By your logic Star Wars, The Matrix, Unforgiven, and the 115 other films with an Overall Story Throughline in Activities should really be in Fixed Attitudes. Yes, they're fighting because they disagree about the Accords, but the fighting is creating the death and destruction, NOT the Fixed Attitudes.
Fixed Attitudes in Doubt lead to more boys being raped. Fixed Attitudes in To Kill a Mockingbird continue the history of racial prejudice. These are stories where fixed attitudes create inequity.
If they stopped fighting and trying to save everyone, there would be no call for the Accords. They're trying to contain the Avengers. Not because of their Attitudes, but because of the problematic Activities they inflict (not purposefully) on everyone.
I used hyperbole because it's super clear the extent of conflict in this story.
No matter how much punching or kicking is going on, the cause of the conflict in Civil War has to do with fundamental disagreements over a fixed attitude about whether or not Superhumans are to blame for the casualties that come with their actions.
And if they stopped disagreeing over this, would people stop dying????
No, the Avengers would continue to avenge and more buildings would be dropped on innocent people.
Not only is this consistently argued (almost every second that isn't spent punching is spent wrestling with this question), but it's also not, as you contend, simply what the characters subjectively think it's about – it's what it really is about.
In other words, you're focusing on Fixed Attitudes as subject matter - as if what they're arguing about is actually creating conflict.
I also really need to address your point that "this story is so clearly revenge". It's really not. One of the criticisms of Civil War is that the entire Zemo subplot is unnecessary to the story. You could keep him out of the movie (and his attendant reveal of Winter Soldier having killed Tony's parents) and the entire film functions just the same.
I'm not really sure what to say to this.
If Tony doesn't see that the Winter Soldier killed his parents, then he doesn't go after both the WS and Cap. That's why they fought at the end. Tony seeking revenge (killing, i.e. ACTIVITIES) only happens because of this reveal.
I don't know who contends that Zemo is unnecessary, but that is categorically kooky.
by any measure: what's on the screen most of the time, what the writers have said about the film, what the audience thinks the film is about – is about superheroes fighting each other over whether or not the Accords should be signed.
YES!!! Superheroes fighting each other over whether or not the Accords should be signed is clearly what the film is about.
Fighting is an activity.
If you stop that activity, then there's no film.
To your point about the RS: Steve and Tony have had no problem being friends up until now despite clearly viewing each other as having different beliefs. What's causing havoc between them is that the situation keeps changing (generally for the worse) and their different reactions to it drive a wedge between them. Take the worsening external situation away and these two guys go off for a beer and make jokes about Tony being a playboy and Steve being an old man.
This is both a misunderstanding of the appreciation of Situation and its use specifically within the Relationship Story Throughline.
Again, you're using the story point as subject matter. This is the same mistake writers make when they write, "Bob is in a difficult situation and he keeps thinking of the past" as if that somehow makes him both a Main Character in Situation and a Main Character with a Concern of the Past.
The relationship is NOT about what either side thinks is problematic - the relationship is about the inequity BETWEEN two individuals. It's an actual thing that many writers--particularly male writers--have a huge problem understanding.
In the Mentorship Program I work diligently to help writers stop thinking in terms of he said/she said and instead thinking in terms of a relationship, and its purpose in the greater understanding of narrative. Linear thinkers like to think of what one side thinks and then what the other side thinks because that matches up with their idea of a relationship being a thing two people get into.
That was the big problem with the Main vs. Impact Character nomenclature and the idea that two soldiers meet and engage in an emotional argument. Conceptually this is OK, but it unfortunately leads everyone to think that the relationship story is an argument and that the subject matter of that argument is somehow reflected in the storyform.
For a Relationship Story Throughline to be in Situation - there has to be an actual fixed external problem between them. The easiest way to visualize this is To Kill a Mockingbird. The racism in the Overall Story -- which is presented as internal problem -- is reflected in the local racism of Scout scared of the boogie man (Boo). They're externally situated next to each other and they're externally situated to reflect the same kind of racisim in the larger picture in their own relationship.
Same thing in Doubt - there you have the situational conflict between a Priest and a Nun. That inequity with their positions is what is really at play between them. That's where the power play comes into being.
Again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding the point of Dramatica domains, but I'm pretty sure I've seen countless times where someone asks if Dramatica considers action movies to be de-facto about activities or situation and someone saying no, it's the source of the conflict that defines the domain.
The Domains define what the conflict looks like from the different perspectives. From an objective viewpoint, the kind of conflict the characters in Captain America: Civil War engage in is an activity.
Specifically, fighting, kicking, punching, throwing around, entangling in webs, blowing up buildings, accidentally blowing up buildings, car chases, motorcycle chases, chases through buildings, chases up and down stairs, fighting in an enclosed spaces, fighting in open spaces, and so on.
I've seen it pretty recently, and I'd argue that the effort to protect the Winter Soldier is almost entirely in the MC domain. Steve's concerned about it, but most people are dealing with the Accords, what side to be on, and whether they're willing to fight each other over that question. Tony's top priority isn't the Winter Soldier – he wants the Accords signed. Hawkeye doesn't care about the Winter Soldier, he's just siding with Steve against Tony. Natasha's dilemma isn't about the Winter Soldier, but about which of these two sides she's going to choose given her past. At every turn, this is a story about choosing sides.
You've just described what every character is dealing with subjectively. That isn't what Dramatica is looking at. Dramatica is looking at what the Author is presenting as the story.
Yes, they choose sides. But the actual conflict comes when the two sides actually fight.
The whole point of the narrative was to pit Captain America against Iron Man and split the Avengers apart. That was the overriding goal of the story. That is why Zemo works perfectly as the Protagonist, and why--for some reason--you feel yourself subconsciously rooting and waiting for that moment when they finally go at it.
Take out the Winter Soldier storyline and you'd still have Civil War as a complete story.
There would be no motivation for Tony to attack Captain America and therefore split apart the Avengers. There would be motivation for Captain America to fight against the German SAS or anyone else for that matter.
Bucky and Zemo are so integral to the narrative, I'm not really sure how anyone else can say otherwise.