save the day.

Still I'll try to justify that. 1) The US government in the MCU have shown on multiple occasions that they cannot be trusted because they get infiltrated so often that isn't even funny anymore; by Nazis no less. For that matter they would gladly nuke their own people even when the Avengers seem to be making keeping up a strong resistance against the alien threat unleashed by Loki. I don't trust these guys. 2) When the Avengers are needed for an invasion of aliens over New York or better yet when Thanos comes knocking on Earth's door there isn't any time for a debate to decide whether or not the Avengers should be sent in. Of course they need to be sent in. 3) Even in more minor situations the Avengers will usually prevent more deaths than they'll cause. See the example at the beginning of the film which largely sets off the events in Civil War. Scarlet Witch moved Crossbone's and the explosion with him accidently blowing up a building. Ok The bomb would have gone off in the large crowd surrounding Cap and her if she hadn't moved it so the number of deaths is probably comparable.

Side notes: Even Tony Stark isn't 'Team Iron Man' by the end of the film and neither is T'Challa really; he just wanted his revenge and sided with the team that was against Bucky.

[ArmorPierce]

Word terminology does not have a single use and definition as you appear to believe, I am unsure why you are getting stuck on that You can use the same word in different contexts with different meanings. My use of social is referring to society in general on a grander scale which is represented by their governing body. You remind me of people getting all huffy that people use 'in theory' in colloquial communication in one dimension rather than the academic scientific definition of a 'theory'.

So basically, I have no right to criticize you for not knowing what words mean, or for twisting words.

I mean, I could make some cutesy bullshit argument that "social media" is "social" and therefore support of it is "socialist" and therefore anyone who uses Facebook advocates for the masses taking over control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie.

But that would be grossly stupid. It wouldn't be an argument, it would be a bad pun- a failure to grasp that different words with similar roots mean different things. Or that the same word, used in a specific context, has to mean the same thing, you can't just arbitrarily declare that today "right wing" means respecting my free speech and tomorrow it doesn't.

Words have meanings. If you twist or ignore the meanings, and twist or ignore the context behind how they came to mean what they mean, your arguments become pure gibberish.

Did I say socialist? No. I said social oversight and socialized oversight. Even if I did, does it matter? Not really, if I clarify what I am referring to.

For some obtuse reason, members this forum become overly concerned with the exact words that are used to express an idea.

I recall people jumping all over some senator or other government official regarding him asking the military general whether the expansion of the military base will capside the island... Obviously, he doesn't genuinely think the island would tip over. He was attempting to summarize his concerns in as few words as possible to facilitate communication.

Communication is not a mathematical equation where everything is strictly defined with little wiggle room. The point of language is to facilitate the sharing and expression of thoughts.

Regardless, look up the definition of what I said, social and socialized:

Social
1.of or relating to society or its organization.
2.(of a bird) gregarious; breeding or nesting in colonies.
3.an informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group.

socialized
1.mix socially with others.
2.make (someone) behave in a way that is acceptable to their society.
3.organize according to the principles of socialism.

My application of the word is within scope of the dictionary definition of the word.

I recognize that there can by leftwing anti-authority groups and that certain positions are not unique to left or right, quite frankly that simply does not matter in the context of my drawing of comparison to Republican and Democratic parties and American politics.

Lets break this down. Parallels between Captain America's positions and right-wing Republican beliefs.

Captain America's beliefs:

1. In favor of unilateral strikes across sovereign borders
2. Against social oversight.
3. Appears to be religious (first avengers movie made reference to Thor is not a god because there is only one God)
4. Believes that decisions are best made at the individual level

This is the same Cap who:
1) Objected vehemently to Nick Fury's plan to use the gun-armed helicarriers of Project Insight to preemptively target 'threats.'
2) Cheerfully participated in large organized teams and took orders like a trooper until it turned out his bosses' organization had been infiltrated by HYDRA of all people.
3) Is, okay, religious personally, but has never once bashed anyone over the head with it or tried to tell other people how to live that I can recall.
4) I repeat, cheerfully accepted all manner of oversight and joins armies at the drop of a hat, until one of those armies turns out to be massively corrupt.

You're trying really hard to twist the facts here, and it shows. Especially how vague you are about what 'social' means, and the way you totally overlook huge chunks of Rogers' backstory.

[/quote]

All that proves is that an individual's beliefs can change and there is varying degrees of how strongly they feel about issues.

1) What's your point? What constituted a threat? How would it target the threats? Just maintain visual on them? I don't remember the specifics from the movie.
2) So he changed his beliefs, what does this prove? There is nothing wrong with questioning authority. Refusing to work with, or comply with social oversight mechanisms, is a different matter completely... it's effectively a revolt which may be a justified position, but here I don't see one so far.
3) agreed
4) One organization being corrupt does not mean that the united nations is corrupt. Additionally, the united nations is not a military organization, it is a social organization (ie represents the will of the people of their respective societies). He could also choose to protest by simply retiring which was an option... or refuse to engage in missions that he disagreed with potentially, although we don't know if that would result in forced disbandment.

[Simon_Jester]

Did I say socialist? No. I said social oversight and socialized oversight. Even if I did, does it matter? Not really, if I clarify what I am referring to.

For some obtuse reason, members this forum become overly concerned with the exact words that are used to express an idea.

You are now using 'social' to mean things so broad that it no longer accurately describes the views of the Republicans. In which case, sure, Cap disapproves of "social oversight," but Republicans don't, because 'social' can mean anything.

I recall people jumping all over some senator or other government official regarding him asking the military general whether the expansion of the military base will capside the island... Obviously, he doesn't genuinely think the island would tip over. He was attempting to summarize his concerns in as few words as possible to facilitate communication.

Communication is not a mathematical equation where everything is strictly defined with little wiggle room. The point of language is to facilitate the sharing and expression of thoughts.

Thing is, you're NOT facilitating the sharing and expression of thoughts. You're just communicating badly and acting smug when you're misunderstood.

Expressing incoherent ideas and then trying to cover your ass by arguing over what the definition of "is" is... that's a complete waste of time and energy.

But frankly, you're being so evasive about this that there's not much point in engaging with you further. Either say what you mean in honest words that you won't try to redefine in an attempt to move the goalposts, or stop babbling about how Captain America is soooo Republican.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hi guys been a while. I'm not here to argue about whether Cap is or isn't a right wing man and/or a republican because frankly I don't care about that. [SPOILERS obviously]

The real question here is who is right? I personally do actually side with Cap on this one. Funny thing is I prefer Iron Man as a character (and my friend was the inverses of myself on the matter). I must admit that I can't help but be a little subjective on the matter because I empathise with a vigilante if they're just good people trying to do what they can to help/protect people (like Cap). If I was such an individual I doubt I could stand to do nothing when people needed me no matter what any authority figure told me nor could I stand to order that individual to stay home and not save the day.

Still I'll try to justify that. 1) The US government in the MCU have shown on multiple occasions that they cannot be trusted because they get infiltrated so often that isn't even funny anymore; by Nazis no less. For that matter they would gladly nuke their own people even when the Avengers seem to be making keeping up a strong resistance against the alien threat unleashed by Loki. I don't trust these guys. 2) When the Avengers are needed for an invasion of aliens over New York or better yet when Thanos comes knocking on Earth's door there isn't any time for a debate to decide whether or not the Avengers should be sent in. Of course they need to be sent in. 3) Even in more minor situations the Avengers will usually prevent more deaths than they'll cause. See the example at the beginning of the film which largely sets off the events in Civil War. Scarlet Witch moved Crossbone's and the explosion with him accidently blowing up a building. Ok The bomb would have gone off in the large crowd surrounding Cap and her if she hadn't moved it so the number of deaths is probably comparable.

Side notes: Even Tony Stark isn't 'Team Iron Man' by the end of the film and neither is T'Challa really; he just wanted his revenge and sided with the team that was against Bucky.

Now, that's actually a very good point about the MCU US government.

Its a lot easier to condemn people rebellion against the government when the government doesn't have a sizeable contingent of Neo Nazi terrorists operating among its ranks for decades.

Frankly, I'm amazed the President from Iron Man 3 stayed in office post Winter Soldier.

[Gandalf]

I'm surprised that after Age of Ultron Stark isn't in SuperGitmo, considering his pet project nearly wiped out life on Earth. Do the Sokovia Accords call for some sort of oversight of Stark Superweapons Inc?

Evidently the US DoJ still sucks when it comes to dealing with powerful people.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is, for conventional/classic superheroes to work, the government kind of has to be horribly useless at best. Because otherwise, the question naturally arises as to why national security, disaster response, and law enforcement relies heavily on unofficial and unaccountable vigilantes.

But in the Marvel universe, you've got a US government that has cocked up so badly that you can make the case for it. Much like the corruption and incompetence of Gotham law enforcement and government is what justifies Batman's existence.

Vigilante superheros don't work in a setting where the government is doing its job.

Edit: Of course, what would probably happen in the real world, because power corrupts and when there's a power vacume the most powerful warlord tends to fill it, is that one of these superhero teams would end up taking power and becoming the government, as in that alternate reality in the Justice League cartoon.

[Crazedwraith]

I'm surprised that after Age of Ultron Stark isn't in SuperGitmo, considering his pet project nearly wiped out life on Earth. Do the Sokovia Accords call for some sort of oversight of Stark Superweapons Inc?

Evidently the US DoJ still sucks when it comes to dealing with powerful people.

It's the most confusing part of the film for me. Tony making Ultron is barely raised. The issue with Sokovia is apparently off-screen collateral damage. which annoys me because in Age Of Ultron the whole point of the finale was them avoiding civilian casualties and proving they were the good guys.

But they had to wangle it that Tony and Steve are on different sides and Tony was pro-registration in the comic so...

[Simon_Jester]

One possible explanation for that is that much of the world doesn't actually have a clear idea of where Ultron came from... Or is that even a possibility now?

Also, even given how incredibly hard the Avengers tried to reduce collateral damage, the absolute quantity of damage was still quite high, so there may be an element of sticker shock in play.

[Crazedwraith]

One possible explanation for that is that much of the world doesn't actually have a clear idea of where Ultron came from... Or is that even a possibility now?

Interesting point. I'd assume that Ross/The Us Government knew Ultron's origins even if the general populace didn't.


Just thinking is this movie the first proper superteam vs superteam we've seen? It did mostly devolve into one on one matches but not entirely and there was frequent switching around of the combatants. I can't think of another film that did that.

[Elheru Aran]

I was actually thinking about that earlier. I'm not so sure that most of the world was actually aware of the Ultron thing. All they know is that a chunk of a big city in Sovokia got lifted into the air, then dropped back down, and the Avengers were involved somehow.

I want to say that Ultron was a joint Stark/Banner project, and that they mostly did it all in-house with Tony's prototyping technology. A fancier equivalent of two geeks working together in a basement. Then after the incident at Stark's party, Maria Hill at least would have been aware of that; I don't know if she was still with SHIELD after Winter Soldier, though.

Then the Ultron android makes its way to Sovokia, again on the down-low, contacts Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. They run about a bit, set off the Hulk vs Iron Man fight in Wakanda, but nobody else would've really known that was Ultron's doing. There's the bit with the Korean doctor and Vision, and the ensuing chase scene would have set off a bunch of alarms likely with the Korean government; did anybody ever address that?

Finally, there's the whole Sovokia incident. SHIELD knew about that at least, as they sent a Helicarrier to assist.

So I suppose it's reasonable that the US government, at least in the higher levels, may be aware of Ultron and how he was created, because the Avengers can't exactly say "uhh this killer robot just kinda popped out of nowhere, no we don't know if Stark had anything to do with it" because Hill saw what happened with the Iron Legion. Unless she kept mum about the whole business, but I doubt there's much way to do that.

[FaxModem1]

Maria Hill, according to Winter Soldier and Agents of SHIELD, was hired by Stark Industries after SHIELD's downfall. So, she had a plausible reason not to spill the beans to the public about Tony Stark doing mad science.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Just thinking is this movie the first proper superteam vs superteam we've seen? It did mostly devolve into one on one matches but not entirely and there was frequent switching around of the combatants. I can't think of another film that did that.

IMO that's a good thing- when everyone's fighting onscreen it gets very difficult to keep up with who's fighting who. Not to mention it's a bit of a waste of the VFX budget if you're needing to watch it more than once to work out what's happening

This way they were able to draw out the fighting that much more. One thing that I didn't expect was Black Widow being on Stark's side to begin with, it was no surprise when she switched to Cap

[Simon_Jester]

Then after the incident at Stark's party, Maria Hill at least would have been aware of that; I don't know if she was still with SHIELD after Winter Soldier, though.

Also, the incident at Stark's party does not, in itself, prove that the whole affair was Stark's fault. If they were trying to pass off Ultron as being HYDRA's fault or something, they could claim that what Ultron said in Hill's presence was disinformation.

Then the Ultron android makes its way to Sovokia, again on the down-low, contacts Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. They run about a bit, set off the Hulk vs Iron Man fight in Wakanda, but nobody else would've really known that was Ultron's doing. There's the bit with the Korean doctor and Vision, and the ensuing chase scene would have set off a bunch of alarms likely with the Korean government; did anybody ever address that?

Finally, there's the whole Sovokia incident. SHIELD knew about that at least, as they sent a Helicarrier to assist.

So I suppose it's reasonable that the US government, at least in the higher levels, may be aware of Ultron and how he was created, because the Avengers can't exactly say "uhh this killer robot just kinda popped out of nowhere, no we don't know if Stark had anything to do with it" because Hill saw what happened with the Iron Legion. Unless she kept mum about the whole business, but I doubt there's much way to do that.

They may have been able to devise some kind of alibi, or an explanation that wasn't Stark's fault. We know that SHIELD was able to do a personality upload of that HYDRA professor type, for instance- if the technology exists to upload personalities onto computers, maybe Stark could claim that he was hacked and that Ultron was not his direct creation- or was the product of his Iron Legion software after the hacking.

Indeed, Stark could take such an alibi and spin it: "Yes, I'm the guy who several years ago claimed to have successfully privatized world peace. Who refused to release his technology to world governments for fear it would be abused. But now that I've seen the fruits of my labors hacked and used for evil yet again, I realize now that I cannot realistically keep my technology secure from outside threats in an age where enemies like HYDRA exist. I need a support structure and a legal framework to operate within, something to replace the tragically compromised dream that was SHIELD."

He might even believe it.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah. It's somewhat of an open question as to how much the world/governments actually know about Ultron and what the Avengers have been doing.

With HYDRA, at least you have the whole 'this is a global terrorist organization that we're trying to root out and destroy' line. But Ultron was, in his own way, a very contained threat-- he never really went public, android bodies flying around Sovokia aside. It was a very different situation from the Chitauri attack on New York, which was a *highly* public occurrence.

What intrigues me from Civil War though is Black Panther. If he's just 'peak human'... he's ridiculously Olympic-Plus level or something like that. The thought occurs to me that perhaps the suit, vibranium being involved in some fashion, amplifies his natural strength/prowess? But the thing with vibranium was that it *absorbs* energy. Of course, it being a native mineral of Wakanda, perhaps they figured out how to *release* the energy?

The fact of the matter is that Wakanda has a *lot* of possibilities for the MCU. It appears to be very high tech from what little we saw, and if it becomes some kind of refuge for supers... it would give Team Cap a technology alternative to Tony Stark. That's a valuable break for them as Stark supplied a *lot* of their technology. If they can use Wakandan tech to replace Stark's augmentations, they can be independent.

Stark, in his turn, just lost War Machine (effectively). He still has Vision... but Vision is bearing one of the Infinity Gems, and Thanos is going to be coming for that. Will Vision still function after that? Natasha is out (more or less). Who else did he have... Spider-Man. Underoos is still just a kid, and it's quite possible that Cap might be able to talk him around.

So what does that mean for the MCU? Eventually, Cap, Bucky and Tony are going to have to work out their little... unpleasantness. Is the UN going to pull a Registration Movement on them? Tony needs some reinforcement-- if Cap broke everybody on his team out of the Raft (as it seems it implied at the very end), Cap has Wanda, Hawkeye, Falcon and Ant-Man on his side versus Tony and Vision. I wonder if this is where the Defenders come in? There's been some noise (but not very much) that the MCU might pull in the television heroes to take a spin alongside the movie heroes. It would be a bit of a divergence from the comics if the Defenders supported Stark, though, IIRC they were with Cap (at least Luke Cage definitely was, not sure about the others). I could see Doctor Strange being pulled to support Stark. And Thor is... where? Huh. That's a good question, which side would Thor come down on...

[biostem]

Regarding Ultron, I'm still a little confused about how he went from "run simulations to see if we can make his program compatible with our tech" to "active/alive and totally aware". Yes, it was foolish for Stark to conduct the tests so haphazardly, but I don't know how much blame you can place on him for the AI emerging, taking over the Iron Legion drones, then flying back to the Hydra base and uploading to the partially constructed robots there.

As for the whole issue in Civil War - in a world where threats that can destroy the entire planet are a very real thing, even the UN or major world governments have to realize that you can't sit around and wait for a committee decision. The best solution, IMO, is a compromise - let the Avengers go in, but have them accompanied by a UN force, who takes care of evacuating citizens and maintaining a safe zone.

[Bedlam]

The main problem I had with the massed team vs team fight was that Vision didn't seem to really be in the fight, he was probably the most powerful combatant there and until the end he just hovered about doing nothing. I can't recall anything holding him back, he could have realistically dealt with much of Caps team (unless the issue was he was to powerful to safely engage them). Meanwhile the witch, the most powerful member of Caps team did seem to be very involved in the fight and held off several of Tony's forces.

[Elheru Aran]

I suspect that Vision honestly wasn't sure how to properly hold back. The parts that he shows up, he pulls some pretty strong moves... we never really see him do anything like just punching a guy. He's a big gun, he's afraid to actually hurt anybody. After his 'friendly fire' ends up hurting Rhodey, he seems pretty shellshocked. Hell, did we even see him after that fight? I don't remember seeing him at Avengers HQ afterwards...

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. It's somewhat of an open question as to how much the world/governments actually know about Ultron and what the Avengers have been doing.

With HYDRA, at least you have the whole 'this is a global terrorist organization that we're trying to root out and destroy' line. But Ultron was, in his own way, a very contained threat-- he never really went public, android bodies flying around Sovokia aside. It was a very different situation from the Chitauri attack on New York, which was a *highly* public occurrence.

I'd say that Ultron's attack on Sokovia would have been at least as high-profile, messy, and public as Loki's attack on Manhattan.

Regarding Ultron, I'm still a little confused about how he went from "run simulations to see if we can make his program compatible with our tech" to "active/alive and totally aware". Yes, it was foolish for Stark to conduct the tests so haphazardly, but I don't know how much blame you can place on him for the AI emerging, taking over the Iron Legion drones, then flying back to the Hydra base and uploading to the partially constructed robots there.

I actually agree with you about this... but there are two catches.

One is that knowing Stark had done something like that, I would never seriously consider putting Stark in charge of anything ever again. Stark needs oversight very, very badly, if he's going to go around tinkering with alien artifacts of cosmic power or the like. I mean, compared to the kind of threat his research can pose, a guy like Cap is just small potatoes. About the only entity in the MCU who's more dangerous as a loose cannon on deck would be Banner... and frankly, I'm not actually sure Banner's a greater long term problem than Stark is.

The other is that, well. Having captured Loki's scepter and knowing there's a mysterious alien gem inside... You KNOW it's a potent mind control device, that can literally be used to totally brainwash people in seconds just by poking them with the pointy bit attached to it. Loki knew how to operate it, and could do so (as far as we know) safely. But what about us? Is there a safety on that thing? If you happen to touch it while thinking nasty thoughts, will it turn everyone in a two block radius into a berserker? Will staring at it for more than thirty seconds hypnotize you and turn you into a vegetable? Will hooking it up to a computer cause the AI prototype involved to become rampant, insane, and unbalanced? We don't know.

Remember the Tesseract. It was seen by SHIELD as a power source. But on another level, it is a mysterious artifact that could (without SHIELD's knowledge) be used as a gateway by hostile alien entities to invade the Earth. And SHIELD was totally unprepared to deal with the consequences of that, precisely because they had no way of knowing it could happen. Likewise, the scepter is a mysterious artifact such that we have literally no clue what it can and cannot do.

It is just plain not a good idea to experiment recklessly with devices of this power.



As for the whole issue in Civil War - in a world where threats that can destroy the entire planet are a very real thing, even the UN or major world governments have to realize that you can't sit around and wait for a committee decision. The best solution, IMO, is a compromise - let the Avengers go in, but have them accompanied by a UN force, who takes care of evacuating citizens and maintaining a safe zone.[/quote]

[Terralthra]

I'm not sure the Tesseract was the gateway. Dr. Selvig built the gateway, using the Tesseract. It's possible it's just the only power supply capable of supplying the necessary energy density in a portable and stealable fashion for the gateway to work.

[Reyvan]

I'm not sure the Tesseract was the gateway. Dr. Selvig built the gateway, using the Tesseract. It's possible it's just the only power supply capable of supplying the necessary energy density in a portable and stealable fashion for the gateway to work.

Loki was able to use it as a gateway at the beginning of the movie before he had any help on Earth to build him a Gateway. I think all Dr. Selvig did was build something to stabilize the Gateway so that it would say open long enough for an army to come through, instead of just closing instantly and destroying the area like it did when Loki arrived.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't mean the Tesseract-powered gateway used to bring in the Chitauri. I mean how Loki arrived via the Tesseract in the opening scene. This is alluded to when... I think it's Fury who hears the scientists talking about how the Tesseract is like a 'gateway.' He, being tactically savvy, points out that a gateway has two sides, and wonders what's on the other end of this one.

Loki shows up and the plot of Avengers ensues.

But the point here is that they didn't know exactly what the Tesseract is capable of. Sure, HYDRA used it very successfully as some kind of massive ultra-powered battery, but that doesn't make 'battery' the only thing it can do. And it turned out that the secret secondary functions of the Tesseract, which SHIELD had no way of knowing about, were very important and enabled a hostile alien to begin his takeover attempt of the Earth.

And compared to Loki's scepter, the Tesseract is safe to play with. Its obvious function is "battery" and the most likely failure mode is "explosion," which is something a good engineer can figure out a way to protect against. The scepter's obvious function is "mind control." How the heck do you take precautions against that?

[biostem]

There's a comment in the first Avengers that the Tesseract would allow them to draw energy from space, but there was also the implication that the portal that allowed Loki through wasn't just something anyone could pull off, and that either Thanos was involved or that he simply needed an Asgardian as they were rugged enough to survive the trip.