Captain America Has Always Been About Doing The Right Thing, Even If It Runs Counter To Orders – About

“Steve in CA:CW only thinks about Bucky!” / “Steve broke up the Avengers for Bucky!” 

I can’t count the number of times I have seen these phrases or variants thereof uttered in fandom, and it’s starting to make me a little bit bananas. So I’m gonna break down the issues with this line of thinking. 

First off, it isn’t true at all. Yes, Steve has a strong emotional response to issues involving Bucky, and yes, Bucky is a key piece on the chessboard in CA:CW. Decisions are made regarding him that impact the eventual split of the Avengers. But ultimately, Steve’s choices in the movie are rational and based on Steve’s ethics, Steve’s unwillingness to allow pointless death, and Steve’s mistrust of institutions after having been burned twice. All else being equal, and Bucky not being a factor, it is hard to imagine Steve making wholly different choices.

Steve goes after Bucky when he’s accused of bombing the UN, but does so to bring him in, and because there is a kill order on Bucky. Bucky is a goddamn living weapon, and will not go quietly into that good night; Steve has no way of knowing at that point if Bucky will use lethal force or not against those trying to apprehend him, and so goes after him because Steve has a better chance than anyone else of bringing him in without loss of life. Steve going after Bucky alone is a course of action he feels compelled to take not only to save Bucky’s life, but the lives of everyone else involved, at risk to his own. Steve is very explicit about this in his conversation with Natasha ( “If he’s this far gone, then… I should be the one to bring him in.” “Why?” “Because I’m the one least likely to die trying”). At this point, no other Avengers are involved; this is Steve’s choice and Steve’s action, and not a determining factor on the fate of the team. 

While Bucky’s lack of due process is pretty clearly upsetting to Steve, he is still willing to consider the Accords even after that whole incident, and even with his skepticism about the Accords’ definition of accountability. He doesn’t wholly back out until he finds out Wanda is being kept under house arrest without her knowledge and without any justification beyond her perceived ‘dangerousness’ (keep in mind, the incident in Lagos is because Crossbones set off a bomb; more people would have died without Wanda’s intervention. The hate toward her in-universe is a result of media spin and fear of powered people, because her powers weren’t enough to save everyone. It’s worth wondering: had it been one of Tony’s automated suits that didn’t get the bomb clear in time, would we be seeing the same furor?). This is understandably upsetting to a guy who lived through a period of seeing people interned and worse based on public fear of certain minorities, and has seen how it can escalate into absolute horror; while Wanda’s imprisonment is cushy, as Tony points out, it sets a profoundly disturbing precedent. 

When Steve and Team Cap face off against Team Iron Man at the airport, it’s because they need to get to Siberia – not because Steve just wants to run off with Bucky. Steve attempts to explain the situation (“…And there are 5 more super soldiers just like him. I can’t let the doctor find them first, Tony. I can't”), and Tony makes it clear he has no intention of listening at that point (“All right, I’ve run out of patience. Underoos!”).  Steve is left with no choice but to fight his way out to stop what Zemo’s trail has led them to believe is an incredibly serious and imminent threat to global safety, which Tony is unwilling to listen to, and which Ross is later unwilling to take seriously.  

The film’s initial marketing (and hyper-focus on the eyeroll-worthy “he’s my friend”/”so was I” exchange) plus the lens of Stucky shipping have actually done us a disservice, I think, by characterizing Steve as someone who makes all his choices around Bucky. But even with Bucky not being a factor, I honestly don’t think we’d see Steve make different choices when forced into this same situation and provided with the same intel. With the threat of brainwashed super soldiers being unleashed and no time to wait for the UN to get its ass in gear – and that only happening IF Ross could be convinced to listen – he would probably still head to Siberia to try to stop it himself should no one else listen and be willing to act. If Wanda was being imprisoned and a precedent set for interning enhanced people who didn’t sign the Accords, I think he’d still be opposed to signing. Even before Bucky is ever a factor, Steve has legitimate concerns about the Accords – Accountable to whom? What’s the process? What happens to people who don’t sign? What guarantee do they have that the Avengers won’t be used for national agendas?

Maybe Tony would have been more willing to listen to Steve if Bucky weren’t involved. But Steve is actually responding pretty rationally throughout, and being honest with himself about what he thinks he can and can’t promise in good faith.

Tony, on the other hand, is painted by many fans as someone who is making choices from a rational, reasonable place, but if we look at what is said and done canonically… the opposite appears to be true?

While unquestionably an intellectually brilliant man, Tony is pretty consistently characterized as someone who reacts from a place of emotion and impulse rather than from a place of detached intellectual analysis. It’s part of what makes him an interesting character, and makes him diverge from the ‘aloof genius’ archetype we see with Reed Richards and a number of other super-geniuses of the Marvel universe. He makes a lot of choices – good and bad – based on strong feelings and gut reactions rather than thinking things through. Sometimes this means throwing caution to the winds and setting a whole new ethical course for his company. And sometimes this means accidentally inventing a murderbot. 

Tony straight up tells Steve that he wants to sign the Accords to get Pepper back while still doing his Iron Man shtick ( “I never stopped. Cause the truth is I don’t wanna stop. I don’t want to lose her. I thought maybe the Accords can split the difference.”) And he only gets involved with the Accords after being made to feel guilty when ambushed by Miriam. Tony’s support of the Accords stems from his personal guilt, and personal motivations to get Pepper back more than any consideration of longterm, far-reaching effects. We can see the lack of thought he’s put into this when Tony himself later goes completely rogue and ignores Ross (to whom he’s supposed to answer under the Accords), defying the very policies he’s been pushing because they become inconvenient in a way he didn’t anticipate. We also see it when he admits he didn’t know the rogue Avengers would be thrown into the RAFT, implying he didn’t investigate the ramifications of the Accords fully. The timeframe of the Accords is rushed, with the Avengers given an ultimatum on an absurd deadline, and Tony’s eagerness to soothe his guilt and repair his relationship drives him to help force them into that scenario – where a schism is more or less an inevitability. 

And contrary to the narrative that the marketing team seemed to push and that a lot of fans on both sides cling to, it isn’t Steve’s reaction in this conflict that comes from a place of emotional impulsivity due to Bucky. 

In fact, the most visceral, emotional, irrational decision made in regards to Bucky in the course of the movie? Is made by Tony. 

Now, I can’t honestly blame him for wanting to kill Bucky after seeing the footage of Howard and Maria’s deaths – I would straight up murder anyone who laid a finger on my mom, no matter the situation, so I have a LOT of sympathy. But while it’s understandable, it is not excusable. Bucky did not have any agency as the Winter Soldier. He was a brainwashed torture victim with no free will; the culpability for Howard and Maria’s deaths lies on the HYDRA handler who sent the Winter Soldier after them. And Tony knows this. But he responds from a place of pain and emotion and tries to kill Bucky anyway – because he’s hurting and wants to make someone else hurt too, and also, according to the Russoes’ commentary, to hurt Steve. 

And it’s that final violence, with Bucky and Steve forced to fight Tony for Bucky’s life, that drives the ultimate wedge in the Avengers. Tony had seen the flaws in the Accords and been willing to defy Ross; Steve finally had the opportunity to explain the threats he was dealing with and have Tony listen; they were ready to confront Zemo together. Up to that point, reconciliation and reunification of the Avengers had been a very tangible, present possibility. But once again, Tony backs Steve into a corner with an ultimatum: before, it was his ethics or his legal standing. Now, it’s Tony’s friendship, or Bucky’s life. And because Steve is obviously not willing to let Tony straight-up murder Bucky to satisfy his vengeance, that reconciliation is taken off the table.

So yes, the Avengers are ultimately still broken up at the end of CA:CW because of an irrational decision made about Bucky.

But it’s not made by Steve. 

sarah rogers was the most influential person in steve’s life. she was a single mother who raised a chronically ill son in the 1920s and supported them on her own. who do you think held steve as he cried, a frail boy bullied relentlessly, and told him he would always be better than bullies if he was kind? who taught him your body didn’t matter? that its what’s inside that counts? to stand up for what’s right, even if you’re the only one standing? taught him his tolerance, his respect for women, his manners? she did. it’s an absolute injustice that we haven’t Once seen her on screen, not even steve visiting her grave.

Awww, Stevie, you are number one for me ))

Top 10 Male Marvel Characters as Voted by Our Followers ↳ #2 Steve Rogers

He is so badass in this. Love this guy.

MULTIPLE CONTUSIONS DETECTED.

the thing about fandom’s framing of steve as this rebel without a cause type of reckless idiot who is just incapable of following orders is that, like “angry chihuahua” pre-serum steve, i get where it comes from. it’s funny and meme-able, and, most importantly, it’s a way to distance steve from the boyscout image so many people associate him with, and that so many of his fans hate.

but, just as angry chihuaha steve, reckless idiot steve is also upsetting because it takes the most sincere, earnest, good things steve has done in the mcu and twists them to be not the actions of a noble hero, but the stupidity of a manchild who challenges everything and everyone for no reason. it bastardizes the very core of steve’s character, and, above all, equates making steve more cynic/less idealistic with making steve better and cooler.

and that sucks because, no, he’s not a boyscout, but, guys, the very core of steve’s character is cheesy. steve as a character represents an ideal, and he does so in the most sincere, earnest way possible. steve’s superpower is his heart and his bravery. he’s a hero because he’s a good person, not because he’s snarky, because he’s a genius, because he’s super powerful or because he was chosen by fate or a prophecy. he’s just… the ultimate Good Guy. it doesn’t get much cheesier than that, unless your name is Clark Kent. 

and if that isn’t interesting to you, it’s cool. anti-heroes are the norm in the mcu and in most superhero movies for a reason: they’re fun to watch and very relatable. but, i’m sorry, steve is just not one of them. steve is that guy who walks old ladies to cross the street, not the guy who cracks a bunch of jokes while kicking a villain’s ass. and you’re free to find this boring and lame as much as you want to, but that’s IT. that’s the character. and i feel like a lot of people are not comfortable just letting steve be that way - they need to twist his actions to make him seem much more of a rebel badass than he actually is, and since i’m so attached to this stupidly sincere portrayal of sheer goodness and bravery, it becomes upsetting.

like… streve crashed the Valkyrie into the water not because he’s an Extra™, Dramatic Bitch or whatever, but because it was the only chance to land the plane without killing tons of innocent people. TFA is the ONLY origin movie in the mcu that doesn’t end with a triumph, but with a tragedy, and fandom somehow thinks it’s fun to turn steve’s sacrifice into a laughing stock, to act like he did so because he’s stupid or missed bucky’s dick too much or anything of the sort, instead of seeing the fact that steve did what he did because he valued other people’s lives above his own, because he valued doing the right thing over getting what he, personally, wanted.

and i guess to me it’s upsetting because this is something that resonates so deeply with my values and the person i want to be, and so to see fandom turning it into something small and petty just hurts, even if it’s just a joking shitpost. because when you act like steve is just some insolent dude who challenges everything and everyone just because he can, you end up turning his character from a hero to an idiot with poor impulse control. when you make headcanons of his friends being annoyed and bored by his constant idealism and desire to do the right thing, you turn him into a burden to sam or bucky or natasha or whoever, ignoring how he’s actually a leader and an inspiration to the people around him - you ignore how he broke through bucky’s brainwashing through sheer loyalty, how he made sam want to suit up for the first time in years, how he gave natasha trust when no one else would have. 

basically, you take away the beautiful things about his character and turn into something that, yeah, might be funnier, but it’s just so cynical it’s almost depressing. it turns something that is genuinely idealistic and optimistic into a pessimistic, shallow thing, and that’s just not what steve rogers is meant to be.

Wow that man is so cool!!

Actor Hiroyuki Sanada (“The Wolverine,” “47 Ronin”) has been cast in a supporting role in #AvengersInfinityWar!

Yeah. McCain understands

truth

Wow. I’m almost crying

First look at Evangeline Lilly as The Wasp! (x)

CW is a huge letdown for all Steve fans. I’m still so angry about it. But if I remember correctly they said that RDJ wouldn’t agree to this film if his character would have too little screen time or shown in the wrong. And you can’t have CW without him. I think all they could do really is name it Avengers Civil war. Now for me there is only 2 Cap films and 4 avengers films. What a shame

And with Cap’s supposedly “big role” in the next Avengers I can’t help but think that it will be another disappointment. I so hope I’m wrong here.

how they could have kept cap 3 civil war w/o turning it into avengers 2.5

-do not open the film with action. the captain american movies have always been incredibly human. keep the pattern tfa & tws set; open with a moment//moments that add to steve rogers’ character

- scratch the tony narrative Completely. i’m sorry to any tony fans but seriously, get that out of there. follow steve’s perspective and steve’s perspective only, the exception being for plot-driven scenes only 

-given us more steve. he felt like a secondary character to his own film. how could that have been remedied? replace any time alotted by tony flashbacks and character insight with Steve flashbacks and character insight. give me steve watching the mother who had cared for him his whole life, breathing her last breaths in his arms, consumed by sickness. give me a quiet moment with sam, heartbroken and apologetic after two years of unsuccessfully searching for what, a ghost? give me steve helping a old woman carry her groceries into her apartment, and have her recognize him. have him spending the rest of the day with her, unguarded. 

-exploit thaddeus ross’ moral depravity; he is not just some hardass trying to push politics. the project he led illegally experimented on prisoners, he lied to bruce banner (and the misinformation is what led to bruce being turned into the hulk), he personally swore he’d kill bruce and hunted him to endlessly bruce saw no other option than to try to kill himself

-highlight the worst part of the accords. remind the audience that nefarious interests have infiltrated the government before. show us a flashback where steve’s actions were manipulated by a hydra controlled shield & the negative consequences. show us that the government does not always follow the moral highground. 

-let us have more time where steve interacts with bucky. let them have an actual conversation. 

-give us more sam wilson, someone who connected with steve and saw him as more than captain america when no one else would

-make us feel as desperate as steve feels. let us know just will happen if steve doesn’t come out on top this time. give us the hopelessness, make us be sided 100% with steve with no reservations because this is His story, without a single doubt, this is his struggle. we are rooting for steve no matter what as he fights an unjust world that would have killed his best friend without sure evidence, that would have imprisoned him, that would have dictated his every move and treated him and those like him as weapons and pawns

there should have never been sides. it should not have been open for interpretation. it should have just been the story of a man who keeps fighting for what he believes in and stands up against any bully, even if it means pitting him against the whole world, and yet, and yet,…. he still triumphs and refuses to be put down

I just read your Civil War discourse post and, honestly, you get the biggest round of applause. I, by no means, hate Tony for the side he chose and I love him just as much as I do Steve, but Steve always gets a bad rap for his role in CW because everyone just wants to boil it down to him trying to protect Bucky. I think if most people had actually paid attention to that movie and what agenda the accords were hiding, no one would’ve signed them! Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. -🅱️

I also don’t hate Tony! I think he’s a complicated, fascinating character – though I confess I am a little frustrated with the direction the writers took with his character by undoing a lot of his growth in Iron Man 3 (which I thought was a good movie) in order to shoehorn him into the center of AOU and CA:CW, though that’s my own personal peeve. But man, I remember watching Iron Man (2008) a gazillion times when it came out and loving it to bits! And I love the ways in which he is the model of an Aristotlean Tragic Hero Archetype. RDJ’s performance is spectacular to boot. 

And you’re spot on about people boiling things down – inaccurately – into being about Bucky. Part of the problem with the CA:CW discourse, I think, is the amount of focus on fandom around Stucky – and this isn’t a criticism of Stucky! Just about how fandom distortions around ships can alter perceptions:

There’s this myth in fandom that 100% of everything Steve does and thinks is completely about Bucky all the time. And while Bucky is absolutely an important part of Steve’s life, they are both individuals with their own priorities and their own choices. Steve has a strong sense of right and wrong, and a lot of experiences with corrupt institutions outside of Bucky on which he bases his decisions. But the fandom echo chamber reframes everything as being Bucky-centered in CA:CW for the romance of it, when…. that isn’t really accurate. And so Team Iron Man folks who are also exposed to this fanon then frame Steve as acting irrationally and making everything all about Bucky, because that’s the exaggerated fandom shipping narrative dominant on tumblr, despite that not being what happens in canon. 

The thing about the Accords is – I don’t think ANYONE thought that some kind of agreement for ensuring More Bad Shit didn’t happen was a bad idea. Steve makes it clear that the structure of this specific law – which completely deprives the Avengers of any agency while putting dangerous amounts of power in the hands of a few countries’ governments (mainly the former-imperialist nations who have permanent seats on the UN Security Council) and denying human rights to Enhanced Individuals – is not something he’s comfortable with. And then there’s no compromise available, because the thing is being railroaded through with no time for deliberation, amendment, discussion, or even a fucking lawyer to look it over. This is misrepresented by the other side as Steve refusing any kind of oversight ever. 

And part of the reason both sides end up talking past one another is that one side is arguing about whether or not the ideal of legislation like the Accords – and what they are allegedly supposed to accomplish – is right, and basing a pro-Accords argument on that, while the other is arguing against the reality of the Accords – and the agenda Ross actually designed them to accomplish – to point out that the actual implementation of the Sokovia Accords is an Authoritarian disaster. And those are two different conversations, and two positions that can be simultaneously right. The idea of some kind of legal framework that the Avengers should have to abide by in order to defend the rights of nations and individuals isn’t a bad one. The Accords are also not the right framework to make that happen.