Amph "On your left." - Captain America (Brave New World)

I guess folks forgot about Tony being shown the dead son. Tony has been cracking for a few films and has PTSD, so he goes with the oversight. Still, he gets lured with info showing he was "wrong" and takes action, only to be shown Bucky killed his parents so he finally snaps. See, there is a WHOLE movie, not just parts you want to get rid of so you can show up and say it sucks because this makes no sense because I like to leave things out.

 

Tony already dumped his interest in the UN and oversight as soon as he found out that Bucky didn't bomb the UN in Vienna. Killing Bucky was just emphasizing the point that Tony always does what he wants, whenever he wants. He'd already dropped the ruse about being interested in the treaty a third of the movie before that.

 

So you did exactly what I said, ignored the rest of the movie and all previous ones. That low down dirty Tony!

 

which parts am I ignoring? I've seen all the Iron Man movies and all the Avengers movies. It seems clear that if he supported a treaty to limit the power of the Avengers, he would almost certainly believe that it should apply to everyone but him. And indeed, that's how it plays out, long before Stark "snaps" at the end.

 

First of all, let the record show that King T'Chaka of Wakanda called for the Avengers accountability, along with 127 other countries after the events in Logos, Africa. So, with or without Tony Stark, there was a global call for oversight of Avengers.

Secondly, Tony Stark was in favor the Sokovian Accords before and after finding out that Bucky didn't bomb the UN in Vienna. Tony tried working with the Secretary of State in providing him with evidence that proved Bucky's innocent, but was met with a stonewall. Which provided the sentiment that Steve was right about oversight. However, I think it was more of Tony seeing his friends held at prisoners in the Raft that had Tony change his tune about the accords than finding out Bucky was innocent. To paraphrase Obi Wan, Tony must do what he feels is right. Unlike Cap, Tony is very flawed and moody and it skews his judgment. They two characters are different, and it's their difference in this film that makes it dramatic and compelling. It's Tony's realization at the end of the film is what gives the movie an emotional gasp and climatic build. At any rate, much like the comic books, Tony comes to the realization that Cap was right.



The Avengers do have oversight now and I'm sure that will play into the Infinity War.

 

Except that's not how he saw it. He acted on info. It turned out to be fed to him by a villain. That doesn't mean he was just playing along for a power trip all that time.

 

i doubt it. i was just answering a question

 

I don't think Tony just signed the Accord on a whim, I believe, like Rhodey and Steve, Tony reviewed the Accord, agreed with the provisions and then signed it. I got the feeling the Tony went over the Accord with Secretary of State Ross before presenting to the rest of the Avengers.

I believe that Tony was trying to mediate the signing of the Accords as the world was turning against the Avengers. IIRC, Tony said that he was trying to keep the team together and signing the Accord would do just that.

 

Am I crazy for believing Tony when he said that it wasn't an actual imprisonment? They just didn't want her, you know, running to the local grocery story like a day after she was responsible for a major international incident. I kind of thought Wanda was being a little stupid to think she could just go on walking the streets. I had no problem with Vision keeping her from leaving. Cap himself said she was a child; children need parenting sometimes. As in "No, you can't go to the grocery store mere hours after you were headline news on CNN for being a mass murderer."

If Wanda was actually being "imprisoned," it's pretty obvious where she would have been. That floating prison she ended up in later. If Ross was "imprisoning" her, she wouldn't have been in a well-equipped kitchen making a nice stew (or whatever).

I think Cap and Wanda both really overreacted to that whole thing.

 

All the Avengers are criminals at the end of the movie. They collectively did what looked like $50-100 million worth of damage to an airport with wanton disregard for human life given the 5 minutes or so worth of time given to its evacuation. Under the treaty these guys should all be incarcerated, but Tony suddenly feels bad that there are now legal consequences for trashing an airport? Like none of those guys deserves to be locked in an undersea prison?

 

There is no absolute right or wrong answer and the writers did their best to make it that way. She was imprisoned, by a very powerful warden. But it certainly could have been worse. Tony wanted to keep them all together, but on a short leash.

Go go Jabba Wocky jr!

 

Well, Tony is also responsible for trashing the airport, and since he and his team of Avengers had signed the Accords, there might be a provision where his team has diplomatic immunity as many ambassadors have. So, perhaps not all the Avengers are criminals, at least Tony's team. And there was a scene that showed Cap's team held as prisoner on the Raft. Now, Tony didn't break them out of prison and according to the Accord, he can't go after them until the UN tells him to do so. In the comics, Tony does go after the outlaw Avengers, but Doctor Strange casts a spell and hides them.

But in the film, we see that it is

Spoiler

Black Panther that helps hide Bucky and Cap. I'm sure the members of Cap's team that escaped from prison are all underground.

 

Movie was decent but suffers from a lack of real stakes. Should've stuck a bit closer to the comics. Also, they keep wasting villains.

 

After seeing this film, I came away thinking about scar tissue. Both Cap and Tony have layers of emotional and mental scar tissue, which is what brought them to this point in the MCU. It definitely effects their decisions and perception, and that's what the movie is about and why it works so well, and why it works as well as it did in the comics.

Cap fought in World War II and saw the evils of men. Wanda was exploited by Hydra. But to be fair, she didn't want to break out of the Avengers' compound right away when she learned that Vision was keeping her there. I think Wanda understood where Vision and Tony were coming from. It wasn't until Hawkeye showed up and said she owed her one.

 

I could see why alot of people would think that because there was alot going on.

From my perspective there were real stakes and perhaps going forward it will flush out more clearly. Steve Rogers has given up the mantle as Captain America (at the end of the credits it doesn't say Captain America will return, but instead says Spider-Man will return) and the Avengers are divided and the ones left are under the thumb of the Accord. Thus, the Avengers has lost the moral compass of Captain America. So, going into Infinity War, the Avengers might face Thanos without Captain America and his team.

 

If there was any sort of time in-film to discuss the ramifications of that, sure, I'd agree, but as it is we won't see these characters until they're fighting Thanos. And by that point they'll just call up Cap and he'll be back.

 

Well, we did see Captain America drop the shield, and walk away from Stark, which I thought was a poetic moment. We did see only a handful of Avengers left in the compound, Tony, Rhodey and Vision, leaving a feeling of emptiness and change. We did see T'Challa tell Cap, "Let them come" as a strong hint as what may happen in the solo Black Panther movie. I think the ramifications were there, just very subtle.

We also saw Tony and Peter Parker have some science bro moments. The ramifications of Civil War could play out in Spider-Man Homecoming and the Black Panther films and possibly in Doctor Strange.

 

It's a poetic moment, sure. And there'll be change, but compared to the comics this is hardly a serious gamechanger. And Wakanda's always been isolationist and cautious about its defences. There are no real stakes, because in the end,

Spoiler

Tony sees Cap's POV, and Rhodey's paralyzation is rendered moot because Tony solved the problems with Extremis, the regenerating serum, back in Iron Man 3. Yes, the team changes, and they tease the future, but at the end of the day, no one died, there were no real losses, and it's made abundantly clear there's room for reconciliation in the immediate future.

 

Yeah, agreed, this isn't the comics. The comics have the luxury time, allowing to be told over several episodes and tie-ins. So, within the framework of the MCU, I'm fine with ramifications of Civil War and that's

Spoiler

a world without Captain America

 

I liked the movie. Pacing was off in the first third/half, and Winter Soldier had a tighter and more interesting plot/revelations so it's still the better movie.

But I loved how

Spoiler

it's intentionally NOT resolved... and neither side was completely right or wrong. Stark was right that there needed to be supervision and accountability, especially with all the collateral damage. Rogers was right that the government/UN can be slow to give approval at its best, send them on evil missions at its worst.

(Zemo was also a great villain... an ordinary guy. And his role was underplayed, which is good, the movie is much braver and better by not taking the easy route of uniting again in face of a greater threat that outshines their own conflict.)


But what will the eventual, actual solution be?

I bet the next Avengers movie upends things by having Thanos actually succeed in conquering Earth (until Part 2). But still, that would just be an easy way to avoid the question. What should the resolution be?

 

I would say it's his best performance since his comeback.

Also, lol at Captain America being the "moral compass" of anything at the end of this movie.

 

this movie has no moral compass whatsoever. Tony Stark has staked out the position that all the Avengers but him should be subject to legal limitations and oversight. Captain America decides that having unlimited power means having unlimited freedom of action. I get the idea of superheroes saving people, and I sympathize with Captain America protecting Bucky from vigilante justice. but I don't sympathize with protecting Bucky from being answerable for his actions or with Captain America deciding that he himself is exempt from justice. He could have saved Bucky's life, then turned himself in, and that's what Captain America of the first movie would have done.

I don't have any real complaints about a mindless action movie being what it is unabashedly, like Guardians of the Galaxy, but I have a problem with a movie that pretends to want to raise issues that its writers don't really have the wits to take on. I suspect this is more about signaling to the audience that the audience should pat itself on the back for watching a movie that Contends with Important Issues, just in case watching superheroes bash each other over the heads doesn't seem worthwhile on its own.

 

1. Did the GSG9 team actually give Bucky, a person who was NOT being violent, a chance to surrender? No. Because they had kill on sight orders... even though Captain America was there ahead of them, already doing their job the right way.

2. Black Panther caused the tunnel chase due to a vendetta. Did T'Challa sign the accords and actually have approval to chase the fugitive?

3. Bucky placed all his furniture so as to weaponize it... which ended up including throwing STEVE at a guy.

4. It was not about keeping Bucky from being answerable to his crimes (though in actuality, he's the freaking victim), but rather about the CIA/German Terrorism Taskforce/Whomever putting him and everybody in the building in danger because they missed the fact that their therapist was not the right therapist. (And given how paranoid the CIA is... and how many check points there probably were between the front door and Bucky's cell... Zemo is the luckiest Sokovian Death Squad Guy on Earth.) Basically? There were reasons. Lots of reasons: your friend goes nuts while having a very suspicious mental eval that turns out NOT to be a mental eval, but actually a nefarious plot. Are you going to put him right back in custody so it can happen again? No. No you aren't.

5. When did Steve decide himself exempt from Justice? He didn't. Also... did Tony actually listen to him and then check with the AI living in his suit? No. Thus... crazy airport craziness that could have been avoided.

6. Tony spent the who movie getting set off in one way or another. Kid's mother. Steve arguing a different point of view. Ross not actually listening to him, no matter what he said. And then, finally... the kicker: Soldat's 1991 mission.