![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotI went to see Civil War, and I have some thoughts about how I would have done it.
Everything I know about the actual comics event is: Tony's side wanted superheroes to register their identities and accept governmental oversight, and Steve's didn't. Peter was originally on Tony's side and unmasked in front of reporters but then switched sides. And then Steve died? And maybe Sam took on the mantle of Captain America? But then Steve came back to life? Anyway, my point is that I have no idea how much beyond the basic concept for the movie was just taken from the comics and how much was the Russos'.
The first thought I had while watching it - after "take off the Captain America in the title and stop distinguishing between CA movies and Avengers movies, this is an ensemble piece" - is that it would make so much sense to switch the teams around. Really, the billionaire businessman wants more regulations and the guy who grew up with the WPA, CCC, &c. thinks people need "personal responsibility" and civilian casualties don't need to be minimized and all that? It would be super controversial, but it would make for more coherent characterization. I'm not a big fan of Tumblr's interpretation of Steve Rogers as obviously really progressive and the perfect ally, but making him a libertarian or at least Republican seems off to me.
But a while later I changed my mind, keep the sides as they are. But take away the philosophical difference, period. The Sokovia Accords are pretty much a red herring as it is, with the main story and emotional connection coming from things that have only tangential (if any) relationships to them - Tony's parents, and Steve's need to protect Bucky. The accords don't even make a ton of sense, why would the UN present them with a fait accompli rather than trying to work with them to come up with a mutually agreeable solution? Isn't that a big part of the UN? So turn that into a minor stop on the way - the UN is starting to draft an agreement for them, and they need the Avengers' input. Tony immediately assumes authority to speak for all of them, which exacerbates the un-comics-like tension he and Steve already have, because in this scenario Steve wants them all to have an equal say.
After that, the rest of the movie can really happen as it does, minus references to those philosophical differences. Aiding Bucky would be crime enough to make the ones who think he did it want to bring in his defenders, and personal loyalty for Steve would be enough to bring in Sam and the rest to defend Bucky. I would make some more changes with Wanda, though - in the film, she suddenly does a 180 from feeling personally guilty (which she should) to believing in FREEDOM ("internment", ffs, Steve) because she realizes that Tony's trying to keep her out of sight for a bit, which is ridiculous and frankly not sympathetic. I think I'd have her stay guilty, stay in hiding, and keep herself out of the fight - then have her come to sympathize with Steve over Bucky and get involved. How old is she supposed to be, btw? Is she supposed to be a teenager? Because then even better to not treat her being kept inside for a bit as a real civil liberties issue.
Oh, I would also change the Nat/Clint fight, because there's no way she wouldn't wipe the floor with him immediately. Come on. He's the arrow guy, she's the super fighter.
Apart from that, I've basically finished my drawers. I'm very happy with them! They're actually kind of cute, now that the legs have been shortened with tucks and hem.
Everything I know about the actual comics event is: Tony's side wanted superheroes to register their identities and accept governmental oversight, and Steve's didn't. Peter was originally on Tony's side and unmasked in front of reporters but then switched sides. And then Steve died? And maybe Sam took on the mantle of Captain America? But then Steve came back to life? Anyway, my point is that I have no idea how much beyond the basic concept for the movie was just taken from the comics and how much was the Russos'.
The first thought I had while watching it - after "take off the Captain America in the title and stop distinguishing between CA movies and Avengers movies, this is an ensemble piece" - is that it would make so much sense to switch the teams around. Really, the billionaire businessman wants more regulations and the guy who grew up with the WPA, CCC, &c. thinks people need "personal responsibility" and civilian casualties don't need to be minimized and all that? It would be super controversial, but it would make for more coherent characterization. I'm not a big fan of Tumblr's interpretation of Steve Rogers as obviously really progressive and the perfect ally, but making him a libertarian or at least Republican seems off to me.
But a while later I changed my mind, keep the sides as they are. But take away the philosophical difference, period. The Sokovia Accords are pretty much a red herring as it is, with the main story and emotional connection coming from things that have only tangential (if any) relationships to them - Tony's parents, and Steve's need to protect Bucky. The accords don't even make a ton of sense, why would the UN present them with a fait accompli rather than trying to work with them to come up with a mutually agreeable solution? Isn't that a big part of the UN? So turn that into a minor stop on the way - the UN is starting to draft an agreement for them, and they need the Avengers' input. Tony immediately assumes authority to speak for all of them, which exacerbates the un-comics-like tension he and Steve already have, because in this scenario Steve wants them all to have an equal say.
After that, the rest of the movie can really happen as it does, minus references to those philosophical differences. Aiding Bucky would be crime enough to make the ones who think he did it want to bring in his defenders, and personal loyalty for Steve would be enough to bring in Sam and the rest to defend Bucky. I would make some more changes with Wanda, though - in the film, she suddenly does a 180 from feeling personally guilty (which she should) to believing in FREEDOM ("internment", ffs, Steve) because she realizes that Tony's trying to keep her out of sight for a bit, which is ridiculous and frankly not sympathetic. I think I'd have her stay guilty, stay in hiding, and keep herself out of the fight - then have her come to sympathize with Steve over Bucky and get involved. How old is she supposed to be, btw? Is she supposed to be a teenager? Because then even better to not treat her being kept inside for a bit as a real civil liberties issue.
Oh, I would also change the Nat/Clint fight, because there's no way she wouldn't wipe the floor with him immediately. Come on. He's the arrow guy, she's the super fighter.
Apart from that, I've basically finished my drawers. I'm very happy with them! They're actually kind of cute, now that the legs have been shortened with tucks and hem.
