Perhaps I'm becoming a bit too old for this, but when Super Heroes, who should be examples, start to act like no authorithy or good reasoning can be positive (and that's exactly the message the movie sent) we go into savagery department. I would expect this from Wolverine, who is not exactly a hero in the regular sense, but not from an icon of suposed decency like Captain America. Diplomacy and talking is always better than violence.

I didn't know that. I would love seeing Joss Whedon direct a full Hulk movie to get a good mix of humor and drama!

The notion that, in the movie, Cap represents recent times US seemed so obvious to me I am a bit surprised few others have discussed it. Damn, when the "vilain" got them to fight their asses off, it seemed to me like they (the directors) would finally make some veiled criticism on US's general position as "defenders of the world" (something which got much, much better with Obama, I'll admit it). Like in "you can do it without talking properly or without caring for diplomacy, but the consequences can be terrible". But then he not only defeated IM, he saved all the others (single handedly, it appears) AND sent a "be my friend again" letter that was meant to say "I can do whatever I see fit and everything will be fine". Hence, the message that you can be a total douche and still come out okay.

Your assertion of Bucky being Israel is quite interesting BTW.

Man, sorry to say that but you really lost a golden opportunity to take a compliment and just be nice about it. I'm happy you enjoyed the movie and can see your work at trying so hard to defend it, but it is just so bad it doesn't help your cause. And even though those conclusions of yours can indeed be drawn out from the picture, it simply is not what the movie has shown us.

I totally agree with the assertion that it's  better when movies show you instead of telling you, and respect their audience's intelligence. Movies are about the images and what you make of them. That's why I have always been critic of The Lord of the Rings cinema versions, for not trusting the public's intelligence and insisting in explaining what was obvious (like, some guys light the Beacons and someone shouts "the beacons are lit" - aargh). See some Brian de Palma movies like "Dressed to Kill" and "Blow Out" so you will get an idea of what I'm talking about.

But what you infer is really kind of a push. Let's recap a bit: you said I was "ignoring the fact that Tony and Cap shaking hands and agreeing to disagree wouldn't have solved much.  There were other forces at play.  If Iron Man says 'hey you're right Cap' then they're all fugitives from the law, and their are going to be a lot of people after then, not least of all the US government (Ross tends to be very stubborn on these things) and the Wakandan army (which has crazy technology and just had two national tragedy involving Avengers members).  Then the Avengers spend time running from the government instead of doing anything productive.  With 170 nations against them."

Of course that can be a reasonable way of thinking, especially if you try hard enough, and the fact that you seemed to imagine I needed that explanation for such a simpleton flick is kind of offensive. What you seem to not want to notice is that the movie itself doesn't create half the tention for your thesis to be sustained and doesn't do half the effort that you do to make us believe that the conflict is justified. THAT was just me trying to be nice with your will to debate, not any need from my side to get explanations.

Interpretation is free, I'll always defend that. Anyone sees what he/she wants to. But you are trying to give the movie a depth that it simply doesn't have.

Again, no offense.

For me it was a complicated movie with the simple theme of "No matter what, stand up for what you believe in," which in spite of relationships and what not, lead to a clash of beliefs (The Civil War).

To be fair, The "Safest Hands are our Own" comment was Justified. In spite of creating Ultron, they also have rescued the planet on multiple occasions. Had they not intervened in the first movie, we wouldn't even have a movie to watch now...as the planet would be wiped out. So since they have saved everyone as many times as they have, why wouldn't they have that confidence in their ability?

But i definitely see where you are coming from. Everything you said could be justified in your own right. Me personally, i saw it all a different way and absolutely loved the emotion, the comedy and overall just had a lot of fun for this movie. But i will say this..

Thank you for giving me another opportunity to post about Superheroes. lol

I don't think that's the message.  While Cap is the star, I think Tony's side was well represented (especially compared to the comics where he was almost  a straight up supervillain in the arc).  Tony's certainly not portrayed as evil or totally unreasonable.  In the book this was based on, they beat you over the head with the idea that Cap is right.  Here, they did a fairly good job balancing it.  

In the comics, Cap was always portrayed as a character who holds his values above anything else.  It's not so much about standing against authority no matter what.  Cap isn't a rebel without a cause.  It's about taking a stand on the occasion when the authority is wrong, which is a lesson we may need in America in the near future.    And this has been the way Cap is portrayed in most story arcs.  He gives up being Captain America at several points due to disagreement with those in power, he actively fights against them in Civil War, and he leads the effort to take down Iron Man in Time Runs Out, even as the world is literally collapsing around them.  We also see this in Winter Soldier in his determination to bring back the unbrainwashed Bucky, his unwavering support for Black Widow, and, most importantly, the decision to disband Shield entirely.  Even in the first movie, he leads a mission to rescue Bucky in direct defiance of his CO, and refuses to accept his 4F status from the government. 

As for a role model, let's talk about morality.  According to Kohlberg, probably the most prominent figure in the study of morality, the highest level of moral reasoning is to have your own code of values that are inviolable.  This is the 6th and highest stage of moral development.  For comparison's sake, obedience to authority and law is the fourth stage.  I think sticking to your principles is quite an admirable trait.  You think he's wrong, and I think he was right.  That's the point of the movie.  There really is no clear right or wrong.

This is also consistent with Cap in the comics.  Captain America is incredibly morally rigid in both the MCU and MU.  Captain America is a product of World War II, and a part of him still thinks of the world that way.  He came from an era where his enemies wore an insignia that practically screamed "I'm evil".  In the first Captain America, there are no shades of gray.  Cap is very good and Red Skull is very bad.  The rest of the movies, and the comics, are about how he deals with a world where morality is very flexible.  Iron Man is an embodiment of this.  He is a futurist.  He's all about adapting, changing, and evolving in terms of tech and morality.  This leads to conflicts between them, of which there have been many.  

And... if you wanted a movie about diplomacy and non-violence... I think you walked into the wrong movie.  It's a movie about Captain America.  And like pretty much any comic hero, he punches people... like alot... The movie didn't really make it a secret that super heroes are going to be punching eachother. Cap has never really had a problem with getting physical to defend his values.  He's a super soldier, not a super negotiator. He was, literally, created to solve problems by punching, kicking, and throwing shields.  Again, Cap is from World War 2, where problems were obvious and very punchable.  As I mentioned earlier, he sees things very much in a black and white sense.  That's not to say he is completely opposed to compromise, but he wouldn't compromise Bucky's life (so long as he believes Bucky is innocent) for anything.  

The "yay we all understand eachother" ending you wanted is the kind of thing I'd expect from a saturday moring cartoons.  It's simple and clean.  This is a world where not all problems can easily work out, and that makes being a hero far more challenging and therefore more inspiring to me. There did seem to be the potential for a compromise when Iron Man goes to Siberia, but that's ruined by Bucky killing his parents. And while they didn't have a hug it out everything's ok moment, they did have some degree of reconciliation and understanding.  Iron Man intentionally doesn't answer Ross' phone call to allow Steve to break the Avengers out of the raft, and Cap gives Iron Man the special Cap phone if he needs help (which will probably be in Infinity Wars).  

Again, I think your dislike of the movie seems to have more to do with your dislike of Captain America's ethics and personality than anything wrong with the movie itself.  You went to see a Captain America movie, and you're complaining that you don't agree with Cap's viewpoint.  Some people won't, which is why they have the other viewpoint represented.  Disagreeing with a character, or even a movie's message, does not make it a bad movie.  

The movie may not have been what you wanted, but it was an incredibly accurate depiction of Captain America.  The version of Captain America you have as a perfect paragon hasn't really existed for at least the past 25 years.  You may have wanted something else, but this was a Captain America movie.  It's akin to going to see Deadpool and complaining about the vulgarity and violence.  

And this seems to be a pattern.  You disliked Dark Knight because the cops were acting unethical, and you liked Sam Raimi's Spider-man which was very much inspired by the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby/Ditko era where morality was more straightforward and clean.  A large part of your enjoyment seems to derive from whether or not the characters who should be "good" are acting in accordance with your morality.  And that's fine, but I don't think the majority of people look at it that way, and it hardly makes the movie objectively bad.

How is what I'm suggesting a push?  General Ross clearly tells Tony that they have 36 hours until they hunt Captain America and his team.  Obviously if Tony joins with Cap he'll be a fugitive as well.  It's clear that Wakanda is going to want heads since the king is trying to murder Bucky throughout the whole movie.  I also believe they talked about Bucky being tried in Wakanda, which would be a sure death sentence, even if he was brought in alive.  I don't see what part of it is a stretch.

And if you think what I'm saying is clear for you in the movie, I'm not sure why you didn't address it in your OP, or why you're saying that I'm adding depth where there is none.

"And even though those conclusions of yours can indeed be drawn out from the picture, it simply is not what the movie has shown us."

This seems entirely contradictory.  Either my conclusions are backed up by the movie, or they aren't.  If they are, then the depth is there.  If it's not than it isn't.  How exactly are you determining that this depth is not really there?

We can't examine what was in the writer's heads (although you can check out some Russo Bros. interviews, so arguing about whether the depth was intended or not is kind of a nonsensical argument to have.  It's something that really isn't done in literary criticism.  Instead, you talk about whether or not a particular interpretation is supported by the text (or film in this case).  Either the interpretation is supported by the work, or it is not.  If it is not supported (see the Pixar theory) then the interpretation is not valid.  If it is supported than the interpretation is valid.  That's the best we can do.  We have no way to determine whether the depth was intentional or not, short of being able to mind read the writers and directors.

As for me losing my opportunity to take a compliment, I'll be quite fine without it. 

The writer of the original comics this was based on, Mark Millar, was very much a critic of George Bush's presidency.  Civil War was written as a critique of that. Some of it definitely carried over.  If you think it's bad in the movie, check out the comics.  It's about as subtle as a kick in the nuts.

It all depends on perspective, though. It's also worth noting that Iron Man wasn't "defeated" by Cap when Cap was being the "bad guy", he was defeated when HE was being the bad guy - Iron Man let his desire for vengeance overwhelm his rationality, and it was then that Cap had to "beat" him.

I'd say the ending was suitably balanced. It sends the message that "morality" is never quite so clear-cut.

Iron Man didn't represent the rest of the world, he represented, at various points in the movie, those who would enforce rules strictly without consideration of context, those who would absolve themselves of responsibility by doing others' bidding, and those who would hold people to account for things they couldn't possibly have controlled.

Hence why he ended up going into the "he must be destroyed, he killed my parents" mode at the end. He became more concerned with vengeance than justice. Thus why Cap had to beat him.

But more than that, think about it - if Bucky is Israel, then we're talking about those who were harmed by Israel, seeking vengeance. Note that Bucky, in reaction to "programming", did great violence, too. Israel doesn't oppress the Palestinians because it's evil. It oppresses the Palestinians because of what Germany did to the Jews during WWII - it has put a trigger in their psyche, and those who seek the destruction of superpowers make use of that trigger.

Ultimately, Israel doesn't attack without provocation or trigger. And terrorists provide those triggers, in the hopes that the superpowers, the powerful nations, will destroy each other as they fight over the right way to deal with the situation. (Captain) America always jumps to the defense of Israel, while other nations such as England tend to be more critical, and other nations (Black Panther) are more than happy to actively call for the destruction of Israel, and are quick to jump to the assumption that they're at fault, even when they're not.

The whole thing is quite multi-layered, and I think it does a good job of being a commentary, especially, on the situation with Israel and Palestine, and the global political attitudes towards the topic.

Notice that, in the end, there's no true villain except "vengeance". Even the "bad guy" was just an ordinary guy who was hurt by the actions of the Avengers, and sought vengeance, and when he had gotten it, he realised that it hadn't made anything better, and went to commit suicide. Terrorists aren't inherently evil people, generally. They're people who have suffered greatly, who seek out someone to blame, someone to take vengeance on, and latch onto whatever ideology or group can provide them with that vengeance.

Sorry to detract, but I just want to bring up an example of bias, since apparently it doesn't exist in favor of Disney/Marvel.
IGN currently has twelve (12), that's TWELVE stories on their front page in direct relation to Civil War.
Batman v Superman had about 4 or 5 over 2-3 days and all but one of those was negative as I recall.

Just something to laugh at, everyone's free to go look right now if they wish. I just counted and unless they cycle through their stories, that's where it currently stands.

And this is bias because?  Are they obligated to give equal coverage? 

There is always the possibility of ad money being paid out but there are also other explanations. If IGN is putting up that many articles, couldn't it be because the Marvel movies generate more clicks?  Or that they just like the movie more and had more to say about it?  

As for the negativity of the article... That's not an ign thing.  Whether you agree or not, most critics and people on the internet liked Civil War better.

It could be a conspiracy, or it could be that one was great and the other was not. I mean... Arkham City got WAY more coverage than Spider-man Edge of Time did.  Is that a conspiracy, or was one just better?

You're welcome! :P