Captain America: Civil War - Renegade Cut 

Honestly the most realistic thing about Civil War is the world blaming their problems on the wrong people

You could argue that Thor's official role as "Champion of the Nine Realms" and thousands of years of Asgard protecting Earth means that his authority to act in the defense of the planet supercedes any human institution, until Earth formally withdraws from Asgard's protection.

Actually it seems like all of Ironman's villains are created from his actions.

The movie also has the issue of Tony Stark breaking the accords after he signs them by bringing Peter Parker, a minor, into the mess via blackmail.

I think this is what validates Civil War as a very good film. Even the flaws in its characters' arguments are realistic and still invite constructive discussion about the implications of superheroes that actually elevate the genre instead of letting it continue to be loud noise.

I like the idea of the avengers being able to act independent of the UN, but requiring international approval in the event of an emergency abroad. It respects the Avengers' human right to autonomy, while respecting international laws.

Leon, you're so smart and I love that you're not too snobby to analyze a Marvel movie.

I understand where you're coming from when you say it's insulting to call Bruce Banner a nuclear weapon, but, the idea of a person who becomes a destructive force of nature when excited (either angered or even sexually aroused) is frightening to say the least; a disproportionate response to such a person is understandable, even in the real world. Also, yes, calling the UN's bluff and retiring is an excellent tactic, but like you said, the movie wouldn't happen. Not to mention, Iron Man just drafted a 15 year old ! A person that is legally viewed as a child by many countries, so there that little complication to the accords.

the way i see it the civil war is not about freedom and security, but about responsibillity. steve rogers wants the decisions and actions of the avengers to reflect onto the individual members, having them carry the responsibility to decide when to act and in which way, also leaving their decisions open to criticism. tony stark wishes to rid himself of this responsibility, should the united nations be put in charge of the avengers, the actions of the avengers would reflect onto the leadership of the united nations, NOT onto the individual members, should the time come for the avengers to make a dificult decision, tony stark can shift this decision along with the blame for any damage done because of this decision, onto his superiors.

I like that what starts about two political sides climaxes into basically a battle simply tainted by personal issues of two people (Tony and Stark) hence why both sides had their rights and wrongs. In one way, they took it too personal.

Lol, that would actually make great material for a great spoof movie. The avengers refuse to sign the accords and all retire :-D We then follow the avengers in their retirement and follow a frustrated general Ross trying to bring them back to save the earth.

It always bothered me how the Avengers were being blamed for incidents initiated by highly dangerous villains, and this viewpoint was treated as somehow valid in the framing of the movie, so I really appreciate you breaking down some of the problems with that. Aside from arguably Ultron, aren't responsible at all for the initial attacks--they really are just doing their best, and they are greatly decreasing the loss of life that there would have been without them. As you kind of alluded to, blaming the Avengers for the tragic losses in Lagos or New York City would be like holding 9/11 first responders responsible for those deaths, simply because they didn't manage to save everyone.

I had watched some reviews of the movie where people had said that Zemo was pointless. But I had disagreed because using your assessment, the point of Zemo was to escalate the situation. Rogers and the rest of Team Cap could have easily retired and called the UN's bluff, but we never get that scenario because Zemo framed Barnes. It is one of the reasons I love the movie so much. It was clever enough to realize that the Avengers wouldn't fight each other unless the circumstance warrented it. Thanks for the analysis. I really appreciate you breaking down my thoughts in an articulate way.

The thing that bothered me about Ross initiating the Accords is that he ignores the events of 'The Incredible Hulk', even though it was his fault that it happened. Anyone else agree to that?

The two infinity stones on Earth draw most of the villains to it. The problem is Earth's unwillingness to part with those stones. I believe Vision's assessment to be correct.

A large problem with the movie was that, while it borrowed a few ideas from the comic, it failed to provide the build up to the events. And it failed utterly at conveying the nuances of the argument. The movie, perhaps somewhat predictably as this is Hollywood we're talking about, casts an international organisation as the "villain" of the story. But in the comic, it was actually the US government, spurred on by an outcry from the population at large, that finally put the hammer down and tried to get the masked superheroes under control. How many times should New York have to be rebuild? How much collateral damage should be accepted? Don't forget that the event that started it all was superheroes staring in a reality show. In this light Ironman's arguments makes more sense. Enough is enough. Superheroes had been allowed to run amok for too long. And now they either accept a loosely held leash, or they will eventually face the full fury of the government. His actions were wrong - and terribly so - but the basic idea was sound. On the other hand, the counter arguments were also sound. Can the government be trusted to keep the identities of the superheroes secret? What would happen if they couldn't? And what about mutants? Can you force people to register with the government, simply for being born with the wrong genes? It's a Catch 22 for all involved. Personal freedom must be respected, but something has to be done to stop the constant destruction and loss of life. So while I have to say that I'm not a fan of the Civil War comics (it all felt rather contrived), they did at least make a whole lot more sense than the movie did. And more importantly, it showed that there truly were consequences to peoples actions, with the outcry of the population finally convincing Captain America to surrender and with most people turning away from Ironman in disgust over what he had done. So while this critique is fair within the context of this movie on its own, it fails to draw the bigger picture of why the movie ended up being what it is. And what it could have been, had Hollywood had the guts to tackle the deeper issues. For me, this was the movie that broke the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They had some good plot points to explore, but they abandoned them in favour of a typical NWO-conspiracy type story that asked no deep questions and provided no answers. It was an absolute mess. And when the final movies were released, I simply couldn't be bothered to go watch them.

Probably one of the best most reasonable and clear arguments for Team Cap I've seen.

You make good points in this video about the parallels of the arguments presented in the movie, and how they use simplified logic, and Hollywood action to show us this. What it all really comes down too, in my opinion, is the governments of this fictional universe feeling they cannot control the avengers, Thor or the Hulk. They hate not feeling in control and would do anything, even using events that are not really related to the avengers or their actions to take control of them. It's unlikely they could ever control the Hulk, Thor or other heroes / villains of a certain power level though. for instance, in the future movie infinity wars, I doubt there will be any accords for Thanos to sign, he doesn't care and would kill whoever presented it to him. They will control who they can, and give the appearance, like most governments do, that everything is fine to some socially acceptable degree. Or lie about it, governments love to lie about things, especially the American Government.

As I've said. I'm team Black Widow, she's the one who is the most fore-square and pragmatic.

I have disagreements about your conclusions against Vision's argument. He specifically brings up that the start of everything (and from a meta point of view, he's completely literally correct) was the events of Iron Man 1. Stane was a bad guy arms dealer/war profiteer before Tony escaped from the desert, but he only became Iron Monger once he saw what the arc reactor was capable of. As Vision said, the strength invited challenge (or emulation, which is indeed responding to challenge). The same could be said of Hammer and Vanko in IM2, and Killian in IM3; all of them saw what the Iron Man system could do, then wanted to match it for personal gain or to seek revenge. Ross has wanted Hulk's power weaponized since day one, and Blonsky was pretty much defined by his desire for challenge. Hydra could be argued to have been founded as a response to the challenge of the military might of the Allied forces, but even leaving that aside, changing tactics and growing within Shield is a direct result of their defeat by Cap in WW2. The villains may not have been directly created by the actions of the Avengers, but they were all definitely created from the events each of the Avengers left in their wake. This is perfectly illustrated by Zemo in Civil War; he may not have been intentionally created by the Avengers, but he would never have become a villain without their actions.

I thought the movie worked out because it's based on both Steve and Tony's character development. Steve started out as a soldier, pretty much. I mean admittedly he disobeyed orders even in his first film but he was still definitely willing to submit to authority. The Winter Soldier helped him realise that he shouldn't trust authority unless he's sure it's trust-worthy and that's what his actions in Civil War are reflecting. Tony on the other hand started out as an unashamed individualist with little sense of responsibility. Every one of his movies since then have been, to some extent at least, about him learning the importance of responsibility. Especially Age of Ultron of course, which really is kind of an Iron Man movie more than anything else. And that culminates in Civil War with him finally deciding that he can't trust himself alone to make the right decisions and that he needs oversight. So in a way both of them learned what they needed to learn to grow as people, it's just that both needed to learn the opposite lessons. And tbh, the clash might be partly about the fact that not all Avengers are the same. Steve doesn't really need oversight, he's just a guy. A physically enhanced guy but still, not really anyone absurdly powerful. And he's never really made mistakes that would call for oversight either. The most you can say is that he works with the other Avengers. Same goes for Natasha and Clint probably. They're just people who are really good at fighting and stuff. On the other hand Tony has this powerful tech that he (mostly) refuses to share and he has a bad record of making some really unfortunate decisions. There's a reasonable argument to be made that he DOES need oversight. He'd definitely need it more than Steve. The rest of the team falls somewhere in between. ... The other thing that's happening is that both Tony and Steve are becoming increasingly radicalized. Steve was always somewhat left-leaning in his ideology and here he's moving towards anarchism aka radical leftism. Tony was always somewhat right-leaning and he is moving towards fascism. I mean I'm definitely exaggerating here, I don't actually think Tony is a fascist (more like he just goes along with people who are sort of a little bit fashy) and I'm not sure if I'd call Steve an anarchist yet, and obviously it's all so heavily fictionalized that real world ideology doesn't fit exactly... but they are kind of flirting with those ideas, at least in subtext. Whether it's intended or not. (And I think this is really why I find it so much easier to go for Team Cap.)

Come on, people! Everyone should be team Thor! It's just him, and Daryl.

It was a very complicated situation that characters in the movies responded to as very flawed human beings. Kind of like the real world.

Without oversight, the Avengers are simply vigilantes. The Accords are a reasonable idea, even if they need some fine tuning ( Habeas corpus, right to counsel, etc)

The portrayal and reaction to superheroes in this movie is actually pretty realistic. Logic? Rationale? Forget that, you absolutely know the media would ignore anything you've pointed out in this video and spin it however they wish.

I hate when people liken this movie to BvS and say “the heroes just end up being friends, so it was pointless.” Did you watch Civil War? Not only do they both not get what they want, but they actively are not on a talking basis. This is carried into Infinity War, where their feud is the very thing that ends up getting half of the universe killed.

It sounds like Black Widow's plan was the most pragmatic, by your estimation. Sign the accords and then be in a position to bargain for a better deal.

One comment: I got the impression that the accords were not to "draft" the Avengers, but to make it so that they need "approval" from the UN before they do anything. Cap's fear was that they would not be allowed to go places that it is "politically" inconvenient for them to go. Otherwise, awesome video as always!

While I can acknowledge and even agree with most of your argument, I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the Actions of Steve Rogers in Lagos. Steve and his team have actionable intelligence regarding an imminent terrorist attack. Instead of sharing this information with local authorities who could then use it to harden their security posture, or possibly even evacuate suspected target zones, Steve instead decides to use it as an attempt to lure Rumlow into a violent confrontation in a crowded civilian sector. Civilian casualties were the predictable result. This act shows incredibly poor judgement on Steve's part and if anything buttressed the argument for the need for over sight and review of Avenger's mission protocols.

I think most people are team cap in-univers, but are team tony if this was the real world

Better then most comic book youtube vid ive seen

Love this analysis and just highlights why this film is engaging...

You're one of the most interesting channels on RU-vid. Thanks for another excellent video.

Thank you for making this. Its incredible.

Man, a lot of the time I disagree with you, but when you make good points, you make REALLY good points.

I recently became a fan of your channel, being a film lover myself. I have to say, execellent job my friend. I truly enjoyed your take on Freedom vs Security. Not at all an easy subject. Keep bringing these Cuts.

Excellent analysis. Love your work, Leon, keep it up!

I never got the feeling that Ross was making arguments in good faith, he was laying out the nuts and bolts of the current political climate and how he was prepared to leverage public perception if not obeyed. On the one hand, he was just doing a political job, on the other he really despises the avengers and is a walking ball of hubris, so he was enjoying it. The same way Tony’s crushing guilt is not subject to logical causal analysis, neither is public perception. You can see the awareness of this all over Romanov’s face as Ross is talking. From the events of winter soldier and how she is basically brazening her way through its very politically dicey aftermath, she understands that perception and public will can easily supersede moral and legal premises in the real world, and everything she says and does to try and sway others after that point is about those practical realities: keeping the team together, building public trust, etc. Because if the avengers don’t listen to Ross’ fallacious scare-mongering and other-blaming, reducing supers to a subhuman menace or public utility, there’s every reason to think he’ll take those same arguments public as a respected military man with lots of “experience” dealing with superheroes that looks just fine on paper. If this were the real world, Ross would likely be a Fox News darling, regularly called on to weigh in on how people ought to feel about superheroes. The raft is not that different a situation from Guantanamo, after all, and revoking basic access to moral and legal rights is something people readily tolerate when a class of people are reduced to a problem in the public eye.

It's easy for people to take Cap's side (no regulation) but there's more to it. A group running around going anywhere they want, anytime they want, and doing anything they want in reality is a bit concerning lol. Through the films Tony develops a sense of accountability due to the damage he profited from and later the damage the Avengers participated in. After witnessing the Nazi regime and being disillusioned by HYDRA Cap doesn't trust regulation. Both sides have a real argument which is what makes the film so good.

and they say that marvel is for kids, take notes dc "mature" doesnt mean anxiety darkness

An actually excellent video. Superb job, Leon. ...can...can I just call you Leon? Or should I call you something else?

One point in the response part: Abomination came about as a response to the Hulk, most of Tony's villains are evil to begin with, but become "super" as a result of something Tony did, and Yellowjacket was potentially driven mad by his exposure to Pym particles.

Captain America: Civil War is a really good film, and makes interesting arguments on both sides. But it has one huge flaw that screws up any argument: ROSS! One side literally has a villain from a previous movie on it's side! And not just any villain, but General Ross, who represents the problems with overzealous military government thinking. He's a warmonger, and the last person who should have any power at all, much less any actual authority over something as powerful as the Avengers. He is exactly the reason that the Sakovia Accords are a bad idea.

I have to admit, if I suddenly gained super powers, I can't think of a single government I'd be willing to put my capabilities at the absolute service of. Open lines of communication, sure, but if they wanted me to put my powers to work in the service of their ends, they would damned well need to persuade me that their goals were good ones. And that's in a real world, not one where a huge inter-governmental organization aimed at managing people like me already turned out to be secretly controlled by bad guys.

Great analysis and overall commentary. Subbed.

So we're trying to label Ross as a stable and morally straight individual whose arguments are not flawed? No, the accords are flawed by design.

If I used to rob stores with a knife and they hired security guards with guns, I either stop robbing stores or I get a gun too. I think that's the intent of the Vision's observation (although I do agree that he should have said 'correlation', which fits better both for accuracy and as an underselling of his true belief); once Iron Man started stopping bad guys with a high-tech suit (out of necessity, remember; the motivation would be quite different if he built an impervious killing armor in the safety of his own home - it was a solution borne of trauma and desperation and his actions in punishing the Ten Rings were clearly rage AND empathy based), the bad guys, who aren't suddenly going to become good guys out of fear (looking at you, religion and the death penalty), have to step of their game and get fancy tech gizmos or make deals with interstellar warlords to stand a chance. No powered suit = good ole' fashioned gun fights.

I loved your take on this movie! Keep up the good job!

Excellent and Thoughtful Analysis as usual

Thanks for this video man!

My favorite moment of CACW was when Steve and Peter met. The boy from Brooklyn meets the kid from Queens. So good.

Vision did say: "There *may* be a causality" The supercomputer knew that.

Hey, Leon! This is a great video. I really like Renegade Cut and look forward to it every week. I noticed you've reviewed many of David Lynch's films, and I recently watched his prequel film to his TV show "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me." With the revival coming next year, I was curious if you've checked that show/movie out before, if you have I'd love to know if you liked it or not. Not asking for a full-on analysis or anything, just curious on your general thoughts.

great video as always

I look at it like this, the accords are just a power play from the un, who wouldn't want to own the avengers, politics is just a game. Also the freedom part was just about the freedom of the team not the freedom of society.

Sorry if this has been brought up, but Powers Boothe's character of the World Security Council is revealed to have been one of the heads of Hydra in Agents of Shield.

Man I love that I live in a world with videos like this

For that first statement, I think you could probably use the creation of Iron Man as an inspiration for many of the technological supervillain in the cinematic universe. The first 2 iron man villains are literally peoples attempts to keep up with what Iron Man is as a weapon of war technologically.

Amazing Video

"Thunderbolt" Ross is usually the bad guy. This is consistent.

9:48 She could have sent him diagonally upwards. She probably didn't think of it because she had to think fast, but it was certainly a better option.

Accountability is key. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong they need to, one, explain themselves to the public, and 2, be held accountable when things go wrong. Not much different than people wanting Police accountability. Imagine if we had a police force that went into violent confrontations and left without any recourse for any damage that might have come about from their confrontation.

this is great - thanks very much

Amazing analysis!

You know what the Avengers need? Lawyers, something they sorely lack despite never have to worry about running out of money.

I slightly disagree with the Wanda and bomb scene and the vision causation analysis, judging by the area they were in there was a huge amount of land with no buildings so Wanda should of been able to raise the bomb vertically up instead she denotes it near a building when they werent that close to one when they were standing, not to mention Rumlows whole plan was based on getting revenge on Cap not just to cause damage. In addition I believe Vision's point was that their existence as superheroes influences people to be super-villains, its highly convenient that as soon as Iron Man becomes the first public hero people get the idea to become villains

The Vision's comment about causality, is meant to indicate the same thing as the "crazy-stupid-fine" reporter scene in Ant-Man; more things are happening in the MCU, than is shown in the movies. Possibly a soft reference to Agents of SHIELD and/or the Netflix shows.

All of that is justified by the fact that the film isn't about these things; obviously both sides have their arguments about the Accords, but if you'll notice, they aren't even the reason Stark and Rogers fight at the end. Ultimately, the agreement regarding the Accords could've been resolved by them any other time, but the point was that at the exact moment that they are faced with taking this important choice, neither of them is emotionally stable enough to make such an important choice objectively; yes they are mentioned in the film, as are some implications about it, but that's not what the film is about, so ultimately, every "problem" with the Accords explained in here is irrelevant to the quality of the film.

What's the song playing at the beginning? Sounds like some film score (not MCU) but I can't place it. 0:00 to 0:40

I know I'm late here but I have to side with Ross. Not because of his argument but his action. The Avengers do need oversight. They have gifts and resources the world needs for survival and they are constantly driven by their emotion and own personal ambitions. It's like a pharmasudical company that has a life saving cure. And sure they made it, but at some point it has become such a public good that it needs oversight so it won't be misused, underused or abused. Yes, the Avengers saved lots of people. But most of the time just barely, by moments. Imagine living in a world where there are so many close calls with everyone's lives and your just banking on these privet people and hoping they are in a good mental place the next time a big threat tromps in. Also, I think you gloss over just how much they break both international and domestic law. They straight up are judge, jury and way too often exicutioner. They seem to suffer no liability for all the times they take the law into their own hands rather then coordinating with local law enforcement. It's kinda crazy I think the accords is actually super lienent based on their actions. Also Banner should be taken away. He is a walking bio weapon and he should not be with the general public just like how someone with ebola should be quarenteened.

I think they did a good job of showing off the two options and how sticking too much to it will result in that break. I also think that this really helped with showing the change in the characters and how they viewed institutes - Tony's journey in the Iron Man movies showed that he needed outside groups or gov't institutes (even after his incursions in Iron Man) to give him focus. His comfort and where he's found help is through stuff like SHIELD over the 'free' open market that created his villains. Even though he argued with the US gov't in Iron Man 2, I think if they'd compromised, he would've worked with them. On the flip side, Rogers has gone from working with the US Army and it's Propaganda arm to realizing how dangerous all that power is - he has a shock of change and has seen how the institutes fail people, so he wants that ability for them to create their own way and not have a potentially dangerous group on their back.

the iconic thing is, what you described about a liason, a restructured UN agreement and such? That did happen. In the late 1970s in the comics. in fact the liason is in the film (Gyrich). And then Marvel retconned it out a few years about so they could do Civil War.

I don't think Ultron is fully Tony's fault. In the first Avengers movie, the Mind Stone in Loki's scepter is causing discord among the group and particularly on Bruce (He even unknowingly picks it up and theres a scene where the camera slowly zooms in on the Scepter while they're arguing.) I think that when Tony took it from HYDRA, it was subconsciously manipulating him into making an AI based off the power in the stone.

Nice job, RC. Nice.

This is a fantastic video! You encapsulated everything that was wrong with Ross's point of view. I was rather frustrated that the fact the Avengers take so much care to avoid as much collateral damage as possible is compleately ignored by the Powers That Be. Your writing is brilliantly eloquent as well.

Phenomenal vid.

An excellent, thought-provoking video; extremely relevant given the state of American politics.

I'd like to think that this film acts as a sort of "Reality Ensues" self-reflection to the idea that Tony Stark is an Objectivist, Tony needing the consequences of his rational self-interest literally rubbed in his face for him to fully-comprehend that what he is doing makes him a far-cry from the Paragon he thinks he is.

I feel as though Vision is alluding to the over sight needed not only to regulate the avengers but also organize and come together to fight Thanos who is the conflict that will bring catastrophe that he is talking about. I feel like there was some foreshadowing there but i could be wrong he may just be talking about conflicts on earth.

Great analysis

It would have been interesting if Vision had supported the correlation does not equal causation point. If he had, he would have likely opposed Tony, which would also have affected Tony on a psychological level, considering JARVIS is "dead" and Vision is not JARVIS anymore, further severing the connection Tony had to what he ended up thinking of as a friend.

21 minutes of video and you still didn't comment on how wrong it is that Aunt May is hot. Unscribed. Now seriously, great video as usual. It didn't completely spoil my enjoyment of the movie but I did feel like the movie was leaning too much on making one of the sides (Cap's) right... making some of the movie's politics a bit questionable. After all, us non-americans tend to refer to some aspects of the USA's foreign policies as "superhero complex", with the justifications for interventions in certain countries and conflicts while leaving others out. Cap's speech sadly evokes conflicts in which the UN banned the intervention of NATO, and it also evokes other things, like every time they haven't intervened against other dictatorships.

Wait, is that the music from In Bob We Trust at like the 1:20 mark?

I remember being really annoyed by the reviews and comments on this film, even by people I really like. The coincidence I found most funny was Adam from "Your Movie Sucks" saying that the conflict made no sense because Tony Stark is obviously right, while Rich Evens from "Red Letter Media" said that the conflict made no sense because Steve Rogers was obviously right. It's almost like movie critics, despite everything, don't understand that different opinions and perspectives exist and are valid.

In terms of General Ross’ motivation - I think it’s clear it’s more of a reactionary response to the fan complaints of Man of Steel and Age of Ultron. With that said I still regard this as one of my favorite MCU films.

One of the best superhero movies ever made.

something you never consider during this analysis: as the audience we see far more of what happens during these conflicts than the UN does when they write the accords (same as what happens irl). The mission that starts the movie is a covert op (meaning no one knows about it until the explosion that becomes an international incident). I think it isn't a stretch to say that if not for that mission, no one would have died there, regardless of the reason.

to be fair, vision said since Stark announced himself as Iron man so that doesnt include the first capatain america movie. And Also to be fair every single iron man Villian was kind of caused by tony. The first iron man used starks tech, even stealing the device from his chest to create the suit. In The Incredible Hulk, the serum that created the Hulk was modified and used to create Abomination. In Iron Man 2 the vilian arose from wanting vengeance on tony and his father for stealing his and his father's design. In Iron Man 3 it was similar the villain was snuffed by iron man in his early career so he was getting vengeance on tony.

I think there is an unspoken tension between unpowered politicians in a world with super powered individuals. How do you govern somebody who is literally bulletproof?

One thing that's always bugged me about this movie is that, in the list of incidents that incited the Sokovia Accords, there's a very conspicuous omission: the Johannesburg fight from Age of Ultron. All of the principal actors are Avengers; Bruce and Tony most visibly, but Wanda as well, since Bruce was acting under her influence. But, if you bring that up, you have to bring up that Wanda worked for Hydra and Ultron immediately before becoming an Avenger, and how weird it is that everyone's just okay with that. And handling that would require actually developing her as a character, instead of just treating her as vaguely young and committing a few whoopsie-doodles.

9:48 I know none of the fictional media would’ve seen it so they couldn’t argue this, but she could’ve sent him underground like she did to The Vision

This was a really great analysis! have you ever thought about being a creative writing teacher?

Thank you!

The sale of lights does not increase coats but the sale of coats can increase lights... Think about it..

i applaud you sir mr.thomas

I'm completely #TeamCap. Why? Just like Steve said, if the World Security Council had full control over The Avengers, the impetus would be to send them someplace that had a more strategic or monetary advantage, instead of sending them someplace where a natural or humanitarian disaster is happening. So Tony's siding with the Accords means he's a tool of where they're sent no matter the actual need of where The Avengers NEED to be. Steve is for the NEED of the cause. Steve believes they should go where they're needed, not where they're sent.

Great video, although I think there were a couple things you might've left out, but I see that other people have already brought them up, so I'll refrain from that. About future videos and Patreon, I've got a couple suggestions, but I'm not a patreon user, and I'm hesitant to try it since it's a website that I don't fully understand and it asks for my credit card number.

Only 48 confirmed civilian casualties from the first Avengers film. All of them from the aliens.

I totally agree with this analysis. Both sides are in the wrong, and yet they both have points to be made. Excellent job.

Excellent video, that showcases the conflicts of the movie! Things you forgot to mention was Ross kinda creating the Hulk, or being responsible for the first attack in NY (in The incredible Hulk). Also, Tony Stark is responisble for all his villains: Obadiah Stane became Iron Monger due to Stark's Tech, Whiplash came because of Sark being Iron Man, and The Manderin became evil because Tony Stark didn't meet him on a rooftop. I disagree with the airport scene, though, for I think it didn't have any stakes. I think it is quite overrated.