Captain America: Civil War (spoilers)

[kate_nepveu]

Reactions only:

I think it was . . . pretty good? The political discourse was a bit lower than Winter Soldier: better than many pop culture things but not good enough. Everyone seemed reasonably in character for most of the movie. There were definitely some lumpy structural/pacing bits, but nothing egregious. I didn't find the content "no ow make it stop" until pretty late; until then there was a healthy leavening of the kind of improvisational intelligence that I enjoy about good action sequences. It's totally watchable without having seen Ant-Man. On the whole, I'm glad I saw it so I could judge it for myself, though I don't expect I'll be rewatching.

Actual SPOILERS:

The thing is, Steve is my favorite, you know that, and yet as the movie went on I could see it stacking the deck in his favor, rather unjustly. The start of his & Tony's dispute is genuinely in character, and indeed catches up all the character development from Ultron that Tony should have had and that Steve had in Winter Soldier that Ultron forgot about. But Tony isn't wrong because he wanted to take Bucky into custody, even though Steve claimed that Bucky was being set up. It's smart to do investigations without potentially-still-brainwashed assassins running around loose, you know?

Basically, yes, whoever's in charge of a military force runs the risk of being wrong about what actions need to be taken. But relying on Steve's righteousness—as much as I believe in it—is not a sustainable solution to the problem, because one has to plan for the possibility that Steve won't be around forever, or that he won't be righteous forever. Vesting oversight in public bodies that are transparent and accountable to the greater public has to be the solution. Weirdly, I thought about this while writing the by-laws for Con or Bust; obviously I intend to run it for the foreseeable future, but it's now totally possible that I could be voted out or just resign and someone else could take over, and so we wrote the by-laws with safeguards. And yes, the by-laws could be changed too—or the military oversight body could fuck up, goodness knows we don't lack for examples of that—but in each case the resource is sunlight and public pressure, not taking one's toys and striking out on one's own.

(By the way, I am very tired and have edited out at least three words that were not what I meant to type but were similar, so if I miss one, sorry.)

So yeah, though I find it very weird to say it, I'm on Tony's side here. Ross was terrible and so was the Raft, but that doesn't mean the principle was wrong.

The little olive branch at the end, with the letter and the phone, soothed my "no! don't fight!" feelings a bit. I'm so glad the Russos are on board for the next Avengers movies.

(I'm not going to go through all the stacking the deck, but it made very little sense for Steve to know that Tony's parents were killed by Hydra and not Tony, what? I almost thought I didn't hear Steve correctly when he said he did.)

Lumpy transitions: why was Tony indulging in showing off his memories to an MIT audience? The prologue felt more and more unnecessary as the points from it were hammered home throughout the movie; or, at least, it could have stopped at him running the car off the road (also I have no idea what was recording that video). The transition to Spider-man was pretty jarring. On the whole there was less Spider-man that I feared, though, so that was good.

T'Challa. I really loved him—that post-credits scene, amazing—and his arc, and now I want all the wary-but-coming-to-a-reconciliation fic about him and Natasha (I realize this is logistically improbable in the extreme, just roll with it) and also slash with Steve, which fandom will 100000% fail to provide me, because racism.

(And hey: maybe this means they've gotten the origin stories out of the way for him and Spider-man, and we can just skip those?)

I don't have a conclusion about this, so let me just note it: it did not escape me that the plot was moved early on the bodies of black people. It also did not escape me that responsibility was demanded to be taken for their deaths, and in a much more ethical way than pursued by Tony or Zemo.

I'm so glad Rhodey didn't die, and that he got a good moment at the end. I am weirdly upset at the idea that Tony and Pepper broke up? I can see why, but I still don't like it.

Peggy! *sobs* I do love that Steve had visibly been crying before the funeral, though. And that Sharon got to attribute the "no, you move" speech to her. (However, I literally sank down in my seat and covered my face in my hands when Steve and Sharon kissed. NO WRONG BAD NO)

Clint and Ant-Man: existed. The Vision: paternalistic jerk. Wanda: probably significantly re-traumatized, ouch. Sam: love. Natasha: her pragmatism worked for me, AND she asked Bucky "don't you remember me?" which I am choosing to take as a reference to the Red Room and not to CA:TWS.

(I believe they said that they were chasing Bucky for two years, which is another bit of evidence that the MCU roughly runs in real time, except IM 3.)

There's probably more but that's all I can think of right now.

Also re: Sam: Redwing the remote-control plane! And ouch, I forgot, talk about re-traumatized, seeing Rhodey shot out of the air is going to be bad there.

A note about post-credit scenes: there are two, but you don't have to stay for the second unless Spider-man is your absolute favorite because it's really nothing.

Comments

[scifantasy]

I'm so glad the Russos are on board for the next Avengers movies.

Yup.

but it made very little sense for Steve to know that Tony's parents were killed by Hydra and not Tony, what?

Steve learned it in a blink-and-you-miss-it from Zola in Winter Soldier. ("There are ways of dealing with problems," Zola says, while a newspaper flashes about the death of the Starks.)

(And hey: maybe this means they've gotten the origin stories out of the way for him and Spider-man, and we can just skip those?)

That's my sense, especially in light of Spidey's movie's full title. The entire Tony/Peter scene read like both of them looking to the camera and saying "you guys know Spider-Man's backstory, yeah? OK, cool."

AND she asked Bucky "don't you remember me?" which I am choosing to take as a reference to the Red Room

Agreed.

I believe they said that they were chasing Bucky for two years, which is another bit of evidence that the MCU roughly runs in real time, except IM 3.)

They did, and also agreed.

[kate_nepveu]

Oh yeah, that, but I don't think Zola's innuendo ought to count as KNOWING.

[lannamichaels]

I feel weird asking, but, um, I know antman is in this: are there any graphic depictions of ants? I was warned away from the antman movie because apparently there was something that makes me flinch really hard just thinking about.

[scifantasy]

Nope, you're good.

[lannamichaels]

:D thanks

[kate_nepveu]

No ants.

[mkozlows]

I'd be on Tony's side in the REAL WORLD, but it's like... superheroes don't work if they're basically just government agents, so the deck kinda has to be stacked against that, or else you're just making GI Joe movies. The genre itself demands that he be wrong.

Re real time: They definitely made multiple references that implied real time -- 8 years since Stark revealed he was Iron Man (which matches the 2008 Iron Man 1 movie), four years since the Battle of New York (2012 Avengers 1) -- so yeah, that's a thing, which will be interesting as time passes except that they'll just ignore it if they feel like it.

I thought Clint was actually more interesting in this movie than in any other one to date, because he was on a particular side, but you could tell that he couldn't bring himself to really feel the "war" part of thing -- he and Widow fighting was even lampshaded by the Vision as "pulling punches," which was completely right.

Also, I soooo hope this means no origin story for T'Challa (I imagine there'd be some kind of flashback to panther god rituals or something, but MOVE FORWARD), and I think everyone at Marvel knows that if they do Spiderman's origin story a THIRD TIME, literally nobody will show up for it.

[kate_nepveu]

I see what you're saying, but it's the wrong level of reality for Steve to be making a decision at given the tone of the movie.

Frankly I'm not showing up for Spider-man anyway even if he was tolerable here because fuck them pushing back _Black Panther_ and _Captain Marvel_ for this warmed-over nothing. (Team Why Couldn't We Have Had Miles Morales.)

[mkozlows]

Well, I think Steve is making the argument based on legit in-character reasons (the whole "corrupt SHIELD" thing from Cap2 that makes him reluctant to be the weapon that others point in particular); I'm saying that the reason the moviemakers had to put their thumbs on events to prove him right, instead of wrong, is the genre.

(As for Spider-Man, I will watch it, because of course I will, but I 100% agree that Miles would have worked better in this movie and led to a much more potentially-interesting next movie, and it's completely a missed opportunity that they didn't use him.)

[kate_nepveu]

Yeah, I hear you, I just disagree about what the genre should be instead of what is.

[kate_nepveu]

Also basically you don't get to invoke real-world resonances in a bid for critical approval and thematic depth and then retreat into "but superheroes."

[mikeda]

Nearly as I can tell, it seems that Sony (not Marvel) was primarily responsible for recasting Spiderman (and general "creative direction" for the character) under their joint agreement.

Basically, Sony still owns the rights to the film character, they're just allowing Marvel to borrow it in Marvel's own films.

[mmcirvin]

I finally saw this movie.

For all the talk of principle, it strikes me that only Tony really even makes an argument from principle. Steve's running on gut instinct and personal affinity at this point. Until Tony goes completely off at the climax, the only thing that really keeps me from thinking he was entirely in the right is the same thing that keeps Steve from signing, when he's almost ready to do it: Tony and the Vision keeping Wanda under house arrest, without even telling her that's what they're doing. That is just creepy and wrong, but in a way that's quite in character for Tony.

On the whole, the movie does a pretty good job of balancing the audience's sympathies. Both Tony and Steve are way, way off the rails in some ways and right in others. (I get the impression that the Civil War comic story was not like this, though it tried to be.) Tony is actually more sympathetic than he's been in any previous movie, which surprised me.

[kate_nepveu]

I think blackmailing a minor into leaving the country without telling his guardian, with completely inadequate information, in potential violation of the Accords that he is supposed to be enforcing, to place himself into physical danger, is probably just as bad as Wanda.

[princessofgeeks]

Thank you for this; fascinating. Steve/T'Challa would be awesome.

[kate_nepveu]

There was a trailer-based push for Bucky/T'Challa, which while theoretically I am for anything that gives me some variety from the inescapability of Steve/Bucky I find the concept kind of baffling.

[(Anonymous)]

My assumption about the Steve & Sharon kiss was that its purpose was to deliberately counter a fan-desired Steve & Bucky kiss. Otherwise, yuck, even though Sharon & Steve apparently had a romantic relationship in the comic books. I never read the comic books. All of the backstory I have about Peggy is related to the version played by Hayley Atwell, so
it also keeps confusing me that Sharon is Peggy's niece (or great-niece?).
In Agent Carter, we were shown that Peggy joined up because her brother was killed in the early days of WWII, so he wouldn't have been around to have descendants such as Sharon.

[kate_nepveu]

I still haven't got around to Agent Carter, but I suppose she could be her niece on Peggy's husband's side?

[mikeda]

There is also the possibility that Peggy's brother didn't actually die then.

(This is not at all confirmed, although there has been some speculation about this.)

[mariness]

I don't think so, but the show wasn't 100% clear on this.

Minor spoilers:

1. The show strongly implied, but did not 100% confirm, the identity of Peggy's husband - a man not named Carter. Of course, it's always possible that this man had a sister who married someone named Carter - it's a fairly common last name, and nothing was stated about this man's siblings on the show. It's also possible that Peggy ended up marrying someone else entirely - some fans didn't like the guy or the ship, and it's very possible that the show would have gone in another direction in season three.

2. The show did tell us that Peggy had at least one brother with the last name of "Carter." Those were the only two Carter kids we saw on the show, which of course doesn't rule out other siblings. The show implied that this brother didn't have kids, but also strongly implied that we were going to learn more about his story in season 3 - which, thank you, ABC, we're not getting. It's possible that this brother was Sharon Carter's grandfather, but nothing in the actual show confirms that one way or another.

Which is all to say, I'm a lot more confident about the identity of Peggy Carter's husband than Sharon Carter's grandfather, but I could easily be wrong about either one of them.

[kate_nepveu]

I can't believe I forgot Sharon's last name! That was silly of me. (To be fair, she was not credited as Carter in CA:TWS, so that was all inference until this movie.) Thanks!