|
SirDan3k posted:What Ross is offering is a future of passing the buck. He's saying that these deaths are already on your conscience but next time Uncle What in the scene indicates to you that he's making them feel guilty and then trying to give them an out in the future instead of making them feel guilty and then trying to use that to make them believe the best thing to do is to be subject to oversight?
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
NowonSA posted:
This. Everyone in my theatre reacted like a bolt of lightning went through the place. People sat up straighter, started grinning to the person next to them, it was the craziest thing I'd ever seen.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Do people even KNOW what Ross did to Banner? Or that he's responsible for the Abomination? I'm not clear on that.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
CityMidnightJunky posted:This. Everyone in my theatre reacted like a bolt of lightning went through the place. People sat up straighter, started grinning to the person next to them, it was the craziest thing I'd ever seen. At the theater everyone cheered when Holland showed up on screen. But everyone went nuts when Black Panther showed up earlier. The chase sequence with all 3 hauling rear end on foot outrunning cars was loving fantastic And there were some audible "HOLY poo poo" cries coming when Ant-Man went giga-sized
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I'd say this is a good point. Tony's falling apart and feels weight on his shoulders. I hope Peter can be this sort of help. Hell, Tony's sense of responsibility has been the or at least a driving force of conflict in almost every movie he's in. He took Stark Industries out of the weapons industry out of a sense of duty and responsibility. Which is also why he became Iron Man. He refused to share Iron Man technology with the government because he believed the only safe hands for that technology were his own (sound familiar, Cap?). It's stated repeatedly that Stark Industries, under Tony's post-Iron Man leadership, is the world leader in renewable energy and a massive supporter of education and world outreach. The entire reason Tony is drawn into the plot of Iron Man 3 at first is because people showed up angrily demanding why Iron Man wasn't solving the Mandarin problem. In Avengers, Tony is ultimately right to distrust SHIELD as not being responsible hands. In Age of Ultron, Scarlet Witch creates Ultron by preying on Tony's immense sense of responsibility - he's shown a vision where the Avengers did not merely fail, they failed because Tony didn't do enough. Add that to how he's been coming apart at the seams and no one seems to give a poo poo, and you get a guy who makes mistakes. What on Earth is Tony supposed to do? When he gets involved, it's because things are bad and his presence invariably escalates them. When he doesn't get involved, protesters march everywhere he is demanding that he get involved. The only people in the world who seem to grasp how all of that has been taking its inevitable toll on Tony are Rhodey and, to a lesser degree, Pepper. No wonder Tony is drawn to Peter Parker - Peter is Tony's idealized core, at least in this movie, all the heroism and nobility Tony knows he possesses but without the scars and impossible burdens. And just to rub salt in the wound, it's come up in a few different movies that Howard Stark talked about Steve Rogers nonstop when Tony was growing up (hell, in the TV series it's all but outright stated that young Howard was in love with Steve), always in saintlike reverence. Tony Stark grew up being compared to Steve Rogers, Howard Stark displaying intense affection for and interest in Rogers that he never gave Tony.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
The position of Ross and the UN seemed pretty reasonable to me, it wasn't "hey saving the world is bad, quit it", it's more that they feel adding some oversight and accountability would make things better in the long run. The Avengers battle of New York footage was supplemented with a scene of the Hulk leaping into a building, sending debris flying down into the street and thus accidentally killing the person holding the camera at the very least. We later see the aftermath of Lagos, where Wanda inadvertently sparks an international incident by blowing up the Wakandan embassy in an effort to save the lives of Cap and the people on the street. Ross even points out that their team includes several living WMDs on the roster, and they don't even know where half of them are at the moment. He's not saying the Avengers aren't necessary or are wrong for trying to help, just that it's kind of a shitshow. He has a solid point. Mazzagatti2Hotty fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Ross isn't responsible for the Abomination. That guy chose to do that to himself.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Ross isn't responsible for the Abomination. That guy chose to do that to himself. Ross chose to clear him for active duty though, so yeah, he's partly responsible because of his blindness in going after Banner at any cost that he turned to this guy who essentially didn't know how to fail.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Ross isn't responsible for the Abomination. That guy chose to do that to himself. I'd say it's about 50/50. Part of what Blonsky became was Banner's blood, the other fifty percent was the fake super soldier serum. Either way, it still feels like something where they'd do their best to cover up Ross's involvement, and Bruce isn't really the type to be chatty about his experiences.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
setafd posted:In the old comics, Spider-Man had a little Spidey Signal he'd project on walls and scare criminals with and it was really hokey and campy. The stinger seems to be updating it to be some kind of communicator with an OS, so I guess he's getting full-fledged Stark support to be a superhero. Ah, okay I didn't make the other connection but I did make the obvious one. CityMidnightJunky posted:This. Everyone in my theatre reacted like a bolt of lightning went through the place. People sat up straighter, started grinning to the person next to them, it was the craziest thing I'd ever seen. I meant to type chills, sometimes my brain just shuts down. Dunno where you're pulling the second half of that quote from though  . Yeah I felt like there was an uptick in energy too, I need to catch it again in the near future and show up early and not literally 2 minutes before showtime so I get a good seat and can see more people.Gatts posted:I'd say this is a good point. Tony's falling apart and feels weight on his shoulders. I hope Peter can be this sort of help. I think there's a sensible arc for Homecoming of Tony teaching Peter how to be a hero, and Peter helping Tony through the issues he's clearly having, which can only get worse dealing with the fallout of Civil War. I expect Peter to come up with a fairly significant gesture to help Tony heal, but even Tony just seeing something he's involved with finally work out really well as Peter saves the day better than basically any hero has so far would go a long way. They have done nice subtle weaving back in of Tony's mental health issues, and that tacked on to the trauma from Civil War opens up a hell of an interesting arc for him to go through. With all that being said, I feel like the best thing for the MCU as a whole would be for Stark to die in part 1 of Infinity War, he's really become the glue that holds it all together and there's a goldmine of interesting story beats that would come of that. Thanos has to kill somebody major to prove he's a big deal, and Vision's both too obvious and new to really make an impact. I'm torn because I mostly don't want to see it, I want RDJ chewing scenery as Iron Man for the rest of time, but it'd be wild to see a major franchise willing to kill one of its top guys. I can't recall it happening and sticking, Spock comes to mind but he came back after Wrath of Khan.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
The shot of tiny Ant-Man pinning down Black Widow was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:With all that being said, I feel like the best thing for the MCU as a whole would be for Stark to die in part 1 of Infinity War, he's really become the glue that holds it all together and there's a goldmine of interesting story beats that would come of that. Thanos has to kill somebody major to prove he's a big deal, and Vision's both too obvious and new to really make an impact. I'm torn because I mostly don't want to see it, I want RDJ chewing scenery as Iron Man for the rest of time, but it'd be wild to see a major franchise willing to kill one of its top guys. I can't recall it happening and sticking, Spock comes to mind but he came back after Wrath of Khan. Hell, it would even be the perfect excuse for recasting Tony Stark if RDJ is done.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:The position of Ross and the UN seemed pretty reasonable to me, it wasn't "hey saving the world is bad, quit it", it's more that they feel adding some oversight and accountability would make things better in the long run. How would this oversight and accountability have helped in New York at all?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Riven posted:There needs to be a credits tag in Doctor Strange where Everett Ross (Freeman) approaches Strange and says something like, "We've got some papers for you to sign." You can't not have those two share a scene. It shouldn't be an important scene, but, come on. That's covered in the comics. He tells them to gently caress off. To be fair, he occupies an office that's been in existence longer than any nation, is accountable to literal higher powers, and deals mostly with threats that can probably gently caress you up if you even say their names. Honestly, worrying about success or even artistic merit or enjoyability gets in the way of the great contrasts that the similarities between this and BvS offers. For example, Superman decides to account for himself before the Senate despite the fact that nothing can compel him to do so. He's much more willing to be accountable than either Tony or Cap, in the very basic sense that he actually wants to listen to elected officials and explain himself. Luthor takes a piss all over this, semi-literally. The talk about God in the BvS thread kind of gets in the way of the more immediate, direct reason for this: Luthor wants to prove that there's no such thing as a genuine hero, just cynics such as himself deluding others with photo-ops and worse, hypocrites who think they're the real deal. Zemo is similar, except that the heroes half-way tear themselves apart following essentially selfish agendas without even considering the idea of a conversation with the public. So all he has to do is tip things over the edge. Civil War almost ends up being BvS played backwards, beginning with a united team confronted with defining their role in the world and ending with both sides retreating into the past and unable to even relate to one or converse with one another. Although this is mostly just Tony regressing into Batman's core id and losing touch with the common thread of humanity behind his emotions, while Cap ultimately just wants to save his adoptive brother much as Superman wants to save his mother. This is more relatable, maybe precisely because Civil War is a movie about the Avengers not really being very heroic, and becoming less so. Or maybe the problem is that Tony, specifically, never learned to be a hero rather than a cynical egomaniac with good photo ops. I mean, he's very much a parallel with Snyder's Batman; except it isn't external forces he's powerless against, it's his own ego. God, I ramble when I'm tired. I hope some of this was intetesting. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:How would this oversight and accountability have helped in New York at all? I don't know. Maybe it wouldn't, but maybe the next big event will lead to even more mistakes that could at least partially be mitigated by coordinating with world governments. Ross' position doesn't require proof that he could have done better in the past if he were in charge, just that the Avengers can get a bit out of control at times and working with the United Nations offers the possibility of long-term improvement.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:I don't know. Maybe it wouldn't, but maybe the next big event will lead to even more mistakes that could at least partially be mitigated by coordinating with world governments. When did Captain America get out of control?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I really liked the movie, but, man, Marvel just can not come up with a reasonable registration act based argument. That's because registration is a conceit that's anathema to superheroism. We want people who go outside the law in our dramas and comedies. Otherwise it's a police drama with energy blasts. Invincible had a years long arc about Superhumans & Governance. I'd wager there are few books made after Watergate where the moral is "implicitly trust the government." ---- Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:The position of Ross and the UN seemed pretty reasonable to me, it wasn't "hey saving the world is bad, quit it", it's more that they feel adding some oversight and accountability would make things better in the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Ross even points out that their team includes several living WMDs on the roster, and they don't even know where half of them are at the moment. He's not saying the Avengers aren't necessary or are wrong for trying to help, just that it's kind of a shitshow. He has a solid point. The accords and oversight do nothing to mitigate this though. Nobody is proposing a better way of doing things, or arguing how the UN is totally going to make it so innocents don't get collateral damaged to hell. There's lots of reasons a superhuman paramilitary unit should have oversight and answer to a higher authority. None of those were articulated, just him calling them vigilantes and then showing them collateral damage to make them feel bad. How would the UN ordering the Avengers to stop the alien invasion of New York result in any fewer casualties? In fact, how would the UN ordering them to do it not have resulted in them arriving later and perhaps even too late after a larger army of aliens that was too much for them to handle got through? Why would a grieving mother feel better about her son dying if he died from fallout of a UN Strike Team instead of the NGO Avengers? Edit: Golden Bee posted:That's because registration is a conceit that's anathema to superheroism. We want people who go outside the law in our dramas and comedies. Otherwise it's a police drama with energy blasts. The idea of the 50 State Initiative that came out of the comic event was actually pretty good. Hell the Adam West Batman who was a duly deputized member of the police force worked OK. Government oversight doesn't have to mean a complete lack of autonomy, but that's what is always presented. You can still have stories about how the man is totally wrong when corruption is uncovered, orders that are morally wrong are ignored, or someone jumps the gun and tries to shut down Spider-Man because he totally killed that Gwen Stacy woman. Gyges fucked around with this message at 00:18 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
The Avengers were accountable to someone at New York: SHIELD. They chose to ask forgiveness rather than permission, but they were in theory accountable after the fact. I imagine that if the Avengers had signed the Sokovia Accords they would have acted similarly: no one can stop them from responding to a crisis that they feel warrants it, but they're willing to face the consequences for their actions. Steve seems appalled at the idea of his actions having negative consequences, so he pretends they don't happen.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:When did Captain America get out of control? From the perspective of Ross and many people in the fictional world, he got out of control when he unleashed Wanda Maximoff on the streets of Lagos. Their feelings about him later probably seemed justified when Captain America apparently beat the poo poo out of a bunch of cops to protect a known fugitive mass murderer. Note I'm not saying I agree with Ross or other pro-reg people's perspectives, but I understand why they might have them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Also, Ross presumably doesn't know that Winter Soldier was brainwashed and not in control of his own actions. Even if he did, one man who knew the right words to say was able to turn Bucky from calm into a cold-blooded murderer and Bucky was helpless to resist. If Zemo could come along and send Bucky into berserk mode, can Cap confidently say no one else will? And if he does, will he accept the blood on his hands if he's wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Steve seems appalled at the idea of his actions having negative consequences, so he pretends they don't happen. No, Steve is very clearly concerned about being ordered to do something bad or being prevented from doing something good. He's very aware of the negative consequences of his actions, but doesn't believe the existence of bad things means you shouldn't do good. He always looks at the collateral damage and thinks about what it means, but if the mission was a success and the world/a nation/ a city is safe because of it he weighs that more. There are definitely problems that can arise from his acceptance of casualties in war. Because there are clearly issues with viewing everything as a soldier in a war. But he definitely acknowledges the existence of those casualties and looks to minimize them while also wishing he could do more.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
The source of the core conflict isn't doubt in each other's morality, it's trust. Tony doesn't trust himself, he doesn't trust Steve, who rejects accountability. Steve doesn't trust authority to make the right call, because both of his adventures had going rogue as the key to stopping conflict. They've both made up their minds about each other by the time it comes to communicate because they're both rightly doubtful of one another's stubbornness. When the time came to talk, to tell Tony what he'd learned, Steve was convinced time and direct action were more important, because Tony already didn't trust Wanda - or maybe he didn't trust the world not to reject Wanda. And then Steve is revealed to have broken Tony's trust because he doesn't have faith in his character - is this justified? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it became a self fulfilling prophecy. This happened because two flawed people didn't believe in each other, because one didn't believe in himself enough, and the other believed in himself too much.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Captain Steve leads an extrajudicial military mission inside the borders of a sovereign nation without any approval from the government of that nation or his own, prompts a high speed chase and a showdown in a market surrounded by civilians, nearly gets himself and others blown up through his carelessness because someone intoned the magic name, and manages to not die only because the explosion is redirected to where it can only hurt random civilians. The Sokovia accords are about the Avengers having no respect for the sovereign rights of citizens of other countries to police their own country and determine appropriate responses to threats. The issue of collateral damage is ancillary to the real problem, which is that the Avengers answer to no one and have no compunction about doing whatever they want, whenever and wherever they want, and then hoping that good intentions and apologies are enough to make up for anything that goes wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:My point is that these are all different things and I don't know which the movie is going for. Is Ross guilt-tripping them reasonably or unreasonably? If we recognize he's full of poo poo, does he recognize that, that he's making a bullshit argument in order to further his own power? Does anyone at the table realize he's wrong, or does Captain America feel guilty, and if so is that reasonable or unreasonable? I honestly can't tell what the movie is trying to say. It's not a matter of can we make up something that could explain it, it's whether the movie consistently communicates a perspective of heroism, vigilantism, government, etc. that interconnects all these things. I think you may be conflating "Argument based on fears and guilt" with "bullshit argument" a wee bit much. If we think about it logically, the Accords will do very little to limit the loss of lives in combat situations (and that's an optimistic estimate; it's also fairly likely that it wouldn't limit casualties at all). They're there, in large part, to simply make people (both government and civilian; the Avengers are neither) feel better about the Avengers, to alleviate both people's fears and the Avengers' own guilt...but, as Black Widow points out, that is actually a pretty crucial thing. Falcon accuses her of flipflopping between her stance at the end of WS, but it's actually the exact same stance: Having people's trust is vital to what they do. It's just a matter of reading the terrain. Ross is banking on this mindset, wherein the terrain is "A lot of people think we're dangerous and need to be supervised, and here's the video footage explaining why." He doesn't at all devalue the work that they've done, hence him leading with the fact that the world owes them an unpayable debt. But he's showing them the direct perspective that all the work that they've done seems to turn everything into explosions and screaming...hence, the public mindset against them. You can say "But it's not the Avengers' faults! They're just stopping the aliens/Hydra/evil robots!" again and again...but that doesn't stop the bodies from mounting and, as Vision points out, isn't it curious that all these major catastrophes have risen up in the wake of the Avengers' formation. Someone said earlier that it's like blaming firefighters for house fires because they show up to help, but that's actually a bit erroneous; it would actually be more like that there were literally no fires of this sort before someone invented this type of firefighter. The idea that something has to change about the status quo -- which is shared by Ross, T'Chaka, the mother of the dead teenager in Sokovia, even Zemo -- is only a "bullshit argument" in the sense that it's horribly biased...but, I think the film does a rather great job in showing that it's not an unreasonable bias. Steve does feel guilty for every lost life, but his objection is that this just places the culpability for those lives on a nebulous "someone else," when they should be their own (individual people's) responsibilities; it wouldn't mean that the Avengers are taking more responsibility, it means they're taking less. His other objection is that this will actively hamper their ability to help others, because it won't let them be where they need to be all the time. And he's right. It's a completely logical stance. But it doesn't alleviate anyone's fears or guilt, which will also hamper their ability to help. And then you have to consider that just because the Avengers (and we) think that the government handling things doesn't mean more lives will be saved doesn't mean that the government thinks so. Ross is not trying to sway the Avengers with polite words and biased footage for shits and giggles, he does legitimately think it's a much better idea for the Avengers to work for him.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
No you're wrong they should act with impunity because America.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:No you're wrong they should act with impunity because America. Well, that 'A' sure doesn't stand for France
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Hell, it would even be the perfect excuse for recasting Tony Stark if RDJ is done. Yeah that also entered into my thinking, at some point even RDJ won't be worth $40 million or whatever his latest insane payday is, he can go out with a bang and the heroes can bring him back with a new face using the infinity stones or some other comic-book level resurrection situation. Fortunately the only way I lose is if he decides he's done and they somehow don't write with that in mind, if he stays on board and they don't want to kill him sweet, more RDJ as Tony Stark is always great, if he does go out I'm confident they'd make it their big cornerstone thing and make it compelling as hell and he'd act the hell out of it, and you've told an intriguing story all the way from the MCU's kickoff to what's basically the finale, although I'm sure Marvel and Disney are going to keep making MCU movies until they stop making money, which I don't see happening anytime soon. Even if they start churning out trash they have about a decade of good will built up so it's not like they'll fall off a cliff immediately.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:Yeah that also entered into my thinking, at some point even RDJ won't be worth $40 million or whatever his latest insane payday is, he can go out with a bang and the heroes can bring him back with a new face using the infinity stones or some other comic-book level resurrection situation. Fortunately the only way I lose is if he decides he's done and they somehow don't write with that in mind, if he stays on board and they don't want to kill him sweet, more RDJ as Tony Stark is always great, if he does go out I'm confident they'd make it their big cornerstone thing and make it compelling as hell and he'd act the hell out of it, and you've told an intriguing story all the way from the MCU's kickoff to what's basically the finale, although I'm sure Marvel and Disney are going to keep making MCU movies until they stop making money, which I don't see happening anytime soon. Even if they start churning out trash they have about a decade of good will built up so it's not like they'll fall off a cliff immediately. Yeah, I have no doubt Disney's going to keep riding this train for the foreseeable future, but despite all the different movies and directors I think Tony Stark has a clear and compelling character arc as a guy who keeps trying to do the right thing even though it never seems to work out for him. In my mind at least, the logical answer to "Why isn't Iron Man helping?" in the next series of movies is "Because he's in Tahiti with Aunt May."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
My take on the Accords is that I think it's less that oversight would have stopped these people from dying. It's more that it would have involved more people in the process, so that normal people understand more what was happening and the difficult choices involved, instead of it all being wrapped up in the cloak of secrecy that makes it seem like the Avengers are just going around, blowing up innocent people, and saying 'trust us, it was for the greater good' afterwards.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Captain America Civil War is a great movie about a WWII veteran who punches a billionaire.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Ultimately, I think the difficulty in comparing Tony and Steve's stances is that Tony is making a broader moral statement about the need for compromise and communal responsibility, and Steve basically isn't. Steve isn't saying that people in general shouldn't be accountable, just that he personally isn't going to be.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What in the scene indicates to you that he's making them feel guilty and then trying to give them an out in the future instead of making them feel guilty and then trying to use that to make them believe the best thing to do is to be subject to oversight? The actions being those of General Ross, but basically any military figure making the same offer would have had me read the scene the same way. A random civilian character would had lead me to read the play as you do, but a military character brings to mind the movie truth that the Brass tries to make everyone soldiers and believes "For God, Queen, and country" absolves a solider of guilt.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:
Vision is inexplicably wrong about it though. Hydra and SHIELD have been loving around with super humans since at least the 40s. Covering up horrible incidents with lies sold to the public. Bucky was the gunman on the grassy knoll after all. Additionally, the biggest catastrophe(aliens and gods invading the Earth) predates the Avengers and in fact incites their formation. poo poo, Thor's people semi regularly gently caress around on Earth and we know aliens have been stopping by to gently caress chicks and abduct fauna since at least the 80s. The walking disaster that is the Hulk also predates the Avengers and was a direct result of the super science that had permeated the world for the last few decades. Meanwhile the Sorcerer Supreme has been quietly keeping eldritch horrors and inconceivable magics from invading since before the birth of the modern nation state. All while the Panther God protected the super science nation of Wakanda and their national Super Human the Black Panther. poo poo's been going sideways for millennia, and Tony and Cap are just the only ones not sweeping everything under the rug.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:Captain Steve leads an extrajudicial military mission inside the borders of a sovereign nation without any approval from the government of that nation or his own, prompts a high speed chase and a showdown in a market surrounded by civilians, nearly gets himself and others blown up through his carelessness because someone intoned the magic name, and manages to not die only because the explosion is redirected to where it can only hurt random civilians. It's actually going further than that, putting a fig leaf on the fact that the Avengers are not actually the good guys.They're simply characters preoccupied with killing 'bad people' - and then this film introduces a fake moral ambiguity where Stark is understandably upset so Steve writes him a love letter. By the logic of every previous film, Stark should have died from suicide-by-cop. The trick is that the characters are all politically infantile. Steve worries about 'being ordered to do the wrong thing', so his enemy is straightforwardly liberal democracy itself. But of course the characters can never think this, let alone say it. So it becomes a 'personal story'.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:Ultimately, I think the difficulty in comparing Tony and Steve's stances is that Tony is making a broader moral statement about the need for compromise and communal responsibility, and Steve basically isn't. Steve isn't saying that people in general shouldn't be accountable, just that he personally isn't going to be. Steve is fine with being accountable he's just not fine with being able to be ordered where to go or where not to go. If he fucks up he's more than willing to deal with any consequences that he needs to. Like he was more than willing to turn himself in and face the music so long as Bucky was kept alive and treated. He still wants the ability to act unilaterally if he sees a situation going south. It's why he was about to sign the accords before he found out about Wanda being locked up in the Avengers facility. Oversight in the Senate sense is the right word for what Steve wants. What the Accords were offering was complete operating control over them. Like if after the first mission the oversight board had said, hey maybe don't sent Scarlet Witch out there until she is better at controlling her powers. Or heavily criticized and Cap for falling for the Bucky thing. Dunno what potential sanctions could be but Cap doesn't seem to have a problem with facing the music for his actions.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Vision is inexplicably wrong about it though. Hydra and SHIELD have been loving around with super humans since at least the 40s. Covering up horrible incidents with lies sold to the public. Bucky was the gunman on the grassy knoll after all. Additionally, the biggest catastrophe(aliens and gods invading the Earth) predates the Avengers and in fact incites their formation. poo poo, Thor's people semi regularly gently caress around on Earth and we know aliens have been stopping by to gently caress chicks and abduct fauna since at least the 80s. The walking disaster that is the Hulk also predates the Avengers and was a direct result of the super science that had permeated the world for the last few decades. Meanwhile the Sorcerer Supreme has been quietly keeping eldritch horrors and inconceivable magics from invading since before the birth of the modern nation state. All while the Panther God protected the super science nation of Wakanda and their national Super Human the Black Panther. There's an element of truth there though. Zemo, after all, turns out to be involved due to a direct result of the Avengers action. Also Ultron's actions, but then Ultron's actions are in large part down to Stark so....
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Also in forget the the world at large know Stark created Ultron?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
I liked the movie and thought it was enjoyable but I'm about ready to retire Cap, Iron Man, Bucky, and Black Widow. The newer heroes were more engaging.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Harlock posted:I liked the movie and thought it was enjoyable but I'm about ready to retire Cap, Iron Man, Bucky, and Black Widow. The newer heroes were more engaging. I does seem like they are subtly pushing the "next generation", if only in case of actors deciding to pass. I thought I heard Evans wanted out, which made me think they might end this with (comics spoiler though it's years old) Cap dying.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
