WARNING SPOILERS!! Captain America: Civil War - Discussion Thread - SPOILERS!!

[Melena]

Surprised it didn't tie in the events of shield some how and lead into the (inhuman) registration act, but kinda glad they went a different route.
Totally expected Ant-man to be the one to die, once he went giant-mode. Surprised nobody died. And surprised Vision didn't get any of the blame for hitting Rhody...
Cap's argument was pretty thin at first (117 countries man....) , but then was justified (to me) when he found out Wanda was being detained.
Spidey and Ant-man were fucking fantastic! Kinda sad Spidey didn't switch sides, but for the purposes of this movie, he didn't have any any real reason to.
Could've used some Punisher...

Great movie overall.

Nah, no chance of ant man dying as there's already a sequel coming out in 2018 i think.

[Obsidian]

And surprised Vision didn't get any of the blame for hitting Rhody...

He kind of did though. Tony asks him at the hospital how this happened. He says he was distracted, Tony says he didn't know that was possible.

[Siatdiat]

Also from what I understand from my comic friends, the light from the last post credits scene is Spidy's old flashlight he used to have in the comics. It was retarded and they eventually forgot about it.

I think it was a throw back to that belt flashlight from the comics, but I think it was also trying to imply that in that situation, it was something that Tony Stark had hooked him up with, and he was messing with it in his room just like a 16 year old kid would do. I have been a Spiderman fan reading the comics since I was old enough to read, and this is the hands down best iteration of Spiderman that has been done. They finally actually cast a kid, instead of some almost 30 year old emo guys. Hell, that was the thing that made Spiderman stand out and take off in popularity back in the 60s, in the time where teenage super heroes were sidekicks at best. Surprised it took someone this long to realize they were missing the most basic premise of what Spiderman was about.

[Cantih]

As a non comic reader/follower, how are the movies going to patch up to the next Avengers? Assuming everyone becomes friends again; do they just drop their differences and team up to fight the inter-galactic threat coming at them? Looking at the timeline there are no further Cap/Iron Man movies and instead they focus on other things until Avengers 3.

They still all don't know that Coulson is alive, I have a feeling having him play a role in mending any bridges is going to be a thing.

[-Zer0-]

Nah, no chance of ant man dying as there's already a sequel coming out in 2018 i think.

Also no chance of Ant-Man dying cause Paul Rudd is fucking aweesome.

[Kaslo]

One thing with BP I could of wish had happened:

When he's caught with Cap and Bucky after the chase they don't take him into custody and when someone says something they just respond "diplomatic immunity"

[Deftscythe]

If you didn't watch Winter Soldier, that whole kiss scene would seem hella outta place especially with the whole framing of Cap having feels for Peggy, who kinda died. lol

Me and my group found that kiss super creepy. "Goodbye, Peggy. I'll miss you, gonna console myself by going balls deep in your niece."

[Rulke]

I think you guys read too much into the Cap and old Peggy relationship. Sure he had a thing for her, but at present she was the last connection to the time he was from.

[Adajer]

Biggest plot hole

Spoiler: show

How does Stan Lee get all the way to Tony's window to knock on it without setting off any alerts or alarms?

[Alistaire]

Loved it. 5/7.

Spiderman and ant man were as funny as Deadpool. All the characters meshed so well and as far as I'm concerned the Russo brothers can direct every Marvel movie.

Question: Was the blue blood in Howard's trunk Kree? If it was, where did he get it from? My girlfriend asked and I don't have the answer. I thought it was maybe covered in agents of shield but I just can't recall.

Come to think of it, hadn't they said that the current AoS storyline was going to tie into the movie? Or maybe I was just expecting it because of last time. As it is, for anyone who hasn't kept up with Coulson & Co and thinks you might want to catch up specifically to see more stuff related to Civil War, don't. Watch it anyway, but it didn't tie in at all this time.

They still all don't know that Coulson is alive, I have a feeling having him play a role in mending any bridges is going to be a thing.

It seems it would be a bad idea to not inform the people who might show up in a fight on your side that he's running things. He's not quite that underground. And iirc, Coulson's been shown on TV at least once either as part of hunting him down or him being a consultant for the US government.

[Tarage]

As a non comic reader/follower, how are the movies going to patch up to the next Avengers? Assuming everyone becomes friends again; do they just drop their differences and team up to fight the inter-galactic threat coming at them? Looking at the timeline there are no further Cap/Iron Man movies and instead they focus on other things until Avengers 3.

The way I see it we now have The Avengers and the Secret Avengers. Two different Avengers branches.

[Serra]

There's a fundamental problem with the "main" Avenger's branch. This branch is behind Stark who has established himself as following through with the Accords. And yet, at the end of the movie, Stark ignored the Accords and went to assist Cap and Bucky. Who cares about his promise to Falcon. At the end of the day, if Stark truly believed in the Accords, he should have abided by them -- whether that was reporting what he found to the UN or something else, it in no way should have led to him going to prevent Zemo's plot by himself.

[Tarage]

There's a fundamental problem with the "main" Avenger's branch. This branch is behind Stark who has established himself as following through with the Accords. And yet, at the end of the movie, Stark ignored the Accords and went to assist Cap and Bucky. Who cares about his promise to Falcon. At the end of the day, if Stark truly believed in the Accords, he should have abided by them -- whether that was reporting what he found to the UN or something else, it in no way should have led to him going to prevent Zemo's plot by himself.

Tony is in a constant cycle of "I fucked up, I need to make this right" followed by him fucking it up trying to make it right. The logic is sound, he's just a fuckup and it's slowly killing him.

[Deftscythe]

There's a fundamental problem with the "main" Avenger's branch. This branch is behind Stark who has established himself as following through with the Accords. And yet, at the end of the movie, Stark ignored the Accords and went to assist Cap and Bucky. Who cares about his promise to Falcon. At the end of the day, if Stark truly believed in the Accords, he should have abided by them -- whether that was reporting what he found to the UN or something else, it in no way should have led to him going to prevent Zemo's plot by himself.

Because Stark doesn't really believe in the accords, his support of the idea is entirely reactionary based on him being directly responsible for Zachovia. He says "we need to be put in check," ignoring that Cap and Thor tried to do exactly that in AoU when he suggested Ultron. What he means is *he* needs to be put in check but he's too Tony Stark to say that.

[DrClout]

Biggest plot hole

Spoiler: show

How does Stan Lee get all the way to Tony's window to knock on it without setting off any alerts or alarms?

Because he's the Batman of the MCU.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Eurell]

The Accords needed to be signed regardless. If they didn't sign, they would be outlaws and the government would constantly be trying to arrest them. Literally no choice but to sign if they wanted to continue being Avengers, and then if they wanted to break the rules and try to save the world without orders, thats something they could deal with when the time came.

[Deftscythe]

The Accords needed to be signed regardless. If they didn't sign, they would be outlaws and the government would constantly be trying to arrest them. Literally no choice but to sign if they wanted to continue being Avengers, and then if they wanted to break the rules and try to save the world without orders, thats something they could deal with when the time came.

But that's just delaying the inevitable, because a regulatory body involving 117 countries is never going to respond to the kind of crisis that needs the Avengers fast enough to save lives. The Avengers would end up acting on their own initiative the very first time something came up.

Also, the point of the Accords was eliminating collateral damage, which is impossible in the world of the MCU. I'm kinda just parroting the Half in The Bag review here, but unless you can prove the Avengers have been negligent or reckless(which no one in the film claims and we as viewers no is untrue) all the Accords could possibly accomplish is shift the blame and inhibit the Avengers ability to do their job. A job the UN clearly wants them to keep doing or they'd just arrest the lot of them and shut down the complex.

[Obsidian]

I don't think the point was to eliminate collateral damage, it was to assign responsibility (or in Tony's case, to relieve him of it). As they were, the Avengers carried with them no responsibility for their actions. There was no one to call to answer for the damage done and lives lost because they're The Avengers. The Accords are meant to provide accountability by way of having a recognized authority being the body that permits the Avengers to act.

[Gredival]

I mean, I understand the sentiment of not letting Avengers, especially ones essentially housed in the US, have the freedom to just freely conduct operations in foreign countries, but at the same time, the events of Winter Soldier should give you pause at the notion of oversight committees. So it's a larger deliberative body. It can still be taken over by an organization like Hydra.

And yeah, the whole debate regarding urgency vs discussion, the larger the deliberative body, the longer it takes to deploy, and potentially worse the outcome.

Oversight seems rational, especially when we bring in real world logic about sovereignty. But restrictions always cut both ways and in this particular universe, the balance is very tilted against restrictions because it's exactly as Cap says: the safest hands in the world are the Avengers' own.

Fallout is unfortunate, but it's not only inevitable it would be worse without the Avengers regardless of how the collateral damage wants to look at it (with the exception of Tony creating Ultron).

[Eurell]

But that's just delaying the inevitable, because a regulatory body involving 117 countries is never going to respond to the kind of crisis that needs the Avengers fast enough to save lives. The Avengers would end up acting on their own initiative the very first time something came up.

Also, the point of the Accords was eliminating collateral damage, which is impossible in the world of the MCU. I'm kinda just parroting the Half in The Bag review here, but unless you can prove the Avengers have been negligent or reckless(which no one in the film claims and we as viewers no is untrue) all the Accords could possibly accomplish is shift the blame and inhibit the Avengers ability to do their job. A job the UN clearly wants them to keep doing or they'd just arrest the lot of them and shut down the complex.

Don't get me wrong. In that universe, its definitely safer for the Avengers to have free reign. They saved NY and the world from an alien invasion, and a nuke that was sent by the Security council. They stopped Crossbones from getting some biological weapon and killing god knows how many people with it. They have done so much good for the world, and it far outweighs any bad they may have caused.

But on the other hand, Tony built Ultron. The Avengers just gave Tony Stark an infinity stone to play around with, and he built a robot that killed tons of people. He built the robot to protect people, but it ended up killing. And then he faced 0 consequences for his actions. And even in Civil War, Cap was wrong! He fought his fellow Avengers so that he could get to the Hydra base and stop the other super soldiers. But they were never actually a threat.

Yes. Waiting on the UN to decide when to call the Avengers is a terrible idea because of how slow it would be to react to immediate threats. But you also can't realistically expect the world to just be ok with Steve Rogers deciding whats wrong and right, who deserves to live and die, on his own gut feelings.