Captain America: Civil War

[Vee]

Spoiler for Hidden:

i think they did a good job with Wanda especially given how her powers are all over the place in the source material. They found a good spot between the underpowered early Wanda and the insanely overpowered later Wanda, where she's still learning but has good enough control that she could basically bail out the entire team at one point or other in the big fight.

Was funny that vision flew through Scott but didn't partially solidify to knock him out, which would have been comics' vision's go to move. Of course that would have ended the fight too quickly and wouldn't have let them get in the 'really old movie' line.

[Arcana]

So I've been watching/reading reviews of Civil War, and after over a hundred reviews I've noticed something that I find to be an amazing accomplishment for the movie you can't fully appreciate unless you actually read/watch dozens and dozens of reviews (incidentally, I don't recommend this for people that do not have a "dispassionate" switch when it comes to the internet).

Some people really love this movie.  Some people hate this movie.  That's cool.  But there's a very specific and not small subset of reviewers that are very critical of the movie in a very particular way.  And of these people, some like it and some don't like it but they do mostly agree on three things.

1.  Its a Disney/Marvel superhero movies, and superhero movies are basically for children and people who want mindless popcorn entertainment.

2.  The plot is completely throwaway and only there as an excuse for the action.  More than one reviewer compared the plot to Civil War to the plot to professional wrestling storylines.  You're not supposed to think about it too much, or at all.

3.  Because of (1) and (2) above, one side has to be cartoonishly stupid and wrong, so that the obviously right side has something to do.

Here's the thing I'm "enjoying" about all of this, and I have to put "enjoy" in quotes here because I'm more intellectually amused than anything else, but I am impressed with the movie in a meta way.  The amazing accomplishment of Civil War is that about 50% of this type of reviewer thinks the cartoonishly wrong side is Iron Man, and the other 50% thinks it is Captain America.

Think about that.  The Russos have crafted a movie in which, for most of the people who see superhero movies as cartoonish and simplistic, these people think it should take no thought at all to know who is right and who is wrong, but they can't agree which side that is.  There isn't even a majority consensus.  The split seems to be almost dead down the middle.

An intelligent person should come to the conclusion that looking at this movie as a simplistic moral cartoon is the wrong way to look at it if that perspective doesn't consistently arrive at the same conclusion.  A suspicious person might even think the writers and directors intended to create this intellectual trap as a very subtle meta statement about reviewers that approach their work with this perspective.  I'd like to think that somewhere in the back of their minds they thought this might happen, and smiled.  If so, bravo.

[hurple]

An intelligent person should come to the conclusion that looking at this movie as a simplistic moral cartoon is the wrong way to look at it if that perspective doesn't consistently arrive at the same conclusion.  A suspicious person might even think the writers and directors intended to create this intellectual trap as a very subtle meta statement about reviewers that approach their work with this perspective.  I'd like to think that somewhere in the back of their minds they thought this might happen, and smiled.  If so, bravo.

I think this dichotomy was built into the movie on purpose, but not as a statement about critics, but another group.

And, it's also a great accomplishment that about 15  (totally made up number)  different groups can be substituted for "critics".

[Arcana]

Another comment, this one about how tight the writing was for Civil War.  No movie is perfect, and there are always going to be little flaws here and there.  But this film seems to have less glaring ones regarding plot.  I was watching this recently: 4 Huge Plot Holes in Captain America: Civil War  Here are those four "huge" plot holes, scrubbed of spoilers:

1.  Why wasn't the Vision at the first fight in Lagos.  Err, why is this a plot hole?  Is the presumption that the Vision should be at every Avengers mission possible?  The complaint is that if the Vision was there the fight could have been resolved more easily.  But to call this a major plot hole seems to be a stretch.  This often comes up when someone complains about a plot hole.  They call something a plot hole if the story doesn't have a reason to go the way they think it should.  But that's not a plot hole.  It is a plot hole only if the story moves in a nonsensical way with no reasonable explanation.  "The Vision doesn't go on every Avengers mission" is not a nonsensical story point.

2.  Ross tries to guilt trip the Avengers but fails to mention things like the WSC attempting to nuke New York and Rogers fails to mention this either.  A lot of people keep pointing this out, but first it is not a plot hole if people act differently than you, it is only a plot hole if they act out of character for incomprehensible reasons.  Ross is trying to make the case that people are afraid of the Avengers.  He actually stated that explicitly.  Rogers saying "well, you guys do bad things also" is irrelevant to that point, and Rogers doesn't mention it precisely because it is irrelevant and Rogers didn't grow up arguing on the internet.  It is not a plot hole if people discuss things differently than you.

3.  Zemo's plan requires the Sokovia Accords.  No it doesn't.  Sorry, the video makers are just wrong.  Their claim that we have to assume Zemo "thought on his feet" to adapt to the Sokovia Accords is equally wrong.  Absolutely no part of Zemo's plan requires the Sokovia Accords to be enacted.  In an alternate world where the Accords are never enacted, Zemo's plan works equally well.  I don't know why they even mention it.  Unless they had a four bullet list quota.

4.  What would Zemo have done if Tony didn't act the way he did at the end of the movie?  Uh, nothing.  His plan didn't require Tony to do anything.  It would have been less interesting for us as movie goers if Tony didn't go where he went, but Zemo isn't trying to look good for a movie he doesn't know he's in.  Once Zemo found what he was looking for, as far as he was concerned he won.  The rest was inevitable.  Unless Captain America, say, murdered him and buried him and everything he had in the snow.  As long as Zemo assumes that's not going to happen, he wins.

These guys make a living pointing out plot holes, and this is the best they got.  That tells me the writers did their jobs pretty well.

4. 

[hurple]

2.  Ross tries to guilt trip the Avengers but fails to mention things like the WSC attempting to nuke New York and Rogers fails to mention this either.  A lot of people keep pointing this out, but first it is not a plot hole if people act differently than you, it is only a plot hole if they act out of character for incomprehensible reasons.  Ross is trying to make the case that people are afraid of the Avengers.  He actually stated that explicitly.  Rogers saying "well, you guys do bad things also" is irrelevant to that point, and Rogers doesn't mention it precisely because it is irrelevant and Rogers didn't grow up arguing on the internet.  It is not a plot hole if people discuss things differently than you.

You're right. This is not a plot hole in this instance, however, it is quite a glaring omission later, when Captain America is explaining why The Avengers being "conntrolled" by a world council would be a bad thing.  If they're willing to nuke NY, then they are way more than willing to use the Avengers as weapons to further their political agenda rather than to help people. 

Again, not a "plot hole" but a HUGE miss on the Captain America side of the debate not to use this to further his argument.

But, like I have said, they write Mr Rogers (heh) as a great battle strategist, not a great thinker or debater.   

[Ulysses Dare]

it is quite a glaring omission later, when Captain America is explaining why The Avengers being "conntrolled" by a world council would be a bad thing.  If they're willing to nuke NY, then they are way more than willing to use the Avengers as weapons to further their political agenda rather than to help people. 

Again, not a "plot hole" but a HUGE miss on the Captain America side of the debate not to use this to further his argument.

As I recall, the movie made quite a big point out of the fact the Avengers would be working for the UN, not SHIELD or the WSC. So, once again, the misdeeds of the WSC aren't relevant.

[Tenzhi]

With the UN in charge, they would never be able to agree to mobilize the Avengers.  And in the rare instances they did, it'd probably be too late.

[hurple]

As I recall, the movie made quite a big point out of the fact the Avengers would be working for the UN, not SHIELD or the WSC. So, once again, the misdeeds of the WSC aren't relevant.

They are relevant as an example of a governing body taking the wrong steps.  Such as, "Yes, we were answerable to a governing body previously, and they wanted to nuke New York City.  Luckily, we were there to stop them."

See?

[Arcana]

They are relevant as an example of a governing body taking the wrong steps.  Such as, "Yes, we were answerable to a governing body previously, and they wanted to nuke New York City.  Luckily, we were there to stop them."

See?

They are relevant to the notion that oversight can generate just as bad results, but that is not a counter to Ross' argument which was not that oversight is better than no oversight, it was that people were afraid of the Avengers and felt the need for oversight over their actions.  Telling the world that everyone else was just as bad or worse wouldn't make them fear the Avengers any less, it would just make them fear everything else more.  Undermining people's belief that the UN could oversee the Avengers would just create Tony's worst case scenario of the governments of the world doing something worse.  That something worse would probably be to have each and every single country in the world decide not to trust any other and demand that every time the Avengers wanted to act in any country they would have to negotiate with the politicians in that country separately.  You'd just have to deal with 200 different untrustworthy political groups rather than one.

In other words, Ross' response to "Yes, we were answerable to a governing body previously, and they wanted to nuke New York City.  Luckily, we were there to stop them" could be to say "So?  You want to tell the world that?  And then what?  The world wants you on a leash.  If you tell the world that they can't trust central oversight, then what?  They just all change their minds?  No.  They each demand their own individual governments deal with it on their own, without cooperating with any other.  You can't escape politicians by avoiding the Accords.  You'll just trade one group for two hundred groups of them.  Oh, and you're all still US citizens, so whether you sign or not you'd still be subject to the laws of the United States of America.  So if the Accords collapse, the US government will probably take unilateral action to control you, and that won't require you to sign anything."

Its a valid point to bring up, but it leads to a losing position overall.

[CG]

In other words, Ross' response to "Yes, we were answerable to a governing body previously, and they wanted to nuke New York City.  Luckily, we were there to stop them" could be to say "So?  You want to tell the world that?  And then what?  The world wants you on a leash.  If you tell the world that they can't trust central oversight, then what?  They just all change their minds?  No.  They each demand their own individual governments deal with it on their own, without cooperating with any other.  You can't escape politicians by avoiding the Accords.  You'll just trade one group for two hundred groups of them.  Oh, and you're all still US citizens, so whether you sign or not you'd still be subject to the laws of the United States of America.  So if the Accords collapse, the US government will probably take unilateral action to control you, and that won't require you to sign anything."

Its a valid point to bring up, but it leads to a losing position overall.

They never had any right to be an independent world police force.  I'm not sure if they negotiated their way into Nigeria or just landed with a mission in mind.  While the 200 participants are fighting with each other, the accords collapse and the Avengers are back to being an independent body.  No accords means back to business as usual for the Avengers.

Also - they're not all American citizens.  Scarlet Witch is likely Sokovian. Vision might not even be legally a person. Black Widow might be Russian, but I'm sure she has lots of passports.  Beyond which, there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge about being unilaterally controlled by the US government.  The draft works because it's applied evenly to a class of people without being specific.  Drafting an individual wouldn't fly, I think.  Not to mention these people aren't without the means to fight back.

[hurple]

Right.  The overall point it, neither side was right and neither side was wrong.  There are cognizant arguments either way.  It's just with all the points raised by Ross, and all the videos shown the complete lack of any mention of the attempted nuking of New York by the "we don't want oversight" side was an elephant in the room. 

Just sayin'

[Arcana]

They never had any right to be an independent world police force.  I'm not sure if they negotiated their way into Nigeria or just landed with a mission in mind.  While the 200 participants are fighting with each other, the accords collapse and the Avengers are back to being an independent body.  No accords means back to business as usual for the Avengers.

Not quite.  No Accords means the Avengers become officially criminals when they act without the permission of the government of the nation they try to operate within, whereas before they were operating within a grey area where everyone looked the other way.

And as previously mentioned, getting permission is not a trivial affair.  I know how complex this would be if it was an outside agency attempting to work within the US under US law, it can't be all that much better when it is the reverse.  For reference, look up the regulatory environment that Interpol works under.

Also - they're not all American citizens.  Scarlet Witch is likely Sokovian. Vision might not even be legally a person. Black Widow might be Russian, but I'm sure she has lots of passports.  Beyond which, there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge about being unilaterally controlled by the US government.  The draft works because it's applied evenly to a class of people without being specific.  Drafting an individual wouldn't fly, I think.  Not to mention these people aren't without the means to fight back.

I stand corrected.  The Avengers aren't all US citizens.  Thor, obviously, is not.  Wanda is not.  However, that doesn't make things better, it makes them worse.  They are all still subject to US law, but on top of that the US government can demand that the non-citizen members of the Avengers comply with its requests or be expelled.  Non-citizens have no constitutional right to remain in the country and they can be asked to leave for any reason or no reason.

I'm not sure what US constitutional challenge the Avengers would have to being compelled to work for the US government.  They can refuse, but they can then be prosecuted whenever they act in a manner that would be illegal if not sanctioned by the government.  The police can legally do things a vigilante cannot specifically because they are the police and have the legal authorization to do those things.  For example, if the events in Lagos had happened on US soil the Avengers could have been prosecuted for, among other things, reckless endangerment of the public.  Had they not pursued the thiefs, no one would have died.  The argument that stopping them from getting away with what they stole was important enough to risk public safety is not a decision they have the legal right to make.  US citizens are not empowered to take law enforcement actions which kill bystanders because they think it is important enough.

[CG]

Not quite.  No Accords means the Avengers become officially criminals when they act without the permission of the government of the nation they try to operate within, whereas before they were operating within a grey area where everyone looked the other way.

There's nothing grey about going into a country uninvited and starting a police action.  At best the countries turned a blind eye to it, but they were always blatantly illegal unless invited.  Maybe they did good, and the public was on their side so they weren't charged, but it's not like getting satellite TV from across the border. More likely, it's just a super-hero genre convention.

And as previously mentioned, getting permission is not a trivial affair.  I know how complex this would be if it was an outside agency attempting to work within the US under US law, it can't be all that much better when it is the reverse.  For reference, look up the regulatory environment that Interpol works under.

Absolutely.  I was always curious about how they went about hunting down Hydra.  Surely there were corrupt officials in the countries who would inform Hydra that the Avengers were incoming, if they too the time to negotiate their way in?  I think this is a case of comic book logic where vigilantes are tolerated in a way not acceptable in the real world.  The Sokovia Accords was a bit of a genre shift in that regard since it pointed out that this would never be acceptable.

I stand corrected.  The Avengers aren't all US citizens.  Thor, obviously, is not.  Wanda is not.  However, that doesn't make things better, it makes them worse.  They are all still subject to US law, but on top of that the US government can demand that the non-citizen members of the Avengers comply with its requests or be expelled.  Non-citizens have no constitutional right to remain in the country and they can be asked to leave for any reason or no reason.

I'm not sure what US constitutional challenge the Avengers would have to being compelled to work for the US government.  They can refuse, but they can then be prosecuted whenever they act in a manner that would be illegal if not sanctioned by the government. 

The US can demand they stop vigilante activities, for sure.  I thought you were saying that the US Government could compel the individuals to act as the Government dictated.  That's where their constitutional challenge would happen.  It's one thing to tell people not to be vigilantes, it's another to say that they're being conscripted or sent to the Negative Zone/The Raft if they don't do as their told.

Personally, I would love to see a Marvel courtroom drama where they debate whether Vision is a person or equipment (a la ST:TNG's The Measure of a Man).  Marvel keeps saying that Super-heroes isn't a genre, it's a type of character that can be put into any genre.  Daredevil is already a courtroom drama and Jessica Jones is pretty much a straight drama (as I understand).  How about the Marvel movie version of "12 Angry Men"? When do we get the first Rom-Com?

[Arcana]

There's nothing grey about going into a country uninvited and starting a police action.  At best the countries turned a blind eye to it, but they were always blatantly illegal unless invited.

The grey area I was thinking of was the fact that in the Marvel Cinematic Universe it seems there has always (or at least for a long time) been a loose agreement to let organizations like the SSR and SHIELD operate with tacit permission by the various governments but covertly, which means there might not be anything written on paper or anything.  When a foreign government grants permission for SHIELD to operate within their borders, but they do so in a way that might not be perfectly legal within their own domestic laws, its not trivial to state whether they are operating "illegally."  Their governments might have been acting illegally relative to their own domestic laws and could be tried in their own domestic courts, but its unclear if the Avengers were specifically violating international law prior to the Sokovia Accord agreements.  Technically yes in a lot of nit-picky ways: they probably violated customs laws and ingress/egress laws, for example.  But if there was a previous if covert agreement to allow them to act under exigent circumstances, I think it is likely they wouldn't be convicted in international court for those acts.

Whatever agreements that allowed the World Security Council to operate in general, the Sokovia Accords almost certainly swept them away if there was any doubt about it.

Personally, I would love to see a Marvel courtroom drama where they debate whether Vision is a person or equipment (a la ST:TNG's The Measure of a Man).  Marvel keeps saying that Super-heroes isn't a genre, it's a type of character that can be put into any genre.  Daredevil is already a courtroom drama and Jessica Jones is pretty much a straight drama (as I understand).  How about the Marvel movie version of "12 Angry Men"? When do we get the first Rom-Com?

Way ahead of you.

As an aside, the government can't simply declare VISION to be a non-person legally to compel him to work for the government.  As a non-person, VISION couldn't assert Constitutional rights to prevent that, but as a non-person the government couldn't legally compel him to work for them as well.  The courts can't order a machine to do anything.  They could legally use force on him to get him to cooperate, or at least try, but if they fail they've just been unsuccessful in fixing a malfunctioning machine.  There would be no legal recourse for them.  Continuing to treat him as a person is their best move, because as long as VISION believes he should act consistent with being a person they could still convince him to act within the boundaries of the law.  As a machine, VISION would have no legal responsibility to do so.

[Arcana]

Personally, I would love to see a Marvel courtroom drama where they debate whether Vision is a person or equipment (a la ST:TNG's The Measure of a Man).

I did some homework here, and interestingly it seems 21st century Earth law might be vastly ahead of STTNG law.  In a case involving whether higher order animals (like chimpanzees) have legal rights Black's Law Dictionary was cited to address the question of what is "a person."

"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties... Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition."

Corporations, for example, can be an "artificial person" (the legal term) because they can be and generally are treated as a legal entity that possesses rights and bears responsibilities.  The question of whether some entity is a person for legal purposes comes down primarily to whether it is deemed appropriate to grant them legal rights and simultaneously weigh them with the commensurate responsibilities of those rights.  Under 21st century law, it seems likely to me that Data would have been declared a legal person, and also likely that VISION would be, specifically because there would be overwhelming evidence in Data's case that he was being naturally treated like an entity that bore the same responsibilities as other legal persons and was generally granted the same legal rights in most cases.  A similar case could be made for VISION although is history (so far in the movies) is much shorter.

That's not to say that all courts would rule in that way, only that the strong legal case could be made.  Certainly, the dismissive attitude Phillipa has in "Measure of a Man" would probably be inappropriate in a 21st century court.