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

reminds me of WS when he jumps out of the elevator and lands on the shield. it's played all the time on Starz. i keep thinking , shouldn't he dislocate his shoulder? i remember even in the comics Spidey dislocated his arm at least once and he's a lot more powerful than Rogers

 

Spidey doesn't wear an armor/padded suit though. Cap was in full uniform. This is also a guy who dives out of a plane without a parachute in the beginning. He's sort of used to jumping from high points and landing uninjured.

 

Obviously Steve is tough enough to not dislocate his shoulder. You know how we can tell? Because we saw him make the jump and not dislocate his shoulder.

 

the little padding in his suit isn't going to do much falling several stories.

 

Cap's fall from the elevator was made easier by the shield taking the brunt. Also, a guy that can lift what he can is going to be far more durable though he is obviously not bullet proof. Still, it's comics. If a writer needs Spidey to have a dislocated arm he's gonna have a dislocated arm no matter how tough he is.

 

Well, that must've been quite a sight for you prude widdle innocent eyes...

 

I remember a girl doing her level best to save lives and protect innocent people. Her best just wasn't good enough. She slipped, she knows her mistake cost lives, and she obviously regrets - deeply - that she failed. Punishing her is not going to make the situation better.

 

These are the sort of films Jabba watches? You're a disgusting hypocrite, Jabba.

 

Her regret seemed genuine to me that beginning of the film. By being so gung ho about switching sides later on--and without any real rationale, since she had no reason to believe Bucky was framed, and her confinement was neither really unpleasant nor particularly undesired--I think they sort of undermined that.

All that, though, is sort of an aside. Yes, she made an honest mistake. That happens sometimes. But while those incidents are reviewed, it is not at all uncommon for the person at the center of events to take a break from active duty. That ensures they aren't still under high stress when already affected by the weight of recent controversy (she was by her own admission), allows for a fair, thorough investigation, and helps public confidence. There was nothing unusual about what happened to her except in how generous/luxurious her confinement was. There was no great miscarriage of justice in the fact that she had to stay home for a few days unless you are some sort of libertarian sociopath.

And again, assume I am wrong. Maybe it was terrible and completely unfair that she got punished. Maybe the government was too harsh this entire movie. Fine. You know what? We have elections every two years, and Presidential ones every four. Different people with different policies about security can come into office. There's a Department of Justice where you can file complaints about discriminations. A Supreme Court that you can make a writ of habeas corpus too. Sympathetic countries whose embassies you can seek shelter in. The system is filled with ways to try and fix abuses when they come up. When Captain America abuses something, or when he goes too far, what is there to stop him? Nothing. There's not even a comparison here.

 

I don't think that people who struggle and sacrifice and suffer for the sake of others, people who have chosen to learn from their mistakes, should be involuntarily confined. That's wrong. If this nebulous supervisory committee had contacted her and asked her to keep a low profile while the PR storm died down, that would have been fine, but the way it was handled in the movie, nope, that's not right. If that makes me a "libertarian sociopath", so be it.

I'm not saying that Cap and the Avengers shouldn't answer to anyone ever. I have no problem with a board that reviews and analyzes their actions and sits down with the team to help them make better and smarter choices in the next crisis. But the way the Sokovia Accords were described - at least the way I heard it - boiled down to micro-management in combat situations, and that just does not work. You can't hamstring your soldiers with that kind of interference and expect them to accomplish what needs to be done; we tried that in Vietnam, and look how well that worked out.

 

Twice.

Steve is the only one because Bucky is his friend and he was able to get through to him before. And he is as strong as Bucky is as they're both Super Soldiers. Thor and the Hulk are offworld. Cap doesn't know Spidey yet. The only others who could put up a fight are on opposite sides of him. Hence he was the only one who could fight and bring him in peacefully. What happened when they were actually captured was due to other circumstances. If they hadn't interfered, things would have gone down differently.

They wouldn't have taken him to someone like Zemo in the first place.

It's still a matter of due process. Bucky is a US citizen and is entitled a right to a fair trial and a fair investigation of the alleged crimes.

But as we saw, Ross wanted him dead and wouldn't let it get to trial.

Meanwhile, an innocent man is killed and four Hydra Super Soldiers are on the loose because they follow checks and balances. The Avengers are their own checks and balances.

Sure there is. They're called the Avengers. If any one of their own goes rogue, they step in to deal with it.

 

Really. They wouldn't have had Bucky given psychological treatment? Of course they would have. Or if they wouldn't, that's yet another argument for having him in government custody.

See, the film absolutely undercuts the idea that Ross wants to have Bucky killed by having . . . well, look, no one is going to kill Bucky while he's in custody. And as to whether or not he's going to go to trial, that is something that can be hashed out later. Let's put Bucky in custody and then actually think things through and then decide. I mean, put Bucky in prison for a week; Cap and Tony get on the same page during that time and then if it turns out that Ross says they're won't be a trial for Bucky, Cap and Tony stand against that united and force a trial to take place. Because Tony supports safeguards and checks and balances; he would definitely not support imprisoning people for the rest of their lives without trial. That is never part of Tony's plan. Tony's whole point is that everyone needs to be subject to legal process. The tragic events of the end of this film wouldn't have happened if Cap had just ******* cooled his heels for ten minutes and actually thought about things rationally. But he's grieving the loss of Peggy and also what she symbolizes; she's the last thing, except for Bucky, that ties him to his previous life. He's acting very irrationally. I feel like the movie is pretty clear about this.

Except no they're not because that's not Zemo's plan. In point of fact, the Avengers are now totally destroyed because the Avengers didn't follow checks and balances. The super soldier thing was a con and a pretty obvious one if you stop to think about it for more than ten minutes which Cap and Bucky never did. See, the thing is Cap does everything Zemo wants him to do in this movie.

Yeah, the other Avengers step in and do things like keeping Wanda out of the public eye after she makes a very controversial mistake. They step in and actually place Bucky under arrest and in a super-max facility in order to keep him from being killed. They step in and do their best to stop Cap and Bucky from walking into a trap that will destroy the Avengers. They . . . oh, wait, you said those were all bad things. You can't have it both ways.

She's not being punished though. She's in a very luxurious version of protective custody. There's a lot of anger towards her and she's being confined to the compound for her own protection. She has an initial knee-jerk reaction to this, but once she thinks about it, she's basically cool with it. As we see by the fact that she isn't super-into leaving even when Hawkeye arrives to rescue her. He kind of has to pull some emotional blackmail on her to get her to deal with Vision and leave with him.

Plus, I'm not entirely sure how old Wanda's supposed to be in this scenario. Cap himself says that she's a child. Elizabeth Olson is 27, but I think there's no way Wanda is supposed to be that old. I'd like some actual info on this, but I can't find anywhere that states it outright. But I think Wanda's youth can't be overstated. Tony's doing what any good legal guardian might do to protect this young woman. Again, I'd like to point out that Cap has a very knee-jerk reaction to the whole "imprisonment" thing with Wanda as well, based on only an off-hand remark Tony makes. If he'd had time to think about it and if he'd let Tony actually explain it to him, as Vision presumably explained it to Wanda, he'd probably change his mind about it just like she did. But no, everything has to be done at a hundred miles an hour.

I should say that this tendency toward acting as quickly as possible instead of thinking things through isn't something that only Cap and his team does; Tony's guilty of it as well. I'm not trying to say Cap is the villain of the piece; the movie is more nuanced than that. But I think maybe the biggest point the movie is making is that the villain is haste. Decisions made in the heat of the moment and actions taken without time to consider = bad for people with power, whether it's the government or the Avengers; whether it's Ross setting a day and a half deadline for signing the Accords or Cap refusing to take some time to think about the whole super soldier trap. And that is an important message.

 

But isn't Spider-Man a bit of a smart mouth? I think that was the problem with Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man, he didn't engage in as much banter as Andrew Garfield.

 

The Tobey Maguire's version was also focusing more on the hard parts of being a superhero and threw him into more higher stake battles. As someone who reads some of the comics, I can vouch that Spider-Man quits joking under circumstances like that.

 

Wanda didn't cause the explosion; Rumlow's suicide bomb did. He also tried to activate it in the middle of a crowed street. So, people would've died regardless of whether Wanda tried to contain the explosion or not, and it's distinctly possible that without her influence the casualty list would've been higher. She made the right choice under the circumstances,

 

Oh she caused several explosions at once.

 

I totally agree. It's not like she had ever contained an explosion with her mind before. She wasn't trained to have spatial awareness to the fullest extent yet. Black Widow comments about that earlier.

Speaking of which, I found this article about Nat and I pretty much agreed. I think he's pedestalizing her a little bit too much in spaces, but I concur with the gist of it.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/captain-america-civil-war-best-black-widow-movie

 

When? All the powers she exhibits in the movie are based on moving objects with her mind (exception being altering the Vision's mass when she escapes from the Avengers base).

 

The only explosion Wanda 'caused' was the one already in motion, set off by Rumlow... she was trying to get it clear of the buildings and failed to do it, because of the lack of experience in such things.

 

Was anyone else disappointed that there was no epic grudge rematch between Rumlow and Sam? After their last smackdown in TWS, I was hoping they'd be getting a final showdown.

 

Yeah i thought they'd do more with Crossbones.

 

Yeah, he was cannon fodder. I wanted to see more of Crossbones vs. Falcon. Crossbones vs. everybody really.

 

Steve might have consented to letting happen if it wasn't a government picked doctor. Or at least make sure that Bucky was okay with it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Given how the government's been compromised by Hydra over the years, do you really blame Steve for not trusting it? Steve isn't entirely against checks and balances, but he doesn't like the methods being used and has every reason to go against it.

No, it wasn't his plan. But Zemo can adjust in the time it takes for them to sort it out the legal way.

The difference is that the Avengers do it themselves and not under government directive and definitely not in a situation that makes Steve uncomfortable with the whole process. Bucky and Wanda weren't a threat. When one of the team is an actual threat, like say the Hulk, then steps can be taken for the safety of others. Wanda being locked up because she wasn't experienced at trying to stop an explosion, is not a good and viable solution. The viable solution was to take her off active duty and go somewhere where she can practice using her powers until she can get it right. She didn't need to be locked up in protective custody. In Bucky's case, it is to make sure that he is brought in the right way and without any missteps, which meant involving the government. And definitely not with someone who has an ax to grind against them.