Captain America: Civil War thread

[FaxModem1]

Saw it, quite enjoyed it. My only problem is one scene:
Spoiler

Steve's kissing of Sharon Carter. Peggy's not even cold yet and Steve decides to smooch her niece. Who is he, Woody Allen?

[Crazedwraith]

What kind of annoyed me: T'Chala is in favor of a U.N. accord to require superheroes to only operate where permitted, then goes on to operate under his own persona without permission, (though I suppose you could chalk that up to his father's desires).

The Accords only apply to the Avengers, and T'Challa's not an Avenger at the time.

Not sure they do. They arrest T'Challa after the whole highway incident. They just put him 'an office not a cell, please don't leave it' because, y'know he's a King and they're being diplomatic.

[Bedlam]

What kind of annoyed me: T'Chala is in favor of a U.N. accord to require superheroes to only operate where permitted, then goes on to operate under his own persona without permission, (though I suppose you could chalk that up to his father's desires).

The Accords only apply to the Avengers, and T'Challa's not an Avenger at the time.

Not sure they do. They arrest T'Challa after the whole highway incident. They just put him 'an office not a cell, please don't leave it' because, y'know he's a King and they're being diplomatic.

Regardless of whether the accords apply to him he's going to get arrested for that anyway, reckless endangerment and assault if not down right murder. I assume he claims some sort of diplomatic immunity although it probably wouldn't work in the real world, although it might depend on how much the rest of the world wants access to Vibranium and the like.

[Lord Revan]

IIRC heads of state get an automatic diplomatic immunity (for rather obvious reasons), so the question is would T'Challa count as a head of state at that point. That said diplomatic immunity is one of those things that while in theory grants infinite protection, in practice it's much more limited since a truly serious crimes would cause a major diplomatic incident and possibly even a war.

[Mr Bean]

Spoiler time but this was Zemos plan correct?
Spoiler

• Acquire everything he needs information wise to pull this off
  
  Set up Bucky as terrorist via bombing
  
  If Bucky dies his plan is at an end but he still got some vengeance in hurting Captain America. So call that 5% Vengeance plan
  
  If however as he suspects Bucky will be taken alive he's already in position to be the Winter Soldiers interrogator because he's got the real one dead in his hotel room
  
  Ship the UPS emp bomb to the electrical substation so he gets his ten minutes alone with Bucky
  
  This is where his primary and second plans happens, he talks to Bucky finds out anything else bunker related he missed (Security, codes, location) and finally orders Bucky to get murdering people, note we don't hear what he orders Bucky to do so it could have been "Kill the Avengers"
  
  His distraction created he immediately heads towards the bunker because he does not care who Bucky kills or who stops him because he knows sooner or later someone will talk to Bucky and his cover is deliberately blown so the Avengers will chase him.
  
  Sit in the bunker, kill the super soldiers because screw those guys and make sure his tapes rewound.
  
  Blow his brains out with vengeance achieved and any possible co-conspirators hidden.

I don't think Zemos was working alone he had other people helping him and offing himself was not a mark of failure but the last step in the plan to protect the people who helped get him to this point (IE provided the bomb, delivered the EMP ect)

[Crazedwraith]

You're missing the step where he...
Spoiler

Telephones the hotel. Revealing that Bucky was innocent so that Stark will relent and team up with Cap long enough to see the tapes.

Also the super complex plan is his back up. His original one was probably just 'torture location of info out of Hydra guy. Go get the proof. Send to Tony Stank. Watch Avengers tear each other apart.

[biostem]

Given how great Bucky's/Winter Soldier's cybernetic arm was, I wonder why they never just gave that technology to their other loyal/highly skilled agents, instead of the "psycho serum".

[Dass.Kapital]

Because not enough of the vibranium (Which I assume is what the arm is made out of?) to do anything else with?

[biostem]

Because not enough of the vibranium (Which I assume is what the arm is made out of?) to do anything else with?

It couldn't have been vibranium...
Spoiler

as his arm gets blown off by Stark's repulsorbeam, and this happens partway down the arm, so it's not that it just got separated from his flesh at the shoulder

[Gandalf]

What kind of annoyed me: T'Chala is in favor of a U.N. accord to require superheroes to only operate where permitted, then goes on to operate under his own persona without permission, (though I suppose you could chalk that up to his father's desires).

Presumably being on the "right" side of the hunt for Bucky got him some sort of legal coverage. Stark seemed pretty cool with amending the laws to keep his friends out of superGitmo.

[ArmorPierce]

Although captain America was 'right' about winter soldier man, he was completely wrong on the accord issue. No, you shouldn't get to engage unilaterally in unregulated vigilantism across sovereign borders despite how right you think you are.

In my mind, team captain America represents republican unregulated individualism viw, team iron man represents democrat regulation collectivist view.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ugg. I was afraid this film would be a validation of Right wing anti-government revolutionary sentiment.

That's really not a fire that needs fuel thrown on it right now. Or ever. But especially now.

[Mr Bean]

Ugg. I was afraid this film would be a validation of Right wing anti-government revolutionary sentiment.

That's really not a fire that needs fuel thrown on it right now. Or ever. But especially now.

Spoiler

Umm.... Captain America lost, in fact both sides lost as far as losing goes they both lost big. Only Zemos won.

On review spoilered my post because it could be considered as such.

[The Romulan Republic]

Spoiler tag doesn't work.

I had to use the quote button just to read it.

But yeah, that changes things a bit. Well, I'll watch the movie before I pass final judgement, though I'm still uncomfortable with the thought of seeing Cap., one of my favourite superhero concepts, put in a position reminiscent of that of the far Right.

[Simon_Jester]

[takes deep breath]

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

ArmorPierce, you're a meathead. Again.

Democrats don't have a monopoly on being organized. Republicans don't have a monopoly on believing that individuals have rights. Republicans aren't the only ones who get to object if you claim the government has a right to tell them what to do and how to do it. Democrats aren't the only ones who get to object to the idea of letting people do their own thing so long as it's constructive and helpful to the community at large.

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone can look at this issue and just blindly pigeonhole it in terms of 2016 Republicans versus 2016 Democrats. It's ridiculous. Sure, SOME modern cinema, and even SOME superhero movies, are in part a commentary on modern politics. Captain America 2 was a good example in that it talked about using computers to track people the government deemed a threat, and about preemptively killing those people. That doesn't mean modern politics is a good way to interpret literally everything you see.

...

Also, it is grossly stupid to assume that revolution is somehow a right-wing concept. It's not. Revolt against tyranny is a common theme on the left as well as on the right, and the fact that there are more right-wingers who think of today's US government as tyranny and fantasize lovingly about overthrowing it doesn't change that.

[The Romulan Republic]

I just went off of what ArmourPierce said.

But I do think that its not unreasonable to link "Patriotic American icon/veteran fights civil war on behalf of unregulated vigilantism" with the American far Right. Especially considering the current cultural context.

Its possible that their are more details of the film itself that off-set that. So, like I said, withholding final judgment until I've seen it. But going off what ArmourPierce said... yeah.

[Crazedwraith]

Oh for fuck's sake this again? A) thats not remotely what happens Cap doesnt rebel against he act. He just keeps tying to save bucky/the war and ignores it entirely to do so.

b) even if it was noone in real life is going to be a jot more inspired to rebel against the government or cause a real civil welar because they saw it. That is still 'video games cause gun crime' levell stupidity.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh for fuck's sake this again? A) thats not remotely what happens Cap doesnt rebel against he act. He just keeps tying to save bucky/the war and ignores it entirely to do so.

b) even if it was noone in real life is going to be a jot more inspired to rebel against the government or cause a real civil welar because they saw it. That is still 'video games cause gun crime' levell stupidity.

Nowhere did I say that people would cause a civil war because of the film. But at the same time, you're an idiot if you think that media cannot be used to influence political opinion.

[Crazedwraith]

Oh for fuck's sake this again? A) thats not remotely what happens Cap doesnt rebel against he act. He just keeps tying to save bucky/the war and ignores it entirely to do so.

b) even if it was noone in real life is going to be a jot more inspired to rebel against the government or cause a real civil welar because they saw it. That is still 'video games cause gun crime' levell stupidity.

Nowhere did I say that people would cause a civil war because of the film. But at the same time, you're an idiot if you think that media cannot be used to influence political opinion.

So someone else said:

Ugg. I was afraid this film would be a validation of Right wing anti-government revolutionary sentiment.

That's really not a fire that needs fuel thrown on it right now. Or ever. But especially now.

?

I don't really know how to interpret 'validation of right wing anti-government revolutionary sentiment' as not meaning 'will encourage people to act against the government' please elaborate. If you don't mean that what's the problem?

Of course media can be used to influence political opinion but things like you know the news have a much bigger influence than a superhero flick ever will. To me, Entertainment media tends to be a reflection of attitudes than the cause of them.

"Individualistic hero not following the establishment's rules and saving the day' probably describes the majority of action movies. Are they are validations of right wing politics? If they were and they had that much influence it's a wonder there any democrats left.

[The Romulan Republic]

Validating their opinions doesn't necessarily mean "make them go out and start a revolution." There are a lot of shades between "zero affect" and "overthrow the government".

My view of the effect of entertainment media is basically this: A film, or game, or whatever is unlikely (at worst) to turn a normal person into a monster by itself, but it can influence the specifics of an already unstable, dangerous person's ideas and acts. Like how The Dark Knight didn't make that nut bag Joker wannabe who shot up a theatre in Colorado a monster, but it evidently influenced the details of his criminal acts. Similarly, a superhero movie by itself is not going to make a normal person become a revolutionary. However, it may nudge an already susceptible person in certain directions.

And yeah, the individualistic hero against the establishment is a common trope (overused, in my opinion*), but there's something about a film entitled Captain America: Civil War, with a vigilante hero blatantly build around old-fassioned American patriotism rebelling against the state's authority, playing at this particular time and in this societal context, that seems a little more on the nose, if you will. Granted, again, I haven't seen the film yet, so I'm fully acknowledging that their may be other details that offset/contradict that interpretation. But at the same time... its not a huge leap, just going off that basic information.

*See all four Craig Bond films, for example. Which got quite pointedly political at times too- I believe I even referred to Spectre previously as being a James Bond 911 Truther film.

[Crazedwraith]

Validating their opinions doesn't necessarily mean "make them go out and start a revolution." There are a lot of shades between "zero affect" and "overthrow the government".

My view of the effect of entertainment media is basically this: A film, or game, or whatever is unlikely (at worst) to turn a normal person into a monster by itself, but it can influence the specifics of an already unstable, dangerous person's ideas and acts. Like how The Dark Knight didn't make that nut bag Joker wannabe who shot up a theatre in Colorado a monster, but it evidently influenced the details of his criminal acts. Similarly, a superhero movie by itself is not going to make a normal person become a revolutionary. However, it may nudge an already susceptible person in certain directions.

You're contradicting yourself. First you claim you don't think people will become revolutionaries because of this film. Then you're saying they will so long as they're already 'susceptible'. I never claimed you thought the film was going to turn die-hard democrat into republican.

I''ll say again (corrected for typos) " no-one in real life is going to be a jot more inspired to rebel against the government or cause a real civil war because they saw it" And I'll modify it thus. Anyone who is so susceptible so to be inspired by simply seeing a film called Civil War is so far gone that pretty much anything in the same vein would set them off. Should we censor our media to avoid validating republicans should only a democrats viewpoint be shown? You can't do that in a free society. And I know you'll claim you haven't claimed to want censorship but its the obvious inference I am making from 'waah, this film I haven't seen is bad and validates those mean republicans.'

Huh, I just looked the Aurora guy out and turned out he as a batman fan, I did not know that, No word on the Joker or The Dark Knight specifically. So do you think the Dark Knight shouldn't have been allowed? Should we take away everyone's The Dark Knight DVDs. I mean it inspired (maybe) someone to do something very bad (definitely) whereas no incidents have been inspired by Civil War yet as far as I know.

And yeah, the individualistic hero against the establishment is a common trope (overused, in my opinion*), but there's something about a film entitled Captain America: Civil War, with a vigilante hero blatantly build around old-fassioned American patriotism rebelling against the state's authority, playing at this particular time and in this societal context, that seems a little more on the nose, if you will. Granted, again, I haven't seen the film yet, so I'm fully acknowledging that their may be other details that offset/contradict that interpretation. But at the same time... its not a huge leap, just going off that basic information.

You keep repeating this and it's not making any more sense because of it. And by paring the film down to just these points you are doing it a gross disservice. Civil War flows out of known characterisation and relationships. Cap has always been loyal to his friends. There has always been tension between Cap and Iron Man. Tony has always beleived whatever he decides is right is right and rode roughshod over the other's objections.

The film is less about 'rights of the people against the government and more 'i have chronic hero syndrome and won't let you hurt me friend'. Yes Cap objects to the act and in-universe, I say again, in-universe. Cap has lots of reason to distrust being overseeing him. He woke up and discovered the government hired a bunch of Nazis to work for them and is clearly disillusioned with the end of WWII, then he works for SHIELD who lie to him and try to develop superweapons, Shield's oversight then try to nuke New York (with him in it no less). Then even the guy on SHIELD who's on Cap's side wants to preemptively exploded people with hovering death and it turns out SHIELD is really HYdra.

And then to top it all off. The guy who repeatedly antagonised the hulk into going on multiple rampages and breaking Harlem walks in the Avenger's Bases and lectures them on causing collateral damage.

Can you see why Cap might be distrustful here?

So yeah, see the damn movie.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're contradicting yourself. First you claim you don't think people will become revolutionaries because of this film.

You tried that once. I clarified how I wasn't actually saying that. You have responded by repeating the initial falsehood, then claiming that I am contradicting myself because of words you put in my mouth.

The quotes are their for anyone to see. I'm not going to repeat myself for someone who's shown that they'll ignore it and lie.

Then you're saying they will so long as they're already 'susceptible'. I never claimed you thought the film was going to turn die-hard democrat into republican.

Well, first of all, weather someone will be influenced into revolutionary actions or ideologies and weather they will switch parties are two different questions. Revolutionary and Republican are not synonymous (yet, at least).

I''ll say again (corrected for typos) " no-one in real life is going to be a jot more inspired to rebel against the government or cause a real civil war because they saw it" And I'll modify it thus. Anyone who is so susceptible so to be inspired by simply seeing a film called Civil War is so far gone that pretty much anything in the same vein would set them off. Should we censor our media to avoid validating republicans should only a democrats viewpoint be shown? You can't do that in a free society. And I know you'll claim you haven't claimed to want censorship but its the obvious inference I am making from 'waah, this film I haven't seen is bad and validates those mean republicans.'

Reliance on straw man and mockery, signs of someone who either can't make an argument of substance or doesn't care to bother.

And yes, at no point did I argue that this film or any other should not be permitted to be shown, and I suspect that you tried to preempt that fact by basically saying "I know you're going to point out that I'm lying but its really because you're lying" because you know damn well that that's the case, and that you're full of dog shit.

I mean, it takes a real brazen douchebag to say in one breath "I admit that I'm lying but my lie is actually true."

Huh, I just looked the Aurora guy out and turned out he as a batman fan, I did not know that, No word on the Joker or The Dark Knight specifically. So do you think the Dark Knight shouldn't have been allowed? Should we take away everyone's The Dark Knight DVDs. I mean it inspired (maybe) someone to do something very bad (definitely) whereas no incidents have been inspired by Civil War yet as far as I know.

Repeating your ridiculous censorship straw man.

The Dark Knight is actually one of my favourite films, indeed my all-time favourite super hero film, and I have praised it repeatedly on these forums. I believe I also roundly critiqued the censorship of The Interview, which was faced with actual terrorist threats allegedly linked to the government of North Korea.

Would you like some links before you apologize?

Also, regarding the Joker thing:

http://www.people.com/article/james-hol ... -the-joker

You keep repeating this and it's not making any more sense because of it. And by paring the film down to just these points you are doing it a gross disservice. Civil War flows out of known characterisation and relationships. Cap has always been loyal to his friends. There has always been tension between Cap and Iron Man. Tony has always beleived whatever he decides is right is right and rode roughshod over the other's objections.

The film is less about 'rights of the people against the government and more 'i have chronic hero syndrome and won't let you hurt me friend'. Yes Cap objects to the act and in-universe, I say again, in-universe. Cap has lots of reason to distrust being overseeing him. He woke up and discovered the government hired a bunch of Nazis to work for them and is clearly disillusioned with the end of WWII, then he works for SHIELD who lie to him and try to develop superweapons, Shield's oversight then try to nuke New York (with him in it no less). Then even the guy on SHIELD who's on Cap's side wants to preemptively exploded people with hovering death and it turns out SHIELD is really HYdra.

And then to top it all off. The guy who repeatedly antagonised the hulk into going on multiple rampages and breaking Harlem walks in the Avenger's Bases and lectures them on causing collateral damage.

Can you see why Cap might be distrustful here?

So yeah, see the damn movie.

As I said, I am not passing judgement on the film because I have not seen it, or claiming that the points I described represent the totality of the film. So another lie on your part. I am simply pointing out how elements of the film, and its marketing, could lend themselves to certain conclusions.

I admit I jumped the gun a bit in response to ArmourPierce's post, but the point about how elements of this film could be interpreted, and the point about the more subtle effects media can have, are both valid.

I'm pretty sure I get where you're coming from, though, at least in part. You've got some notion in your head that I am saying the film should be banned, and you're all outraged over the perceived advocacy of censorship where it does not exist.

I am capable of having concerns about a film's message, or how others might interpret it, without thinking it should be criminalized. So don't worry you little brain about defending the film from the evil censors.

Edit: I will say that a film like this will probably work better if the conflict originates from the character conflicts rather than from a political conflict, because it still allows you to address the concept of a civil war while being a hell of a lot less loaded.

That's not to say that you can't do a great political allegory film, but that takes a lot more subtly, depth, and tact to do well than a Marvel superhero film is likely to have.

[Dartzap]

For the love of the almighty fucking Zordon.....

Can we please not have the fantastical bullshite world of US politics inflicted on this thread?

RR go and see the film, leave your worries at the door of the cinema, and enjoy/hate the film for what it is. No more, no less.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm planning to see it Tuesday afternoon if possible (I have to see it before the next Agents of SHIELD episode to avoid spoilers).

[Crazedwraith]

You're contradicting yourself. First you claim you don't think people will become revolutionaries because of this film.

You tried that once. I clarified how I wasn't actually saying that. You have responded by repeating the initial falsehood, then claiming that I am contradicting myself because of words you put in my mouth.

The quotes are their for anyone to see. I'm not going to repeat myself for someone who's shown that they'll ignore it and lie.

I'm not intentionally lying or ignoring your points. I'm sorry you think so.

I feel I must repeat the question then because obviously I am unclear. What negative effects do you think this film's message will have? Because you obviously think there are some or you wouldn't be complaining.

Unless your sole complain is 'this film sounds republican and I dissapprove of republicanism"

Then you're saying they will so long as they're already 'susceptible'. I never claimed you thought the film was going to turn die-hard democrat into republican.

Well, first of all, weather someone will be influenced into revolutionary actions or ideologies and weather they will switch parties are two different questions. Revolutionary and Republican are not synonymous (yet, at least).

Meaningless nitpickery. You used the term 'far right,' I admit i conflated this with republican based on your posts here and else where.

Also 'whether'.

I''ll say again (corrected for typos) " no-one in real life is going to be a jot more inspired to rebel against the government or cause a real civil war because they saw it" And I'll modify it thus. Anyone who is so susceptible so to be inspired by simply seeing a film called Civil War is so far gone that pretty much anything in the same vein would set them off. Should we censor our media to avoid validating republicans should only a democrats viewpoint be shown? You can't do that in a free society. And I know you'll claim you haven't claimed to want censorship but its the obvious inference I am making from 'waah, this film I haven't seen is bad and validates those mean republicans.'

Reliance on straw man and mockery, signs of someone who either can't make an argument of substance or doesn't care to bother.

You've made no argument of substance to bother with, If I'm mocking it's because your position is laughable.

But by all means if we want to go all SDN debate. Let's go for 'burden of proof' It is you have made the claim. Please define it: What negative impact do you think making a Civil War film will have? And then offer some actual proof that it is having that effect.

And yes, at no point did I argue that this film or any other should not be permitted to be shown, and I suspect that you tried to preempt that fact by basically saying "I know you're going to point out that I'm lying but its really because you're lying" because you know damn well that that's the case, and that you're full of dog shit.

I mean, it takes a real brazen douchebag to say in one breath "I admit that I'm lying but my lie is actually true."

It was mere rhetorical embellishment. Let me simplify: You have a problem with Civil War and it's message. What do you suggest is the solution to this? Should Civil War not have been shown? Not have been made? Please tell me.

Huh, I just looked the Aurora guy out and turned out he as a batman fan, I did not know that, No word on the Joker or The Dark Knight specifically. So do you think the Dark Knight shouldn't have been allowed? Should we take away everyone's The Dark Knight DVDs. I mean it inspired (maybe) someone to do something very bad (definitely) whereas no incidents have been inspired by Civil War yet as far as I know.

Repeating your ridiculous censorship straw man.

The Dark Knight is actually one of my favourite films, indeed my all-time favourite super hero film, and I have praised it repeatedly on these forums. I believe I also roundly critiqued the censorship of The Interview, which was faced with actual terrorist threats allegedly linked to the government of North Korea.

Would you like some links before you apologize?

Again if Dark Knight caused actual harm undoubtedly, unlike Civil War which you say merely has the potential to cause harm. Why are you praising one and decrying the other?

If not censorship, what do you want done about Civil War?

Also, regarding the Joker thing:

http://www.people.com/article/james-hol ... -the-joker

That article just says that other people compared him to the joker and Holmes is aware of it. Not that Holmes was inspired by The Dark Knight.

As I said, I am not passing judgement on the film because I have not seen it, or claiming that the points I described represent the totality of the film. So another lie on your part. I am simply pointing out how elements of the film, and its marketing, could lend themselves to certain conclusions.

I admit I jumped the gun a bit in response to ArmourPierce's post, but the point about how elements of this film could be interpreted, and the point about the more subtle effects media can have, are both valid.

I'm pretty sure I get where you're coming from, though, at least in part. You've got some notion in your head that I am saying the film should be banned, and you're all outraged over the perceived advocacy of censorship where it does not exist.

I am capable of having concerns about a film's message, or how others might interpret it, without thinking it should be criminalized. So don't worry you little brain about defending the film from the evil censors.

So you make judgement on a film's content and message based on the tile and previews and when I try out that that's not the message the film has suddenly I'm the one who's being an idiot?

You can't judge a film on a message that you've imagine in your head and it doesn't fucking have.

I take great offense at your describing me as being outraged in something that doesn't exist, when you're the guy claiming the film's a validation of far-right politics and is going to encourage... something. Not sure what because you sure as hell won't just spit it out.

Bottom line: What negative effects do you think this film has/might have based on the concept? And can you in anyway prove it?