I'm trying to keep you from tearing the Avengers apart.
You did that when you signed.
Captain America-- Civil War was a defining turning point
in the trajectory of the MCU.
It pits hero against hero.
He's my friend.
So was I.
And asks a simple question.
Where does individual freedom end and public safety
begin, or at least that's what it wants you to think
it's about.
However, there seems to be a larger problem with this film
that even now seven years later no one wants to talk about.
This isn't going to change what happened.
I don't care.
Before we get too deep into the conflict,
please be sure to like and subscribe to Nerdstalgic
for more superhero videos just like this one.
And be warned, spoilers for Civil War, both the comic
and the film, are incoming.
The conflict of Captain America--
Civil War theoretically centers around a simple concept.
Should superpowered individuals be forced
to have governmental oversight?
That's also the high concept of the 2006 Marvel
comics crossover Civil War that the movie is loosely based on.
In the film, we follow multiple intertwining plot threads
that all coalesce around Captain America attempting
to defend his longtime friend Bucky
Barnes AKA the Winter Soldier despite his assassin past.
Other forces led by Iron Man are attempting
to bring the rogue entity, who was formerly
under the control of the Soviet Union,
to justice by any means necessary.
This is all told against the backdrop
of a push from the global community
to pass what are deemed the Sokovia Accords, ostensibly
a MetaHuman Registration Act.
A great many people see you as heroes.
There are some who would prefer the word vigilantes.
Here's the thing.
Captain America-- Civil War is a great superhero movie.
It's a rollicking good time, and it initially
seems like it wants to interrogate
these large ideas on a deeper level
to push further than being a fun popcorn movie.
But because of the requirements of making a blockbuster,
they couldn't make it feel like a trial episode of Star Trek--
The Next Generation.
So what did they do?
They made the story more personal.
Sometimes I want to punch you in your perfect teeth.
But I don't want to see you gone.
We need you, Cap.
They centered it on Cap's relationship with Bucky,
and they made the Winter Soldier a MacGuffin
that everyone's after.
The idea of the Sokovia Accords is a fascinating setup
for a film.
Too bad the finished picture has almost no interest in delving
deeper into it than just using the idea as texture for blink
and you miss it worldbuilding.
Is that how you see this?
This is protection?
It's internment.
He's not a US citizen, and they don't grant visas
to weapons of mass destruction.
Ahh, come on, Tony.
She's a kid.
Give me a break!
But let's go back to 2006.
The book follows the struggles of two warring factions
of superheroes who find themselves
on opposite sides of a new law, the Superhuman Registration
Act.
You see, after a villain named Nitro accidentally blows
up an entire school killing roughly 600 people,
the public discourse around the ethics of super heroics
in the 616 shifts dramatically.
The Registration Act requires anyone with superpowers
to come forward, reveal their secret identity,
receive training, and if they choose
to continue fighting crime to work
for the federal government.
This law fractures the superhero community
with one faction, the anti-registration crowd
perceiving the required governmental oversight
and employment as an infringement on their rights.
The other faction, the pro-registration team,
view it as a necessity to keep the public safe.
However, the main through line is Captain America
and his anti-registration compatriots are on the run
from Iron Man, who has taken over
as the head of both the pro-registration movement
and ultimately SHIELD itself.
Congratulations, Cap.
You're a criminal.
As you can see, this is a very politically volatile setup.
The story is deeply rooted in the post-9/11 ideals of safety
and freedom that America was grappling with and arguably
still is.
The SRA might as well be the Patriot Act
for comic book characters.
Our very strength invites challenge, challenge incites
conflict, and conflict breeds catastrophe.
The finale of the story underscores just where
America was at the time.
During the climactic battle in New York City,
Cap wins a one on one fight with Iron Man,
giving him the opportunity to end things once and for all.
But the sentinel of liberty is overwhelmed by local civilians.
The story ends with Cap's idealism being tarnished
and Iron Man's more authoritarian outlook
winning the day aided by the will of a terrified people.
It's a bleak ending that showcases
how mob mentality and the fear of the unknown
can drive people to vote against their best interests,
that sometimes we willfully strip ourselves
of unalienable rights under the promise of the ever
mercurial idea of security.
How are these ideas manifested in the movie version?
A central component to the underlying metaphor
is conflating individual freedoms with the right
to have a secret identity.
However, in the MCU, most heroes don't have secret identities.
I am Iron Man.
Therefore some liberal changes needed to transpire.
The film takes the perspective that we're
going to follow the effect that the heroes have
had on the world as opposed to the political temperature
of the world informing or pushing
the heroes in a specific direction.
Due to this, there's an emphasis placed
on the civilian casualties.
This is represented by both the collateral damage
during Crossbone's self-immolation
and the bombing of the UN.
The film asks to what degree are these heroes morally culpable,
and yet as previously mentioned, it's
more there for a sense of world-building than actually
a central dynamic.
The movie attempts to make these larger concepts personal
and give them a face.
He decided to spend his summer building sustainable housing
for the poor.
Guess where.
Sokovia.
He wanted to make a difference I suppose.
I mean, we won't know because we dropped a building on him
while we were kicking ass.
The biggest sense of differentiation
between the book and the movie is how the central conflict
is resolved.
The tagline for the book was whose side
are you on whereas the film's slogan united we stand,
divided we fall is more centered on the fact
that there is a conflict, not actually which side should win.
In the book at the outset, both Tony and Steve
have valid points, and for the majority of the story,
their perspectives are valid.
Towards the climax, the population sides
with Tony and that registration is a good thing,
but the book sides with Steve, making the ending a dour
conclusion.
Despite the will of the people prevailing,
we have chosen a darker path.
In the movie, all that nuance is lost.
There's the ultimate reveal that Bucky killed Iron Man's father,
and Steve knew about it but never told Tony thus sparking
a knock down drag out fight between the three of them
in the highly emotional finale.
And while this sequence inarguably
works on a character level, on a story level,
it doesn't push the greater MCU anywhere new,
which is what the first half of the movie is signaling.
Marvel's mantra has always been--
The world right outside our window.
And the MCU could have brought some of that realism
into their films by holding their character accountable.
Instead, they give in to their base emotions.
It's my fault.
That's not true.
Turn the TV back on.
They're being very specific.
In the book, both Tony and Steve were right in their own way.
They had opposing views that were
both interlaced into a vibrant political allegory.
In the movie, both Tony and Steve fall
prey to their lesser demons and are wrong.
Steve is blinded by his love for Bucky
and is caught in a betrayal of Tony.
Instead of taking the high road and turning Bucky
over to the authorities, Tony chooses revenge
and therein lies the biggest problem
with Civil War as a movie.
It accomplished so much and plays out so many threads so
expertly, you basically forget what the movie should be about.
Civil War is the first time that Marvel
opted to stagnate the development of their world
over the quick and easy progress of the characters.
This is evidenced by how quickly the Sokovia Accords stop
mattering in the greater MCU.
[INAUDIBLE] suits exclusively for superheroes
necessitates anonymity.
May I remind you that the Sokovia Accords
have been repealed.
Ultimately, Captain America-- Civil War
is a fantastic superhero film.
However, it could have been so much more than that.
Civil War's ambitions are to make a great film
about superheroes punching one another,
and it does that flawlessly.
But it could have been a great superhero
film about how we progress sociologically
and how in the face of near-godlike abilities
it's very hard to remain true to our collective conviction.
And, well, that's all we have for this episode.
What do you think?
Should we make a video about how Civil
War II should probably not get a filmic adaptation?
Please be sure like, comment, and subscribe to Nerdstalgic
for more videos just like this one.