More Marvel

[selenak]

Aaand we have another Marvel trailer, this for for Captain America: Civil War.

"Captain America: Civil War - Trailer World Premiere" (Watch on YouTube)

Thoughts, based on the trailer but no MCU spoilers (other than what is in the trailer), since I'm actively trying to avoid those, though I will discuss the comics Civil War storyline (which by necessity was different anyway):

One of the reasons why I was sceptical when hearing the MCU wanted to do Civil War was that for starters, the cinematic Marvelverse doesn't have that many superpowered individuals for one of the key issues of the comics Civil War storyline to be one. In the comics, where you have superheroes all over the place, as an every day thing everyone is aware of, the registration & supervision versus no registration question is a different one, not to mention that the comics incident that triggers the central Civil War arc (and causes Comics!Tony Stark to switch his original "no" to registration to "yes" and to become its primary champion among the superheroes and thus Steve Rogers' enemy), a bunch of young superheroes handling a situation really badly, causing explosions and spectacular damage among civilians, wouldn't make sense in movieverse. Not just because there aren't enough young punk superheroes around, but because Age of Ultron featured the adult crop doing plenty of damage causing on their own, and MCU Tony is one of the primary causes of same. The other reason was that one of the key sources of angst for Civil War is all the long term friendships breaking over it, including that of comics Tony and comics Steve. But these were relationships established over years and years, and this just hasn't happened in the MCU yet. So why/how would Civil War work in the movieverse? And how would it tie to the big loose thread from Captain America: Winter Soldier anyway, to wit, Bucky?

Based on the trailer: by making Bucky a key issue. I'm assuming what we see early on is the movieverse equivalent of the Stanford incident in the comics, only instead of young inexperienced superheroes screwing up, it's something caused by villain X which the Winter Soldier is framed for because it fits his past M.O., and it triggers not only a Hunt For Bucky on the part of the authorities but the whole registration question. I do hope movie Steve will have another argument than "but Bucky!", because while that should please the shippers, it's not as interesting to me as a fight over principles. Again, Steve being anti registration in the movieverse is trickier to pull off than in the comics, given that he ended the last CA movie outing everyone's secret identities which is exactly what in the comics is one of the registration issues comics Steve's side takes exception to. Otoh I can see movieverse Tony becoming pro registration and supervision precisely as the result of his own Age of Ultron actions, it makes it more personal a reason than the kids screwing up anyway. (In the Christos Cage written story "Rubicon", which as opposed to the main Mark Millar Civil War storyline does a far more complex job on the Civil War issue, comics Tony argues with his past experience as an alcoholic to make the "I know we need accountability and supervision precisely because I screwed up in the past" argument.) Conversely, I could see movieverse Steve objecting to registration (beyond the Bucky issue) based on his recent experiences with SHIELD.

Incidentally, I hope this movie will finally make me care about Bucky as a person, because so far, I have nothing beyond the distant pity of "poor guy, decades of brainwashed slavery is horrible!", not least because I have no idea who he is beyond that, personality wise. In the first Captain America movie, he simply came across as generic cheerful best mate to me. Speaking of best friends, the trailer worrryingly shows a moment of Tony clutching a down and out Rhodey, but given this is a Captain America movie, I'm pretty sure Rhodey will survive. (I.e. if they kill off Tony's best friend, it would be in an Iron Man movie.) He might end up in a coma, though, which is what happens to Happy Hogan in the comics during Civil War . Actually, what then happens in the comics is worse because Pepper, who is married to Happy Hogan in the comics, ends up asking Tony to mercy kill him, but again, no way they're doing to do that in a Captain America centric movie where Tony is one of the antagonists. Otoh a temporary coma for Rhodey certainly would give Tony a very similar type of emotional incentive Steve has with Bucky.

Now Natasha's friendship with Steve, as opposed to Tony's friendship with Steve, was really build up in the movieverse. That we don't see her fight on Steve's side in the trailer makes me hope she'll get the "I love you, but I fundamentally disagree with you on this issue and so I'm fighting you on this one" angst, though she may simply be playing double and side with Steve anyway. (Comics Natasha sided with Tony, but then she had different relationships with everyone involved anyway.)

Good on Sam for asking the "why are we doing this?" question. (And again, I hope Steve's answer will be "because principle", not "because Bucky".) (Or, completley honestly, "because principle AND Bucky".) Good on Sam for being so prominently featured anyway. Which makes me hope that - no spoilers, just personal speculation - if the movie should end with Steve giving up being Captain America, they might skip the comics Bucky-as-Cap interlude and go straight to the current status of Sam-as-Cap. (Again: if the movie manages to make me care for Bucky as a person, I might feel differently. But right now, I know movieverse Sam, I like movieverse Sam and am invested in him, whereas I simply don't know who present day deprogrammed Bucky is yet.)



In another fandom entirely: while I no longer watch Once upon a Time, I still care about the characters, so I was delighted to find this "life and times" story for Milah, fleshing her out and giving us her pov: Ship in a Bottle.

Comments

[davetheanalyzer]

Recently, I've seen people ship Sam and Bucky and, though I haven't been drawn into shipping them, it made me curious what a friendship between them would be like and if the movie would allow any moments where they interacted and bonded, even if it's just the pair groaning fondly about Steve (And maybe develop Bucky more to boot).

[ratcreature]

Yeah, Tony switching from "I privatized world security" to wanting public oversight, because of he's owning up to the Ultron disaster would be interesting.

[nenya_kanadka]

These are pretty much my thoughts, yes! Though you know more of the comics history than I do. I'm also intrigued by Sam-as-Cap. (And think it makes a fuckton more sense in the MCU than Bucky-as-Cap would, at least right now.)

[intothespin]

These are also my thoughts!

The IM2 Natasha hair makes me semi-seriously suspect that Natasha will be a double agent for Steve on Tony's team. I hope not, though, because Natasha having a serious difference of principles with Steve makes for a much better story.

[princessofgeeks]

Thanks so much for pointing to the trailer and for all the thinky thoughts!

[oracne]

I agree with your analysis and also I HOPE SO MUCH THIS MOVIE DOESN'T SUCK.

[king_touchy]

I gave up on Marvel comics before the whole Civil War thing, so your insight is useful. It sure makes Tony's role more understandable, in light of the comicverse material, because when the hell did MCU Tony *ever* abide by limits or oversight, including his own? You know, except for the end of IM3, which Age of Ultron seemed to chuck out the window.

And yeah, I'm with you on Bucky, too. I've been told but not shown as much about him as I'd like to see. Maybe this is the film to do that.

[selenak]

Yes, exactly. I mean, if you do a storyline like that, than you need at least one pair of friends having a sincere opposing each other because of differences, and Natasha and Steve are the ones whose friendship we've seen develop through the movies. Also, Natasha double agents for Steve on Tony, big whoop. I don't think Tony will go "curse this sudden yet inevitable betrayal", because while he likes her, it's not like he'd expect Natasha to be loyal to him in the first place, because movieverse Tony and Natasha don't have that type of relationship, and she's been playing double agent on him before. Whereas Natasha genuinely siding against Steve would be unexpected and painful for both him and the audience.

And the thing is, Natasha has been developing from someone who has strong personal loyalties but no cause to someone to whom ethical issues mean something. SHIELD turning out to be corrupt hit her so bad because of that. So if she truly believes Steve is wrong, it would be ironic that if she did what Steve, of all people, would understand, disagree with a friend over a matter of principle.

[selenak]

Re: owning up to the Ultron disaster, well, he leaves the Avengers at the end of AoU which I thought was partly due to this, and I wouldn't be surprised if he originally gets drafted back (because Steve and the new Avengers refuse to give up Bucky, and sending SHIELD agents after Steve worked so well the last time), with whoever using the argument "you owe the world something".

[selenak]

Since we've never seen them interact (beyond Sam participating in a fight scene), I have no idea how shippable or not they would be. I do hope they get to interact and yes, that would develop Bucky more, show us what he's like now with the Winter Soldier experience behind him.

[selenak]

No kidding, given their respective conditions and backstories.

[selenak]

Re: ending of IM3, I've never understood that to be him giving up superheroing. The last line (before the hilarious tag scene with Bruce, that is) is I AM IRON MAN, which indicates just the opposite. Him blowing up the various suits seemed to be to signal to Pepper he's done with the channelling his PTSD in this particular (more and more suits/arms) way and starting over.

re: comicverse Civil War, a very very mixed affair. Unfortunately the main storyline of this crossover event wasn't written nearly as well as the various side issues. Here is my review at the time of some of the better written collections.

[laurashapiro]

Haven't read the comics, so this is based totally on the MCU and what I've seen in this trailer:

I agree with William Hurt: they are vigilantes. They do unbelievable damage, mostly to the people they're trying to save. Yet I am 100% sure I'm supposed to be on Steve's side here, based on the trailer.

If I hear from friends that the movie attempts to complicate the issue, I might go see it, but I have a feeling I'm going to be rooting for "the bad guys" the entire time.

[selenak]

This being a Captain America movie, I'm pretty sure the narrative means us to side with Steve, yes, though perhaps not 100%. I do hope if you adopt anything from the comics, it won't be the Mark Millar written ones but the Bendis and Gage written ones, which were far more interesting, and didn't do the simple "Steve right and champion for Freedom, Tony wrong and working for the man" thing. Here's a dialogue excerpt from the story "Rubicon" I mentioned (bear in mind the different long term relationship between Steve and Tony; the Stamford incident is the one where lots of young superheroes, who called themselves "The Warriors", screwed up:

S: But you're not just bowing to the tide of history, Tony. You truly believe in this. I can tell and I don't understand why.

T: I...because it could have been me, Steve.

S: If you're referring to that disturbed boy who controlled your mind and made you kill those people, that's hardly...

T: No, I'm not talking about mind-control, I'm talking about bad decisions. Stamford. Instead of the Warriors, it could have been easily been me. (*Tony references an incident where he did almost get a lot of people killed*) And I know Registration won't stop every tragedy. But people in our position need accountability. Someone who, if I'd killed those men, would have thrown me in jail where I belonged.

S: We've always policed our own. When Hank had his breakdown - when he hit Jan - we held him responsible. Took him down, got him help, he served time.

T: Kind of interesting he's on my side, isn't it. He believes, as I do, that having our fellow heroes police us isn't enough. They have their own lives, their own concerns. Cops, soldiers, other first responders, they have oversight. Internal affairs, the military police...

And then the argument goes into a lot of backstory referencing, so I'm stopping the quote here. Anyway, Gage, as opposed to Millar, actually gave Tony some good arguments here, so I'm hoping the Russos have read this stuff.

[laurashapiro]

That IS good stuff. But as you point out, this is a CA movie. And he's just WRONG, IMO.

[intothespin]

I would like to have a long comment, but basically all I have to say is: Yes! All of that!

[kore]

If we were going to get CW in the MCU-verse, I was hoping we would see a conflict based more on Tony going "I can't actually fix everything, I am a danger to myself and others when acting as a loose cannon, SHIELD is gone and it was rotten anyway, but the threats are still there, we need some oversight" (cf his "tapping out" at the end of AoU, he seems to want out of the superhero game period) -- v Steve going "SHIELD is gone and it was rotten anyway, government regulations don't know how to handle this, I have never been the most law-abiding guy anyway* and I am the eternal soldier so I will stand vigilant." And then the civilians going, "EXCUSE US, but we're the ones who happen to have been suffering most ever since the Battle of New York, both you guys are dangerous and we want some kind of idea about how many superpowered vigilantes there are and what you all can do and maybe some agreement about how you won't turn our cities into battlegrounds fighting off threats you claim only you can save us from."

This....does not appear to be that movie.


*I do actually argue this with people. Steve does stuff in both TFA and TWS based on what he thinks is right, not on what orders he gets or even what might be political/practical. See his rescue of Bucky in the first place, his trying to register all those times, his forming his own squad, blahblah. For me TWS summed this up with a great image: Steve rides his motorcycle in civvies without a helmet. It's the law, but he doesn't need one, so he doesn't wear it; it's pointless. I dunno if that was on purpose or not, but I really liked it.

[kore]

I heard the original ending line of IM3 was "I am Tony Stark," which I liked a lot better. That he wouldn't be the arms designer but would try to use his gifts differently, not following Howard's path especially, since the handwavium that he discovered was based on Howard's work. (But yeah, AoU seemed to ignore that, then again the ensemble movies don't seem to take the individual movies into account, probably because MCU figures more people will see the Avengers ones? IDK.)

[heresluck]

Here via intothespin. As someone who hasn't read the comics, I found your rundown here very helpful! And I really appreciate your articulation of why, for reasons related to both character and story, Steve's position needs to be grounded in principle and not just loyalty to Bucky.

[selenak]

Good news! (Well, news that inspire some cautious optimism, at any rate.) The Russos, aka the directors and scriptwriters, have talked about the trailer, and don't sound as if they want the audience to automatically side with Steve instead of thinking about the arguments. Choice quote:

“When people leave the theatre, they’re going to be arguing about who was right in the movie, whether it was Tony, or whether it was Cap,” says Joe Russo. “Tony has a very legitimate argument in the movie that’s a very adult point of view, about culpability, about the Avengers’ responsibility to the world, and the world’s right to have some sort of control over the Avengers. It’s a very complicated emotional arc for Tony Stark in this movie. Downey is utterly amazing in the part."

[selenak]

There's a very interesting interview with the Russos about the trailer out now, in which they say, re: Tony versus Steve:

"Tony’s defining characteristic is his egomania, in a lot of ways,” adds Anthony Russo, “and we thought it would be interesting to bring him to a point in his life where he was willing to submit to an authority, where he felt it was the right thing to do.”

Tony is also driven by the ghosts of Age Of Ultron (...). “He now has a guilty complex,” says Joe Russo, “and the guilt drives him to make very specific decisions.”

And:

“When people leave the theatre, they’re going to be arguing about who was right in the movie, whether it was Tony, or whether it was Cap,” says Joe Russo. “Tony has a very legitimate argument in the movie that’s a very adult point of view, about culpability, about the Avengers’ responsibility to the world, and the world’s right to have some sort of control over the Avengers. It’s a very complicated emotional arc for Tony Stark in this movie.

[selenak]

I loved that in Winter Soldier, Steve was willing to sacrifice his life on the chance of saving Bucky - but not the lives of everyone else. He first took care of the Helicarriers and only then stopped fighting Bucky. It wasn't "my friend's life is paramount, and the lives of everyone else can go to hell". And that's one of the reasons why I respect the character so much. Which is why I hope this won't be The War For Bucky.

[kore]

Oh, great link, thanks!

“You cannot have a character called Captain America without examining the politics of what that means, especially in this day and age,” says Joe Russo. “The heroes in this universe operate under their own auspices, not under the directive of a government, and that can cause a lot of problems. There’s a certain level of imperialism that we’re examining – what right do those that have power have to use that power, even if it’s to do good? How do you govern that kind of power?”

That's really promising. I do love the Russos, and TWS is my favourite MCU movie. I guess I just felt really burned by AoU, which was so Not My Thing I wondered if I should bother seeing any more of the movies.

[selenak]

PS: having read the interview the Russos gave about the trailer, I was right, Tony's change of mind is tied directly to Age of Ultron:

“Tony’s defining characteristic is his egomania, in a lot of ways,” adds Anthony Russo, “and we thought it would be interesting to bring him to a point in his life where he was willing to submit to an authority, where he felt it was the right thing to do.”

Tony is also driven by the ghosts of Age Of Ultron (...). “He now has a guilty complex,” says Joe Russo, “and the guilt drives him to make very specific decisions.”

And also this, which makes me optimistic they're not simply going for a Steve right, Tony wrong equation:

“When people leave the theatre, they’re going to be arguing about who was right in the movie, whether it was Tony, or whether it was Cap,” says Joe Russo. “Tony has a very legitimate argument in the movie that’s a very adult point of view, about culpability, about the Avengers’ responsibility to the world, and the world’s right to have some sort of control over the Avengers. It’s a very complicated emotional arc for Tony Stark in this movie.

[ratcreature]

Yay, I'm glad to hear that, because I like both Steve and Tony.

[selenak]

Same here!

[laurashapiro]

That's great! Boy, the trailer sure doesn't suggest that at all.

I admit, though, 75% of my concern here is with how fandom is going to be so orgasmic over the Steve/Bucky that they can't embrace, or even engage with, the political nuance.

[selenak]

Well, that was the case with The Winter Soldier already, and it didn't stop me from enjoying said movie. (Which I nicknamed in my head Captain America: SHIELD, because it certainly would have worked without Bucky altogether in terms of what it was about, but I'm in a minority there, I know...)

Anyway: the Russos wanting to make the agument a real one instead of "Steve right, Tony wrong" makes me resolved to stay optimistic on that front until next May.