Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the comics, the only moment of clarity was when the people attacked Captain America as he was pummeling Iron Man in Times Square.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
I don't think the issue is as cut-and-dried as the comics made it, plus the fact that Iron Man deserved much more of a pummeling in the comics than in the movie. In the comics, Tony Stark was positively evil.
I would've so loved to have seen that put to film, but Disney/Feige would never, ever go that dark with their two MCU flagship characters (though Cap's about to take a back seat to Spider-Man).
IMO opinion, signing the Sokovia Accords made better strategic sense than not. Most likely, any nation suffering from a supervillian is going to ask for help. The Avengers need only make sure they share some of their intelligence.
Although Captain America made a valid point when he argued that signing the accords could turn the Avengers into a political tool and force them to become involved in situations they don't think they should be involved in, or sit on the sidelines when they know they could help.
One of the big positive of the movie was that both sides had good reasons for their stance; the situation isn't one where there's a clear right-or-wrong answer.
One of the big positive of the movie was that both sides had good reasons for their stance; the situation isn't one where there's a clear right-or-wrong answer.
Yup.
Stark has a point. People with super powers or super technology must be accountable to someone other than themselves. Otherwise, they are no different than the super villains.
But Cap has a point too: Accountable to who? Guys like General Ross? The military industrial complex? Then they're little more than super thugs with a political agenda.
I liked the fact that the argument isn't really settled by the end of the movie.
Although Captain America made a valid point when he argued that signing the accords could turn the Avengers into a political tool and force them to become involved in situations they don't think they should be involved in, or sit on the sidelines when they know they could help.
Ultimately, though, the Avengers still would have had the "forget you" option if that had happened, and it would have been a unified team position at that point.
If this were real life, it would have been understood that the Sokovia Accords had no more real power than any other international agreement. Such agreements always depend on the enlightened self-interest of the signatory parties--the international quid pro quo--and any party with sufficient power always has a "forget you" option whenever they decide the pro they're getting is not worth their quid they're giving up.
The fact is, there was no "pro" for the Avenger's "quid" beyond gaining international good will. Without the Thor and the Hulk signing on (and it's pretty doubtful they would), the international community couldn't even seriously threaten a united Avengers team.
Although Captain America made a valid point when he argued that signing the accords could turn the Avengers into a political tool and force them to become involved in situations they don't think they should be involved in, or sit on the sidelines when they know they could help.
One of the big positive of the movie was that both sides had good reasons for their stance; the situation isn't one where there's a clear right-or-wrong answer.
That is something great about that and Winter Soldier before. Neither side was truly.
Without the Thor and the Hulk signing on (and it's pretty doubtful they would), the international community couldn't even seriously threaten a united Avengers team.
Now how cool would it have been to have had just a couple minutes of Fury telling Ross and Stark exactly that? He should've been in the movie.
Ultimately, though, the Avengers still would have had the "forget you" option if that had happened, and it would have been a unified team position at that point.
If this were real life, it would have been understood that the Sokovia Accords had no more real power than any other international agreement.
Isn't that part of the problem, though? What is the point of signing the Sokovia Accords if the Avengers are really free to break them at their whim? And if the Avengers did sign, I think some of the team members would feel obligated to follow the Accords even if they felt doing so in a particular situation was a mistake; others, not so much. So the discord would still be there.
Edited to add: I just saw a comment on another website that I thought was pretty pertinent, which is that Cap and Tony Stark start out opposites and have opposite character arcs, which is why they end up on opposite sides. Tony Stark starts out as a weapons dealer, not giving a crap about how the weapons his company makes end up being used. But when he discovers the truth about who's buying them, he becomes Iron Man to put a stop to it. Then he tries to use his genius to better the world - and accidentally creates Ultron. After that series of mistakes, he now wants others to make the decisions about when and where he should use his abilities, because he has no confidence in his own judgment and no longer trusts himself to make the right decisions.
Cap's the opposite. He starts out as a true-blue patriotic American soldier, confident that he's fighting for the Right and the Good, and confident that the government giving him his orders believes in the ideals of America just as much as he does. Then he finds out the hard way int The Winter Soldier that the government is being run by men who are thoroughly corrupt. Now he wants to be the sole person deciding when and how he should act, because he doesn't trust he'd be handing over that responsibility to people worthy of it. Unlike Tony Start, Cap now dares to trust only HIS judgement.
No wonder they have such a different view of the Accords!
Isn't that part of the problem, though? What is the point of signing the Sokovia Accords if the Avengers are really free to break them at their whim?
That's always been the truth of international accords.
Quote:
And if the Avengers did sign, I think some of the team members would feel obligated to follow the Accords even if they felt doing so in a particular situation was a mistake; others, not so much. So the discord would still be there.
Obligated to keep their word for the reason their word was given--which has always been the truth of international accords.
Although the US government may or may not have realized it, signing an international accord with the Avengers made the Avengers an international player--a non-governmental organization--rather than a US organization.
I'm wondering if the television Secret Warriors aren't going that route, if not SHIELD itself.
Quote:
Edited to add: I just saw a comment on another website that I thought was pretty pertinent, which is that Cap and Tony Stark start out opposites and have opposite character arcs, which is why they end up on opposite sides. Tony Stark starts out as a weapons dealer, not giving a crap about how the weapons his company makes end up being used. But when he discovers the truth about who's buying them, he becomes Iron Man to put a stop to it. Then he tries to use his genius to better the world - and accidentally creates Ultron. After that series of mistakes, he now wants others to make the decisions about when and where he should use his abilities, because he has no confidence in his own judgment and no longer trusts himself to make the right decisions.
Cap's the opposite. He starts out as a true-blue patriotic American soldier, confident that he's fighting for the Right and the Good, and confident that the government giving him his orders believes in the ideals of America just as much as he does. Then he finds out the hard way int The Winter Soldier that the government is being run by men who are thoroughly corrupt. Now he wants to be the sole person deciding when and how he should act, because he doesn't trust he'd be handing over that responsibility to people worthy of it. Unlike Tony Start, Cap now dares to trust only HIS judgement.
No wonder they have such a different view of the Accords!
Yes, but by the end of CA:CW, Tony Stark has felt that same sting of government betrayal and is already mending fences in his heart with Cap.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
