Why is DC sucking so much?

[Reddish Mage]

My problems with Civil War are primarily that it seemed to exist mainly to set up conflict for the next film, and that it was less of a Captain America film and more of an Avengers film. I might have preferred it if Age of Ultron had been a single-hero film (because Ultron was a fun villain who could conceivably return later) and Civil War was the Avengers title. Plus I just couldn't see Captain America's point, even though the movie does try to imply he's right at the end.

Honestly? I don't really think hero teamups work in movies. If I was doing the Justice League in a cinematic universe I'd make it a setting element, it's the justification for another hero occasionally turning up or how characters get information, but there's no massive team up fight in any of the films.

Ah come on. Captain America's point was pretty obvious "the safest hands are still our own." The movie also made it clear he was in the right, forget the politics, simply because Tony Stark was being an *******.

Finally, the counter point to superhero team-ups didn't work: Avengers, Avengers II, Captain America: Winter Soldier & Civil War, Spiderman: Homecoming, Thor: Ragnorok. So many incredibly successful films based on team up...indeed, the entire MCU follows a grand plan where every solo movie follows to a team-up.

You may not personally like Superhero cross-overs, the MCU isn't the most successful franchise in movie history, because of cameos, and the team-ups are occurring with more and more frequency as these movies just get more and more successful.

His point was "I'd rather trust in the moral choices of individuals over the policy choices of a bureaucracy" (because in the past, I have been right more often than they have been)

Compare that to Iron Man's "I'd rather that moral choices of individuals get supervised by others" (because I know I cannot be trusted to make the right moral choices 100% of the time).

I agree with Iron Man more than with Captain America on this - such major moral choices really should be double checked.

(I am purposely leaving aside the actual implementation of the idea in the Sokovia Accords because we really don't know how well it was implemented. We've been down the rabbit hole of "if the Sokovia Accords say X, X would be bad/good/OK". You can make a case any which way)

Civil Wars don't decide who is right, only who is left. The film quite clearly ends with moral failings across the board, and everyone is worse off than they started with. An excellent end-of-second-act situation, really. Now they have a hole they need to claw their way out of.

GW

I don't see how Captain America's team ends up with moral failings. This group seemed to me to play without moral failings, while Tony Stark was making plenty of them. These include bringing a teenager for extra muscle, kill the Winter Soldier (for personal reasons) and Captain America too because he got in the way, bring in external force into the internal scwabble, at the end and had a bunch of Avengers arrested for not signing on to his plan.

There is certainly clear sides to this movie, and we know how Sokovia Accords are being implemented according to the movie, at least: The "enhanced" that refuse to sign are imprisoned in small, solitary cells using high tech to suppress their powers.

Also, it doesn't work, Agents of SHIELD has Daisy sign just to continue using her powers in covert missions that, due to the nature of their missions (such as fighting government officials), clearly, no one is signing off on. Meanwhile, the Accords do result in all the Inhumans being registered on a government database that of course immediately ends up the hands of terrorists that wish to commit genocide. None of the Netflix shows even mention the Accords.

I would agree, in concept, that it seems like a good idea to put rules and oversight in place for individual and groups of vigilantes that have been allowed to essentially engage in military, covert ops, and police work that operate with absolute immunity from such things as laws or responsibility for property damage. Its also an idea whose time has never come in the real world because it has never actually been allowed for vigilantes with no relationship to law enforcement or the government to operate in an utterly unrestricted fashion.

However, superheroes and the way they operate is not real world. Nor is the proposals for regulating them sensible. Civil War in the comics was over a Registration Act the sought to catalogue all individuals with "powers" (and its really that vaguely defined) and their secret identities and then induct them into a military-like force.

The Sokovia Accords also sought to induct every "enhanced" individual and subject them to some sort of UN-based world-spanning supervisory committee instead of a military organization, and its clear that individuals need approval before participating in certain operations or using their powers. The committee probably meets once a month and can debate for months before authorizing the use of powers. This does not sound like a practical way to control the use of powers you want available in the case of a sudden crisis.