thoughts about Civil War

First, I was fairly happy with it, and enjoyed it a lot.

I liked that the bad guy in this one wasn't some big super-powered villain, but a fairly regular guy, maybe more intelligent then average, who had a tugboat load a hate and bitterness. His attempts to play the heroes against each other was fairly well done. Still, having them chase him to a far-off Soviet bunker in the middle of nowhere was a bit of a stretch. He could have shown Stark the video without, for example, having to bomb the treaty meeting. And I'm not sure why the existence of other Winter Soldier types was some important to him, and why he wanted to get rid of them.

If there was one thing I was waiting for, it was for someone to point out the obvious fact about the previous conflicts such as Sakovia (sorry if that's spelled wrong)--the Avengers and other heroes didn't cause those conflicts, they were simply responding to what Hydra and Ultron were already doing. If anything, they kept the disasters from being worse then they were.

I guess I don't like it when the good guys get blamed for the damage and injuries and deaths that the bad guys cause. In the middle of the discussion about signing the UN agreement, I was wondering "Who's going to keep the bad guys in line?"

The disagreement between Cap and Stark was well done, neither came off as being the good or bad guy. It's the kind of situation where good guys could honestly disagree with each other, and there is no perfect solution. It's not a moral dilemma, where there are obvious good and bad choices.

Maybe I should have seen it coming, but the twist at the end that set the big fight in motion between Cap and Bucky and Stark caught me by surprise. But it also had the one scene I didn't understand, when WS looked up at the camera before shooting it. It seemed like a secret killing machine like WS wouldn't let his face be so plainly shown.

I really liked this movie, and I'll probably try to see it again next weekend. I think it at least holds its own when compared to BvS, which I liked a lot, too.

But the Aunt May thing. Really? Was it necessary to make her look more like Peter's slightly older sister?

jazzact13 wrote:But the Aunt May thing. Really? Was it necessary to make her look more like Peter's slightly older sister?

That was interesting. Although I feel like I've seen Aunt May portrayed as somewhat younger in the comics before. Was it ultimate spider-man? Help me out Marvel fans!

You are right. Ultimate Spider-Man was the first to show a younger May. Since then, portrayals of the character have been steadily creeping downward in age, even to the point where Ben (Peter's uncle) has become Richard's (Peter's father) younger brother instead of his older brother. I blame the current trend that downplays the importance of age and experience in favor of youth and energy - Flash (CW) and Supergirl (CBS) are replete with this theme.

It's actually kind of comforting to me that the principle actors in the Marvel movies are mostly a bit older than I am. Don Cheadle, Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Clark Gregg, and even Paul Rudd are in their 40s and 50s. Of course Hemsworth, Evans, and Johansson are all early 30s.

I don't think there's a grand conspiracy here, but I do notice that the roles of the older actors tend to be more considered and less reactive than the roles of the younger actors. You see a great example of this in Age of Ultron, where Natasha wants to run away together while Bruce has already been down that road once before. Stark and Banner work on Vision while Hawkeye defends them; it's Cap, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch that can't see past the mistakes of others.

I haven't seen Civil War yet, but I fear no spoilers. I already know who wins - Disney.

Not that she's gone downhill much, but Marisa Tomei is in her 50's... not exactly the elderly Aunt May of my recollection, but not really sibling material either.

I was thinking about the "blame the bad guys" bit as well, and for the most part I agree. However, in regards to Sokovia, Ultron was Stark's baby so he kind of does bear the responsibility for that. Except for Banner, the others don't, though. To me, Stark's line that "we need oversight" is really just a way for him to share the blame... HE needs oversight, but do the others? Seriously, who is going to do a better job of overseeing Cap than Cap?

To me, I think Cap is just remembering when SHIELD had oversight (anyone remember the World Council?).  Look how that turned out. The WC ordered a nuke strike on NYC in the middle of the fight against the Chitauri. Then the WC was "tricked" into approving Project Oversight and totally missed Hydra's infiltration (I put "tricked" in quotations, since anyone who has been following Agents of SHIELD knows that Hydra had a plant on the WC even then, although its doubtful Cap knows that bit).

Cap is probably considering those times when oversight groups totally failed.

mindspike wrote:

I haven't seen Civil War yet, but I fear no spoilers. I already know who wins - Disney.

of the day! Thank you Winston!

mikel.withers wrote:I was thinking about the "blame the bad guys" bit as well, and for the most part I agree. However, in regards to Sokovia, Ultron was Stark's baby so he kind of does bear the responsibility for that. Except for Banner, the others don't, though. To me, Stark's line that "we need oversight" is really just a way for him to share the blame... HE needs oversight, but do the others? Seriously, who is going to do a better job of overseeing Cap than Cap?

I think I disagree about Ultron being "Stark's baby". It seemed pretty clear to me that both Stark and Banner acknowledged that they were nowhere near a working AI. It seemed to me that Ultron came from the Mind Gem as a way to overlay sapience on a purely mechanical - purely evolutionary - way of thinking. They make a point in the movie that Vision is not purely mechanical, but is actually alive. Just to drive that point home, a purely evolutionary process assembled Vision's body (Ultron) but it took the touch of a god (Thor) to bring him to life.

None of which is actually on topic.

The primary conflict of Civil War has always struck me as bizarrely inverted. Traditionally it is the soldier who believes that society needs order, and that powerful individuals must be called to account for the way they use that power. It is also historically true that the industrialist believes that society would function better when powerful individuals (typically themselves) are allowed to act as they see fit. Why would these roles be reversed in CA Civil War? If simply for the sake of novelty, that's bad storytelling; there must be something else at work. Given how different the movie is from Mark Millar's comic, I think I'll stick to the movie here.

When viewed as the culmination of a three-part story, begun in First Avenger and continued in Winter Soldier, Civil War displays the same elevation of individualism and suspicion of government oversight that has characterized much of US literature (and nearly the entire thriller genre) since the close of the Vietnam war. These films are perhaps best seen not as superhero morality plays (ie Iron Man, Age of Ultron...) but as the 70s spy thrillers their creators intended.

In this light, it is the individual's freedom to act apart from the corruption of others that makes him the virtuous hero of the film. This is even acknowledged by Stark at the end of the film. The heroes further display their virtue by abandoning their power at its nadir; Bucky goes back into cryosleep and Cap walks away from the shield. It is Black Panther who redeems the film by personifying a government interested in truth (he investigates the situation while overcoming manipulation by villains and opposing governments) and justice (he arrests Zemo and grants Bucky asylum). The film then concludes by leaving the primary philosophical conflict (government vs individual) unresolved.

This is the kind of film series I would expect if Three Days of the Condor, The Manchurian Candidate, The Parallax View, or Day of the Jackal had been superhero films.

So who is going to do a better job of overseeing Captain America than Captain America himself? According to the film, Cap concludes that power cannot be trusted. As the personification of power, the government cannot be trusted. As the wielder of power, Cap himself cannot be trusted. The only solution to the post-Cold War, post-Vietnam, post-Modern mindset is that power must be abandoned except where it must be wielded in the direct defense or preservation of life. Any other agenda is suspect.

I find it all fascinating and chilling, a modern false flag statement eerily similar to the political and social environment of 40 years past.

40 years, my age, such a drop in the bucket.
I'm afraid I disagree with Cap -and that is what makes him an ideal choice for power.
I'm the cove who watches Star Wars and wonders when these incorrigible anarchists are going to get their comeuppance. Sure, the Emperor himself is evil, and that bloke Vader is a bit mad, but the system -structure, order, reason- is better than the alternative. Besides, what corrupt bureaucratic system could be overcome in a few minutes by one determined individual, like the Emperor and Vader were? The greatest virtue of a tyranny is that one assassin's knife can end it.
Put me in the MCU and I'm seeking a life in Wakanda.
Perhaps I just grew up on too much Arthurian romance and Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but the idea of finding a just ruler and pledging oneself to him or her seems more reasonable than the pell mell combination of popularist pedagoguery, insider power plays, and status quo at all cost that characterize the Western governmental systems of today.

As to whether Banner and Stark really made Ultron, or if Ultron was just their goal -the end result is the same. Stark cannot be trusted with power.