Re: Official Movie Review Thread
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:38 am
Siege
No he wasn't. Stark made it clear that the Accords could be amended, that there was room to accomodate Steve's concerns, but Steve threw a hissyfit anyway because the US government didn't let Wanda Maximoff go wherever she pleased. This coming from a man who not hours previously through his own actions in Budapest proved to the entire world why enhanced individuals need to be handled with extreme care.If they'd stopped to get the Avengers onboard before rolling out the accords they could have probably got them on board in the same Steve would have signed up in Germany. "I don't like this but I'll sign up so long as there a safeguards against it being abuse." Steve is willing to compromise.
Lol, I should not have pulled on that thread. I get too hacked off. I usually sounds more critical of Tony than I mean to because I feel like everyone's already on his side. I mean it when I say, I can see both sides, where both people were coming from. I don't want to get bogged down in a point by point discussion but if there's anything specific you want me to address or talk about please mention it. (if you want to continue the discussion. No pressure.)
Amusingly I feel the opposite way, so...Booted Vulture wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:36 pmLol, I should not have pulled on that thread. I get too hacked off. I usually sounds more critical of Tony than I mean to because I feel like everyone's already on his side.
... let the nitpicking commence!(if you want to continue the discussion. No pressure.)
I question this; I think a strong point could be made that whilst the Avengers were a net positive in both situations, the outcome of their inverventions could have been significantly improved had they cooperated with some sort of international authority. They could have had more assets at their disposal, caused less collateral damage, and generally come out better by not being stretched so thin (compare the outcome of the Civil War opener vs. the outcome of the Winter Soldier opener, where Cap had a bunch of SHIELD commandos at his back). As it was the Avengers barely came out on top in Sokovia and in Lagos things very nearly went even more pearshaped than they did - had Black Widow been a fraction of a second slower, or one step further away, she'd have missed the vial of green gooey badness and there goes the neighborhood.But the MCU is not the real world. It's a story world where things are set up that the Avengers were considered right in previous movies. I mean yes, they had no permission to be in Sokovia, but in being there. They saved the world. No permission to be Lagos but if they weren't... bioweapons get on the black market.
Much as Captain America worries about this in the movie, there's no concrete proof the Accords would set up an unduly burdensome and slow system of oversight and assent. Since previous oversight systems (the World Security Council / SHIELD) didn't appear to suffer from a lack of initiative I feel it's unfair to assume that this new system would.On the flipside, how long would it take for a 100 odd nations to agree the Avengers should go in? What happens if everyone of them can veto it?
I acknowledge his motivations but still conclude he did the wrong thing. Even if we assume the team they sent after Bucky was going to just execute him on the spot regardless of circumstances, Rogers didn't just save his friend (who, by the way, is a legendary international assassin with a crazy bodycount and a head full of HYDRA secrets), he saved his friend and ran. Thereby making his own case vastly more difficult by proving exactly the point of the people who drew up the Accords - that a system of oversight and control is sorely needed.I fully respect that you disagree with Steve's ideas here. But part of what I was trying to get at is that it wasn't just Steve's principles that drove the conflict. Steve didn't think 'I want to avoid oversight and I will fight the civil war to stop it'. He ignored it and that's not good. But he ignored it to save his best friend. And only link to the past. Especially important to him since he just lost the only other person from that time period still alive. He's in pain from that. Of course he's going to do everything he can to save Bucky. Especially as Sharon Carter tells him they're shooting to kill.
What I see here is Steve Rogers trying to do the thing he just did that didn't work out, again. Except this time he also ropes in his friends and makes international criminals out of them. Sound strategy there, Captain. By now he really should have realized he's going about this the wrong way. It's only when he's made a wanted man out of himself and gets cornered by the remaining Avengers that he tries talking. And lo, Tony Stark actually engages with him: come in, we'll figure this out and respond appropriately. But no, Captain America makes a fight out of it, again. It's his way or the highway, which doesn't work out for him, again, and he's ultimately forced to flee. And even though Rhodes was badly injured and he has plenty reason to be pissed way the fuck off by Rogers' frankly erratic behaviour, Tony Stark tries to salvage the situation by reasoning with him, again.And then, he gets the intel from Bucky and realises the whole world as at stake. He tries to tell Tony and gets rebuffed. (he times it shitily of course) so then it's not about the oversight/freedom principle. It's about the world not being destabilised and destroyed by the Winter soldiers. This is what I mean by 'understandable' it flows from his history and his known character. But I see why people don't like it.
They would go to jail because they broke international law. Going to jail is what happens to international criminals that get caught. It's not a threat, it's Tony trying to pound in the new reality of his situation. Something that Steve maybe should've done with his friends, because clearly Hawkeye doesn't understand it even after he finds his ass in prison.I think it's a little silly to save 'Steve never shows willingness to compromise' and then talk about the scene where... Steve is willing to compromise. Just because you don't agree with where he draws the line doesn't totally nullify the event.
People cast Tony's actions in there best light but what he was doing in that scene was saying 'fall in line with me and this will all be all right. Don't and you all go to jail.'
In fact it wasn't the US Gov. restricting Wanda's movement. It was Tony having a quiet word with Vision. She hadn't been charged with anything, they had no legal authority to hold her.
Ross is more than an asshole. He's a villain. He's a Hulk villain. In the Incredible Hulk he flat out says Banner and Hulk are the property of the US Government. That's how he sees metahumans and superheroes. They don't have human rights. He threatens Tony with jail not for breaking the law, just for failing to apprehend Steve.
What actually happens in that scene is that taskforce commander Everett Ross rolls his eyes at the people who made his life more difficult yet have the gall to recriminate him to his face for doing the job they tried to stop him from doing. He even says that what will happen to Bucky is a psychological evaluation followed by extradition.When Bucky is arrested Martin Freeman's Ross (Everett Ross an unrelated Black Panther character) scoffs at the idea of Bucky getting a lawyer, you know, due process.