Poll of the Day > Captain America: Civil War - Am I the only one who thinks it's backwards?

(+) Yeah! (+)

80 character limit

Topic title would have been: Captain America: Civil War - Am I the only one who thinks they got Captain America and Iron Man's roles backwards?

Bare with me here, I haven't read any of the comics, so I don't know if any of this is elaborated upon in text, but...

Given their personalities and backgrounds, I swear it seems like Captain America should've been the "pro-oversight, pro-regulation, take accountability for our actions" guy. Whereas Stark, the slightly more "rebellious" character, would be the one saying "if I see a situation heading south, I'm going to intervene." And secondly, he's the one building the autonomous army of "peacekeeping" suits and other projects on his own, why does he want oversight to hinder his innovation? Maybe the Ultron fiasco has him thinking that he needs oversight or regulation?

I dunno. I feel like they could just literally switch Rogers' and Stark's roles and the movie would make a bit more sense.
---

Steve Rogers lived in a time where the gov controlled less of population in respect to spying/regulations. Steve was fighting German fascists before he was frozen in an attempt to stop Red Skull. Cap. America is pro-freedom. Stark who grew up in a hi tech world and creates hi tech is used to Gov. oversight and regulations. He also created Ultron who could control machines. How It Should Have Ended IMPLIED that Ultron could have destroyed the world with ease.

Many of Stark's suits were compromised in the past and committed evil acts.
---

I watched every movie except Ant-Man and Doctor Strange. Doctor Strange would make me dizzy and vomit everywhere.
---

Honestly it can go both ways, but it makes sense in the context of the rest of the movies. But I think they could have easily argued for either character being on either side.
---

Thinking about it, it would make sense if they did a World War Hulk in the next movie.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

80 character limit

Topic title would have been: Captain America: Civil War - Am I the only one who thinks they got Captain America and Iron Man's roles backwards?

Bare with me here, I haven't read any of the comics, so I don't know if any of this is elaborated upon in text, but...

Given their personalities and backgrounds, I swear it seems like Captain America should've been the "pro-oversight, pro-regulation, take accountability for our actions" guy. Whereas Stark, the slightly more "rebellious" character, would be the one saying "if I see a situation heading south, I'm going to intervene." And secondly, he's the one building the autonomous army of "peacekeeping" suits and other projects on his own, why does he want oversight to hinder his innovation? Maybe the Ultron fiasco has him thinking that he needs oversight or regulation?

I dunno. I feel like they could just literally switch Rogers' and Stark's roles and the movie would make a bit more sense.

Not sure if it's been said but in the comic version, Rogers basically said he'd seen enough fascism in World War 2 while Stark was pro-Registration because a group of young metas had a reality show catching bad guys and one villain they cornered could literally cause massive explosions, blowing up in a neighbourhood and killing some of the team, as well as several nearby children. Stark felt guilty and went to the funeral, where one of the parents yelled at him (I forget what his exact role in it was).

Anyway, so the government wanted all heroes to register and they started the 50-State Initiative, with every state in the US having its own government-sanctioned Avengers team. Tony didn't want that incident happening again.

I liked how Spider-Man unmasked publicly and worried about Mary Jane and Aunt May being targeted so he joined Tony until Giant Man and others got killed and he switched sides after The Punisher took him to Steve's rebellion HQ.

The film sucked, though.
---

The comic presented a flawed argument.

It seemed like cap was fighting for zero reason coming off Stamford massacre in which a bunch of reality tv super teens ended up through their negligence getting 600+ kids killed in an explosion that blew up a school. The shra in that basically said "if you wanna be a cop you gotta register and be trained". That's about it.

Mua2- pushed the argument the other way. Anyone with powers was basically "forcibly enlisted" by the government regardless of what they want to do.

The movie I think presented it most evenly when you include in the cap perspective the fact that he's coming off two movies dealing with hydra and the one movie which indicates how much hydra has infiltrated the government.

So caps fear in the movies, in addition to protecting his friend, is that any oversignet group could potentially be a hydra run agency. Iron man in the movies hasn't come across the same experience.

I thought l the movies presented the dynamic far better and even handed than any other story I read or game I played involving it.
---

The entire point is that they used to be reversed and switched roles over time, Ironman used to never listen to the government.

Ironman is such a control whore his obsession with always trying to fix everything creates conflicts because he always puts himself and his feelings before others. Because he thinks he knows everything.

It's all Ironmans fault, he's the worst and I don't know why people like him so much.
---

Conner4REAL posted...

The comic presented a flawed argument.

It seemed like cap was fighting for zero reason coming off Stamford massacre in which a bunch of reality tv super teens ended up through their negligence getting 600+ kids killed in an explosion that blew up a school. The shra in that basically said "if you wanna be a cop you gotta register and be trained". That's about it.

Mua2- pushed the argument the other way. Anyone with powers was basically "forcibly enlisted" by the government regardless of what they want to do.

The movie I think presented it most evenly when you include in the cap perspective the fact that he's coming off two movies dealing with hydra and the one movie which indicates how much hydra has infiltrated the government.

So caps fear in the movies, in addition to protecting his friend, is that any oversignet group could potentially be a hydra run agency. Iron man in the movies hasn't come across the same experience.

I thought l the movies presented the dynamic far better and even handed than any other story I read or game I played involving it.

The were forcibly made to register in the comics, to the point where it was almost nazi-esque. They also had to reveal their identities to the public which is beyond dumb, and as soon as someone did it in one part their family and friends were targeted.
---

EvilMegas posted...

They also had to reveal their identities to the public which is beyond dumb, and as soon as someone did it in one part their family and friends were targeted.

Was House of M before or after the civil war? I recall some mutants were killed by thugs after losing their powers but can't recall if it was because their identify was revealed too.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

Given their personalities and backgrounds, I swear it seems like Captain America should've been the "pro-oversight, pro-regulation, take accountability for our actions" guy. Whereas Stark, the slightly more "rebellious" character, would be the one saying "if I see a situation heading south, I'm going to intervene." And secondly, he's the one building the autonomous army of "peacekeeping" suits and other projects on his own, why does he want oversight to hinder his innovation? Maybe the Ultron fiasco has him thinking that he needs oversight or regulation?

The thing to keep in mind is, both in the comics and in the movies, Tony is a HUGE control freak. His rebelliousness isn't knee-jerk rebelliousness, it's an unwillingness to do what other people tell him because he's convinced that HE is the one with all the right answers. He has absolutely no problem telling OTHER people what to do.

Back in the 80s there was a storyline where he discovered that someone had broken into his computers, and gained access to his technology. The implication being that at least SOME armored villains in the Marvel universe were using technology directly derived from his own work, and thus, by proxy, he was responsible every time one of those villains hurt or killed someone. His solution to this problem was to hunt down EVERY SINGLE TECH-BASED CHARACTER (both villains AND heroes) he even SUSPECTED of using his technology (some of whom actually weren't), and then forcibly destroyed their technology so they couldn't use it anymore (actively attacking the US government in the process to destroy armor he actually GAVE them for peace-keeping reasons). It was actually the first time where he actively beat the shit out of Captain America because he believed he was right, and that him being right trumps all other considerations. Including the opinions of long time friends.

THAT is Tony Stark.

And that Tony Stark actually fits perfectly with the pro-registration stance.

In the comics, Tony's Civil War logic was basically "People are afraid, this legislation IS going to be passed, and if we support it now, we can shape and control the form it takes, and be in a position to make sure it isn't abused in the future." That actually pays off in the sense that, because of his strong support for the law, he's actually put in charge of SHIELD and handles registration himself. The problem is, he DOES this by putting anyone who refuses to register in super-extra-dimensional-space-prison, and making evil clones of Thor and hiring super-villains to hunt down heroes who refuse to register. Every aspect of his behavior relates directly to his own control-freak nature.

Captain America's logic, by contrast, was basically "This law shouldn't exist in the first place, because it treats people like criminals in-advance solely because OTHER people did something wrong, and because . So as heroes, we should stand up and reject this law and do everything in our power to oppose it, not simply compromise and accept it." In a sense, Cap's stance can be summed up by the logic of "Supporting the lesser evil over the greater evil is still supporting evil." Which fits his personality to a T, as there have been multiple moments in the comics where it's established that Cap supports the IDEA of the American Dream and freedom far more than he does the legal system of the US (so much so that on multiple occasions he gave UP being Captain America because he refused to support a country that was actively rejecting its own ideals).

(cont)


---

If you remember the speech in the movie where Sharon describes Peggy talking about people pushing you to betray your ideals, and responding with "No, you move", that was lifted almost verbatim from a speech Cap gives in the comics.

http://www.ldssmile.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/3779149-no+you+move+cap+says.jpg

Basically, Cap believes registration is wrong because people should be judged by their actions, not by their potential actions, or even the fact that their powers are theoretically dangerous in-and-of themselves. The SRA shits on both equality and freedom, and thus, is an evil that must be opposed.



Muffinz0rz posted...

Maybe the Ultron fiasco has him thinking that he needs oversight or regulation?

Tony actually says in the movie that "We have to be held accountable", referring to the consequences of their own actions. That's sort of the point.

The real problem is that nearly every fuck-up is explicitly HIS fault, and his fault alone - and the real flaw in the movie is that no one ever says "Tony, YOU'RE the one who's constantly fucking up. Maybe you should get your own shit in order before you start trying to force your views on everyone else."

The other flaw is that no one ever really points out that, when someone like General Ross is like "Man, you guys wrecked New York!", the explicit counterpoint is "Yes, but if we hadn't been there YOU were going to NUKE New York, so the net positive value is on our side of the equation".



Conner4REAL posted...

It seemed like cap was fighting for zero reason coming off Stamford massacre in which a bunch of reality tv super teens ended up through their negligence getting 600+ kids killed in an explosion that blew up a school. The shra in that basically said "if you wanna be a cop you gotta register and be trained". That's about it.

The problem in that scenario is that there were a hell of a lot of mitigating factors involved, which absolutely no one wanted to pay attention to, because everyone was knee-jerk reacting to the situation emotionally (see also, every time there's a school shooting or terrorist attack in the real world).

And in the Marvel universe, when mob rule panic reacts to pretty much ANY situation, it NEVER, EVER works out for the best. The citizens of the Marvel universe are incredibly petty, short-sighted, ignorant, and always willing to immediately resort to concentration camps and genocide to solve pretty much any problem.


---

Conner4REAL posted...

The movie I think presented it most evenly when you include in the cap perspective the fact that he's coming off two movies dealing with hydra and the one movie which indicates how much hydra has infiltrated the government.

So caps fear in the movies, in addition to protecting his friend, is that any oversignet group could potentially be a hydra run agency. Iron man in the movies hasn't come across the same experience.

Comics Cap was even worse in that respect, as he'd been through dozens of storylines where it turned out that "official" authority couldn't be trusted, including at least one storyline where Richard Nixon was literally a secret terrorist and one where Ronald Reagan was turned into a mind-controlled lizardperson.

Oh, and then there's the storyline where it turned out that the Commission in charge of the rights to the Captain America codename/identity was actually being run by agents of the Red Skull, who was himself in a clone body that was identical to Steve Rogers/Cap (complete with super-soldier strength).

Then add in the fact that SHIELD itself had at least three storylines where it was taken over from the inside-out by evil groups (including by life-like robots they themselves invented, which is the core of the LMD storyline playing out in Agents of SHIELD right now on TV), and the fact that at least 70% of all government or UN officials in the Marvel universe tend to have sinister motives, and it's not hard to see why Steve's attitude is usually "I don't trust authority with unilateral power".

Cap is basically a small-government libertarian who believes that most people are good-at-heart, and will do the right thing if given the chance, and that larger governments or organizations will tend to become self-serving and immoral, especially when not held to any sort of accountability.

Which ties into the concept of, even if you can trust the people NOW with that sort of power - because they clearly have the best of intentions and will go out of their way to keep from abusing it - how can you guarantee that their successors, or their successors' successors, will be as trustworthy? And considering that the VERY NEXT STORYLINE in the comics was the one where Norman Osborn manages to take over as head of SHIELD and use the SRA and everything that stemmed from it to his own evil advantage, Cap was pretty blatantly right.

Though realistically, from Steve's point-of-view, TONY probably was "the wrong hands" as well, considering the aforementioned Armor Wars story, or the time when Tony was willing to genocide an alien race to protect Earth, or the dozen or so other moral quandaries where the two of them wound up on opposite sides - where Tony was almost ALWAYS on the wrong side of the argument.

In a lot of ways, Tony IS kind of a fascist (ie, everything Steve has ever fought against). He's just one that supports a meritocracy of technology, which just happens to have him somewhere near the top. He's also a bit of a selfish dickbag who is willing to step on other people to get his way, and he tends to project that same assumption on everyone around him. If Steve is the idealist, Tony is the blatant cynic who expects the worst from people, and believes they need structure and order to keep them under control.

And that's without even getting into Tony's membership in the Illuminati, or the sorts of things THEY got up to without bothering to tell anyone, "for their own good"...


---

EvilMegas posted...

The were forcibly made to register in the comics, to the point where it was almost nazi-esque. They also had to reveal their identities to the public which is beyond dumb, and as soon as someone did it in one part their family and friends were targeted.

It's telling that Spider-Man basically had to make a literal deal with the devil in order to erase people's memories of his identity.



InfestedAdam posted...

Was House of M before or after the civil war? I recall some mutants were killed by thugs after losing their powers but can't recall if it was because their identify was revealed too.

House of M was the year before Civil War, but the two were relatively unconnected. Especially since the mutants were mostly dealing with the Decimation at the time (while the various cosmic heroes were far more concerned with the Annihilation Wave - which led to the later, hilarious scene of Tony kind of shitting on Nova a bit for not taking sides in the Civil War, and Nova basically telling Tony to fuck off).

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/52246/1486783-nova_vs_ironman_02.jpg

But yeah, if I live in a universe where it seems like people are trying to register mutants every other week, and half the future realities seem to involve those mutants getting rounded up, herded into camps, and violently murdered, I'm probably going to tell you to go fuck yourself when you tell me to register too.

(Especially when the most famous of those dark futures is one where the first thing the Sentinels do when set loose is to take over the US government "for its own good", then kill off EVERY hero - mutant or otherwise - because the most effective way to "eliminate the mutant threat" is to kill anyone who might try and stop you from killing all the mutants.)

And honestly, in a universe where Mystique secretly works for the Department of Defense, the Red Skull spent years influencing Senate connections, and the Pentagon was running a secret program to build murderbots to kill every mutant in the country, the government might be the LAST group of people who should have access to ANY superhero's secret identity info.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Cap is basically a small-government libertarian who believes that most people are good-at-heart, and will do the right thing if given the chance, and that larger governments or organizations will tend to become self-serving and immoral, especially when not held to any sort of accountability.

Which ties into the concept of, even if you can trust the people NOW with that sort of power - because they clearly have the best of intentions and will go out of their way to keep from abusing it - how can you guarantee that their successors, or their successors' successors, will be as trustworthy? And considering that the VERY NEXT STORYLINE in the comics was the one where Norman Osborn manages to take over as head of SHIELD and use the SRA and everything that stemmed from it to his own evil advantage, Cap was pretty blatantly right.

Yes, they managed to drive home that idea very well in remarkably short order. Granted, if the costumed vigilante angle wasn't vindicated, the Marvel Universe would likely be far more boring since all of your heroes would largely be collaborating.
---

RFC22 posted...

I watched every movie except Ant-Man and Doctor Strange. Doctor Strange would make me dizzy and vomit everywhere.

wat
---

Zeus posted...

Granted, if the costumed vigilante angle wasn't vindicated, the Marvel Universe would likely be far more boring since all of your heroes would largely be collaborating.

The real problem no one ever really picks up on is that, by definition, vigilante laws in both the Marvel and DC universe have to be radically different from the real world, because in our reality, anyone who went around beating up criminals while disguised and hiding their identity would pretty much invalidate every possible court case against those criminals.

Ironically, in that sense, the most realistic superhero might be The Punisher.

That was kind of one of the issues I had with when DC had Bruce Wayne come out and admit to "funding" Batman. In the real world, 30 seconds after he admitted to that during his press conference to establish "Batman, Inc.", a tidal wave of liability lawsuits would have sued Bruce Wayne directly into poverty, if not into prison.


---

The comic is very different from the movie. I recommend checking out the trade paperback.
---