Captain America: Civil War – BIG RANT and many plot spoilers inside (you should save your time and money and not see it now)

[farlaff]

JWeinCom said:

farlaff said:

First off, I sure wasn't looking for a movie about diplomacy and non-violence. I went to see a fun movie and ended up with a ludicrous one. That's the whole point of the OP.

Second, even the highest level of moral reasoning in one's own code of values cannot go against the public good. That's not up to debate. Admiting that as something positive is almost the same as trying to justify the violent terrorist acts that happen nowadays. Simply not possible.

Third, your point to explain that your view is not a push was: "General Ross clearly tells Tony that they have 36 hours until they hunt Captain America and his team". For you, that worked as enough reason for team IM to go against the former fellows. But who was Ross according to the movie? If you had not seen the 2 Hulks (I did and even so it told me nothing) there would be absolutely no clue as to why his orders should be followed. But the movie fails miserably in showing why one should consider him so powerful and important. My feeling was "why would Stark obey this creep? Is he  ALL the american government? Or, even more restrictly, does he represent ALL america's army? Is he the sole rep of the UN?" Would really there be a good reason for Stark simply not say "good luck trying" instead of doing what he decided to? You sure think so, but I don't, since he (Stark) is powerful and influentional enough to try and reach for other instances to avoid all the mess. The previous movies showed that (see how he handled the congress in IM 2). So, in another sense, the "tension" created by the directors was not verisimilar and did not work in a way that would make me buy it. That is the reason why I told you those conclusions of yours could indeed be drawn out from the picture. There is no contradiction. None at all to be exact.

But I do like where this debate is going.

What exactly do you mean by ludicrous?  As far as I can tell, that means the characters acted in ways you didn't really approve of.  I think it'd be hard to argue that the actions aren't justified from the characters points of view.

The reason Tony didn't just say "good luck" was clear too.  He actually believed in the Sokovia (sp?) accords mainly because he created a robot that almost destroyed the world.  He probably wouldn't have gone after Cap immediately, but the deadline pushed him towards that.

General Ross, I should say former General Ross, is the Secretary of State.  This isn't an inference, I'm 100% sure he said it point blank in the movie at least once, when he was introduced.  I'm semi-sure that they also referred to him as Secretary Ross many times.  He also mentioned that he was a former general, so even if you don't know what the secretary of state is, you should know that he's pretty up there in terms of power.

The secretary of State is probably the second most important person in regards to American foreign policy after the president.  They had the secretary of state handle this, cause the Sokovia incident was an international incident as was the explosion in Lagos.  Also, this was an accord between 170 nations, and enforcing the dictates of international agreements is part of his job.  The Secretary of state is also the fourth in line for the presidency, should the president die.

The secretary of state has the ear of the president.  He could, very likely, order the military to work on catching the Avengers. I feel that this was explicitly stated, but I'm not 100% on that.   Bucky at least was on shoot to kill orders.  After Cap tried to help a fugitive flee, Ross would also put shoot to kill orders on him and Falcon.  I can't recall specifically if he actually said that, but it's an easy jump to make.  If Iron Man didn't catch them before then, their lives were very much in danger.  

Iron Man didn't say "good like trying" cause it wouldn't have done any good.  At that point, Cap's team was composed of two people with super human strength, but not like Hulk strength.  They also had a guy with a bow and arrow, a guy who could fly, and one shield agent.  A conflict with the US army would not have gone well for them.  At best they'd have been captured anyway, at worst killed.  Even if they wouldn't be killed, Iron Man's objective was to help repair the Avengers reputation.  Having a bunch of Avengers fighting with the military wouldn't help matters.  And once Scarlet Witch joined Cap's side he REALLY couldn't let them get away.  She's really powerful, and it's not clear what she would have done if backed into a corner.

Ross' position may have went over your head because, I'm fairly sure, you aren't American, so you're probably not aware of the responsibilities of the president's cabinet (most Americans probably aren't either).  But, it would be very unnatural to try and fit an explanation of that in the movie.  All of the characters involved should all be aware of what the secretary of state is and does, so there'd be no way to really explain it in a way that wouldn't be clunky as hell.  

Nevertheless, I think his power and influence should be clear.  We know the kind of character Tony is, so we know how he'd act if Ross didn't have real authority.  I don't know why one would just assume that Tony was acting way out of character instead of reasoning that Ross did hold authority.  So Tony's cooperation is in itself a show of Ross' power.   It's also pretty clear just from the fact that he was the one sent to present the Sokovia accords that he's a pretty big deal.

As an aside, you don't thing Captain America is a role model cause he's fighting against authority.  What do you think of a man who lets his best friend be killed for a crime he didn't commit?  

Even though I do know what a Secretary of State is, I have to admit I didn't really notice his being treated as such. Doesn't change my POV but, as I am on the phone now, will be back to this when I get to PC.