Current Events > Whose side were you on, in the MCU Civil War?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Contrary to my general political opinions and beliefs regarding government, I was more on Captain America's side.

I don't think it's wise to wait for a deliberative body to decide whether or not to authorize a group like The Avengers to respond to a given situation when something like Sokovia can happen and moments can be the difference between life and death.

---

The government fucks up shit and it's expensive. Super heroes fixknhp shit and it's funny

---

Captain America. The US doesnt need any more super weapons.

---

both sides

sucked

Both sides sucked, but I was more on Tony's side.

---

https://youtu.be/fvLw021rVN0

covers it perfectly.

as fun as the movie is, they didnt spend nearly enough time convincing people to side with tony

---

Tony in theory.

The execution puts me on Cap's side.
---

For the most part, they only needed the Sokovia Accords to fix Tony's fuck ups. So they needed oversight on Tony, not Cap.

---

I hated Civil War as a movie. The entire motivation being one dudes friend going to jail or not was dumb. And yes I realize they wanted to execute him, but Cap could have gotten him a fair trial at least.

In the comic the motivation is huge. Within the first few pages a bunch of C-list hero's are basically filming an episode of COPS and run into B list villains. One of the villains blows up an entire elementary school full of kids. It was the hero's fault and makes perfect sense why people would want regulation.

Personally I call the movie "domestic disturbance" because it seems like Cap and Iron-Man are having a messy breakup.

---

In a world where hydra took over government entities, Team Cap

They are operating in a universe where literal super nazis had recently been shown to quite easily infiltrate the upper echelons of any type of government oversight.

---

Neither side was right but I lean more towards Tony.

---

kirbyakaZ posted...

I hated Civil War as a movie. The entire motivation being one dudes friend going to jail or not was dumb. And yes I realize they wanted to execute him, but Cap could have gotten him a fair trial at least.

In the comic the motivation is huge. Within the first few pages a bunch of C-list hero's are basically filming an episode of COPS and run into B list villains. One of the villains blows up an entire elementary school full of kids. It was the hero's fault and makes perfect sense why people would want regulation.

Personally I call the movie "domestic disturbance" because it seems like Cap and Iron-Man are having a messy breakup.

The comics are way worse though IMO since Iron Man basically becomes hitler and Captain America becomes a petulant toddler who refuses to listen to anyone or anything, even if anyone was willing to have a normal conversation with him... and then it just kind of ends. Also evil robot Thor.

The MCU version at least tried to fix some of the biggest issues the comic had.

ThePrinceFish posted...

They are operating in a universe where literal super nazis had recently been shown to quite easily infiltrate the upper echelons of any type of government oversight.

This is huge.

---

i hesitate to give power to the psychopath that intentionally sets off the hulk in the middle of a college campus and turns one of his soldiers into a knock off hulk for a full on brawl in nyc.

---

In real life, they would need to operate with some measure of government oversight and not just be vigilantes who use their power as they please.

In the context of the movie, Captain America was a virtuous hero and Iron Man was hellbent on murdering a man who had been mind-controlled.

I still have my Team Cap button from the movie's premiere.

The whole thing was stupid imo, I hate fights where people are doing things that could kill the people they are fighting but if either side actually killed somebody on the other side it would be fucked up as fuck.

Like what are you even trying to do in this faux fight?

---

The problem with deconstructing the political ramifications of comic book heroes is that these stories only ever cherry-pick the parts they want to deconstruct.

In real life, the government would have solved Stark tech, the super soldier serum, etc and implemented them into the military. Either through their own efforts or through CIA fuckery.

Now the US Marines are all Captain America in an Iron Man suit, and the vigilantes like Stark would either be absorbed into the military infrastructure or forbidden from participating.

The only wild card is Wakanda existing. If a country that advanced decided to drop isolationist policy, its hard to imagine they *wouldnt* do to the US what the US did to various South American nations, in which case the political direction of the country would be completely unpredictable. >_>


---

Proto_Spark posted...

The comics are way worse though IMO since Iron Man basically becomes hitler and Captain America becomes a petulant toddler who refuses to listen to anyone or anything, even if anyone was willing to have a normal conversation with him... and then it just kind of ends. Also evil robot Thor.

The MCU version at least tried to fix some of the biggest issues the comic had.

Evil robot Thor was awesome. Mainly because of how he died:

Hercules: "Thou art no Thor!" *SMASH!*

---

Scorsese's.

---

kirbyakaZ posted...

I hated Civil War as a movie. The entire motivation being one dudes friend going to jail or not was dumb. And yes I realize they wanted to execute him, but Cap could have gotten him a fair trial at least.

In the comic the motivation is huge. Within the first few pages a bunch of C-list hero's are basically filming an episode of COPS and run into B list villains. One of the villains blows up an entire elementary school full of kids. It was the hero's fault and makes perfect sense why people would want regulation.

Personally I call the movie "domestic disturbance" because it seems like Cap and Iron-Man are having a messy breakup.

I agree about the lackluster build up - haven't read the comics but was really expecting more build up/arguments from both sides, esp having watched the Cadmus arc on JLU

In theory I agree with Tony. Any group as powerful as The Avengers needs to have some sort of accountability and oversight

But the film and the source material both did a miserable job of actually fleshing that side of the argument out

---

Tony never answered Cap's question. "What if there's somewhere we need to go, but can't?"

Team Cap.

---

Also, didn't Spider-Man break the Sokovia Accords, fighting Vulture?

Didn't Tony break them fighting Ebony and Cull?

---

jumi posted...

Evil robot Thor was awesome. Mainly because of how he died:

Hercules: "Thou art no Thor!" *SMASH!*

And for when Thor beat the ABSOLUTE. LIVING. SHIT. out of Tony for pulling that shit.

monkmith posted...

i hesitate to give power to the psychopath that intentionally sets off the hulk in the middle of a college campus and turns one of his soldiers into a knock off hulk for a full on brawl in nyc.

To be fair, Blonsky did the Abomination thing himself with that weird scientist, Ross was only involved with the initial supersoldier thing.

---

Cap is more right. Tony believes the things he believes because he is a wealthy powerful man with connections to our defense grifters. The idea that our institutions could be fair oversight is laughable, and only a rich guy would believe in them.

The government has routinely proven malevolent or incompetent so Captain America.
Kajagogo posted...

Also, didn't Spider-Man break the Sokovia Accords, fighting Vulture?

Didn't Tony break them fighting Ebony and Cull?

Spider-man I presume was too low profile(and identity unknown by the government) for them to care.

Vulture maybe raised it but Tony probably was keeping information from them and maybe covered some of the vulture incident up behind the scenes.

With Maw it was irrelevant because

1. He may have gotten authorization behind the scenes but who TF wants to waste screen time on that
2. He shortly thereafter was missing and then half the planet was gone so nobody gave a fuck about the Sokovia accords in the immediate aftermath anymore I think.

---

Cap

---

Cap. They did a bad job of making Ironman's side seem right.

---

It's a fun movie. It's the cinematic equivalent of being a kid sitting at the living room table and playing with all of your toys at once. But it does have some flaws.

Instead of weighing the issues, they took a firm armchair anarchist approach in which "the government" was inherently evil and Cap was fighting for personal liberties. But they weren't content to leave the issue to be black and white either, so their idea of graying up the argument was to have Cap and his friends needlessly endanger people and cause millions of dollars in damages.

Seriously though, could you imagine being the driver who has to report that Captain America assaulted him and stole his car?

operating under some decent oversight > operating with no oversight >>>>> operating under UN oversight if it was like the real world UN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operating under UN oversight in the marvel universe

In the MCU, Cap is 100% unquestionably in the right. The UN in real life is too corrupt and ineffective to be given that kind of power. In the MCU Hydra exists

---

The film really does pose it like Captain America's side is for definite the right one. Tony has trouble through all the films knowing if he's doing enough or doing the right thing, basically making unprecedented moral decisions about his weapons. It seems like an emotional decision, especially just finding out about Charles Spencer, that he wants that responsibility taken away from him with the Sokovia Accords.

On his side too, Natasha and Vision only seem to agree to keep the peace, Spiderman's whole 'if you can stop bad things and don't stop them etc' thing should put him squarely on Captain America's side, and it seems like if Thor & Hulk had to choose they'd be against it too.

The plot point for the Sokovia accords also kinda ignores that the Avengers' involvement only ever led to the best outcome among all the destruction (maybe except Hulk in Johannesburg).

JustMyOpinion posted...

I'm on Tony's side. Cap only did what he did in large part because some old broad he wanted to boink said stand your ground and because apparently Bucky is the only friend that really matters to him. He didn't think about the ramifications of not signing and he probably should've given how IW went which probably would've gone better with a coordinated attack.

And Tony only did what he did because some woman tried to guilt trip him. It was sad that her son died, but just think of all the people in Sokovia that they saved.

---

If it was irl, you would want government oversight. Would you trust super powered individuals to go about fucking shit up with no accountability?

---

The thing that drove me bananas about Civil War was how they made Tony so "pro-government" to foil against Rogers. Tony was about as anti-government as it gets, especially across the Iron Man movies. From cutting off his role in the military industrial complex, not trusting Nick Fury initially, to completely humiliating Congress in IM2, & exposing SHIELD's secret weapons program in Avengers, he showed how much he didn't play ball with them.

It was really only after his PTSD in IM3 that he threw them a few bones in allowing them to keep the War Machine suit & his tech in constructing the Raft. And even then, the War Machine suit was inferior to all of his own builds, and he 100% trusted the guy wearing it.

Although story-wise, Tony's anti-government attitude was probably more rooted in his sour relationship with his father, who was very much pro-government agency.


---

Doom_Art posted...

In theory I agree with Tony. Any group as powerful as The Avengers needs to have some sort of accountability and oversight

But the film and the source material both did a miserable job of actually fleshing that side of the argument out

FortuneCookie posted...

In real life, they would need to operate with some measure of government oversight and not just be vigilantes who use their power as they please.

In the context of the movie, Captain America was a virtuous hero and Iron Man was hellbent on murdering a man who had been mind-controlled.

I still have my Team Cap button from the movie's premiere.

These.

Cowthief posted...

Cap. They did a bad job of making Ironman's side seem right.

Realistically though the Avengers were running a private army on US soil (even building bases) and then invading foreign countries. Not to mention that the US government first formed The Avengers and might have been funding them too.

---

Why wouldn't cap want to oppose giving the government full control when the government's first option to stop an alien invasion was to nuke new york, and then the government's response was to create a fleet of heli carriers that would shoot people before they did anything illegal based on their SAT scores and voting patterns. Finally the main supporter of the accords was the guy who made the genocidal robot

I think the definitions were pretty poor. For one thing, Captain's ultimate motivation is to protect his best friend, which aligns with having little government intervention and essentially giving him full power. Under the context of Captain, this is honestly fine, even despite Captain having an ulterior motive, because we've had like 4-5 movies before it basically cementing the fact that Captain is an uncorruptable moral compass.

Meanwhile Iron Man's side poorly defines the government. They don't exactly explain how the government is qualified to handle them in the first place. I think they mention a governing board, but that's not really what happens; the side that manages them is just "the government" that was seemingly already in place. Also weren't they already sorta managed by SHIELD? What would be wrong with just letting a reformed SHIELD handle everything, better yet the one in the Agents of SHIELD? If that was the argument, then it would be agreeable

---

In the comics, I was initially on Cap's side, but as I got older I realized that working fulltime and doing something time consuming like being a superhero is exhausting. That superhero thing really needs to be paying the bills.

---

---

joe40001 posted...

The whole thing was stupid imo, I hate fights where people are doing things that could kill the people they are fighting but if either side actually killed somebody on the other side it would be fucked up as fuck.

Like what are you even trying to do in this faux fight?

I mean Ant-Man almost killed War Machine and Vision parlyzed him.

Now that I think about they really did Rhodey dirty in that movie