Civil War

[Lillowh]

and that he apparently wanted to do anything he wants with zero oversight from anybody.

One word: HYDRA. The previous Cap movie revolved around one the most powerful government agencies in the modern world having been infiltrated by one of the evilest organizations in the modern era, and the realization by Cap that he'd been doing their dirty work ever since he thawed.

After that, I think anyone would be suspicious of a government, even a multi-national one, telling them which missions they can go on. And you can make the point that, yes, his methods have caused collateral damage, but in his mind it is preferable to the alternative: people dying and suffering because the UN can't make up its mind on whether to get involved or not. Imagine if, when Ultron came, The Avengers needed to get permission to intervene in Sokovia. Ultron would have caused a massive extinction event while Earth's mightiest heroes twiddled their thumbs, waiting for some underpaid secretary to file their request in the right mailbox or something. Further, what happens when something happens in a country that the UN has a grudge against? The Avengers should be protecting as many people as they can, not just the ones that the UN approves of.

He's against the Avengers becoming a political tool, or worse, a military one.

Exactly. Also people seem to forget the very, almost absurdly so, clear evidence Stark gets sent proving Bucky's innocence that he sends to General Ross, who dismisses it immediately. Not because it's unconvincing, but because it would look bad on them. They would have to double back on a decision that was the justification for the jailing of Avengers and the huge Bucky manhunt. If there's anything bureaucrats, especially high ranking military ones, hate, it's admitting that they were wrong. Especially to subordinates. Not to mention that this situation also involves justifying his position of power existing. Even Stark realized at that moment that Cap was right. I feel like that's why he doesn't seem to agree wholeheartedly with Rhodie at the end. He's conflicted but doesn't know how to undo the mistake.

Oversight was not a bad idea, but control was.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

and that he apparently wanted to do anything he wants with zero oversight from anybody.

One word: HYDRA. The previous Cap movie revolved around one the most powerful government agencies in the modern world having been infiltrated by one of the evilest organizations in the modern era, and the realization by Cap that he'd been doing their dirty work ever since he thawed.

After that, I think anyone would be suspicious of a government, even a multi-national one, telling them which missions they can go on. And you can make the point that, yes, his methods have caused collateral damage, but in his mind it is preferable to the alternative: people dying and suffering because the UN can't make up its mind on whether to get involved or not. Imagine if, when Ultron came, The Avengers needed to get permission to intervene in Sokovia. Ultron would have caused a massive extinction event while Earth's mightiest heroes twiddled their thumbs, waiting for some underpaid secretary to file their request in the right mailbox or something. Further, what happens when something happens in a country that the UN has a grudge against? The Avengers should be protecting as many people as they can, not just the ones that the UN approves of.

He's against the Avengers becoming a political tool, or worse, a military one.

Exactly. Also people seem to forget the very, almost absurdly so, clear evidence Stark gets sent proving Bucky's innocence that he sends to General Ross, who dismisses it immediately. Not because it's unconvincing, but because it would look bad on them. They would have to double back on a decision that was the justification for the jailing of Avengers and the huge Bucky manhunt. If there's anything bureaucrats, especially high ranking military ones, hate, it's admitting that they were wrong. Especially to subordinates. Not to mention that this situation also involves justifying his position of power existing. Even Stark realized at that moment that Cap was right. I feel like that's why he doesn't seem to agree wholeheartedly with Rhodie at the end. He's conflicted but doesn't know how to undo the mistake.

Oversight was not a bad idea, but control was.

Black Panther had the best way to sum up this whole issue:

He approves of oversight, but he does not approve of the political agendas that are going to come with it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Anyways the people complaining about plot holes in BVS have nothing on the amount of ones in Civil War

Oh come on, BvS is nothing but a series of plot holes strung along with plot holes. The Africa stuff is just there so Lois has something to do in the most contrived manner ever that has no impact on anything. Why is Lex using bullets that are ever so slightly different than normal bullets? Why is Lex not allowed to import a rock that I doubt the government would know is even krytonite at that point? Why can't Lex just smuggle it in? Why is Lex allowed on the krytonian ship with ease but needs to convince a senator to bring in a rock? Why does the senator even care so much about krytonite, it doesn't hurt humans? What's the point of blowing up the Capitol? Why does Lex have to keep "setting up" Supes when the end of Man of Steel perfectly laid the foundation for there being a national/world conversation about Supes yet at least an hour of BvS is wasted on the one thing Man of Steel actually setup? What's the point of Lex egging on Supes and Bats only to kidnap Supes' mom to have them fight? Why can't Supes see through smoke? Why is Gothan across the bay/lake from Metropolis? Why is Batman branding people? How does he even carry around a branding iron logistically? Why does the one person that krytonite is poisonous to use the krytonite spear? BvS was beyond incomprehensible.

 

[Zontar]

Why is Gothan across the bay/lake from Metropolis?

Actually this one is because in most DC universes Gotham and Metropolis are just across the bay from each other, with a mile long bridge connecting them. Gotham is a series of islands located in a relatively dense cluster to each other, and are directly south of Metropolis. Bludhaven (Nightwing's territory) and Central City (Flash's territory. It's called Central City for a reason) are on the mainland to Gotham's west, and all four are part of the same metropolitan area.

Depending on the universe, this metropolitan area is either where New York City/Jersey City are, or they are where Delaware and New Jersey meet and instead the map is flipped with Metropolis being south, Gotham being east and Central City/Bludhaven being to the north.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

I was with it till the final conflict.

Spoiler: Final climax spoiler

It is revealed that Bucky killed Tony's parents while under mind control. As a result, Iron Man tries to kill him.
If Steve had stopped and said "Bucky's just as much a victim of Hydra as your parents." I would have been fine, even if Tony declared that he didn't care.
The fact that his lack of responsibility for his actions wasn't once acknowledged in that fight made it feel forced. Up until that fight, everyone had explained their reasoning for their decisions, and nobody felt stupid.

Just saw the film today and I definitely remember Cap pointing out the fact that Bucky's mind was being controlled by Hydra at the time and Tony said "I don't care".

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Why is Gothan across the bay/lake from Metropolis?

Actually this one is because in most DC universes Gotham and Metropolis are just across the bay from each other, with a mile long bridge connecting them. Gotham is a series of islands located in a relatively dense cluster to each other, and are directly south of Metropolis. Bludhaven (Nightwing's territory) and Central City (Flash's territory. It's called Central City for a reason) are on the mainland to Gotham's west, and all four are part of the same metropolitan area.

Depending on the universe, this metropolitan area is either where New York City/Jersey City are, or they are where Delaware and New Jersey meet and instead the map is flipped with Metropolis being south, Gotham being east and Central City/Bludhaven being to the north.

Oh, it always seemed to me Metropolis is California and Gotham is New York. That's probably mainly from the movies. But even in the animated shows Metropolis and Gotham look like they are totally different regions.

 

[Zontar]

Oh, it always seemed to me Metropolis is California and Gotham is New York. That's probably mainly from the movies. But even in the animated shows Metropolis and Gotham look like they are totally different regions.

Well as I said it depends on the universe. Metropolis being in California is purely due to the old movies though, as in all other universes it's in the Atlantic North East. Often they're just across the bay from each other, sometimes they're quite far away, but there are two constants in most universes regardless of anything else: Gotham is an series of islands and the two are at most an hour's drive away.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Oh, it always seemed to me Metropolis is California and Gotham is New York. That's probably mainly from the movies. But even in the animated shows Metropolis and Gotham look like they are totally different regions.

Well as I said it depends on the universe. Metropolis being in California is purely due to the old movies though, as in all other universes it's in the Atlantic North East. Often they're just across the bay from each other, sometimes they're quite far away, but there are two constants in most universes regardless of anything else: Gotham is an series of islands and the two are at most an hour's drive away.

I've always thought of Metropolis and Gotham as both being representations of New York, but each being different aspects. Metropolis is the newer parts by day. Gotham is the old parts by night.

Fun fact, Gotham is an old nickname for New York, specifically the Manhattan area.

 

[Zontar]

I've always thought of Metropolis and Gotham as both being representations of New York, but each being different aspects. Metropolis is the newer parts by day. Gotham is the old parts by night.

Fun fact, Gotham is an old nickname for New York, specifically the Manhattan area.

Metaphorically speaking that is what both represent, which is why they're often potrayed as being next to each other in the same metropolitan area. Though Gotham isn't the only nickname for New York, as Metropolis is also an old nickname for the city (which is why the classic movie of the same name took much of its inspiration for the aesthetics from the city)

 

[Leg End]

I didn't even get the chance to see Civil War, but I know the general gist of the comics and the movie so I am compelled to stick my big fat nose in it.

And, when he's confronted on this issue earlier in the movie, he basically gives us this speech:

Spoiler

This makes him come across as either incredibly selfish and narcissistic, or as a total psychopath.

Then you completely missed the entire point of that speech. You can take both out of what he said but in the end, he's standing for his principles and that's his reasoning.

That said, while it paints him as a very unsympathetic character, I can sort of buy his motivations. I can understand putting your own feelings and family above the welfare of the general public, or thinking that you're right, so that you should be able to call all the shots.

No, only that people call their own shots. Roughly.

I don't agree with it, but I can buy it as a motivation. What I don't understand is how (or why) he roped so many other people into it. Ant Man shows up and commits treason for absolutely no reason, even though it could ruin his relationship with his family. Hawkeye comes out of retirement to help commit treason for no real reason, even though it could ruin his relationship with his family. Scarlett Witch leaves her house to go commit treason, even though she's under temporary house arrest, because she can't stand to wait a few weeks for things to get sorted out.

I think you're missing some point here. Also you seem a bit fixated on the concept of Treason while I don't think you get the point of what Cap was fighting for.

Why are all of these people so committed to helping Captain America save.... bucky? Someone whose mentally unhealthy, and who is fully capable of killing innocent people?

Because I'm like, 70% sure it was the government's fault in the first place to my understanding?

Even if his actions weren't entirely his fault, he's still a danger to the general public. Letting him run wild doesn't seem like a constructive course of action. Holding him in prison while getting him psychological help seems like a pretty fair minded solution.

By the same people that made the problem in the first place and probably would make the same problem again? Not a very smart idea.

I get that the answer is because we need have a reason for why superheroes are fighting, but it doesn't feel like they tried very hard. And, at the end, bucky is frozen until they find a way to help him, which is pretty much what Stark wanted anyway.

Well shit.

All together, while I liked the movie, the motivations came across as pretty thin, especially when there were some pretty serious consequences. Everyone was asking whose side you were on, but from here it seems pretty one sided. Given that Iron Man wasn't behaving like a raging psychopath (despite being the alcoholic of the group) I'm not sure how anyone could side with Cap, even in the movie. There was no real motivation there. Thoughts?

Because fuck da poleece is basically the idea. It's a story of Cap following his view of American ideals and basically saying that going against the government is not going against America, as the two are different beasts.

Again, I'm only vaguely familiar with the main aspects of both the comic and movie storyline and mostly just know it from bumping into it so please correct me on any events of the movie if I've fucked up majorly here.

Trust. Faith in people you believe in. That's what many of the character's motivation was. Ant-Man was mostly just eager to hang with the cool kids (to counter Spider-Man doing the same) but he also has a whole movie showing he doesn't value law over good.

Also its scary how many people are like "How can you side with Cap"? One is essentially creative control. Do you really trust the Government or a big corporation to think of anything but the bottom line? Maybe an individual will be a bad person, or a good person, but its on them when they are in control of their own things. No beurocratic BS of 100 biases fighting for dominance.

The other is civil liberties. Imagine if the Avengers were under Government control back when slavery was legal and protected? Or even in the 50's during the civil rights movement, or the 60's and 70's when cops routinely raided gay bars?

What is right and what is law is not always the same. That's why Captain America fought this.

Another example, using the UN (which is who would get control in the movie), the Rwandan Genocide (I use this cause Don Cheadle is in Civil War as pro-signing, but also the main character in Hotel Rwanda), imagine the Avengers in Rwanda, but not allowed to actually help fight the bad guys. UN forces are never used effectively, and I cant imagine that would change for The Avengers. But sure, let Captain America, er I mean, Captain UN, standing around while innocent people get butchered.

What you just said.

 

[hermes]

I'm just tired of Marvel bluffing about how something of consequence is totally going to happen in their next movie.

This is my main gripe with the movie. Action was great, overall liked the motivations, character balancing was good, great execution with the plot and all that. The problem is, especially after watching a second time, it really doesn't feel like anything of consequence happened. The things that felt like were going to be consequences they suddenly went "nope, it's all a okay, things will be good".

It is the latest Marvel movie, so I think it is too early to see if this will change same of the status quo. I would expect in the next Avengers, some effort will be put in the beginning trying to patch up things, since many of them are not buddy-buddy anymore. I don't think we will have that scene of Age of Ultron with them having some drinks together, and Wanda in a straitjacket is not going to go away with some paprika soup; half on them are fugitives or in prison, and the other half is working for the US or retired, so I don't understand the complain that nothing of consequence happens...

OT: While I don't think BvS and Civil War scripts are of the same quality, the part of the conflict they share is problematic in comics in general. The idea of real life issues and systems working in comic book worlds is disingenuous to say the least, since a lot of them break down in a setting where the capacity of individuals is limited to the imagination of writers. For example, the judicial system would work very differently when "a man in a wheelchair/a man with purple skin/a dressed baboon made me do it", or "I didn't do it, I was framed by a guy with a fish bowl on his head/a naked blue woman" could be reasonable doubts.

As far as the movies goes, there are no easy answers: Rogers is right to think having powered individuals respond to political agendas opens a can of worms (especially when the last movie dealt with intelligence agencies being controlled by nazies), but the governments are also justified to consider security measures to people that can level up neighborhoods by sneasing, even when unintentional.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Trust. Faith in people you believe in. That's what many of the character's motivation was. Ant-Man was mostly just eager to hang with the cool kids (to counter Spider-Man doing the same) but he also has a whole movie showing he doesn't value law over good.

Also its scary how many people are like "How can you side with Cap"? One is essentially creative control. Do you really trust the Government or a big corporation to think of anything but the bottom line? Maybe an individual will be a bad person, or a good person, but its on them when they are in control of their own things. No beurocratic BS of 100 biases fighting for dominance.

The other is civil liberties. Imagine if the Avengers were under Government control back when slavery was legal and protected? Or even in the 50's during the civil rights movement, or the 60's and 70's when cops routinely raided gay bars?

What is right and what is law is not always the same. That's why Captain America fought this.

Another example, using the UN (which is who would get control in the movie), the Rwandan Genocide (I use this cause Don Cheadle is in Civil War as pro-signing, but also the main character in Hotel Rwanda), imagine the Avengers in Rwanda, but not allowed to actually help fight the bad guys. UN forces are never used effectively, and I cant imagine that would change for The Avengers. But sure, let Captain America, er I mean, Captain UN, standing around while innocent people get butchered.

You seem to be the only person that gets this. I've had to point it out to a few of my friends by saying, "So what happens when the UN wants the Avengers to invade a country for their oil, but it's done as "a peace-keeping movement" that everyone knows is BS? Or worse, what happens when a country needs help, or a super villain is hiding out in one, and the UN refuses to let the Avengers go in because they have a grudge against that country?"
It's the same thing as what happened with Superman in The Dark Knight Returns comic. Superman now answers to the U.S. government. And yet, I don't see anyone saying that Batman was in the wrong there because of course he's right, he's Batman.

Yeah I thought this message was very clear. There's even a point in the film (maybe a few) where Tony is stonewalled from doing what he thinks is the right course of action because he now has a superior to answer to.

The move is a conversation between two extremes. The tightly controlled, but somewhat more surgical and less collateral damage perspective that Tony takes, and the side that fears political influence and corrupt oversight that Cap and co. ascribe to. I thought the movie did a pretty good job making both sides look legitimate at certain points, but overall that the they want the audience to believe Cap is in the right (at least until the big reveal). They show far too many heroes in cells and straitjackets and too many good decisions stymied by bureaucracy to make it easy to side with Tony.

 

[Super Cyborg]

I'm just tired of Marvel bluffing about how something of consequence is totally going to happen in their next movie.

This is my main gripe with the movie. Action was great, overall liked the motivations, character balancing was good, great execution with the plot and all that. The problem is, especially after watching a second time, it really doesn't feel like anything of consequence happened. The things that felt like were going to be consequences they suddenly went "nope, it's all a okay, things will be good".

It is the latest Marvel movie, so I think it is too early to see if this will change same of the status quo. I would expect in the next Avengers, some effort will be put in the beginning trying to patch up things, since many of them are not buddy-buddy anymore. I don't think we will have that scene of Age of Ultron with them having some drinks together; half on them are fugitives or in prison, and the other half is working for the UN or retired, so I don't understand the complain that nothing of consequence happens...

OT: While I don't think BvS and Civil War scripts are of the same quality, the part of the conflict they share is problematic in comics in general. The idea of real life issues and systems working in comic book worlds is disingenuous to say the least, since a lot of them break down in a setting where the capacity of individuals is limited to the imagination of writers. For example, the judicial system would work very differently when "a man in a wheelchair/a man with purple skin/a dressed baboon made me do it", or "I didn't do it, I was framed by a guy with a fish bowl on his head/a naked blue woman" could be reasonable doubts.

As far as the movies goes, there are no easy answers: Rogers is right to think having powered individuals respond to political agendas opens a can of worms (especially when the last movie dealt with intelligence agencies being controlled by nazies), but the governments are also justified to consider security measures to people that can level up neighborhoods by sneasing, even when unintentional.

I'll admit that it's too early to say what kind of repercussions there will be from this besides the obvious half being criminals in the eyes of society. The main thing was the way it was done made it seem that the team isn't exactly torn apart, and after adrenaline went down they aren't exactly holding any grudges. Then again after thinking about it the morale of everybody is at an all time low with everything that happened. Like you said, I'll just have to wait and see how it all goes down.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Trust. Faith in people you believe in. That's what many of the character's motivation was. Ant-Man was mostly just eager to hang with the cool kids (to counter Spider-Man doing the same) but he also has a whole movie showing he doesn't value law over good.

Also its scary how many people are like "How can you side with Cap"? One is essentially creative control. Do you really trust the Government or a big corporation to think of anything but the bottom line? Maybe an individual will be a bad person, or a good person, but its on them when they are in control of their own things. No beurocratic BS of 100 biases fighting for dominance.

The other is civil liberties. Imagine if the Avengers were under Government control back when slavery was legal and protected? Or even in the 50's during the civil rights movement, or the 60's and 70's when cops routinely raided gay bars?

What is right and what is law is not always the same. That's why Captain America fought this.

Another example, using the UN (which is who would get control in the movie), the Rwandan Genocide (I use this cause Don Cheadle is in Civil War as pro-signing, but also the main character in Hotel Rwanda), imagine the Avengers in Rwanda, but not allowed to actually help fight the bad guys. UN forces are never used effectively, and I cant imagine that would change for The Avengers. But sure, let Captain America, er I mean, Captain UN, standing around while innocent people get butchered.

You seem to be the only person that gets this. I've had to point it out to a few of my friends by saying, "So what happens when the UN wants the Avengers to invade a country for their oil, but it's done as "a peace-keeping movement" that everyone knows is BS? Or worse, what happens when a country needs help, or a super villain is hiding out in one, and the UN refuses to let the Avengers go in because they have a grudge against that country?"
It's the same thing as what happened with Superman in The Dark Knight Returns comic. Superman now answers to the U.S. government. And yet, I don't see anyone saying that Batman was in the wrong there because of course he's right, he's Batman.

I don't get this argument at all. The best option is really to have a handful of super powered people who can conduct military operations in any country in the world, with zero oversight, and no way to sanction them if they commit a war crime? How on earth does that make any sort of sense? We're supposed to just have faith that no one will abuse their power? And why on earth should a handful of people get to wield overwhelming power, and make unilateral decisions for other countries? Why do they get to decide what's best for everyone else?

It's the same reason that the civil liberties argument doesn't work. Captain America doesn't represent liberty in this movie. If anything he represents western imperialism and government overreach. He's not answering to the will of the people, after all. He's going rogue because he doesn't want his friend to be sent to prison after he tried to overthrow every democracy on the planet. Even if he wasn't in control of his actions, the simple fact is that he needs help, and that he can't be allowed to roam freely in public.

It's an analogy of many modern political systems today (especially the polarized US')

Both sides have dug in and taken hard-line stances without a willingness to compromise. The truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle. Should the Avengers be held responsible for the damage they cause? Yes. Should there be some kind of oversight to help them make decisions so they can't run roughshod over the world as a private police force? Yes. But should that come at the high price the US governemnt / UN is demanding? Cap (and I think many others) don't think so. To put that much power into the world's most powerful (and perhaps) corrupt governing bodies is a dangerous decision; and one that could see the Avengers turned into a weapon on the world political stage.

If both sides had not been pushed to make such an immediate and extreme decision, and had Zemo not struck at this exact moment and brought Bucky into the fold, perhaps a conversation could have been had in which a better solution was found. As it stands, two opposite ideologies ended up clashing.

 

[The Enquirer]

The image in the spoiler is not working at the moment.

One of the things that bother me about Civil War (I haven't seen BvS) due to them not acknowledging the general public plea since it seen the root to the problem with the collateral damages is them not given a fuck after the dust has settle.

Since Cap was against the registation, why not make a public speech to the public to try to swayed their opinion or go to the United Nation itself to give his case against it?

Without that and for his reaction action, it certainly did painted him as simple going AWOL.

It was being signed regardless of what he did and I think he recognized that fact, especially after the events of Cap 2 where the government was already fed up with him for essentially crushing SHIELD, regardless of how appropriate it was.

OT: For me the motivations on both sides in civil war were pretty clear. Tony has felt responsible for what he's done and Cap doesn't want to serve people with ever shifting agendas. We see peoples agendas change in our daily lives in ways that make you want to act out against it. Plus you have the issue of a couple of countries doing bad stuff, other countries want the Avengers to go in and help out and the original countries veto. It turns into a huge political mess.

For me the stuff with Bucky wasn't the main issue, just a catalyst that gave Tony's side a leg up.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Black Panther had the best way to sum up this whole issue:

He approves of oversight, but he does not approve of the political agendas that are going to come with it.

I kinda feel like Black Panther was the real hero of the movie.

 

[hermes]

...

I'll admit that it's too early to say what kind of repercussions there will be from this besides the obvious half being criminals in the eyes of society. The main thing was the way it was done made it seem that the team isn't exactly torn apart, and after adrenaline went down they aren't exactly holding any grudges. Then again after thinking about it the morale of everybody is at an all time low with everything that happened. Like you said, I'll just have to wait and see how it all goes down.

I think the only ones that weren't torn apart were the likes of Hawkeye and Black Widow (whose banter sums up a lot of their relationship); those that were able to see it as a profesional job that this time pits them one against another.

Many of them had their friendships seriously compromised (Stark, Rogers, Rhodes), and I could see a lot of the rest (Wanda, Lang, Bucky) wanting nothing to do with the team if (and when) they are reunited. It is a movie, so we all know they will get back together for the next Avengers movie (maybe not Bucky), three years from now, right on time to face "their bigger challenge yet", but I think at least half of that movie will be them having to deal with their trust issues.

 

[Glongpre]

Black Panther had the best way to sum up this whole issue:

He approves of oversight, but he does not approve of the political agendas that are going to come with it.

I kinda feel like Black Panther was the real hero of the movie.

Yeah, Cap really ruined the Black Panther party.

But yeah, he had the best idea of what oversight for them should be. That there should be some, but with an unbiased third party. He wasn't even on Iron Man's side, he just wanted to eviscerate Bucky.
I wonder if Bucky will make an appearance in the Black Panther solo movie to help out? BP can give him a new vibranium arm! I doubt it.

 

[K12]

Huge fan of Civil War and I think the OP's interpretation of Cap's motivations (and everyone else's) are completely backwards. It's not that Cap is being emotional and wants to save his friend and Iron Man is being logical, it's totally the other way round. Iron Man is acting emotionally out of guilt and Cap is being completely logical and trying to get to the bottom of the situation rather than jump to conclusions.

All the motivations of why each character joined which team is pretty clear and (with the possible exception of Ant-Man and Spiderman who are basically the starry-eyed newbies leaping at the chance to follow the first big name superhero that asks for them which basically makes sense)

The main focus of the Captain America films has been that people constantly can't deal with the fact that yes Steve Rogers really is that good and pure in his intentions. This is admittedly contrived and wouldn't work in real life where the whole super-heroes working without supervision or accountability thing is obviously a bad idea but that's what fiction is for.

Civil War did all the stuff that I wanted from Age of Ultron so I'm happy. Having a much smaller focus let it have some real lasting consequences over and above killing off a few imaginary nameless civilians and occupying the MCU's presumably highly profitable construction industry.

The only thing i'm not sure about is the fact that nobody died. I was kind of surprised by that and I'm wondering how much longer the MCU can go without killing off any of its heroes (Quicksilver doesn't count, I mean a headliner rather than a glorified red shirt)

 

[MCerberus]

I'm in the "This should have been what Avengers 2 was". Not only did it give the characters room to breath without dragging but the airport fight and the final throwdown were great. Both sides were shown as being sorta-right. And it introduced Spider Man without being a bloated mess (friend's complaint: May looked too young).

There wasn't a city-fight against a swarm of sci-fi baddies (seriously, that airport scene. Especially with the comedy guys kicking ass) and the end was "what will happen next?" instead of "oh, that's going to happen next". Plus the promise of a good Spiderman is huge. Good running time, still wanted more. Great place for a movie to be.

Tonally though, I'm still not sure if the movie studio is capable of going into really dark places. They keep faking out deaths and dragging in more jokes when darker aspects are in play. With infinity war, either the squishy humans of the team and/or Vision are going to bite it, and I don't know if they can go really, truly sad without immediately pulling a switch and having a character use a space-rat as a microphone