Quote:
Originally Posted by MOWJO8185
^I thought they did a pretty good job with making it believable in Civil War, actually.
|
Yeah? I dunno. I'm not trying to be all "plot holes!", but it all felt a little weak to me.
The arguments for Sokovia Accords weren't very convincing, for one thing. It feels like the Avengers were in the right for basically the entire history of the MCU, and the government was often in the wrong (they tried to nuke NYC, right?) or compromised (such as when Hydra ran things). I get people died in Sokovia but everyone would have died if Ultron blew up the planet, including those same people, right? And shouldn't the Avengers have negotiated with the UN about the contents of the Accords, rather than just signing or not signing?
Then the airport fight felt pretty avoidable to me, too. Couldn't Tony have asked Cap what he was up to before they attacked him? Shouldn't Cap have offered to turn himself into the UN if they helped him take down Zemo, or sent his allies after Zemo instead of having them fight Tony, or something? Couldn't Tony have just done nothing, giving Cap 36 hours to handle the crisis, before showing up (or sending in the troops, whom Cap could easily evade)? Why did Black Panther ask Bucky "if you are innocent, why did you run?" -- those SWAT dudes were shooting at Bucky, right, is Black Panther an idiot?
The final confrontation between Tony and Cap felt odd to me too. For one thing, Tony's overreaction seemed out of character. I just don't buy that Tony completely doesn't give a shit Bucky was mindcontrolled, Tony is supposed to be rational, intelligent and a good person. It felt like they had to have Tony act out of character to get the fight they wanted. For another, the whole Tony's parents thing was way out of left field -- shouldn't the motivation for the showdown between Cap and Tony at the end be somewhat related to what happens for the first two thirds of the movie, simply for storytelling's sake? Or maybe I missed something?