Captain America, Civil War, just saw it...spoilers discussion...

[2aguy]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Bucky Barnes wasn't under mind control, he was only mind wiped. They don't go into much detail, but he knew what he was doing. That's why I hate the Winter Soldier.

 

[Moonglow]

Ghey, very ghey............

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ghey, very ghey............

take the stick out of your ass moon and suspend reality for a couple of hours....and yes you can smoke a fatty....

 

[2aguy]

Bucky Barnes wasn't under mind control, he was only mind wiped. They don't go into much detail, but he knew what he was doing. That's why I hate the Winter Soldier.

No....did you see Civil War......he was under mind control......they used control words to activate him and they showed he had no control once they used the correct sequence of words........

 

[Montrovant]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

after Superman and Batman became close friends,Superman gave Batman a piece of Kryptonite that he kept in his fortress for Batman to use against him should he ever become that threat....and back in the 60's Batman also came into possession of a Kryptonite ring that Lex Luthor had designed to use against Superman..... this one he carried around with him in a lead lined pouch....just in case....

 

[Montrovant]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

after Superman and Batman became close friends,Superman gave Batman a piece of Kryptonite that he kept in his fortress for Batman to use against him should he ever become that threat....and back in the 60's Batman also came into possession of a Kryptonite ring that Lex Luthor had designed to use against Superman..... this one he carried around with him in a lead lined pouch....just in case....

Depending on who's doing the writing, Batman has had a contingency plan for every member of the Justice League should they go rogue or turn evil.

Really, though, almost any fight between Batman and Superman is reliant upon Superman not being willing to seriously hurt or kill Batman. Superman is just so damned powerful, other than the use of magic, he would be pretty much impossible for Batman to fight if Superman was willing to do whatever he had to to win. Well, Batman might be able to win if he surprised Superman and got within range with the Kryptonite before Supes had a chance to do anything, I suppose.

I love the ideological conflicts that arise between Batman and Superman. I can even enjoy the physical conflicts they have. If I think about it much, though, I know that there's almost no way Batman comes out ahead in any physical conflict, even with Kryptonite.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

after Superman and Batman became close friends,Superman gave Batman a piece of Kryptonite that he kept in his fortress for Batman to use against him should he ever become that threat....and back in the 60's Batman also came into possession of a Kryptonite ring that Lex Luthor had designed to use against Superman..... this one he carried around with him in a lead lined pouch....just in case....

Depending on who's doing the writing, Batman has had a contingency plan for every member of the Justice League should they go rogue or turn evil.

Really, though, almost any fight between Batman and Superman is reliant upon Superman not being willing to seriously hurt or kill Batman. Superman is just so damned powerful, other than the use of magic, he would be pretty much impossible for Batman to fight if Superman was willing to do whatever he had to to win. Well, Batman might be able to win if he surprised Superman and got within range with the Kryptonite before Supes had a chance to do anything, I suppose.

I love the ideological conflicts that arise between Batman and Superman. I can even enjoy the physical conflicts they have. If I think about it much, though, I know that there's almost no way Batman comes out ahead in any physical conflict, even with Kryptonite.

Superman has said more than once that Batman is the most dangerous member of the JLA because of his ability to think things out and he is not afraid to do what has to be done if it came down to it....

 

[2aguy]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

 

[Montrovant]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

 

[2aguy]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

 

[Montrovant]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just saw Captain America....

Here are some points.....I know for the need to set up the Captain America v Iron Man fight, they had to get them mad at each other....but......Barnes was under extreme mind control by the Russian hydra branch...when he killed Stark's parents he had no control over what he was doing....

Sure, he could get Mad at Cap for not telling him....but trying to kill barnes? the guy was just as big a victim of hydra as anyone else.

Also....the kiss.....did they have to make the actress from that ABC show the niece of Captain Americas true love....that seemed more than a little creepy.

In Bat v. Supes......you can see that Batman would not have an issue fighting Superman because he didn't know him personally.......he just knew the threat, and how he was an alien like Zod....so you have the fight set up that makes more sense....

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

what i found funny is that the bad super people can give a shit about rules and regulations,but the UN is getting on a group of super people who have saved many people over the years and who are at least for the most part,on their side......

 

[2aguy]

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

what i found funny is that the bad super people can give a shit about rules and regulations,but the UN is getting on a group of super people who have saved many people over the years and who are at least for the most part,on their side......

Not only that....but the collateral damage by the guys trying to arrest the, just moments before, good guys.....

 

[Montrovant]

The point was supposed to be that Stark wasn't thinking rationally. He was already probably somewhat biased against Barnes, then he sees his parents killed by him. He reacts out of grief and anger. As Barnes himself says, yes, he was mind controlled.....but he still did kill the people he killed.

Yes, Cap getting involved with Sharon Carter is kind of creepy.

What makes less sense to me, and always has, is the entire idea behind the Captain America 'side' of the Civil War conflict. Stark is absolutely right that super heroes would need to have some sort of check on what they do. The Cap side of the argument is basically, "We should be able to ignore laws and borders and governments because we have power".

It was a bit different in the comics. That got into more issues and had bigger overreactions from both sides, not to mention involving far more powered people.

I liked the concept of Batman v Superman's conflict. I think quite a lot of people would feel Superman to be a huge threat were he real. I just wish that movie had done a better job exploring that issue.....well, and just been a better movie.

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

what i found funny is that the bad super people can give a shit about rules and regulations,but the UN is getting on a group of super people who have saved many people over the years and who are at least for the most part,on their side......

Because the Avengers apparently ignore things like laws and national boundaries. Based on what was said in the movie, they went into.....whatever country it was the incident with Crossbones happened, I don't remember....without bothering to do so legally. It wasn't directly stated, but I think strongly implied, that the Avengers don't worry about whether they are crossing borders of sovereign nations.

They are vigilantes. They have not been given the authority to do what they do by the nations they operate in.

Now, in the comics the Avengers have been given that kind of authority at times, and I think they kind of had it in the first movie, under the auspices of the World Security Council. In Civil War, however, many nations seem to be saying that the Avengers have been acting without the proper authority.

It's not that the Avengers are bad guys, it's that they try to be good but do it outside the rules.

Of course there is a lot of emotional crap involved. Even in this fictional world the writers realized that many people would react from their guts and demand some sort of change after people are killed, even if the Avengers did everything they could to help. It's still a valid point that having powers doesn't make them outside the law.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

what i found funny is that the bad super people can give a shit about rules and regulations,but the UN is getting on a group of super people who have saved many people over the years and who are at least for the most part,on their side......

Because the Avengers apparently ignore things like laws and national boundaries. Based on what was said in the movie, they went into.....whatever country it was the incident with Crossbones happened, I don't remember....without bothering to do so legally. It wasn't directly stated, but I think strongly implied, that the Avengers don't worry about whether they are crossing borders of sovereign nations.

They are vigilantes. They have not been given the authority to do what they do by the nations they operate in.

Now, in the comics the Avengers have been given that kind of authority at times, and I think they kind of had it in the first movie, under the auspices of the World Security Council. In Civil War, however, many nations seem to be saying that the Avengers have been acting without the proper authority.

It's not that the Avengers are bad guys, it's that they try to be good but do it outside the rules.

Of course there is a lot of emotional crap involved. Even in this fictional world the writers realized that many people would react from their guts and demand some sort of change after people are killed, even if the Avengers did everything they could to help. It's still a valid point that having powers doesn't make them outside the law.

i would think megalomaniacs like Dr.Doom would be more on the "we have to control you" agenda than guys like the Avengers.....but thats just me.....

 

[Montrovant]

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

what i found funny is that the bad super people can give a shit about rules and regulations,but the UN is getting on a group of super people who have saved many people over the years and who are at least for the most part,on their side......

Because the Avengers apparently ignore things like laws and national boundaries. Based on what was said in the movie, they went into.....whatever country it was the incident with Crossbones happened, I don't remember....without bothering to do so legally. It wasn't directly stated, but I think strongly implied, that the Avengers don't worry about whether they are crossing borders of sovereign nations.

They are vigilantes. They have not been given the authority to do what they do by the nations they operate in.

Now, in the comics the Avengers have been given that kind of authority at times, and I think they kind of had it in the first movie, under the auspices of the World Security Council. In Civil War, however, many nations seem to be saying that the Avengers have been acting without the proper authority.

It's not that the Avengers are bad guys, it's that they try to be good but do it outside the rules.

Of course there is a lot of emotional crap involved. Even in this fictional world the writers realized that many people would react from their guts and demand some sort of change after people are killed, even if the Avengers did everything they could to help. It's still a valid point that having powers doesn't make them outside the law.

i would think megalomaniacs like Dr.Doom would be more on the "we have to control you" agenda than guys like the Avengers.....but thats just me.....

Why is it a one or the other paradigm? Why can't both happen?

Unless you are advocating for unfettered vigilantism, of course the Avengers and other super heroes would be required to follow rules. The police have rules, the military have rules, intelligence agencies have rules, the only difference is the type of powers involved.

 

[2aguy]

No.....Captain America is right...the U.N.......the group that allows human rights violators sit on the Human Rights commissions, had the oil for food scandal, and has it's troops raping and dealing in sex trafficking...not to mention that in Rwanda they stood by while 800,000 people were macheted to death....considering they were there specifically to stop it......

Cap is right.....if anyone needed a leash it would have been Stark...since the whole Sakovia thing was his fault......

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

what i found funny is that the bad super people can give a shit about rules and regulations,but the UN is getting on a group of super people who have saved many people over the years and who are at least for the most part,on their side......

Because the Avengers apparently ignore things like laws and national boundaries. Based on what was said in the movie, they went into.....whatever country it was the incident with Crossbones happened, I don't remember....without bothering to do so legally. It wasn't directly stated, but I think strongly implied, that the Avengers don't worry about whether they are crossing borders of sovereign nations.

They are vigilantes. They have not been given the authority to do what they do by the nations they operate in.

Now, in the comics the Avengers have been given that kind of authority at times, and I think they kind of had it in the first movie, under the auspices of the World Security Council. In Civil War, however, many nations seem to be saying that the Avengers have been acting without the proper authority.

It's not that the Avengers are bad guys, it's that they try to be good but do it outside the rules.

Of course there is a lot of emotional crap involved. Even in this fictional world the writers realized that many people would react from their guts and demand some sort of change after people are killed, even if the Avengers did everything they could to help. It's still a valid point that having powers doesn't make them outside the law.

So the real solution....don't imprison Avengers....get the Avenger's legal team to work out agreements....if I can see that why can't billionaire, genius Tony Stark see that?

 

[Montrovant]

You think it would be OK for people to act as vigilantes in the US, leave and enter the country at will with no customs or inspection, basically be able to ignore the law of this (and every other) country because they have power?

Most super heroes from the comics act illegally. Captain America, ironically, ignores the basis of America in the way he acts. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, he believes in his own personal morality being the only thing that matters.

This is, of course, a set up situation since the Avengers would have had agreements with the countries they entered.....Captain America is an honorable guy.....

The rule of law.....and which of the members of the U.N. believe in the rule of law?

I'm not saying the UN is the way to go, but the whole point of the movie (and the comic storyline) is that super heroes operate with little to no regulation most of the time. They simply do what they do because they can without regards for the rules that 'normal' people function under. Cap does the things he does because he considers them right, legal or not.

I thought it was funny that Chris Evans said he would be on 'team Iron Man' if this kind of thing actually existed.

what i found funny is that the bad super people can give a shit about rules and regulations,but the UN is getting on a group of super people who have saved many people over the years and who are at least for the most part,on their side......

Because the Avengers apparently ignore things like laws and national boundaries. Based on what was said in the movie, they went into.....whatever country it was the incident with Crossbones happened, I don't remember....without bothering to do so legally. It wasn't directly stated, but I think strongly implied, that the Avengers don't worry about whether they are crossing borders of sovereign nations.

They are vigilantes. They have not been given the authority to do what they do by the nations they operate in.

Now, in the comics the Avengers have been given that kind of authority at times, and I think they kind of had it in the first movie, under the auspices of the World Security Council. In Civil War, however, many nations seem to be saying that the Avengers have been acting without the proper authority.

It's not that the Avengers are bad guys, it's that they try to be good but do it outside the rules.

Of course there is a lot of emotional crap involved. Even in this fictional world the writers realized that many people would react from their guts and demand some sort of change after people are killed, even if the Avengers did everything they could to help. It's still a valid point that having powers doesn't make them outside the law.

So the real solution....don't imprison Avengers....get the Avenger's legal team to work out agreements....if I can see that why can't billionaire, genius Tony Stark see that?

What are you talking about? That's exactly what Stark was doing in the movie. It was Cap and those with him who refused to enter into any sort of agreement that would regulate their actions. Nor did Cap's side seem willing to follow the rules until any such agreement was worked out.

In both the movie and the comic story, Stark is the one trying to work with the governments of the world, Cap is ignoring them.