The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Captain America > Captain America: Civil War

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-01-2017, 12:02 PM   #51
metaphysician
Not a Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11,233
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Well, actually, given that they'd be utterly unable to do anything, Tony probably *should* have told Ross "Go ahead, send in your mooks." But the real point where he should have decided differently was well earlier. Specifically, he should have told Ross to take a hike, and also, I'm going to tie you up in ten million lawsuits, when he came forth with the whole Accords plan in the first place.

metaphysician is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:26 PM   #52
Ceies
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsfan View Post
Completely agree. While I'm a huge fan of Cap, I really don't like when people try to say it was all Tony's fault. I don't need Cap to be this flawless ideal to love him. In fact, I love him the most in CW, where he makes mistakes and acts a little selfish as every over human being. It's a very interesting side of him and it helps dimensionalising the character.
Yeah I agree. It makes characters in general more interesting if they screw up once in a while. That's one of the reason I actually want Cap to be wrong this time. Tony's been wrong, or taking unnecessary detours very often. But every time you get the feeling that he learned from it and matured, at least that's the feeling you're left with after the movie. I'm not saying he's perfect now, by any means... but as much as tony doesn't trust a guy without a dark side (^^) I prefer characters who screw up and than learn from it once in a while.

I mean you could argue whether or not Tony came to the right conclusion, but he drew a lesson out of his former failures and that is very much: 'The safest hands are not always our own. Not when the fate of the whole world is concerned.'
Steve on the other hand has yet to actually learn from his mistakes. Even mistakes he makes - and he's ready to admit, that it didn't work out as planned, like Lagos - he's not drawing any consequences from. That's why I want him to screw up... Because it would ultimately help him grow.

Apart from that I actually believe that Tony's going for the better solution here... trying to compromise with the accords. And I don't really see any sound arguments speaking for Steves side, aside from him being (understandebly after all the Hydra stuff) distrusting and typically stubborn.

and @metaphysician Just like Tony is not responsible for the accords, Ross isn't really either. Yeah, he probably had a big part in it. But the accords were signed by over 100 nations and people like T'Chaka were campaigning for them. You can tell one douche to take a hike, you can't tell half of the world, without looking particularly dickish and arrogant. And what Lawsuits would he have won... Yeah... okay Tony's rich... But Ross actually has the better case in shutting the Avengers down... After all there never was a special regulation in place for them, that would allow them to go to foreign countries and do whatever they are doing. And many things they do don't fall under any civic laws (not to mention that not every country has the same laws^^ in place, and when they go to Lagos, Nigeria, they'd actually be subject to Nigerian law.) Apart from that Tony actually believes they are the right thing. So why should he antagonise Ross, if he's not the guy who has major problems with the Accords. Is that what you do? Breaking regulations, just cause one of your friends might think they are stupid, even if you actually think it's the right way? and just along the way antagonizing the general public, media and governments even more? I mean Tony lives way more in the public eye than Steve, he's also the one that gets kids pictures shoved into his face while doing charity work. And now Tony's the one who should spit even more on his public image, by telling half of the world to forget their ideas about oversight, when it's actually Steve who doesn't want that? If Steve feels the need to antagonize the world, he should do it himself. And he does. And as a consequence we get the conflict of the movie. It's Steve's actions that turns this conflict from a purely political dispute into two ensuing battles, with hurt people who aren't actually bad guys, and no real winners at the end.

Ceies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 02:20 PM   #53
Capsfan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 571
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Ceies, yeah, pretty much that. It's not like I *want* Cap to be wrong, no, but I agree with the filmmakers: "There is no right or wrong side in this movie". That's exactly the point of this movie. And this is what makes CW so good. Tony was right in some things and Cap was right in some things. Tony and Cap both made some mistakes. Even if I think that Tony actually made more mistakes, I still see no point to deny Cap's ones.
And I actually find Natasha's stance being wiser than Cap's or Tony's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphysician View Post
Well, actually, given that they'd be utterly unable to do anything, Tony probably *should* have told Ross "Go ahead, send in your mooks." But the real point where he should have decided differently was well earlier. Specifically, he should have told Ross to take a hike, and also, I'm going to tie you up in ten million lawsuits, when he came forth with the whole Accords plan in the first place.
Not really. Just this time Ross would have sent snipers and that's all. Even Cap's serum can't resurrect from a shot in the head.

Ross wasn't the one who was responsible for the Accords. It was the UN's decision, not his.


Last edited by Capsfan; 04-01-2017 at 03:18 PM.
Capsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 03:33 PM   #54
Ceies
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsfan View Post
Ceies, yeah, pretty much that. It's not like I *want* Cap to be wrong, no, but I agree with the filmmakers: "There is no right or wrong side in this movie". That's exactly the point of this movie. And this is what makes CW so good. Tony was right in some things and Cap was right in some things. Tony and Cap both made some mistakes. Even if I think that Tony actually made more mistakes, I still see no point to deny Cap's ones.
And I actually find Natasha's stance being wiser than Cap's or Tony's.
Yeah there are obviously mistakes and... at least a whole bunch of missed opportunities on both sides... But I've got to admit... I always thought Natasha's position was especially difficult to understand. Even know I don't really understand it. After Winter Soldier and Peggy's funeral I really thought she was on Steve's side for whatever reason. Then she stands on Tony only to betray that side. But what I thought was especially weird that she first recruits Black Panther only to attack him later. And she sounded as if she always wanted to do this and let Cap go... Seems very double spy-ish to me. Fitting. XD But I didn't really get her motivation for going with Tony to begin with. But I guess she was always one of the more difficult characters to understand... Never really thought so much about her, actually, you just made me think... What was her stance?

Ceies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 04:02 PM   #55
Capsfan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 571
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

del

Capsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 04:03 PM   #56
Capsfan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 571
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceies View Post
Yeah there are obviously mistakes and... at least a whole bunch of missed opportunities on both sides... But I've got to admit... I always thought Natasha's position was especially difficult to understand. Even know I don't really understand it. After Winter Soldier and Peggy's funeral I really thought she was on Steve's side for whatever reason. Then she stands on Tony only to betray that side. But what I thought was especially weird that she first recruits Black Panther only to attack him later. And she sounded as if she always wanted to do this and let Cap go... Seems very double spy-ish to me. Fitting. XD But I didn't really get her motivation for going with Tony to begin with. But I guess she was always one of the more difficult characters to understand... Never really thought so much about her, actually, you just made me think... What was her stance?
Natasha did one thing that seems weird for me: asking TChalla to join, when she knew he was going to kill Bucky. That proves to me that she doesn't care about Bucky at all and thinks Steve would be better without him. And this is the reason why I don't like all this talk about Buckynat after CW.

But she explained well why she supported the Accords: better to be able to have at least some control over situation than to be helpless refusing to compromise at all. As Scarlett said, her head was with Tony, but her heart was with Cap. She was playing the middle ground.
And she was a witness to Bucky's massacre in Berlin. So she had every reason to think he shouldn't run around freely.

As for her actions in the airport. She noticed that the situation became dangerous for the lives of her friends and wanted to end the fight ASAP. Hence her: "This isn't gonna end well", "You aren't gonna stop" and "If you don't stop, Rhodey will be our best-case scenario". Natasha was afraid for her friends (remember that shot from the trailers where she is looking at the explosions with frightened expression?) and she turned out to be partially right.


Last edited by Capsfan; 04-01-2017 at 04:26 PM.
Capsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 05:19 PM   #57
Fincher
Too far gone
 
Fincher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

If Steve was wrong about something in Civil War, then I'd say he was, but I don't recall it ever happening. Well, he was mistaken, he's not omniscient, but he didn't act inappropriately or unreasonably. He was right to step in when the soldiers were trying to kill his friend and probably going to get himself killed. Note I'm distinguishing here between right and impartial. He didn't treat Bucky the same way he would a stranger, but what kind of friend would he be if he did?

He was right to question the Accords to start with, especially after the events of The Winter Soldier. He was right to agree to sign, putting his faith in Tony that he'll make it right in order to help his other friend Bucky. He was right to then doubt Tony because Tony putting Wanda under house arrest didn't sit right with him and not be willing to sell out the other Avengers in order to help Bucky by signing.

He was right that Tony wouldn't believe him about Bucky, because Tony didn't believe him at the airfield. He didn't even take notice when Steve five other Winter Soldiers, which seems like a pretty big deal. He didn't believe it until he had evidence of his own. He was right that the government wouldn't let Tony help. He might have been mistaken in thinking that Tony wouldn't defy the Accords to help, but Tony doing that makes Tony a hypocrite. So what, Steve was wrong because he had too much faith in the integrity of his friends to try to get one of them to not follow their convictions? Plus telling Tony would have risked Steve's team getting caught sooner. He was absolutely right not to take the risk.

He was right not to tell Tony that Bucky killed his parents. He didn't know where Bucky was, and Tony has a lot of resources, and he might have tried to kill Bucky...like he ended up trying to kill Bucky.

Meanwhile, taken on its own, Tony offering to bring Steve and his team in could be seen as making the most of a bad situation. However, his behavior at the airfield just undermines that. He didn't care to listen to Steve happened to say. He tried to speak for Wanda by saying she didn't want to be rescued. When Wanda confronted him, he wasn't defensive, he didn't say he was doing the best he could. He acted like her feelings were irrelevant. He wasn't earnest, he was domineering. That's not the behavior of someone who's trying to appease the government; that's how Natasha acted for the most part. He acted like he wanted to be in control of everything. And this is further developed by him defying the Accords the moment he didn't agree with the government by lying to Ross and going to Siberia. He's not a good soldier like Rhodey.

Fincher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 05:30 PM   #58
TheVileOne
Side-Kick
 
TheVileOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 53,203
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Steve was wrong about lying to Tony about his parents. No excuses for that. None.

__________________
"This is true. This is real. This . . . Is . . . Straight Edge."

- CM Punk
TheVileOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 05:47 PM   #59
Capsfan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 571
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Steve told Tony about 5 WS when it was already too late. He should have told him or Nat immediately after Berlin. Instead he escaped without a word. Innocent people usually don't run and Bucky has killed many people in Berlin. That's the fact you can't just simply brush off. It was understandable why Tony didn't believe Steve in the airport.
What Steve should have actually done is to ask Sharon, which worked in the counterterrorism center, to investigate the real terrorist - Zemo - and bring evidence that he is fake doctor to E.Ross. Then Russia would have apprehended him at their airport. Problem solved. No need for Wanda, Scott and Clint to become criminals.

Also, people keep judging Tony by his results and Steve by his intentions. Such double standards. Tony had good intentions as well when he made Ultron. Steve had good intentions, but he was totally wrong: there was no need to go to Siberia, Zemo would have never used 5 WS. And why Steve failed? Because all intel he had was from Bucky, who has big problems with his brain. Even if Steve believes Bucky isn't responsible for his actions, he still shouldn't have trusted him to the point of fighting with friends because of his intel.
We usually judge people by the outcome of their actions, not by their intentions. Also, Steve was totally and absolutely wrong not telling Tony about his parents. 1) It's a basic moral thing. Steve accused his friends in not telling him information while hiding such an important thing from Tony.
2) The Russos confirmed that if the situation were different, if Tony wasn't in such a hard place (break up with Pepper, Rhodey's injury, the Accords, the Avengers falling apart, Cap hiding it from him and so on), he wouldn't have tried to kill Bucky. I still don't understand what Cap was actually thinking, that Tony is a cold-blood murderer? He totally isn't and him not searching for Bucky after Siberia to end him just proves this once again.

And no, Tony wasn't a hypocrite to break the accords, because it wasn't him, who started that thing. Tony only went to Siberia because Cap put himself in the dire need of help. Tony would have been a bad guy had he abandoned Steve in such a situation.


Last edited by Capsfan; 04-01-2017 at 06:07 PM.
Capsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 07:20 PM   #60
TheVileOne
Side-Kick
 
TheVileOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 53,203
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

The road to hell is paved by good intentions.

__________________
"This is true. This is real. This . . . Is . . . Straight Edge."

- CM Punk
TheVileOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 07:29 PM   #61
Fincher
Too far gone
 
Fincher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsfan View Post
Steve told Tony about 5 WS when it was already too late. He should have told him or Nat immediately after Berlin. Instead he escaped without a word. Innocent people usually don't run and Bucky has killed many people in Berlin. That's the fact you can't just simply brush off. It was understandable why Tony didn't believe Steve in the airport.
He didn't know about the five winter soldiers until after they'd "run" from custody.

Quote:
What Steve should have actually done is to ask Sharon, which worked in the counterterrorism center, to investigate the real terrorist - Zemo - and bring evidence that he is fake doctor to E.Ross. Then Russia would have apprehended him at their airport. Problem solved. No need for Wanda, Scott and Clint to become criminals.
Even in cases where the heroes are supposed to be completely in the right, you can often find unaccounted for alternative ways that they could have resolved their problems. Why didn't Superman in Superman II travel back in time the moment he got his powers back? Are we to conclude that he was just looking for a big fight? Maybe it's because Steve simply didn't know that the "doctor" wasn't really who he claimed to be. Him being bad doesn't make him a complete imposter; there were a number of government employees who were loyal to Hydra. It's also asking more of Sharon who was already risking her job, if not her freedom, by helping at all.

Quote:
Also, people keep judging Tony by his results and Steve by his intentions. Such double standards. Tony had good intentions as well when he made Ultron. Steve had good intentions, but he was totally wrong: there was no need to go to Siberia, Zemo would have never used 5 WS.
I'm not sure which people you mean, because I don't consider Tony bad because he mistakenly made Ultron. It was just that, a mistake. Now it's understandable that he would feel guilty about his actions, unintentionally or not, given how many people were killed. And Steve likely feels bad about any negative consequences that came about because of his choices, because he's not someone who wouldn't feel bad about that. What I'm saying, though, isn't that Tony made mistakes and Steve didn't. I'm saying Steve made mistakes in Civil War, and Tony was a badguy.

Quote:
And why Steve failed? Because all intel he had was from Bucky, who has big problems with his brain. Even if Steve believes Bucky isn't responsible for his actions, he still shouldn't have trusted him to the point of fighting with friends because of his intel.
If you want to go by results, it wasn't Bucky's mental state that causes the failure. Zemo did tell him that he was going to start a war, and Bucky was right that the winter soldiers were a powerful resource. The failure lay in relying on what Zemo said, but it was obvious that he was up to something, and it was obvious that the government, who was already wary about superpowered individuals, would put the blame on Bucky after the bombing and after he launched an attack and escaped from government custody. He acted on little intel because he had little intel because the government was wrong in thinking Bucky was behind it all and working against him.

Quote:
Also, Steve was totally and absolutely wrong not telling Tony about his parents. 1) It's a basic moral thing. Steve accused his friends in not telling him information while hiding such an important thing from Tony. 2) The Russos confirmed that if the situation were different, if Tony wasn't in such a hard place (break up with Pepper, Rhodey's injury, the Accords, the Avengers falling apart, Cap hiding it from him and so on), he wouldn't have tried to kill Bucky. I still don't understand what Cap was actually thinking, that Tony is a cold-blood murderer? He totally isn't and him not searching for Bucky after Siberia to end him just proves this one again.
I'm not concerned about what the Russos say outside of the movies. It's up to them to convey within the movie that Tony and Steve were equally wrong if that's what they want, which I don't think they did. And that's not me complaining at all, because I don't want Cap to be in the wrong. For me at least, that misses the mark of what makes the Captain America movies work, and I already think it weakens the film that so much of what Steve did was ultimately pointless.

I simply don't agree about it being the right thing to do. I wouldn't have done it in his position, and I'd understand if I was on the other end. It doesn't even matter if he trusts Tony with the information, because it's Bucky's life, not his, that he's betting on it.

"Bucky, I finally found you. By the way, I told a friend of mine that you killed his parents, but I let him know you were brainwashed, and he's a real stand-up guy. Well, okay, he's kind of an a*****e a lot of the time, and he can be pretty impetuous, but he's never murdered anyone before, so what are the odds he'd start in all the time since he found out by getting revenge on the guy who killed his mom and dad? I mean, he'd have to be in a really bad place to do something like that, and it's not like anything we deal with can have a deep negative impact on us or like any of my friends have gone down a dark path before."

Quote:
And no, Tony wasn't a hypocrite to break the accords, because it wasn't him, who started that thing. Tony only went to Siberia because Cap put himself in the dire need of help. Tony would have been a bad guy had he abandoned Steve in such a situation.
He was adamant when they first spoke about it that the Accords needed to happen. And if it makes you a bad guy to not act when someone needs help because you don't have permission from the government, then that is saying that the Accords are wrong.

Fincher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 02:24 AM   #62
Capsfan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 571
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVileOne View Post
The road to hell is paved by good intentions.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
He didn't know about the five winter soldiers until after they'd "run" from custody.
You act like he didn't call Sharon or Clint from Germany to America. Steve suggested himself : 'If we call Tony...', but then let Sam discourage it. I'm not saying that Steve committed an unpardonable sin against nature refusing to do this, I can understand his logic, but after that it's very strange and even hypocritical to expect Tony to quit everything, forget about Bucky's massacre in Berlin and believe Steve on the spot about 5WS without any evidence whatsoever, when Cap was the first not trusting Tony in the first place.

Quote:
Maybe it's because Steve simply didn't know that the "doctor" wasn't really who he claimed to be. Him being bad doesn't make him a complete imposter; there were a number of government employees who were loyal to Hydra.
No, but it's still logically most likely that the guy, who went to great lengths and bombed the UN to get to Bucky, is not really the doctor sent by UN. Was it SO HARD to check that out?
Quote:
It's also asking more of Sharon who was already risking her job, if not her freedom, by helping at all.
No, it's exactly the opposite. Once again, Sharon worked for the antiterrorist organization. The same centre which allowed Zemo - the real terrorist - to get inside by not checking his fake ID. It's Sharon's job - to catch terrorists and not letting fake people to get inside the building too, you know. So she totally should have investigated Zemo. It was her responsibility, she was supposed to do it, not running around stealing the gear of wanted fugitives, who could have done the same themselves as they did in TWS.

Quote:
I'm not sure which people you mean, because I don't consider Tony bad because he mistakenly made Ultron. It was just that, a mistake. Now it's understandable that he would feel guilty about his actions, unintentionally or not, given how many people were killed. And Steve likely feels bad about any negative consequences that came about because of his choices, because he's not someone who wouldn't feel bad about that. What I'm saying, though, isn't that Tony made mistakes and Steve didn't. I'm saying Steve made mistakes in Civil War, and Tony was a badguy.
I don't consider Tony bad or Steve bad. But I admit that they were both in the wrong in something.

Quote:
If you want to go by results, it wasn't Bucky's mental state that causes the failure. Zemo did tell him that he was going to start a war, and Bucky was right that the winter soldiers were a powerful resource. The failure lay in relying on what Zemo said, but it was obvious that he was up to something, and it was obvious that the government, who was already wary about superpowered individuals, would put the blame on Bucky after the bombing and after he launched an attack and escaped from government custody.
Zemo only asked Bucky about mission report. That's all. He didn't tell him anything about starting a war, it's only Steve's and Bucky's assumptions.
Bucky wasn't right, though, that Zemo could have used them or controlled. There is no way for HYDRA lying in ruins and not using 5WS if they could. NO WAY. Such a powerful weapon doesn't stay abandoned and forgotten. If 5WS could take over the whole country over a night, the russian HYDRA would have already used them to take over US, for example. Also, it was shown in the flashback that 5WS were unstable and uncontrollable. That's why HYDRA was still using the single one WS in 2014.
Really. Zemo ALREADY had Bucky in his power right then and where. He already had 1 WS without going to Siberia. Did he use him for anything particular aside from 'mission report'? Not really. And if he did, Bucky didn't told Steve about that.
Quote:
He acted on little intel because he had little intel because the government was wrong in thinking Bucky was behind it all and working against him.
You are forgetting that characters in the movie don't have the same perspective as the audience seeing everything. Steve still didn't know that. He had NO PROOF whatsoever, that it wasn't Bucky who bombed the UN. It was only Bucky's word as well as about the triggers. Even Zemo being guilty doesn't automatically mean Bucky's innocence. They could have worked together. All Steve saw were dead people and Bucky's cage broken from the inside, not outside. Bucky escaped himself and Steve saw the evindence that his former friend is an unhinged mad killer now.

Quote:
I'm not concerned about what the Russos say outside of the movies. It's up to them to convey within the movie that Tony and Steve were equally wrong if that's what they want, which I don't think they did. And that's not me complaining at all, because I don't want Cap to be in the wrong. For me at least, that misses the mark of what makes the Captain America movies work, and I already think it weakens the film that so much of what Steve did was ultimately pointless.
And many people still think that Tony was right and Steve was wrong. So? It's not a proof for anything. It's only your subjective opinion.
But what the Russos also said is that they wanted people to argue who's right and who's wrong. And they totally achieved this goal as we can see basically everywhere.
That wasn't the point of this film - to once again show Steve as a flawless hero. And him saving his friend totally wasn't pointless.

Quote:
I simply don't agree about it being the right thing to do. I wouldn't have done it in his position, and I'd understand if I was on the other end. It doesn't even matter if he trusts Tony with the information, because it's Bucky's life, not his, that he's betting on it.
If Tony isn't a cold-blood murderer, the heck Steve would have been risking Bucky's life by telling Tony? It's like to say that there was a risk to Bucky's life once Steve knew it himself, because Howard was a friend of Steve who basically helped to create Captain America.
It turned out to be exactly the opposite: Steve endangered Bucky's life by not telling Tony in the right time.
Also, Steve claims that he didn't know about Bucky for sure. If it's the case, why he didn't tell about HYDRA and his suspicions at least?

Quote:
"Bucky, I finally found you. By the way, I told a friend of mine that you killed his parents, but I let him know you were brainwashed, and he's a real stand-up guy. Well, okay, he's kind of an a*****e a lot of the time, and he can be pretty impetuous, but he's never murdered anyone before, so what are the odds he'd start in all the time since he found out by getting revenge on the guy who killed his mom and dad? I mean, he'd have to be in a really bad place to do something like that, and it's not like anything we deal with can have a deep negative impact on us or like any of my friends have gone down a dark path before."
"Bucky, I told my friend and the person who provided me with home and job, that his parents were killed by Hydra and that there is a possibility they could have used the person whom they tortured and abused for 70 years in order to be able to control - you... I told him, because this information belongs to him and to him alone, not even to you, since you wasn't really there, only your body was used as a weapon... Yes, he was very mad at first, but eventually he came back to his senses and understood it's HYDRA, not you."

Quote:
He was adamant when they first spoke about it that the Accords needed to happen. And if it makes you a bad guy to not act when someone needs help because you don't have permission from the government, then that is saying that the Accords are wrong.
He was adamant because he knew the Accords would be forced on them anyway.
It makes you a bad guy not to help your friend when his life is in danger, even if he was the one who endangered it and acted unreasonably in the first place.
The point is that Tony had only broken the Accords, because Steve did it first and went to Siberia without permission. Without Steve's actions Tony wouldn't have broken anything. Look at the SM: Homecoming trailer. Do you really think that every time Tony is helping Peter he is breaking the Acccords in front of the whole NY?
(Also, I'm not saying the Accords is a totally right thing, it's just that this isn't 100% wrong idea.)


Last edited by Capsfan; 04-02-2017 at 02:45 AM.
Capsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 04:09 AM   #63
Fincher
Too far gone
 
Fincher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsfan View Post
You act like he didn't call Sharon or Clint from Germany to America. Steve suggested himself : 'If we call Tony...', but then let Sam discourage it. I'm not saying that Steve committed an unpardonable sin against nature refusing to do this, I can understand his logic, but after that it's very strange and even hypocritical to expect Tony to quit everything, forget about Bucky's massacre in Berlin and believe Steve on the spot about 5WS without any evidence whatsoever, when Cap was the first not trusting Tony in the first place.
The way Steve said it, I think he was already thinking what Sam was about to say. And no, I don't expect Tony to instantly believe Steve, but he wasn't willing to listen. It never got to the "what evidence do you have?" stage. Tony also didn't take into account that other people who weren't Bucky's friend was siding with him, and maybe that might mean there's something to it? He accused Steve of not seeing things clearly when he was the one who claimed Wanda didn't want to get rescued...except that she did, or she wouldn't have left.

Quote:
No, but it's still logically most likely that the guy, who went to great lengths and bobmed the UN to get to Bucky, is not really a doctor sent by UN. Was it SO HARD to check that out?

No, it's exactly the opposite. Once again, Sharon worked for the antiterrorist organization. The same centre which allowed Zemo - the real terrorist - to get inside by not checking his fake ID. It's Sharon's job - to catch terrorists and not letting fake people to get inside the building too, you know. So she totally should have investigated Zemo. It was her responsibility, she was supposed to do it, not running around stealing the gear of wanted fugitives, who could have done the same themselves as they did in TWS.
Honestly, that part of the movie makes no sense. There's no reason he should be able to walk into that facility not looking like the doctor, and from Steve's perspective that he's just using Bucky as a means to some end, there's no reason he should take the risk that he wouldn't be identified as an imposter. The most likely scenario is either that he is the doctor or that he looks like him, maybe using that face disguising technology that Natasha had in The Winter Soldier, and therefore it would be kind of hard to prove that he isn't who he says he is.

At the same time, Steve has no reason to think the doctor is working alone, so simply having him arrested probably wouldn't fix the problem. They need to secure the Siberian base. So, provided Sharon could find evidence, she would have to turn it over to Ross and tell him that she's in contact with Steve and Bucky and that this base needs to be dealt with, hope that he'll believe the information coming from someone working with them, and then count on the government to get to the base and keep the winter soldiers out of the wrong hands. Steve would have played his hand since they'd know exactly where he's going if he even goes there, so it's up to the government at that point, and he just saw them get compromised again by this doctor.

And then maybe Sharon goes to jail.

Quote:
Zemo only asked Bucky about mission report. That's all. He didn't tell him anything about starting a war, it's only Steve's and Bucky's assumptions.
You're right, actually. Zemo didn't tell Bucky that, but he did tell Steve this:

Steve Rogers: Who are you? What do you want?
Zemo: To see an empire fall.


Quote:
You are forgetting that characters in the movie don't have the same perspective as the audience seeing everything. Steve still didn't know that. He had NO PROOF whatsoever, that it wasn't Bucky who bobmed the UN. It was only Bucky's word as well as about the triggers. Even Zemo being guilty doesn't automatically mean Bucky's innocence. They could have worked together. All Steve saw were dead people and Bucky's cage broken from the inside, not outside. Bucky escaped himself and Steve saw the evindence that his former friend is an unhinged mad killer now.
First, I mean that they're incorrect that Bucky is responsible, not that they're unreasonable in thinking it.

Second, Steve developed a theory that someone was using the bombing plot to get to Bucky. Then the power goes out. Then Bucky goes ballistic, and the guy who is in there questioning him straight up admits to having ulterior motives.

The most I think you could say is that this is an elaborate plot by both the doctor and Bucky to trick Steve into trusting Bucky, not that I think it would take that much for Bucky to earn his trust. If he bought into it too easily, then the same could be said for the rest of his team, as well as Sharon. The thing is, anything could be a trick. Ultron's Sokovian plot could have been a red herring while he was trying to destroy the world some other way, or while he was cleaning out Tony's bank account, or something. Maybe he just wants to get them to Sokovia so he can tell them they killed each other's parents and get them to not be friends anymore. Better not go try to save the world.

The "let's wring our hands while we debate whether to do anything" is the Accords in a nutshell, the notion that if we're super cautious then we'll be totally safe. If Steve had played it safe during The Winter Soldier, favored inaction, millions of people would have died and the world would be a Hydra playground. And what's the extra risky thing Steve and his team are being tricked into doing? They're going to Siberia.

And even then it's one of those plots that only works if it happens exactly the way it needs to happen. Bucky gets caught at the airport, fail. Wanda goes with them, fail (unless Tony finding out that Bucky killed his parents is enough, but he could have just sent him an email). Falcon doesn't tell Tony where they're going, fail. Falcon goes with them and can't tell Tony, fail. Vision shoots a beam and paralyzes Tony instead, fail.

Quote:
And many people still think that Tony was right and Steve was wrong. So? It's not a proof for anything. It's only your subjective opinion.
Okay, but my point is that I'm assessing what's in the films, not what the filmmakers have to say about them.

Quote:
But what the Russos also said is that they wanted people to argue who's right and who's wrong. And they totally achieved this goal as we can see basically everywhere.
That wasn't the point of this film - to once again show Steve as a flawless hero. And him saving his friend totally wasn't pointless.
Well, okay, they achieved their goal. I'm just saying that it's good that I thought he was in the right, because I don't think a "Tony is right, and Steve is wrong" or a "They're both kind of right/wrong" version would have worked as well for me in this case. And saving Bucky isn't pointless, but compared to his accomplishments in the two previous films, he did a lot of wheel spinning in this one.

Quote:
If Tony isn't a cold-blood murderer, the heck Steve would have been risking Bucky's life by telling Tony? It's like to say that there was a risk to Bucky's life once Steve knew it himself, because Howard was a friend of Steve who basically helped to create Captain America.
It turned out to be exactly the opposite: Steve endangered Bucky's life by not telling Tony in the right time.
Also, Steve claims that he didn't know about Bucky for sure. If it's the case, why he didn't tell about HYDRA and his suspicions at least?

"Bucky, I told my friend and the person who provided me with home and job, that his parents were killed by Hydra and that there is a possibility they could have used the person whom they tortured and abused for 70 years in order to be able to control - you... I told him, because this information belongs to him and to him alone, not even to you, since you wasn't really there, only your body was used as a weapon... Yes, he was very mad at first, but eventually he came back to his senses and understood it's HYDRA, not you."
I'm going to have to strenuously disagree there. What they did to Bucky was a very personal violation, so the details of what they did is very much his information, not Steve's, to tell or not to tell. And telling about Hydra could have led to Tony hunting down information and connecting it to Bucky, or else figuring out that Steve strongly suspected as much.

Quote:
He was adamant because he knew the Accords would be forced on them anyway.
It makes you a bad guy not to help your friend when his life is in danger, even if he was the one who endangered it and acted unreasonably in the first place.
The point is that Tony had only broken the Accords, because Steve did it first and went to Siberia without permission. Without Steve's actions Tony wouldn't have broken anything. Look at the SM: Homecoming trailer. Do you really think that every time Tony is helping Peter he is breaking the Acccords in front of the whole NY?
(Also, I'm not saying the Accords is a totally right thing, it's just that this isn't 100% wrong idea.)
Tony gave that speech about the boy who died and then was dogmatic that it was what needed to happen. Also, Steve's letter said "I wish we agreed on the Accords, I really do. I know you were only doing what you believe in" which I don't think is how they would have ended the movie if Tony was just a pragmatist trying to get through it. Natasha was the pragmatist.

To the contrary, I think Tony believed in the Accords, and saying it was going to happen regardless was just a way of winning the argument, just like how he told Steve he'd fine tune the details later on was to convince him to sign. He wanted to keep everything "safe" after Age of Ultron, as evidenced by him shutting Wanda away. Then he wasn't able/willing to stick to the standards he was holding everyone else to, because he's the most reckless of them all. He brought a young Peter Parker into the fight; he didn't even know how old he was.

He told Clint it was his fault for being a criminal while he was planning to lie to Ross and go to Siberia himself...which could maybe have been a cover, except that (1) it was totally in keeping with the way he was acting at the airfield, and (2) he never expressed any anti-Accords sentiment after that. He had a perfect opportunity during that conversation with Rhodey, but it became an Accords Buddies bonding moment. The most there was was the implication at the end that he wouldn't be actively hunting them.


Last edited by Fincher; 04-02-2017 at 05:52 AM.
Fincher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 09:18 AM   #64
GarhiShotFirst
Newbie First Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 17
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

I think Tony deserved to know that HYDRA killed his parents, but I also think that Steve not telling him is one of the more human things (flaws) about the entire situation. How do you find the time and space to have a conversation like that, even if you're Captain America? How do you begin it? How do you find the words, given all that Tony (and the rest of them) have suffered in the events of the Avengers, AOU, and their solo films?

Add to that the fact that Steve was probably being genuine when he said he didn't know it was by Bucky's hands. I'm sure he strongly suspected and stopped himself from investigating that more closely, in the wake of TWS and the file that Black Widow handed him. A lot of the pain of that CW scene is rightfully on Tony, seeing his parents brutally slaughtered by the man standing right next to him, but imagine the pain as well from Steve's point of view: seeing someone he knew as a kind of friend, who he remembered fondly, murdered by the hands of his best friend, who he has just got back. Not to mention Bucky's pain, seeing himself killing innocents that he knew, in front of their child and his best friend who also had been friends with them. It's a horribly painful moment all around, by far the darkest moment so far in the MCU.

I can easily imagine how Steve would have avoided handling this kind of intensely painful information, and how his reluctance to delve into them would have naturally led to an increasing sense of dread as he kept procrastinating instead of telling Tony what really happened. As he said, he was really protecting himself, not Tony and not Bucky. It finally blew up in his face in the worst possible way, endangering and scarring all three of them. I see it as a definite flaw of his character, that his determination to courageously and honestly see things through failed here for once because the Bucky factor was too close, too precious (in light of all he'd lost). He couldn't handle the details of what HYDRA had done to and through Bucky, and that reluctance to face it hurt them all.

About Bucky, I agree 100% with Fincher on this point.

Quote:
"I told him, because this information belongs to him and to him alone, not even to you, since you wasn't really there, only your body was used as a weapon..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
I'm going to have to strenuously disagree there. What they did to Bucky was a very personal violation, so the details of what they did is very much his information, not Steve's, to tell or not to tell.
What happened to Bucky is absolutely a personal violation and all the more so by the very fact that his consent was removed from the equation. Using someone's body without their consent doesn't mean that person no longer has a say in how that event is discussed, handled, resolved; their voice should be all the more amplified, not silenced. He's not an actual, inanimate weapon but a living being who until very recently had his very personhood mutilated and taken from him over 7 decades. A lot of reviews, fan discussions, etc., erase Bucky himself from the discussion when it comes to who was right in that final fight and on the issue of telling/not telling, which is sad and frustrating because his personhood is hard-enough-won, as it is. The personal stakes for him and his perspective on things shouldn't be second tier to those of the two big names, even though we've followed them (especially Tony) longer and in more depth than MCU Bucky.

That said, I disagree that Tony would have reacted the same way and hunted Bucky to murder him, if he had known about it before all of these recent events went down. By the time he had enough information on Bucky to successfully hunt him down, he surely would have also had all the necessary information that would reveal what HYDRA had done to him.* There's no reason, in my opinion, to think that Tony would have been in a blood rage at that point. Steve really did mess it all up with his reluctance to face a few difficult facts back when things were relatively calm (like the mildly content atmosphere implicated by AOU's opening scenes).

*I'm unclear on how much of the Winter Soldier's backstory was public knowledge as of the events of TWS. The way the news readily broadcasts Bucky Barnes = Winter Soldier in CW, the way that he is hunted with extreme prejudice and heavily caged once captured by the police, and the fact that Tony calls him the Manchurian Candidate implies that everyone at least knows that he's mentally compromised, even if they don't know the full extent of the brainwashing/conditioning. I wonder if the museum still has him in the Captain America section.

GarhiShotFirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 10:27 AM   #65
Samuron
Reprint
 
Samuron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 637
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsfan View Post
Ross wasn't the one who was responsible for the Accords. It was the UN's decision, not his.
My take was that the opposite was likely true; I figured that Ross used his position and exploited public fear to bring them about.

Samuron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 10:57 AM   #66
Ceies
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
Note I'm distinguishing here between right and impartial. He didn't treat Bucky the same way he would a stranger, but what kind of friend would he be if he did?
Exactly. Honestly I 100% understand what Cap did. I don't necessarily think he chose the best path of action, but I can understand why he didn't. The thing is, this also is the reason why I agree with the premise of the accords. Because when Cap said, Governments are run by people with agenda, he kind of forgot, that the Avengers themselves are people with Agendas. And I also agree that the Avengers shouldn't have Agendas. But in a UN-committee there are many people from many countries with many different agendas who to a degree negate each other and settle for the middle ground. It's not perfect of course not - and especially with Ross taking the lead (which makes no sense whatsoever to be honest.) - but that's the danger in democracy... Still we believe that a great number of people can rule better than a single monarch.

Steve himself is a person with agendas, and him choosing Bucky over everything is an agenda. And while I think that it is absolutely understandable and excusable - some would even say they'd do the wrong thing if they wouldn't help their friend - he also has to understand and except that he can't do that, under the mantle of the Avengers and that it is against the law, and just because it's Cap and Bucky it can't just be ignored. And had Cap not worked with the mindset: I am an avenger, my hands are the safest, I have to do all this myself, then there'd be a whole bunch of things he could have done, that would have turned out better for all people involved.

Quote:
He was right to then doubt Tony because Tony putting Wanda under house arrest didn't sit right with him and not be willing to sell out the other Avengers in order to help Bucky by signing.
Tony tried to protect Wanda by putting her under house arrest. He never planned to keep her there indefinitely just until the bulk of the Accords had been dealt with... Yeah, you could critizise that... Surely not the best course of action. But don't tell me Steve didn't sell his other friends out for Bucky. He didn't tell Tony of his parents because of Bucky. He didn't tell Tony, what he was up to later (anywhere during the movie actually not only about the 5 Winder Soldiers but also about Bucharest), because of Bucky. And when he asked Hawkeye to get he asked him for help, not only because of Bucky but also very much for himself, and made him a wanted fugitive that will have trouble visiting his family for a while, because he was to proud or to dense or to what ever to ask Tony instead. (Same goes for Scott, but Scott was Sams idea.)

Quote:
He might have been mistaken in thinking that Tony wouldn't defy the Accords to help, but Tony doing that makes Tony a hypocrite.
No... it doesn't make Tony a hypocrite. Because Tony by signing the Accords pretty much admitted, that he KNOWS, the safest hands are not his own. And when he breaks the Accords it's entirely on him. He doesn't act under the mantle of the Avengers, and he doesn't try to excuse his actions by: what if the whole world was in danger and I couldn't do anything against it, because the Accords. He acted against the accords because he thought his friends needed help. At that point it's as personal for Tony as it is for Steve. At that point, the major difference between Tony and Steve is, that Tony doesn't take a team along. He doesn't demand of the government to understand that he's right and they are wrong. Because he knows that at this moment, he's acting not based on right and wrong, but on entirely personal reasons.

Also and that's a second issue: The accords need to fail every now and then. That's how rules, regulations and contracts evolve. And Tony already said that he wanted to make amends. The best method to make amends is not asking them, but waiting for a situation, when the Accords fail to better them. The Accords are a new law. And it's naive to think they would or could be perfect already. And of course they aren't. That's why I understand Steve being reluctant to sign (although he's not reluctant because of the details, he has a problem with the premise of the Accords - so that's something different). And it's also what Tony tries to explain to him, that they can be amended.

Also by the simple fact that Tony was not in prison during homecoming we can assume that the Accords are not half as strict if you go against them, if you've signed them before and show that you're willing to work for them under normal circumstances.

Quote:
He was right not to tell Tony that Bucky killed his parents. He didn't know where Bucky was, and Tony has a lot of resources, and he might have tried to kill Bucky...like he ended up trying to kill Bucky.
No... It's Tony's parents. And you're telling me Tony has no right to know what happened to his parents? Steve not telling Tony was coward, don't turn it into something good and right when it's not. If somebody walks around killing people, it's not a personal matter. You don't gt to keep silent about it, to protect the killer from hard feelings. EVEN if that man had no choice in the matter. But that's not how privacy works.

EVEN IF we are to assume, that Tony couldn't have forgiven Bucky until they met in Siberia... That situation would be entirely different, because Tony would be way more inclined to listen to Steve and hits explanations, than he was in the movie. In the movie he just found out that he was in a room with two guys, one killed his parents, and the other was somebody he called friend, who didn't tell him about it, because apparently Bucky was the better friend. Had Steve told him about his parents, at that point, Tony and Steve would still be friends. The way it happened however, Tony was more hurt at Steve than at Bucky. And none of them even tried to apologize. Instead Cap tells Tony that he did it, because Bucky was his friends, as if this made it right... hearing that Cap 'betrayed' him, because Bucky was obviously the better friend - that's gotta sting. They did nothing to appease Tony. They just assumed that he'd have to understand their position, when they didn't even try to get themselves into his shoes.

Quote:
He didn't care to listen to Steve happened to say.
Yeah... but then again, Steve didn't really say much, did he? Tony needed Steve to stop, because if he didn't stop, Ross would send his troups. And Steve COULD HAVE stopped. He could have stopped, and told his story, and just like that Tony would have been more inclined to listen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsfan View Post
I still don't understand what Cap was actually thinking, that Tony is a cold-blood murderer? .
I actually... part of me believes Steve didn't tell Tony simply because it was Bucky. Not to protect Bucky, because apparently he demanded and thought Tony would understand even back in Siberia in this impossible situation and because I actually think he knows Tony good enough to know he wouldn't go on a lengthy search for revenge.
But Steve with all his 'It wasn't you', 'it's not your fault', 'Bucky's innocent'... to me it very much looked and felt like he didn't really want to think about Bucky killing Howard (or anyone for that matter, but especially Howard who was a friend.) It's a very difficult situation, because he's not at fault for what he did, but he DID it nonetheless. And I think Cap to a degree, doesn't really understand what that means. I think he mostly wanted to protect himself. (and I think he also wrote this in his letter.) Not to protect bucky or Tony, but to not have to think about the fact that his best friend (voluntarily or not) killed another friend and the father of one of his comrades. I mean Steve knew that Hydra killed Tony's parents, he had a hunch that it was Bucky, but he never really got himself to actually look into it, because he doesn't really want to know. Because it's easier believing, loving and caring for Bucky if he doesn't have to think about the people he killed. I'm not saying he wouldn't love him still... but it's a ****ed up situation for him too.

I can't even shake the feeling, that for half of the movie him not asking Tony for help was also motivated by trying to keep Tony and Bucky seperate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
Even in cases where the heroes are supposed to be completely in the right, you can often find unaccounted for alternative ways that they could have resolved their problems. Are we to conclude that he was just looking for a big fight?
No... but we can't just ignore those possibilities to excuse everything the heroes do and simultaonously put all the fault on Tony.

Quote:
Maybe it's because Steve simply didn't know that the "doctor" wasn't really who he claimed to be. Him being bad doesn't make him a complete imposter; there were a number of government employees who were loyal to Hydra.
It doesn't matter. Even if the Doctor was the real Doctor, it still should be investigated what connections he might have to the UN-Bombing or whatever, because obviously he was the one to activate Bucky. And only Cap knew that. And even if there are some employees loyal to Hydra or corrupt all on their own, he knows at least some people he can trust - or should be able to trust, and those are the people he should have asked to investigate. And even if some corrupt politicians find out about the investigation, so what...? It would have still been a better course of action. I mean with Bucky on the run and not reporting back to (supposedly) Hydra or whoever set him free, and with Cap and Falcon supposedly with him, Zemo and whoever might have been with him should know they were onto him alredy.

Quote:
I'm saying Steve made mistakes in Civil War, and Tony was a badguy.
I'm thinking you didn't understand the movie. Tony wasn't the bad guy. Neither was Cap. Both were just repeatedly falling for Zemo's trap and in the rest of the movie were disagreeing about political issues. So disagreeing with the hero on an issue that's very difficult, makes you a bad guy automatically.
Tony during Civil War didn't badly hurt nor kill anybody. He also wasn't the guy puting his ex comrades into the Raft. He didn't know about the raft. The possibly worst things he did was putting Wanda on house arrest without her knowing, which she seemed to utterly enjoy until she found out she shouldn't leave the house. And flipping his **** and trying to kill Bucky in the end.

Quote:
He acted on little intel because he had little intel because the government was wrong in thinking Bucky was behind it all and working against him.
He acted on little intel. The reason for that is only secondary. And the government being wrong about Bucky had nothing to do with his intel. If he hadn't made it all about Bucky, he could have asked the government (or only personal friends) for help regardless of what they thought of Bucky. Don't make it all about others, when Steve had all the cards in his own hands. He had the knowledge about the WS, he had Bucky, he knew what Zemo had told him, and he had the numbers of his fellow avengers and friends with the UN and the government. The government hat none of that, so he was the one to call the shots...

Quote:
"Bucky, I finally found you. By the way, I told a friend of mine that you killed his parents, but I let him know you were brainwashed, and he's a real stand-up guy. Well, okay, he's kind of an a*****e a lot of the time, and he can be pretty impetuous, but he's never murdered anyone before, so what are the odds he'd start in all the time since he found out by getting revenge on the guy who killed his mom and dad? I mean, he'd have to be in a really bad place to do something like that, and it's not like anything we deal with can have a deep negative impact on us or like any of my friends have gone down a dark path before."
"Oh Bucky btw. Tony, the guy who's hunting you because he thinks you bombed the UN-building, when you didn't? Yeah the guy you tried to shoot in the face when you were the Winter Soldier. He's Howard's son. You killed his parents. You remember? Of course you do. Well don't mention it, because he doesn't know. Haven't told him yet, because honestly, how are you supposed to tell somebody your best friend killed his parents? So I think it's your story to tell. If you don't want to, that's fine, than he'll just die ignorant. Couldn't really care less, because as long as you're happy, I'm happy. Oh, of course he's my friend to. But he's gotta understand, you know, you're my friend. And you didn't really want to do it. And your sorry. So if you didn't want to do it, and you're sorry, everything's fine, even if we never tell him about it. And should he ever find out, I'm sure, he really should know that you're sorry and weren't at fault too, even if we never really tried to explain it to him. So what do you say, Bucky? Yeah, I agree, it will be totally awkward, fighting the Kid of the friend you killed, without him knowing, but just don't think to hard about it. He doesn't know, so why dwell over it? After all, what makes him special, hm? It's not like his parents were the only people you killed, so are you supposed to just walk around sending letters to the families of those you killed, trying to explain yourself, when you're totally not at fault. No, it's really better, they never no about it. And if you find it ever within yourself to try to explain, I'm sure they'll understand. If not, well I'm going to protect you, because that's the right thing to do, and every sane man would agree, that you're absolutely the most innnocent man out there. Well aside from the people we crippled when we tried to escape from the police in Bucharest. But that's entirely their fault, right? Right...! yeah, anyway. Remember don't mention Howard, when you see Tony!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
And no, I don't expect Tony to instantly believe Steve, but he wasn't willing to listen. It never got to the "what evidence do you have?" stage. Tony also didn't take into account that other people who weren't Bucky's friend was siding with him, and maybe that might mean there's something to it?
Oh come on... Sam followed Steve because he was Steve's friend. And he was the first who didn't want to talk to Tony, for whatever reason. So why should Tony think: Oh if Sam's there, something's gotta be up.
Clint and Scott much the same came when Cap called them. They didn't even need to be recruited personally. Tony even went to Queens himself. Scott just came running because it was Captain America. I doubt he knew the first thing about the Accords or Bucky or the Winter Soldier. And of course none of them had better arguments for what they did then Steve.
It's no coincidence that Tony later asked Falcon about what was really going on, not Clint, whom he actually knew much better, because Falcon was probably the only one who knew the entire story.

And Cap wasn't really trying to tell Tony anything. He made a weak attempt, but stopped when Black Panther arrived on the scene and didn't really try to go on explaining, until Tony called Peter. Then the fighting started. You could argue that Black Panther's arrival was kinda ill timed, but well, if that's all that's needed to keep Steve from talking, it obviously wasn't important enough. And everything else was very much in between punches. Plus Cap was listening probably as good as Tony was. When Spidey repeated, what Tony told him about he situation, it's not like it made Cap think for a second.

Quote:
Better not go try to save the world.
Better not do it right? Because the safest way to safe the world was to get people involved, that are not all acting against the law. Because even if it involved Tony, Rhodey or Nat breaking the Accords, they at the moment were the characters that could get to Siberia easiest and safest.

Quote:
The "let's wring our hands while we debate whether to do anything" is the Accords in a nutshell, the notion that if we're super cautious then we'll be totally safe.
No it's not. Actually it didn't take long for Rhodey to get involved in Bucharest. They chose not to involve the Avengers getting Bucky into custody, which is argueable, but reasonable given the current state of the avengers - seperated into two parties, only half of them acknoledging the authority of the UN, one of them best buddies with the suspect... but as soon as it got out of hand it didn't take long for them to send Rhodey, did it?

But then again the Accords aren't perfect yet, they need ammends and should probably go to many different versions until they work properly. That's why I say, that the Zemo-insident was very ill-timed (or well-timed from Zemo's perspective) because at that point the Accords were kind of still in the making and a very experimental phase. They didn't work, because most of the avengers didn't sign them, and the other half had their hands full trying to deal with their 'rogue' comrades and because they weren't really implemented yet. I mean the very UN-assembly that should have talked about the Accords was bombed, so... no wonder everything was a bit chaotic.

Quote:
Well, okay, they achieved their goal. I'm just saying that it's good that I thought he was in the right, because I don't think a "Tony is right, and Steve is wrong" or a "They're both kind of right/wrong" version would have worked as well for me in this case.
Why wouldn't a 'both are kind of right/wrong' situation work for you? Because it's not within Cap's character, or because it's a Cap-movie? I think one of the issues in this movie is, that sometimes there is no right and wrong. Cap is a character who works purely on the basis, that there always is a clear right, and he knows what that is and than he acts based upon that. It's very admireable because his resolve is second to nobody. But sometimes the world isn't as easy seperable into right and wrong. Sometimes there are two right answers and sometime everything you do seems just wrong. And sometimes two good people, want to do the right thing, have the right intention and find a way that would lead them to the right way - but they've found to very different ways. Or it just doesn't work that way. And that's what's happening in this movie.
Steve believes that the safest hands are his own, he thinks its easiest to safe the world, if there's nobody to hinder you in going wherever you need to go, and it's better to do somthing than do nothing. And in most cases he's right. But then a single person comes along, who knows about his weakspot (Bucky) and compromises him, because suddenly he has to weigh the safety of his best friend with the safety of the general public or the world or against the feelings of another friend.
Tony wants to give the responsibility for the safety of the world back to the world. He wants them to protect themselves (in a way) and gives them the Avengers as a 'tool' to achieve that. He wants to lift the weight from the shoulders of the individuals and onto the UN. And he wants failure to be met with consequences and be it only trying to find a better way. He also believes that if they don't do that, in the end, the world they protect will come to fear them. He thinks the Accords, not the way they are now, but the way they could turn out to be are the best way to achieve that without alienating the rest of humanity. But of course when the people at the top in the governments are corrupt especially as long as the Accords are not really successfully implemented, this could go all kinds of wrong.


Quote:
To the contrary, I think Tony believed in the Accords
Yeah I agree. I don't think he thinks they are perfect the way they are. But he definitally agrees with the premise.

Ceies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 04:24 PM   #67
Fincher
Too far gone
 
Fincher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceies View Post
Exactly. Honestly I 100% understand what Cap did. I don't necessarily think he chose the best path of action, but I can understand why he didn't. The thing is, this also is the reason why I agree with the premise of the accords. Because when Cap said, Governments are run by people with agenda, he kind of forgot, that the Avengers themselves are people with Agendas. And I also agree that the Avengers shouldn't have Agendas. But in a UN-committee there are many people from many countries with many different agendas who to a degree negate each other and settle for the middle ground. It's not perfect of course not - and especially with Ross taking the lead (which makes no sense whatsoever to be honest.) - but that's the danger in democracy... Still we believe that a great number of people can rule better than a single monarch.

Steve himself is a person with agendas, and him choosing Bucky over everything is an agenda. And while I think that it is absolutely understandable and excusable - some would even say they'd do the wrong thing if they wouldn't help their friend - he also has to understand and except that he can't do that, under the mantle of the Avengers and that it is against the law, and just because it's Cap and Bucky it can't just be ignored. And had Cap not worked with the mindset: I am an avenger, my hands are the safest, I have to do all this myself, then there'd be a whole bunch of things he could have done, that would have turned out better for all people involved.
I'm not against the idea of some policies being in place, certain scenarios outlined where The Avengers need to get permission as well as ways that they can be punished after the fact if their actions are shown to be unacceptable. However...

1. The events named that were used to justify mostly didn't have the Avengers doing anything questionable. They were saving New York City and preventing the government from nuking it. Steve stopped Hydra from killing millions and creating a police state, and yes, in the chaos of enormous battle there was some collateral damage, but he acted completely appropriately. They were trying to keep mercenaries from stealing a bioweapon when the Wakandans were killed. That the government was using these as examples of why the Accords should happen, especially when two of them put the government in a very bad light, calls into question their judgment.

2. The Accords weren't in good faith. They wanted to control the superhuman factor at a level that just wasn't feasible. Sometimes events have a short timetable, and The Avengers can't simply wait for the U.N. to get up to speed and vote because the stakes are too huge. It was a case of the world being afraid of things that were beyond their control and wanting to believe that they could control it, and if that's what they want to tell themselves at night, fine, but when they act on it with potentially dire consequences, it's like a child who wants to send their parents to jail for not letting them eat candy all day.

Steve was open to the idea of an adapted version of the Accords, too; he was just unwilling to accept the current one and lost faith that Tony was the one to fix the situation. And in the meantime, when he wasn't going to sign and wasn't a government agent, he was operating on his own. They made it into a "you're either with us or against us" situation. So he acted outside of the law to keep anyone from getting killed. Then, after Bucky escaped from custody, the situation changed because of Zemo. It could have been set up in a way that I'd agree Steve was wrong; after getting away from the apartment, Steve and Bucky could gotten away, and Tony or Natasha could have tried to get them to come in peacefully, and Steve could have refused because "the safest hands are still my own". But they kept putting him in situations where I totally saw where he was coming from.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
But don't tell me Steve didn't sell his other friends out for Bucky. He didn't tell Tony of his parents because of Bucky. He didn't tell Tony, what he was up to later (anywhere during the movie actually not only about the 5 Winder Soldiers but also about Bucharest), because of Bucky. And when he asked Hawkeye to get he asked him for help, not only because of Bucky but also very much for himself, and made him a wanted fugitive that will have trouble visiting his family for a while, because he was to proud or to dense or to what ever to ask Tony instead. (Same goes for Scott, but Scott was Sams idea.)


I agree with him about not telling Tony about his parents, like I said. That's not an easy choice to make, the film has plenty of hard choices, but sometimes you have to make a choice between what what friend "needs" (I mean, technically, it wasn't like Tony was bad off because he didn't know) and what another friend needs. I wouldn't call it selling him out because that implies it was the wrong thing to do under the circumstances.

Not telling Tony what he's doing definitely isn't selling him out, because how is he harming Tony in that situation? Plus Tony aligned himself with the Accords, and Steve was acting outside of the law. Tony made his choice, and Steve respected it. Keep in mind that Steve considered this issue largely about freedom, so he let Clint/Wanda/Scott make up their own minds about whether they wanted to live under the Accords or defy them, and their choice was to defy them. At that point, it wasn't about Bucky, either; it was about stopping Zemo. They could have had it where Steve called in help to get Bucky to safety, but they didn't.

Quote:
No... it doesn't make Tony a hypocrite. Because Tony by signing the Accords pretty much admitted, that he KNOWS, the safest hands are not his own. And when he breaks the Accords it's entirely on him. He doesn't act under the mantle of the Avengers, and he doesn't try to excuse his actions by: what if the whole world was in danger and I couldn't do anything against it, because the Accords. He acted against the accords because he thought his friends needed help. At that point it's as personal for Tony as it is for Steve. At that point, the major difference between Tony and Steve is, that Tony doesn't take a team along. He doesn't demand of the government to understand that he's right and they are wrong. Because he knows that at this moment, he's acting not based on right and wrong, but on entirely personal reasons.
If the movie was about Tony saying superhumans shouldn't be forced to endanger themselves (to the contrary, the Accords tell The Avengers what they have to do), and then he chose to endanger himself, he wouldn't be doing anything wrong. His idea of protecting everyone was to control them and then to punish them for not doing what they're told, but then he doesn't do what he's told. Him keeping his teammates out of it (if that's even why he did it) doesn't make it okay, because it's not about safety, it's about choice. And after he went to Siberia, did he turn himself over to Ross, admit that he broke the Accords, and turn himself over to be imprisoned because he believed in the Accords? No, he went on about his business while leaving Clint and the others to rot in prison for doing the same thing. Oh, but he's protecting them. He's such a caring overlord.

Quote:
Also by the simple fact that Tony was not in prison during homecoming we can assume that the Accords are not half as strict if you go against them, if you've signed them before and show that you're willing to work for them under normal circumstances.
This is making an assumption that isn't demonstrated in the film, that the government knows anything about what Tony did. If Tony had already admitted to Ross that he broke his precious rules, do you think he'd be messing with him by pretending to put him on hold?

Quote:
No... It's Tony's parents. And you're telling me Tony has no right to know what happened to his parents? Steve not telling Tony was coward, don't turn it into something good and right when it's not. If somebody walks around killing people, it's not a personal matter. You don't gt to keep silent about it, to protect the killer from hard feelings. EVEN if that man had no choice in the matter. But that's not how privacy works.
Given no other concerns, I would tell Tony, although there's risk involved since it's not automatically the case that the person would want to know. However, I don't think letting Tony know is some all-consuming important thing that trumps everything else.

Quote:
EVEN IF we are to assume, that Tony couldn't have forgiven Bucky until they met in Siberia... That situation would be entirely different, because Tony would be way more inclined to listen to Steve and hits explanations, than he was in the movie. In the movie he just found out that he was in a room with two guys, one killed his parents, and the other was somebody he called friend, who didn't tell him about it, because apparently Bucky was the better friend. Had Steve told him about his parents, at that point, Tony and Steve would still be friends. The way it happened however, Tony was more hurt at Steve than at Bucky. And none of them even tried to apologize. Instead Cap tells Tony that he did it, because Bucky was his friends, as if this made it right... hearing that Cap 'betrayed' him, because Bucky was obviously the better friend - that's gotta sting. They did nothing to appease Tony. They just assumed that he'd have to understand their position, when they didn't even try to get themselves into his shoes.
Steve had no way of knowing that situation would happen. Obviously it was a bad way for things to end, but for any choice, especially a difficult one, you can craft a resulting scenario that paints it in a bad light. What if Steve tells Tony, and then Tony starts drinking and becomes an alcoholic, and then he makes a mistake and millions die? Man, what was Steve thinking, telling him that?

At the time that Cap said Bucky's his friend, Tony was trying to kill Bucky. At that point, if it were me, the friendship between me and Tony would be well and truly severed, and I wouldn't care if I hurt his feelings or not. I admire Steve, but I'm more like Clint, and I think it says so much about Steve that after all that he wrote Tony a letter and apologized. It's only when dealing with an extreme boy scout/saint like Steve that it makes any sense to criticize him for not knowing the right thing to say while him and his friend are being attacked.

Got to go for now.

Fincher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 06:22 PM   #68
Ceies
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
I'm not against the idea of some policies being in place, certain scenarios outlined where The Avengers need to get permission as well as ways that they can be punished after the fact if their actions are shown to be unacceptable.
And that's all I'm saying. At no point did they actually say that what the Avengers did - ever was wrong. (Aside from Tony who again admitted that Sokovia was his fault.) They just said that, whether it was right or wrong, people still died. And that's what I think it's all about. Not about 'You did this! Now pay for it!' But more about 'How could we have done it better?' And yeah, the Government itself made very questionabl choices, but a) those weren't choices of the UN. And when the UN gives the avengers a hard day about New York, it's got nothing to do with the WSC that sent the Nuke. It wasn't the UN who did that, as far as I know. And b) it's not about that. Nobody denied that what they did in New York was great. But had the police in New York known what was going on, the moment the Avengers found out about it, they could have maybe helped evacuate, before the avengers arrived on the scene, told them what to do, and then first had to proof to the police, that they should actually listen to Cap. This could have gone easier.
Just like Sokovia or Lagos or all those incidents could have gone way better, if local authorities or neighboring countries knew what was going on as early as possible, and not just when the bad guy exploded on their market place or the city fell from the sky.

Oh and from what I remember, they didn't really know about the bioweapon, when they went to Lagos, did they? Sounded as if they thought, Rumlow wanted to attack the police, and only when he actually attacked that lab, they knew about it...

Quote:
The Accords weren't in good faith. They wanted to control the superhuman factor at a level that just wasn't feasible. Sometimes events have a short timetable, and The Avengers can't simply wait for the U.N. to get up to speed and vote because the stakes are too huge.
No... that was to a great part added to the Movie later. You're someone who doesn't care about what the russos say outside of the film... Well, they don't really say that much about the Accords either. Nothing about superhuman factor or registration or anything of such kind. The thing they discuss is only the Avengers and who should be in control of them.
And while you're right, that sometimes they need to act fast, I think this might be factors that can be amended afterwards. It's not like the Avengers hadn't been controlled by a international commitee before with Shield. And it worked back then. So it is possible. Also while I keep hearing this argument, it has no base on the film. Rhodey interfered in Bucharest immediately. And Tony needed like 10 minutes to get his permission to go after Cap. Despite Ross having legitimate doubt in the Avenger's trustworthyness at that point. Of course we assume it would take time, because that's politics. But in the movies it works just fine, and with Shield it worked as well.

Quote:
it's like a child who wants to send their parents to jail for not letting them eat candy all day.
So the world is the child and the Avengers are the parents? The only difference is, that the 'child' here is an adult and the 'parents' only advantage is that they are physically stronger. It's giving the world into the hands of the strongest people - not those most capable or those elected by the people. It's also how tyranny works. I know Cap's a good guy, but even if he calls all the shots just to protect the world, it's still tyranny in a way. It's like Tony wanting to keep Wanda under house arrest to protect her, only he does it to the whole world. Somehow it's a bad thing, when Tony does it.

Quote:
Steve was open to the idea of an adapted version of the Accords, too; he was just unwilling to accept the current one and lost faith that Tony was the one to fix the situation.
Well had he actually shown that he was open to the idea of the accords and not went against them the first chance he got, then maybe Tony wouldn't need to be the guy fixing the situation. Steve could do it himself. He has a mouth, right. He can tell people what he doesn't like about the Accords and what he could work with. Instead he's like a child who doesn't want to compromise and instead plants himself like a tree.

Quote:
And in the meantime, when he wasn't going to sign and wasn't a government agent, he was operating on his own.
But he wasn't operating on his own. He had Falcon with him. And helped the wanted fugitive stay away from the public. Oh and then he assembled his own team. How is that operating on your own, when you're pretty much having the same avengers to follow you you had before, only missing Nat and Rhodey.

Quote:
But they kept putting him in situations where I totally saw where he was coming from.
Oh I told you, I could see where he was coming from. I understand him completely. But I think he called some poor shots nonetheless. I also think he's to blame for those poor shots he called himself. And I think he could have done a lot better.
Lastly I think, that it's okay to make mistakes and call poor shots. But if you're part of the avengers you should try to make as few mistakes and poor shots as possible. And when it's not entirely possible to prevent them, then at least the right people should have the right to make those bad calls.
And someone has to make the decision who lives, who dies, where do the avengers go and when... but it shouldn't be Steve.

Quote:
I agree with him about not telling Tony about his parents, like I said. That's not an easy choice to make, the film has plenty of hard choices, but sometimes you have to make a choice between what what friend "needs" (I mean, technically, it wasn't like Tony was bad off because he didn't know) and what another friend needs.
It's not like Bucky needed him to stay quiet either. Technically he'd be better off had Tony known. Everyone would have been, because the final fight could have been prevented. But I guess we have to agree to disagree on that one.

Quote:
Keep in mind that Steve considered this issue largely about freedom, so he let Clint/Wanda/Scott make up their own minds about whether they wanted to live under the Accords or defy them, and their choice was to defy them.
Did he? Scott sounded very much like he didn't ask twice after Falcon asked for help. And it's not like you could read and understand the accords in those few hours he had. (judging by how thick that document was.) And Hawkeye was retired. He had nothing to do with the Accords. Just like Scott at that point, as not member of the Avengers - for all we know about the Accords from the movie - had nothing to do with them.

Quote:
If the movie was about Tony saying superhumans shouldn't be forced to endanger themselves (to the contrary, the Accords tell The Avengers what they have to do), and then he chose to endanger himself, he wouldn't be doing anything wrong. His idea of protecting everyone was to control them and then to punish them for not doing what they're told, but then he doesn't do what he's told. Him keeping his teammates out of it (if that's even why he did it) doesn't make it okay, because it's not about safety, it's about choice. And after he went to Siberia, did he turn himself over to Ross, admit that he broke the Accords, and turn himself over to be imprisoned because he believed in the Accords? No, he went on about his business while leaving Clint and the others to rot in prison for doing the same thing. Oh, but he's protecting them. He's such a caring overlord.
what superhumans endanger themselves? This is only about the Avengers. If you don't want to be an Avenger the UN - as far as we know - can't force you to do anything. And it's a choice to become an Avenger or to stop being one.
And no... Tony was not about control and punish. He was the one who tried to get Steve out of custody by making that deal that they could just go on do their thing, if they just signed. He also didn't know about the Raft and what it was about, until he got there. And lastly he didn't keep Wanda in Stark Tower, to punish her. Not a single time was he the one to actually punish anybody or demanding they be punished. Where did you get that idea. It's not like he was hunting down Bucky to punish him, before he actually got the job to do it. It's not like he hunted them down afterwards. And i really doubt he cares that they escaped custody one bit. He wants consequences yeah. But not on the people, but on the protocols. He wants to work with Steve on this, that's why he basically begs him to sign. But he also knows that to make those Accords work, you can't just go against them without being punished, and that the UN and the governments wouldn't just accept that.
When they get against the accords, and they get punished for it - not by tony, but the officials - it's on them. When they go against the accords, and nobody finds out about it or nobody catches them... good for them. He didn't hunt down Natasha either, did he? They just exchanged some venomous words then he let her go.
Also he's not protecting them. If they make their choice he stops protecting them. He tried to protect Wanda, but when she made her choice he stopped doing that. Why wouldn't he? He's not her father.

Steve had no way of knowing that situation would happen. Obviously it was a bad way for things to end, but for any choice, especially a difficult one, you can craft a resulting scenario that paints it in a bad light. What if Steve tells Tony, and then Tony starts drinking and becomes an alcoholic, and then he makes a mistake and millions die? Man, what was Steve thinking, telling him that?

Quote:
It's only when dealing with an extreme boy scout/saint like Steve that it makes any sense to criticize him for not knowing the right thing to say while him and his friend are being attacked.
No. I'd critizise everyone for it. You don't get me. I understand what he did, why he did it. But it's hypocritical to call out Tony for trying to kill Bucky when he was put into this situation and nobody really did a good job to appease him. I understand Steve, but just as much do I understand Tony. He did fail to tell Tony sooner and he failed to apologize, when he had the chance. He also failed to explain it to him properly, that didn't sound like a weak excuse. Because 'It wasn't him' is a weak excuse, when it's totally him. I don't say he could have appeased him... But he didn't do a good job trying. And I don't really blame him... But neither do I blame Tony for reacting the way he did.

Ceies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 09:13 PM   #69
TheVileOne
Side-Kick
 
TheVileOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 53,203
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

It was arrogant of Cap to think they could do it all themselves without any oversight. There's no accountability.

__________________
"This is true. This is real. This . . . Is . . . Straight Edge."

- CM Punk
TheVileOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2017, 09:54 PM   #70
Fincher
Too far gone
 
Fincher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
I'm thinking you didn't understand the movie. Tony wasn't the bad guy. Neither was Cap. Both were just repeatedly falling for Zemo's trap and in the rest of the movie were disagreeing about political issues. So disagreeing with the hero on an issue that's very difficult, makes you a bad guy automatically.
Tony during Civil War didn't badly hurt nor kill anybody. He also wasn't the guy puting his ex comrades into the Raft. He didn't know about the raft. The possibly worst things he did was putting Wanda on house arrest without her knowing, which she seemed to utterly enjoy until she found out she shouldn't leave the house. And flipping his **** and trying to kill Bucky in the end.
Tony wasn't the badguy; he was a badguy. I don't care if that was what was intended; as far as I'm concerned, his behavior was badguy behavior. He kidnapped Wanda, and it doesn't make it okay that he kidnapped her because it was a nice place or he had good intentions in mind while doing it. He actually did badly hurt someone when he had Vision shoot at Falcon, but my concern isn't with who he ultimately (accidentally, in that case) hurt. He deliberately tried to murder Bucky. He stalked him for several minutes, adapting his strategy, fighting off someone else in the process. By American law, that would be 2nd degree murder at least. And I don't know what you meant by it being hypocritical, but I absolutely will judge him for it whether or not he was appeased by Steve the way he wanted. Murdering someone when you haven't been given an apology isn't something you're entitled to by any means whatsoever.

Quote:
He acted on little intel. The reason for that is only secondary. And the government being wrong about Bucky had nothing to do with his intel. If he hadn't made it all about Bucky, he could have asked the government (or only personal friends) for help regardless of what they thought of Bucky. Don't make it all about others, when Steve had all the cards in his own hands. He had the knowledge about the WS, he had Bucky, he knew what Zemo had told him, and he had the numbers of his fellow avengers and friends with the UN and the government. The government hat none of that, so he was the one to call the shots...
Even if the government was willing to follow the leads if Steve brought Bucky in, even if they weren't going to kill him on sight for something he didn't do, bringing him in would open him up to the potential of being given the trigger commands by anyone else who might have infiltrated the government.

Quote:
Oh come on... Sam followed Steve because he was Steve's friend. And he was the first who didn't want to talk to Tony, for whatever reason. So why should Tony think: Oh if Sam's there, something's gotta be up.
Clint and Scott much the same came when Cap called them. They didn't even need to be recruited personally. Tony even went to Queens himself. Scott just came running because it was Captain America. I doubt he knew the first thing about the Accords or Bucky or the Winter Soldier. And of course none of them had better arguments for what they did then Steve.
It's no coincidence that Tony later asked Falcon about what was really going on, not Clint, whom he actually knew much better, because Falcon was probably the only one who knew the entire story.
Why would Tony base his decision on Sam not wanting to tell him when Tony didn't know that? And if I understand right, you're saying that Tony's thinking is, "Steve is being completely unreasonable because Bucky's his friend, so I shouldn't bother entertaining his claims, and if Clint's following him, it must be because Steve's so reliable that he wouldn't even question it, even though Bucky's Steve's friend." I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm not sure how Tony can be dismissive of Steve and at the same time expect others to follow him without question, unless he has a low opinion of Clint to begin with. And Wanda, for that matter. Or maybe something to do with that petty jealousy when he was talking about how his father used to talk about Cap.

Incidentally, I think he went to Sam instead of Clint because Clint was having nothing to do with him.

Quote:
And Cap wasn't really trying to tell Tony anything. He made a weak attempt, but stopped when Black Panther arrived on the scene and didn't really try to go on explaining, until Tony called Peter. Then the fighting started. You could argue that Black Panther's arrival was kinda ill timed, but well, if that's all that's needed to keep Steve from talking, it obviously wasn't important enough. And everything else was very much in between punches. Plus Cap was listening probably as good as Tony was. When Spidey repeated, what Tony told him about he situation, it's not like it made Cap think for a second.
I don't remember specifics enough to say what happened and when, but I do know he tried to tell them twice and was shut down twice. Tony got angry and said his judgment was askew when he hadn't even explained it yet, and then when he brought up the five winter soldiers, Natasha said something like, "Do you really want to do this?" They didn't demonstrate any willingness to listen. The way they were acting, do you really think that if he started in on some long spiel that suddenly they'd turn open-minded and stand there and listen to the whole thing? Or is he supposed to just talk over them and hope they pick enough of it up and that they won't try to web him up some more in the meantime?

Quote:
No it's not. Actually it didn't take long for Rhodey to get involved in Bucharest. They chose not to involve the Avengers getting Bucky into custody, which is argueable, but reasonable given the current state of the avengers - seperated into two parties, only half of them acknoledging the authority of the UN, one of them best buddies with the suspect... but as soon as it got out of hand it didn't take long for them to send Rhodey, did it?

But then again the Accords aren't perfect yet, they need ammends and should probably go to many different versions until they work properly. That's why I say, that the Zemo-insident was very ill-timed (or well-timed from Zemo's perspective) because at that point the Accords were kind of still in the making and a very experimental phase. They didn't work, because most of the avengers didn't sign them, and the other half had their hands full trying to deal with their 'rogue' comrades and because they weren't really implemented yet. I mean the very UN-assembly that should have talked about the Accords was bombed, so... no wonder everything was a bit chaotic.
Were The Accords even officially implemented yet? They said that The Avengers would be subject to United Nations approval, they had the U.N. meeting to ratify it, the building was bombed just as the meeting was getting started, and then later General Ross, not the U.N., was instructing the Avengers to arrest Cap and his team.

General Ross: It states, that the Avengers shall no longer be a private organization. Instead, they'll operate under the supervision of a United Nations Panel, only when and if that Panel deems it necessary.

Quote:
Why wouldn't a 'both are kind of right/wrong' situation work for you? Because it's not within Cap's character, or because it's a Cap-movie?
House of Sand and Fog is one of my favorite movies, and it's the sort of movie we're talking about. It's also a drama, and I think dramas and thrillers are better suited to this approach because they spend a lot of time on character and dialogue, so it's easier to get invested in what the characters are doing even though they're not always right.

Civil War has a lot of action. It's also long, but then it has a lot of characters. And action itself worked better when I have someone to cheer for. If I'm watching the airfield fight and thinking, "Neither side is really right. It would be better if they weren't fighting, but who wins doesn't matter so much because they both have their points," instead of thinking, "Yeah, Cap, show 'em who's boss," then I'm not as into the fight. Plus Cap as a hero is one of the MCU's strong points, so having him there and electing not to make him heroic is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Quote:
Oh and from what I remember, they didn't really know about the bioweapon, when they went to Lagos, did they? Sounded as if they thought, Rumlow wanted to attack the police, and only when he actually attacked that lab, they knew about it...
No, but their decision to go into a crowded marketplace was made after they did know.

Quote:
No... that was to a great part added to the Movie later. You're someone who doesn't care about what the russos say outside of the film... Well, they don't really say that much about the Accords either. Nothing about superhuman factor or registration or anything of such kind. The thing they discuss is only the Avengers and who should be in control of them.
I didn't mean that they wanted to directly control the existence of superhumans, but that they were frightened that things were getting so out of control with aliens and Hydra and everything and thought that being in charge of The Avengers would give them control that it won't. Infinity War is probably going to put things in perspective.

Quote:
So the world is the child and the Avengers are the parents? The only difference is, that the 'child' here is an adult and the 'parents' only advantage is that they are physically stronger. It's giving the world into the hands of the strongest people - not those most capable or those elected by the people. It's also how tyranny works. I know Cap's a good guy, but even if he calls all the shots just to protect the world, it's still tyranny in a way. It's like Tony wanting to keep Wanda under house arrest to protect her, only he does it to the whole world. Somehow it's a bad thing, when Tony does it.
The world is acting like children. I don't think The Avengers should be in charge of everything, but they're being second guessed by people who haven't dealt with the things they've dealt with and expect everything to go perfectly, and when it doesn't go perfectly they decide that they know better and should make all the decisions. I'm an adult, I'm free to live my own life, but I don't claim to know more about nuclear power than someone who works in a nuclear power plant. If there's a meltdown, yeah, you're going to ask questions, you're going to want to know if someone made a mistake and what could maybe be done to improve safety, but I wouldn't want to walk in there and say, "Okay, I'm in charge now. Anything you do has to be run by me first," because I have enough self-awareness to know that I don't know.

And they didn't even consult with The Avengers before writing this thing up. You can talk about them making revisions, but that was what Tony was saying. Neither Ross nor anyone else from the government ever indicated they were interested in changing it, and if we're to believe that Tony didn't know about The Raft, that suggests that maybe he didn't understand the situation too well.

Quote:
And no... Tony was not about control and punish. He was the one who tried to get Steve out of custody by making that deal that they could just go on do their thing, if they just signed. He also didn't know about the Raft and what it was about, until he got there. And lastly he didn't keep Wanda in Stark Tower, to punish her. Not a single time was he the one to actually punish anybody or demanding they be punished. Where did you get that idea. It's not like he was hunting down Bucky to punish him, before he actually got the job to do it. It's not like he hunted them down afterwards. And i really doubt he cares that they escaped custody one bit. He wants consequences yeah. But not on the people, but on the protocols. He wants to work with Steve on this, that's why he basically begs him to sign. But he also knows that to make those Accords work, you can't just go against them without being punished, and that the UN and the governments wouldn't just accept that.
Tony knew they were going to prison, he said so himself. And maybe Tony's specific goal wasn't punishing them, but he wasn't just stopping them from doing something he ended up doing himself, which would be patronizing enough. He was willing to fight them to stop them, to hand them over to a government that would imprison them. He held Wanda captive because he deemed it was for her own good, because he put his judgment of what she should do ahead of her own. Meanwhile, Cap let his friends decide what they wanted to do.

Fincher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2017, 12:19 AM   #71
Fincher
Too far gone
 
Fincher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

I went ahead and looked up the airfield dialogue. This is all before Spider-Man came in.

Steve: Hear me out, Tony. That doctor, the psychiatrist, he's behind all of this.

T'challa: Captain.

Steve: Your highness.

Tony: Anyway, Ross gave me 36 hours to bring you in. That was 24 hours ago. Can you help a brother out?

Steve: You're after the wrong guy.

Tony: Your judgment is askew. Your war buddy killed innocent people yesterday.

Steve: And there are 5 more super soldiers just like him. I can't let the doctor find them first, Tony. I can't.

Natasha: Steve. You know what's about to happen. Do you really want to punch your way out of this one?

Tony: All right, I've run out of patience. Underoos!

Fincher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2017, 08:53 AM   #72
Ceies
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
He deliberately tried to murder Bucky. He stalked him for several minutes, adapting his strategy, fighting off someone else in the process. By American law, that would be 2nd degree murder at least. And I don't know what you meant by it being hypocritical, but I absolutely will judge him for it whether or not he was appeased by Steve the way he wanted. Murdering someone when you haven't been given an apology isn't something you're entitled to by any means whatsoever.
I don't say, it is okay, what he did. I disagree about second degree murder and would put it on anger, because fighting for a few minutes or not, anger is anger. But I have no idea of American Law. And even if, it's not understandable, it's not right. I don't say that. But the situation as a whole is not entirely on him regardless. Tony had a very human reaction, very predictable too in this kind of situation. But, while it's not right, it could have been prevented. That doesn't make it better, what he did, I agree. But just because Tony screwed up, Cap isn't exempt of the blame. Not on a legal issue, because legally it's probably all on Tony, but morally it's not.

If you'd make the movie a legal issue... Then Cap has a whole lot of criminal charges against him, while Tony only has his attempted murder at best. There's illegally entering a whole bunch of countries, fighting law enforcement officers, helping a wanted fugitive, fighting the 'legal' Avengers (whether that counts as lawenforcement officers or even an act of war, who knows), again resisting arrest, stealing a plane, criminal damage, endangering traffic....... (sorry if I don't use the correct legal terms, as my motherlanguage isn't english^^) Somehow we're suddenly speaking of legal issues, when all the time before we didn't?

Quote:
Even if the government was willing to follow the leads if Steve brought Bucky in, even if they weren't going to kill him on sight for something he didn't do, bringing him in would open him up to the potential of being given the trigger commands by anyone else who might have infiltrated the government.
So just... take him and hunt down the only person, who we and steve know has the Trigger words, because should he barricade behind his five Winter Soldiers and speak the trigger words from his little Bunker, it's not like they'd be able to stop him in time. I'm sorry, but between Zemo and the government, at that point the greater risk of somebody using the trigger words is the guy who actually has them.
And this is the same paranoia that keeps Cap from signing the accords. And I'd agree, If I'd think, that we should look at moral and political issues differently, just becaus this is a comic book world. But I don't. I don't think that morals or politics should be different there. And I don't think, that different rules should apply to these people, just because they are superheroes. And while I think there are cultural differences in different countries, but if this was in my world, I'd want these people to answer some kind of authority and not do their own thing, becaus they can't trust anybody else.

Quote:
Why would Tony base his decision on Sam not wanting to tell him when Tony didn't know that? And if I understand right, you're saying that Tony's thinking is, "Steve is being completely unreasonable because Bucky's his friend, so I shouldn't bother entertaining his claims, and if Clint's following him, it must be because Steve's so reliable that he wouldn't even question it, even though Bucky's Steve's friend." I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm not sure how Tony can be dismissive of Steve and at the same time expect others to follow him without question, unless he has a low opinion of Clint to begin with. And Wanda, for that matter.
No, but I think he doubts Clint has the complete picture, which is reasonable considering he just came out of retirement. And that is why he later askes Falcon, because Falcon is the only one who was there from the beginning. And you're wrong when you say, Tony didn't listen to Steve, because obviously he did. He just wasn't willing to believe him blindly, which is reasonable, considering Cap was even before that doing stupid things like fighting the Police, to safe Bucky who, according to him, hasn't bombed the UN. But he never gave any proof about that. His arguements were like: Bucky's my friend, he wouldn't do that. That's not evidence, that's not even a good arguement, and while he was right, at that point everyhing spoke against him, and Cap didn't really offer anything to proof it. And when he finally had some better information, he refused to share it with Tony when the time was right.
Oh and I didn't mean Tony based his decision on Sam not wanting to tell him. Of course he didn't know about that. What I mean, is that this really looked as if Sam and Tony had serious trust issues. They hardly know each other, never really worked together. So I guessed this mistrust Sam has in Tony was also felt the other way round. If not... if they were old pals, and Sam just didn't want to call him becaus of politics... well that would be just sad.


Quote:
They didn't demonstrate any willingness to listen. The way they were acting, do you really think that if he started in on some long spiel that suddenly they'd turn open-minded and stand there and listen to the whole thing?
No, they didn't demonstrate much willingness to listen, because a) it was the middle of the fight and b) it wouldn't have helped, even if Steve told the entire story, because Tony still needed to stop him from leaving that airport.
And c) Steve listened as little as Tony did. Because Tony TOLD him he had a timelimit to bring him im. And he told him Bucky killed people. And Steve doesn't even react to it, and wants to keep bringing Bucky - whom he hasn't explained, why he's not a lethal time bomb, just waiting to be triggered again - on his little tour.

Let me give you a possibl scenario: Tony, because he doesn't know ****, is not given evidence and proof, just blindly believes Steve, becaus it's Steve. He let's him go. **** goes down, as it goes down in the Story, Steve acts on bad intel, the Winter Soldiers are no threat at all, Steve takes Bucky (and the rest of his team) and flees. Black Panther would have probably still fought Cap at the airport and be hellbent on revenge. So he'd tell the UN, that Tony, who promised to bring them in in 36 hours has just betrayed them. Just like Rhoedy, Vission, Nat and Spiderman (who we presume follow Tony's lead). The UN is furious, because had Tony not givven that promise, they'd have sent their killing squad, who granted might have had some losses, but maybe they'd been able to eliminate a few of Team Cap. So they trusted in Tony and Tony and the superheroes who seemed willing to follow authority let them down... betrayed them knowingly and willingly. So obviously the Accords are wrong at this point, because you can't work with those people, who don't follow their orders, just because someone they like better tells them to ignore them. So Black Panther of course, because he needed Tony to follow Cap later on, to find Bucky, wouldn't arrive on the scene and wouldn't catch Zemo. Zemo'd shoot himself with no evidence what so ever to his evil plan. Yeah, they could possibly piece parts of it together, because of the dead doctor, but no confession, so no proof Bucky wasn't behind the bombing... And also no real evidence what actually made him escape custody. For all they knew, Bucky, Cap, Falcon and Zemo could have been coconspirators. And three of those four are still on the run. So of course, they file warrants for those three, and the rest of the team. While Tony's team would have to stand trial for treason - possible - or aiding terrorists, or whatever they'd blame them for. So Tony and Co. either go to the Raft themselves, or they flee too. Whatever they do, the media will do everything to make them look like the bad guys here, and it's not to hard when you show pictures of the bombing, of Cap beating down the police, or of Bucky killing people in Berlin, or them beatint the Black Panther into submission on the air port. Of course some would say: But that's Cap, he wouldnt do that! But most people believe what they see in the media, especially when given solid looking proof. And the tension was high before. It's not like the Accords were drafted in a moment of utter trust in the Avengers. So... So the normal humans hate the avengers, because, yeah, they saved the world once, and they are thankfull, but obviously all that fame did go over their heads. Back then they still worked with the government, now they think they can do it all on their own. But wait... that weren't only Avengers. There's also that Spiderkid and the guy who shrinks. Who the heck are those? never seen them before. Definitally no Avengers. So maybe it's not the Avengers who are in over their heads, but all of those super powered freaks. And like this you have the general public afraid and distrusting of all superheroes, and the next version of the accords will be way worse. Of course Accords or no... the UN doesn't really have the means to find and capture or kill all those superpowered beings, unless they recruit some as well. They'll probably find some, too... but well, mostly it will be a very hateful campagne with a few bloody fights, that would end in the utter defeat of the UN.
Still... Captain America fighting against UN-forces, that's bad. Very bad. And it looks bad too... And how'd they explain this to the public? "Yeah you know Bucky here, the alleged UN-Bomber. Yeah, I know he was a Assasin for 70 years, but it's not his fault. Absolutely not. And he didn't bomb the UN, nor did he kill those people in Berlin. Oh well I guess he did, but it wasn't him. He's my friend, and I can't proof it anymore, but I promise, you can trust me in this: He's one of the good guys. I guess that is difficult to believe, because right... Bucharest... that was him... or us, I guess. But I couldn't let the police kill OR capture him, because he was innocent. I could have proven it before... but back than I decided to take matters into my own hands. Was mistaken then, Zemo didn't really plan anything. But you know, better safe then sorry, right. So yeah. Iron Man understood this. He knows me, and knows I'm one of the good guys. Well, I guess you people don't know me, but I'm really only trying what I think is right... And us answering to the authorities... that's just wrong. I told them so, but they wouldn't listen... Guess the whole debate was over very quickly though, because when I first tried to argue about them, I had to leave very early for a funeral, and after that **** started hitting the fen. So there was really no time to talk about it... But, yeah. They were wrong, we were right, and if you don't see that... well. But don't fret, if the Alien attack the next time, we'll be there to help."


Quote:
Were The Accords even officially implemented yet? They said that The Avengers would be subject to United Nations approval, they had the U.N. meeting to ratify it, the building was bombed just as the meeting was getting started, and then later General Ross, not the U.N., was instructing the Avengers to arrest Cap and his team.
That's one of the issues I have, with the movie. Because this was really unclear. As far as they said, 100+ Nations, and Tony and Nat had already signed. So it sounds as if at least within the borders of those nations, they were implemented. So I assumed that assembly was about... probably some ammendments, and a few more nations signing? But it was really difficult to understand. But that's the only reason, why Tony would beg Ross to let him deal with Cap, and not just do it. But that's what I mean with very bad timing, because they were still somewhere between drafting them, implementing them, establishing protocolls and yeah... Ross taking the lead makes no sense whatsoever.
I agree with you there... I also complained about that for a while, but I guess it's a inconsistency of the movie.

Quote:
House of Sand and Fog is one of my favorite movies, and it's the sort of movie we're talking about. It's also a drama, and I think dramas and thrillers are better suited to this approach because they spend a lot of time on character and dialogue, so it's easier to get invested in what the characters are doing even though they're not always right.
I think I didn't watch that movie but sounds interesting. Anyway you're right that there's a lot of action and it's great to have somebody to cheer for... nothing wrong with that. But they also have a bunch of great dialogue and emotion in it and through the prior movies we know those characters well. And while I too in those action scenes lean heavily on one side (Tony's in my case), when they are talking about the Accords I can't help but think both have a point. I lean more towards Tony's arguments, because I'm more of a head-person, like he is, but Cap is always very morally correct, which also has it's appeal.

Quote:
I didn't mean that they wanted to directly control the existence of superhumans, but that they were frightened that things were getting so out of control with aliens and Hydra and everything and thought that being in charge of The Avengers would give them control that it won't. Infinity War is probably going to put things in perspective.
Of course Infnity War will be huge... When their are aliens invading, they need the Avengers, they know that. And probably every other hero on that planet too... But in between global scale alien attacks, the Avengers obviously spend ther passtime hunting down 'normal' criminals, or singular super villains. And there's not really a protocol in place for those things. Because when they work in Nigeria, or Germany or wherever, they should get in contact with those governments immediately. And they should have to answer to those governments, as much as possible.

Quote:
I'm an adult, I'm free to live my own life, but I don't claim to know more about nuclear power than someone who works in a nuclear power plant. If there's a meltdown, yeah, you're going to ask questions, you're going to want to know if someone made a mistake and what could maybe be done to improve safety, but I wouldn't want to walk in there and say, "Okay, I'm in charge now. Anything you do has to be run by me first," because I have enough self-awareness to know that I don't know.
But the Government still has a oversight panel over nuclear plants, hasn't it? It's made up probably of a mix of politicians, and experts. Just like they have politicians in charge of the military, the police, the educational sector, health and environment issues, economy and so on. At least where I life. Of course the level of control varies from nation to nation, but is there a single nation, where the generals actually decide which country to invade or where to fight next - that is not a militaristic dictatorship? You might like it or not, but the government and the elected officials have oversight over most of the issues going on within their borders. So why should the Avengers be different.
And the Accords would have been a great chance to get that, if the Superheroes were willing to listen. You could make a panel, partly made up of politicians, partly possibly of retired Superheroes like Hawkeye and Tony, with a bit of authority with the Avengers themselves, and it could work out fine, or go completely wrong, but I think they should at least try it. Because it did WORK with shield for the most part, even though shield was a hydra infiltrated nest of bad guys.

Quote:
And they didn't even consult with The Avengers before writing this thing up.
Yeah, which is weird. Also weird that it didn't get to the surface through the media or anything. I agree that a lot with the accords were somewhat fishy. Like the Avengers learning about it so late, Tony not knowing about the Raft, Ross being in charge, the whole thing being apparently in affect despite the bombing of the UN-assembly... But I don't know how much of that was on the film makers, how much was planned, how much should actually be of concern... And very few of those things were actually brought up during the discussions between the Avengers, that are basically everything we have on insight on the accords.

Ceies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2017, 04:13 PM   #73
Fincher
Too far gone
 
Fincher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceies View Post
I don't say, it is okay, what he did. I disagree about second degree murder and would put it on anger, because fighting for a few minutes or not, anger is anger. But I have no idea of American Law. And even if, it's not understandable, it's not right. I don't say that. But the situation as a whole is not entirely on him regardless. Tony had a very human reaction, very predictable too in this kind of situation. But, while it's not right, it could have been prevented. That doesn't make it better, what he did, I agree. But just because Tony screwed up, Cap isn't exempt of the blame. Not on a legal issue, because legally it's probably all on Tony, but morally it's not.

If you'd make the movie a legal issue... Then Cap has a whole lot of criminal charges against him, while Tony only has his attempted murder at best. There's illegally entering a whole bunch of countries, fighting law enforcement officers, helping a wanted fugitive, fighting the 'legal' Avengers (whether that counts as lawenforcement officers or even an act of war, who knows), again resisting arrest, stealing a plane, criminal damage, endangering traffic....... (sorry if I don't use the correct legal terms, as my motherlanguage isn't english^^) Somehow we're suddenly speaking of legal issues, when all the time before we didn't?
The main reason I bring up the legal factor is because I've seen people say that Tony wasn't in control of his actions. I could maybe buy that if he was trying to kill Bucky for under ten seconds and then stormed off or whatever, but he hunted him for minutes, thinking through the best way to go about killing him, responding to Steve's comments. He made a choice, and him being angry doesn't change that. Speaking in legal terms, that he would have been guilty of murder is a law I agree with, and the Accords as it stands is a law I don't.

Quote:
So just... take him and hunt down the only person, who we and steve know has the Trigger words, because should he barricade behind his five Winter Soldiers and speak the trigger words from his little Bunker, it's not like they'd be able to stop him in time. I'm sorry, but between Zemo and the government, at that point the greater risk of somebody using the trigger words is the guy who actually has them.

And this is the same paranoia that keeps Cap from signing the accords. And I'd agree, If I'd think, that we should look at moral and political issues differently, just becaus this is a comic book world. But I don't. I don't think that morals or politics should be different there. And I don't think, that different rules should apply to these people, just because they are superheroes. And while I think there are cultural differences in different countries, but if this was in my world, I'd want these people to answer some kind of authority and not do their own thing, becaus they can't trust anybody else.
Zemo's the only one who he knows has the words, but if he's working with anyone else, then it's reasonable to act is if any of them know the trigger codes. Why would Steve even assume that Zemo's in charge, if he's the one being sent to infiltrate and gain intel/possibly break Bucky out? And him working with others is the most likely scenario, rather than him being some Machiavellian mastermind who's flying solo. That's what Steve is experienced in dealing with, militarized groups. Hydra, the Chitauri, the mercenaries who attacked the CDC. Steve's a smart guy, but he isn't going to be able to see every conceivable angle and work out which the right one is. No one figured out what Zemo was up to, Stark included. Plus if the government sends normal men and the winter soldiers are already activated like in your scenario, it's going to end badly. And one advantage of working with Bucky is that he knows the base.

There were potential pitfalls regardless of how Steve chose to play it. Did he make the best possible decision based on what he knew every step of the way? Maybe not, but there's a difference between making mistakes, acting irrationally, and acting badly. I'd agree with Steve making mistakes, but not the others.

I think if the filmmakers had even wanted to present him as being irrational (which they might not have), his judgment compromised by his friendship with Bucky, they should have made him act that way. It was Tony who was losing his temper and seeming to crack under the pressure, while Steve was calm, collected, diplomatic as ever. When the idea of telling Tony came up, Steve was thinking, and Sam first suggested that he wouldn't be able to help. That doesn't present him as paranoid, letting Bucky cloud his judgment, and dragging his friends into his mess. It would seem to me that the reason they didn't address why he didn't bring Bucky in was because they didn't bring that option up in the first place, because it wasn't a choice that the movie was focusing on, if the filmmakers even considered that option at all.

At the same time, this is held up next to Tony, who I think should be in prison for what he did. I don't consider the two comparable.

Quote:
No, but I think he doubts Clint has the complete picture, which is reasonable considering he just came out of retirement. And that is why he later askes Falcon, because Falcon is the only one who was there from the beginning. And you're wrong when you say, Tony didn't listen to Steve, because obviously he did. He just wasn't willing to believe him blindly, which is reasonable, considering Cap was even before that doing stupid things like fighting the Police, to safe Bucky who, according to him, hasn't bombed the UN. But he never gave any proof about that. His arguements were like: Bucky's my friend, he wouldn't do that. That's not evidence, that's not even a good arguement, and while he was right, at that point everyhing spoke against him, and Cap didn't really offer anything to proof it. And when he finally had some better information, he refused to share it with Tony when the time was right.

Oh and I didn't mean Tony based his decision on Sam not wanting to tell him. Of course he didn't know about that. What I mean, is that this really looked as if Sam and Tony had serious trust issues. They hardly know each other, never really worked together. So I guessed this mistrust Sam has in Tony was also felt the other way round. If not... if they were old pals, and Sam just didn't want to call him becaus of politics... well that would be just sad.
Tony doesn't have the complete picture, either. And I'm not sure how you can say that Tony was "obviously" listening to Steve.

Steve: Hear me out, Tony. That doctor, the psychiatrist, he's behind all of this.

(T'challa shows up)

Tony: Anyway, Ross gave me 36 hours to bring you in. That was 24 hours ago. Can you help a brother out?

"Anyway" is dismissive, like he doesn't care about the details of what Steve's fighting for, just bringing him in.


Steve: And there are 5 more super soldiers just like him. I can't let the doctor find them first, Tony. I can't.

(Natasha speaks)

Tony: All right, I've run out of patience.


Quote:
No, they didn't demonstrate much willingness to listen, because a) it was the middle of the fight and b) it wouldn't have helped, even if Steve told the entire story, because Tony still needed to stop him from leaving that airport.
And c) Steve listened as little as Tony did. Because Tony TOLD him he had a timelimit to bring him im. And he told him Bucky killed people. And Steve doesn't even react to it, and wants to keep bringing Bucky - whom he hasn't explained, why he's not a lethal time bomb, just waiting to be triggered again - on his little tour.
It wasn't in the middle of the fight; it was before the fight.

First, Tony should have been interested in avoiding conflict, since these are supposed to be his friends. When Natasha tried to talk Steve down, Tony didn't wait for Steve to respond. He undercut her efforts by saying he'd lost patience and bringing Spider-Man in, escalating the conflict. You were saying Steve didn't do a good job appeasing Tony in the middle of his attempts to kill Bucky, but here the situation is calm, and Tony's not making any sort of effort to appease Cap. This would be bad police behavior even if they weren't his friends.

Second, Tony knows his supposed friends are facing prosecution for aiding and abetting a terrorist when he turns them over, and that's if the world of the MCU doesn't have the Patriot Act. If Steve is speaking to some factor that Tony doesn't know about that would at least mitigate their punishment, Tony should care. He can't even be bothered with it.

Third, Tony's making quips during this conversation. He's about to arrest his friends and turn them over to the government for prosecution, and he's seeing what funny things he can say. Hey, Rhodey, isn't it funny who you run into at the airport? Hey, check out this funny name I gave Spider-Man. I'm sure they'll be laughing it up when they're behind bars. D****e.

Quote:
Let me give you a possibl scenario: Tony, because he doesn't know ****, is not given evidence and proof, just blindly believes Steve, becaus it's Steve. He let's him go. **** goes down, as it goes down in the Story, Steve acts on bad intel, the Winter Soldiers are no threat at all, Steve takes Bucky (and the rest of his team) and flees. Black Panther would have probably still fought Cap at the airport and be hellbent on revenge. So he'd tell the UN, that Tony, who promised to bring them in in 36 hours has just betrayed them. Just like Rhoedy, Vission, Nat and Spiderman (who we presume follow Tony's lead). The UN is furious, because had Tony not givven that promise, they'd have sent their killing squad, who granted might have had some losses, but maybe they'd been able to eliminate a few of Team Cap. So they trusted in Tony and Tony and the superheroes who seemed willing to follow authority let them down... betrayed them knowingly and willingly. So obviously the Accords are wrong at this point, because you can't work with those people, who don't follow their orders, just because someone they like better tells them to ignore them. So Black Panther of course, because he needed Tony to follow Cap later on, to find Bucky, wouldn't arrive on the scene and wouldn't catch Zemo. Zemo'd shoot himself with no evidence what so ever to his evil plan. Yeah, they could possibly piece parts of it together, because of the dead doctor, but no confession, so no proof Bucky wasn't behind the bombing... And also no real evidence what actually made him escape custody. For all they knew, Bucky, Cap, Falcon and Zemo could have been coconspirators. And three of those four are still on the run. So of course, they file warrants for those three, and the rest of the team. While Tony's team would have to stand trial for treason - possible - or aiding terrorists, or whatever they'd blame them for. So Tony and Co. either go to the Raft themselves, or they flee too. Whatever they do, the media will do everything to make them look like the bad guys here, and it's not to hard when you show pictures of the bombing, of Cap beating down the police, or of Bucky killing people in Berlin, or them beatint the Black Panther into submission on the air port. Of course some would say: But that's Cap, he wouldnt do that! But most people believe what they see in the media, especially when given solid looking proof. And the tension was high before. It's not like the Accords were drafted in a moment of utter trust in the Avengers. So... So the normal humans hate the avengers, because, yeah, they saved the world once, and they are thankfull, but obviously all that fame did go over their heads. Back then they still worked with the government, now they think they can do it all on their own. But wait... that weren't only Avengers. There's also that Spiderkid and the guy who shrinks. Who the heck are those? never seen them before. Definitally no Avengers. So maybe it's not the Avengers who are in over their heads, but all of those super powered freaks. And like this you have the general public afraid and distrusting of all superheroes, and the next version of the accords will be way worse. Of course Accords or no... the UN doesn't really have the means to find and capture or kill all those superpowered beings, unless they recruit some as well. They'll probably find some, too... but well, mostly it will be a very hateful campagne with a few bloody fights, that would end in the utter defeat of the UN.
Still... Captain America fighting against UN-forces, that's bad. Very bad. And it looks bad too... And how'd they explain this to the public? "Yeah you know Bucky here, the alleged UN-Bomber. Yeah, I know he was a Assasin for 70 years, but it's not his fault. Absolutely not. And he didn't bomb the UN, nor did he kill those people in Berlin. Oh well I guess he did, but it wasn't him. He's my friend, and I can't proof it anymore, but I promise, you can trust me in this: He's one of the good guys. I guess that is difficult to believe, because right... Bucharest... that was him... or us, I guess. But I couldn't let the police kill OR capture him, because he was innocent. I could have proven it before... but back than I decided to take matters into my own hands. Was mistaken then, Zemo didn't really plan anything. But you know, better safe then sorry, right. So yeah. Iron Man understood this. He knows me, and knows I'm one of the good guys. Well, I guess you people don't know me, but I'm really only trying what I think is right... And us answering to the authorities... that's just wrong. I told them so, but they wouldn't listen... Guess the whole debate was over very quickly though, because when I first tried to argue about them, I had to leave very early for a funeral, and after that **** started hitting the fen. So there was really no time to talk about it... But, yeah. They were wrong, we were right, and if you don't see that... well. But don't fret, if the Alien attack the next time, we'll be there to help."
It's not about what would and wouldn't have happened. It's about what Tony did in the moment. He didn't ask for proof. He didn't show any concern for what Steve was talking about. The Avengers deal with potentially catastrophic world events. Bucky bombed the U.N., and Steve is saying the guy behind it is going to get five more winter soldiers. What's he up to? How many people might die? Who cares, Tony's on a timetable. He's not in such a hurry that he can't joke around, but asking about basic details of a likely terrorist plot, that's just not on the schedule.

If he had said as much as, "Let us bring you in, and we'll figure out what's going on and deal with it," it would have gone a long way to making him look good and making refusal on Steve's part questionable. But he didn't. He acted like it was a game. I wouldn't count on him, either.

Quote:
And while I too in those action scenes lean heavily on one side (Tony's in my case), when they are talking about the Accords I can't help but think both have a point. I lean more towards Tony's arguments, because I'm more of a head-person, like he is, but Cap is always very morally correct, which also has it's appeal.
Oh, I don't have a problem with the antagonists having a point. That's something I like about some of the X-Men movies. I think it makes perfect sense that Magneto wouldn't trust the government in The Last Stand, especially after they used the cure to attack "bad" mutants. Still, I ultimately want to agree with one of the sides.

Fincher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2017, 04:23 PM   #74
Capsfan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 571
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Tony said clearly: "Your judgment is askew. Your war buddy killed innocent people yesterday". This is it. For Tony now, since he has no clue whatsoever about the triggers, BUCKY is the immediate danger to the world, not Zemo. From his POV it's Bucky, who bombed the UN. And Steve is wrong because he believes a terrorist. Steve is silent about Bucky's innocence. I'm not saying that Tony is right here, but it's totally understandable why he didn't listen. Steve is telling him, but it's already too late.

Capsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2017, 05:08 PM   #75
Ceies
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Default Re: i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fincher View Post
Speaking in legal terms, that he would have been guilty of murder is a law I agree with, and the Accords as it stands is a law I don't.
I didn't even mention the accords. I mentioned illegally entering souveraign countries, theft, criminal damage, helping criminal fugitives, resisting Law enforcement. Are those bad laws too, because those are ultimately the laws, Cap has broken - not even considering the Accords yet.

Quote:
Did he make the best possible decision based on what he knew every step of the way? Maybe not, but there's a difference between making mistakes, acting irrationally, and acting badly. I'd agree with Steve making mistakes, but not the others.
That's all I'm saying. He acted with good intent and in the difficult situation that he had to balance 'protecting his friend' with 'protecting the world'. And while he definitally made nothing evil or even anything, that we couldn't understand, he made some mistakes. Just like Tony. Yet somehow you think it's unforgiveable that Tony put Wanda under house arrest - which was a mistake, yeah, but not evil either. But it's totally okay, that Cap beats the police, helps a criminal fugitive escape and brings a crew of superheroes to a public airport ready and knowing that he'll have to fight. I wasn't mentioned in the movie, but by the simple fact that this is the only battle with no civilians involved, despite being a public airport in the middle of the day, looks to me as if Tony and the Governments evacuated earlier. So probs to the accords and meh for Cap, because were the Accords or Tony as evil as you obviously think they are, people would have been hurt.

Quote:
It would seem to me that the reason they didn't address why he didn't bring Bucky in was because they didn't bring that option up in the first place, because it wasn't a choice that the movie was focusing on, if the filmmakers even considered that option at all.
Somehow you're okay to discuss 'what the Russos wanted to show us, but didn't do a good job of/ or didn't really manage' when it suits Cap's side, but not when it suits Tonys? So when Tony looks rather unsympathetic in the movie, you just ignore, that even the filmmakers say, they wanted to give both good reasons. But when Cap does something stupid, you just think the Filmmakers didn't think of the alternative?
Half of the film was about bringin Bucky into custody, Tony's job during the movie was to a big part, bringing Bucky into custody... oh and when Stark told Steve about those 36 hours to bring them into custody, guess who was among the people they talked about. And you think th possibility of actually bringing Bucky into custody, when all they talk about during the movie, is something that maybe just didn't come to their minds?

Quote:
Tony doesn't have the complete picture, either. And I'm not sure how you can say that Tony was "obviously" listening to Steve.
Because he obviously heard every word he had to say, and when he found the body he was: Oh look at that. Steve was right.
Had he not been listening, he'd have said: Oh look at that. Why didn't Stevie tell me?

Quote:
(T'challa shows up)
...
(Natasha speaks)
...
Tony: All right, I've run out of patience.
Notice how it's never Tony who interrupts Steve in his explenations, but T'Challa, whose motive was pure revenge - didn't want no talking - and Natasha, whose motives were very shady and unclear to the very end. So if she planned to let Steve and Cap go from the start, if she wanted everything to end peacefully, why does she interrupt Steve, when he actually has the chance to explain something. Because Tony was listening. He just... well like he said, ran out of patience. Not a nice charactertrait, but not particularly surprising... And Steve just keeps getting interrupted, keeps making statement, that Tony has no clue what they are about, because to him Bucky still is the big bad, who just tied to shoot him in the face when he escaped after being captured for the UN-bombing.
And that 'Anyway' is not necessarily dismissive. It can be in reference to the little 'Captain' - 'Your highness' greetings between Steve and T'Challa, or just to get back to the point. But yeah, it could also mean: Whatever you're reasons I still need to bring you in. But none of those reasons would translate to 'blabla I'm not listening.'

Quote:
He undercut her efforts by saying he'd lost patience and bringing Spider-Man in, escalating the conflict. You were saying Steve didn't do a good job appeasing Tony in the middle of his attempts to kill Bucky, but here the situation is calm, and Tony's not making any sort of effort to appease Cap. This would be bad police behavior even if they weren't his friends.
No... actually... no, that's not bad policing. I'm not sure how people police in your country, but normally, disarming the 'criminal' (which they are at that moment), is a very okay thing to do in this situation. Telling the oponent, that they should give up ("Have to bring you in. Could you please help me with that?") is also not a bad call. More like the opposite. Yeah... Starks not a officer, he speaks in his very own, very typical kind of manner, and instead of saying: 'lay down your weapons, hands in the air' he makes his little 36 hour speech. Which yeah, is not textbook, but he is no officer and in the end it doesn't change the fact that this is pretty much what he said regardless.
They meet. They speak. Tony asks them to surrender. When they don't Tony calls Spiderman to disarm Steve. And look at that. Obviously it's so textbook and predictable policing, that Steve knew it was coming and hat Lang and Hawkeye ready, just in case.
Like I said, I don't know how police works in your country: But here I don't think the police is particularly inclined to hear a criminals motives BEFORE disarming them, when they have all the time in the world after doing so. Especially when said criminal makes no inclination to get himself swayed to surrender peacefully. You don't bargain with the criminal if you should maybe let them go, because they might actually have a reason to do it... If anything you let them go AFTER they explained that reason properly with no threat of an ensuing battle in the air.

Quote:
Second, Tony knows his supposed friends are facing prosecution for aiding and abetting a terrorist when he turns them over, and that's if the world of the MCU doesn't have the Patriot Act. If Steve is speaking to some factor that Tony doesn't know about that would at least mitigate their punishment, Tony should care. He can't even be bothered with it.
Yeah, but he also thinks that they IN FACT did aid a terrorist. And he was bothered because as we all know, he went home, found actual evidence and turned around helping Steve... Well he stopped bothering, when all the stuff in Siberia went down... But well... That's another story.

Quote:
Third, Tony's making quips during this conversation.
Not like they aren't making quibs at each other too. That fight was a blast and a whole lot of fun for all the people involved. Not really, because they were all fighting friends, but you know: If you don't laugh, you'd have to cry. So they all take it with a litty cynic humor. Be it Hawkeye and Nat asking whether they are still friends, Spidey and Cap having their little New York-dialogue, Steve and Scott only quirking an eyeybrow, when the 'watertruck' turns out to not b a water truck... Or Scott and Spidey in general having a blast. Tony is not the only one to make some quibs.



Quote:
It's not about what would and wouldn't have happened. It's about what Tony did in the moment. He didn't ask for proof. He didn't show any concern for what Steve was talking about.
Yeah... But he couldn't have done anything about it. I agree, it's not about what could have happened. In hindsight, everything's easier. But Tony mentioned way before, when they were still actually discussing the accords, that there is a worse possibility and that's what I assume he meant or some similar scenario. Either way even if this is a 'what if' scenario, it is a scenario that even on the airport was in Tony's mind. And we know that, because he hinted to something 'worse'. He can't, can't, can't let Steve go. He needs Steve to trust him in this. He asked him several times to do that. To trust him with the accords, to help him out, to give up and surrender. Because if Tony can't bring them to surrender, there's always that nightmare scenario in the back of his mind that is the worse alternative to the Accords.
Even IF Steve had given him ultimate proof, he'd still have to stop him, unless he wanted to risk this alternative happening. Yeah... probably he'd then have tried to balance out what would have been worse, or how well his chances stood to get away with his 'treason'. But the preferable option would still have been taking Steve into custody and asking for permission to go to Siberia himself. (though I agree, due to the current, non established (or implemented?) status of the Accords that could have gone massively wrong due to bad timing.)

Quote:
If he had said as much as, "Let us bring you in, and we'll figure out what's going on and deal with it," it would have gone a long way to making him look good and making refusal on Steve's part questionable. But he didn't. He acted like it was a game. I wouldn't count on him, either.
He basically did. He's just not the guy to say that straight away. He's more of a ... talker... It's a characterflaw of his, you might say.

Ceies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of Mandatory Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2018 All Rights Reserved.