Yeah, revenge for murdered parents is totally silly!
But that's not why they started fighting.
I liked the scene where Stark sees the murder of his parents and learns that Buckey did it. It had tension and actually served up a good reason for the final confrontation between Stark and Captain America.
But the earlier fight scenes? Particularly that big showdown between all the super-heroes?
Heck, Stark choosing to extend an olive branch to Captain America after he learns that Buckey isn't responsible for the bombing doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, the bombing, and the existence of Buckey in general, isn't the key reason for the Sokovia Accords. It's Scarlet Witch inadvertently killing a bunch of civilians while trying to save Captain America and other civilians. It's Stark creating Ultron and ultimately leading to the destruction of Sokovia and the death of many people. From the way the film presented it, Stark's guilt over it goes over the edge only when that mother accuses him of murdering her son.
So, Stark and Captain America are ultimately fighting over responsibility. But for some absurd reason Stark is willing to cause a spectacular amount of collateral damage, when a large part of his guilt comes from the collateral damage caused by his actions. You'd think that Stark wouldn't be willing to do that.
Hence the reason I think the conflict is manufactured. The two have good reasons to be at odds with one another, but to the point of coming to blows? I don't know.
Yeah, revenge for murdered parents is totally silly!
But that's not why they started fighting.
I liked the scene where Stark sees the murder of his parents and learns that Buckey did it. It had tension and actually served up a good reason for the final confrontation between Stark and Captain America.
But the earlier fight scenes? Particularly that big showdown between all the super-heroes?
Heck, Stark choosing to extend an olive branch to Captain America after he learns that Buckey isn't responsible for the bombing doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, the bombing, and the existence of Buckey in general, isn't the key reason for the Sokovia Accords. It's Scarlet Witch inadvertently killing a bunch of civilians while trying to save Captain America and other civilians. It's Stark creating Ultron and ultimately leading to the destruction of Sokovia and the death of many people. From the way the film presented it, Stark's guilt over it goes over the edge only when that mother accuses him of murdering her son.
So, Stark and Captain America are ultimately fighting over responsibility. But for some absurd reason Stark is willing to cause a spectacular amount of collateral damage, when a large part of his guilt comes from the collateral damage caused by his actions. You'd think that Stark wouldn't be willing to do that.
Hence the reason I think the conflict is manufactured. The two have good reasons to be at odds with one another, but to the point of coming to blows? I don't know.
Tony and Steve are at odds for responsibility during the first act were they do not trade blows.
During the second act they are at odds because Tony have to catch Bucky, Cap and Falcon who are criminals on the run. They do not trade blows merely for different views in a particular political issue. Tony IS enforcing the law while Cap IS breaking it - there's as much reason for then to fight as there's reason for police man and bank robbers to shot at each other.
And Tony intent is not to avoid collateral damage - signing the according has nothing to do with it. He wants to institutionalize the avengers so colateral damage is accountable and thus the world would accept it (like we gladly do with the collateral damage caused by national armies). Cap is 100% right that is all about shifting the blame when ***** happens and that's precisely what Tony wants, to shift the blame. But Steve don't want to loose autonomy simply to have less people blaming him for *****.
Is he genuinely guilty about the people he indirectly killed in Sokovia ? Yes. But we humans do not deal with guilt by merely making amends, we do actually need people to forgive us for our mistakes. And that's what Tony wants, for people in the world to forgive him and making this accord work is the first step. I don't see any contradictions between that and he fighting Captain. At that point, any colateral damage would be blame free as he was acting at the governments demands.
I disagree with most of your points. Civil war juggles multiple characters so much better than DoJ its uncanny. When they do introduce characters it feels organic and everything flowed properly.
Just what exactly flowed well with Spider-man's introduction in the film? It was pretty freaking obvious that scene was added simply because they wanted to get Spider-man into the movie (and so into the MCU). The idea that Stark needs to bring in one singular super-hero to even the odds is silly. The man has an entire factory churning out autonomous suits in AoU. Why the hell didn't he just get a whole bunch of them to go take down Captain America?
Because it wouldn't have created the big action sequence of the film, that's why. But that scene makes no real sense to me either, for the reasons that Blinking_Spirit mentioned.
And why the flying **** would Ant-man agree to go help Captain America?
And why the **** is Vision, heralded to be this epic superpower, basically the equivalent of a nuclear deterrent in the ultimate showdown against the Big Bad (Thanos), reduced to being a character that feels oddly similar to Data from TNG and fighting Barton of all people? Seriously? The artificial being who has one of the Infinity Stones on his head, has the right state of mind to lift Mjolnir, is comprised entirely of vibranium, can somehow create a cape out of thin-air, fights... Barton. The guy with the bow and arrow.
Oh, and he's somehow incapacitated, even momentarily, by Scarlet Witch.
My impression of the film-
It was just a silly film. The real major problem I have is that the conflict between Rogers and Stark just seems really manufactured to serve the plot. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but I just don't think there's an actual reason they'd be so at odds with one another.
Yes I Agree they kinda nerfed vision in this movie (and the last). This is like MaRo saying "LotV is too powerful standard, here have lili vess instead."
Also Scarlet Witch is like one of those godlike mutants like Jean Grey right? And her powerset is chaos. I always imaine her as a R character with act of treasons and stuff
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
Yeah, revenge for murdered parents is totally silly!
But that's not why they started fighting.
I liked the scene where Stark sees the murder of his parents and learns that Buckey did it. It had tension and actually served up a good reason for the final confrontation between Stark and Captain America.
But the earlier fight scenes? Particularly that big showdown between all the super-heroes?
Heck, Stark choosing to extend an olive branch to Captain America after he learns that Buckey isn't responsible for the bombing doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, the bombing, and the existence of Buckey in general, isn't the key reason for the Sokovia Accords. It's Scarlet Witch inadvertently killing a bunch of civilians while trying to save Captain America and other civilians. It's Stark creating Ultron and ultimately leading to the destruction of Sokovia and the death of many people. From the way the film presented it, Stark's guilt over it goes over the edge only when that mother accuses him of murdering her son.
So, Stark and Captain America are ultimately fighting over responsibility. But for some absurd reason Stark is willing to cause a spectacular amount of collateral damage, when a large part of his guilt comes from the collateral damage caused by his actions. You'd think that Stark wouldn't be willing to do that.
Hence the reason I think the conflict is manufactured. The two have good reasons to be at odds with one another, but to the point of coming to blows? I don't know.
italofoca already summed it up well, but the airport fight isn't a go-for-the-throat beat down. It's Iron Man trying to stop Captain America before the government(s) come after him because he knows they won't pull their punches. That fight makes perfect sense in the context of the film and Hawkeye/Black Widow even make a joke about it. Face it, Civil War is a fun, fairly competently made film.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
I liked the scene where Stark sees the murder of his parents and learns that Buckey did it. It had tension and actually served up a good reason for the final confrontation between Stark and Captain America.
But the earlier fight scenes? Particularly that big showdown between all the super-heroes?
Heck, Stark choosing to extend an olive branch to Captain America after he learns that Buckey isn't responsible for the bombing doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, the bombing, and the existence of Buckey in general, isn't the key reason for the Sokovia Accords. It's Scarlet Witch inadvertently killing a bunch of civilians while trying to save Captain America and other civilians. It's Stark creating Ultron and ultimately leading to the destruction of Sokovia and the death of many people. From the way the film presented it, Stark's guilt over it goes over the edge only when that mother accuses him of murdering her son.
So, Stark and Captain America are ultimately fighting over responsibility. But for some absurd reason Stark is willing to cause a spectacular amount of collateral damage, when a large part of his guilt comes from the collateral damage caused by his actions. You'd think that Stark wouldn't be willing to do that.
Hence the reason I think the conflict is manufactured. The two have good reasons to be at odds with one another, but to the point of coming to blows? I don't know.
Tony and Steve are at odds for responsibility during the first act were they do not trade blows.
During the second act they are at odds because Tony have to catch Bucky, Cap and Falcon who are criminals on the run. They do not trade blows merely for different views in a particular political issue. Tony IS enforcing the law while Cap IS breaking it - there's as much reason for then to fight as there's reason for police man and bank robbers to shot at each other.
And Tony intent is not to avoid collateral damage - signing the according has nothing to do with it. He wants to institutionalize the avengers so colateral damage is accountable and thus the world would accept it (like we gladly do with the collateral damage caused by national armies). Cap is 100% right that is all about shifting the blame when ***** happens and that's precisely what Tony wants, to shift the blame. But Steve don't want to loose autonomy simply to have less people blaming him for *****.
Is he genuinely guilty about the people he indirectly killed in Sokovia ? Yes. But we humans do not deal with guilt by merely making amends, we do actually need people to forgive us for our mistakes. And that's what Tony wants, for people in the world to forgive him and making this accord work is the first step. I don't see any contradictions between that and he fighting Captain. At that point, any colateral damage would be blame free as he was acting at the governments demands.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Yes I Agree they kinda nerfed vision in this movie (and the last). This is like MaRo saying "LotV is too powerful standard, here have lili vess instead."
Also Scarlet Witch is like one of those godlike mutants like Jean Grey right? And her powerset is chaos. I always imaine her as a R character with act of treasons and stuff
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!