I've read people saying someone should've died in the movie, but I think that'd defeat the purpose of it. The whole movie is framed as an ideological conflict between Captain America and Iron Man born out of their past experiences throughout the previous movies, and it never presents a "right" side, it leaves for the audience to choose. Killing a member of each group would just make everyone get back together to mourn, and would also invariably paint the opposite side of the fallen hero as the "wrong" one, so there'd be no debate. Crippling War Machine in a friendly fire incident was the best course of action to have someone be deeply affected by the conflict while keeping the ambiguity of which side could be considered right.
Iron Man should be a black woman.
BLEACHED when?
>>71806803
>it never presents a "right" side, it leaves for the audience to choose.
Intellectual and artistic cowardice on the part of filmmakers is not a good thing. If the writer and director doesn't have the courage of conviction to show wich side of an ethical conflict is in the right then they shouldn't be making art in the first place. Trying to pander to both sides out of fear that the fanboys will bitch about "their" hero being in the wrong is cowardice and nothing else.
>>71807118
The whole point is that in a conflict of that nature there is no right side and wrong side, only two sides with equally valid, thought-out viewpoints, both informed by personal biases.
Encouraging debate among viewers is really the opposite of what you proclaim.
>>71807213
>The whole point is that in a conflict of that nature there is no right side and wrong side, only two sides with equally valid, thought-out viewpoints, both informed by personal biases.
>Encouraging debate among viewers is really the opposite of what you proclaim.
Bullshit.
>>71807118
>Despite the supergeeks’ arguing either against working for the restrictive capitalist government or for their own sense of doing right and correcting injustice, the fact is, nothing here has gravitas. Civil War is politics as adolescents misperceive social/global crisis.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435036/captain-america-superheroes-dumbed-down?target=author&tid=1152026
>>71806803
>The whole movie is framed as an ideological conflict between Captain America and Iron Man born out of their past experiences throughout the previous movies, and it never presents a "right" side, it leaves for the audience to choose.
no it's not. Iron Man gives up his convictions to go help Cap in Siberia, and the only start fighting because muh revenge and muh Bucky
the ideological conflict is surface level at best and completely disappears halfway through the flick
>>71807118
>the fanboys will bitch about "their" hero being in the wrong is cowardice and nothing else.
Except the fanboys were expecting Cap to be the hero and Iron Man to be the villain. Everybody is bitching about the former.
>>71807397
> Iron Man gives up his convictions to go help Cap in Siberia
Did you missed the part were he states that he doesn't want the team to broken or when he tells Sam that Cap will have to face justice even if they prove that Bucky is innocent?
Tony wants everything to work for him.
>>71807452
Which is funny considering Mark Millar said that he wrong most of "Civil War" under belief that Iron Man was being perceived as the hero and only wrote him overtly villainous in accordance to fan perception in the last two issues.
>>71807507
did you miss the part that, by going to Siberia without permission he is violating the very same accords he pushed for in the first place, meaning he is ultimately full of shit and has no real ideological conviction?
and in fact neither does Cap, since his entire drive is to help his friend and has nothing to do with ideology.
there is no ideological conviction involved in any of their actions, it's just emotional revenge/helping a friend.
>>71807579
The whole Bucky scenario is an example of why Cap thinks the Accords are bad.
>>71807579
>did you miss the part that, by going to Siberia without permission he is violating the very same accords he pushed for in the first place, meaning he is ultimately full of shit and has no real ideological conviction
Did you missed when he created another robot in order to destroy another robot he created? Or when he used a little boy after mourning the death of another?
Tony thinks he is right and will not give a fuck if he wants everybody to think like him. He wanted Cap to be in his side in the first place.
>>71807744
right, the point is he has no ideological conviction at all, contrary to the OP's claim.
he acts on emotion and selfishness. in fact, so does Cap.
>>71807782
>right, the point is he has no ideological conviction at all, contrary to the OP's claim. He acts on emotion and selfishness.
Nope, that's what i'm saying. During the whole film he was acting at the side of the law, he only breaks it when his plan goes wrong: The whole team is against him and only helps Cap.
If he could help the leader without the army intervention, he would change his mind and join him. Also you can see him being reluctant to go to Siberia a few seconds before putting in the suit.
>>71808114
that makes no fucking sense, he literally violated the law he previously supported, you have to be retarded to pretend like he has any sort of ideological conviction here.
it's like saying someone who commits a murder is against violence. you have to be stupid to believe that.
>>71808207
If he violated the law he would have just wait there and let them go to Siberia.
The law was "watch over the watchmen", that's what he did, he went there to watch til the mission is finished so he can take them to the Raft without any consequences.
