Jump to content
Red

Captain America Civil War

Recommended Posts

Well, that's the problem with over-thinking Civil War too much, when Millar's whole argument is based around personal privacy. It's obvious he's trying to make an analogy with the "war on terror", considering when the book was written, and how we're supposed to associate Tony Stark with George W. Bush.

Hence, why we're supposed to worry when it goes from a database of all superheroes to mass surveillance and concentration camps (think Guantanamo Bay).

My point is based on the upcoming movie. Caps actions need to make sense in the context of the movie, since 90%+ of all those who'll see it wont have read the comic.

 

I don't agree with the government keeping a database of anyone, based on my personal politics, but I'll grant you that making a federal database of gun owners doesn't equate to them then making a database of other groups. At the same time, doesn't that weaken the laws enough to make a case for making a database of "official enemies"? Such as the database of Communists during the "Cold War" as potential "violent revolutionaries"? Or, right now, we see Donald Trump pressing for a database of all Muslims.

1: Many civilized countries have databases of their citizens. Norway, for instance. No holocaust or red scare going on here.

2: There's a fundamental difference between registering ownership of various materials, like guns, and making a database based on what opinions people hold.

 

The "too much government power" thing is really easy to prove in real life, considering that the "war on terror" became an excuse for the government to consider every, single citizen as a potential "enemy of the State" and mass surveillance of everyone.

So, I argue it's not so easy to avoid the argument that the Registration side was wrong.

Yeah, but here we're talking about making a register of people who can easily slaughter cities, and frequently act outside any legal framework. You'd need a better argument, basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the main problem with the Registration act basically that it forced those who registered into working for the Government?

 

I think the main point of the film is mainly going to be about Steve trying to clear Bucky's name, when everybody else just wants him to pay for what he did in the past. Which is a very slippery slope, because

He was brainwashed and forced into doing it for decades by Hydra.

And I don't think the general public has the understanding to go "Oh, Well. I guess we can't call for his head then."

 

Though Obviously, after this they are going to have to settle their difference, because Thanos is pretty much going to wreck their shit if they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is this:the public is sick of the madness and bucky is thefall guy; the feds look like they did a good thing killing him (or conversy hostaging him away and using him like hydra did),what's left of hydra gets to the heat off their asses,tony gets to look like a good guy after fucking up with ultron.it's a good thing for everyone...besides,nobody missed him for decades and buck's a dead man walking.kill him and cover up,right?

 

except captain america, the original supersoldier happens to be his boyfriend...and possibly the strongest man in the world in mcu (who is human...human)from the feds pov,i would take theeasy option and juist kill off winter,saying he's irredeemable to make the hydra thing go away.but then,what to do about a rogue captain america? what lie can they spin on this? how can they twist words after he so clearly saved the day on age of ultron and the first avengers?

 

i feel bad for the guy who has to do this paperwork.

 

here's the deal; supers should have the choice to go federal or be mercs,but no vigilante activity...but what about people who just happen to have powers? what if I have ice powers and useit to make ice sculptures...why the hell should i be a federal agent if i don't want to?! how do they know caps might not wanna retire,huh?

 

its a messy situation.

 

they better hope nobody turns to the internet...oh wait...didn't that happen in winter soldier?wonder if there's gonna be a fall out from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is being a mercenary different or better than being a vigilante? Just because you have someone with enough money able to pay for your services to do the dirty job. I'm not sure how there's much of a difference, really. Unless you're saying a "mercenary" as in a "private detective", where you have to get licensed to do a job and have to work inside the law and be bound by criminal prosecution if you don't follow the laws.

I'd trust heroes who are willing to fight crime because they think they have a moral responsibility, over superheroes decided to form Blackwater and take jobs to invade other nations and pacify the citizenry!

That's basically just the unspoken rules of the superhero universes. Superheroes fight crime and protect the "common man". When you start looking in to the situation too closely, you get Watchmen, where the heroes can really just conquer the world, if they choose. Or, you get Dark Knight Returns, where the US government gets Superman as their super-soldier and uses him to get regime change in any nations which aren't willing to play ball with the US. You just accept that superheroes are "good guys" who aren't going to go too far with their powers.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you're looking at the movie, not the comic, Red. I was replying to other posters who were speaking more broadly, rather than just about the movie.

 

The difference between a superhero and owning a gun is that being a superhero is, basically, who you are as a person. Not something you went out and bought. There are some heroes who operate by creating high-tech, but most of them are very low-level heroes and couldn't do the levels od damage that's being talked about as a concern. Iron Man operates at a higher level. Most of the heroes acquired their powers through scientific experiments gone awry. They didn't ask for their powers, but decided that they should use their powers for a good cause. Most of them maintain secret identities. So, it's about loss of privacy. You're not asking Iron Man to register his suit of armour as a "lethal weapon". You're asking Spider Man to reveal his secret identity and register as someone who has certain abilities, which he cannot get rid of, due to being bitten by a radioactive spider. It's Peter Parker that is the power, not Peter Parker owns certain equipment that gives him powers.

Also, there's the shades of grey in the comic book with how the events of Civil War even started. Some heroes were fighting a super-villain with the power to cause explosions. The villain used his powers to blow up a playground and killed a lot of children. The issue was whether we can hold the heroes accountable, or if they're just being used as scape goats because of the tragedy and how upset the public is. Basically, the argument is that there's evil people out there with powers who are going to do bad things. The bad guy did something evil. The heroes were trying to stop it and failed. Now, the government is blaming the heroes rather than the villain for the deaths. It's about whether these proposals for a database is going to effect the villains, who are already criminals, or if it's just going to be a way to police superheroes who are trying to stop the villains, since only "good guys" would even sign up for a database in the first place.

 

Plus, people like Daredevil have to sign the Registration Act because he's a superhero, but his powers are only slightly above the average human being. Most of his ability comes from intense training. Like Batman, who's not Marvel I know....Bruce Wayne is just a guy who chooses to fight crime. He has no actual super powers. He's just trained himself to the peak level that a human being can possibly achieve.

 

Also, looking at the real world again, databases serve no useful purpose except to track law abiding citizens anyway. They don't actually provide safety. How many legal gun owners are criminals? I'd hazard to guess that a very miniscule amount....probably around 1% of all gun owners. The rest are law abiding citizens. Why would you go to the trouble of legally registering for a permit to own a gun, if you're planning to break the law with said gun? So, a database is a way to keep tabs on people who have broken no laws. It does zero to prevent crimes.

Some legal gun owners may go on a shooting spree, yes, but they have psychological problems which no one could know about. They don't have criminal records. They seem perfectly fine, and then they snap, and take a gun and start killing people. Once again, a database can do nothing to prevent these sorts of crimes, which could happen with legal gun owners.

Basically, Red, you're trusting the government to obey the rule of law, is what you're doing You're basically just saying, "This hasn't happened yet, so it probably will not happen tomorrow". Which is a good hope to have, since the federal government is so far outside the control of the citizenry. I'd still rather fall on the side of distrust of any databases.

 

In the Marvel Universe, it also opens the door to the question of the Mutant Registration Act, which was a plot during Claremont's run on X-Men in the 1980s. Do you register mutants, who are Homo Sapiens Superior, to a database or not? If not, why do they get special treatment, since they have powers. If you do, then aren't you asking for a minority to submit to a database, based on how they are born?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have several good points, Christian. I'll leave the whole gun database debate aside, because that's basically a political real-world debate, but you list several good reasons which might be used to justify being opposed to some sort of governmental oversight over superheroes. If they construct that in a clever way in the movie, then yes, it would be possible to have Captain America come out as the hero in the film. But so far, all we get is "...but he's my FRIEND". Which is just a piss-poor argument. Like it or not, Bucky has committed absolutely atrocious acts, which should be dealt with somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I wasn't arguing with you about this movie. I think you're right, so far, about the movie. I'm not that big of a fan of Marvel movies, myself. I probably won't even bother to see this. Also, even though I'm arguing a lot about the Civil War comic book, I didn't enjoy the actual comic book. I'm just trying to argue that Millar was attempting to make several valid points about registration, trying to make it an allegory for the "war on terror". What actually came through on the printed page was something far less than the sum of those valid arguments.

All I can say, is that you haven't seen the actual movie yet, you might find that there's more going on. I was really upset about the Days of Future Past movie before it was released, because the previews made it sound like the Sentinels had taken over and were persecuting mutants and humans, which I thought was a stupid decision. That wasn't the direction the movie actually went in, as it did stick with the comic book's story. So, it may be the fault of the preview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok..merc is a bad term.but yes ,bounty hunter or pi (BOTH WHO NEED LICENSING) is more what I mean

 

also,you got a point,christian.we did just see a preview.i pray they don't make it like the comics.so far ,no.especially with this new spin on bucky barnes.like the movie versions of all the characters better,except i feel neutral about thor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have several good points, Christian. I'll leave the whole gun database debate aside, because that's basically a political real-world debate, but you list several good reasons which might be used to justify being opposed to some sort of governmental oversight over superheroes. If they construct that in a clever way in the movie, then yes, it would be possible to have Captain America come out as the hero in the film. But so far, all we get is "...but he's my FRIEND". Which is just a piss-poor argument. Like it or not, Bucky has committed absolutely atrocious acts, which should be dealt with somehow.

 

That's probably the main reason why SHIELD is after him. Steve understands that he was brain washed and mind controlled, so he didn't really have a choice in the matter. Plus, they were/are best friends. So, if your best friend went missing for decades, and then returned brain washed and mind controlled into doing those things. You'd likely be less judgmental than everybody else calling for his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×