Uhhhhh, I’m pretty sure Tony says, “Did you know?” and Steve was like, “Dude, I couldn’t tell you. That’s my Bucky.”
Pretty sure this was the whole point of the movie.
1 Like
2:02:56
It’s not particularly well handled, as there’s never any reason given why Cap would know (since it all happens when he himself was in the ice, so how did he even find out?) But it’s definitely there.
I found the story judgment ambiguous in this movie. There’s no indication that either Tony or Steve have resolved their personal issues. At no point during the final fight or afterwards does Tony seem to have resolved his problems – he’s never flipped from problem to solution. The same is true for Cap: after he’s defeated Tony in the fight, Tony says “That shield doesn’t belong to you. You don’t deserve it. My father made that shield.” And Cap gives it up. He’s not changing his approach here – he’s doubling down, accepting the price of maintaining his approach.
This, to me, feels like the real end of the movie – where the credits should be rolling. They add some epilogue scenes, including Tony getting a letter from Steve and trying for a cheap laugh by showing Tony putting Ross on hold, all of which is designed to make us feel less depressed over the way things ended and almost looks like something added in because the studio thought the movie ended too dark.
We also have the moment from Zemo in his cell when he implies he was victorious because he made his enemies tear themselves apart from within. While this is mostly about the OS, it’s also what unites the RS, MC, and IC throughlines all at once: everyone’s been torn apart from within.
So I’d say both Cap and Tony would have a story judgment of bad.
Y’know after all this something hit me. @jhull Remember your sentiments on Harry Potter? There was a post you made on seeing The Series as a whole,as opposed to seeing each film as all emo passing. For example if we look at Winter Soldier, Caps sentiment is still the same. He still wants to save his friend. This carries through to this movie as well. So perhaps we should view the entire Trilogy as one storyform (maybe even throw in Age of Ultron for good measure) , with each preceding film as the latter’s back story. This way we can appreciate most character justifications and thus judge more accurately as you did with Harry Potter. This could clarify a few things.
Oh, I’m sure in the end there will be one giant overriding storyform. Future us will figure that out eventually.
I would say he moves from Avoidance to Pursuit—it could possibly be Control to Uncontrolled, but I think the Avoidance fits in better with his personal issues—and tied into the OS as well.
A Main Character Resolve of Changed plays out with the MC Solution resolving the MC Problem. This doesn’t mean an automatic judgment of Good though. Plenty of Changed/Bad MCs.
And I agree with Cap dropping the shield. To me that’s more Avoidance from an Overall Story perspective, and an indicator of Steadfast Resolve.
The “epilogue” is usually where you find the Story Judgment. Tony’s on-hold gag reads Good to me, as if he’s returned to normal form.
I was wondering more about the scene with putting the Buckster on ice. I haven’t had a chance to watch it again yet, but wondered Steve’s emotional reading there at the end.
And just for fun, what was the letter about again? (I will try and rewatch this weekend!)
The letter has Cap saying the Avengers belong to Tony now, and he wants him to lead them because he doesn’t like the idea of Tony being alone in one of his big mansions. He says we all need family, that Cap’s been on his own since he was 18, never feeling part of anything, even the army, and so he puts his faith in people, and that he can’t let them down (which is why he’s going to break into the prison to free the others.) He apologizes for not telling Tony the truth about his parents. He says he understands that they’ll never agree on the Accords, but they’re both doing what they believe is right, which is all anyone can do. He ends by promising that if Tony needs him, he’ll be there.
So, yeah, you could nominally justify this as a judgment of good, but it really feels tacked on to me. I realize the epilogue can be used for expositing the story judgment, but usually it acts as an extension of what we’ve seen in the climax (e.g. Jane nearly dies to save Ted even though they fought throughout the movie, and in the epilogue Ted is at Jane’s bedside in the hospital asking why she did it, and she says, “because we’re family” or something.) In this case, the epilogue is completely contrary to the final scene of the climax. I mean completely reversed. For that reason, I have trouble taking it as an expression of story judgment. It feels more to me like a way of mitigating that story judgment of bad: of saying to the audience, yeah, it all went to shit and things turned out badly for everyone, but it’s not completely horrible.
One last thought occurred to me regarding this issue of whether Captain America: Civil War has either A) A single storyform over which we argue about whether the MC is Steve or Tony, or B) Two storyforms, one in which Steve is the MC and the other in which Tony is the MC, or C) My new pet theory: that there is an ongoing handoff between Steve and Tony for the MC (and thus the IC) throughlines.
Arguing for option B or C, here is my coup de grace: often the Dramatica storyform is described as representing the author’s intent (though of late this has been quite reasonably adjusted to the author’s message since they may not have fulfilled their intent.) The Russo Brothers have described their intent – and I think they succeeded in this – to have the audience alternately see the story from Cap’s perspective and from Tony’s.
So given that this was their intent and that it seems to have worked, is it not reasonable to think that the Dramatica Storyform encapsulates this either via an ongoing handoff in the MC or via two storyforms? Otherwise we have a critical aspect of the authorial message that isn’t described by the Dramatica model.
There’s also an option D, which @Khodu was alluding to. Similar to option B, there are two storyforms but one is the Series storyform that has Cap as MC, and the other is the Civil War storyform that has Iron Man as MC.
For that to work, Cap would have to be dealing with the same personal issues that continued from one or more previous films (without being resolved in them). Probably something along the lines of your “man out of time” issues (I haven’t seen the other films).
Now that’s a terrifying prospect . . .
On the other hand, I suppose you could argue that the suite of Marvel Cinematic Universe films do represent a marked change from anything that’s come before – directly interlinked feature films that are always both telling their own story and advancing the series arc. Marvel has made no bones of the fact that all the MCU movies are leading up to Infinity War (hence why there’s a frickin’ stone in almost every one of the movies – each one is an infinity stone which is what Thanos is going to get hold of in Avengers: Infinity War.)
That said, from a Dramatica standpoint I think it would then make more sense to toss out all those scenes that aren’t really part of this movie but just servicing the lead up to the big movie. Thus you have a storyform representing Captain America: Civil War with a few extra scenes tossed in for continuity of the series arc.
All that said, I don’t think that describes the Cap “man out of time” stuff. That feels connected to this movie, and not so much the series arc which is about the infinity stones.
Interesting. I don’t read this example as tacked on. It feels like something the Author was specifically trying to say–in other words, it doesn’t matter how much we fought, because we were family. Isn’t that just another way to prove something?
I added in story points here (for the storyform with Tony as the MC/Steve as the IC):
Also, Tony’s on-hold gag fits in really nicely with a Main Character Sequence of Attitude in context of the Present there at the end.
I’m not sure there’s too much of an arc there, honestly. At least not yet. Like @decastell said, there’s the overarching Infinity War setup, but that story’s not yet finished. Otherwise, they all stand on their own, so I wouldn’t put too much faith in that theory.
The “man out of time” stuff is more of a character role in the ‘OS’, with a few flashbacks and callbacks tossed in throughout the trilogy to give continuity to his character. But there doesn’t seem to be a huge ‘arc’ for Cap within his trilogy, much like there wasn’t for Tony within the Iron Man trilogy. Tony’s arc runs from Iron Man 1 all the way through the Avengers movies into Civil War and beyond. I could be wrong, but I don’t think there’s a completed arc for any character just yet.
It feels more like the entire Infinity War setup is the major arc for the characters, and I’d imagine it’ll turn out like a Lord Of The Rings multiple storyform thing.
So a concern this presents for me is that it really privileges small, almost minute pieces of dialogue as being of massive importance in the storyform whereas events that seem much bigger (such as the end of the fight between Cap, Bucky and Tony) then become almost insignificant. I’m not sure if I’m expressing this well, but it just seems odd that a couple of lines of dialogue outweigh the clear shattering of a friendship after nearly killing each other.
I suppose one argument might be that the filmmakers are choosing to emphasize less important aspects of the storyform (e.g. the fight between Cap and Tony) and are doing a weak-sauce job on the big things (e.g. the story outcome and story judgment)?
Actually I think the fight and the apparent shattering of the friendship are crucial to the meaning of the Judgment. Basically the film is saying: If you stand up for what you believe in you’ll be satisfied in the end, even if it means you have to resort to fighting your family.
2 Likes
Ok, so I was wrong about Captain America: Civil War…
…but only a detail in the storyform, not about the Main Character–
–it’s still Tony 
I watched the film again - giving it a couple weeks after the first time to see if maybe I had missed something the first time around. After the long conversations here and the couple of podcasts I recorded, I was starting to convince myself out of my original assessment.
My thinking was that there might have been a substory with Steve and Bucky and that perhaps that was something that ended in Success/Bad…but I got to tell you there’s nothing there except the storyform positioning Tony as the MC and Steve as the IC.
An important distinction, and one I started talking about this week, is the idea that the storyform doesn’t see characters, it sees perspectives. Yes, Steve has the issues about being a “man out of time” but as far as Dramatica is concerned, that only matters in terms of a Main Character perspective. For it to be a Main Character perspective and part of a larger storyform, there needs to be an actual Influence Character perspective challenging that point-of-view.
There isn’t.
I was thinking maybe I missed something with old Buck or maybe that new girl but really all she does is stare at him and tell him what he already knows about compromise. Steve and Bucky function like I originally thought - as objective characters within the Overall Story Throughline perspective.
On the other hand, Tony as the Main Character Perspective comes with not one but TWO characters sharing the same Influence Character Perspective. I’m not sure how I missed it the first time, but Peter Parker TOTALLY takes over for Steve in the middle and offers that Influence Character perspective in Steve’s absence–classic Dramatica hand-off.
Both Steve and Peter share the same point-of-view: they don’t want to sit around when they can do something–it’s always your fault if you didn’t take action. You can actually see the wheels in Tony’s head turn when the kids says this to him (as if he’s heard it before).
Seeing both Steve and Peter as sharing this same ALTERNATE approach to solving problems, you can begin to see how they influence Tony throughout forcing him to reconsider his justifications.
No one is doing any of that to Steve from an Influence Character perspective.
The one thing though that I do think I got wrong was the Problem and Symptom – I think I had them swapped.
Instead of Avoidance as the Problem and Control as the Response, I think Control is the Problem and Avoidance (or Prevent in this case) is the Response. There’s far more chasing and stopping then there is freedom and control. In addition, Tony’s growth from Control to Uncontrolled is much stronger than Avoidance to Pursuit - “eyeballing” that shot is essentially proof of a character who has moved into an Uncontrolled motivation as opposed to his original motivation of Control (or allowing Control).
This also makes the Overall Story Solution Uncontrolled–which makes sense if you see Tony’s actions and the fight at the end as complete Uncontrol and then, of course, Steve shows up at the end to break everyone out (Uncontrolled).
I keep bouncing back and forth between Failure and Success. Setting the above I do have a choice of either Doing or Obtaining in the 3rd Signpost (the airplane battle). My original choice would be in Doing - which would give the same Plot Progression as my original storyform - but that makes it a Failure, which I don’t think is accurate (esp. with Zemo’s line “did I?” in response to failure).
Setting it to Obtaining - gives Learning - Doing - Obtaining - Understanding for the Overall Story and a Story Outcome of Success. I can see Learning in the beginning, all the disinformation and the setup of the accords, Doing is the chase through the streets, Obtaining is the capture of them and the breakout and the escape to Siberia - that actually works better for Obtaining. The Understanding is Tony understanding who was really behind the bombings and the understandings that Zemo feeds them about what his plan really was all along.
This gives Tony a Plot Progression of Progress - Future - Present - Past which is great because we have that Past part there at the end - plus, his Uncontrolled Solution and Judgment of Good shows a return to old form (previous self). Present would be the moment in the jail where Arrow-guy calls him “futurist” and all that stuff…
…which is interesting because it almost seems like Tony has two Main Character Signpost beats after the 4th Story Driver. This is why his growth feels somewhat false - it’s like Jenny in Forrest Gump she only changes because she knows she’s sick and is going to die…which is really just another instance of her using Forrest to get out of a jam when the argument was setting her up to change before that revelation.
Likely the same thing would have been better here - continue Widow’s little jibe towards Tony with Arrow guys line and the other Avengers calling him out on his Present situation, then he gets the information as he leaves and then he makes the change.
As it is now it’s like he starts to get the Understanding before that Present signpost has a chance to play out. To solidify the argument he probably should have started changing or moving in that direction before getting the information, so it’s not a matter of some extraneous piece of information generating the change instead of the Influence Character/Relationship Story dynamic.
This gives a Relationship Story Problem of Faith which is MUCH NICER than the previous Temptation one in the other storyform. The belief in each other, the belief or trust that the other one isn’t LYING about something super important - that motivates the Relationship, and then his letter at the end about how he will always be there - that’s an indication of that Faith still driving the Relationship (and proof that it’s unresolved).
This sets up Steve and Peter to have an Influence Character of Consider. That feels way better than Feelings, esp. since both are involved. The whole argument is about choice–about having that choice, and being able to choose (or consider) what you want to do.
Overall I think this storyform is reflected more strongly in the film than the previous one. It’s interesting to me the difference between a story driven by Avoidance and a story driven by Control. I mean, was Wanda’s mishap a problem of Prevention or a problem of Control? Control seems to be the stronger option, and everywhere you go control–or lack of control (Vision’s distracted mistake) cause more problems than pure Avoidance.
4 Likes
Hey Jim,
This is awesome! I had actually gone through with the software myself and felt that the Problem of Control fit the story better (and also I really liked the RS Problem of Faith though I wasn’t able to explain why as well as you did). But I didn’t want to add to the churn of conversations on here, so I was afraid to post those ideas.
I listened to your podcast today and was going to chime in to say that since I last posted, with more distance my views/feelings have shifted further to something like 60%-70% Tony as MC. It’s a very strange feeling because I freaking documented my reasoning for Cap as MC (above), but now when I access my memories of the story there’s a very different picture in my head.
One thing I feel is still outstanding is that I feel @decastell’s ideas of the OS being in Mind are really him seeing things at the Issue level, which I think a lot of people have trouble with, and I’d love to follow up more on that. But anyway that belongs in the other thread on Domains.
1 Like
Can I ask you to discuss how you see failure, even though you think it’s inaccurate? Could the goal be “keeping the Avengers together” and ending with the Avengers split up is the Failure?
And the Plot Progression would be something like:
Understanding that saving the day has consequences
Gathering Info about who will sign the Accords
Heroes arresting each other (or resisting arrest)
Losing the Avengers - the team is split up but even the team members that are still considered part of the Avengers team are now hampered by government control
Your list pretty much convinces me that it’s Success -
Understanding that saving the day has consequences - is not problematic, there aren’t misunderstandings…instead there’s an attempt to gain info (Learn) with Zero putting that guy’s head in the tub…
Gathering Info about who will sign the Accords - that’s not problematic either - and the 2nd story driver is the bombing of the embassy…so what you say really doesn’t happen after that event…
Heroe’s arresting each other (or resisting arrest) sounds more like Obtaining to me! (gaining control or losing control)
Losing the Avengers - team is split up - I get that one, but the other three don’t fit as well as the previous explanation:
Learning - dunking people for info
Doing - chasing through the streets creates a lot of problems
Obtaining - trying to escape, trying to resist arrest
Understanding - making people understand they should be at each other’s throats
Plus, there’s a whole heckuva lot of Uncontrolled freedom there at the end. I don’t think any of the Avengers are under control anymore - Tony can put the Sec. of State on hold and watch the light blink and Steve is back in there beating up innocent jailers just so his friends can get out…
so i think now i’m 100% in the Success corner.
just here to help! haha.
But I’m still curious how you might have been considering failure. What would the failure have been?
Can I try one more time?
How about Misunderstanding who is at fault? That explosion was going to take place on the ground and kill a lot of people. It only happened in the air next to the building because Scarlett Witch was trying to move it. Misunderstanding who is to blame for the explosion leads to people being mad at the Avengers for helping and the passing of the accords.
Gathering Mis-Information about who set the bomb leads to Bucky being framed.
Heroes fighting among themselves prevents them from looking for the right guy or going after Zemo.
Zemo Obtaining revenge means the team will be split up.
This topic should really be called Dramatica: Civil War. 
I didn’t want to be left out of the casting call. So, I have something to add to this. Sorry for anyone who doesn’t want to see this post resurface. But, I just read the whole thing in one shot and I can’t resist.
Julie, my sister, and I watched it together and she instantly Identified the MC as Stark! But, man is it tough to catch that Protagonist and Antagonist difference except for the obvious slant to the goal that I can’t put my finger on how to define yet.
I agree wth Jim (obviously) on the subjective throughlines. But, I do wish I had a better handle at knowing why the story goal is written from one point of view or another and how to look at that point of view. Like how does an Inequity become an OS Problem? I’m not satisfied with the initial story driver being it. I do feel it is the result of it. But, there is almost always that back story Driver that seems more like the inequity to me. How does it get wound up via back story analogus to a change character? I know the OS is the context and it communicates author intent. But, is the goal from the Potential everytime or can it be the Resistance? Does it depend on how I set it up?
The Bucky and Cap relationship seems to me like a signpost 3 on the bigger Marvel Narrative of their friendship as RS with Cap/Nomad as MC and Bucky being a possible Change IC Character (my guess).
Signpost 1 - Captain America
Signpost 2 - Captain America Winter Soldier and post credit in the Smithsonian
Signpost 3 - Captain America Civil War and post credit In Wakanda
Signpost 4 - Black Panther White Wolf rebirth post credit scene and probably Avengers Infinity Wars
Here is my question. For the thread. Is Captain America a Holistic IC for Civil War? If so, it is an interesting way to get the audience reach to work for Marvel. If not, who occupies that POV in the story?
Please don’t hate me for being post 167 seven months later. 
A very silly question. If an IC can be a group of people, can an MC be a group of people? In this case, the Avengers? Could the answer be that Tony and Cap both are MC and IC? On purpose.
And couldn’t that be part of the subtextual desire of the filmmakers? To make the whole MC / IC assignment hazy? Breaking the rules in order to create the desired effect of ambiguity?
I have yet to really dive into an analysis. But maybe they wanted to break the model (GAS) because they are breaking the Avengers.
While I don’t think this is the case here, yes you can have a group of Main Characters. In Dramatica, Main Character and Influence Character are not Characters, they’re perspectives. You can share the MC perspective just as easily as the IC perspective, if the issues stay the same.
The Men of Barracks 4 in Stalag 17 are a great example of this.