Civil War The Captain America: Civil War News & Speculation Thread TAG SPOILERS! - - Part 26

Here is an excellent article about this movie:
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/12...a-lesson-for-america-under-a-trump-presidency

2016 has been a garbage fire of a year. The sentiment borders on cliché by this point, but it doesn’t ring any less false. Many noteworthy individuals have died, countless economic, social, and natural disasters have plagued the world over, and perhaps most troubling, the United States has endured a long, bitter presidential campaign that culminated in the election of despotic bigot and fascist who threatens to undermine the foundations of American democracy and destabilize the world as we know it.
But there’s one area where 2016 hasn’t been a total loss: cinema. There have been many great movies in the past year, including a culmination of the superhero genre: Captain America: Civil War. Much more so than that other superhero v. superhero cinematic experiment, Civil War is a masterwork of extended serialized storytelling, at once succeeding as a climax of many films’ worth of world-building and telling a tight, personal story amongst all the grandeur and spectacle.
Civil War is more than just entertaining. It taps into strong themes that obviously resonate with audiences more than just spectacle can account for. But sadly, it seems that a lot of people missed some of the film’s key messages as they left the*theater. Civil War is an expression of mutual acceptance that runs counter to the bigotry that pushed Donald Trump to the White House, including policies of Muslim registration and restriction on Muslim immigration.
“But wait! Part of the point of Civil War is that both Captain America and Tony Stark have a valid position with regards to the Sokovia Accords. How can you claim that the film has a strong viewpoint?” To that, hypothetical reader, I say look first and foremost to the title of the film. Captain America: Civil War. Not The Avengers: Civil War. Not Captain America v. Iron Man: Dawn of Friendly Disagreements. Despite all the marketing hubbub of “Team Cap” and “Team Iron Man” being valid moral choices, when you sit down to watch the film, it’s the struggles of Steve Rogers we’re watching, and though Tony Stark’s motivations are presented sympathetically, he is the antagonist preventing Rogers and company from stopping the apparent threat posed by Zemo.
But what is it that Stark is advocating exactly? To refresh your memory, The Sokovia Accords are a superhero registration act enacted by the United Nations with the intent of preventing superpowered cataclysms like the one perpetrated by Ultron in Sokovia. According to Stark and U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross, the sponsor and biggest advocate of the Accords, the reduction in liberty and increase of mission control is a necessary precaution in ensuring heroes are not held to blame for those who would do wrong and are held accountable when they do cause harm. What this basically amounts to is blaming the saviors for the collateral damage necessary in doing their jobs, but at least in the case of Ultron, it’s clear that Stark has some accountability for creating such a dangerous force to begin with.
So how does this relate to the real world? Well, let’s look at the Trump administration’s proposed Muslim registry, an act that would potentially infringe upon the privacy and liberty of millions of Muslim Americans. Much like the superpowered individuals in Civil War, Islam has become the face of terror and mass destruction in American media and popular culture, but when you get right down to it, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, average human beings. The reason Islam is the face of terrorism is that radical terrorist cells have co-opted Islam as both a recruiting tool and as an ideological scapegoat in the hope that Western powers will react in such a way as to justify their incitement. And actually, a Muslim registry would play directly into that objective, preventing the millions of Muslims who seek only prosperous lives and healthy communities from making positive change in the world. I’m talking about the real life heroes: Muslim police officers, Muslim firefighters, Muslim teachers, imams, and virtually any member of the Muslim faith who is true to that faith’s peaceful ideology.
Toward the end of Civil War, Captain America’s team is imprisoned in a secret detention facility for not registering with the Accords and for assisting the escape of Captain America and the Winter Soldier. Despite Stark’s insistence that the imprisonment of superpowered individuals like Wanda, the Scarlet Witch, is for their own protection, Hawkeye says it best when he points out that they have been made into criminals merely for being who they are and doing what they do. It’s no big secret the purpose of any registry of a so-called dangerous class of people is formed with the intent of removing those who pose a “threat” to the general populace (or, more likely, the governing administration).
And what about the relationship between Wanda and Vision, the former of whom feels her freedom slowly stripped from her while the latter fully supports the Accords because he believes they will protect Wanda from harm? Vision acts from a caring place that borders on paternalism, but it denies Wanda the autonomy to grow as a person or the freedom that non-superpowered individuals take for granted. Vision appeals to the uncontrollability of a person’s fear response, claiming that humanity can’t help but be afraid of Wanda, but it’s how humanity handles that fear that determines their moral standing. Wanda is right to fight for her freedom, despite how benevolent Vision is in his intentions, just as even if we give Trump and his supporters the benefit of the doubt, their desire to restrict the freedoms of an entire class of people is morally repugnant.
So why is it then that so many millions of people went to see Captain America: Civil War last May—some of them multiple times—only to turn around and vote against the morality of the film they loved so much? Civil War actually provides an answer for this as well. Take the film’s fantastic climax, wherein both Captain America and Iron Man discover that they have been manipulated against one another by Zemo. When this final battle begins, the logic of why the opposing sides shouldn’t be fighting ceases to be the driving force behind the conflict. Instead, raw emotion takes over, and Iron Man lashes out against people he intellectually knows aren’t truly to blame for his parents’ deaths, yet he feels are the ones responsible.
This is partially what happened in this year’s presidential election. Years of conservative media punditry and political scapegoating have painted the Muslim community as a violent and malevolent force, so when millions of Americans don’t feel their voices are being heard politically or that not enough is being done to contain a force they have been continually told is evil, they will vote for the person who claims they will take action against the scapegoat. Rationality dictates that Islam isn’t responsible for the collapse of some American industries, and common sense says that a community of over a billion people worldwide cannot possibly be an organized terrorist movement. And yet, rationality isn’t the driving force by which most people act. Emotions are.
Now, of course Captain America: Civil War is not an intentionally direct allegory to the American political landscape. That would be both remarkably prophetic and incredibly reductive. There are many reasons why people voted for Donald Trump, but it’s hard to argue that conservative scapegoating of the Muslim community isn’t one of them. And I won’t say that the morality of Civil War is a one-to-one commentary on American religious intolerance. As stated before, Stark does have a point about the inherent danger in superpowers, even if he is motivated by his own lack of poor judgment in using his own capabilities in creating Ultron.
But the villain Zemo said it best: “An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again, but one which crumbles from within? That’s dead… forever.” Say what you will about the polarity of the political party system in the United States, only one of those parties was openly advocating the reduction of liberties for entire classes of people. Our country is divided along racial, religious, and heteronormative boundaries, and we are witnessing our destruction at the hands of those who would divide us. If there is anything to take away from Civil War after the election, it’s that this gap needs to be bridged; but the Tony Starks of the world need to offer the first olive branch. Put the Thaddeus Ross on hold, Trump supporters. The rest of the country is awaiting your call.
 
For me that scene did something AOU should have done but didn't, made Stark feel guilty for creating Ultron. In AOU there were no repercussions for him at all, and he walked all smiles. I hated that. This scene made up for it though, it's one of my favourite scenes in the movie. As it's the start of Tony's arc.

At the end of Civil War, I hated the fact that Steve was able to run off to Wakanda with Bucky, leaving the rest of the team in shambles and himself off the hook. That bulls*** letter he sent Tony was nothing more than him trying to give a half-assed explanation for all of the devastation he caused through selfishness and letting Zemo lead him around by his di--er, nose, when it came to Bucky. Steve sort of said he was sorry but he still found excuses for the mistakes he made. He did the same things he always criticized Tony for doing: kept things from the team, went off on his own without considering others and dragged innocent people into his plans (Scott, Wanda, and Clint). Steve's actions brutally hurt all of the people he claimed to be friends with, regardless of the noble cause he thought he had (and that Zemo created to lead him on).

In this one movie, Steve Rogers did everything that he spent the prior three movies railing against. The fact that he eventually went to the Raft to break the others out does nothing to erase the fact that it was his fault that they were there in the first place.
 
At the end of Civil War, I hated the fact that Steve was able to run off to Wakanda with Bucky, leaving the rest of the team in shambles and himself off the hook. That bulls*** letter he sent Tony was nothing more than him trying to give a half-assed explanation for all of the devastation he caused through selfishness and letting Zemo lead him around by his di--er, nose, when it came to Bucky. Steve sort of said he was sorry but he still found excuses for the mistakes he made. He did the same things he always criticized Tony for doing: kept things from the team, went off on his own without considering others and dragged innocent people into his plans (Scott, Wanda, and Clint). Steve's actions brutally hurt all of the people he claimed to be friends with, regardless of the noble cause he thought he had (and that Zemo created to lead him on).

In this one movie, Steve Rogers did everything that he spent the prior three movies railing against. The fact that he eventually went to the Raft to break the others out does nothing to erase the fact that it was his fault that they were there in the first place.

Except not at all. He gave them all the choice to join him or not. That was kind of the point of his whole philosophy in the film.

If they didn't want to risk going to jail, they could've just walked off and signed the Accords.
 
You know, Natasha's arc in CW really resonated with me after Trump was elected. I know some people here thought it wasn't realistic, but she made the same decisions I would have, if I didn't know any better.

"If we have one hand on the wheel, we can still steer." If you know you're going to be eventually forced into a crappy situation, the most painless thing to do long-term is to go along and make friends, then try to negotiate something better once you're in. Reasonable enough. Except that Natasha had no room to negotiate. Nobody on Ross's side wanted to give Steve's side an inch.

She finally says "Screw it" once she sees that going along with Ross is gonna hurt A LOT more people, when they confront Steve's team at the airport and it's revealed that villainous supersoldiers may be released if they go along with Ross. She sees her chance to make things right by betraying her team and letting Steve and Bucky go finish their mission.

But that's in the movies, where it's clear what the Culmination of the Big Villainous Plot is, and when someone has to step in to make the Big Heroic Decision That Saves Everybody. But real life isn't so simple. If there is a mole on Trump's team trying to negotiate something for the better to eventually switch sides at the most opportune moment, at what point do they show their cards? At what point do they decide that they have to make the Big Heroic Decision That Saves Everybody when it's not clear what the Culmination of the Big Villainous Plot is?

Natasha just happened to be at the right place at the right time, but even she says in her last scene, "We played this wrong." If they disagreed with Ross, they shouldn't have gone along with him. Period.

And that's when I basically went "Come at me bros" re: Trump and started putting money where my mouth was. :hehe:
 
Why does everyone always forget that Steve's team didn't need to go to Siberia? In fact, they shouldn't have, it was Zemo's trap, he had never intended to unleash the soldiers and put the world under the threat. He was only after the Avengers and no one else, even though he wasn't shy of collateral damage like the UN. But still Zemo was a monster created by the Avengers. So yes, Steve had the best intentions, but regardless of it still made a huge mistake. Why do we only judge Tony by his results? That's some double standards thing going on here.
 
Here is an excellent article about this movie:
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/12...a-lesson-for-america-under-a-trump-presidency

2016 has been a garbage fire of a year. The sentiment borders on cliché by this point, but it doesn’t ring any less false. Many noteworthy individuals have died, countless economic, social, and natural disasters have plagued the world over, and perhaps most troubling, the United States has endured a long, bitter presidential campaign that culminated in the election of despotic bigot and fascist who threatens to undermine the foundations of American democracy and destabilize the world as we know it.
But there’s one area where 2016 hasn’t been a total loss: cinema. There have been many great movies in the past year, including a culmination of the superhero genre: Captain America: Civil War. Much more so than that other superhero v. superhero cinematic experiment, Civil War is a masterwork of extended serialized storytelling, at once succeeding as a climax of many films’ worth of world-building and telling a tight, personal story amongst all the grandeur and spectacle.
Civil War is more than just entertaining. It taps into strong themes that obviously resonate with audiences more than just spectacle can account for. But sadly, it seems that a lot of people missed some of the film’s key messages as they left the*theater. Civil War is an expression of mutual acceptance that runs counter to the bigotry that pushed Donald Trump to the White House, including policies of Muslim registration and restriction on Muslim immigration.
“But wait! Part of the point of Civil War is that both Captain America and Tony Stark have a valid position with regards to the Sokovia Accords. How can you claim that the film has a strong viewpoint?” To that, hypothetical reader, I say look first and foremost to the title of the film. Captain America: Civil War. Not The Avengers: Civil War. Not Captain America v. Iron Man: Dawn of Friendly Disagreements. Despite all the marketing hubbub of “Team Cap” and “Team Iron Man” being valid moral choices, when you sit down to watch the film, it’s the struggles of Steve Rogers we’re watching, and though Tony Stark’s motivations are presented sympathetically, he is the antagonist preventing Rogers and company from stopping the apparent threat posed by Zemo.
But what is it that Stark is advocating exactly? To refresh your memory, The Sokovia Accords are a superhero registration act enacted by the United Nations with the intent of preventing superpowered cataclysms like the one perpetrated by Ultron in Sokovia. According to Stark and U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross, the sponsor and biggest advocate of the Accords, the reduction in liberty and increase of mission control is a necessary precaution in ensuring heroes are not held to blame for those who would do wrong and are held accountable when they do cause harm. What this basically amounts to is blaming the saviors for the collateral damage necessary in doing their jobs, but at least in the case of Ultron, it’s clear that Stark has some accountability for creating such a dangerous force to begin with.
So how does this relate to the real world? Well, let’s look at the Trump administration’s proposed Muslim registry, an act that would potentially infringe upon the privacy and liberty of millions of Muslim Americans. Much like the superpowered individuals in Civil War, Islam has become the face of terror and mass destruction in American media and popular culture, but when you get right down to it, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, average human beings. The reason Islam is the face of terrorism is that radical terrorist cells have co-opted Islam as both a recruiting tool and as an ideological scapegoat in the hope that Western powers will react in such a way as to justify their incitement. And actually, a Muslim registry would play directly into that objective, preventing the millions of Muslims who seek only prosperous lives and healthy communities from making positive change in the world. I’m talking about the real life heroes: Muslim police officers, Muslim firefighters, Muslim teachers, imams, and virtually any member of the Muslim faith who is true to that faith’s peaceful ideology.
Toward the end of Civil War, Captain America’s team is imprisoned in a secret detention facility for not registering with the Accords and for assisting the escape of Captain America and the Winter Soldier. Despite Stark’s insistence that the imprisonment of superpowered individuals like Wanda, the Scarlet Witch, is for their own protection, Hawkeye says it best when he points out that they have been made into criminals merely for being who they are and doing what they do. It’s no big secret the purpose of any registry of a so-called dangerous class of people is formed with the intent of removing those who pose a “threat” to the general populace (or, more likely, the governing administration).
And what about the relationship between Wanda and Vision, the former of whom feels her freedom slowly stripped from her while the latter fully supports the Accords because he believes they will protect Wanda from harm? Vision acts from a caring place that borders on paternalism, but it denies Wanda the autonomy to grow as a person or the freedom that non-superpowered individuals take for granted. Vision appeals to the uncontrollability of a person’s fear response, claiming that humanity can’t help but be afraid of Wanda, but it’s how humanity handles that fear that determines their moral standing. Wanda is right to fight for her freedom, despite how benevolent Vision is in his intentions, just as even if we give Trump and his supporters the benefit of the doubt, their desire to restrict the freedoms of an entire class of people is morally repugnant.
So why is it then that so many millions of people went to see Captain America: Civil War last May—some of them multiple times—only to turn around and vote against the morality of the film they loved so much? Civil War actually provides an answer for this as well. Take the film’s fantastic climax, wherein both Captain America and Iron Man discover that they have been manipulated against one another by Zemo. When this final battle begins, the logic of why the opposing sides shouldn’t be fighting ceases to be the driving force behind the conflict. Instead, raw emotion takes over, and Iron Man lashes out against people he intellectually knows aren’t truly to blame for his parents’ deaths, yet he feels are the ones responsible.
This is partially what happened in this year’s presidential election. Years of conservative media punditry and political scapegoating have painted the Muslim community as a violent and malevolent force, so when millions of Americans don’t feel their voices are being heard politically or that not enough is being done to contain a force they have been continually told is evil, they will vote for the person who claims they will take action against the scapegoat. Rationality dictates that Islam isn’t responsible for the collapse of some American industries, and common sense says that a community of over a billion people worldwide cannot possibly be an organized terrorist movement. And yet, rationality isn’t the driving force by which most people act. Emotions are.
Now, of course Captain America: Civil War is not an intentionally direct allegory to the American political landscape. That would be both remarkably prophetic and incredibly reductive. There are many reasons why people voted for Donald Trump, but it’s hard to argue that conservative scapegoating of the Muslim community isn’t one of them. And I won’t say that the morality of Civil War is a one-to-one commentary on American religious intolerance. As stated before, Stark does have a point about the inherent danger in superpowers, even if he is motivated by his own lack of poor judgment in using his own capabilities in creating Ultron.
But the villain Zemo said it best: “An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again, but one which crumbles from within? That’s dead… forever.” Say what you will about the polarity of the political party system in the United States, only one of those parties was openly advocating the reduction of liberties for entire classes of people. Our country is divided along racial, religious, and heteronormative boundaries, and we are witnessing our destruction at the hands of those who would divide us. If there is anything to take away from Civil War after the election, it’s that this gap needs to be bridged; but the Tony Starks of the world need to offer the first olive branch. Put the Thaddeus Ross on hold, Trump supporters. The rest of the country is awaiting your call.
It's a good movie and maybe even a great movie, but it's still a movie about fictional characters.

Stupid article.

The fact of the matter is this. If you really wanted to, you could actually interpret Civil War as a political allegory in a number of ways even to more conservative type beliefs. Also to try and shame people who liked the movie and then maybe voted for Trump is also stupid.
 
Except not at all. He gave them all the choice to join him or not. That was kind of the point of his whole philosophy in the film.

If they didn't want to risk going to jail, they could've just walked off and signed the Accords.

Although Wanda was under House Arrest so legally she could not even sign the Accords.
 
Although Wanda was under House Arrest so legally she could not even sign the Accords.

True. And Scott and Clint were not even involved in the Accords fiasco and Steve's legal trouble that arose from him breaking the law by going after Bucky without consulting most of the team. The three of them were sucked into the battle more or less without having enough information about the underlying issues solely because Steve decided that he needed help on his destructive crusade. Even the Avengers who thought that they knew what they were fighting for were deceived/kept in the dark by Steve, who didn't tell them everything that Bucky had done. He didn't even bother to tell them about Tony's offers to get medical help for Bucky and work to clear Wanda's name. Would the others have been as willing to fight beside Steve if they knew the whole truth?

Why does everyone always forget that Steve's team didn't need to go to Siberia? In fact, they shouldn't have, it was Zemo's trap, he had never intended to unleash the soldiers and put the world under the threat. He was only after the Avengers and no one else, even though he wasn't shy of collateral damage like the UN. But still Zemo was a monster created by the Avengers. So yes, Steve had the best intentions, but regardless of it still made a huge mistake. Why do we only judge Tony by his results? That's some double standards thing going on here.

This is exactly what I was getting at in my comment above. Steve spent the entirety of Civil War rushing foolishly into disaster after disaster because of his selfish need to "save" Bucky above all else. The explosion in Lagos, for which Wanda was blamed after she tried to save civilians, happened because Crossbones was able to distract Steve by merely mentioning Bucky's name. The big clash at the airport came after Steve was deceived into rushing off to Siberia to chase down the Super Soldier red herrings that Zemo held out as bait. Every awful thing that came of that battle, the incarceration of everyone on Steve's side except him and Bucky, Rhodey's injuries and the mass destruction at the airport, was primarily Steve's fault. Had Steve accepted Tony's offer to get Bucky psychological help and work through channels to resolve the situation with Wanda, the entire conflict could have been avoided.

Even Tony's reaction to finding out that Bucky slaughtered his parents might not have been as violent had Steve seen fit to tell him about the murders as soon as he found out (in TWS). He was selfish and cowardly, knowing that Tony would undoubtedly hunt down Bucky faster than he and Sam could if he knew about his parents' murder. Tony would have had time to absorb the information and calm down enough to take Bucky into custody instead of trying to kill the assassin in a blind rage. But Steve did not want Bucky to be incarcerated in spite of the fact that he knew that his friend was an extremely dangerous man. He was willing to let Bucky roam free even though he posed a grave danger to civilians. How utterly ironic that at the end of CW, Bucky himself insisted upon being frozen because he realized how dangerous he was. All of Steve's "savior" posturing merely brought ruin upon everyone around him.
 
Wanda is technically lucky she wasn't in jail considering she was a part of HYDRA, even if her actions were arguably sympathetic and understandable.

To me, there's no justification for Steve not telling Tony Stark about his parents. IMHO, that is a betrayal of trust. It's a worse betrayal than what Cap has called Tony out on things in the past.

At one point in the late 1990s, Tony Stark was granted with some mind control powers so anyone who knew his secret identity would instantly forget it. That included his friends in the Avengers. However, this magic had the power where if he revealed his identity, his friends suddenly had all their lost memories return. Captain America chastised Tony for using this power and tampering with people's memories without their consent. They had a bit of a kerfuffle about it that was resolved by the end of the story. Tony did feel bad after he shared his identity again with his closer circle of friends, Hogan and Pepper, in how he could see he did betray their confidence in a way. Cap by the end did understand why Tony had taken his actions, while not agreeing with them. And while they argued about it, they never came to blows because of it.

To me, there's no reasonable justification for Captain America learning such information about a valued friend and teammate, about another person who was his close friend, and he is on a team with this man's son and he opted not to tell him about it. Whatever Cap knew, he knew HYDRA had the Starks killed, and he should've told Tony the truth. Fans probably put two and two together before Civil War even came out and probably figured Bucky was a good candidate as the trigger for the Starks. Maybe Cap using his enhanced intellect granted by the serum also deduced that. Regardless, even if deep down he knew it had to be Bucky, it's still pretty rotten for him to not tell Tony Stark.
 
Last edited:
To me, there's no justification for Steve not telling Tony Stark about his parents. IMHO, that is a betrayal of trust. It's a worse betrayal than what Cap has called Tony out on things in the past.

How about this: He wasn't sure.
He suspected it, but wasn't 100% convinced. He was saying as much before Tony pressed him to just admit he knew.
I think it's justifiable to keep something like that under wraps if you're not completely sure.
 
Yeah, you don't say "hey I thiiiiink Bucky may've killed your parents"
you wait til you know that s**t for sure

Also to try and shame people who liked the movie and then maybe voted for Trump is also stupid.

they deserve nothing less :o
 
How about this: He wasn't sure.
He suspected it, but wasn't 100% convinced. He was saying as much before Tony pressed him to just admit he knew.
I think it's justifiable to keep something like that under wraps if you're not completely sure.

He totally knew about HYDRA killing Starks though. And he is not one of those who can be pressed to saying lies.
Also, even if he wasn't sure he still should have said so to Tony. He should have told him about his suspicions and that he wasn't sure. Because this info belongs to Tony and Tony alone.
 
This is exactly what I was getting at in my comment above. Steve spent the entirety of Civil War rushing foolishly into disaster after disaster because of his selfish need to "save" Bucky above all else. The explosion in Lagos, for which Wanda was blamed after she tried to save civilians, happened because Crossbones was able to distract Steve by merely mentioning Bucky's name. The big clash at the airport came after Steve was deceived into rushing off to Siberia to chase down the Super Soldier red herrings that Zemo held out as bait. Every awful thing that came of that battle, the incarceration of everyone on Steve's side except him and Bucky, Rhodey's injuries and the mass destruction at the airport, was primarily Steve's fault. Had Steve accepted Tony's offer to get Bucky psychological help and work through channels to resolve the situation with Wanda, the entire conflict could have been avoided.

I think you're being extremely harsh and negative towards Steve's position here... In Lagos, they kept saying he "got distracted" and blah blah blah, but it was a single button push, that would've taken a split second, it probably wouldn't have mattered if Steve didn't "get distracted" Crossbones still would've set it off. (One of my issues with the film is that Wanda gets about 0% credit for all the people she saved in the market in that moment). They were going to Siberia to stop a squad of Super/Winter Soldiers, which based on the info they had seemed logical and the right thing to do. They got duped, yes, because that was the villain's plot, to fool them, and he accomplished it, fooled just about everyone.

The one spot I will give you is the Airport, Steve was being unnecessarily belligerent and could've tried harder to explain what was going on. But that's basically a flaw in every. single. action. movie. ever. If people would stop and talk s**t out, a lot of fighting could be avoided. But then we'd have a bunch of boring ass action movies. And I don't blame him for his team being incarcerated. They all knew the risks, and they told Steve and Bucky to high-tail it, knowing that stopping a death-squad of winter soldiers was more important than sleeping at home that night. Would telling them more about Bucky's past have prevented any of that? not at all.

He totally knew about HYDRA killing Starks though. And he is not one of those who can be pressed to saying lies.
Also, even if he wasn't sure he still should have said so to Tony. He should have told him about his suspicions and that he wasn't sure. Because this info belongs to Tony and Tony alone.

Again, when you're talking about the possibility that one friend killed another friend's parents, you don't come with suspicions, you wait til you're sure
 
Once again. Steve didn't have to tell about Bucky. But he should have told at least about HYDRA. That's the point.

About Lagos: Cap himself admitted that he could have stopped it.
As for the 5WS, the problem is that Steve trusted Bucky about this without any investigation. Only the audience knows for sure, that Bucky is innocent. But Steve had no proof. He only had vague words from Zemo, which proved nothing and his suspicions. Bucky might have been still brainwashed and working for Zemo. Steve had only his word about triggers and nothing else. But based only on mad Bucky's words he asked his teammates to become criminals. There was no need for it.
 
He said that about Lagos, but just because somebody says its their fault doesn't make that true. Crossbones would've detonated the bomb either way.

And yeah, he was quick to trust Bucky, you're right, he should've been more skeptical, but that's where his friendship and connection to Bucky did take over. Bucky showed flashes of himself, remembered their shared past, and brought up nostalgic feelings in Steve. He also gave him all he knew about Zemo, and they made the call that they felt they had to.

Like you said, he asked his teammates to put themselves on the other side of the law (probably hoping that bringin in Zemo would exonerate them all), he didn't force anyone, they did what they, also, felt was right.

Add in the "slippery slope" aspect of the Sokovia accords which set off the whole plot of the film, and I find it relatable the decisions Steve made, even if they weren't always smart or correct.
 
And I should also say, this is precisely why the movie worked so much better than the comic

there are legitimately people saying Steve was acting irrational and putting people in danger
others say Stark was acting like a stooge and putting security over liberty
then still others who see both sides

as opposed to the comic with evil Tony "Let's hire supervillains and clone a god" Stark and Steve being the underdog who we all have to love
 
And I should also say, this is precisely why the movie worked so much better than the comic

there are legitimately people saying Steve was acting irrational and putting people in danger
others say Stark was acting like a stooge and putting security over liberty
then still others who see both sides


as opposed to the comic with evil Tony "Let's hire supervillains and clone a god" Stark and Steve being the underdog who we all have to love
And also is proof that the Russos were absolutely successful... they said that they wanted people walking out of the movie debating about who was right and who was wrong. We're now almost a year later and it's *still* being debated.

So I say job well done Russos, job well done.



p.s. I still side with Cap
 
I don't understand why we compare friends with other friends. No, Bucky isn't his brother. They have not the same blood, mother or father. Very often our childhood friends fall apart from us in a grown-up life.
Even if Tony wasn't Steve's friend, he still deserved to know about HYDRA, especially because Steve always says that people should have a choice. I can't believe that Steve could have thought that Tony would've actually search for Bucky all over the world just to kill him. Tony is totally not a cold-blood murderer. The Russos confirmed that Tony only tried to kill Bucky because he was under incredibly hard pressure: break up with Pepper, crippled best friend, guilt about Ultron, Avengers falling apart, Steve hiding truth from him and so on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,558
Messages
21,759,585
Members
45,595
Latest member
osayi
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"