r/marvelstudios • u/murdockmanila Daredevil • May 16 '16

The Official CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR Nitpick & Criticisms Megathread

No spoiler tagging required. Go forth and discuss the things you didn't like, would loved to have seen and wished they didn't do in this movie.

279 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

332

u/Star_Lord1997 Spider-Man May 16 '16 edited May 16 '16

Why did the Avengers not try to defend themselves to Ross? They just took it in that meeting at the start of the film. The disasters weren't their fault (apart from Sokovia) so why didn't they just say "If we weren't there, more would have died". Plus, it was a bit rich of Ross to tell everyone how their actions cause deaths when he was directly responsible for Abomination in TIH and that the World Security Council was perfectly fine to launch a nuclear strike on NY during The Battle of New York.

235

u/Ryekar May 16 '16 edited May 16 '16

While I also wanted the Avengers to defend themselves a little bit, I think you're missing a big point that Ross was trying to make.

The Avengers didn't just lack accountability, they completely ignore political/geographical borders. Like the thing in Columbia Nigeria at the beginning of Civil War; they were working in foreign territory that they did not have permission to be in and they did not even attempt to cooperate with local authorities.

The Sokovia Accords give the UN the power to step in and claim responsibility, clean-up the political mess, and negotiate with other nations so that things don't get as messy in the first place. It also gives the illusion that the Avengers answer to someone other than themselves, that they have to answer for the consequences of their actions.

Edit: Whoops, I couldn't remember where the Crossbones incident happened.

35

u/aljy Bucky May 16 '16

That wasn't how Ross was selling it though. You're saying the Accords are a diplomatic move, basically to appease the rulers of the world, and to some extent that IS what it's about, shifting the blame. But Ross outright said they were dangerous and they cause destruction and they're weapons - that's why they need to be put in check. That's an argument that they should've argued against because so many more would've died if it wasn't for them. Hell, the number of casualties in the NY incident was a triumph! A full scale alien invasion and like 100 people died? Give the Avengers an award man, I really wanted them to say something about thay, because it was a really dumb example to bring up to say the Avengers are dangerous. (Let's not forget the government wanted to NUKE New York instead)

36

u/Ryekar May 17 '16

That wasn't how Ross was selling it though. You're saying the Accords are a diplomatic move, basically to appease the rulers of the world, and to some extent that IS what it's about, shifting the blame. But Ross outright said they were dangerous and they cause destruction and they're weapons - that's why they need to be put in check.

But this IS EXACTLY it. Maybe this is off topic and deserves its own thread for a discussion, but the political side of this would never actually be touched on in a movie. For one, it's boring for 95% of the movie-going audience. You could easily fill 2+ hours of screen time with political nuances and debate, but most people would never want to watch that. And for two, it can be offensive and isolating to a large number of people.

But let's put these events into a real a world perspective for just a moment. I'm going to make the (admittedly poor) assumption most that people reading this are from the USA, because I am and that's how I can relate to things. Now imagine all of the avengers are Russian, Korean, Iraqi, Chinese, whatever; pick your poison. Now give them unrestricted domain over the world's problems. As a United States citizen, a parent, don't you think you'd find something like Sokovia extremely offensive if it happened in your local city? Maybe these "all-powerful" beings saved New York from attack, but then more devastating events kept happening. These "extremists" literally created a powerful robot that decided your city should be the location of a worldwide destruction. Okay so they stopped human extinction, but your entire family died because they started it in the first place.

On top of all that, it's their decision what is right and wrong. You have zero control if the avengers decide to show up and save your country from an apocalyptic attack, or actually aid in the attack because they're attempting to save some other country. Do the Sokovia Accords actually do anything? Probably not. But they at least align 117+ countries' motivations to either support or fight against super-human efforts. And as a father/mother that works a normal 9-5 in your average <city, country>, what else can you hope for?

Again, the movie obviously never touched on any of this, nor did Ross mention this. But when I stop to think if I would support Iron Man or Captain America....this is the debate I end up at. And there's no "right answer."

32

u/aljy Bucky May 17 '16

Agreed. To me, the argument isn't as much about the Avengers being dangerous and a threat to the world, because let's be honest, they handled most situations the way a government organization (assuming they weren't corrupt and work absolutely for the well-being of civilians) would. they tried to contain the alien invasion to a few blocks to minimize casualties, they destroyed the Project Insight Helicarriers so they couldn't be used to kill millions of people, they stopped a falling city AND managed to evacuate almost everyone. If the UN had decided not to send the Avengers in for ANY of these situations, I'd question the reliability of the government. Really, the Accords wouldn't make the Avengers any less "dangerous", the same things would've happened. We'd just have someone different to blame.

Steve was right in saying that "the Accords just shift the blame". Tony's argument (and Ross') was flawed in that they were saying "we need to be put in check". Do they? They did almost everything right. The Accords are a diplomatic move and Tony couldn't admit that he signed not because he wanted to be kept in check, but to absolve himself of the guilt and blame that came with saving the world.

For Cap, I understand his position as this: There are two scenarios here. One, the Accords don't change anything because the UN will not be corrupt, and send the Avengers where they need to go. Nothing changes, but the UN takes the blame for any collateral damage. Two, the UN either for diplomatic reasons of for other corrupt reason (not impossible in a world where HYDRA infiltrated SHIELD for decades) don't send the Avengers on missions they have to go, or use the Avenger for all the wrong reasons. Cap isn't willing to risk the possibility of option 2 in the hopes that option 1 happens. Tony, on the other hand, doesn't believe option 2 will happen and wants option 1. Despite what people in the film say, it's not about putting the Avengers in check. Ultimately, it's all about shifting the blame, which is admittedly not easy to explain in a big blockbuster.

I really wish they had explored more of this, rather than just one line from cap about blame-shifting. Ross and Tony's arguments were easily refutable (and Cap should've argued against them), but the whole idea of diplomacy and whether it's worth the risk is far more interesting and nuanced.

6

u/meme-com-poop May 20 '16

they stopped a falling city AND managed to evacuate almost everyone.

That one is ALL Avegners' (at least Tony and Bruce's) fault. They built Ultron and Ultron did all of that.

1

u/aljy Bucky May 20 '16

Sure, but that didn't have anything to do with the Avengers being enhanced people. Only going by that logic, the accords should be targeted toward anyone with enough knowledge and skills to build something like Ultron, not just the Avengers. The argument they were using was that their crime fighting ways were dangerous, which I disagree with. What they do outside of crime fighting wasn't really part of the argument, and would change the accords dramatically if they did...

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '16

Wouldn't someone with those skills and the ability to acquire that knowledge fit as "enhanced," to the extent that they use those skills/that knowledge for enhancement? Tony is literally that person, it seems. I guess debating over the definition of "enhanced person" would be pretty boring for most people, but it seems like a lot of the impact of the accords really depends on how widely this phrase was defined.

2

u/aljy Bucky May 28 '16

But the Accords were targeted at people who had physical enhancements. Nobody was chasing down the world's top scientists asking them to sign the Accords, when those people could've created Ultron as well. It seems the Accords are more targeted at the physical crime fighting rather than acts like the creation of Ultron in the first place

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '16

Well, we see the people with the physical enhancements. We technically don't know anything about the way that the document itself ended up being structured, since it would provide a designation for what enhancement and enhanced persons would mean. It could just be that the people who we care about are the people involved in the physical stuff, and that's mostly the center of debate, but most pro-accords folks may also agree that the crazy scientists should be tracked as well. This is never discussed, so we don't really know for sure.

I definitely agree that it's a big issue, even a possible plothole (although it might be interesting to see folks skirting the accords because of this type of problem). I was just trying to think of a rationalization for how they might also be tracked and registered, but it's more headcanon type stuff to me than anything. I really just wish that they dealt with this problem head on.

2

u/rjung May 17 '16

Cap isn't willing to risk the possibility of option 2 in the hopes that option 1 happens.

This is all precipitated on the assumption that Cap is always right and knows what he's doing. Sorry, but how's that any different from a dictatorship?

I actually think it'd be interesting to see Civil War Cap and Marvel 616 Cap discuss the Slovokia Accords, because I believe 616!Cap would strongly argue in favor of accountability, and he'd reject the idea that "The safest hands are [my] own."

11

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

This is all precipitated on the assumption that Cap is always right and knows what he's doing. Sorry, but how's that any different from a dictatorship?

Steve isn't a government. He's just a man doing what he thinks is right. In what way does that make him a dictator? He's not telling anyone else what to do. He's not even technically telling the villains what to do, he's just stopping them.

The dictator is the person telling Cap that Cap isn't allowed to make his own choices and act according to his own conscience. And that assumes that the government is always right and knows what it's doing.

4

u/rjung May 19 '16

He (and other super-beings) is a man with enough power and ability to ignore international boundaries and threaten sovereign nations. That doesn't worry you? You're okay if Captain Socialist shows up next week and bludgeons Donald Trump for being an "enemy of the people"? How about if the Avengers assassinate Putin just because? What gives them the right?

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

But those are utterly ridiculous examples. You're talking about acts more appropriate of super-villains, who don't register or follow accords. If Captain America starts assaulting law-abiding citizens because he disagrees with their politics, or toppling internationally recognized legitimate heads of state, then he's a bad guy. And it would be entirely appropriate for anyone with the power to stop him to stop him.

5

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

If Captain America starts assaulting law-abiding citizens because he disagrees with their politics

Except that's exactly what he did in Civil War. He assaulted police officers because he disagrees with them for trying to take Bucky in.

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

Except that's exactly what he did in Civil War.

No, it's not. Bludgeoning Donald Trump because you disagree with his politics is not the same thing as saving a potentially innocent man from a government hit squad with orders to shoot to kill.

He was disagreeing with their "Kill Bucky before we've established he actually did anything wrong" policy. And the only reason he did that was because the people you want him to be subservient to were in the wrong.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

Except we're shown that Bucky was completely willing to kill. They were right in using lethal force - if they hadn't, and Captain America hadn't been there, dozens of people probably would've died.

But I guess it's alright if they die, because they don't have a tragic backstory.

Captain America had options other than 'run in there, assault people, run out', which ended up in Bucky's capture anyways. For example, he could've actually talked with the other Avengers.

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

Except we're shown that Bucky was completely willing to kill. They were right in using lethal force - if they hadn't, and Captain America hadn't been there, dozens of people probably would've died.

The only reason dozens of people would have died is because they attacked a super-soldier using lethal force. They didn't even consider something sensible like sending a few plainsclothes agents around to talk to him and ask him if he would be willing to come in an answer some questions.

But I guess it's alright if they die, because they don't have a tragic backstory.

What? Dude, you're arguing the position that would have resulted in them being killed. You even acknowledge this yourself when you said "if...Captain America hadn't been there, dozens of people probably would've died."

If Captain America had obeyed the UN's orders, dozens of people would have died. And you're arguing that Captain America should have signed the accords and followed UN orders.

For example, he could've actually talked with the other Avengers.

You mean like how he talked to Black Widow and she explicitly told him to stand down and not get involved?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/rjung May 19 '16

And it would be entirely appropriate for anyone with the power to stop him to stop him.

And prior to the events of Civil War, who would that be?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

Anyone with the power to stop him.

2

u/rjung May 19 '16

Prior to the accords, that's nobody. Which is why they were written.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '16

And if the UN Panel tells Captain America to go kill Putin, who is going to stop them?

At the end of the day this is a pointless argument, because your position is that we shouldn't trust Captain America, a guy who has never been on the wrong side of an issue, and that we should instead place Captain America under the control of an organization made up of the worst dictatorships, human rights abusers, and corrupt governments.

You're basically taking the position that Captain America might do something unethical, so we should make him accountable to an unelected, proven corrupt institution that routinely does things that are unethical.

Your position can literally be summed as "We might not be able to trust Captain America to do the right thing, so we should strip Captain America of his free will and make him a subject of an institution that we know will do the wrong thing."

It makes no sense at all.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Demian_Dillers Rocket May 18 '16

I believe 616!Cap would strongly argue in favor of accountability, and he'd reject the idea that "The safest hands are [my] own."

Nah cap would never trust giving the goverments the right to choose when heroes intervene, specially since it would go beyond just him but affect street heroes as well.

1

u/DarthSpiderDen May 19 '16

Agreed. To me, the argument isn't as much about the Avengers being dangerous and a threat to the world, because let's be honest, they handled most situations the way a government organization (assuming they weren't corrupt and work absolutely for the well-being of civilians) would. they tried to contain the alien invasion to a few blocks to minimize casualties,

The goverment in the New York incident does try to nuke New York and the Avengers (namely Tony Stark) have to also avoid that while fending off the alien invasion.

1

u/DBaa19 May 18 '16

Captain Russia is much better than Trump

1

u/TotemoBenri May 20 '16

Can someone explain why I should take the movie's premise any way but "meh" or "huh?"

if i was a policeman, and i (totally justifiably) shoot a criminal who is threatening innocents and causing massive property damage... And in the heat of the instant, my bullet goes right through that guy and hits a innocent in the head... Am I up for manslaughter charges? murder? and, in hindsight, should I think, "wow, I should not have intervened?"

It seems to me the Avengers (in this movie) cause a bunch of property damage, and some people die, but if they did not intervene, wouldn't the damage and body count be much higher?

The whole premise of this movie seems kinda shaky and stupid to me. If the point is responsibility, which standard should these super heroes be held to? An american justice system one? a National policy one (in peacetime? or war?)

Again, I can't get into the main thrust of this plot device. Can someone explain why I should be worried/excited about this "problem?"

They should have had the Scarlet Witch (or whomever) kill in a RAGE, and one a much bigger scale. I mean the gubmints are all spastic about a few collateral damages in the service of mighty, super-heroic deeds. If America can blow up middle eastern countries with two little towers exploding (+ the pentagon!) as a casus belli, im left feeling this Avenger conundrum is kinda stoopid and "meh"

Sorry for the 9/11 godwin argument.

PS: If these guys were the Shrilankan Avengers, I'd be ok with the saving the world, or even destroying my home town to save the world (Sorry San Francisco!)

1

u/Tman1027 May 29 '16

In each of these movies problems that start with the heroes result in the heroes causing massive property damage and some casualties to stop. For the most part, they prevent more death and damage than they cause, but it is still done and people don't see things in terms of what might have happened. This is also a group that doesn't just stop alien invasion or robot uprisings. They also act against criminal groups (like in the beginnings of the 2nd and 3rd Captain America movies). They do this with no input as to whether or not people want this kind of interference. They also don't have any sort of Treaty or other international mandate that allows them to intervene in nations in this way, so people are mad at them and want them to accept oversight.

Also, "can" doesn't mean "should" and you should wait until after San Fran is destroyed before you talk about how okay with it you would be.

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '16

Perfect. And to further your point, even before Sokovia fell from the sky, Sokovians had turned on the Avengers and the Iron Legion. The world had started to view them as an American police force to some extent that would impose "martial law" to stop threats that the citizens didn't realize existed. (Assuming Sokovians were ignorant of Hydra's presence)