Cap VS Tony, Red VS Blue, Russo bros VS Whedon

[Bezula]

I have a Lot Of Thoughts on the MCU.

If you dislike the current depictions of the Marvel superheroes in film, this is not the thread for you.

First off, as a disclaimer and in the interests of transparency, I am Team Stark, accountability over secrecy, democracy over impulse, and the worlds safety over one friendship.

In the wake of the upcoming Thanos event, I wanted to see how the ground lay on opinions of these characters (myself and my friends have already as you can imagine had heated debates!).

Personally I think the Russo brothers are continuing to make Cap look like some kind of martyr Jesus, a trend they have started since Winter Soldier (a film where at the end, the world is told to go eff themselves because super powered people are Always Right). It continued to the end of Civil War and looks like they're going that way with Infinity War too.

Now thats not to say I haven't enjoyed the Russo bros stuff - their fight scenes are second to none. Literally, the choreo in these films is staggering and it really feels like the way superhero fights should be done. Black Panther vs Bucky/Cap - sheer gold.

But they do "grittier" films. Edgy. More "realistic". Cap wears his terrible disguise throughout a lot of them. Ooh. Spies.

Now introduce a giant purple testicle man who arrives in a spinning wheel and wants his favourite shiny fashion accessory back.

It's not gritty, or real. It's space opera camp and silly, and should have been done by someone who can do those things (hem hem Whedon). Yes there'll be a death or two, but it's the superhero universe, no one ever really dies.

Unless someone wants out of a contract...I'm looking at you Robert!

I worry about the long term ramifications of having Captain America portrayed the way the Russos are doing (always right, morally unimpeachable and never accepts his mistakes). Bring me back the capable and adorable Cap who said "there's only one god ma'am, and he doesn't look anything like that".

Are they building a superhero or a demagogue?

Discuss.

[thisisnotspam]

Mr. ''privatised world peace'' created Ultron, a robot that destroyed a nation in an attempt to cleanse earth of biological life. The immoral way he spent most of his life led to the creation of the villains from Homecoming, Iron Man 3, Iron Man 1, partially Iron Man 2 (Howard takes most of the blame here) *. Yes, he saved central NY from the nuke, but other than that we mostly see him cleaning up his own mess in these movies, mess that gets innocent civilans killed. Yet he always gets off scot-free. He's not just some guy who makes suits and fights bad guys. He's a powerful industrialist who has created a private arsenal that can rival most nations. He's well connected with America's military and political establishment. He's untouchable and he knows it, as shown by the fact that he tried to murder an innocent man at the end of Civil War.

Steve is not infallible in the movies. He worked for a Hydra controlled organisation without knowing it. The results of the Accords' signing hasn't been shown (and in Homecoming, Tony's aiding a young superhuman who's acting without any government oversight, aside from being checked on by Tony from time to time), so we don't know who was right on that account.

Rogers is brave, bright and with a strong moral compass, he didn't need any other reason to go fight the good fight in The First Avenger. His firm morals might make it seem like he's being presented as perfect by the Russos, but it was his inflexibility that in part helped Zemo's plan to succeed.

*One could argue that Stark is partially to be blamed for Killmonger too. Although Killmonger's a racist who hates all white people for the plight of Africa and the blacks, Stark being an arms dealer and a capitalist certainly makes him more guilty than most for those things.

[Dienekes]

Thing is, the always right martyr. That's who Rogers is. He is the over-idealized America, fighting the good fight. Standing by your morals. All that jazz. Hell, he was the first Avenger not named Thor (or a Thor replacement character) to pick up the hammer. Back when that ability actually meant something, in comics.

It's also worth noting on the civil war debate. That movie does show Rogers as kind of flawed while still being an overly moral martyr figure. He hides some truths from Tony. He straight up says that he will always lend a hand when people are in trouble even if laws tell him otherwise. Hell, the Russo's toned down the Superhero Registration Act dramatically to make it so that there is an actual argument here without the forced impressment of anyone born with a power. And didn't make Tony a ridiculous supervillain that murders his friends.

Meanwhile, yeah, Rogers could totally be a demogogue if he tried. He is Captain freaking America. It's been stated multiple times in the comics that if he ran for president he'd win through shere popularity alone. He wouldn't even have to have policies. Which is precisely why he doesn't do that. He's become kind of an examination of the paragon figure in literature. Where his shere personality is a force you have to deal with and recognize in every situation he's in. Does Ant Man really care about the Accords? Or is he just there to stand by Captain Freaking America? Does Natasha side with Cap because she changed her mind, or because he's Captain Freaking America?

However, in fairness Tony has that as well, to a lesser extent. Only it's Peter who really has no idea what's going on and is just following Tony because Tony manipulates him a little bit.

As to Rossos vs Whedon. I honestly never thought that Whedon really liked or even understood Cap. Which is part of why Rogers doesn't really do anything besides be a straight man for Tony in Avengers 1, and pointlessly trying to get into a fistfight with Iron Man while acting like a high school jock with an inferiority complex. And his character shtick is based around not liking cussing in Avengers 2. Despite the fact that Rogers does swear. Not particularly found of blasphemy in the comics.

However, one thing I will say in Whedon's favor, is he is very good at using ensemble casts and getting out quick characterization. The Russos' attempt to do this in Civil War is not as strong as Whedon's ability. And since we have, if anything, far more characters than should ever really be smooshed in a single movie, I do worry that most of the heroes will get lost in the shuffle.

Also, how the hell did you get "super powered people are always right" as the moral of Winter Soldier?

[Devonix]

Meanwhile, yeah, Rogers could totally be a demogogue if he tried. He is Captain freaking America. It's been stated multiple times in the comics that if he ran for president he'd win through shere popularity alone. He wouldn't even have to have policies. Which is precisely why he doesn't do that. He's become kind of an examination of the paragon figure in literature. Where his shere personality is a force you have to deal with and recognize in every situation he's in. Does Ant Man really care about the Accords? Or is he just there to stand by Captain Freaking America? Does Natasha side with Cap because she changed her mind, or because he's Captain Freaking America?

This right here, this right here is why I loved the Nick Spencer run on Captain America and Secret Empire. It took this whole idea of everyone implicitly trusting Steve and basically showed what would happen if that trust was misplaced. How easy it would be for an evil cap to take over. Because Real Steve doesn't want that level of trust. He wants people to think for himself. It's also the danger of Superman. If Supes wanted to take over, there are plenty of people who would just let him. Not for fear of his power, but simply because giving up control to some altruistic good guy is a tempting concept.

[Sapphire Guard]

The Russos make good movies, but they don't quite make films I like.

I've been slowly souring on the MCU since Winter Soldier. There's this one moment that cracked the whole movie for me.

Spoiler

Show

The pilots are getting ready to scramble and note that they are 'Cap's only air support.' Then Bucky pointedly slaughters them all in seconds. It's pretty much a punchline. The contributions of NPCs to superhero movies amount to being a joke.

Civil War was very carefully written to gloss over things like

Spoiler

Show

Wanda unleashing the Hulk on Johannesburg, and lost a lot of my goodwill due to how hugely US Centric it was (normally, you expect that from a comic book movie, but this one was specifically about non US nations asserting their sovereignty), and mostly involved US officials telling European security forces what to do about terrorist attacks on their own territory. Tony's team is in ruins by the end, while Cap's is basically intact.

Whedon makes a good movie, but he makes one kind of movie. A lot of the beats in Ultron were lifted directly from Avengers 1.

So for Infinity War, I'm expecting a good film that I don't like.

[Calemyr]

Personally, I lean Stark myself, but there is one sticking point that really irks me: the lack of a "pardon before permission" provision. An accord as well built as the Sokovia Accords were implied to be should consider the fact that, when faced with critical situations involving limited time and/or active obstruction, an Accord hero should be able to the act with the expectation that an after-action investigation would judge if the actions taken were justified and the appropriate punishment for disobeying orders. Given that both the World Commission (Avengers 1 and Agents of SHIELD) and SHIELD have both been corrupted in recent history, such consideration should be mandatory.

I.e. "General Ross was overtly impeding an active investigation, disregarding new evidence, and threatening Accord-compliant heroes without sufficient justification (the previous encounter said heroes were involved in, though not entirely successful, was handled in a proper manner to minimize loss of life and collateral damage). The evidence at hand presented a clear and present danger that required immediate investigation and resolution. Ensuing damage was limited to an abandoned Hydra facility and personal materiel. Stark broke compliance only in resorting to lethal force based on personal grievance and should be sentenced accordingly. Other agents involved have been found non-compliant, but acting in good faith and should be sentenced accordingly."

Given that Stark was stunned to find them imprisoned at the Raft, and was openly attempting to retroactively resolve the Winter Soldier incident, he very likely assumed such a provision had been included. Indeed, maybe it had, and Ross was just that far off the reservation in his response. We'll never know, however, because Cap broke 'em all out before any justice beyond initial containment could be pursued.

It's worth noting that Stark references his own misdeeds in defending the Accords, pointing out that Ultron happened while Tony had no oversight and that such oversight could have avoided the calamity that followed. Stark has a defined pattern of making mistakes, learning from them, and doing better in the future.

[Keltest]

Personally, I lean Stark myself, but there is one sticking point that really irks me: the lack of a "pardon before permission" provision. An accord as well built as the Sokovia Accords were implied to be should consider the fact that, when faced with critical situations involving limited time and/or active obstruction, an Accord hero should be able to the act with the expectation that an after-action investigation would judge if the actions taken were justified and the appropriate punishment for disobeying orders. Given that both the World Commission (Avengers 1 and Agents of SHIELD) and SHIELD have both been corrupted in recent history, such consideration should be mandatory.

I.e. "General Ross was overtly impeding an active investigation, disregarding new evidence, and threatening Accord-compliant heroes without sufficient justification (the previous encounter said heroes were involved in, though not entirely successful, was handled in a proper manner to minimize loss of life and collateral damage). The evidence at hand presented a clear and present danger that required immediate investigation and resolution. Ensuing damage was limited to an abandoned Hydra facility and personal materiel. Stark broke compliance only in resorting to lethal force based on personal grievance and should be sentenced accordingly. Other agents involved have been found non-compliant, but acting in good faith and should be sentenced accordingly."

Given that Stark was stunned to find them imprisoned at the Raft, and was openly attempting to retroactively resolve the Winter Soldier incident, he very likely assumed such a provision had been included. Indeed, maybe it had, and Ross was just that far off the reservation in his response. We'll never know, however, because Cap broke 'em all out before any justice beyond initial containment could be pursued.

It's worth noting that Stark references his own misdeeds in defending the Accords, pointing out that Ultron happened while Tony had no oversight and that such oversight could have avoided the calamity that followed. Stark has a defined pattern of making mistakes, learning from them, and doing better in the future.

Unfortunately, I think that problem is going to be present in some flavor no matter what the accords are. There is simply too much exposition required to head off all of those problems in a ~2 hour superhero movie. Were talking a massive legal document with wide spread repercussions on a global scale. Most of the audience wouldn't understand or care about a lot of the nuance in them.

Having said that, I wish Stark had pushed the "right now theyre inviting us to the bargaining table, but theyre going to do this with or without our input" angle some more. I feel like Steve really should have been given a response to that, because I find it pretty compelling.

[Calemyr]

Unfortunately, I think that problem is going to be present in some flavor no matter what the accords are. There is simply too much exposition required to head off all of those problems in a ~2 hour superhero movie. Were talking a massive legal document with wide spread repercussions on a global scale. Most of the audience wouldn't understand or care about a lot of the nuance in them.

Having said that, I wish Stark had pushed the "right now theyre inviting us to the bargaining table, but theyre going to do this with or without our input" angle some more. I feel like Steve really should have been given a response to that, because I find it pretty compelling.

Agreed, it doesn't work for the movie - if only because there needs to be some conflict - but that one provision is the difference between Cap having ground to stand on to resist and Cap grasping at straws.

Also, regarding Homecoming, Stark presumably did the proper paperwork to get Parker compliant as a low-level hero back in Civil War. He's clearly shown as playing that kind of role in Civil War, loudly declaring his status as a non-combatant. Parker's involvement in higher-stakes heroism likely forced Stark to improvise a solution the way he tried to do for Cap. Paperwork, however, does not lend itself well to an enjoyable movie.

[lord_khaine]

I worry about the long term ramifications of having Captain America portrayed the way the Russos are doing (always right, morally unimpeachable and never accepts his mistakes). Bring me back the capable and adorable Cap who said "there's only one god ma'am, and he doesn't look anything like that".

Oh gods no, i newer wanted to smash him in his perfect face as badly as i did there. And yell "Your religion is not universal you intollerant prick. Dont actively shove it down others throat"
That or ask him if he has A) seen god, and B) how he is able to say that when its not the case.

and mostly involved US officials telling European security forces what to do about terrorist attacks on their own territory

That was one of the worst bits in said movie. Europe generally has pretty strick rules about when you can shoot to kill. Going in like that should get whoever took the order from Ross stand trial.

[Keltest]

Oh gods no, i newer wanted to smash him in his perfect face as badly as i did there. And yell "Your religion is not universal you intollerant prick. Dont actively shove it down others throat"
That or ask him if he has A) seen god, and B) how he is able to say that when its not the case.

I thought it was the kind of charmingly simple thing that Cap would say there. He isn't super religious, but he isn't atheist either.

Also, if your reaction to somebody casually bringing up their faith is "I want to smash him in his face" then you probably shouldn't be throwing stones about religious intolerance.

[lord_khaine]

Also, if your reaction to somebody casually bringing up their faith is "I want to smash him in his face" then you probably shouldn't be throwing stones about religious intolerance.

Actually i think i should. Thats not casually bringing up your faith. Thats a declaration thats already openly smacking every other faith in the face.
He could have said something along the line of "thats not my god" and yeah, it would have been charming. But when he says it like that he does not say it like its a personal belief. But like its a universal fact, where everyone else who disagree are wrong.

[Dienekes]

Actually i think i should. Thats not casually bringing up your faith. Thats a declaration thats already openly smacking every other faith in the face.
He could have said something along the line of "thats not my god" and yeah, it would have been charming. But when he says it like that he does not say it like its a personal belief. But like its a universal fact, where everyone else who disagree are wrong.

Well... funny thing about religious faiths is, unless you're promoting a pan-diefic belief system. If you believe in one religion you do believe all others are wrong.

Seems kind of weird, to me, to not just acknowledge that that is his religious view, in a one sentence cut. He's a monotheist, and done.

He's also somewhat right. There is only one true god in the Marvel universe. Of course it's not the Judeo-Christian God as Rogers believes, it's the One Above All. Or, if you prefer, Jack Kirby.

[lord_khaine]

I would also be less annoyed if as i said, he had either kept it to himself. Or made any sort of acceptance towards that there is other faiths besides his own.
And i do also acknowledge thats his religious belief. Im just saying its the main thing that gives me the urge to smack him in the face.

Im not certain i agree on there only being one god though. The moment you got the power to create a planet, life from scratch, or raise the dead, then i would considder you a traditional god. Meanwhile Thor and Odin does have the sort of power required to be consideret a Norse god.

We just know there is a god above them. One above all others. We just dont know if there are anyone above him.

[Dienekes]

I would also be less annoyed if as i said, he had either kept it to himself. Or made any sort of acceptance towards that there is other faiths besides his own.
And i do also acknowledge thats his religious belief. Im just saying its the main thing that gives me the urge to smack him in the face.

Im not certain i agree on there only being one god though. The moment you got the power to create a planet, life from scratch, or raise the dead, then i would considder you a traditional god. Meanwhile Thor and Odin does have the sort of power required to be consideret a Norse god.

We just know there is a god above them. One above all others. We just dont know if there are anyone above him.

Odin and Thor are specifically overly powerful aliens that were worshipped as god. Because they're kinda *******s like that.

Your definition is a bit odd, since, by your definition quite a few mutants are now gods.

In any case, I don't really feel the need to smack people when they cite religious beliefs different from my own. But, you do you, man.

[GloatingSwine]

Personally I think the Russo brothers are continuing to make Cap look like some kind of martyr Jesus, a trend they have started since Winter Soldier (a film where at the end, the world is told to go eff themselves because super powered people are Always Right). It continued to the end of Civil War and looks like they're going that way with Infinity War too.

Given that in Civil War Cap is both morally and intellectually wrong about the Accords, has no argument to support his position other than empty platitude, and betrays the team for his terrorist assassin friend who has just been demonstrated to be a live threat, I'm not sure they're building him up as all that Right.

Personally, I lean Stark myself, but there is one sticking point that really irks me: the lack of a "pardon before permission" provision. An accord as well built as the Sokovia Accords were implied to be should consider the fact that, when faced with critical situations involving limited time and/or active obstruction, an Accord hero should be able to the act with the expectation that an after-action investigation would judge if the actions taken were justified and the appropriate punishment for disobeying orders. Given that both the World Commission (Avengers 1 and Agents of SHIELD) and SHIELD have both been corrupted in recent history, such consideration should be mandatory.

In opposition to this, the structural failure of the Avengers as presented on the screen is the tendency to treat the expedient as necessary.

It was the failure that led to the creation of Ultron. Tony had an expedient way to jumpstart his global monitoring AI and so treated making it right now as necessary.

It was also the failure that led to the Lagos incident. Steve and his merry band plan and execute a commando raid in a crowded civilian area despite none of them having sufficient law enforcement experience to clear and secure a perimiter, not having enough manpower to do so, and they do not fulfil those mission requirements by coordinating with local law enforcement. And they do this because it is expedient to assault Crossbones there and then because they happen to know he's going to be there, not because it is genuinely necessary.

No, not even if they weren't wrong about his actual target. Whilst there are nebulous future negative consequences from him stealing a powerful nerve agent, presumably him selling it to a rogue actor, those are not sufficiently immediate to warrant an unsupported commando raid in a crowded civilian area with no local law enforcement cooperation to establish and secure the safety of those civilians.

The Avengers have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to ask forgiveness instead of permission. It's literally the structural problem the Sokovia Accords exist to rectify.

That was one of the worst bits in said movie. Europe generally has pretty strick rules about when you can shoot to kill. Going in like that should get whoever took the order from Ross stand trial.

Fun fact: GSG-9* discharge their weapons considerably more than 1000% more in five minutes of hollywood screentime than they have in 45 years of counter-terrorist operations.


* Why the hell GSG-9 and not BAT were operating in Romania when no German citizens or holdings were involved is a mystery, other than that people are likely to have heard of them given their reputation as basically the best anti-terrorist force in the world.

[Ramza00]

[Sapphire Guard]

That was one of the worst bits in said movie.

It's the entire film, pretty much. Somehow the German Police are taking orders from the CIA and the
US Secretary of State, to commit crimes somewhere they have no jurisdiction. Why is Ross the one in charge, why doesn't he seem to report to anyone, why is a CIA agent (as of BP) running Europe's counterterrorism response? They really dropped the ball on jurisdictions for a movie about national sovereignty.

[Man on Fire]

Russos and Whedon are old news.

ALL PRAISE THE SAVIOR OF THE MCU BLACK "HIGHEST GROSSING SUPERHERO MOVIE OF ALL TIME" PANTHER AND HIS PROPHET RYAN COOGLER!

[Ramza00]

Russos and Whedon are old news.

ALL PRAISE THE SAVIOR OF THE MCU BLACK "HIGHEST GROSSING SUPERHERO MOVIE OF ALL TIME" PANTHER AND HIS PROPHET RYAN COOGLER!

"Let my movies go" says Michael B Jordan. Pharaoh Chadwick Boseman responds to his brother..."okay."

[thisisnotspam]

"Let my movies go" says Michael B Jordan. Pharaoh Chadwick Boseman responds to his brother..."okay."

The "We wuz KANGZ" meme is one place I did not see this thread heading towards.

[Prime32]

In Marvel comics, Egypt was Kang's.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please be careful to leave real world religion and politics out of this thread.

[lord_khaine]

Your definition is a bit odd, since, by your definition quite a few mutants are now gods.

Yes.. ? If it walks like a duck?

In any case, I don't really feel the need to smack people when they cite religious beliefs different from my own. But, you do you, man.

I dont neither. Its when they attack others religious belief the problem arises.

Given that in Civil War Cap is both morally and intellectually wrong about the Accords, has no argument to support his position other than empty platitude, and betrays the team for his terrorist assassin friend who has just been demonstrated to be a live threat, I'm not sure they're building him up as all that Right.

Well.. i do think the shoot first attitude towards WS is a bit of an issue when they have someone like Cap straight up offering to bring him in peacefully. Or at least without shooting.

Fun fact: GSG-9* discharge their weapons considerably more than 1000% more in five minutes of hollywood screentime than they have in 45 years of counter-terrorist operations.

Hah.. that is a fun fact. Generally shooting is the last resort. In the area where i live, then i only think we got 1-2 cases of the police shooting their firearms each year.

It's the entire film, pretty much. Somehow the German Police are taking orders from the CIA and the
US Secretary of State, to commit crimes somewhere they have no jurisdiction. Why is Ross the one in charge, why doesn't he seem to report to anyone, why is a CIA agent (as of BP) running Europe's counterterrorism response? They really dropped the ball on jurisdictions for a movie about national sovereignty.

Its also like they failed to realise it would be pretty insulting to every audience member outside of their own country.

Sheriff: Please be careful to leave real world religion and politics out of this thread.

I take that means religion in the marvel universe, and what defines a god, is still a safe topic?
How about sovereinity or natural jurisdiction in the marvel universe/movies. Are that a safe topic? or is it seen as to close to real world politics?

[thisisnotspam]

Its also like they failed to realise it would be pretty insulting to every audience member outside of their own country.

I live about the same distance from Germany as I do from Romania and I wasn't insulted in the slightest by that detail in the movie. I figured that because of what's been going on in the MCU, Loki in NY and Stuttgart, Ultron in Eastern Europe and Korea, Dark Elves in London, evil wizards in Hong Kong (though I forget if the city was repaired by Strange's use of the Time Stone), the human governments would be more open to a higher degree of cooperation. Germany, Romania and the US are all Western countries, so they'd already have connected institutions that could quickly be turned into a unified command structure.

[GloatingSwine]

The point is that there is no need for German police to be bussed in instead of the local anti-terrorist force except that maybe American movie audiences may have heard of GSG-9 and haven't heard of BAT or EKO Cobra (given that the terrorist event they are responding to took place in Austria).

[lord_khaine]

I live about the same distance from Germany as I do from Romania and I wasn't insulted in the slightest by that detail in the movie. I figured that because of what's been going on in the MCU, Loki in NY and Stuttgart, Ultron in Eastern Europe and Korea, Dark Elves in London, evil wizards in Hong Kong (though I forget if the city was repaired by Strange's use of the Time Stone), the human governments would be more open to a higher degree of cooperation. Germany, Romania and the US are all Western countries, so they'd already have connected institutions that could quickly be turned into a unified command structure.

Well fair enough. Guess there are some people who are less insulted by that bit them.
And there already is NATO.

[Calemyr]

In opposition to this, the structural failure of the Avengers as presented on the screen is the tendency to treat the expedient as necessary.

It was the failure that led to the creation of Ultron. Tony had an expedient way to jumpstart his global monitoring AI and so treated making it right now as necessary.

It was also the failure that led to the Lagos incident. Steve and his merry band plan and execute a commando raid in a crowded civilian area despite none of them having sufficient law enforcement experience to clear and secure a perimiter, not having enough manpower to do so, and they do not fulfil those mission requirements by coordinating with local law enforcement. And they do this because it is expedient to assault Crossbones there and then because they happen to know he's going to be there, not because it is genuinely necessary.

No, not even if they weren't wrong about his actual target. Whilst there are nebulous future negative consequences from him stealing a powerful nerve agent, presumably him selling it to a rogue actor, those are not sufficiently immediate to warrant an unsupported commando raid in a crowded civilian area with no local law enforcement cooperation to establish and secure the safety of those civilians.

The Avengers have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to ask forgiveness instead of permission. It's literally the structural problem the Sokovia Accords exist to rectify.

I only half agree with you. Do heroes require oversight and accountability? Yes. Even Stark agrees on that point, as that's why he supports the Accords. It might well have been the key to avoiding Ultron in the first place. (I sort of question that, though. Do note that Ultron was not intended to be a sentient AI, but an organizational/logistics improvement for the Iron Legion. The mind stone overshot their goals by ten miles, and did so without their involvement. No amount of oversight would have avoided it other than just killing the project, whose intended scope wasn't threatening, on principle.)

As for Lagos... I am really at a loss. What exactly could law enforcement do in that situation? They knew Crossbones was in the area, but only (ultimately inaccurate) assumptions as to his objectives. Remember that the fact that they were targeting the CDC was a last minute surprise. Street cops (even SWAT) are not equipped for that kind of encounter, and even the military would be hard pressed if they could even manage to sufficiently improvise. And that's assuming a highly equipped and trained military with no elements informing Crossbones of their presence. Odds of Crossbones successfully getting the pathogen he was after? Pretty darn high. The only reason a generic response team might have fared better is that Crossbones would have (even if contained) not attempted a suicide attack on anyone not named Steve Rogers. If he had, however, the explosion would have detonated in a crowded market rather with a death toll in the hundreds rather than a couple dozen. The casualties suffered by acting law enforcement would be greater than that on its own, and unlikely to capture or even hinder the villain, and be far more likely to have mass collateral damage. Note, after all, that there were no casualties and minimal damage outside of the CDC until Crossbones nuked himself. That mission was orchestrated like a symphony, with the only failure being Wanda being unable to contain the explosion long enough to clear the skyline.

The problem with the Sokovia Accords being a handcuff to heroes is that the threats they are tasked to handle are not on a scale suited to bureaucracy, being diverse in nature and severity and often requiring immediate action and instinct to resolve. The more robust the chain of command, the longer the reaction - assuming a reaction is ever agreed upon. You don't want your first responders mired in a web of Mother-May-I when the fecal material strikes the rotary impeller, especially when "Mother" is a close-minded, petty obstructionist like Ross. "Perspective", my ass.

Heck, they could have cut Cap's argument in half with the simple acknowledgement that the Avengers is a volunteer organization - and therefore not compelled to act against their will.

But, yes, oversight and accountability are necessary. That's why the police have internal affairs departments. And that's what the Avengers needed.

[warty goblin]

I didn't really like Civil War. Like, I just don't think it works.

Summary version: s that it has two themes going on which they work at cross purposes, the tone is all off, it has to shoehorn a villain in there somehow because superhero movie, and it can't really change the status quo all that much because the MCU works by letting you understand what's going on without watching all the movies. So the stakes can't really go all the way and at the end everybody has to be able to get over their differences and get on with more super-punching, but the central drama is only interesting insofar as it does go all the way with the stakes.

Theme one is the whole independence vs. oversight thing, and we're supposed to see that both sides have some reasonable points. This is fine, and there's an interesting question of balancing restricting personal freedom for the public good in there. I'd be totally down for a movie about that. But it really isn't about that in any substantial way, because the MCU heroes are basically a bunch of 17 year olds, and so can't see anything outside of who's besties with whom, and whether Ashley and Todd are hooking up or not, which brings us to theme the second.

Theme two is a bunch of really tedious personal melodrama nonsense. Tony's not really so much in favor of oversight so much as he wants to stop feeling guilty about being a colossal screwup that gets loads of people killed. Steve's not really for independence so much as he's incapable of accepting the possibility that his mind-controlled mass murdering war buddy might actually be a mind controlled mass murderer. And then for extra fan-ficcy BS, naturally said mass murderer killed Tony's mom as proved by the world's most plot convenient random videocamera in the middle of nowhere. So instead of being champions of different ideals of oversight versus individual freedom, we get two people with boring personal drama who are incapable of solving problems in any way that doesn't involve punching.

Which isn't a huge problem even of itself, since you could do a quite good tragedy about two friends who destroy their relationship because they're too prone to violence and lack any ability to compromise. But of course they're the good guys, so they have to be able to get back together, which means the movie can't really go all the way in terms of them really burning that bridge to the waterline. It'd be like making Revenge of the Sith, except that it needed to end so Anakin and Obi-Wan could make up and go punch some purple aliens together in A New Hope, or a version of the Iliad where you need Achilles and Hektor to go stab some purple aliens after this whole silly 'Trojan War' thing blows over*. You just can't go leaving the other person a destroyed ruin or threaten to eat their corpse raw anymore, and where's the fun in that?

So you've got a contrast between two ideas about the good of government oversight that the movie doesn't really focus on, and a bunch of personal drama that the movie can't commit to. Which shows up in the tone of the thing, which is all over the map. The big battle at the airport, which should be the most intense part of the movie as friendships are broken or strained by these new battle lines, and the heroes have to decide which friendship is most important to them, or whether a friendship is more important than their ideology, is played as 99% joke. I mean it's a fun joke, but playing the Benny Hill theme all through Luke and Vadar's conflict in Return of the Jedi would be fun as well; doesn't mean it makes a lick of sense for the tone of the movie. The film sacrifices any hope of thematic or tonal coherence for a big dumb action scene.

And the Captain America and Winter Soldier vs Iron Man fight is played big and serious (and tedious as hell) and... amounts to not a whole lot. The evil scheme we barely learned about, hatched by the villain we don't care about is foiled, but did anybody care? I sure didn't. There was a lot of faces punched, but nobody was actually hurt, and even during the fight it was 100% obvious that nobody was going to get hurt, so that's consequence free. Did Tony get over his mother's death? Hard to see how that helped with that. Bucky's still a broken mess, so that's not resolved, and Steve's still besties with everybody so it's not like that whole 'friend A tried to kill friend B' plot really amounted to a whole awful lot. It's like a love triangle ending with a threeway, except that a love triangle resolving itself via threeway would be different, interesting and possibly make some sort of sense.

Oh, and it turns out that of course it's not even really like this is about contrasting ideologies, or even the character melodrama because we need a dastardly villain to be responsible for playing our heroes off against each other in the first place. So its first theme is undermined by its second, and its second is crippled by the tone and genre constraints. I mean what were the character arcs in this movie even supposed to be? So far as I can tell, Black Panther is the only character who actually grows or changes or resolves anything.

*Incidentally this more or less part of what passes for the plot of Dan Simmons' Ilium novels, except with more post-humanism, third rate Lovecraftian horror and tortured Shakespeare references. It's actually even dumber than that.

[GloatingSwine]

As for Lagos... I am really at a loss. What exactly could law enforcement do in that situation?

Evacuate the civilians.

The fact that this was not done would have been the big red bold headline at the "Lessons Learned" review for the Lagos incident. Whoever planned it would almost certainly have found themselves never planning anything more significant than the order in which the latrines are cleaned ever again.

Seriously, absolute priority number 1 for law enforcement responses to this kind of incident is always to remove the civilians from the scene both for their own protection and to allow enforcement activity to proceed. Cordon off and evacuate the area is step 1, and local law enforcement would have the manpower and recognised authority to do that quickly and effectively.

Someone, probably Cap, planned a commando operation in a densely crowded civilian area and did not at any point think this was a problem until it was far too late. These are people who absolutely need oversight from people with far greater competence and expertise in operational planning than they themselves have.

The problem with the Sokovia Accords being a handcuff to heroes is that the threats they are tasked to handle are not on a scale suited to bureaucracy, being diverse in nature and severity and often requiring immediate action and instinct to resolve. The more robust the chain of command, the longer the reaction - assuming a reaction is ever agreed upon. You don't want your first responders mired in a web of Mother-May-I when the fecal material strikes the rotary impeller, especially when "Mother" is a close-minded, petty obstructionist like Ross. "Perspective", my ass.

In the MCU so far? Not demonstrated at all.

The only actual emergency situation the Avengers have responded to that they didn't make was the invasion of New York.

Everything else was "maybe bad consequences later we don't know", which is exactly the sort of thing that needs much more careful oversight and planning than the Avengers have been shown to be capable of.

Again, they have demonstrated that they get it wrong when they don't ask for permission. And not just once but in a plurality of the Avengers operations we have seen. The only operation we've seen the Avengers plan and execute and not **** up with massive civilian casualties and property damage was the assault on Strucker.

When they tried to apprehend Klaue they ended up unleashing the Hulk on Johannesburg, Ultron happened because Tony thought he knew best and so Sokovia happened, and when they tried to apprehend Crossbones they got dozens of civilians killed as the least worst outcome.

They are bad at this. They need their hands holding because the price paid for them asking forgiveness instead of permission is civilian deaths.

[lord_khaine]

When they tried to apprehend Klaue they ended up unleashing the Hulk on Johannesburg, Ultron happened because Tony thought he knew best and so Sokovia happened, and when they tried to apprehend Crossbones they got dozens of civilians killed as the least worst outcome

Hmm.. im not certain we can really blame them for getting the Hulk unleashed there. Parly because i cant see what oversight could have done in that situation, besides getting more normal humans killed. The Avengers were the ones best suited for the task. And they still failed.

Ultron meanwhile happend because they muddled around with alien technology. But i still think the reason for doing so were worth the risk. The invasion of New York showed humanity that they were just a small fish, and there were sharks out in the deeper sea. There was a need for better protection.