Did the guy who did the Winter Soldier music do this music? A lot of Bucky's scenes had that staticky, buzzy Winter Soldier music.

Still wishing for a road trip movie of Steve, Bucky, and Sam in a VW.

Plei, the difference between a volunteer team and an assigned team makes perfect sense.

The fic potential for this movie, with missing scenes and the like, is enormous.

Just saw it. WHAT YOU ALL SAID!!

Sweet preciouses, how do we come back from this?

I cannot with my crush on Steve Rogers. CAN NOT. Jesusita with that guy.

I am super excited about the Black Panther movie, he was super awesomely awesome.

I liked Wanda so much more than in AoU.

OK, really everything more than AoU.

Vision can go suck an egg.

I saw it! The internet is a safe place for me to be again.

Mostly, my thoughts are poor Steve, poor Tony, poor Bucky.

oh and the camera work almost made me motion sick.

So many thoughts.

and, even above and beyond the human-before-weapon thing, man, the central tragedy of the fragile friendship between Steve and Tony really, really is that Tony just had a hard time seeing past the history and the symbol. It's just. I have a lot of feelings about the humanity of Steve Rogers, okay? That he's a person. A good person, a moral person, but a person, and not without flaws. He's hot-headed, stubborn, loyal to a fault. The thing is, this isn't his dark side Tony gets to see: it's the cornered, frustrated, desperate side. The magazine cover Zola shows in Winter Soldier: the Hero Who Sacrificed Everything. He's still that: if Bucky had been guilty of the UN attack, he'd have brought him in. Hell, that's what he went to do, knowing it wasn't sanctioned and he'd pay for it, still feeling it was his responsibility. But this wasn't that. This was fear and guilt and pain and, finally, just primal, protective rage. And hit up against Tony's loss and grief and pain and rage. Ugh. Stupid phone. This lacks coherence.

I gotta say, as a bureaucrat, the way the Accords were done in this movie was bungled badly. The writer had to have them be bungled in order to make Steve & Tony's argument work. Because in reality, the Avengers would have been brought in at the very beginning to work with the negotiating teams to figure out jurisdiction and protocols. There would have been long hours of argument about who got to do what and under what circumstances.

So, that's the thing: yes, Steve was right about not wanting to be treated as a weapon. Except in a world not written by Hollywood, there's no way the whole thing would have been structured like that. Because the lesson that was learned from TWS was transparency, and Steve would be on board with that. Except this... wasn't? Somehow? Why not? Because they needed a point of disagreement between Steve & Tony.

I dislike the writers only making the movie work by making someone -- in this case, the entire UN -- stupid.

Yes, Rebecca, I'd like an option on the DVD for the non-shaky-cam version of that.

Like, his level of rage at Steve for not telling him about Howard (this was a mistake on Steve's part: and no, he didn't know for sure it was Bucky, but you damn well better bet he suspected it and that this played into his choice to stay mum) is directly informed by his illusions about Steve Rogers.

That's what I was trying to get at when I was so confused about Secretary Ross being the one who pitched the Sokovia Accords. Is that mean to imply that the Sokovia Accords is just a huge hypocrisy, because Ross is guilty of that very thing, or are they trying to show that Ross has redeemed himself in a way that Stark wishes he could? Or is it just that they had contractual obligations with William Hurt, so why not just stick him in the film?