Incidentally, now that I think about it, the fact that Everett Ross was all set up for a psychological debrief of James Barnes makes me doubt quite strongly that the taskforce sent to apprehend him really was just gonna Bin Laden him on the spot ('shoot on sight'). Seems to me they tried to make a good faith attempt at nonlethal apprehension first - supported by the fact that the grenades that came through the windows were concussion types, not frags. The soldiers also didn't open fire until they encountered heavy resistance.
Booted Vulture wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:43 pmYup. This is what I mean by 'i agree with oversight but not what we saw in the movie'. If this system set up was reasonable then cool. Another reason not to railroad it over the Avengers in 2 days and expect them to read and understand what looks like a few hundred pages at least of legalise and expect them to sign up to the legal binding consequences.
That's fair, but no-one forced them to sign it right away. In fact no-one forced them to sign it at all, they could just wash their hands of it and walk away - Hawkeye did (until he didn't, that is). It was the signatory countries that were meeting at the UN, the Avengers themselves had all the time in the world to consider their options.
Also I still think it's fair to believe this was brewing for some time and the Avengers just ignored it. International treaties of phone book thickness don't come about in two days. They must've been working on a framework for some time previously.
Nitpick. Bucky was running. Steve was chasing and trying to stop Black Panther from killing him.
That's fair, but he didn't exactly try to stop Bucky when they were beating their way through German commandos either. And he found plenty of time and breath to repeatedly warn Barnes not to kill any of them.
By throwing a fit you mean. Refuse the compromise and then apparently resign himself to the consequences? He only starts shit in the compound when it's clear Zemo is up to something.
He is a horrible snarky piece of shit in that scene though. The lend lease/war profiteering bit was pointless dickery. He still was willing to compromise to an extent though.
Obviously I'm to an extent exaggerating my support of Tony Stark here, but I genuinely don't see Rogers trying to compromise in that scene. He
knows Stark is trying to do the right thing, he's a WW2 soldier who
should have an incling about the importance of international consensus and what happens when you just ignore it, he
knows Stark's hangups about his dad - hell I bet at this point he at least has a pretty strong suspicion about Barnes' involvement in the death of the Starks - and he goes there
anyway.
Does that really read to you as Rogers trying to compromise? Because it honestly to me seems like Rogers is stubbornly clinging to his idea of how the world
should work when faced with overwhelming evidence of how it
does work.
Now granted there was that whole 'no, YOU move' thing earlier, but I just cannot accept that as anything more than the pithy wisdom it is. It sounds good but it's really just as dumb a line as 'ONLY SITHS DEAL IN ABSOLUTES'. Zemo could've said the same damn thing in his conversation with T'Challa and it would've sounded properly sinister - because it's absolutist crap.
I don't remember Stark engaging with him at the airport. He shouts him down when he tries to explain about Zemo. And then says 'you're going to come with us because it's us that's asking.' That's about it. And Steve is operating under time constraints here. He can't wait to sort it out with Tony or wait for evidence to turn up or loose time because Zemos already on the way to the supersoldiers.
Stark's patience at that point is obviously wearing thin, but he's still giving Rogers the option to come in and deal with the situation like civilized people - and Rogers decides he instead wants to fight it out.
The immediacy of the threat is also highly overrated. Zemo isn't a teleporting supervillain. He can't even fly. He's a skilled special operator sure, but in the end he still has to sneak out of Germany and travel to bumfuck, Siberia whilst the target of an international manhunt. He can't do that overnight. Now granted at this point the Avengers cannot be fully sure that Zemo isn't part of a bigger conspiracy, but the movie goes some ways to prove that the situation wasn't all that urgent because after the airport fight there's enough time to mop up, put the international criminal elements of the erstwhile Avengers on the Raft, have Tony Stark fly out there on a helicopter, and then from it all the way to Siberia in his Iron Man suit - to arrive at the same time Steve and Bucky do, which isn't that long after Zemo.
Yup. Again, I find this totally understandable on both sides. (When's a good time to tell someone your best friend murdered their parents.)
There is no
good time, but the
right time is: immediately after you find out. Because friends don't keep something of that magnitude a secret from each other. The longer you keep it a secret, the bigger an issue it is when it does come out. If Rogers had told Stark earlier, and given him enough time to deal with the shock and enough information to assimilate the fact that Barnes is a brainwashed Manchurian candidate, I'm confident Stark could've dealt with it without going full murderbot.
And Steve appears at that point to be ready to accept any consequences that are coming his way. He's a little melancholy but seems fine with it. Though the end of the movie sort of wrecks that I's agree. Frankly it sounds like you'd be happy with the end from the comic. Wherein Cap realises that the principle is not worth the fights that are happening, surrenders to Iron Man and is arrested.
Kind of a sucky end to a Captain America movie though.
Honestly I think the end of the movie works well given how the movie goes some ways to explain it's a conflict between two good people over nuances of righteousness, I just feel Rogers' apology could've been more sincere because I feel he fucked up far more than Stark did. Rogers could've done any number of things to turn his ship around without compromising his morals, but he just couldn't deal with the fact that "he's an international assassin but he's my
friend" isn't a winning argument. If he'd set aside his seething obsession with Barnes for just one minute and engaged with the people trying to make the world a safer and more organized place chances are Barnes would be in that American psych ward right now, instead of in a Wakandan freezer. Steve Rogers would still be one of the good guys, and the Avengers could be helping a ton of people instead of being scattered and on the run. Instead he was convinced that only
he could save Barnes, and that lead him down a path of bullfuckery that there was no recovering from.
Meanwhile all that Stark did wrong was... He could've phrased his arguments a little better? He maybe could've stood up to Ross a little sooner and a little more publicly? That's really about it.
That's an assumption that Stark was pulling strings for her. So if she's illegally in the country. Deport her. If she blew up some people, charge her with the relevant crime. (not sure what it would be manslaughter by superheroic negligence?) If she broke the accords charge her with that. (she hasn't at that stage. It's okay not to sign so long as she doesn't do any superheroics)
Oh, come on. Like Steve wouldn't have thrown his tantrum if he'd learned Wanda had been deported back to Sokovia! What's Tony Stark to do here, in your opinion? Just let her fuck about despite all the shit going down?
Like it or not, as long as she doesn't sign the Accords her status in the USA is uncertain. The US government would be well within its rights to deport her, OR for that matter to detain her as an illegal alien. Instead all they're asking of her is that for the duration of the crisis raging in Europe please don't wander off the giant resort that is the Avengers campus, then afterwards we'll figure it out together. That's literally it, and Steve whines about
internment. Fuuuck him!
Not sure what the reference to the winter soldier implies. Bucky is a villain because he;s brainwashed. Ross is a villain because he's a raging arsehole who sees the metahumans as his property. It doesn't make sense given it's supposed to be a UN thing but Ross is clearly in charge of enforcing the accords (through Stark) throughout the movie.
I don't think that's what's going on. Ross is the US Secretary of State, and as such it presumably falls to him to prevent Americans from, oh say, blowing up buildings full of people in Africa - and deal with the unpleasant consequences when they do. He may be an asshole with some pretty reprehensible views, but I can't say he doesn't have a right to be grumpy with the Avengers circa Civil War. There's nothing in the movie that says he runs whatever organization the Accords spawn - if anything I'd say Everett Ross is probably the person doing that. Thunderbolt Ross just deals with the Americans who break the Accords - harshly, for sure, but them's the breaks.
As to the Accords, we later see in Agents of Shield, it involves continual monitoring of all metahumans/inhumans, not just those signed up to superhero work.
I'm honestly not that interested in stuff extraneous to the MCU. I haven't watched AoS, and am not planning to.
Still, if you're being arrested and psychologically evaluated by the government who are started procedures to extradite you, are you not still entitled to legal representation?
Ross doesn't say he's not entitled to a lawyer. He just says it's funny that Steve Rogers - himself now guilty of breaking international law - should make that remark in an accusatory tone. Or at least that's how I'm reading that scene.
We later see Zemo locked up in the exact same box with Everett gloating to him about never getting out. No lawyer or trial and illegal solitary confinement of a completely unpowered individual.
There's no way that's an interrogation tactic of a hostile enemy! We must take it as gospel truth!