Civil War - Who was right?

It’s a bit of a subjective topic, but I’m rewatching Civil War, and I can’t help but to agree with Tony even after all these years.

Both parties are right, in my opinion, with Steve’s perspective being that if the government has too much oversight then the Avengers would essentially be able to help no one. But ultimately, Tony is talking about accountability and holding one to one’s actions.

I also, vehemently, disagree with Steve protecting Bucky the way he did. At least let him stand trial and explain himself. And with Captain America to stand behind you, I think that’s a huge help to sway the jury. Plus, Steve sort of ignoring the fact that he literally just crushed the wind pipes of Tony’s parents is kind of weird, haha.

Voir le contenu lié

Commentaires

ComedicHermit2025-10-03 23:05

In terms of the accords? Cap

In terms of whether cap should have told tony? Tony.

axelthegreat2025-10-03 23:14

even Tony switches to Cap’s side when it comes to the accords by the final act

A_FellowRedditor2025-10-03 23:29

Yeah, Cap failing to tell Tony about his parents is his one big selfish decision. He admits as much in the letter at the end "I told myself I was protecting you, but I think really, I was protecting myself. I know I hurt you and I'm sorry." It's definitely a mistake and a betrayal of their friendship.

Meanwhile it feels throughout the film like Tony just constantly got lead around by his emotions, from letting his guilt complex persuading him into signing the accords to recruiting a high-schooler for a superhero fight to basically breaking the accords straight away, to jumping straight to trying to murder bucky over Steve's holding back the truth and that video.

He was willing to talk the talk when it came to being held accountable, but he wasn't willing to walk the walk.

ComedicHermit2025-10-03 23:31

I don't blame him for attacking bucky; that kind of news and you're going to respond. Everything else on the other hand was a series of fuck-ups.

A_FellowRedditor2025-10-03 23:41

Yeah, it falls into a grey area where I think it's absolutely sympathetic and and understand why he did it. I'd probably do the same if I were placed into the same position with the same emotional context and stressors. That doesn't make it right, but it does mitigate the extent to which I blamed him. I totally get it.

As a side note, it always blows my mind how people call Quill or Thor dumb for punching Thanos or not going for the head but give Tony a blanket pass for letting his rage get the better of him here. All these decisions were poorly thought out, but that's kinda the point.

trevorthewebdev2025-10-03 23:05

the north

dherms142025-10-03 23:05

![gif](giphy|xb8simFMArzl5X88JL)

Ognius2025-10-03 23:16

![gif](giphy|oy8cNStkb4bxNqxsmc|downsized)

masterofreality20012025-10-04 03:07

Civil War was about superhero's rights!

trevorthewebdev2025-10-06 16:42

tbf it was about the economy and ...

dherms142025-10-03 23:05

Movie? Tony

Comic? Cap, by a long shot

WallyOShay2025-10-03 23:05

Zemo

Morgoth18142025-10-03 23:05

Not on the topic but interesting how Stark and Steve swapped roles like that. Stark becoming the guy wanting to follow the rules while Steve does what he must instead of blindly following orders.

Gilded-Mongoose2025-10-03 23:13

Makes it compelling

kneeco282025-10-03 23:06

In terms of the accords, Stark. Fascism is bad actually.

In terms of Bucky, neither is particularly right.

alkonium2025-10-03 23:06

On the one hand, Steve's right not to trust the government with oversight through the accords. On the other hand, I didn't see him offer an alternative that didn't amount to doing nothing different.

been_mackin2025-10-03 23:19

Is that his job though? He was presented with trash he disagreed with, it’s not his responsibility to find a better option - that should also be on the government to sort out.

Things were put into motion already at that time without his consideration and he vehemently disagreed with it, in the comics they brought him in and tried to arrest him for disagreeing with the decision that caused him to go on the run.

alkonium2025-10-04 00:02

That may be true, but I tend to not have much respect for people who ignore a problem because they don't like the proposed solution.

And his track record before Civil War is full of instances of him committing serious crimes and then getting let off the hook. Naturally, he's not used to actually facing consequences for doing so.

been_mackin2025-10-04 00:28

Enlighten me, what were the serious crimes he committed?

If we’re going with disobeying orders and saving the US soldiers because Isaiah Bradley got locked up and experimented on for the same thing, they’ve already addressed how despicable that was and if Steve knew, he would probably have broken Isaiah out himself if he wasn’t frozen.

What else we got?

alkonium2025-10-04 00:31

Multiple counts of providing false information on a recruitment form(First Avenger), theft of military hardware (Quinjet in Avengers 1), destroying a major government facility (Triskelion in Winter Soldier). And he probably committed at least a few traffic violations on a motorbike in multiple films.

kremes2025-10-04 04:18

Everything he (and the rest of the Avengers for that matter) does between TWS and Civil War is illegal. He illegally enters multiple countries, decides he has authority for police action in those countries regardless of the consequences, illegally brings Pietro and Wanda into the US, and an absurd amount of property damage. To top it all of he's really not great at planning things. The whole Lagos operation was idiotic and could have been prevented if he simply told the government of Nigeria about the threat.

The Accords was the governments of the world were saying "We are no longer going to overlook all of these crimes you're committing." You can either operate under official oversight or stop doing it. Cap refused both options solely because of Bucky. He didn't fight the Accords because of his beliefs, he fought them because of Bucky, and in the process proved why something like the Accords was absolutely necessary, even if they were later changed completely to some totalitarian nonsense for plot convenience.

A_FellowRedditor2025-10-03 23:23

TBH it's not like anyone actually gives him a chance to propose an alternative. Ross literally presents the Accords to them saying "117 countries have already signed these, they're finalized in 3 days, sign or retire"

He does tell Tony that he's not against oversight in principle, but 'oversight without safeguards' when Tony very nearly convinces him to sign.

Responsible_Egg75192025-10-03 23:08

Bucky is just as much of a victim as Tony’s parents are. He has nothing to stand trial or be held accountable for, and I hate that the MCU has a tendency to frame his situation that way. HYDRA literally overwrote his brain to force him to do everything that he did.

teacup_tiger2025-10-04 00:25

I agree. To me, it feels like they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too - they didn't want him to be really to blame, so they took all agency away from him (way more than the comic version), but they also didn't want Tony to look like a complete dick, so they sort of pretended like they were doing the comic version, where Bucky has been brainwashed and gaslighted, but still has a form of agency. And I think it's these opposite narrative goals that sort of break the story in a way. I mean, I love Civil War, but to me, it really only works when you accept that Tony fucks this up, out of emotions that are very understandable, but nonetheless lead him to the wrong conclusion (which incidentally is why he thinks they need oversight - it's supposed to protect them from personal acts of vengeance exactly like the one he commits against Bucky).

I think this is something the MCU really has an issue with, on the one hand the idea that Tony screws up a lot of situations because he is a man with deep flaws - which is what makes him a great character! - and on the other this weird need to have him be the one who somehow is still right, which is why we got interviews during the press tour for CW with the Russos where they try to argue that Steve is being egoistical for wanting to save Bucky, and the logic is straining so hard from being twisted. There is one mistake Steve makes, which is not telling Tony what he figured out about his parents' murder as soon as he did (and I think that happened pretty quickly after Nat released SHIELD's files to the public). And I think you can have a long-winded discussion about his idea that oversight is bad, because that contains a lot of philosophical ideas about government being always corrupt, while the individual makes good decisions that might go a little beyond what a comicbook movie is able to do.

Responsible_Egg75192025-10-04 00:39

I’m not familiar with comic Bucky, so that’s interesting. It almost makes me wonder if they made HYDRA’s abuse towards Bucky a little *too* extreme. I don’t even like watching TWS because it just makes me sad. I don’t know how anyone can look at his past and think that Bucky has anything to answer for.

I really like the interpersonal dynamics and tension over the government control issue in CW. I feel like we got a little bit of that back in TB, and I wish we could’ve gotten some kind of movie in between that and DD to explore that stuff between the two Avengers teams. That’s why I’m hoping that Sam and Bucky’s conflict has a bit more meat to it than just the brand name.

teacup_tiger2025-10-04 00:53

> It almost makes me wonder if they made HYDRA’s abuse towards Bucky a little too extreme.

I think it does veer into torture porn a little bit, tbh, in part because they really shrunk his role compared to the comics (which is in part owed to the fact that they decided against making him Cap - which I still think was a good decision, because making Sam Cap makes more sense in the MCU, and it could be a really powerful statement, to have a black man as this specific hero, if only they could decide to actually do something with it). And so you have mostly two movies where the poor guy gets kicked around for no good reason, and you have very little meat to the idea that he's supposedly close to throwing off his brainwashing at any minute. Doesn't help that while the MCU Winter Soldier is very cool, he's pretty much the worst at being a stealthy assassin. I think what might have helped was a little more story that explained that HYDRA was only using him because they felt there was no good alternative. Like with Nat, they should have done a prequel for Bucky as the Winter Soldier, where he just gets more to do, and gets a little more personality.

I mean, Sebastian Stan is one of the actors in the MCU who have been doing a lot of work with very little for years. Which is a reason why I'm glad he might get more of a chance to deepen the character as part of Thunderbolts.

> That’s why I’m hoping that Sam and Bucky’s conflict has a bit more meat to it than just the brand name.

IMO, this is not really about the brand, but really about Valentina, and what she stands for. (And also about Bucky seemingly going off and founding a team not with Sam but with a bunch of weirdos and John Walker. Not to mention that Sam will know that Bucky is keeping something from him, re: Bob.)

Responsible_Egg75192025-10-04 01:04

>IMO, this is not really about the brand, but really about Valentina, and what she stands for. (And also about Bucky seemingly going off and founding a team not with Sam but with a bunch of weirdos and John Walker. Not to mention that Sam will know that Bucky is keeping something from him, re: Bob.)

I agree with you. I thought that this was obvious, but I have seen some WILD takes regarding that part of the PCS.

teacup_tiger2025-10-04 01:17

> I thought that this was obvious, but I have seen some WILD takes regarding that part of the PCS.

Yeah, I really don't know, I have been wondering if some people were simply upset that they're having a "divorce", or took Alexei badtalking Sam as the opinion of the MCU in general. I think it's easy to fall into a mindset where you want to protect these guys, but I don't think it's necessary to turn Sam into a bad guy for that, and I don't think it's what the PCS wanted to achieve. (Something that would have helped here, obviously, would have been if Sam had simply started building his own team in BNW beyond just telling Joaquin that he's in. This way it looks like he's been sitting on his hands for however long it took for Bucky to win his election, and then also spend the 14 months that passed not reacting.)

Responsible_Egg75192025-10-04 01:28

A decent amount of people seem to think that Bucky ratting out the Thunderbolts without a second thought would be more in character for him, and that by choosing to stay with them all these months and “siding” with them against Sam instead of turning Val in, he is somehow a traitor to all the people who have helped him (Sam, the Wakandans—I’ve even seen people consider him racist because of this??) But IMO it makes perfect sense that Bucky would want to help people who are vulnerable like he was. At his core, Bucky is a protector. This is his way of paying forward the help he received.

teacup_tiger2025-10-04 02:51

Yeah, I agree with you, it does make sense for him to make this decision.

> he is somehow a traitor to all the people who have helped him

That seems a little overwrought? I also think it really underestimates that the Bolts have quite a bit of knowledge about Val that enables them to keep her in check, probably more than if they really tried to arrest her - because if Val feared that would happen, she'd cut ties and run.

A_FellowRedditor2025-10-04 00:40

You could have a nuanced discussion on oversight vs individual power, but that really does imo require the voice/face of the government in the movie to *not* be the generally unreasonable Thaddeus Ross.

teacup_tiger2025-10-04 00:56

Agreed, he's so obviously antagonistic just for the sake of it. And Other Ross is so different from his appearances in the Black Panther movies, he could just as well be a different character - and he's also incredibly antagonistic.

kremes2025-10-04 04:10

> He has nothing to stand trial

Proving if he is or isn't culpable is the point of the trial, that's how the legal system works.

It doesn't matter if one person thinks or knows that Bucky is not responsible, that doesn't give that person the right to break a ton of laws to prevent them from standing trial.

John_Wilks_Booth18652025-10-03 23:08

Cap is right all the way. It’s crazy that just a few years ago in the MCU they found out the governments of the world had been infiltrated by HYDRA and they even controlled the group who fired a Nuke at NY and now everyone wants the government that was severely compromised (more than usual) to have control over the Avengers?

Donkey-Hodey2025-10-03 23:15

They just found out Hydra was controlling SHIELD the entire time and their solution is a new security council like SHIELD.

JyconX2025-10-04 00:39

The civilians probably thought the HYDRA was finished after the events of The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron. And they're also more concerned with the deaths of their loved ones and collateral damage done to their homes rather than the government agendas.

In so many cases, civilians appear to be narrow-minded selfish fools, and very often blinded by anger or grief.

It required the happening of the Snap, the Avengers undoing it, and some of the Avengers even scarificing their lives in the process, for the civilians to finally start trusting the heroes without oversight again.

DarthMMC2025-10-03 23:08

Both I'd say

abysmallybored2025-10-03 23:08

Not that I don't agree with the idea that governments shouldn't have that much control but ultimately Tony was the most honest person in that whole conflict, Wanda alone has proven time and time again that superpowered people when left unchecked cause an immense amount of pain on innocent people, The Avengers getting away with killing people in the name of collateral damage is fucked up and Cap dismissing it as "she's just a kid" was unbelievably tone deaf and stupid.

Classic-Ability-63172025-10-03 23:09

Cap by far

Outside-Example85862025-10-03 23:10

Cap. Next.

TalynRahl2025-10-03 23:12

Tony spends the whole movie saying we have to step back, take our emotions out of it and do what the government says.

Then the MOMENT it gets emotional for him, he does whatever he wants, even though the government tell him not to.

He’s a hypocrite.

splatomat2025-10-03 23:12

Steve. Every day all day.

The world council was going to nuke NYC. SHIELD was riddled with HYDRA. Ross is an asshole.

Tony's "we need to be kept in check" comment is a laughable display of self-unawareness. Tony was the ONLY member of that team whose ego needed checking. He was crowdsourcing his guilt over Sokovia but it was 100% his fault.

probablynotaskrull2025-10-03 23:13

Neither. I think there needed to be a framework, but those affected (supers) needed to be part of the process from day one. Ross and the international community imposed the accords on them, saying sign or quit. “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” says the UN declaration of rights, but the accords cut those affected out of the decision. Supers are essentially a minority, and when a situation necessitates laws governing a minority in some way, at the absolute least that minority should be consulted, but the best practice is to involve them from day one.

Gilded-Mongoose2025-10-03 23:13

The relief I had when I confirmed this was a Marvel sub.

Techno_Core2025-10-03 23:13

Tony was wrong. He was operating out of fear and guilt.

First Tony was dishonest about it. Tony framed it as a convo, but really it was done, sign or you're a criminal.

Then Cap DID sign, I think people forget that. He just backed out when his objections were proven right by the extrajudicial detainment of Wanda. Didn't take em long to abuse their authority.

If Tony had sat everyone down and actually discussed it and come up with something everyone could agree on, it could have worked. Instead he unilaterally made it up and forced it on everyone. For that he was wrong.

Far_Swordfish_62292025-10-03 23:16

Team Cap. No contest

Also Bucky is a victim of years and years of abuse. He has nothing to stand trial for. Steve did the right thing in protecting him.

ThaneOfTas2025-10-03 23:17

> Tony is talking about accountability and holding one to one’s actions

He's talking about that sure. He's not interested in actually living it though, as is evidenced by his ignoring the accords the second that they become inconvenient, his smuggling of an unregistered minor across international boarder. He is if anything looking for a way to abdicate his responsibility (read guilt) onto another party, in this case the UN.

> At least let him stand trial and explain himself.

What trial? Did you miss the part where the were planning on just murdering him? And when he was brought in alive Agent Ross finds the idea that he would get a lawyer "funny".

Alpha_Storm2025-10-03 23:19

Team Cap, all the way.

Ill-Philosopher-76252025-10-03 23:19

People talk vaguely about accountability, but with no specifics. The only specific thing we really know about the Sokovia Accords is that it says the Avengers have to work for the U.N. or retire. That’s what Steve was opposed to. He previously worked for a very similar organization called the World Security Council and his boss turned out to be Hydra, so he wasn’t in a rush to work for the U.N.

“I agree with Tony” isn’t a viable position because by the end of the movie Tony has happily defied the Accords multiple times, and even openly talks about amending the agreements after they have been signed. He clearly never intended to give up any of his own freedom. He just needed a way to sooth his conscience after Ultron.

A_FellowRedditor2025-10-03 23:44

In fairness, I think that Tony signed the accords expecting that he'd follow them but wasn't able to hold himself to it. Kinda like a new year's resolution.

I doubt that he went into signing them intending to break them the way he did.

altiuscitiusfortius2025-10-03 23:27

Both were wrong.

The idea that NATO means anything and has any power at all to do literally anything is laughably naive and was the most unbelievable part of the movie.

Smooth-Mix-43572025-10-03 23:44

Cap. Not even Tony believed in the Accords. He felt guilty for the whole Ultron thing as he should. That's why he signed it. And only he should sign it. Not others who had no role in creating Ultron. They shouldn't feel guilty for Ultron.

teacup_tiger2025-10-04 00:32

I think they were both right in a way. I actually tend a little more towards Tony, tbh, because having groups of superheroes running around feels a bit like mercenary groups showing up in wars. Create something that is international as opposed to national by all means, but give them an institution to fall back on, that can protect them when things go wrong, but that can also be an addressee for people who have grievances.

As for Steve being wrong about helping Bucky, I'm not too sure about that, since after the stunt Zemo pulled, Ross (Secretary version) probably would have aimed to get him killed.

> Plus, Steve sort of ignoring the fact that he literally just crushed the wind pipes of Tony’s parents is kind of weird, haha.

He didn't ignore that, the difference is that he knew about it before, from the SHIELD files Nat released on the internet at the end of Winter Soldier. He obviously hadn't seen the video, but he knew it had been Bucky who had been send to kill them. He also knew that he wasn't in his right mind when that happened. That's the difference in this moment, Tony gets emotional because he didn't know, Steve was forewarned. And Steve's mistake is really that he didn't tell Tony about it earlier.

SeekerVash2025-10-04 01:36

Tony.

Steve's argument is basically "I don't like being accountable" and he then ignored the will of the people he claims to care about and started what is legally an international terrorist organization.

Steve had leverage (their abilities) and the ability to effect change from within. Instead he chose to ignore the law that millions (if not billions) of people supported.

Then he committed a couple dozen felonies with his group.

ChildofObama2025-10-04 01:44

Tony is right about the Accords, but maybe argue Ross’s judgement is compromised (it clearly is) and ask for a different supervisor

Steve is right about Bucky, he didn’t deserve to die and the UN screwed up the investigation so hard Zemo was able to impersonate one of their psychiatrists.

ChildofObama2025-10-04 01:51

I’ve seen some fans argue the film should’ve never done the Accords/SRA and instead focused on whether Wanda should be prosecuted for Lagos.

Tony is still guilty about Ultron and never really built trust with Wanda before that, so he’s pro-prosecution.

Steve believes she deserves a break but is willing to let investigations proceed … until Zemo sends the Winter Soldier to attack the preliminary hearings. King T’Chaka still dies.

The attack turns Steve from passive opposition to going AWOL to protect both Wanda and Bucky.

Then the film mostly plays out the same. T’Challa wants to kill Bucky. Steve doesn’t trust the UN to treat Wanda or Bucky fairly. Tony is trying to hold himself to a higher standard after Ultron and following the authorities to do the right thing.

kremes2025-10-04 04:41

In **this** movie Tony is right. No matter how righteous he is, one man cannot have sole authority for a paramilitary force that frequently invades other countries and fights whoever they deem to be an enemy, in whatever place they choose, regardless of the consequences, just because he thinks that it's justified. And like it or that's exactly what was happening pre-CW. Whatever Cap said was all that mattered.

In the actual movie, everything presented about the Accords is completely reasonable. The Avengers were breaking the law every time they operated. They did not have authority to invade other countries to fight off some bad guy based solely on their own determination of it being the right thing to do.

Every one of the governments involved had every legal right to arrest and prosecute them. It is completely reasonable for the governments of the world to demand oversight and that they stop doing that shit without it. It is completely logical for the UN to be the overseeing body, they're really the only ones who can. No they aren't perfect but they are a lot better than one random country, (let alone one agency in a country), they are the best option available. No one man, not even perfect Steve Rogers, is so righteous that they should have that sole authority with no oversight, as Steve's emotional compromise multiple times in this movie itself proves.

People like to compare it to the US Senate in IM2 but don't see that they're different demands. The UN tells the Avengers they can either operate under oversight **or retire**. The Senate demanded that Tony hand over his suits and tech. They didn't tell him 'stop doing this stuff **or** we're going to make you hand over your stuff'. In both cases, Tony and The Avengers were breaking the law, but the UN wasn't demanding Tony's suits, Steve's shield, or demanding the Avengers work for them. That's also why Cap's "what if they send us somewhere we don't want to go" line so stupid. It wasn't slavery, he could have simply said no and retired.

The real issue with Civil War is that it should not exist in the MCU. It serves no purpose at all, the big separation they claimed it was to create was just geographic. They could have had Cap and the other Avengers off on a mission in Europe when Thanos came and it would achieve the same thing.Hell the whole New York scene in IW happens so fast that Cap and the others could not have even gotten there in time. Strange drastically overestimates how much time they have an his own abilities, that's the real reason that the Avengers lose in IW. There is no time when Cap or Tony refuse to cooperate, Tony hesitates to call Cap or maybe 15 seconds, and by that time the enemy ship is already hovering over New York so it didn't matter.

But they wanted to create hype so they made a movie where the good guys fought each other, but weren't willing to make one of them a bad guy, which means the Accords could not be bad in that movie, but Steve needs a reason to fight so they have to bring in the Bucky stuff to motivate him. The end result is it's just a 'who is your favorite character' thing for most people and then later the MCU writers have to add a bunch of stuff to the Accords in other movies/shows to tell us why Steve is supposedly right.

Civil War was written to create hype by dividing fans, and for that purpose it's perfectly written, but as part of the MCU overall it's nonsense that should not been written.

the_doobieman2025-10-12 05:07

Tonys guilt and his wife leaving was what did it for him. He never believed it but his guilt of innocents dying made him want to step down. But if the threat was big enough, who else would they call?