Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
Civil war has one big scene in which the arguments concerning the accords are laid out...and then the movie continues and proves every single argument right. Vision is right about escalation, Tony is right that heroes can't be trusted to never give into their emotions and always do the right thing above everything else (but he also demonstrates that signing the accords wouldn't actually prevent any of them from doing exactly that), Rhodey is right that Cap can be mislead just like everyone else, Natasha is right that the accords will tear them apart, Cap is right that they might end up in a situation in which the demands of the accords might keep them from doing what the right thing is, Falcon is right that the accords are basically a way to criminalize them.....that is the whole point of the movie, that both sides have good arguments.
The thing is that Tony is right in principle, but doesn't really understand that the accord as they are presented are a problem because they are not really about accountability but about control. Thus said, if they had been about accountability, Steve would have most likely signed.
I get the comparisons between Thor Ragnarok and GOTG's but I think it's less that they're consciously trying to bring the former in line with the latter due to the latter's success, and more that both are just drawing inspiration from similar sources, in Thor's case the Kirby and Simonson comics and in GOTG's case general 80s Americana.
And Steve did say that the Accords could force them to go somewhere they thought they shouldn't go, and that's sometime after meeting with Ross, so the scene implies that everyone has read the Accords and that his concerns are valid because something in the Accords is connected to that.
And that I'd believe if both of them were kids. But, as you've mentioned, they're not. I find it hard to believe that two people in their mid-to-late-twenties would still behave, think and let themselves be manipulated like that.
I mean, the moment that Wanda took a peek of Ultron's mind she did a complete 180° turn. She's horrified by the loss of life that Ultron's plan might create, but she's never bothered by the loss of life that she herself caused because of her illogical fixation on Tony. So she's not stupid nor evil, yet she does a shit-ton of immoral stuff. I wish that the movie would've paid attention to her actions and how she justifies them.
And they haven't been in Hydra custody for too long; the video of them protesting has them look exactly like they do when the movie starts.
edited 12th Apr '17 4:05:47 PM by ExplosiveLion
I suspect the teaser is probably more GOTG-inspired than the movie itself. They just want to ride a little of that wave while they can, I think.
![]()
Well, the actors are in their mid-twenties. I think the the twins as characters are still supposed to be in their teens. Not sure, though. If the characters are in fact older, then yeah, they're a little more immature than feels believable, given their environment.
edited 12th Apr '17 4:07:22 PM by Unsung
![]()
Those do sell the Used Future feel pretty well.
It's a noticeable shift in art style, because Sakaar in the comics was more akin to Ancient Rome IN SPACE! Even in the arena in the trailer looks modern in design, like a sports stadium.
" if they had been about accountability, Steve would have most likely signed."
have this movie been about accountability, Tony would face waaaaay more than one lady guilting about sokovia or Wanda incident would be throw there but that would pretty much shift the whole thing against the anti reg narrative, after all two heroes suddenly hitting each other in a big citty and destroyings buldings only to vanish as they come REALLY shit in any argument about accountability(even more when it come to Wanda becoming part of the team.)
also ![]()
dont take wrong but that pic you use is really ticking my uncanny valley for some reason, is just look.....wrooooong for some reason.
Which was always a load of bull. The various treaties that have been signed into law by the UN allow for people to refuse military orders they see as unlawful or immoral. If Ross tells Steve, "I want you to go burn down a day care center in Iran." Steve has every right to tell him to piss off.
Yeah, but more in theory than in practice. Most of the time conscientious objection tends take ages to verify officially as morally justified or not, and frequently still results in imprisonment in between. Especially when dealing with such a high level of government/military.
What I'm saying is, there's a reason why it took years for Chelsea Manning to be commuted and why Edward Snowden chose to flee rather than test his chances.
And it makes sense that Cap wouldn't want to take that chance, considering the last time he chose to not fully comply with his own agency out of personal misgivings, it turned into an immediate manhunt (and not everyone hunting him was HYDRA.)
edited 13th Apr '17 12:32:00 AM by Tuckerscreator
The issue is that the premises behind both characters make sense from a logical viewpoint, but in practice everything Tony talks about is proven by the events of the film while Steve's rhetoric doesn't go anywhere. Steve's actions were based on him being emotionally compromised because Bucky was involved, it was not the team facing an Ultron threat, HYDRA remnant or some other serious emergency where they needed to be deployed without the bureaucratic dragline. In fact the majority of the film hinged not on actual red tape but Steve fearing red tape and trying to circumvent the system. Sharon's (remarkably generic) speech at the funeral was implying that things are a simple black and white moral obligation, which is strange since the movie was based on the moral gray area that exists between Steve and Tony.
It doesn't help either that Tony not only circumvents the Accords once HE deems it necessary, but it's also obvious that they will find ways around it in the future. With the airport fight, Ross gave Tony a mission and left it up to him how to handle it, for the exact reason that they are tracking people across the world. Once Steve alerts Tony that something else is going on, he could easily message Ross and say they are "following Steve to a base in Siberia" and will have him later that night. It's not even really a moral dilemma, it's a matter of not thinking creatively enough.
That's the primary issue in comparison to the original comics, as that story was rooted in a widespread paradigm shift for costumed heroes and the conflict was because of those two sides of the argument. In the movie, the only thing keeping Steve and Tony from being on the same page regarding the dilemma is communication and an ounce of trust.
I disagree, BOTH are proven right by the events of the movie. Steve is right that there is an emergency situation which needs to get attended to NOW and practically has no choice but go off the rails because Ross only cares about taking down Bucky (that Zemo never intended to let the Super Soldiers loose is neither here not there because nobody could predict that this would be the case and with or without Zemo in the picture, those Super-Soldier had to be taken care off anyway). Falcon is right about nothing in the accords protecting their rights. No matter what you think about Bucky, he doesn't deserve to get killed on sight, he is a Po V. And he certainly deserves legal council, just like everyone else (not to mention that in the extended version he is also used as a political pawn and practically sold to Wakanda, even though the King of Wakanda wanted to kill him). And no matter what you think about what lead to the Airport fight, putting people in some secret underwater prison (and the pure fact that that thing even exist is a red flag in itself) is not accountability.
Steve had zero evidence to back up this claim and made it while committing multiple felonies. If you want to alert someone of a crime, doing it while committing a crime yourself.
And what rights are those? The rights to go into another country without the consent or knowledge and start fights that endanger citizens and destroy property?
You know I just re-watched the film and it says the team was authorized to use lethal force, not commanded to. That's two different things. If they could bring him in alive, they would have. But if he proved to dangerous and aggressive, they'd have to put him down. And Steve and Barnes' actions did not help them in the slightest. Seriously. Barnes smashes a cinder block into a guy's chest.
You know, we still have yet to see that they wouldn't get legal council if Steve hadn't jumped the gun.
And what would be the alternative? Letting them be tried in Germany for terrorism?
edited 13th Apr '17 4:33:00 AM by alliterator
Of course, the unspoken real-life context is that America has created a lot of damage in other countries, by going in and trying to "help them." note I wish the pro-registration part of the movie had better addressed what the negative consequences are when you go barging into a foreign nation (espeically where you don't understand the political and cultural context, which Steve sure as hell doesn't because he was unconscious for seventy years) because you think you know what's best for them, or to serve a personal agenda (like, I don't know, going after your brainwashed bff), or trying to fix a problem that you ultimately caused (they're close to addressing that when talking about Sokovia, but never really get there). The Avengers shouldn't be considered to have better judgement just because they have superpowers, and sometimes it sounds like Cap thinks that.
However, militaries and governments can be just as blind, obviously. You have to be very careful when organizing any international initiative, and Thunderbolt Ross - who definitely has his own agenda - is very much not the person who should do that.
In a sense, I suppose this all ties into the inherent problems with superhero stories, where more often than not it's a single or small group of vigilantes deciding they can deliver justice in a fair and reasonable way... you'd almost be better off just ignoring topics like this, I guess, and embracing the fact that this is all inherently unrealistic.
If they had been tried under German law, they wouldn't have been tried for terrorism but for what they actually did, property damage. And yes, it is preferable to get tried in a German court than even getting tried in an American court, and certainly better than just being put into the slammer for an unknown time, no question asked.
On the whole "the Avengers go into different countries" matter....yes, they do, but we have to see that in context. They don't go into different countries to replace the local government, they do it to prevent threats to the whole world. Excuse me that I don't care one bit how, let's say, Saudi Arabia would feel about the Avengers turning up on their soil if the alternative is an Alien invasion spreading over the whole world, or a fake meteor destroying the world, or a terrorist stealing a chemical weapon which can be set off anywhere in the world.
What the Accords SHOULD be about is setting up general guidelines under which the Avengers are allowed to act (ie they can intervene when the world is threatened but they can't intervene in local politics), which rules they have to follow (keeping the collateral damage as low as possible, respecting certain laws) and what happens when they break those rules (what body would look into their actions, which court would conduct the trial aso). What is actually IS about is taking the decision when, where and how to act away from the avengers, putting it into the hand of either an appointed guy who can decide over them however he wants with no clear guidelines whatsoever or into a committee which is largely unelected and is unlikely to agree on anything completely.
Thinking about it did the secret underwater prison cells even have toilets?
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI think that the biggest flaw in Cap's argument, is Zemo himself. Cap's whole thing is that they (The Avengers) are in the best position to make these calls. And yet, at the beginning of the movie, he admits that Crossbones was able to psych him out just by BRINGING UP BUCKY'S NAME!! Psych him out so much, that Cap (again by his own admission) missed the suicide vest that he should have caught, and a bunch of innocent people died as a result. Not so great judgment there huh Cap.
And then he gets outmaneuvered every step of the way by Zemo. And Cap's "do what you feel is right, even if it means going it alone" belief is what lets Zemo win in the end. Cap and Bucky going to Siberia alone, and Tony honoring his deal with Falcon and going alone to, is what causes them to walk right into Zemo's trap. If any of them brings any significant backup with them, that probably doesn't happen.
And as for Wanda, I kind of think that a big reason why the Russo's completely and utterly ignore her actions in AOU entirely, is because acknowledging them would ALSO really hurt Cap's argument. Because his argument can be easily countered by "look what Wanda pulled in AOU, and how many people died/were maimed because of it? And you not only completely gave her a pass on all of it, but you have her ON YOUR TEAM!!"
Eh, Tony was perfectly willing to allow Wanda on the team up until then too
Hell he was bankrolling her. She lived in a compound he owned and wore clothes he paid for
Forever liveblogging the AvengersIt was negligency on both parts. Both sides had good arguments, yet did a lot of stuff that worked against themselves. Wanda's involvement on the team is both on Steve and Tony, since one recruited her and the other was financing her. Tony can't bring her up without Steve pointing out his hypocrisy.
edited 13th Apr '17 7:01:47 AM by ExplosiveLion

Back to Ragnarok. That teaser looked and sounded like a Guardians of the Galaxy spot. As such, I hope the end shows Hulk (or Bruce) and Thor getting back to Earth in time for Infinity War because they got picked up by the Guardians who were already headed that way.
edited 12th Apr '17 3:32:09 PM by MedusaStone