![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I just listed incidents of Aliens messing up earth long before the first heroes turned up, so nope.
The very point of Civil War was that the truth is somewhere in the middle and that no side is totally in the wrong. They pulled it off beautifully imho.
that is a golden brige fallacy and they pull by putting bad reason in Tony team, it work great for a weird "they both point but they fight" plotline but aside of that, is not really a good discussion.
Then what are you calling the last 4 pages?
Also, there is no such thing as a "golden bridge fallacy." I think you meant the Golden Mean Fallacy, which this still isn't.
Doctor of Doctorates
Repetitive? Unproductive? Dull?
Look at it like this - it took a matter of days for an already trained pilot to become proficient with Iron armor, never mind all the drones doing just as well. Clearly the armor's designer doesn't have to be the one operating it all the time. Even Cap was intended to be the first of many soldiers, not a single prototype - something the Winter Soldier program has apparently perfected.
And then there's another factor, the ignoring of which demonstrates your bias better than anything else - what happens if the Avengers die? What happens if they get killed in action, either one at a time or all at once, leaving the world defenseless for keeping its eggs all in one basket, and all because of Tony being too self-absorbed to work with the government rather than play the lone messiah?
The great illusion of superheroes is that they're invincible; and like I said, the lack of reference allows people to treat that as an inherent trait, rather than as a dramatic convenience in the vein of Rambo or James Bond. But they're still mortal men, and their recklessness easily endangers those who'd need them most should they bite the big one in precisely the wrong moment.
In a word - attrition. The main reason "elite" soldiers aren't the be-all, end-all of modern warfare, even for the direst crises. Tony is visibly running out of steam, and Cap got lucky not to become a part of Lagos's atmosphere. Thor comes and goes as he pleases, and the Hulk is uncontrollable. By your logic, there's no one to take their place... yet the existence of Rhodes and Lang speaks to the opposite - that being a superhero is only a matter of training and equipment, no different from being a soldier.
In short, they're not immortal. They're not irreplaceable. They're not beyond reproach. They're not essential. They're just not special, which is really what this discussion is about - the premise of people too cool for school, beholden to neither law nor government, nor even physics. That's the premise of superheroes. And it's false, a necessary weasel that makes for great fights, but should never have been left outside the kennel, let alone played for drama.
Seriously, a whole planet was saved by a random thief, a gun-toting raccoon, and a talking tree - somehow, I think Earth will manage without the Avengers should the need arise.
"Then what are you calling the last 4 pages? "
we have talk about everything, but not really why the so call debate dosent work, but here is why:
First the debate was good and it was clear Tony was making the superior case here, even when he said that they can change the detail of the acords latter, when he was about to sign, them suddenly the movie piles shit on Tony sides: first is controversial act to discredit Tony(Wanda) them it pull the awfull strawman(Ross) them the slippery part(the Raff).
Because that is the thing, Cap DOSENT really have end choice or alternative more that mantain a status quo because he feel better, Tony offer a better(if flawed) choice that can be improve, once the endline come the movie just move itself to make him right and end with a "both have valid point" which is fairly damn nonsense
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Oh, well that's boring. All you wanted was your preferred side to win. I thought you were making an interesting point at first.
The point is "look w are debating about it" dosent make a movie good, otherwise Bv S would be the best because we talk about it a lot, my point is the movie did have a debate...and them walk out the moment a result was actually showing, that is disapoint it
The would-be novelist
To you, at least.
Non Indicative Username
Something the DCEU has done is make it very clear why their superheroes are needed. The military was fairly quick to respond to alien threats and it was shown that they were outclassed. The gravity field and superpowered crew of the Black Zero prevented any actual impact. Doomsday was nuked and it still didn't kill him. The Suicide Squad were part of the military detachment dealing with the problem in Midway City.
The MCU made local law enforcement and military ineffectual with little explanation, just to make sure the heroes looked as awesome as possible. Even career air force Rhodey is pretty much a joke, even though he is an established solo hero in his own right. Sam gets some respect, but he is firmly Captain America's sidekick. On top of that is the recurring theme of the superheroes having to fend off copycats, vengeful rivals and cleaning up their own mistakes more than purely external supervillain plots.
No, we didn't deal "without Superheroes" with the aliens. We were simply lucky that we fall under the protection of Asgard...you know, this realm whose prince you want to put under surveillance because you consider him to dangerous. And we were lucky that humans somehow managed to defeat Hive way, way back, as well the Kree never figuring out that their experiment on earth actually worked. AND we were lucky that Thanos didn't find the infinity stone on our planet earlier.
You mean the aliens which were only on earth because another alien already was there? And SS makes no sense whatsoever, what the hell can Harley Quinn with a baseball bat, a guy who can climb particularly well, a sharp-shooter, a chick with a sword and some guy with boomerangs do against an superpowered threat what a special unit of soldiers can't do? The only one who made sense in the context was El Diabolo.
edited 30th Aug '16 3:00:05 PM by Swanpride
it's a living
Having the Avengers be answerable to governments is great when those governments can be trusted, which, case in point General Ross (or at least Emil Blonsky) and the whole Hydra debacle, they can't always.
Going off the books entirely isn't the right answer either— having Steve actually apologize in his letter at the end is a nice touch— but Team Cap have made their bed.
I don't think the movie goes out of its way to make Team Tony wrong, but it shows why what seems like an eminently reasonable choice on the surface isn't a slam dunk. The law is not some absolute thing that applies universally in all situations. That's why we *have* courts, to sort out exceptions and mitigating circumstances. Sometimes doing the right thing *does* involve breaking the law. And then again, upholding the law and keeping the peace sometimes means not everyone gets a happy ending.
It's complex and I don't think the movie itself is done on that score. I have to imagine we'll be dealing with these repercussions and hearing more from both sides in movies still to come.
True, honestly. I like that the heroes of the MCU don't save the world in every movie, but it might be good to have a few more reminders on the level of the Chitauri invasion to show their contributions in a positive global light. AOU sort of cancels itself out in that respect.
edited 30th Aug '16 4:07:17 PM by Unsung
A bit of a grey area here, I think. Zod was already scouting for planets with Kryptonian tech on them and likely would have come to Earth sooner or later. And while human weapons were shown as not very effective against Kryptonians, Natasha and Clint are able to kill the Chitauri with hand guns and arrows respectively. And of course, a simple nuke was all it took to to take them out.
"Having the Avengers be answerable to governments is great when those governments can be trusted, which, case in point General Ross (or at least Emil Blonsky) and the whole Hydra debacle, they can't always. "
And yet we have to trust tony after sokovia, or Wanda after her mistake(or Cap for that matter) aparenly their mistake aren mistake for....reasons, their mistakes are turn tino drama folder instead of allowing repercutions.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Nope, the whole point of Civil War is that nobody in trustworthy, so you need to set up a system of accountability which still allows the Avengers to operate freely in a case of emergency. What exactly is so hard to understand about this concept?
Maybe you should ask the writers that, cause the way they wrote that story they clearly wanted us on Steve's side instead of Tony's.
No, they wanted to create a controversial movie which ends with people discussion the concept of oversight for Superheroes. They wanted to create a movie in which people might change teams while watching it, no matter what their original team was. I would say, they succeeded. And we know that this was their intention because they said so.
That Tony was close to that, whatever flaw may be it was the right choice, Steven never propose anything or deliver more good argument, and it dosent have to because the movie does for him.
Them they set a pretty damn low bar, because getting past all that feeling, the movie does really have some issues.
edited 30th Aug '16 3:31:33 PM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
What they claimed they wanted to do and what they actually did are two different things. In theory this movie is about making a case for both parties. In practice, the movie is stacked against the Pro-Accords side from the get go. You have Ross and Tony who are all about shirking responsibility for their actions leading the Accords, you have Tony recruiting Peter to fight his war, you have the Accords being shown as too easily misused, you have T'Challa being in ti for revenge and all this beaten over the audiences heads. Meanwhile, most of Steve's bad calls are ignored or played as good ideas like him assaulting police officers to save Barnes.
The movie's only options are "let the Avengers do what they want, consequences be damned" and "the Avengers must be controlled no matter how corrupt or incompetent" the controllers are. There is zero middle ground.
edited 30th Aug '16 3:36:38 PM by windleopard
I answered to the post above which claimed that the writers wanted us to root for Steve, no questions asked. We KNOW that this isn't the case, the intention was to stay in the middle of the issue. You might not think that they succeeded (I do, though, and based on all the people who said that they changed their mind or doubted their position by watching the movie, in both directions, it did work for a lot of people), but that doesn't change the fact that this was the intention.
In the case of Suicide Squad the military is actually useful because they are, in effect, recruiting atypical soldiers. I thought it was really interesting in their first engagement the military soldiers were getting their asses kicked because they were caught off guard how resistant to bullets the mutated mooks were. The Suicide Squad, including the one with a bat, were more effective because they met violence with more violence. Deadshot specifically pushed forward in an action hero move that proved better than retreating while under attack. Beyond that one fundamental flaw in the idea of the Suicide Squad is that the more powerful a villain is, capturing and explosive leashing is that much more difficult. So the Suicide Squad is almost always made up of fairly low-end but ultra-violent criminals with only one or two with actual powers.
you know, that sound a lot what KJ,Crux and other said in the Bv S thread you know?, even them most people seen caught between the drama of Tony,Cap and Bucky that the actual position by the acords.
Granted in my case i change position, I enter the movie expecting Cap to Smash his shield in Tony face because I was annoy by his behivor in Ao U, I ended piss with Cap and the story in the end, if you can said that is change of heart....
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
If Marvel where really honest about discussion, they will let Tony win the argument and them let see how Cap move around the acord of if they can in the end change for the better, otherwise the whole thing is just another doge discussion, at least Bv S dosent pretend capitol hearing will really change much
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"