| Title | Qt3 Movie Podcast: Captain America: Civil War |
| Author | Tom Chick |
| Posted in | Movie podcasts |
| When | May 9, 2016 |
Politics, heroics, franchises, brainwashing, epic battles between god-like entities, whether Stan Lee cameos are annoying! It's all on this week's podcast. We really put out backs into this week's 3x3 about exercise, which starts at the 1:45 mark..
Read the full article"When Jamie's grandfather died, Mommy said he'd be asleep for a long time." I always love it when you bring up this classy sequel, Dingus. Scheider is so good in it.
Civil War (the original comic series) was less about gun control. although I can see the argument if you're extrapolating from a distant view. It was a pretty obvious critique on the war on terror and the abuse of the Patriot Act/ erosion of civil liberties.
I agree with Joshua. I saw Patriot Act written all over this thing. It seemed to me Cap was in agreement that oversight was necessary, but not as written in those accords.
Yeah, Tony getting angry about Bucky murdering his parents - even though he KNEW BB was brainwashed - was silly, but watching this film of the actual muder... Who knows how that would affect someone? Let's just say he got emotional. (Which is the very thing that started this whole mess in the first place. Gods, yes, but contrite.)
#TeamCap
#teamIronMan because so many feels.
The quim jet is awesome.
Tom,
The problem with the Sokovia accords is that they are about registration of "enhanced" individuals. It goes beyond similar arguments for gun control because here we are talking about forcing individual people to be registered, catalogued, controlled just because they are different.
Cap's argument here is consistent with his arc in Winter Soldier. He falls on the side of protecting individual liberty.
#TeamCap ;)
The female Jarvis is Jocasta.
Btw, despite being #teamcap, I totally agree w Tom's perspective. Supers refusing to regulation is something rather abhorrent if you look at it in context of real life. This is comics though. You sort of have to accept that these are all people acting as vigilantes but guided by strong principles and morality. It just doesn't work in RL, but if you pull the thread you lose the sweater. Super hero comics just dont work without taking this principle as a given. In the context of this acceptance you have Cap essentially refusing to be some pawn or puppet to a corrupt gov't. He has a history of putting down the shield and stepping down from his Captain America persona as protest to perceived corrupt government leadership. Tom, the post you made about the Marvel Heroes game and the lame outfits available for Cap is relevant. That disco suit was his Nomad super hero identity when he refused to wear the flag as the comics made thinly veiled references to the corrupt Nixon presidency. Civil War, the comic was also written at the height of George W's presidency as we were seeing a dramatic erosion of freedom in the name of security. In the comic, heroes also had to reveal their secret identities, often with dire consequences to their friends & family.
"Whether we are based on carbon or silicon makes no fundamental difference. We should each be treated with appropriate respect."
Thanks for the explanation, Joshua. That makes perfect sense the way you're explaining it. But if someone is going to tell a story that somehow has social, political, or even moral relevance, that story can't change the rules of the basic message to fit its universe. If that happens, the relevance goes out the window. Sure, if the police are perfectly good, infallible, and beyond reproach in their thoughts and actions, they don't need oversight. So what? In what way is such a statement relevant to anything other than a world with flying men from Krypton? Perfect is perfect? Thanks for the pointless tautology, comic books. And #TeamCap defenders, by the way. :)
At least, that's my opinion. This is especially true with the Marvel Civil War storyline in the movie, where what little I know about the source material made it sound like Mark Millar (yech) had tried to set up the sort of nuanced (again, yeech, Millar nuanced?) conflict where you could understand both sides. Because if it's an argument about gun control, I can sort of understand the idea that the government controlling the power of the people is something to be wary of (although I think the NRA crowd is founded on absolutely idiotic arguments). And I can certainly understand it if its an argument about the erosion of civil liberties in the face of panic about terrorism. But when it's about collateral damage inflicted by people with no oversight, no accountability, and no legal framework, I see no nuance whatsoever. #TeamIronMan or GTFO!
Hawk, what you're describing sounds more like a potential X-Men situation. How is Ant Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, or Iron Man in any way an "enchanced" individual? Those are just people with equipment and training. :)
In the movie, the thing about "enhanced individuals" seemed like a way to avoid saying "superheroes". The target was clearly the members of the Avengers, a group of people who enforce the law without being subject to the law. How is that ever a good idea?
If he got emotional -- a fundamental human "flaw", by the way -- shouldn't someone with his power be subject to some sort of oversight? :)
And, yeah, the Patriot Act analogy would make a lot more sense. Too bad the movie presented the argument in the context of collateral damage. "A victory that harms the innocent isn't a victory at all" seemed to be the movie's statement in a nutshell.
Are you talking about Jaws 2?
It was interesting that King T'Chaka used the name Captain Rogers rather than Captain America when talking with Black Widow.
I can't argue, and even reading the comic, it was hard for me to rationalize any stand against registration. The speech Sharon Carter made at Peggy's service, that Cap made in the comic, is pretty scary coming from someone w/ inhuman power. ( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.... )
Even the comic required that I turn off critical thought and accept a lot of contrivances to allow the story to work. I think your criticisms are 100% valid. ...but as a Marvel nerd, I don't let facts get in the way! Cap was the good guy who has a history of civil disobedience in battles against oppression. There's a certain weight to the character for his stands against the gov't, more so considering the jingoistic nature of his costume and identity. So, I loved it as a long time fan of the character, for the action, the jokes, the fan service, the characters, while I acknowledge it's more reasonable to be #teamironman and dismiss the plot as hand waving to allow the Avengers to punch each other.
Just to re"cap": you guys are arguing about a piece of legislation that you haven't and can't read, concerning a group of fictional characters conceived in the '60s for 10-year-old boys wearing spandex "armor" for which there is no actual real-world analogy. As sifted through the sociopolitical prism of Mark Millar. Haha! #TeamSpiderMan
Have you heard the one about the marathon runner and the chicken?
La-la-la. #TeamKellyWand
I'm surprised no one's commented on the length of this movie. I thought it was pretty good, but it didn't have the energy to sustain a 2.5 hour running time. Seriously, did we really need that many punching scenes?
And what was up with that perfectly placed highway camera? All the Marvel tech at your storytelling fingertips, and you rely on that?
I'm not sure we have much cause to complain about length these days. Uh.
