Captain America: Civil War thread

[Adrian McNair]

I haven't responded to all of your post here because this is plenty long enough as it is. I've tried to focus more on the main points I felt needed to be addressed.

You made this as long as it is. Remember that. If you're looking for sympathy you've come to the wrong place.

This has already taken up a lot more time than I wanted it to.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have started something you weren't willing to finish. Feeling the pressure yet?

Apologies if I missed anything important.

Spare me one of your hollow attempts at any apology. It has as much value as the rest of the hot air that you love to spout.

And where did I ever say you didn't have a right to your opinion? You have just as much right to it as I have to dispute it, which is kind of the fucking point of a discussion forum.

You're full of shit as always, TRR. If you were truly sincere about that you wouldn't have posted in the first place. You wouldn't have tried to impose your viewpoint on me or tried to convince me that Hawkeye's family was a worthy inclusion within Age of Ultron (you've failed miserably on that score).

As far as I can see, you're just being a petty, snide, posturing, wannabe tough guy asshole.

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. You're still bitter that I thoroughly demolished your pathetic, apologist arguments for Grant "I'm a traitorous, murderous piece of shit" Ward the last time we tussled. You used that same hollow "wannabe tough guy" jab at me last time. I have no idea where you getting that from. If I hate a villain and wish to see him dead that doesn't make me a "wannabe tough guy". That just means I'm a human being.

Well, I'm not a fan of you either. I think that you're a pompous, preachy and alarmist blowhard. You're a two-faced prick who has the temerity to act outraged when people call him out on his bullshit. An ivory-tower liberal living in a dream world who's heading for a rude awakening. You're overly self-important, believing that your world-views have weight when in reality you're just an indistinct, impotent guppy in an ocean of sharks. Silly little man, the world doesn't give a shit about you and it's going to keep turning regardless of what you think.

But I'm sorry that I took you away from your busy schedule of shrill histrionics in the News and Politics forum. Wait, wait, no I'm not. See, unlike you I'm sincere. I have convictions. You have hollow platitudes, self-righteous rhetoric and ill-conceived statements.

Useless as direct combatants maybe.

Exactly! If only you had been this perceptive before.

Useless in all roles?

I never said that they were useless in all roles.

And of course, Black Widow only figured out closing Loki's portal and managed to get vital intel out of Loki. That's nothing at all.

It's not an example of her directly defeating Loki, which was my point, you blithering moron. The Hulk was responsible for that. She only learned how to seal the portal after Selvig told her the pertinent details. Her contribution in the climax amounts to being the right person in the right place at the right time. Any member of the team (with the exception of the Hulk) could have done that since it amounted to shoving the scepter into the energy bubble.

But bottom line, I care a lot more about what the characters bring in terms of character interactions and non-combat abilities than I do about what powers they have.

And since when did superpowered characters suddenly become incapable of interacting with others or fail to possess non-combat abilities? One does not have to equal the other.

Of course not, you condescending twit.

You calling me a condescending twit is the most hypocritical, deeply ironic mountain of shit you've shoveled into this thread and that's saying a lot given your posting history.

But a lot of people seem to act like they are. You know, the people who complain about characters being angsty or emo because they have human emotions.

Those people are idiots. The fact that you assumed I was one of them right from the get-go instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt reflects poorly on you.

Does my spelling have any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my argument? If so, explain how.

No, but you keep doing it repeatedly when, in theory, you should know better.

Your argument doesn't have any merits. It was predicated on a false assumption that I preferred to have superpowered characters at the expense of decent characterisation. I've thoroughly invalidated that.

If not, I'm going to call ad hominem.

This "petty, snide, posturing, wannabe tough guy asshole" and "condescending jackass/twit" laughs at your hypocrisy. You're under the delusion that you're better than me, I see. Do me a favour and don't pretend that you're somehow above it all.

And frankly, I'd rate characterization and plot over a few spelling errors when it comes to writing fiction, but that's just me.

All of these things are important actually. Proper literacy is one of the foundations of good writing. Spelling errors disrupt the flow of the story and take the reader out of that story (at least they do for me). When you start talking about the weather instead of whether or not such things are important you start to confuse matters.

You can argue over weather Batman qualifies as a Superhero,

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. I called you out on that, you actually acknowledged that you had made spelling errors and you went ahead and did it anyway. Do you have some sort of mental defect that prevents you from using the correct words? Why do you keep doing this?

but in my opinion he is an interesting enough character, and brings enough to the table, that he's worth having along with the powerhouses regardless.

And I think that he's overexposed, overrated and over-wanked. I've enjoyed specific stories (The Dark Knight film, Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns to name a few) and shows (the DCAU) that he appears in but otherwise his value in extraordinary situations is over-stated. "Batman can breathe in space because he's Batman" is one such joke about how ridiculously over-prepared he is but it's not that far off from what's in the comics.

In particular, he makes an excellent foil for Superman.

That can still occur at the Watchtower instead of a conflict zone. Stop parroting this idea that I want to get rid of Batman. I don't. I think that he would work better as the League's general. That would be better than entertaining the foolhardy scenario that he could tussle with fucking Darkseid.

Thanks for showing you don't get Batman's character very well.

What was that about being entitled to one's opinion again? Oh right, that's only the case if I agree with you. I'm entitled to my interpretation of him. You don't have the monopoly on comprehending his

Thanks for failing to address any of my criticisms of him, by the way.

I don't know.

It's amazing how well one can apply this to anything else you have to say.

It would take a lot to sell them actually trying to kill each other after everything they've been through, and it would be even harder to pull of without making one or both permanently less sympathetic.

No, no it wouldn't. The biggest problem actually stems from conveying the supposed friendship between Steve and Tony. They've fought more than they've ever been friends. These are two people with radically different personalities. They've been building up the tensions between them ever since the first Avengers movie. Their little fight over The Vision in Age of Ultron was but a preview of what's to come. Of course, the fact that they're fighting doesn't mean that they'll kill each other.

Of course, that's part of the tragedy of civil war- friends and family turned against each other. It can be done well. Time will tell if it will be. I'd prefer not to judge off teasers. Its not like a teaser has never been misleading.

Given that it's based on a comic book storyline where that actually happens and the trailers indicate that this is what the film will be about I don't feel that there's room for any ambiguity. What, do you think they'd be stupid enough to turn the whole conflict between them into one of Scarlet Witch's visions? This is the MCU not Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (a...piece of media...which I could only view with Rifftrax commentary).

Obvious or not, they're valid points, and relevant to the topic.

No, it's just another excuse for you to type because you love the sight of your words on a computer monitor. You know that we both feel similarly about Black Widow's backstory yet you felt the need to make your redundant contribution anyway. As though I'm that desperate for your input.

Interesting phrasing. I hope you are not allowing animosity over previous threads (I can't honestly remember the last time I argued a point with you) colour your interpretation of my posts, or your responses.

No more than you've allowed your animosity of me in this thread to colour your interpretation of my posts, or your responses. I don't believe that you're capable of being honest.

Because you seemed to be criticizing Whedon for what was on screen not living up to what the trailers suggested.

I did both. Whedon talked a good game in the lead-up to Age of Ultron's release. He said that her past would be further flashed out in a satisfying way. The trailer seemed to confirm that with Natasha being placed on an operating table. What we got failed to live up to that.

Well, I would argue that both approaches have their merits, your condescending jackassery aside,

You keep using that word as some sort of attack against me but you fail to realise that I'm only emulating you, sunshine. You're the true condescending jackarse here, not me.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Incorrect. You're the one who falsely believed that I was some sort of die-hard purist without any evidence. You're the one who claimed that I was a "whiner". You assumed that I was incapable of writing decent characters. You did all of those things.

However, if I misinterpreted your position, I'm sorry.

Oh, you did. You absolutely did. You did so with flying colours. That's all you've been doing. You're not sorry in the slightest. What a fucking joke you are.

You think Natasha the super soldier is great? Fine.

Absolutely!

But do that, and get rid of Hawkeye who you've so thoroughly disparaged

You've mistaken "dislike" for "get rid of." The distinction is lost on you. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong-suits, clearly. And Hawkeye is very much worthy of my disparagement. He's not front-line combatant material. In The Avengers he was mind-controlled by Loki, in Age of Ultron he was seriously wounded by HYDRA weapon fire and another hero died protecting him. Not an impressive track-record.

and you're running short on Avengers who are actually ordinary humans. Kind of risks sending the message "Humans are irrelevant now that the super humans are here."

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Avengers should be a super-science/superpowered-only team. When someone like Thanos shows up on the battlefield that sure as shit makes ordinary human beings irrelevant. In the face of such power they're lambs to the slaughter. I think that at a certain point they're a liability. They stop being team members and start becoming victims forcing the actual superpowered combatants to prioritise their safety over dealing with the crisis at hand.

Edit: I mean, if, at the end of the day, you just don't like Hawkeye and his family... fine. That's a matter of personal taste, obviously.

You've made it abundantly clear that it's not fine. Don't lie through your teeth.

Ditto if you only like superheroes with actual superpowers. Etc.

I like it when characters stay in their proper place. Street-level heroes and global-scale superheroes don't mix.

But I hope you can appreciate that their are alternative approaches which are not necessarily less valid.

The alternative approaches end up shuffling them away from the battlefield and into other roles. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

Personally, I think the Justice League would be a hell of a lot less interesting without the God Damn Batman.

Did you miss the part where I said that he could still be the strategist/team-planner? I may not like Batman as a character but he could still be utilised within the Justice League without wrecking the credibility of the narrative.

And I think that there's a place in a film like Avengers for non-superpowered superheroes and ancillary characters who, without adding anything to the action, add to the characterization and themes (even if Whedon admittedly could have handled it better).

Nothing that you're saying here contradicts my point about non-superpowered characters being part of a superhero's support network. That's where they belong.

[Thanas]

Let us not drag arguments from other threads in here, it is bad form and against the rules.

[FaxModem1]

The early trailers appeared to give a decent basis for the conflict between Cap and Tony, although I still don't get why Tony would be all gung-ho to go after Cap. I can see him being in favor of supporting the accords but putting a team together to go after Cap's formerly brainwashed buddy? That seems like the totally arrogant asshole Stark that was part of the problem with the comic story. Movie Stark has been arrogant but it seems a big switch for him to appear to support the government's side so strongly.

Its been hinted that Tony Stark's parents were killed by Hydra, and I'm willing to bet that Bucky was the trigger man. That'd give Tony plenty of reason to want Steve's best buddy to fry.

[Gandalf]

The early trailers appeared to give a decent basis for the conflict between Cap and Tony, although I still don't get why Tony would be all gung-ho to go after Cap. I can see him being in favor of supporting the accords but putting a team together to go after Cap's formerly brainwashed buddy? That seems like the totally arrogant asshole Stark that was part of the problem with the comic story. Movie Stark has been arrogant but it seems a big switch for him to appear to support the government's side so strongly.

Deep down, Stark is that guy. After Avengers, he's someone reacting to the fact that he (and his world) are way fragile. In Winter Soldier, we find out that he's sharing repulsor technology with SHIELD. In Avengers 2, he's trying to create some sort of AI controlled robotic army to stop the next big fight. If there's world peace, based around an international agreement regarding superpowered people, and Cap/Bucky/et al are the holdouts, I could see him trying to kill/arrest a misguided idealist and his murderer friend.

It's not a far cry from his days as an arms merchant.

[The Romulan Republic]

The early trailers appeared to give a decent basis for the conflict between Cap and Tony, although I still don't get why Tony would be all gung-ho to go after Cap. I can see him being in favor of supporting the accords but putting a team together to go after Cap's formerly brainwashed buddy? That seems like the totally arrogant asshole Stark that was part of the problem with the comic story. Movie Stark has been arrogant but it seems a big switch for him to appear to support the government's side so strongly.

Its been hinted that Tony Stark's parents were killed by Hydra, and I'm willing to bet that Bucky was the trigger man. That'd give Tony plenty of reason to want Steve's best buddy to fry.

That does seem to be the likeliest reason that would give Stark a compelling personal motive to go after Bucky and Cap.

Whereas for Cap., I suppose it would be that Bucky is the only friend he has left from his past, and the closest thing he has to family. And Cap. does seem like the kind of guy who would stand by his friends to the ends of the Earth, even if they'd done something horrible (it helps that Bucky was brainwashed and not really acting of his own volition).

On the whole, I think the film will work better if the motives are predominantly personal rather than political/ideological. I don't mind a good political film, but it would be easy to turn it into a very awkward, heavy-handed straw man story if they tried to make it an ideological conflict. And after all, despite some differences in methods and attitude, Stark and Cap. are both ostensibly "good guys" who have the same broad goals.

No, a purely personal conflict seems best, if they can come up with a good enough reason to sell it, and "Stark wants to murder Bucky because Bucky killed his parents" could certainly work.

[Crown]

Regarding Barton and his family in AoU I agree with you, and I think there are a few factors in play;

• We're not Americans. The actor playing Barton (Jeremy Renner) has a much bigger fan following in the US than for those of us outside of it. He's a regular on the late night sell talk shows and he's been in the Mission Impossible series and Bourne series (and industry gossip was that he was meant to have been tipped to 'take over' either of those franchises at some point). Bot for those of us outside the US, he's just an ancillary character.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this has nothing to do with my opinion of Barton. I barely know Renner outside of his work for Marvel and that one episode of "Angel" he played a guest villain on, and I wouldn't really consider myself a fan of the actor (or the character Barton for that matter). I just see some merit in the stuff with Barton's family.

But if you really want to turn this into some sort of America vs. the world thing...

Well, that's kind of sad.

I don't think I'm framing this as an America vs The Rest of the World thing at all. I'm just pointing out that Americans (as a whole) would be more widely exposed to Renner than the rest of us. If two major movie franchises (Mission Impossible and Bourne) were both poised to hand him the reigns, this didn't come about without some kind of internal polling/focus group which would have been domestic more than anything else would have been done by the studios to indicate to them this would be a good idea.

But since we're talking in generalities it's perfectly normal if you don't recognise that in yourself of course.

[*]The other reason, it was just poor writing (a symptom common in the whole movie, but given what Whedon has delivered before and what the rumours are surrounding the problems he had with AoU this I lay at the feet of the studio). Or what Aristotle would refer to as an "improbable possibility" from the full quote; "Accordingly, the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities. The tragic plot must not be composed of irrational parts." Which in clear terms is agreeing with what you pointed out above; it came out of nowhere (improbable) even if it is something that could conceivably exist (a family). The fact it was just dumped on us hurt the passing and narrative.

Could its introduction have been handled better? Yes.

Did it add something positive to the movie? I would say yes.

Aristotle's whole point is in emphasising on how something is introduced, hence the critique. As to the merit of that scene adding something positive to the movie, I can't agree but it's fine to disagree on this as it's largely a subjective argument.

[*]Lastly more in regards to the movie as a whole; the villain sucked. Loki is a good villain. Kingpin in Daredevil was a fantastic villain. Ultron was ultimately lame, bland, boring and un-inspired. And unlike in Guardians of the Galaxy where Rhonin was all those things as well, our heroes were suffering from poor writing competing screen time for development and strained dialogue.[/list]

To be honest, I only find Loki interesting most of the time because of Tom Hiddleston's acting. The character as written seems inconsistent and at times boring.

I wonder if people give Loki a bit of a bad rap sometimes. Even in Thor (which lets face it wasn't the most loved Marvel movie from audiences or the studio its self) as a villain he goes on a remarkable journey; from the typical second son power grab to discovering he isn't even a son of Odin and that he had been denied his birthright from the beginning (he's really the son of the king of the Frost Giants) to believing he can win his adopted father's approval if he commits mass genocide on his own people.

While all that is horrifying, it's also an amazing arc for the antagonist of a movie, hell it would even be an amazing arc for the protagonist (if he of course is redeemed by the end of it)!

Their is exactly one major MCU villain I'm familiar with who really interests me as a character, and that's Grant Ward (okay, maybe, to a lesser extent, his ex-boss Garret too) from Agents of Shield. And even their, they kind of dropped the ball for a while.

MCU has kind of bland villains generally.

Edit: Okay, Winter Soldier's villains were pretty good. Except for Redford's character.

I don't watch AoS because the first half of season one sucked and I can't be arsed now. I'm surprised you're not talking about Daredevil's Kingpin or Jessica Jone's Kilgrave (who I shamefully omitted in my last post). Are you not familiar with them in the MCU?

As for Winter Soldier's villains (I think someone in this thread already pointed this out) I was in love with the movie up until "lol Nazis you fools!" reveal. Up until then it was such an amazing risk for Marvel to take on the topical issue of big government surveillance over its own citizenry, security vs privacy, policing vs freedom and then they just made the bad guys Nazis. It was a cop out in my opinion.

[Crown]

I haven't been blown away with Hawkeye or Renner's portrayal of him at all. Every time I see him in the MCU I keep thinking that they could excise him from the proceedings and nothing of consequence would be lost. Moreover I'm just not impressed with Renner as an actor. Period. He doesn't seem to have much range and he's hogging the limelight that other underrated performers deserve to be in. Maybe I just haven't been viewing the right films. What do you think of him?

I really don't 'get' Renner to be honest. I liked him in The Hurt Locker but at the same time really wasn't taken by him in The Bourne Legacy. Which isn't odd I suppose since a lot of the problems with the later movie were due to the studio telling us really earnestly that this character was 'better than Jason Bourne' which made me want to check out of the movie entirely.

I think what hurts the character the most is that he's just too much of a wise-cracker. While Spader did a great job with what he was given, the scatter-brained and goofy approach really undercut his menace. In the comics Ultron is an Avengers-grade threat who has imperiled all life on the planet multiple times, has actually succeeded in one timeline (the Age of Ultron event that the film shares a name with and nothing else) and went on to conquer an entire interstellar empire with an army of Phalanx (the Kree in the Annihilation: Conquest storyline). He's constantly upgrading himself into increasingly deadlier forms and he doesn't have the decency to stay dead when you destroy him (there's always a spare Ultron shell lying around or a copy of his program on a computer somewhere). Tom Kane's take on him in Earth's Mightiest Heroes is very much on-point.

Whedon wanted to differentiate his depiction of Ultron, believing the comic-book version to be too one-dimensional. Unfortunately, he ended up skewing things too far towards another extreme. It's a shame because Ultron did have the potential to break the Marvel mediocre supervillain curse (is that the common term? I'm shamelessly stealing it regardless of whether or not it is). It feels like a significant character has been wasted and given the one-off treatment.

Yes, that constant wise cracking (from everyone in the movie) was just grating for me. It was like Whedon turned up to 11, the whole movie suffered because of it.

As for the villains you've listed they have the benefit of greater screen-time and development than any of the other one-note antagonists we've seen. Loki appeared in three films with a fourth on the way (Thor: Ragnarok) and was buoyed by Tom Hiddleston's charisma. Fisk had an entire season with the possibility of subsequent appearances (there's no way he's going to remain imprisoned). As I understand it you're not a fan of Agents of SHIELD (believe it or not it has improved significantly since the first half of season one) but it too has done a better job of handling its villains than the movies.

I'll conceded the run time difference for Fisk (and Kilgrave) but please see my response above regarding Loki, even in his first appearance he had an arc greater than nearly all other Marvel bad guys combined. When you look at it, Loki could have been treated the same way as Rhonin (which would have been the standard modus operandi for Marvel villains), instead in his first outing he's given depth and pain and anguish. Hell I think he was more one dimensional in Avengers than anything else!

And yeah, I'm okay to admit I've missed the boat with AoS, it's not really something I dwell on.

They've really got their work cut out for them with Thanos. I have no idea how they're going to pull it off.

I think DC/WB have the same issue when they're going to introduce Darkseid; and I'm not sure if you can do anything else other than have demigods beat the shit out of each other in that instance, so for me expectations are low as long as spectacle is high.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think I'm framing this as an America vs The Rest of the World thing at all.

Yeah, sorry. I admit I can probably be a little oversensitive about that sometimes.

But in any case, it doesn't have much to do with my attitude towards Renner. Like I said, my main experience of him is in the role of Hawkeye.

I'm just pointing out that Americans (as a whole) would be more widely exposed to Renner than the rest of us. If two major movie franchises (Mission Impossible and Bourne) were both poised to hand him the reigns, this didn't come about without some kind of internal polling/focus group which would have been domestic more than anything else would have been done by the studios to indicate to them this would be a good idea.

But since we're talking in generalities it's perfectly normal if you don't recognise that in yourself of course.

Yeah, I can see the studios thinking along those lines.

Aristotle's whole point is in emphasising on how something is introduced, hence the critique. As to the merit of that scene adding something positive to the movie, I can't agree but it's fine to disagree on this as it's largely a subjective argument.

Fair enough.

I've stated my reasons for liking it (mainly that it add another dimension and a little more optimism to Natasha's life and gives us a glimpse of one of the heroes' ordinary life when he's not out Avenging). But while it obviously adds another layer to the film that wouldn't otherwise be their, at some point, it either works for you as a viewer or it doesn't.

I certainly acknowledge that it could have been better handled, though I'm not sure who the blame falls on for that.

I wonder if people give Loki a bit of a bad rap sometimes. Even in Thor (which lets face it wasn't the most loved Marvel movie from audiences or the studio its self) as a villain he goes on a remarkable journey; from the typical second son power grab to discovering he isn't even a son of Odin and that he had been denied his birthright from the beginning (he's really the son of the king of the Frost Giants) to believing he can win his adopted father's approval if he commits mass genocide on his own people.

While all that is horrifying, it's also an amazing arc for the antagonist of a movie, hell it would even be an amazing arc for the protagonist (if he of course is redeemed by the end of it)!

It certainly gives him lot of development as a character, even if his motives are contradictory and illogical (I suppose that's part of the tragedy of the character). But I found the implementation of it a bit thin and clumsy.

But then its been a while since I watched Thor, so maybe I'd feel differently now.

And I do like some of his characterization in Avengers very much, actually. He seeks to rule, but he's ultimately a man who is trapped, both by Thanos and his own failings. And he seems to be on some level aware of it. When he talks about it being humans' natural state to be ruled or whatever he says, that we will always kneel, I definitely get the sense that he's projecting his own frustrations and issues their. He is a man who wants power, but ultimately is trapped by his pursuit of it.

And I thought Dark World handled him quite well, even if making Loki more sympathetic was a bit predictable. I like that he actually won for once, helping get revenge for his mother and then supplanting Odin and faking his own death.

But mostly its Hindleston's acting the sells the character for me.

I don't watch AoS because the first half of season one sucked and I can't be arsed now. I'm surprised you're not talking about Daredevil's Kingpin or Jessica Jone's Kilgrave (who I shamefully omitted in my last post). Are you not familiar with them in the MCU?

Frankly, you should catch up on AoS. The first half of season one is really not representative of the show in its entirety. Most notably, they took probably their two most boring characters (Ward and Skye) and made them perhaps the most interesting and complex.

As to Kingping and Kilgrave, I haven't watched those shows because I don't have Netflix (I keep meaning to get it but I haven't yet). I actually really want to watch Kilgrave, just because its David Tenant. He tends to bring such wonderful energy and enthusiasm, in my experience. Not the most versatile actor perhaps, but definitely charismatic.

As for Winter Soldier's villains (I think someone in this thread already pointed this out) I was in love with the movie up until "lol Nazis you fools!" reveal. Up until then it was such an amazing risk for Marvel to take on the topical issue of big government surveillance over its own citizenry, security vs privacy, policing vs freedom and then they just made the bad guys Nazis. It was a cop out in my opinion.

Well, otherwise they would have had a film where the hero (named Captain America no less) leads an armed insurrection against the lawful government of the United States, which I think falls under what TV Tropes calls "unfortunate implications".

But yeah, it would have at least been a ballsy move.

[Coop D'etat]

I'm going to interject on Crown's issue with the ending of Winter Soldier, because its an interpretation I've seen many times and strongly disagree with.

I thought the film made it very clear that Hydra weren't Nazis, and were never really Nazis in the first place (i.e. in Cap 1, where it should be noted that the Red Skull was equally planning on betraying Nazi Germany as attacking the Allies). I believe it was fairly clear that Hydra's ideological loyalties weren't to a version of Nazism, but a version of a pure authoritarian principle i.e. "people cannot be trusted to govern themselves." Their modus opperendi is to infiltrate and subvert large military-industrial-espionage complexes to recruit people with the right skillsets and are predisposed to such ideas as "might makes right," "weak follow strong," "common folk have no idea how things really are and have no business making descisions." Nazi Germany was a fertile recruiting ground for them, but so was SHIELD and apparently the American security complex in general.

As a result, every member of modern Hydra wasn't originally some neo-Nazi wannabe, but a member in good standing of the American security establishment who got persuaded to join a secret society based on authoritarian principles. This was most clearly articulated by Pierce (an under-rated villian in my opinion), who saw the ultimate good being served by slaughtering anyone troublesome to create a permanent "peace." I see little "lol Nazis" in that plan, its far more evocative of the practices of the American security establishment when they are at their most questionable. Their plans are far more a darker version of "Project for the New American Century," rather than say, a Generalplan Ost.

On that basis, I saw one of the primary messages of Winter Soldier is that while many to most of a security establishment will be more or less good people (as demonstrated by the revolt of the SHIELD personel when Rogers revealed their plan) these institutions are also natural breeding grounds of exactly the sort of people who will abuse power.

But that's just my opinion of what was going on.

[Gandalf]

As for Winter Soldier's villains (I think someone in this thread already pointed this out) I was in love with the movie up until "lol Nazis you fools!" reveal. Up until then it was such an amazing risk for Marvel to take on the topical issue of big government surveillance over its own citizenry, security vs privacy, policing vs freedom and then they just made the bad guys Nazis. It was a cop out in my opinion.

Well, otherwise they would have had a film where the hero (named Captain America no less) leads an armed insurrection against the lawful government of the United States, which I think falls under what TV Tropes calls "unfortunate implications".

But yeah, it would have at least been a ballsy move.

What's so unfortunate about such implications?

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know, particularly after several years of threats and the occasional shooting or armed stand-off from the Right wing militia crowd, I'd be a little uneasy about a movie which takes the most blatantly patriotic hero you can get and has him engaged in a righteous revolt against a villainous US government. It could be seen as in some way condoning the "Second Amendment Solutions" crowd.

I'm not saying it would make a bunch of people go out and become domestic terrorists or anything. Just... there's a potential subtext their that I'd rather not see.

Edit: I guess it would depend on how exactly its portrayed, how close the parallels are between Marvel America and the real world.

[Tsyroc]

Its been hinted that Tony Stark's parents were killed by Hydra, and I'm willing to bet that Bucky was the trigger man. That'd give Tony plenty of reason to want Steve's best buddy to fry.

That would be a good basis for the fight between the former teammates.

[Tsyroc]

Deep down, Stark is that guy. After Avengers, he's someone reacting to the fact that he (and his world) are way fragile. In Winter Soldier, we find out that he's sharing repulsor technology with SHIELD. In Avengers 2, he's trying to create some sort of AI controlled robotic army to stop the next big fight. If there's world peace, based around an international agreement regarding superpowered people, and Cap/Bucky/et al are the holdouts, I could see him trying to kill/arrest a misguided idealist and his murderer friend.

It's not a far cry from his days as an arms merchant.

I guess the only reservation I have is Stark siding strongly with the government, but with Rhodey there it does make more sense than if it was just him.

Thinking his way is right beyond all shadow of a doubt is totally Tony Stark. Because, to him, he's always the smartest guy in the room.

I think if the main basis of the film is that Cap is trying to protect his friend (essentially brother) while Tony is trying to bring in the guy who killed his parents I can get into it.

I do hope that they handle "The Accords" part better than the comics handled the Superhero Registration Act.

[FaxModem1]

Deep down, Stark is that guy. After Avengers, he's someone reacting to the fact that he (and his world) are way fragile. In Winter Soldier, we find out that he's sharing repulsor technology with SHIELD. In Avengers 2, he's trying to create some sort of AI controlled robotic army to stop the next big fight. If there's world peace, based around an international agreement regarding superpowered people, and Cap/Bucky/et al are the holdouts, I could see him trying to kill/arrest a misguided idealist and his murderer friend.

It's not a far cry from his days as an arms merchant.

I guess the only reservation I have is Stark siding strongly with the government, but with Rhodey there it does make more sense than if it was just him.

Thinking his way is right beyond all shadow of a doubt is totally Tony Stark. Because, to him, he's always the smartest guy in the room.

I think if the main basis of the film is that Cap is trying to protect his friend (essentially brother) while Tony is trying to bring in the guy who killed his parents I can get into it.

I do hope that they handle "The Accords" part better than the comics handled the Superhero Registration Act.

Yeah, its quite a contrast from Iron Man 2's "I have privatized world peace" speech.

[Crazedwraith]

Also wondering what Vision is doing on Tony's side. After his presentation in AoU, I wonder if that's supposed to designate that, like in the comic series, Tony is in 'the right'. Not that the series did much to show that by all accounts.

[Gaidin]

Frankly, you should catch up on AoS. The first half of season one is really not representative of the show in its entirety. Most notably, they took probably their two most boring characters (Ward and Skye) and made them perhaps the most interesting and complex.

As a total off topic question. Am I the only one that liked the investigation trail of Season 1 and them tracking down the Clairvoyant bit by bit as the clues came in? Especially when, suddenly, the shit in the first few episodes became relevant again?

[Enigma]

TL;DR, After seeing the line up, Cap's side is woefully under powered unless Thor and Hulk joined their side.

[Gandalf]

As for Winter Soldier's villains (I think someone in this thread already pointed this out) I was in love with the movie up until "lol Nazis you fools!" reveal. Up until then it was such an amazing risk for Marvel to take on the topical issue of big government surveillance over its own citizenry, security vs privacy, policing vs freedom and then they just made the bad guys Nazis. It was a cop out in my opinion.

What made WS worse in that regard was that not only did they make all of the villains Nazis, they also retconned Senator Larry Sanders into one. That character was great in that while he wasn't a villain, he was someone with a point; Stark was an unreliable individual with his own Manhattan Project. Like Superman, everyone just had to trust that the Steve Jobs of arms merchants was on their side. Clumsily handled, it's still a point worth making. But then Winter Soldier came along, and the main voice that questioned Stark was revealed to in fact be a pseudo-Nazi cultist. Suddenly his actions go from valid concerns over one individual's power to just another example of a plot against our glorious heroes.

[Civil War Man]

As for Winter Soldier's villains (I think someone in this thread already pointed this out) I was in love with the movie up until "lol Nazis you fools!" reveal. Up until then it was such an amazing risk for Marvel to take on the topical issue of big government surveillance over its own citizenry, security vs privacy, policing vs freedom and then they just made the bad guys Nazis. It was a cop out in my opinion.

I actually didn't mind that twist, since it's partially based on a true story (only we did it with actual Nazis instead of fake magic Nazis). I think they could do a better job exploring it, but I thought it presented a good conflict between Cap's idealized view of what America should be with the realities of what modern America is, with the added bonus being that the conflict is the fault of Cap's peers, who, in an attempt to get a leg up on their Communist rivals, invited the poison into their own body.

Yeah, its quite a contrast from Iron Man 2's "I have privatized world peace" speech.

To be fair, that speech came at the beginning of Tony's arc in that movie, before he learned the lesson that he cannot privatize world peace and must be able to trust other people to use the technology he creates.

Honestly, Stark is not really anti-authoritarian. He's just distrustful of any authority that does not include him.

[FaxModem1]

Honestly, Stark is not really anti-authoritarian. He's just distrustful of any authority that does not include him.

That right there will probably be the big thing that points out Stark's flaw in his logic. As long as he's a member of the club and has a seat at the table, it's okay. If he's not, it's an injustice and must be stopped.

[Batman]

I'm onboard with that (provided it a) happens and b) is done well). Tony realizing he's not on board because it's the right thing to do, but blithely assumed that since he's on board it must be the right thing to do should be a powerful 'What the hell am I doing' moment for him.

[Kojiro]

Yeah, its quite a contrast from Iron Man 2's "I have privatized world peace" speech.

To be fair, I think the issue here is that while Tony was confident he could privatize world peace, he's suddenly realised that now he needs galactic peace. As big an ego as he has, he's got to realise that some things are just beyond him doing alone.

TL;DR, After seeing the line up, Cap's side is woefully under powered unless Thor and Hulk joined their side.

Let's not forget that Scarlet Witch has demonstrated the ability to tear open Ultron's vibranium chassis with a wave of her hand. Tough as Ironman suits are, they're not that tough.

On the whole I agree, especially since if there's any indication the fight is coming Stark should be packing appropriate mods/weapons specific to the task.

[Gaidin]

Let's not forget that Scarlet Witch has demonstrated the ability to tear open Ultron's vibranium chassis with a wave of her hand. Tough as Ironman suits are, they're not that tough.

On the whole I agree, especially since if there's any indication the fight is coming Stark should be packing appropriate mods/weapons specific to the task.

It should be noted for all of Scarlet Witch's possible more developed abilities, the Ultron she tore apart was not vibranium. That was a normal chasis. The vibranium chasis became Vision.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, its quite a contrast from Iron Man 2's "I have privatized world peace" speech.

To be fair, I think the issue here is that while Tony was confident he could privatize world peace, he's suddenly realised that now he needs galactic peace. As big an ego as he has, he's got to realise that some things are just beyond him doing alone.

TL;DR, After seeing the line up, Cap's side is woefully under powered unless Thor and Hulk joined their side.

Let's not forget that Scarlet Witch has demonstrated the ability to tear open Ultron's vibranium chassis with a wave of her hand. Tough as Ironman suits are, they're not that tough.

On the whole I agree, especially since if there's any indication the fight is coming Stark should be packing appropriate mods/weapons specific to the task.

I'm actually be really interested in what Thor and Hulk's view of the whole thing is.

Thor in particular has pretty much been where Cap. was with Bucky. Having someone close to him turn against you, and being torn between your love for them and your duty to fight them. Of course, Loki was a willing villain, while Bucky was not.

Hulk, on the other hand, might identify with Bucky's situation- a good man who is turned into a monster against his will.

[FaxModem1]

I'm actually be really interested in what Thor and Hulk's view of the whole thing is.

Thor in particular has pretty much been where Cap. was with Bucky. Having someone close to him turn against you, and being torn between your love for them and your duty to fight them. Of course, Loki was a willing villain, while Bucky was not.

Hulk, on the other hand, might identify with Bucky's situation- a good man who is turned into a monster against his will.

Bruce has probably washed his hands of all of it. In Age of Ultron, he wanted to run away and never have to deal with saving the day again. He would also probably be against Tony's side, as Natasha is on there, and she both broke his heart and betrayed him. He's also seen Tony's mad science and his running into a course of action without informing others.

A similarity between Loki and Bucky is pretty thin. At all points, (unless the new Thor or Avengers movies reveals otherwise)Loki has pretty much signed up for what has happened to him, in a quest to make himself stronger, to have more power, or to be loved by his father. While he is sympathetic, he makes these choices rather selfishly. Bucky's biggest choice has been either keeping Steve safe, or giving him praise to make his fellow GIs stand behind him. Any evil actions he's done has been through severe brainwashing and torture, and was only able to break free due to his personal connection with his target. It's a difference between selfishness and selflessness.

In regards to son of Odin, Thor's big arc has been focusing on the bigger picture, and what is best for the cosmos as a whole, rather than the individual. Whether the Sokovia Accords allows or is bad politicing is what would determine where Thor stands. I see him taking the role he did in Avengers 2, stopping the fight and pointing out that Thanos is out there.

It really says something about the state of things when Thor, god of thunder, is the best case for a mediator between the heroes.