Captain America: Civil War

[janne_d]

Saw the latest Marvel offering last night, and I feel a mighty need to ramble about many things. This is not a review so much as me working out various ideas as I think through them but

Comments

[janne_d]

You might be right about Bucky lying to start with to get Steve out of the line of fire - I just wasn't entirely sure watching it what was going on with him. There was another post I read that was about how both Steve and Bucky are dealing with being reunited (short version: not well, leading to total inability to verbalise emotions on both sides) that suggested he does it because he just can't right then, it's too much to have a direct question from and about Steve - but later in the Quinjet when Steve makes it more a casual reminiscence, he can talk about that memory fine because it isn't a big emotional moment.

That is an interesting point about T'Challa and Tony. I tend to thing of T'Challa as being more a neutral force on the topic of the Accords because he's coming in with his own agenda of revenge but of course the whole reason he and T'Chaka were there was to support the Accords. (Though by the end he is harbouring at least 2 fugitives from them, so I think we can assume he is no longer fully on board.) And in both cases their actions are hugely emotionally driven by the need to avenge their parents - I mean, I don't think for either that trying to kill Bucky had anything to do with the Accords, but do you think the film makers were muddying the motivational waters as a hint that Steve's side is the more righteous? Because Steve says pretty explicitly that he is trying to stop anyone dying by going after Bucky himself, whereas on the other side of the split there are two characters trying for the opposite... Though I do think that we are meant to empathise with T'Challa and Tony, even while going "no, stop" at them!

Gah. I stand by my comment above that the film is very sneaky about making all the choices complicated enough so that none of it is clear-cute at all!

[trobadora]

I saw that meta post as well and agreed with a lot of it! But I also thought Bucky's initial reaction was mostly, "OMG NOT NOW!" He's managed to stay under the radar for two years, suddenly everything's crashing down on him, and then on top of everything else there's Steve getting right into the middle of it (as per usual). So, basically, in part he couldn't deal with it just then, and in part he was trying to extricate himself by brushing Steve off.

do you think the film makers were muddying the motivational waters as a hint that Steve's side is the more righteous?

Not really. If it's deliberate, I'm reading it more as a point of characterisation - perhaps because both of these characters are to some degree aware of their ability to go that much out of control, they're also more aware of the need for oversight? Not that oversight would have helped any, in those circumstances, but the same is true for what Tony did with Ultron.

Steve is a lot of things, but I don't think he's ever seen himself as someone who needs to be stopped.

[janne_d]

because both of these characters are to some degree aware of their ability to go that much out of control, they're also more aware of the need for oversight

Hmm, I hadn't thought of it like that, but it fits with Tony's guilt over Ultron too.

Yeah, I think other people are the ones who see Steve as needing to be stopped! He's not going to stop, he's going to decide on a course and then go... So he's either more confident in his own actions and decisions than Tony, or better at reconciling his mistakes and moving on.

(Love the icon btw.)

[trobadora]

Steve also hasn't been put in a situation where his own actions have caused that kind of devastating damage. The worst thing he probably blames himself for at this point is what happened to Bucky, and not catching on to Hydra sooner. But all that's blaming himself for inaction, which is a different thing entirely.

[janne_d]

Very true, and this

But all that's blaming himself for inaction, which is a different thing entirely

is a nice distinction!

Steve also isn't driven by guilt in the first place whereas Tony has always had that as a motivation for Iron Man, for Yinsen, for the way his weapons have been used, and now Ultron, but he maybe hasn't really learnt how to get past it ever. I think for instance that Tony always thinks in big ideas, so he feels he has to fix everything, it's all on him because he is guilty and a genius and has all this power (which is part ego in a way) and that pushes him to make bigger mistakes because he is trying to atone in such a big way.

I think if Steve did cause devastating damage, he would be more about finding a way to live with carrying the guilt and it would all be internal and personal - in a way, I don't think he'd believe that he could make up for it so he'd try and change himself so that he didn't make whatever mistake it was again.

[trobadora]

Yes, I completely agree with this.

[janne_d]

Ooh, and this morning I read this which articulates some of the things I was thinking about guilt much better than I managed! (Though it is comparing Bucky and Tony, I think what they say about Bucky is pretty much how I see Steve.)

[trobadora]

Ooh, interesting post! Thanks for the link. I completely see what you mean about Steve - I see him that way, too.

[janne_d]

Hey, can you remember the details of what Ross says about enhanced people and how that links with the Accords? It occurred to me that only Steve, Wanda and Vision (of the Avengers in the room) actually qualify as intrinsically enhanced beings - Tony, Rhodey, Natasha and Sam are all using external technological enhancements combined with aptitude and training. (I know in the comics Natasha is enhanced and Sam can talk to birds, but they've not gone there in the MCU).

Clearly that makes no difference to how people get treated for acting against the Accords since they all end up in the Raft, but I'm wondering about the "Iron Man yes, Tony Stark not advisable" line - if the baseline human members have signed something to say they won't act without permission but are kicking up a fuss about decisions/not cooperating enough, it doesn't strike me as a big leap for the authorities to go "well, you don't get to act, but here's a substitute who is now going to use your tech for us instead..." (Not that I think Tony would let anyone else control the two armours, it is just a thought about possible agendas for getting the Avengers under control.)

Also, do you think T'Challa signed the Accords as Black Panther?

[trobadora]

I'm sorry, I've only seen it once, and I can't remember the details on those points. But I think the film wasn't even entirely clear on whether the Accords were supposed to apply to all superheroes or just the Avengers (on the supposition that they were the only ones operating internationally), much less on the distinction between powered/non-powered superheroes.

it doesn't strike me as a big leap for the authorities to go "well, you don't get to act, but here's a substitute who is now going to use your tech for us instead..."

That's a very good point! *ponders*

Also, do you think T'Challa signed the Accords as Black Panther?

I don't think so. At first (when his father was alive) he wasn't planning on Black Panthering at all, and then he went all vigilante himself ...