Who Was Right In Civil War Enlightened One What Was Justified And What Wasn’t

who was right in civil war enlightened one what was justified and what wasn’t

(Note: I wrote this in 40 minutes after getting out of urgentcare because I am a madlad. If there are any misspellings, discrepancies, or plot errors, I apologize in advance.)

So the biggest problem with identifying who is actually wrong in Civil War is that the script is kinda...bad.

Okay, listen.

The dialogue is pretty fantastic and everyone is in character. (For the most part.) But the conflict is mediocre at best and there are like five different storylines going at once that are supposed to parallel each other but do a really shoddy job of it.

I can't really say who was right, but I can for sure say who's side I would have been on.

Tony Stark's.

(I promise this isn't just because he's my favorite.)

So there are two main storylines that involve Tony Stark. Plot A) the Accords, and B) Bucky's whole thing. These two plotlines intertwine at certain intervals, especially the ending, but let's put a pin in that. Let's talk about the Accords first.

This is where a lot of the bad writing comes in. If you go to the MCU Wiki, it cites regulations such as wearing tracking bracelets and being thrown into prison without a trial. Here's the thing though...in CA:CW they don't mention any of these regulations even once. There is half the Avengers being thrown into the raft (which Tony breaks them out of), but the movie doesn't once cite a single regulation beyond the fact that 117 countries are trying to keep superheroes with potentially dangerous powers in check.

If they really wanted me to side with Steve on this one, they would have at least thrown something in there. At most, they just bring Thaddus Ross on screen as a kind of shorthand to prove that the Accords are corrupt, but this doesn't really hold any weight for someone who hasn't seen The Hulk or read the comics.

So the only argument they've got going is government bad=Accords bad, which...fair enough. But this movie is placed literally directly after Age of Ultron (which is another nightmare of a movie script), where it is firmly established that the Avengers making decisions on their own, without input from any higher officials, is historically a bad move.

Actually, let's back up, let's talk about the Avengers.

I don't really understand why they're still a thing after S.H.I.E.L.D. was disbanded. They aren't owned by any organization, they don't work for any organization, and they're not affiliated with any official government. Which means they can be viewed as vigilantes or terrorists, depending on how badly they botch up a mission. And considering how amazingly well Age of Ultron goes, I'm honestly not surprised that the United Nations wanted to put restrictions on them.

So -much to my chagrin-I'm actually on the government's side here.

What about the Avengers as a team?

Okay, so you have a Billionaire supergenius, a soldier from WWII with superpowers, two ex-S.H.E.I.L.D. agents, an Alien who sometimes shows up, and a scientist who turns into an uncontrollable rage creature. Adding onto that, they recruit two military veterans, a sentient robot, and the ex-nazi responsible for their last fuck-up.

If we take a look at their actual team dynamics, we have a group of people who are already split down the middle. Half the team is looking to Steve Rogers for leadership and the other half is trusting Tony Stark. These two men not only do not get along, but they don't get along to the extent that it affects how they work in a crisis. On top of this, said ex-nazi hates Tony Stark so hard that it- again- destroys an entire city and they decide to put her on the same team.

The Avengers have only had one successful onscreen mission (Avengers 2012) and that was more down to sheer luck than actually being capable of working together and carrying out a mission. They mention other missions they've been on at the beginning of Age of Ultron, but it's also noted that the collateral damage they've left in their wake was what spurred the UN into creating the Accords.

Not a great team.

So when people chalk Steve's entire argument down to the safest hands are our own, are they actually right? Should the world be entrusting their lives unquestionably in a team whose members should have been in therapy 6 movies ago (except for Rhodey and Sam, they get a pass).

Yeah hard pass, to be honest, I would have retired the team and restarted from scratch even before putting the Accords on the table. Which is why I am entirely on Tony's side because he is the more accountable between him and Steve. He tried it Steve's way in Age of Ultron, and it ultimately failed (that's another meta post for a different time). So now he's trying to keep the team together within the parameters that 117 different governments are clamoring for.

So my opinion on who was right? I lean more onto Tony's side.

Now what was justified?

Steve was justified in helping Bucky. I absolutely do not condone some of the things he did to protect him, but I can understand trying to help your best friend. It's a choice that I would make. I'm not one for saying the end justifies the means, but it's clear that Bucky was in trouble and that turning him in was a bad move. This is the one choice Steve made in Civil War that I absolutely approve of.

Tony was justified in his anger at Steve and Bucky and Bucky was not at fault for the death of Tony's parents. These two statements can and should coexist. I see a lot of people flipping out over Tony's reaction, but honestly? He's 100% justified. He just watched an incredibly traumatic tape of his mother dying with her murderer standing next to him. But that ain't what it was all about.

That's what this is about. Steve was the last person Tony could have even comprehended lying to him about something like this. It wasn't about whether or not Bucky was the killer (although that had to be upsetting). It was about Steve breaking his trust. His reaction is absolutely understandable and completely justified with this in mind.

Now what wasn't justified?

Every scene with Wanda in it, Sam putting blame on Tony for the raft situation, and Steve's worst apology ever letter. I could literally write separate metas on each of these, so all I'm gonna say is the narrative used Tony as a cope out to cause problems for other people. All of Wanda's problems (sans her parents' death, which actually wasn't Tony's fault) are caused by her own doing. All of Sam's problems were caused by his own doing. And Steve's letter was the shittiest apology I've ever read and makes me turn into a rage monster every time I think about it.

None of those things we're justified and I sigh every time I think about them.

Anyway, long story short, this movie is a dumpster fire trainwreck that either needed to go through several more drafts or should've just been tossed in the bin. Tony's motivations are far more reasonable and sympathetic, and I'm still mad at them for putting him and Bucky on opposite sides.

(Please feel free to shoot me more questions or to disagree. I love talking meta/analysis with others, and would be thrilled to hear y'all's opinions.)