Yeah, to me it didn't seem like they were blaming the Avengers for everyone who dies during their operations so much as saying that there needed to be some form of accountability. When collateral damage on an Avengers operation leaves dozens of bystanders dead, somebody needs to answer for it.

 

This is what I got out of it too. Seemed like Stark and Ross were pushing that the Avengers answered to no higher authority so, despite how much they cared, nothing was actually being done to address all the collateral.

It's basically how Zemo felt about the situation too.

 

I'm still not seeing how placing them under the jurisdiction of the UN helps, especially with the sort of threats they're supposed to counter.

I mean, Thanos is showing up any time now and what exactly are the Accords meant to do in that situation?

Also you can't deny that there was a seriously heavy amount of guilt-tripping going on in the first hour or so of the movie. The Charles Spencer bit was bordering on ridiculous. Then again I cheerfully blame Tony for everything that happened in Sokovia, so it just irritates me when he tries to drag the rest of the Avengers into it.

 

The point of the accords wasn't to deal with things like Thanos. They're to cover incidents like the one that happened at the start of this film, when there was frankly no need for the Avengers to be involved. Bringing someone of Scarlet Witch's power to stop a group of mercenaries is like using a sledgehammer to bang in a nail. Let the Avengers deal with the threats that only they can deal with, and let the regular police and military forces deal with the rest.

 

Saw it, loved it.

I honestly couldn't see Cap's side throughout the movie though. To me, Stark was being more than reasonable, especially when he offered Steve the olive branch.

Cap seemed like a bit of a dick to be honest. He casually shrugs off the deaths of innocents as collateral and while yes, they're a necessary result of fighting world ending threats, he should be a little more worried about it.

He seems to give zero fucks. The accords as portrayed in this movie seemed more than reasonable to me. It actually seemed like an overdone PR stunt with the UN saying, "Shit, we need the Avengers but the overspill is getting hard to manage."

It's something that allows the Avengers to act in defense of world interests while the UN panel takes the heat for serious missteps.

All they're asking is the Avengers toeet them halfway.

 

Except the Accords, like Steve implied and no-one denied, would give the UN and its member nations the final say in when, where and how to deploy the Avengers, and you can bet that extends to on-ground decisions. Decisions like, I don't know, choosing to nuke Manhattan rather than wait on the Avengers' ability to deal with an issue.

It's not as simple as "let the Avengers deal with the threats that only they can deal with"; the existence of the Accords would make them a unit that cannot be deployed without UN orders, and I for one am not enthusiastic about the UN's ability to make quick and efficient decisions.

And then there's Ross' threat of retiring them if they don't sign. Like good fucking luck with that, though of course I'm aware he has no idea what manner of unholy fuckery is about to hit the Earth.

(Also funnily enough if Wanda wasn't there likely hundreds of people would have been killed by Crossbones' suicide manoeuvre.)

It's particularly interesting that what "meet them halfway" entails is never defined. I wonder if the Russos wrote up an actual contract for the movie, or if that stack of papers was just 'lorem ipsum'.

 

The problem with Cap was that he utterly refused to consider anything that wouldn't allow him to do whatever he wanted, entirely of his own volition. Even if the accords as written weren't a good deal, the idea that there needs to be some sort if legal framework in place to allow the Avengers to do what they do and have someone be held accountable when necessary is right.

Those kinds of decisions are still going to be made if they didn't sign the accords, they'll probably be even more likely to do something like that. But if the people making those decisions are working with the avengers, rather than both groups working independently, they will have a much better idea of when such actions are necessary.

 

Except the framework isn't "do what they do and have someone be held accountable when necessary", it's "have someone who will tell them what they can and can't do, because said someone doesn't want to be held accountable". It's not "Oh you can go to XYZ, we'll cover your PR", it's "We don't want bad PR, so don't go to XYZ".

I'm...not getting you here.

 

If a police operation goes wrong and ends with a bunch of civilians dying, there will be a bunch of investigations and if someone is found to be negligent they can be prosecuted. If an Avengers operation goes wrong and a bunch of civilians die, they go home and feel a bit sad for a while.

It's not a matter of PR, it's an issue of being held accountable for your actions. And also, it's not "We don't want bad PR, so don't go to Lagos", it's "international law prevents you from conducting an unauthorised military operation in Lagos, so don't go to Lagos." Carrying a big ass shield doesn't give Cap the right to break any laws he sees fit.

My point is that by not signing the accords they actually make it more likely that a decision, similar to nuking Manhattan, would be made in a future situation. Because the people making those decisions can't rely on some group they have no connection with pulling a miracle out of their ass to save the day.

 

I finally watched the movie but I have to say that I would have probably liked it a but better if Tony and Cap positions would have been changed. As it is the anti-accord faction is clearly made out to be the more sympathetic one while the pro-accord party seems to do their best to appear as tyrannical as possible (I mean just look at their evil base in the stormy sea) and more or less only survives due the Iron Man effect, though even he is losing his luster and charisma.

Changing their positions would in my opinion lead to a less clear cut definition of right and wrong, resulting in a more attractive storyline (and hopefully less of the massive guilt tripping in the earl stages of the movie).


As it is the movie is in my opinion clearly one of the weaker ones in the franchise (which is not helped by my general apathy when it comes to the whole captain America storyline) though it still was an entertaining popcorn flick.

 

Ι think it'd be interesting if, now that the movie is out, this thread could have a poll so we could see how many people support which position.

 

Can we get a fence position? Because I agree and disagree with both sides. I don't believe in free reign, and I don't believe in total control.

Which is why this movie was awesome, both sides are valid, both are wrong.

 

I think Cap should have tried to negotiate at some point instead of dismissing accords out of hand. I think he is the blame this turning to a Civil war.

IF had negotiated he might create something no one was happy but still functional and since Tony was down with oversight "whatever form it takes" he would go with it.

Instead Cap goes gun ho I do whatever fuck I want and we have this.

I mean Tony was really beaten emotionally here between Sokowia and Pepper, He simply wanted to let someone else take the reins of decision making, Cap's insistance that they were good as it is did rankle him.

Plus Winter Soldier killing Tony's parents was holy fuck moment for me. God damn Cap stop protecting out of control murderus monster.

 

Eh, protecting Bucky actually made sense, because he wasn't actually protecting the Winter Soldier. As T'Challa said, Bucky was a victim as much as T'Chaka was, he was hardly a murderous monster. Out of control, yes, that's why he decides to have himself put back on ice at the end, but Tony's parents' deaths are no more his fault than the deaths on the Helicarrier in Avengers were Hawkeye's. Despite that, Tony was going to kill Bucky, and while I totally get why he would do that, it's also perfectly reasonable that Cap isn't going to let him.

 

I am Team Widow

 

More importantly he didn't actually, you know, commit the crime half the world was trying to kill the shit out of him for.

Also setting the record straight on an attack that claimed the lives of delegates from dozens of nations is a liiiittle more important ethically speaking than one person's personal vendetta. I'm sorry, but "he killed my mum" generally isn't a valid defense in court. Oh wait, he's Tony Stark, and for all his talk of accountability no-one would have given him shit for killing the Winter Soldier.

 

You could always try Team Thor and Hulk

 

I love the amount of discussion this movie has stimulated, with folks coming down on both sides of security vs freedom.

It's the question I was expecting to be explored BvS. It was asked, but kind of fell by the wayside once the Senator died, so no actual attempt at an answer.

I'm still not sure where I sit. On the one hand, we have Tony saying, "We have to be held accountable," which resonates in the modern world, where terrorists and other non-state actors try to act with impunity and cross borders all the time, leaving so many of us with a constant, low-level anxiety. Shit happens all the goddamn time now, in France and Belgium and other 'Western' countries, which once thought themselves immune to this sort of thing; attacks and bombs going off isn't just a middle-eastern crisis anymore. People need to know who to blame, and how to stop them. In the real world, we don't have the Avengers; if we did, who would willingly let them do whatever they wanted? Go wherever they wanted? Would we want to control them? Or would the 'fight fire with fire' argument win out?

On the other hand, we have Steve, saying "The safest hands are our own," because no matter what agency they answer to, it will be one composed of people, who will have their own agendas, and who can be bought and blackmailed and can delay and misdirect, leaving the Avengers hamstrung, or worse, misused for political reasons. This isn't a position that can really take root in the real world, because we have no real-world equivalent to a 'heroic non-state actor,' but the idea of an apolitical NGO being co-opted for political gain sounds frightening real.

And yes, there was failure and hypocrisy on both sides. Tony wants accountability, but has no qualms about killing a man for personal revenge. Steve wants freedom of choice to act, but isn't willing to face the consequences of those choices.

The beauty of this story is that both are equally valid, and, refreshingly for a comic book movie, remarkably human.

I think Winter Soldier might be a better movie, but it didn't make me think as much as this one did.

So I guess my top 5 MCU would be:
1) Winter Soldier
2) Iron Man
3) Avengers
4) Civil War
5) Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Am I the only one who is differentiating Team Stark and Team UN?

Stark is obviously not thrilled with giving any power over them to a third party, but he knows something's gotta give, and compromises need to be made.

In comparison, Cap's Zero Compromise stance just seems selfish and unrealistic.