Qt3 Movie Podcast: Captain America: Civil War


Not be a total nitpicker, did they have a surgical consultant on this film? Because "catastrophic spinal cord injury from L4-S1" makes no sense since the spinal cord ends at L2. Not that it matters. They're superheroes! Etc.


Watched this a couple nights ago, courtesy of Netflix. I thought it was a pale shadow of Winter Soldier. It lost sight of being a Captain America movie, instead giving center stage to a great pile of Marvel Universe fan service. Zemo’s “plan” made no sense. Iron Man’s complicity in it at the end drives me nuts.

But let’s talk for a moment about the Sokovia Accords. To start with, Captain America’s response to it is way off base. He doesn’t even flip open the document to see what they’re proposing. He rejects the concept of regulation. After what Iron Man did in Avengers 2, that’s clearly the wrong position.

@wykstrad makes some very good points about Cap’s character arc across the set of his appearances. He’s the embodiment of America’s sense of moral justice in WW2, and when he discovers that they’ve fumbled that clarity in the intervening years, he feels compelled to fight for what’s right. That’s fine, and a good character story, but some of it should probably be articulated better on screen. The lack of clarifying his position affects this movie the most. What he says his complaint is is that he won’t be allowed to go where he wants. That’s not enough.

But the problem is worse than that. He rejects the plan without even knowing what it is. Presumably a set of laws based on “enhanced” policing would be modeled after traditional policing. They patrol, reacting to issues that arise on their own recognizance. And oversight looks into problems after the fact, to make sure they are applying their force appropriately.

Such a model would give a way to resolve the central issue here: innocent victims. An inquisition would be held after Sokovia or after the Scarlet Witch’s explosive that hits a building. This would allow people to air their grievances, and a panel of judges weigh those costs against the end being achieved, such as stopping Ultron from ruining the entire world. If the hero is acted badly, they should be castigated, but so far we haven’t seen any cases of that. Sure, there would still be hard feelings, but it would give the injured parties a sense of closure that would let them move on. It would also let the heroes get paid for what they’re doing, which surely makes sense.

Many of these superhero programs run with this story of innocents who blame heroes for the deaths of their loved ones, with the underlying assumption that their lives would somehow be improved without superheroes. Why does no one bring up that the world does have supervillains, and that left unchecked they would subjugate the entire world?

This is a shadow cast across the otherwise superlative The Incredibles. When the government shuts down all the heroes, the world is just fine it seems. No villain flare-ups for 20 years. To me, that means in this case the government was right. Heroes ARE the problem.

In the Marvel and DC universes, if you removed the heroes, things would go bad in a hurry. Darkseid would destroy the world or Galactus would come and eat it. If the heroes want to convince the public that they are necessary, they should just sit out for a year and show them what happens. And once the public is on board, they’re going to want to make the relationship official.