Who did you side with Captain America: Civil War

  • Team Cap

    Votes: 1,156 71.8%
  • Team Iron Man

    Votes: 453 28.2%

  • Total voters
    1,609

eyeball_kid

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,390
I don't really like the way Tony was portrayed in the movie, given what an iconoclast he was in the Iron Man films. He went from being skeptical of government intervention to collaborating with them, and it seemed like that transition all happened off-screen.

I do think Tony was trying to avoid superheroes (and mutants, though MCU couldn't say that at that point) being hunted down by the government. Just because he was being played like a fiddle doesn't mean his ideological place was wrong. Cap is a pure ideologue, trying to fight for a society that doesn't exist, while Tony was trying to do the best he could with the society that does exist. I can respect both points of view, and that's what made the movie so potent.
 

ginger ninja

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,060
Any sensible, legal, and international law precedent would side with Iron man's argument(not him per say, but his side). All we get from Cap is typical American arrogance.
 

SasaBassa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,241
Real world, iron man. MCU, where hydra literally just infiltrated the equivalent of the super CIA? Team Cap. Not even a contest.

That said, not gonna blame Tony for wanting to drop Bucky on sight after finding out he killed his mom. When you gotta go, you gotta go.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,942
This is a good point. The governments of the world need to tread lightly with these people because really, they're lucky the likes of Thor, Dr Strange, Wanda, and later Reed Richards don't decide that they should be the ones running the whole show.
That's why we have The Boys. But honestly a non over the top series about actual strong individuals who police world level threats would be interesting
 

Roxas

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
3,810
Buenos Aires, Argentina
You people are nuts voting for team cap, if this were real life, and there was a guy who can literally summon fucking THUNDER, or a Hulk who's trashed Johannesburg, or Wanda, or just about anyone, you're telling me you'd be ok with just letting them be with no oversight from any government whatsoever? What's to stop any of those guys from saying "Welp, fuck it" and just murdering an entire city? If anything, Wandavision proves Tony's point, they're dangerous and they need to be put in check

EDIT: Think how the world is nervous and in a permanent unease because countries have atomic bombs, what would we do if there was a group of, basically, atomic bombs that can do whatever they please wherever they please? People would go nuts
 

ash32121

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,719
You people are nuts voting for team cap, if this were real life, and there was a guy who can literally summon fucking THUNDER, or a Hulk who's trashed Johannesburg, or Wanda, or just about anyone, you're telling me you'd be ok with just letting them be with no oversight from any government whatsoever? What's to stop any of those guys from saying "Welp, fuck it" and just murdering an entire city? If anything, Wandavision proves Tony's point, they're dangerous and they need to be put in check
Tell me, in-universe, how can you stop them. Because a fucking committee ain't gonna do shit.

How do you put a check on Dr.Strange, Wanda, Thor

In theory yes the avengers shouldn't be running around like Gi Joe doing whatever they want. But in the MCU the government is secretly run by nazis so yea it's not that simple
Ironic, consider GI Joe works for US goverment.
 

Barbarossa

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,281
You people are nuts voting for team cap, if this were real life, and there was a guy who can literally summon fucking THUNDER, or a Hulk who's trashed Johannesburg, or Wanda, or just about anyone, you're telling me you'd be ok with just letting them be with no oversight from any government whatsoever? What's to stop any of those guys from saying "Welp, fuck it" and just murdering an entire city? If anything, Wandavision proves Tony's point, they're dangerous and they need to be put in check
If I'm Thor or the Hulk you can sanction my ass. Lol. You think I'm going to show up? WandaVision showed me it is very much a "go fuck yourself if you don't like it" situation. Wanda just walked off with a "sanction me in the mail" swagger.
 

Roxas

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
3,810
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Tell me, in-universe, how can you stop them. Because a fucking committee ain't gonna do shit.

How do you put a check on Dr.Strange, Wanda, Thor


Ironic, consider GI Joe works for US goverment.

If I'm Thor or the Hulk you can sanction my ass. Lol. You think I'm going to show up? WandaVision showed me it is very much a "go fuck yourself if you don't like it" situation. Wanda just walked off with a "sanction me in the mail" swagger.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying how I'd solve it, to be honest I don't know, and in the comics the solutions are often... Complicated, but the idea of having a UN board oversee the Avengers is not a bad one, not to mention the OP's question is who do I think is right, the guy who says "Yep, the avengers are dangerous, we need oversight", or the guy that says "Nope, fuck it, NO GOVERNMENT ON EARTH SHALL QUELL MY THIRST FOR JUSTICE", I get Cap, really, yeah, Hydra was Shield, but we're talking about literally the UN, that's 193 COUNTRIES. Also Wanda in Civil war did cause a ton of accidental deaths, I get she didn't want to kill anyone but collateral damage is still bad, and she should probably stand trial for that
 

vhoanox

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,156
Vietnam
You people are nuts voting for team cap, if this were real life, and there was a guy who can literally summon fucking THUNDER, or a Hulk who's trashed Johannesburg, or Wanda, or just about anyone, you're telling me you'd be ok with just letting them be with no oversight from any government whatsoever? What's to stop any of those guys from saying "Welp, fuck it" and just murdering an entire city? If anything, Wandavision proves Tony's point, they're dangerous and they need to be put in check

EDIT: Think how the world is nervous and in a permanent unease because countries have atomic bombs, what would we do if there was a group of, basically, atomic bombs that can do whatever they please wherever they please? People would go nuts

I'm sorry who gonna rein them in.
Tony has habit of escalating the situations and let things blow up on his face.
 

est1992

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,263
You people are nuts voting for team cap, if this were real life, and there was a guy who can literally summon fucking THUNDER, or a Hulk who's trashed Johannesburg, or Wanda, or just about anyone, you're telling me you'd be ok with just letting them be with no oversight from any government whatsoever? What's to stop any of those guys from saying "Welp, fuck it" and just murdering an entire city? If anything, Wandavision proves Tony's point, they're dangerous and they need to be put in check

EDIT: Think how the world is nervous and in a permanent unease because countries have atomic bombs, what would we do if there was a group of, basically, atomic bombs that can do whatever they please wherever they please? People would go nuts
Yeah because letting the GOP get a hold of them would be amazing.
 

Eros

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,776
I feel like both had understandable view points.

But Tony's team had Black Panther and Spiderman
 

Roxas

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
3,810
Buenos Aires, Argentina
I'm sorry who gonna rein them in.
Tony has habit of escalating the situations and let things blow up on his face.

MCU Tony I'm not sure, but comic book Tony is essentially batman, he's got suits to beat up anyone, and he's survived even dying, so he's more than up for it. Also the question was "Who do you side with", and I side with Tony.

Yeah because letting the GOP get a hold of them would be amazing.

The accords were designed for the UN to oversee them, not the US.

I mean, really, I get the "Who's going to rein them in" argument, but you're telling me that you'd be OK living in a world where those people can do whatever they want unchecked? Like wanda just casually accidentally murders people and we're like "oh, well, she doesn't want to sign, what can you do?" I'd freak the fuck out, if it was real life I'd want oversight
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
This has the same basic issue as the X-men allegory in which the sides are clearly trying to make a case for individual rights vs collective safety but in real civil rights conflicts, one side can't blow up cities with their minds, and usually its the freedom side that's outgunned by the law and order side.
 

ash32121

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,719
MCU Tony I'm not sure, but comic book Tony is essentially batman, he's got suits to beat up anyone, and he's survived even dying, so he's more than up for it. Also the question was "Who do you side with", and I side with Tony.



The accords were designed for the UN to oversee them, not the US.

I mean, really, I get the "Who's going to rein them in" argument, but you're telling me that you'd be OK living in a world where those people can do whatever they want unchecked? Like wanda just casually accidentally murders people and we're like "oh, well, she doesn't want to sign, what can you do?" I'd freak the fuck out, if it was real life I'd want oversight
Nah, Tony ain't shit in Comic either, the running gag in comic is that every time Tony design a **-Buster, it never even have a fighting chance against who he design it to fight against.

In the comic, the Hero Registering Act also endangers Mutant btw.
 

W-00

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,485
MCU Tony I'm not sure, but comic book Tony is essentially batman, he's got suits to beat up anyone, and he's survived even dying, so he's more than up for it. Also the question was "Who do you side with", and I side with Tony.
If Tony is to rein in the others, then who will rein in Tony when he decides to create another Ultron-scale catastrophe?
I mean, really, I get the "Who's going to rein them in" argument, but you're telling me that you'd be OK living in a world where those people can do whatever they want unchecked? Like wanda just casually accidentally murders people and we're like "oh, well, she doesn't want to sign, what can you do?" I'd freak the fuck out, if it was real life I'd want oversight
It wouldn't matter whether we were okay with it or not, because any sort of oversight would be absolutely toothless. Things are what they are, regardless of whether we're okay with them. With or without oversight, you're ultimately relying on the good nature of the super-powered individuals to hold themselves back, because there wouldn't be anything some suits in an oversight committee would be able to do to genuinely hold them back. In which case, I'd rather trust the guys who discovered, exposed, and have been working to bring down a global Nazi conspiracy than the guys who were either complicit with or had the wool pulled over their eyes by said conspiracy.
 

est1992

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,263
The accords were designed for the UN to oversee them, not the US.

I mean, really, I get the "Who's going to rein them in" argument, but you're telling me that you'd be OK living in a world where those people can do whatever they want unchecked? Like wanda just casually accidentally murders people and we're like "oh, well, she doesn't want to sign, what can you do?" I'd freak the fuck out, if it was real life I'd want oversight
Yep, lol.

The reason they're superheroes are because they solve the problems that we just can't, in a timely fashion that big government just can't do.

They aren't out there stopping random muggings and saving kittens from apartment fires, they're stopping nuclear apocalypses and universe ending threats lol.
 

PK Gaming

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,331
"He killed my mom" says the guy's who's rogue robot ended up killing thousands of people

There isn't really a choice in the matter. Ones a hero sticking to his principles while the other postures
 

vhoanox

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,156
Vietnam
MCU Tony I'm not sure, but comic book Tony is essentially batman, he's got suits to beat up anyone, and he's survived even dying, so he's more than up for it. Also the question was "Who do you side with", and I side with Tony.



The accords were designed for the UN to oversee them, not the US.

I mean, really, I get the "Who's going to rein them in" argument, but you're telling me that you'd be OK living in a world where those people can do whatever they want unchecked? Like wanda just casually accidentally murders people and we're like "oh, well, she doesn't want to sign, what can you do?" I'd freak the fuck out, if it was real life I'd want oversight

Its a fiction world.
Sometimes you have to trust these gods to do the right thing. Because the opposite of them are the force that actually want to destroy earth like Loki, Thanos, Dormammu...
 

Psittacus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,017
Anyone trying to bring the real world into this should think really hard about whether they'd want real governments to have the power to indefinitely detain people without trial and force them to wear trackers simply for existing.
 

Kaswa101

Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,906
I'll never forget how stupid it was to have Antman and Spoderman show up to this fight.

But Team Cap, I guess? I don't remember much of it lol
 

BKatastrophe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
13,359
The most humorous part of the Sokovia Accords is that the UN decided that the best man to enforce rhem was General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross. The man who ran a super soldier program that lead to failure after failure until one of the experiments went goddamned rogue (Bruce Banner aka the Hulk). Then became so obsessed with tracking him down that he ran a black budget (assumedly, right? Like it had to be) military operation that cost the US military a shit ton of money, and created ANOTHER super soldier monster. This one being a sociopathic British Special Forces obsessed with killing the first rogue experiment. So now he's made two Hulks, spent a shit ton of government money on not only multiple "failed" super soldier projects, but also domestic and international incidents — one of which to quote Dr Banner "broke Harlem" — and required SHIELD to clean it up! They were the ones who had to imprison Blonsky and they tracked Banner the whole time.

Like this is the fucking guy?!
Huh?

Someone kill my moms, I'm blacking out just like Iron Man... the fuck?

and Steve knew the entire time!

Fuck that shit. It's easy to understand Tony's motivation from the accords to Bucky
We actually don't know what Steve knew. We know that Steve was aware of Hydra's involvement in several major world events, including key assassinations, which included Howard and Maria Stark's car crash as appeared as one of the headlines shown during Arnim Zola's monologue in The Winter Soldier. Steve knew Bucky was a brainwashed assassin for them, but he also knew that they had the whole of SHIELD, plus god knows how many government officials. The whole world did. They could've used anyone.
In that movie, by Endgame the same directors were outright saying Tony had the long term view correct vs Cap's correct one movie reasoning
But the problem is that viewpoint isn't expressed in Civil War, and that's where it's important. Tony's arc over rhe course of the MCU is learning about setting aside his ego and essentially preparing the future for a better world. He's becoming the true futurist, and part of that is raising the next generation of heroes and bright minds that will also shape the world. Pepper finally says in Endgame "we got this" as he dies.

The thing is, Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron are road blocks to this. His hubris and paranoia cause him to go too far. He wants to end the conflict before it starts and be prepared for every situation, but you can't be. Tony operates out of guilt in Civil War and believes he needs to be held responsible for his mistakes. In Endgame he plays the "this is why I wanted to create a system" or whatever, but that's not what got presented. That's not the Tony that was shown. We got a guilt-ridden Tony who wanted someone to hold him accountable so he doesn't go too far while he tries to keep doing what he's doing. So his hubris doesn't get in the way again.
#TeamIronMan

g8dtztv020q01.jpg
A government funded bottle, which Cap wasn't exactly comfortable with. He proved himself as a hero and got touted around as a gimmick for months until he got sent to the frontlines, then he sacrificed himself only to come back and find the weapon that killed so many and he "died" for is being used by his own government.

Yeah Cap knows big organizations and governments are largely bullshit.
 

Forkball

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,948
It's easier to sympathize with Cap since he is trying to protect Bucky, his only friend from his original time for much of the movie. Also as the audience, we inherently want to see superheroes go wherever and do whatever for our entertainment. But from the story's grounded point of view, you can't just have individuals conduct missions in foreign countries with zero permission or oversight. So Tony's idea of making the Avengers basically an extension of the UN that can't act unless told to makes sense because they would have more protection and authority. However, that also could lead to the Avengers becoming someone else's personal hit squad, something Steve feared because Hydra infiltrated SHIELD.

So both sides actually have valid points. However as threats become more abnormal and grandiose it's becoming more and more necessary for people with incredible knowledge of previously unknown things to step up and take action. No one at the UN knows anything about the dark dimension.
 

The Masked Mufti

The Wise Ones
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,989
Scotland
You people are nuts voting for team cap, if this were real life, and there was a guy who can literally summon fucking THUNDER, or a Hulk who's trashed Johannesburg, or Wanda, or just about anyone, you're telling me you'd be ok with just letting them be with no oversight from any government whatsoever? What's to stop any of those guys from saying "Welp, fuck it" and just murdering an entire city? If anything, Wandavision proves Tony's point, they're dangerous and they need to be put in check

EDIT: Think how the world is nervous and in a permanent unease because countries have atomic bombs, what would we do if there was a group of, basically, atomic bombs that can do whatever they please wherever they please? People would go nuts
Lmao. You trying to tell me that if these guys decided to say "I'm gonna go fuck up a country or the world just for fun today," that they'd pause and say, "oh shit, what if the committee gets mad."
Your point about them being put in check only works if there are checks that can be put on them. In the end it comes down to the same thing: hoping that these heroes do the right thing. In the MCU all that would happen is that the committee would delay action against immediate threats (Vision would have had the mindstone taken in Edinburgh) and put red tape around politically sensitive problems (you know they would stop Cap from trying to liberate the Uighurs, for example).
 

jroc74

Member
Oct 27, 2017
29,753
GPCzciG.png



As presented in the MCU there's not much to back up Tony's view given what's happened, and that very little of it falls at the feet of any of the team members except himself.


Then there's that Cap's big "crime" in the movie is wanting to bring in a suspect alive rather than murder Buckey on sight, and then conduct a real investigation. And even when proof of his innocence is brought forward, Ross doesn't care and still want's Buckey dead. The accords were rotten from the start.
Damn good point.

In one of the Wanda Vision threads I wanted to bring up Cap aiding and abetting Bucky as a counter point to some debate, but it woulda fell flat, because of this.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Lmao. You trying to tell me that if these guys decided to say "I'm gonna go fuck up a country or the world just for fun today," that they'd pause and say, "oh shit, what if the committee gets mad."
This is true of all states and militaries. In so far as they are "heroes" with predictably human (Thor excepted) motivations they will accept democratic oversight to some extent, otherwise they would be villains.

Yeah, look, there's nothing stopping god kings from asserting their god king rights except popular revolt, this is the foundation of all democracy. You submit your voice as the powerless and hope the powerful comply, and if not, you overthrow them. There is no scenario where not even attempting democratic oversight is preferable to attempting democratic oversight unless you're afraid these guys will break bad if you try to restrict them, at which point why resist fascism or despotism at all? Just adopt a policy of appeasement forever, it worked out great historically (it did not).
 

Halbrand

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,636
Just wanna say all the good points on both sides shows how well balanced the writing makes it.
 

jroc74

Member
Oct 27, 2017
29,753
Some good points for siding with Cap or Tony.

I can't call it either way.

But....just like in WandaVision, who would be able to stop any of them really? They would have to willingly want to be held accountable, and not fight back.
 

Gwarm

Member
Nov 13, 2017
2,223
Cap came off like the kind of dude who would refuse to wear a mask because it violated his freedoms. The movie ends up making him right, but I still didn't like his attitude.
 

Illuvatar

Member
Jan 22, 2019
341
From the start I sided with Tony, since it was always obvious a team of superhero's would need to be reigned in and be held accountable, especially on foreign soil. Even though it was Tony('s fault) that made it clear this was necessary.
It didn't make much sense for them to deny this, since this would have shifted some of the responsibility to those in charge of the missions, instead of to them personally.

The weird thing about all of this though, was how the Avengers seemed to be considered as some kind of 'army', which the UN could deploy (much like in real life UN peace keeping missions).
Whilst the idea of the Avengers as an 'army' never made much sense and they are much closer to a special forces team, that could perfectly work under control of the government with still some independence from said government. Much more akin to the CIA, which also leads missions into foreign countries.

In a more realistic universe, the Avengers would be incorporated into a special branch of the CIA and carried out missions like this and be accountable in the same way the USA is right know (so, still not really).
The way they did it was unrealistic as hell, solely so they could sow some kind of discord between the Avengers.
 

Khanimus

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
40,873
Greater Vancouver
At the start of the film? Cap. Fuck the feds. At the end of the film, Iron Man. Kick Bucky's ass.
I mean better kill Barton then for what he did under mind control. And definitely kill Bruce Banner, lest we just don't care about what he did when Wanda set him off in South Africa.

The notion of mind control fucks a lot of things up.
If Tony is to rein in the others, then who will rein in Tony when he decides to create another Ultron-scale catastrophe?

It wouldn't matter whether we were okay with it or not, because any sort of oversight would be absolutely toothless. Things are what they are, regardless of whether we're okay with them. With or without oversight, you're ultimately relying on the good nature of the super-powered individuals to hold themselves back, because there wouldn't be anything some suits in an oversight committee would be able to do to genuinely hold them back. In which case, I'd rather trust the guys who discovered, exposed, and have been working to bring down a global Nazi conspiracy than the guys who were either complicit with or had the wool pulled over their eyes by said conspiracy.
I mean that's the inherent thing with all superhero stories, really. The entire thing is basically reliant on "in the right hands, this deeply dangerous and troubling power gets to be considered good."

But when the solution is then "oh, make them cops," comparable systems of oversight fundamentally fail.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,364
Tbh rewatching Civil War, you get Team UN (probably makes for less collateral but also will make them worthless in any sudden response/off US soil and who knows what governments will use them as mercs anyway) vs Team USA Military Propaganda (we have the right to do anything and go anywhere and the accountability we will take is our own internal feelings).

Neither was too exciting to me on that rewatch.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,652
You can't just say well in reality you'd want the UN in charge

Because the UN gives veto power to the global super powers

So a supervillain attacks New York, the NY government calls for the help of the Avengers... maybe Russia vetoes.

A supervillain sets up shop in Crimea doing the work of the Putin government, Russia vetoes.

A supervillain attacks China during a Trump administration, US vetoes

Everything becomes tools for proxy wars.