We weren't shown if he has spider sense or not and were shown evidence to suggest he didn't. But that's also kind of par for the course, since he'd never get hit then. So it's TBD.
He's shown having heightened perception twice. He catches the baseball that Tony fastballs at him, and when he's fighting Bucky, Bucky throws a piece of concrete at the back of his head, and he whips around, catches it, says, "I think you dropped this," and tosses it back.
I love watching fight scenes where you get to see superheroes use their special senses. The hallway fight in Daredevil season 1 has a prime example. The perspective is from outside the the room where the commotion is, so you see a mook walk down a hall to investigate and immediately take a thrown microwave to the head the moment he rounds the corner. Glorious.
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well, the actual problem with bringing in Spiderling is that he's a minor, who technically cannot legally make the decision to leave the U.S. and travel to Germany without his legal guardian's express permission.
Tony almost certainly did not say "Hey, super-hot Aunt May, I'm gonna take your nephew(son) to a foreign country to fight and apprehend one or more enhanced super-soldiers. Pete here wouldn't happened to have suffered any tragedy or deep personal trauma in the recent past, would he? Because there may in fact also be a woman with telekinesis and the ability to inspire horrific visions of the past and future. What's that? Oh, no, it's totes safe because young Peter here has a special danger sense, an enhanced healing factor and durability, and the proportionate strength and speed of a spider. It's really quite spectacular!"
So, Tony Stark was engaged in the endangerment of a child at the very least, and kidnapping at worst, in addition to a laundry list of other offenses just in relation to the recruitment of Peter Parker. He also clearly in no way put as much thought into his reasoning as a bunch of nerds on an internet forum, nor did he give the sixteen-year old boychild anything resembling a balanced representation of the conflict at hand.
In fact, the brief speech Peter makes in his room about "letting the bad things happen" is essentially exactly the philosophy that Steve Rogers espouses. The kind of manipulation it would take to make that child think Captain America is "wrong and dangerous" is mind-boggling and creepy as shit. He's the super-hero equivalent of some kid's cool uncle showing up, buying him a car, and then saying "hey, I need you to cart these guns to Mexico. It's cool, I'll be with you. I'll just tell your ma that we're going to Disneyland."
Dirt. Bag.
Roping Spider-Man of all people into fighting on his side is the best argument that Tony needed to slow his roll and maybe think about listening to somebody other than the always-irate goose-stepper who'd spent years chasing and attempting to kill his science-bro, Bruce Banner (which regularly resulted in the meek scientist involuntarily turning into a giant green rage monster, thus putting Ross to blame for unleashing a walking WMD). He should maybe be questioning his own thought process, but instead gets 'tired of' listening to Cap trying to explain the underlying situation and immediately -immediately- sics a dumb teenager on The Guy Who Defeated Super-Hitler.
While Tony probably said something along thenlines of "Steve's best friend is an assassin, and is responsible for the UN explosion. He's helping Bucky escape", that doesn't mean Spidey can't make the decision for himself. You basically added an entire subplot that has no support for happening in the movie in your head.
Not only did they lock her up, but they wrapped her in a straight jacket and had a collar on her neck, that was either an electroshock collar or a device used to blow a hole in her neck.
Which is horrible for Wanda.
That said, do you have any humane ways to restrain someone with telekinesis? All she needs to move her hands a little and she's free, than she'll free the others seconds later.
Not only did they lock her up, but they wrapped her in a straight jacket and had a collar on her neck, that was either an electroshock collar or a device used to blow a hole in her neck.
Which is horrible for Wanda.
That said, do you have any humane ways to restrain someone with telekinesis? All she needs to move her hands a little and she's free, than she'll free the others seconds later.
That's the point, you can't really restrain her. I mean, I guarantee she could have magicked her way out it. Plus, Steve shows up and springs them all singlehandedly. Obviously there's no restraining these supers unless: a) you have your own, better supers on your side and constantly guarding them or b) you theaten innocent people to essentially blackmail them (which is happening already since they can't help people in need locked up in watery Gitmo)
Not only did they lock her up, but they wrapped her in a straight jacket and had a collar on her neck, that was either an electroshock collar or a device used to blow a hole in her neck.
Which is horrible for Wanda.
That said, do you have any humane ways to restrain someone with telekinesis? All she needs to move her hands a little and she's free, than she'll free the others seconds later.
That's the point, you can't really restrain her. I mean, I guarantee she could have magicked her way out it. Plus, Steve shows up and springs them all singlehandedly. Obviously there's no restraining these supers unless: a) you have your own, better supers on your side and constantly guarding them or b) you theaten innocent people to essentially blackmail them (which is happening already since they can't help people in need locked up in watery Gitmo)
What amuses me is how the Raft and UN has shitty mundane equipment for things like this, in a world where SHIELD (post-Winter Soldier) and HYDRA super advantaged tech that'd be much harder for Enhanced to escape. This really shouldn't be a thing in the MCU.
edit: I'm positive Team Coulson would have been able to contain her without those dehumanizing restraints, and a better system for keeping her from escaping. They can do what they did to Ward, and they have the vibranium cells.
We weren't shown if he has spider sense or not and were shown evidence to suggest he didn't. But that's also kind of par for the course, since he'd never get hit then. So it's TBD.
He's shown having heightened perception twice. He catches the baseball that Tony fastballs at him, and when he's fighting Bucky, Bucky throws a piece of concrete at the back of his head, and he whips around, catches it, says, "I think you dropped this," and tosses it back.
I love watching fight scenes where you get to see superheroes use their special senses. The hallway fight in Daredevil season 1 has a prime example. The perspective is from outside the the room where the commotion is, so you see a mook walk down a hall to investigate and immediately take a thrown microwave to the head the moment he rounds the corner. Glorious.
There was also when he jacked Caps shield he got a flash from Antman about to punch him, but wasn't fast enough to figure out there was a microscopic dude about to punch him in the face.
I mean, that's not really the kind of threat he faces regularly, but he did see it coming. Just not in time to dodge or block it.
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Well, the actual problem with bringing in Spiderling is that he's a minor, who technically cannot legally make the decision to leave the U.S. and travel to Germany without his legal guardian's express permission.
Tony almost certainly did not say "Hey, super-hot Aunt May, I'm gonna take your nephew(son) to a foreign country to fight and apprehend one or more enhanced super-soldiers. Pete here wouldn't happened to have suffered any tragedy or deep personal trauma in the recent past, would he? Because there may in fact also be a woman with telekinesis and the ability to inspire horrific visions of the past and future. What's that? Oh, no, it's totes safe because young Peter here has a special danger sense, an enhanced healing factor and durability, and the proportionate strength and speed of a spider. It's really quite spectacular!"
So, Tony Stark was engaged in the endangerment of a child at the very least, and kidnapping at worst, in addition to a laundry list of other offenses just in relation to the recruitment of Peter Parker. He also clearly in no way put as much thought into his reasoning as a bunch of nerds on an internet forum, nor did he give the sixteen-year old boychild anything resembling a balanced representation of the conflict at hand.
In fact, the brief speech Peter makes in his room about "letting the bad things happen" is essentially exactly the philosophy that Steve Rogers espouses. The kind of manipulation it would take to make that child think Captain America is "wrong and dangerous" is mind-boggling and creepy as shit. He's the super-hero equivalent of some kid's cool uncle showing up, buying him a car, and then saying "hey, I need you to cart these guns to Mexico. It's cool, I'll be with you. I'll just tell your ma that we're going to Disneyland."
Dirt. Bag.
Roping Spider-Man of all people into fighting on his side is the best argument that Tony needed to slow his roll and maybe think about listening to somebody other than the always-irate goose-stepper who'd spent years chasing and attempting to kill his science-bro, Bruce Banner (which regularly resulted in the meek scientist involuntarily turning into a giant green rage monster, thus putting Ross to blame for unleashing a walking WMD). He should maybe be questioning his own thought process, but instead gets 'tired of' listening to Cap trying to explain the underlying situation and immediately -immediately- sics a dumb teenager on The Guy Who Defeated Super-Hitler.
While Tony probably said something along thenlines of "Steve's best friend is an assassin, and is responsible for the UN explosion. He's helping Bucky escape", that doesn't mean Spidey can't make the decision for himself. You basically added an entire subplot that has no support for happening in the movie in your head.
The majority of that post factually happened. We don't know exactly what Tony was thinking or what he said to Peter, but we do know he didn't give Peter an accurate representation of the situation. After all, Tony himself doesn't know what's going on. What are the chances he told Peter about Bucky being brainwashed, that he saved Cap's life, that the evidence of him actually physically perpetrating the U.N. bombing is just one shoddy picture, or that he exclusively used nonlethal force in escaping from the police? Does Peter know anything about international politics and the Sokovia Accords? Did Peter have any idea what would happen to Cap's side after they were apprehended? Tony didn't, so how could he? Even if Peter was given all the facts, recruiting him would have been somewhat shady. He doesn't, and at 15 he doesn't have the wisdom to try to look past Tony Stark offering money and saying it's the right thing to do. Tony knew he was an impressionable kid, which was why he specifically told Peter not to listen to what Captain America would say during the fight. Tony knew he was doing something manipulative and borderline scummy, but he thought he had the right reasons and was fairly confident Peter wouldn't be hurt so he went ahead anyway.
E: Also there's the parallel with the comics where Peter swaps over to Cap's side once he learns more about the situation and realizes his respect for Tony was clouding his judgement.
Well, the actual problem with bringing in Spiderling is that he's a minor, who technically cannot legally make the decision to leave the U.S. and travel to Germany without his legal guardian's express permission.
Tony almost certainly did not say "Hey, super-hot Aunt May, I'm gonna take your nephew(son) to a foreign country to fight and apprehend one or more enhanced super-soldiers. Pete here wouldn't happened to have suffered any tragedy or deep personal trauma in the recent past, would he? Because there may in fact also be a woman with telekinesis and the ability to inspire horrific visions of the past and future. What's that? Oh, no, it's totes safe because young Peter here has a special danger sense, an enhanced healing factor and durability, and the proportionate strength and speed of a spider. It's really quite spectacular!"
So, Tony Stark was engaged in the endangerment of a child at the very least, and kidnapping at worst, in addition to a laundry list of other offenses just in relation to the recruitment of Peter Parker. He also clearly in no way put as much thought into his reasoning as a bunch of nerds on an internet forum, nor did he give the sixteen-year old boychild anything resembling a balanced representation of the conflict at hand.
In fact, the brief speech Peter makes in his room about "letting the bad things happen" is essentially exactly the philosophy that Steve Rogers espouses. The kind of manipulation it would take to make that child think Captain America is "wrong and dangerous" is mind-boggling and creepy as shit. He's the super-hero equivalent of some kid's cool uncle showing up, buying him a car, and then saying "hey, I need you to cart these guns to Mexico. It's cool, I'll be with you. I'll just tell your ma that we're going to Disneyland."
Dirt. Bag.
Roping Spider-Man of all people into fighting on his side is the best argument that Tony needed to slow his roll and maybe think about listening to somebody other than the always-irate goose-stepper who'd spent years chasing and attempting to kill his science-bro, Bruce Banner (which regularly resulted in the meek scientist involuntarily turning into a giant green rage monster, thus putting Ross to blame for unleashing a walking WMD). He should maybe be questioning his own thought process, but instead gets 'tired of' listening to Cap trying to explain the underlying situation and immediately -immediately- sics a dumb teenager on The Guy Who Defeated Super-Hitler.
While Tony probably said something along thenlines of "Steve's best friend is an assassin, and is responsible for the UN explosion. He's helping Bucky escape", that doesn't mean Spidey can't make the decision for himself. You basically added an entire subplot that has no support for happening in the movie in your head.
No, that subplot occurred in a scene in the movie
The part with Marissa Tomei, Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Holland, where one of the adults encourages the minor to lie to their guardian in order to receive money and hang out and also get into a super-hero fight. I wanna say it's, like... a third of the way into the movie.
I actually really like Tony and loved that scene (Spider-Man is my favorite character), but Tony's up to some scummy business there.
Remember in the comic where Tony installed spyware in Spidey's costume and when Spidey started to question him Tony tried to kill him and then when Spidey escaped he sent the Thunderbolts to murder him.
And he was actually rescued by Frank Castle after the Thunderbolts beat him nearly to death.
Creepy Emperor Palpatine Tony is actually way nicer than the Civil War comic Tony!
From what I hear, Civil War comic Tony was the result of him being so obviously inherently right that making the two sides have any sort of moral balance required them to make him ridiculously villainous.
Three possible reasons I can think of why the international community isn't satisfied with dealing with Avengers via existing methods:
Bringing someone up on charges after they commit a crime is all well and good, but the UN is spooked enough that they want to be proactive about bringing the Avengers under control.
The powers that be assume that charging or suing the Avengers would be futile anyway, because Tony will just hire the best lawyers money can buy.
Similar to 1, the international community is just plain spooked, and the Accords are what happens when you channel panic through a committee.
edit: not that I think these are good reasons, mind you.
Just finished watching it a second time (this time after not having been told to go to the wrong theater and missing the first part of the movie!)
Still great. Best parts were still everything with the new characters.
Couple more things I paid attention to/noticed:
The ring is definitely his dad's, and didn't react with the arm, it was just the center of the screen due to what was going on.
Vision is completely absent at the fight from his first laser until after Ant-Man goes big. There's a few other periodic absences, but that's the big one.
There is absolutely no reason that Cap and team couldn't have involved the police in Nigeria. Just call in a perimeter around the facility when the break-in happens! they even showed the damn police station! Not bothering to even have the remotest nod toward the local authorities makes Cap's side on a lot less stable ground.
For all the talk about General Ross, he was actually Secretary of State, not just a general, so not working with him in legal authority is more bordering on "I refuse military action because they're not my political party" levels of insubordination, so yeah, we know he's a prat, but come on. That being said, it makes ZERO sense for the SoS to be on the prison.
In retrospect, this could have been a great subtle nod to the TV side of things if Talbot were in place of Ross - he'd fit the role. And if they REALLY want to tie it in and get people going "what the WHAT" Coulson could have been the person breaking/letting them out at the end - Hawkeye would have been the only person to recognize him, and him and Talbot being the ones involved would have removed the necessary difficulties for like...how Ant-Man wouldn't be a fugitive at the start of his next movie.
Why didn't the UN prison station thing have a backup generator? Seems a pretty important facility to not have one.
Why did Iron Man, Black Widow, and Black Panther wait around for 10 minutes while Cap and Falcon moved immediately?
Would have required some rewrite, but I definitely feel that from a characterization standpoint, it would have made more sense for Vision and Scarlet Witch to be on opposite sides. Which would have had the double benefit of Vision helping Cap escape then turning himself in peacefully, and just sitting and meditating in the prison while it's obvious to anyone he could leave whenever he wanted.
From what I hear, Civil War comic Tony was the result of him being so obviously inherently right that making the two sides have any sort of moral balance required them to make him ridiculously villainous.
No, there were quite a few writers who hated Tony's position in the comics and made him into a mustache twirling villain to create a straw man. JMS, being one of them. It's hard to pin down details exactly since editorially basically let anyone do what they want with the characters and there was very little holding it together. For instance, what the SHRA did changed what it did between writers. IIRC editorially originally felt Tony was on the right side, which made how this ended up even more puzzling.
Point #2 there basically demonstrates why the Accords themselves are only kind of worth drafting: if the Avengers' actions can be defended in court by normal legal means, through just hiring really good lawyers, then it's probably kind of asinine to hold them Special Responsible or something.
Like, vigilantism is illegal. But if just a few really good lawyers can successfully defend the Avengers, then creating special new laws is... I dunno, I want to say unconstitutional, but I'm sure that's not right. It's certainly not ethical.
Point #2 there basically demonstrates why the Accords themselves are only kind of worth drafting: if the Avengers' actions can be defended in court by normal legal means, through just hiring really good lawyers, then it's probably kind of asinine to hold them Special Responsible or something.
Which is an interesting angle I'd have liked to have seen, the bad thing is that by Marvel ignoring that subject entirely we're not sure exactly what's going on in that sphere so what we're left with is the Accords, and totally unaccountable vigilantism. I'd like for other media to tackle this, like AoS, since the movies aren't inclined to.
Like, vigilantism is illegal. But if just a few really good lawyers can successfully defend the Avengers, then creating special new laws is... I dunno, I want to say unconstitutional, but I'm sure that's not right. It's certainly not ethical.
Why wouldn't it be ethical? Enhanced individuals would definitely have an impact on legislation where they decide to start fists fights on the street, Marvel tiptoed around that as early as Iron Man 2, now the events in that movie are mundane to the weird shit Enhanced have gotten involved with. New laws are created over less. Also, this is on an international scale, not the US so the constitution wouldn't do anything for Enhanced outside America.
From what I hear, Civil War comic Tony was the result of him being so obviously inherently right that making the two sides have any sort of moral balance required them to make him ridiculously villainous.
They had to do the same thing here with the "no representation" thing. The UN doesn't go for the whole "secret prison" thing in the slightest so it's not even remotely possible with the exception of "we need something for the good guys to not look so obviously right about everything". Similarly no comparisons to gun control or how cap wants to be a dictator but thinks it's OK because he is "totally benevolent", or even the most simple comparison to the ability to refuse an unlawful order.
Because there is otherwise holy hell no conceivable position which suggests that no oversight is a good thing or that "the UN might have an 'agenda'", whatever the fuck that means, when not only is it clear that the only person who actually has an "agenda" is Cap* because the entire point of oversight is that it's harder to have "agendas" when lots of people are involved and looking on!
*he has a personal agenda to help is friend out of the, well, reasonable legal jam he is in due to being an "assassin for an international criminal organization". This is the actual "agenda" that everyone is so afraid half of the nations in the world are going to simultaneously have. He is literally doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and it's the thing he is supposeldy afraid of the other people and no one even mentions it because to spell it out would make it so obvious.
Ok, let me take a slightly different tack with those #teamtony people out there.
Outside of the context of this movie, and the MCU, what is your opinion on the United Nations, and its ability to get things done in a timely manner? And I mean, important things like stepping in with military action to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing, or investigating war crimes committed by member states.
Ok, let me take a slightly different tack with those #teamtony people out there.
Outside of the context of this movie, and the MCU, what is your opinion on the United Nations, and its ability to get things done in a timely manner? And I mean, important things like stepping in with military action to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing, or investigating war crimes committed by member states.
Hard to say, we have no context to work with outside what was in the movie. I assume it's like our U.N., except they somehow are terrible at acquiring advanced tech that exists in their world - even Ross has lost his touch with this, when he was a general he had access to all sorts of weird shit.
I think it's safe to assume that if it hasn't been directly expounded upon in an MCU movie as being different from our real world, then one should infer that they are basically the same as our real world. As the MCU (and comics) in general is basically, what if all other things being equal, our world had super-powered people.
I think it's safe to assume that if it hasn't been directly expounded upon in an MCU movie as being different from our real world, then one should infer that they are basically the same as our real world. As the MCU (and comics) in general is basically, what if all other things being equal, our world had super-powered people.
Which is where it breaks down conceptually, events like that happening would disrupt the status quo at all levels. There's absolutely no reason other lower channels would be acting by our norm there. AoS gets this, it's a pity the movie branch doesn't. It also becomes a weird conclusion for the UN to have when there is no build up to the Accords on their end.
edit: If the Enhanced are this big a problem for the Accords to be created, we'd have seen dozens of scenes like in Iron Man 2 in multiple countries effected by them, as well as legal avenues about Enhanced from the government and civilians. Instead without that context it's like they went from not caring about the Enhanced for years to suddenly the Accords. In weeks? Months? Who knows? We certainly don't. When they had the perfect bridge with Ultron, yet the film almost ignores it completely.
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
Point #2 there basically demonstrates why the Accords themselves are only kind of worth drafting: if the Avengers' actions can be defended in court by normal legal means, through just hiring really good lawyers, then it's probably kind of asinine to hold them Special Responsible or something.
Which is an interesting angle I'd have liked to have seen, the bad thing is that by Marvel ignoring that subject entirely we're not sure exactly what's going on in that sphere so what we're left with is the Accords, and totally unaccountable vigilantism. I'd like for other media to tackle this, like AoS, since the movies aren't inclined to.
Like, vigilantism is illegal. But if just a few really good lawyers can successfully defend the Avengers, then creating special new laws is... I dunno, I want to say unconstitutional, but I'm sure that's not right. It's certainly not ethical.
Why wouldn't it be ethical? Enhanced individuals would definitely have an impact on legislation where they decide to start fists fights on the street, Marvel tiptoed around that as early as Iron Man 2, now the events in that movie are mundane to the weird shit Enhanced have gotten involved with. New laws are created over less. Also, this is on an international scale, not the US so the constitution wouldn't do anything for Enhanced outside America.
I think he was talking more about laws that apply to enhanced that wouldn't apply to regular citizens, not just because of their powers, but because of their actions.
ie: The Accords would have a certain penalty if the Avengers intervened in a country they weren't permitted to, but if it was a regular mercenary/PMC group, it would be left to the nations regular laws.
I loved the movie, and I thought they did a really good job of making both Cap and Ironman's positions feel justifiable given each of the character's personal situations. Both of them have a point and both of them make big fuck-ups/experience flaws in judgment due to personal reasons/experiences. The conflict works because while it feels forced at parts the entire reveal is that it was forced; that was the explicit goal of the bad guy all along. The way they leave the conflict open at the end is really cool too, because it leaves things open for a pretty tense relationship/cathartic moments in future films.
Regarding Tony's bringing in Spider-Man being scum-bag-ly; remember that Tony's just taking him to go bring in Captain America, and Spider-Man has like the perfect toolset for apprehending someone non-lethally. While Tony has every reason to believe things might come to blows (Avengers love hitting each other at every opportunity), Tony still implicitly trusts Cap not to actually seriously harm anyone. And at any rate, Tony's explicit instructions to Peter were to stay clear of the fight and just offer support (which Peter immediately ignores due to eagerness to get in the fight). And immediately once Tony realizes his mistake and that he actually placed Peter in real danger by bringing him to the fight he tells him he's out. So, while bringing Spider-Man was definitely poor judgment on Tony's part, I don't think it was out of a lack of concern for Peter's safety; he just didn't realize how much danger he was actually putting Peter in when he brought him.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world.
Which is why this breaks down under the slightest scrutiny, and it wouldn't necessarily be bad for the movies to have gone it more than they did, simply made it a bigger priority within their structure and stretching out the Phases more than they have. It also wouldn't hurt the movie side to get the cliff notes on the political side of AoS, too, because they absolutely have thought of the implications and made the necessary adjustments for the MCU. Which is disappointing when the Russo's don't follow up on their example.
If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
I'm not talking about getting bogged down in it, I'm saying it'd nice if the movies looked like they bothered giving some lip service that they don't operate in a vacuum. Which they already do to an extent. What makes this more striking is that the movies aren't in the universe by themselves - AoS is very relevant to this line of discussion about political implications and I guarantee their material isn't sucking the fun out of it. Nor does it have to be meaningless, because when they do get into that stuff in Civil War or Winter Soldier it adds to the story. This is unfortunately what they painted themselves into with a story like Civil War. It's a topic that deliberately invites questions in how the MCU works - this is good, they don't want the audience to not care about the MCU's world. They do a better job of it than B vs S.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
I'm not sure that'd have a clear answer, that's why I'm being vague. What I do know is that it our world I can bet if Enhanced were doing stuff like in the MCU they may get things done faster rather than sitting on their hands, especially after incidents like Red Skull and Ultron. And that's ignoring what's happened on AoS (season 3 spoilers)
which has had an immortal all-powerful Inhuman being a global threat in the Avengers league - which the US government know about, and are co-operating with SHIELD in taking down. This season also had a Russian Inhuman almost successfully assassinate the Russian president and came this close to getting a UN approved Inhuman nation in their backyard, which was secretly a HYDRA ploy.
By ignoring things like AoS the entire MCU concept comes into question, if they're not really interested in telling stories where the various branches operating in the universe operate why are they bothering with tv shows supposedly in the MCU in the first place?
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
The UN is pretty much a joke for any kind of serious issue sadly and I'm all for one man doing anything as long as it's the right thing to do. Be that reality or the movies apparently (as was said, we're fuzzy on what the governments can get up to other than they seem to bungle it).
We'd hope that real governments would react better, but that's hard to say.
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
The UN is pretty much a joke for any kind of serious issue sadly and I'm all for one man doing anything as long as it's the right thing to do. Be that reality or the movies apparently (as was said, we're fuzzy on what the governments can get up to other than they seem to bungle it).
If that's true then why was Tony sweating about their coming for the Avengers?
We'd hope that real governments would react better, but that's hard to say.
I'm somewhat skeptical in a world where we had Reagan, W., Putin and Thatcher leading nations. Do you think trust those world leaders to do right by Enhanced individuals, a growing Inhumans population (ala X-men) and their governments infiltrated by HYDRA? I don't.
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
Depends
has he saved the world twice, not including the time he defeated super-Hitler?
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
Depends
has he saved the world twice, not including the time he defeated super-Hitler?
That's fine for him, what about every other super-powered individual on the planet? According to AoS the movies are the tip of the iceberg with their numbers, too.
edit: I'm also interested in how this would effect super-villains like the Abomination - who's currently kept in cryostasis.
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
The UN is pretty much a joke for any kind of serious issue sadly and I'm all for one man doing anything as long as it's the right thing to do. Be that reality or the movies apparently (as was said, we're fuzzy on what the governments can get up to other than they seem to bungle it).
If that's true then why was Tony sweating about their coming for the Avengers?
We'd hope that real governments would react better, but that's hard to say.
I'm somewhat skeptical in a world where we had Reagan, W., Putin and Thatcher leading nations. Do you think trust those world leaders to do right by Enhanced individuals, a growing Inhumans population (ala X-men) and their governments infiltrated by HYDRA? I don't.
Because they'd bungle it one way or another?
And some of them yes, some of them no. Hence it's hard to say.
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
The UN is pretty much a joke for any kind of serious issue sadly and I'm all for one man doing anything as long as it's the right thing to do. Be that reality or the movies apparently (as was said, we're fuzzy on what the governments can get up to other than they seem to bungle it).
If that's true then why was Tony sweating about their coming for the Avengers?
We'd hope that real governments would react better, but that's hard to say.
I'm somewhat skeptical in a world where we had Reagan, W., Putin and Thatcher leading nations. Do you think trust those world leaders to do right by Enhanced individuals, a growing Inhumans population (ala X-men) and their governments infiltrated by HYDRA? I don't.
Because they'd bungle it one way or another?
And some of them yes, some of them no. Hence it's hard to say.
Exactly, that's why the U.N. going nuclear on the Avengers in the MCU isn't that far fetched.
I think you're overthinking this. There cannot be that much exposition about non core-movie related issues in movies, that just makes for sloppy moviemaking in general. Since there can't be exposition about it, you're supposed to infer a mirror image of our real world. If you get bogged down in the intricacies of things unstated in world-building of course you're going to find logical inconsistencies, also, that sucks the fun right out of what these are supposed to be, fun comic book movies. Which is, again, why you're just supposed to mirror our own world so that you have a frame of reference without needing tons and tons of meaningless exposition.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
Depends
has he saved the world twice, not including the time he defeated super-Hitler?
That's fine for him, what about every other super-powered individual on the planet? According to AoS the movies are the tip of the iceberg with their numbers, too.
Then you do what they always do in comics, when people aren't being completely ridiculous: attempt to apprehend and prosecute by the letter of the law established for human beings
That's the funny thing that's being ignored
The Avengers are doing things that actually fall within the purview of the law as it stands.
Wanda- vigilantism and involuntary manslaughter, and probably a few things involving perpetrating these crimes outside her nation of origin
Steve- Vigilantism, reckless endangerment, probably manslaughter at the very least, assault, battery, wearing a spangly outfit
Tony- Vigilantism, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, various cyber-crime (if there is such a thing), kidnapping, endangering a minor
Literally all of the Avengers have a laundry list of mundane, prosecute-able offenses to their name, dating back at least eight years (let alone the war crimes both Nat and Clint have probably committed). And, as Natasha said at the end of Winter Soldier, the world is perfectly free to arrest them. Aside from not wanting to be murdered by STRIKE, even Steve has given no indication that he's unwilling to be brought in and charged. Steve is the one who mentions a lawyer and is laughed at when he's detained. And, cuffs or no, he was detained.
What the enhanced people can do so far has not effected what they actually do. Literally no enhanced, save for Loki, Ultron, Doctor Who, and... well, all the villains, actually, have committed especially esoteric, enhanced-only crimes. You kill somebody with a dinner plate or with punch-beams from the Punch Dimension, you've still committed murder, and that's all that is.
And that'd be a good way to go! The Avenger's are committing crimes already established on a wholesale level, so prosecute them for the crimes they're committing!
If you're worried about not being able to apprehend them, then... I guess get your own team of super-humans to take them in, and then examine your moral quagmire really, really closely.
Then you do what they always do in comics, when people aren't being completely ridiculous: attempt to apprehend and prosecute by the letter of the law established for human beings
That's the funny thing that's being ignored
The Avengers are doing things that actually fall within the purview of the law as it stands.
Wanda- vigilantism and involuntary manslaughter, and probably a few things involving perpetrating these crimes outside her nation of origin
Steve- Vigilantism, reckless endangerment, probably manslaughter at the very least, assault, battery, wearing a spangly outfit
Tony- Vigilantism, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, various cyber-crime (if there is such a thing), kidnapping, endangering a minor
Literally all of the Avengers have a laundry list of mundane, prosecute-able offenses to their name, dating back at least eight years (let alone the war crimes both Nat and Clint have probably committed). And, as Natasha said at the end of Winter Soldier, the world is perfectly free to arrest them. Aside from not wanting to be murdered by STRIKE, even Steve has given no indication that he's unwilling to be brought in and charged. Steve is the one who mentions a lawyer and is laughed at when he's detained. And, cuffs or no, he was detained.
What the enhanced people can do so far has not effected what they actually do. Literally no enhanced, save for Loki, Ultron, Doctor Who, and... well, all the villains, actually, have committed especially esoteric, enhanced-only crimes. You kill somebody with a dinner plate or with punch-beams from the Punch Dimension, you've still committed murder, and that's all that is.
And that'd be a good way to go! The Avenger's are committing crimes already established on a wholesale level, so prosecute them for the crimes they're committing!
Which I'd be fine with in theory, but as I was talking about with Simpsonia upthread this issue is completely ignored as an option in the MCU. As in nobody actually considers it a legal option to pursue, that's why it's a weak spot with their world building. It's a complete non-starter. It doesn't come up with AoS either, and they're better at legal and political ramifications than the movies are. The closest example we get for this is Jessica Jones, and that isn't exactly a solid example to build from for a multitude of reasons.
The Enhanced crimes list goes up significantly when AoS enters into it, which has had numerous Enhanced individuals in it from season 1. Threat scale and numbers goes up each season too.
To date I can't recall an Enhanced ever getting a criminal trial - it's either they get recruited by the good guys, dead or thrown in Super Gitmo.
Laws would also have to be amended for individuals who can literally brain wash people, which is a big thing in the MCU. HYDRA does it, Purple Man does it, AoS spoilers
Hive
does it etc. Super powers opens up all sorts of new laws to keep them in check. How do authorities handle the Ultron incident? That's a strange one legal minds would be aching to find solutions for, and has Wanda admitted that she manipulated Tony into making Ultron with her mind bending powers? Do any Avengers know about it? Are they keeping it from Stark? Has Wanda remained quiet about it? Answers to these questions will impact how both she and Tony are prosecuted and public opinion.
If you're worried about not being able to apprehend them, then... I guess get your own team of super-humans to take them in, and then examine your moral quagmire really, really closely.
Technically this was what Team Iron Man was for. Coulson's SHIELD, as well.
I had a big post written up but you guys got to it by the end. Boo!
Basically, the Accords fall apart under real world logic, so some of the arguments put forth in this thread seem a bit.. I don't want to get all "It's just a comic book movie, don't take it seriously!" on you, but it's just a comic book movie, don't take it more seriously than it takes itself!.
Like accountability is great, but the movie failed to show why the Accords would be a solution to the problem, because they didn't accurately explain WHAT the problem was. Why can't the Avengers be held accountable previously? Like, narratively, it's because it's not part of the plot, so everyone gets to do their illegal shit and AT BEST, get hauled into a hearing where they thumb their noses at the authorities. Now it's all important that they're held accountable, but we're never given a reason why the Accords are needed now. As far as we know, nobody has bothered to try and hold the Avengers accountable yet. Widow basically went "Arrest us if you want to, but you're not gonna" and apparently South Africa didn't even bother pressing charges against Banner. Maybe there's an accountability problem, but the movie never says what it is, nor how the Accords address it. At best it just shifts the blame, as Cap mentioned.
Meanwhile, as mentioned previously, while oversight is probably a good idea, who exactly can we get to oversee the Avengers who aren't even less stable? SHIELD fuckuppery basically lead Loki to Earth and nearly provided Hydra with the means to establish a new world order. The World Security Council tried to nuke New York, and authorized the fascist tools that Hydra was going to co-opt. While they had Hydra in their ranks, it wasn't just Hydra agreeing with these tactics. Meanwhile the US isn't doing much better, having been victim to their own hydra infiltrators, having a Vice President involved in a massive conspiracy to assassinate the President and sieze power, and having a Secretary of State who's reckless actions lead to a monster brawl in the middle of New York and guess who's in charge of enforcing the Accords?
Meanwhile, the Avengers were the ones who had to clean up those messes. (Figuratively, of course. Hulk no janitor.)
Like, the Accords as a generalized concept are a good idea. But if you pull at the strings too much, the entire thing doesn't make any sense.
I'm starting to think they went into Civil War too quickly, if they had an Iron Man film (guest starring Scarlet Witch and co.) where they had to deal with Ultron politically to iron all that out before hand when we got Civil War the flaws we saw now would have already been dealt with.
Nah, the flaws are inherit in the idea, there's no getting around it. Focusing on them wouldn't make a good movie (for me and probably the general viewing public). Even if you agree with the idea of the accords, the details aren't what you (me) go to see the movie for.
Nah, the flaws are inherit in the idea, there's no getting around it. Focusing on them wouldn't make a good movie (for me and probably the general viewing public). Even if you agree with the idea of the accords, the details aren't what you (me) go to see the movie for.
I'm not saying hte movie should have gone into them; I'm saying that at some point you kinda can't apply real-world logic to the the Accords because they break down under heavy scrutiny.
Nah, the flaws are inherit in the idea, there's no getting around it. Focusing on them wouldn't make a good movie (for me and probably the general viewing public). Even if you agree with the idea of the accords, the details aren't what you (me) go to see the movie for.
I wouldn't say they're that terrible, good films have been made over less interesting material. Half the fun of the Avengers is the drama with the characters. It needn't be a law film (guest starring Matt Murdock/She-Hulk), but there's plenty to work with here for an intriguing movie. It'd also do a better job of sealing up the era spots before we get to Civil War, which gave us nothing on this front.
And how can anyone agree with the Accords when we don't know what they represent? We barely have any idea what they are in the movie itself. All we know for sure is "accountability," "agendas" and "Super Gitmo." There's a difference between believing in super-hero accountability and being pro-Accords. Which everyone agrees is terrible.
Details are also important when they've given to the audience in ways they like, like how Cap and Iron Man fought ideologically in the movie and the aftermath of their decisions. Wanda's responsibility with creating Ultron is excellent material for exploring her relationship with her fellow Avengers, Tony Stark, the public and government. Civil War already touch on the issue, but it could have been a bigger plot point in another movie rather than a small arc.
I don't think the movie falls apart, and I'm almost positive that the movie-going public doesn't care about 90% of what we've been nitpicking
I'm not saying it isn't, but it wouldn't have hurt it either. It's a minor complaint, and it's not like the public shouldn't be open to exploring issues like that. Wanda's a character they have barely touched with doing interesting things with from the aftermath of her actions. They could do a solo film for her based on what they have now where she interacts with Stark, the government and public about her past actions, which have consequences which weren't fully told in Civil War.
edit: The X-men film franchise built an empire on what Wanda's going through, for instance.
Posts
I love watching fight scenes where you get to see superheroes use their special senses. The hallway fight in Daredevil season 1 has a prime example. The perspective is from outside the the room where the commotion is, so you see a mook walk down a hall to investigate and immediately take a thrown microwave to the head the moment he rounds the corner. Glorious.
While Tony probably said something along thenlines of "Steve's best friend is an assassin, and is responsible for the UN explosion. He's helping Bucky escape", that doesn't mean Spidey can't make the decision for himself. You basically added an entire subplot that has no support for happening in the movie in your head.
Which is horrible for Wanda.
That said, do you have any humane ways to restrain someone with telekinesis? All she needs to move her hands a little and she's free, than she'll free the others seconds later.
That's the point, you can't really restrain her. I mean, I guarantee she could have magicked her way out it. Plus, Steve shows up and springs them all singlehandedly. Obviously there's no restraining these supers unless: a) you have your own, better supers on your side and constantly guarding them or b) you theaten innocent people to essentially blackmail them (which is happening already since they can't help people in need locked up in watery Gitmo)
What amuses me is how the Raft and UN has shitty mundane equipment for things like this, in a world where SHIELD (post-Winter Soldier) and HYDRA super advantaged tech that'd be much harder for Enhanced to escape. This really shouldn't be a thing in the MCU.
edit: I'm positive Team Coulson would have been able to contain her without those dehumanizing restraints, and a better system for keeping her from escaping. They can do what they did to Ward, and they have the vibranium cells.
There was also when he jacked Caps shield he got a flash from Antman about to punch him, but wasn't fast enough to figure out there was a microscopic dude about to punch him in the face.
I mean, that's not really the kind of threat he faces regularly, but he did see it coming. Just not in time to dodge or block it.
The majority of that post factually happened. We don't know exactly what Tony was thinking or what he said to Peter, but we do know he didn't give Peter an accurate representation of the situation. After all, Tony himself doesn't know what's going on. What are the chances he told Peter about Bucky being brainwashed, that he saved Cap's life, that the evidence of him actually physically perpetrating the U.N. bombing is just one shoddy picture, or that he exclusively used nonlethal force in escaping from the police? Does Peter know anything about international politics and the Sokovia Accords? Did Peter have any idea what would happen to Cap's side after they were apprehended? Tony didn't, so how could he? Even if Peter was given all the facts, recruiting him would have been somewhat shady. He doesn't, and at 15 he doesn't have the wisdom to try to look past Tony Stark offering money and saying it's the right thing to do. Tony knew he was an impressionable kid, which was why he specifically told Peter not to listen to what Captain America would say during the fight. Tony knew he was doing something manipulative and borderline scummy, but he thought he had the right reasons and was fairly confident Peter wouldn't be hurt so he went ahead anyway.
E: Also there's the parallel with the comics where Peter swaps over to Cap's side once he learns more about the situation and realizes his respect for Tony was clouding his judgement.
No, that subplot occurred in a scene in the movie
The part with Marissa Tomei, Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Holland, where one of the adults encourages the minor to lie to their guardian in order to receive money and hang out and also get into a super-hero fight. I wanna say it's, like... a third of the way into the movie.
I actually really like Tony and loved that scene (Spider-Man is my favorite character), but Tony's up to some scummy business there.
And he was actually rescued by Frank Castle after the Thunderbolts beat him nearly to death.
Creepy Emperor Palpatine Tony is actually way nicer than the Civil War comic Tony!
- Bringing someone up on charges after they commit a crime is all well and good, but the UN is spooked enough that they want to be proactive about bringing the Avengers under control.
- The powers that be assume that charging or suing the Avengers would be futile anyway, because Tony will just hire the best lawyers money can buy.
- Similar to 1, the international community is just plain spooked, and the Accords are what happens when you channel panic through a committee.
edit: not that I think these are good reasons, mind you.Still great. Best parts were still everything with the new characters.
Couple more things I paid attention to/noticed:
The ring is definitely his dad's, and didn't react with the arm, it was just the center of the screen due to what was going on.
Vision is completely absent at the fight from his first laser until after Ant-Man goes big. There's a few other periodic absences, but that's the big one.
There is absolutely no reason that Cap and team couldn't have involved the police in Nigeria. Just call in a perimeter around the facility when the break-in happens! they even showed the damn police station! Not bothering to even have the remotest nod toward the local authorities makes Cap's side on a lot less stable ground.
For all the talk about General Ross, he was actually Secretary of State, not just a general, so not working with him in legal authority is more bordering on "I refuse military action because they're not my political party" levels of insubordination, so yeah, we know he's a prat, but come on. That being said, it makes ZERO sense for the SoS to be on the prison.
In retrospect, this could have been a great subtle nod to the TV side of things if Talbot were in place of Ross - he'd fit the role. And if they REALLY want to tie it in and get people going "what the WHAT" Coulson could have been the person breaking/letting them out at the end - Hawkeye would have been the only person to recognize him, and him and Talbot being the ones involved would have removed the necessary difficulties for like...how Ant-Man wouldn't be a fugitive at the start of his next movie.
Why didn't the UN prison station thing have a backup generator? Seems a pretty important facility to not have one.
Why did Iron Man, Black Widow, and Black Panther wait around for 10 minutes while Cap and Falcon moved immediately?
Would have required some rewrite, but I definitely feel that from a characterization standpoint, it would have made more sense for Vision and Scarlet Witch to be on opposite sides. Which would have had the double benefit of Vision helping Cap escape then turning himself in peacefully, and just sitting and meditating in the prison while it's obvious to anyone he could leave whenever he wanted.
Anyway, yeah. Still a great movie.
No, there were quite a few writers who hated Tony's position in the comics and made him into a mustache twirling villain to create a straw man. JMS, being one of them. It's hard to pin down details exactly since editorially basically let anyone do what they want with the characters and there was very little holding it together. For instance, what the SHRA did changed what it did between writers. IIRC editorially originally felt Tony was on the right side, which made how this ended up even more puzzling.
Like, vigilantism is illegal. But if just a few really good lawyers can successfully defend the Avengers, then creating special new laws is... I dunno, I want to say unconstitutional, but I'm sure that's not right. It's certainly not ethical.
Which is an interesting angle I'd have liked to have seen, the bad thing is that by Marvel ignoring that subject entirely we're not sure exactly what's going on in that sphere so what we're left with is the Accords, and totally unaccountable vigilantism. I'd like for other media to tackle this, like AoS, since the movies aren't inclined to.
Why wouldn't it be ethical? Enhanced individuals would definitely have an impact on legislation where they decide to start fists fights on the street, Marvel tiptoed around that as early as Iron Man 2, now the events in that movie are mundane to the weird shit Enhanced have gotten involved with. New laws are created over less. Also, this is on an international scale, not the US so the constitution wouldn't do anything for Enhanced outside America.
Before tony showed up Spider-Man got hit by a car into a bus and was fine. Which is about a big a threat as anything team cap could throw at him.
They had to do the same thing here with the "no representation" thing. The UN doesn't go for the whole "secret prison" thing in the slightest so it's not even remotely possible with the exception of "we need something for the good guys to not look so obviously right about everything". Similarly no comparisons to gun control or how cap wants to be a dictator but thinks it's OK because he is "totally benevolent", or even the most simple comparison to the ability to refuse an unlawful order.
Because there is otherwise holy hell no conceivable position which suggests that no oversight is a good thing or that "the UN might have an 'agenda'", whatever the fuck that means, when not only is it clear that the only person who actually has an "agenda" is Cap* because the entire point of oversight is that it's harder to have "agendas" when lots of people are involved and looking on!
*he has a personal agenda to help is friend out of the, well, reasonable legal jam he is in due to being an "assassin for an international criminal organization". This is the actual "agenda" that everyone is so afraid half of the nations in the world are going to simultaneously have. He is literally doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and it's the thing he is supposeldy afraid of the other people and no one even mentions it because to spell it out would make it so obvious.
Outside of the context of this movie, and the MCU, what is your opinion on the United Nations, and its ability to get things done in a timely manner? And I mean, important things like stepping in with military action to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing, or investigating war crimes committed by member states.
Hard to say, we have no context to work with outside what was in the movie. I assume it's like our U.N., except they somehow are terrible at acquiring advanced tech that exists in their world - even Ross has lost his touch with this, when he was a general he had access to all sorts of weird shit.
Which is where it breaks down conceptually, events like that happening would disrupt the status quo at all levels. There's absolutely no reason other lower channels would be acting by our norm there. AoS gets this, it's a pity the movie branch doesn't. It also becomes a weird conclusion for the UN to have when there is no build up to the Accords on their end.
edit: If the Enhanced are this big a problem for the Accords to be created, we'd have seen dozens of scenes like in Iron Man 2 in multiple countries effected by them, as well as legal avenues about Enhanced from the government and civilians. Instead without that context it's like they went from not caring about the Enhanced for years to suddenly the Accords. In weeks? Months? Who knows? We certainly don't. When they had the perfect bridge with Ultron, yet the film almost ignores it completely.
But, you never answered the question, outside of the MCU in general, in our real world, what is your opinion of the U.N. and its ability to get important things done in a timely manner?
I think he was talking more about laws that apply to enhanced that wouldn't apply to regular citizens, not just because of their powers, but because of their actions.
ie: The Accords would have a certain penalty if the Avengers intervened in a country they weren't permitted to, but if it was a regular mercenary/PMC group, it would be left to the nations regular laws.
MWO: Adamski
Regarding Tony's bringing in Spider-Man being scum-bag-ly; remember that Tony's just taking him to go bring in Captain America, and Spider-Man has like the perfect toolset for apprehending someone non-lethally. While Tony has every reason to believe things might come to blows (Avengers love hitting each other at every opportunity), Tony still implicitly trusts Cap not to actually seriously harm anyone. And at any rate, Tony's explicit instructions to Peter were to stay clear of the fight and just offer support (which Peter immediately ignores due to eagerness to get in the fight). And immediately once Tony realizes his mistake and that he actually placed Peter in real danger by bringing him to the fight he tells him he's out. So, while bringing Spider-Man was definitely poor judgment on Tony's part, I don't think it was out of a lack of concern for Peter's safety; he just didn't realize how much danger he was actually putting Peter in when he brought him.
What's your opinion of one man acting outside of any law or sovereignty and their ability to act in the interests of more than themselves?
Which is why this breaks down under the slightest scrutiny, and it wouldn't necessarily be bad for the movies to have gone it more than they did, simply made it a bigger priority within their structure and stretching out the Phases more than they have. It also wouldn't hurt the movie side to get the cliff notes on the political side of AoS, too, because they absolutely have thought of the implications and made the necessary adjustments for the MCU. Which is disappointing when the Russo's don't follow up on their example.
I'm not talking about getting bogged down in it, I'm saying it'd nice if the movies looked like they bothered giving some lip service that they don't operate in a vacuum. Which they already do to an extent. What makes this more striking is that the movies aren't in the universe by themselves - AoS is very relevant to this line of discussion about political implications and I guarantee their material isn't sucking the fun out of it. Nor does it have to be meaningless, because when they do get into that stuff in Civil War or Winter Soldier it adds to the story. This is unfortunately what they painted themselves into with a story like Civil War. It's a topic that deliberately invites questions in how the MCU works - this is good, they don't want the audience to not care about the MCU's world. They do a better job of it than B vs S.
I'm not sure that'd have a clear answer, that's why I'm being vague. What I do know is that it our world I can bet if Enhanced were doing stuff like in the MCU they may get things done faster rather than sitting on their hands, especially after incidents like Red Skull and Ultron. And that's ignoring what's happened on AoS (season 3 spoilers)
The UN is pretty much a joke for any kind of serious issue sadly and I'm all for one man doing anything as long as it's the right thing to do. Be that reality or the movies apparently (as was said, we're fuzzy on what the governments can get up to other than they seem to bungle it).
We'd hope that real governments would react better, but that's hard to say.
If that's true then why was Tony sweating about their coming for the Avengers?
I'm somewhat skeptical in a world where we had Reagan, W., Putin and Thatcher leading nations. Do you think trust those world leaders to do right by Enhanced individuals, a growing Inhumans population (ala X-men) and their governments infiltrated by HYDRA? I don't.
Depends
has he saved the world twice, not including the time he defeated super-Hitler?
That's fine for him, what about every other super-powered individual on the planet? According to AoS the movies are the tip of the iceberg with their numbers, too.
edit: I'm also interested in how this would effect super-villains like the Abomination - who's currently kept in cryostasis.
Because they'd bungle it one way or another?
And some of them yes, some of them no. Hence it's hard to say.
Exactly, that's why the U.N. going nuclear on the Avengers in the MCU isn't that far fetched.
Then you do what they always do in comics, when people aren't being completely ridiculous: attempt to apprehend and prosecute by the letter of the law established for human beings
That's the funny thing that's being ignored
The Avengers are doing things that actually fall within the purview of the law as it stands.
Wanda- vigilantism and involuntary manslaughter, and probably a few things involving perpetrating these crimes outside her nation of origin
Steve- Vigilantism, reckless endangerment, probably manslaughter at the very least, assault, battery, wearing a spangly outfit
Tony- Vigilantism, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, various cyber-crime (if there is such a thing), kidnapping, endangering a minor
Literally all of the Avengers have a laundry list of mundane, prosecute-able offenses to their name, dating back at least eight years (let alone the war crimes both Nat and Clint have probably committed). And, as Natasha said at the end of Winter Soldier, the world is perfectly free to arrest them. Aside from not wanting to be murdered by STRIKE, even Steve has given no indication that he's unwilling to be brought in and charged. Steve is the one who mentions a lawyer and is laughed at when he's detained. And, cuffs or no, he was detained.
What the enhanced people can do so far has not effected what they actually do. Literally no enhanced, save for Loki, Ultron, Doctor Who, and... well, all the villains, actually, have committed especially esoteric, enhanced-only crimes. You kill somebody with a dinner plate or with punch-beams from the Punch Dimension, you've still committed murder, and that's all that is.
And that'd be a good way to go! The Avenger's are committing crimes already established on a wholesale level, so prosecute them for the crimes they're committing!
If you're worried about not being able to apprehend them, then... I guess get your own team of super-humans to take them in, and then examine your moral quagmire really, really closely.
Which I'd be fine with in theory, but as I was talking about with Simpsonia upthread this issue is completely ignored as an option in the MCU. As in nobody actually considers it a legal option to pursue, that's why it's a weak spot with their world building. It's a complete non-starter. It doesn't come up with AoS either, and they're better at legal and political ramifications than the movies are. The closest example we get for this is Jessica Jones, and that isn't exactly a solid example to build from for a multitude of reasons.
The Enhanced crimes list goes up significantly when AoS enters into it, which has had numerous Enhanced individuals in it from season 1. Threat scale and numbers goes up each season too.
To date I can't recall an Enhanced ever getting a criminal trial - it's either they get recruited by the good guys, dead or thrown in Super Gitmo.
Laws would also have to be amended for individuals who can literally brain wash people, which is a big thing in the MCU. HYDRA does it, Purple Man does it, AoS spoilers
Technically this was what Team Iron Man was for. Coulson's SHIELD, as well.
Basically, the Accords fall apart under real world logic, so some of the arguments put forth in this thread seem a bit.. I don't want to get all "It's just a comic book movie, don't take it seriously!" on you, but it's just a comic book movie, don't take it more seriously than it takes itself!.
Like accountability is great, but the movie failed to show why the Accords would be a solution to the problem, because they didn't accurately explain WHAT the problem was. Why can't the Avengers be held accountable previously? Like, narratively, it's because it's not part of the plot, so everyone gets to do their illegal shit and AT BEST, get hauled into a hearing where they thumb their noses at the authorities. Now it's all important that they're held accountable, but we're never given a reason why the Accords are needed now. As far as we know, nobody has bothered to try and hold the Avengers accountable yet. Widow basically went "Arrest us if you want to, but you're not gonna" and apparently South Africa didn't even bother pressing charges against Banner. Maybe there's an accountability problem, but the movie never says what it is, nor how the Accords address it. At best it just shifts the blame, as Cap mentioned.
Meanwhile, as mentioned previously, while oversight is probably a good idea, who exactly can we get to oversee the Avengers who aren't even less stable? SHIELD fuckuppery basically lead Loki to Earth and nearly provided Hydra with the means to establish a new world order. The World Security Council tried to nuke New York, and authorized the fascist tools that Hydra was going to co-opt. While they had Hydra in their ranks, it wasn't just Hydra agreeing with these tactics. Meanwhile the US isn't doing much better, having been victim to their own hydra infiltrators, having a Vice President involved in a massive conspiracy to assassinate the President and sieze power, and having a Secretary of State who's reckless actions lead to a monster brawl in the middle of New York and guess who's in charge of enforcing the Accords?
Meanwhile, the Avengers were the ones who had to clean up those messes. (Figuratively, of course. Hulk no janitor.)
Like, the Accords as a generalized concept are a good idea. But if you pull at the strings too much, the entire thing doesn't make any sense.
I'm not saying hte movie should have gone into them; I'm saying that at some point you kinda can't apply real-world logic to the the Accords because they break down under heavy scrutiny.
I wouldn't say they're that terrible, good films have been made over less interesting material. Half the fun of the Avengers is the drama with the characters. It needn't be a law film (guest starring Matt Murdock/She-Hulk), but there's plenty to work with here for an intriguing movie. It'd also do a better job of sealing up the era spots before we get to Civil War, which gave us nothing on this front.
And how can anyone agree with the Accords when we don't know what they represent? We barely have any idea what they are in the movie itself. All we know for sure is "accountability," "agendas" and "Super Gitmo." There's a difference between believing in super-hero accountability and being pro-Accords. Which everyone agrees is terrible.
Details are also important when they've given to the audience in ways they like, like how Cap and Iron Man fought ideologically in the movie and the aftermath of their decisions. Wanda's responsibility with creating Ultron is excellent material for exploring her relationship with her fellow Avengers, Tony Stark, the public and government. Civil War already touch on the issue, but it could have been a bigger plot point in another movie rather than a small arc.
I don't think the movie falls apart, and I'm almost positive that the movie-going public doesn't care about 90% of what we've been nitpicking
I'm not saying it isn't, but it wouldn't have hurt it either. It's a minor complaint, and it's not like the public shouldn't be open to exploring issues like that. Wanda's a character they have barely touched with doing interesting things with from the aftermath of her actions. They could do a solo film for her based on what they have now where she interacts with Stark, the government and public about her past actions, which have consequences which weren't fully told in Civil War.
edit: The X-men film franchise built an empire on what Wanda's going through, for instance.