Poll: Captain America: Civil War -- Choose your side!

[mduncan50]

See, as far as the MCU goes, I don't see that. Granted, I haven't gotten around to watching Age of Ultron yet, but in Iron Man, I see a sheltered playboy who lived it up off his wealth with no regard for anyone and no concern about what his company actually did with the weapons he designed for it getting a rather rude awakening to the reality of his company and deciding he needed to do something about it, because he couldn't trust his company or the military to make things right. In Iron Man 2, he continues his distrust of the military and tries to keep his inventions to himself, but starts falling into his old irresponsible ways as he's facing his own death by poisoning from the arc reactor keeping him alive. He gets that resolved and gets back on track only to be faced with the realization of the existence of God-like aliens ready and willing to invade earth that humans are totally unprepared to deal with. In Iron Man 3, he's trying to cope with how badly the attack on New York affected him and starts creating all kinds of Iron Man suits to try and occupy himself, and then gets caught up in the Extremis terrorist plot involving the Vice President, leading into Age of Ultron.

And again, I've yet to see Ultron, but I don't see Stark explicitly trusting the government/military by the time Civil War comes around, but he also has reason not to trust people with superpowers to always do the right thing either. At least from the trailers I've seen of Civil War, Captain America seems perfectly willing to go rogue in order to save his friend and fuck anyone who gets in his way. It isn't until Rhodes getting severely injured if not killed in the process of trying to stop him and Bucky that is the last straw that pushed Stark over the edge and fully against Cap. I don't know anything about some underwater supers prison and being forced into allowing the government to use them as unwilling weapons under threat of being sent there (is that how it plays out in the comics?), but that doesn't seem how the movie plays out to me and seems like it would be against Stark's character to go along with such a thing. He spent a couple of his own movies refusing to be the government's weapon, I don't see him supporting others with that kind of destructive capabilities being forced to. But I do see him saying "no, we can't just be given the freedom to run around and do whatever the fuck we want to do when so much gets destroyed and so many people die in the wake of us doing that." And it's hard to disagree that when they step up to end threats, there's a lot of collateral damage that they probably shouldn't be as completely unconcerned about as they usually are, even if far more death and destruction would have been caused if they did nothing. As Cap says at the beginning of one of the trailers, " . . . you try to save as many people as you can. That doesn't mean you save everyone . . ." but who is he to make those decisions on his own authority?

Age of Ultron is actually a pretty big step as to why Stark would choose to hand over autonomy to the government, because it was his own hubris and the lack of anyone able/willing to tell him no that led to the events of that movie, many deaths, and all of humanity being put in jeopardy. I think it was the last straw for him, and while he still wants to help people, he doesn't want to be the one responsible.

The underwater prison is shown rising out of the water in the second trailer, and you see Tony inside of it as it pans across all of the empty cells. In the comics it is a prison in the other dimension from the latest Fantastic Four movie, which Marvel obviously doesn't have rights to, so this is what they've decided to go with.

I don't see the Avengers as having ever been "unconcerned" about collateral damage, and in fact they are often shown trying to save civilians and limit the area of destruction. Instance that immediately pops into mind is the invasion of New York in the first Avengers. We are given both a scene of Cap giving some cops instructions on how best to evacuate and cordon off the area, and we're able to listen in as they enact their plan to keep the invading aliens boxed into a radius of only a couple of blocks to prevent widespread destruction.

And who is Cap to make the decision as you how best to save as many people as possible? He's a man of good heart and conscience. He's not a politician looking for re-election. He's not a General looking for a devastating victory. And he's not a weapon to be aimed at whomever the government is unhappy with that week. Keep in mind, the people you're saying should have oversight over the Avengers are the same ones that continually attack the Hulk in as highly populated areas as possible to maximize collateral damage, and whose response to an alien invasion force that they knew nothing about was to nuke one of the most densely populated cities in the world hoping that that would be able to stop them. (Spoiler: it wouldn't have.)

 

[Something Amyss]

And again, I've yet to see Ultron, but I don't see Stark explicitly trusting the government/military by the time Civil War comes around, but he also has reason not to trust people with superpowers to always do the right thing either.

None of this I actually said. I said that I expected Tony to say we need to be held accountable and then violate that. He doesn't need to trust the government. He just needs to sign up and then play by his own rules. And that's totally within the character of the guy who was demonstrated to hack SHIELD twice in one movie. The guy who had learned his lesson so thoroughly from Iron Man 2 that he called out a terrorist organisation with his personal address, putting those around him at risk, or decided that the answer to one failed mad science experiment was another, more powerful one. The guy who went behind the backs of his own friends to do so.

Stark is still reckless and impulsive in Iron Man 3 and both Avengers movies so far, and it's a good thing that he's written to be always right, because if he accidentally killed a city, he'd probably build a state-killer to make up for it.

As Cap says at the beginning of one of the trailers, "you try to save as many people as you can. That doesn't mean you save everyone..." but who is he to make those decisions on his own authority?

Since you agree Stark doesn't trust the government and seemingly don't even contest the idea that he'll go rogue, who is he to make those decisions with his own authority?

Honestly, I think Avengers Assemble made more sense. The team split on ideological lines, with Cap's team joining SHIELD and Stark's team being the anti-authority team. Of course, being a cartoon, they all learned they were morons and couldn't save the day without each other. But honestly, Stark and accountability go together like peanut butter and cyanide. Even if you like the flavour of peanut butte, it's not a good match.

I think Stark's position is worse, because if history is any indicator, he's going to hold everyone else accountable and go his own way.

Also this:

We are given both a scene of Cap giving some cops instructions on how best to evacuate and cordon off the area, and we're able to listen in as they enact their plan to keep the invading aliens boxed into a radius of only a couple of blocks to prevent widespread destruction.

I trust Cap's motivations more than Stark's. Iron Man's guilty conscience blinds him constantly. Steve's ties to Bucky may have blinded him, but between the two, I will take a mote in Rogers' eye over the beam in Tony's any day of the week. Twice on Sunday.

The writers of the MCU made me like Stark, even sympathise with him. But they did the impossible with Cap and made me trust a Steve[footnote]sorry, old in-joke. Some of my best friends are Steves[/footnote]. They made me believe in one of the most erratically-written characters in a genre of erratically-written characters.

 

[LetalisK]

Stark. I don't agree with the hands off approach when it comes to guns or law enforcement so there is no reason I would when the consequences of lax regulation are cranked up to 11 with people with super powers.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

BASED ON REAL WORLD CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOGIC

Iron Man. The metrics involved with "super heroes" and the potential catastrophes they could unleash at a whim virtually SCREAMS for some kind of oversight/regulation. Almost every super hero film in the MCU involves some kind of brawl in a public area with screaming/menaced civilians. The heroes themselves regularly go rogue, to say nothing of the villains. How do you NOT make an effort to regulate that? It's insanity.

BASED ON THE MCU TO DATE

Captain America. Perhaps the single largest scale threat outside of the alien invasion was SHIELD itself. There seems to be rampant corruption in every organizational body, and the death counts from these massive hero brawls are SHOCKINGLY low.

BASED ON THE FACT CIVIL WAR IS ACTUALLY THE THIRD CAPTAIN AMERICA FILM

Definitely Captain America. Like the dude is going to be on the wrong side of things in his own film.

 

[happyninja42]

BASED ON REAL WORLD CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOGIC

Iron Man. The metrics involved with "super heroes" and the potential catastrophes they could unleash at a whim virtually SCREAMS for some kind of oversight/regulation. Almost every super hero film in the MCU involves some kind of brawl in a public area with screaming/menaced civilians. The heroes themselves regularly go rogue, to say nothing of the villains. How do you NOT make an effort to regulate that? It's insanity.

BASED ON THE MCU TO DATE

Captain America. Perhaps the single largest scale threat outside of the alien invasion was SHIELD itself. There seems to be rampant corruption in every organizational body, and the death counts from these massive hero brawls are SHOCKINGLY low.

BASED ON THE FACT CIVIL WAR IS ACTUALLY THE THIRD CAPTAIN AMERICA FILM

Definitely Captain America. Like the dude is going to be on the wrong side of things in his own film.

Basically this yeah. Big difference between real world and comic world.

 

[Lightknight]

If it were just a registry for people with powers who wanted to fight crime then sure. Same as I want Police to be vetted. But as mentioned in the OP it's more of a thing that crosses the line where life and liberty are concerned.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Tony Stark has been wrong about something big in every single movie he's shown up in. At this point I'm on Steve's side just out of metrics alone.

the movies are good but the conflict feels less logical every time
Avengrs: everyone knows that Loke is A: dangerous and in possesion of an item more powerful than any weapon created by humanity and B: a master of deception, but fair enough they had just met and all
Age of ultron: they all have experience with mind control to some extent and their enemies are known to take advantage of it. they have been working together for some time and know that the infinity stones are not something they should keep near anyone who might want to use them be it for good or bad. they still fight
Civil war: by this point i'm surprised nobody just steps up and says "has anyone else noticed that every time we fight over an issue of global safety it turns out to be our enemies manipulating us? maybe we should try not to fall for that again?"

 

[Lightknight]

Tony Stark has been wrong about something big in every single movie he's shown up in. At this point I'm on Steve's side just out of metrics alone.

the movies are good but the conflict feels less logical every time
Avengrs: everyone knows that Loke is A: dangerous and in possesion of an item more powerful than any weapon created by humanity and B: a master of deception, but fair enough they had just met and all
Age of ultron: they all have experience with mind control to some extent and their enemies are known to take advantage of it. they have been working together for some time and know that the infinity stones are not something they should keep near anyone who might want to use them be it for good or bad. they still fight
Civil war: by this point i'm surprised nobody just steps up and says "has anyone else noticed that every time we fight over an issue of global safety it turns out to be our enemies manipulating us? maybe we should try not to fall for that again?"

Sounds unrealistic at first and yet every time my buddy goes to Ikea with his wife I somehow still end up with him on my couch for a couple nights...

The backdrop for Civil War will be an even more realistic reason to fight one another if they follow the comics at all.

 

[mduncan50]

So, I'm curious. Let's say that what the government isn't "work for us or go to jail", but rather just "if you don't work for us, you cannot use your powers". And let's say that although Steve Rogers while unwilling to be a government tool, he accepts the law, and gives his word to not use his powers, and we know that Steve being a man of his word, would hold up his end of the agreement. So that means a woman could be getting raped ten feet to his left, and to his right a child is being beaten to death, and he would be powerless to help them, because that would be a use of his enhanced strength, speed and athleticism. How has this made the world a safer place? I can't stand the slogan of "Outlaw guns and the only people with guns will be outlaws", but I can't help but think of that here. You're not going to cut down on the amount of super powered villains, just the amount of good guys out there to stop them.

 

[Benpasko]

Well, since Cap is perfect as fuck, it's easy to tell which side I fall on. The only time I disagreed with Captain America was at the end of Galactic Storm. Oh, also that time he got addicted to crack (<3 streets of poison).

 

[Lightknight]

So, I'm curious. Let's say that what the government isn't "work for us or go to jail", but rather just "if you don't work for us, you cannot use your powers". And let's say that although Steve Rogers while unwilling to be a government tool, he accepts the law, and gives his word to not use his powers, and we know that Steve being a man of his word, would hold up his end of the agreement. So that means a woman could be getting raped ten feet to his left, and to his right a child is being beaten to death, and he would be powerless to help them, because that would be a use of his enhanced strength, speed and athleticism. How has this made the world a safer place? I can't stand the slogan of "Outlaw guns and the only people with guns will be outlaws", but I can't help but think of that here. You're not going to cut down on the amount of super powered villains, just the amount of good guys out there to stop them.

Steve doesn't have powers. So he can do whatever he wants. Technically he's just peak human.

But yes, this does present the question about what to do about being a good Samaritan. I think the intention is similar to like being a police officer. If you're going to go around guns a-blazing and stopping crime then you need to be a known person and trained. If you're in a grocery store and stop a robber then you're just being a good citizen.

But I think the Civil War scenario is that you have to register regardless.

 

[mduncan50]

Steve doesn't have powers. So he can do whatever he wants. Technically he's just peak human.

Are we talking about the same Captain America that can outrun cars, hurdle 7 foot tall fences without touching them, and punch in the window of a personal submarine that is designed to withstand the pressure of the ocean depths? And that's all just in one scene! There are lots of other examples in the movies, and that doesn't even get into his enhanced mind which is much harder to show visually, but it's what makes him such a good leader and strategist.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Tony Stark has been wrong about something big in every single movie he's shown up in. At this point I'm on Steve's side just out of metrics alone.

the movies are good but the conflict feels less logical every time
Avengrs: everyone knows that Loke is A: dangerous and in possesion of an item more powerful than any weapon created by humanity and B: a master of deception, but fair enough they had just met and all
Age of ultron: they all have experience with mind control to some extent and their enemies are known to take advantage of it. they have been working together for some time and know that the infinity stones are not something they should keep near anyone who might want to use them be it for good or bad. they still fight
Civil war: by this point i'm surprised nobody just steps up and says "has anyone else noticed that every time we fight over an issue of global safety it turns out to be our enemies manipulating us? maybe we should try not to fall for that again?"

Sounds unrealistic at first and yet every time my buddy goes to Ikea with his wife I somehow still end up with him on my couch for a couple nights...

The backdrop for Civil War will be an even more realistic reason to fight one another if they follow the comics at all.

there are certain people in this world who simply make shopping a living nightmare. when i shop with my mum she can't stop finding new things for me to try on. it actully got to the point where we just kind of silently agreed "if i have said i need something and it looks alright just buy it and if one of us doesn't like it the other can take it. we wear the same size and your office is next to the mall so i can never stop you from getting it anyways"

 

[mduncan50]

Tony Stark has been wrong about something big in every single movie he's shown up in. At this point I'm on Steve's side just out of metrics alone.

the movies are good but the conflict feels less logical every time
Avengrs: everyone knows that Loke is A: dangerous and in possesion of an item more powerful than any weapon created by humanity and B: a master of deception, but fair enough they had just met and all
Age of ultron: they all have experience with mind control to some extent and their enemies are known to take advantage of it. they have been working together for some time and know that the infinity stones are not something they should keep near anyone who might want to use them be it for good or bad. they still fight
Civil war: by this point i'm surprised nobody just steps up and says "has anyone else noticed that every time we fight over an issue of global safety it turns out to be our enemies manipulating us? maybe we should try not to fall for that again?"

Sounds unrealistic at first and yet every time my buddy goes to Ikea with his wife I somehow still end up with him on my couch for a couple nights...

The backdrop for Civil War will be an even more realistic reason to fight one another if they follow the comics at all.

Yeah I think people are forgetting that Marvel has been pretty good at not revealing a whole hell of a lot. We haven't even seen the main villain yet, so I think it would be premature to say that it makes no sense that they're fighting.

 

[hermes]

I have some serious issues with both characters and the sides they take on Civil Wars, both on paper and on film (although I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't argue with their logic).

Tony Stark made a big point in Iron Man 2 about the lack of government control and regulation to his activities, he is also someone that has proven to feel zero accountability for his actions and acts like an egotistical bastard on every occasion, so for him to go all the way to government controlled super patrols or they are outlaws to be put down felt like an unearned 180 to me.

Captain America in the comics was not much better. He is the de facto "good guy", and I don't expect him to change since his name is in the title of this movie, but in the comics he was more like an obtuse and headstrong individual, whose only justification seems to be "I don't want things to change because they have always been this way, and we are the good guys." The other side has some decent points, but he won't listen because every concession is a display of weakness, or something. It goes to a point where Tony Stark tries to talk him out of it (before there was really any conflict between them), and his answer is to disable Stark's suit so he can punch him in the face... he is not only the one that goes through all this to defend some status quo, but he is also the one that shoots first.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Captain America in the comics was not much better. He is the de facto "good guy", and I don't expect him to change since his name is in the title of this movie, but in the comics he was more like an obtuse and headstrong individual, whose only justification seems to be "I don't want things to change because they have always been this way, and we are the good guys." The other side has some decent points, but he won't listen because every concession is a display of weakness, or something. It goes to a point where Tony Stark tries to talk him out of it (before there was really any conflict between them), and his answer is to disable Stark's suit so he can punch him in the face... he is not only the one that goes through all this to defend some status quo, but he is also the one that shoots first.

I kind of agree with you. The only reason to be on Cap's side in the comic Civil War is because the Pro-Reg side were being complete dicks. Team Cap was just... there.

 

[mduncan50]

I have some serious issues with both characters and the sides they take on Civil Wars, both on paper and on film (although I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't argue with their logic).

Tony Stark made a big point in Iron Man 2 about the lack of government control and regulation to his activities, he is also someone that has proven to feel zero accountability for his actions and acts like an egotistical bastard on every occasion, so for him to go all the way to government controlled super patrols or they are outlaws to be put down felt like an unearned 180 to me.

Captain America in the comics was not much better. He is the de facto "good guy", and I don't expect him to change since his name is in the title of this movie, but in the comics he was more like an obtuse and headstrong individual, whose only justification seems to be "I don't want things to change because they have always been this way, and we are the good guys." The other side has some decent points, but he won't listen because every concession is a display of weakness, or something. It goes to a point where Tony Stark tries to talk him out of it (before there was really any conflict between them), and his answer is to disable Stark's suit so he can punch him in the face... he is not only the one that goes through all this to defend some status quo, but he is also the one that shoots first.

It's not so much a 180 as it is Ultron being the straw that broke the iron camel's back. By doing his own thing and telling government oversight where it can stick itself, Tony created something that would have wiped out the world, and ended up "only" killing hundreds. He wants to still help people, but he wants neither the responsibility nor the guilt that goes with it. And of course, with Tony's ego being what it is, if HE can't handle it without oversight, then nobody can.

 

[Cycloptomese]

I submit that if you ever find yourself in the position of being punched by Steve Rogers, you're the bad guy... so cap all the way.

 

[Auron225]

Think I'm rooting for Team Iron Man. As he says about Cap; "Sometimes I want to punch you in your perfect teeth".

Maybe it's not fair for people with powers to have tabs kept on them, but you know what's even worse? For people with no means of defending themselves to be caught in the crossfire. Also I feel much more sympathetic to Tony given the trailers... killing Rhodes (by the looks of it), Cap and Bucky ganging up on him 2 v 1... it's hard for me to look at Cap and think "What a hero".

Maybe the movie itself will change my mind when I see it all happen, who knows. For now I'm Team Iron Man.

 

[mduncan50]

It appears this poll was pretty accurate to the feelings of fans at large. Just saw that Rotten Tomatoes had one and it's sitting at 60-40 for Cap as well, and that's with almost 52,000 votes.