i thought Tony was trying to REEDEEM his mistakes

Discussion in 'Captain America: Civil War' started by 3dman27, Sep 11, 2016.

  1. Fincher Coming Undone

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    836
    I'm not against government oversight as an idea, but I don't think Steve is, either. When General Ross brought it up, he didn't throw the document at him, shout "F*** you, martial law!" and get away on a speedboat. Or...a more reasonable description of what might happen in that scene. He read the document. It was the details of the Accords as they stood that he objected to, and he wasn't willing to sign his name to something he thought was wrong. And this isn't like not liking Obamacare. This was something that could have potentially disastrous consequences for the world.

    And when we're judging whether Tony was right to endorse the Accords or Steve was right to defy them, what else can we go by but by how the Accords are presented? And if you want to argue that Accords would get better over time, what can use to assess whether that's true than the behavior of those behind the Accords?

    Tony knows that Bucky's been brainwashed. What Tony doesn't actually know is where Steve got his information or why he hasn't contacted Tony before now. And when he does come across Steve, and Steve is saying there's more to the story, Tony doesn't want to hear it.

    Say the situation was reversed. Steve starts to tell Tony about the doctor, and then Tony says, "No, Steve, you don't understand. The doctor and Bucky are working together. They've been playing you this whole time." Steve responds, "Great story, Tony, but I've got a plane to catch. Clock's ticking. See you on the flipside." Is that understandable behavior? Does it matter that Steve's being told he misunderstood the situation "too late"?
     
  2. Capsfan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again. What Tony knows. He knows that Bucky was in a cage with no Hydra still being around. He saw the evidence that Bucky is a mad killer himself. Bucky shot him in the face. Bucky's cage was ripped off from the inside. He went and killed many innocent people. So it doesn't matter in this moment was he brainwashed or not. In this moment Bucky IS the immediate danger to the world from Tony's POV. Why? This is another question, not so urgent. Right now Bucky needs to be in a protective custody. Also, how Steve knows what he knows? He believes Bucky. Who is a mad assassin. And it's actually how it is in the movie: Steve has NO INTEL aside from Bucky's.

    I think they both acted wrong in this situation. Tony not listening and Steve not trusting and contacting him immediately after Berlin.
     
  3. Fincher Coming Undone

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    836
    Steve does have some intel besides Bucky's, because he heard from Zemo himself, but I'm not talking here about Steve's judgment. I'm talking about Tony's judgment based on what Tony knows about why Steve's doing what he's doing.


    Separately, Ceies said before that the Accords (I think it was the Accords) should be judged by real world terms. Well, if we're going to judge things by real world terms, Tony kidnapped Wanda. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter that he thought her leaving would be a mistake or that the conditions of her captivity were nice, and it's not a remotely ambiguous crime like vigilantism. He held a person against their will without any legal authority to do so. If this happened in the real world, and it got out, there would be such an uproar over this. He deserves to go to prison right there, he's a badguy, and we haven't even gotten into the Tony/Steve conflict yet. And Vision was downright creepy in that scene where Clint went to rescue Wanda, like stalker boyfriend creepy.

    Steve is willing to trust Tony that he'll fix the Accords and sign, and then he finds out that Tony not only supported the Accords, but went above and beyond the letter of them. Why wouldn't he lose faith in Tony's willingness, never mind ability, to make the Accords into an appropriate form of government oversight when Tony himself is acting like a police state without provocation and without authority of his own to do so? And this carries over into why Steve shouldn't trust Tony enough to tell him what's going on, because Tony hasn't shown himself to be trustworthy.

    I'll say one thing, though. I spoke incorrectly. Steve did do something wrong in Civil War. He was wrong not to insist more heavily that Tony needed to let Wanda go, immediately. It's just that it's a minor lapse of judgment given what else Steve is dealing with at the time.
     
  4. Capsfan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tony knows that Steve is blind when he deals with Bucky: "Your judgment is askew". And he wasn't so wrong. Steve basically admitted it himself after Lagos.
    As for what Zemo said - it's not an intel. This is a very vague phrase which could mean many things. All info about Siberia which Steve's got was from Bucky alone. And Bucky himself hasn't been there for 2 years minimum, since even before the Hydra's fall. How is he even sure that 5WS are still there?

    Wanda was in the US ILLEGALLY. She had no visa. It's been said in the movie. So, while I agree that Tony should have talked to her himself, he really did what was the best for her. Better to sit one or two weeks at home than being departed or put in the Raft indefinitely. And she actually didn't want to leave until Clint manipulated and coaxed her to do so. It's all in the movie. She had an opportunity to overpower Vision any time she wanted.
    Wanda had actually been a criminal since AoU. She was helping Ultron and unleashed the Hulk on the living town. She was forgiven without any due process then.
     
    #79 Capsfan, Apr 3, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  5. Fincher Coming Undone

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    836
    Wanda was one of The Avengers the government wanted to sign the Accords. They weren't going to deport her if she left Tony's property, and if they did want to deport her, her being there wouldn't change that. If the government wanted to confine her, they'd have done it themselves. More importantly, if Tony thinks she should stay there, it's on him to talk to her and convince her it's a good idea, not to force her. That's not treating her as a person, but as something to control.

    She could have overpowered Vision, but there's no reason to think that Tony knew that. Clint didn't, and Tony didn't know that Vision could be distracted, and Wanda was still testing out her powers. And when you have to overpower someone in order to leave unjust custody, it's already gone too far. It's not like Wanda wanted to fight Vision.
     
  6. Ceies Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    No... they are not arguing over details. We get to hear their arguments, and so far they pretty much disagree on the most basic terms. Steve belittles Tony's opinion, because he thinks he just wants to lift his own guilt. He think that's the only reason Tony would want the Accords for quite a while until Tony gives him a better reason. Then he argues the safest hands are our own. And that you can't (generally) trust the government because people and Agendas. There are a few other statements of his, but not a single time do they actually argue about details in the accords. They disagree about the very basic idea behind it. Tony wants government oversight - Steve doesn't. And the only reason he might have considered it for a while, was because it looked like it would be the easiest way to help Bucky and get himself out of custody. It's not like Steve was like: Yeah that's a good idea in general, I think I can work with it. Instead they offered him a deal.

    No... Tony knows, that Bucky at some point in time has been brainwashed. But apparently Steve told him, he was back in control. And then suddenly he allegedly bombs the UN, then he flees from the police, then he escapes again and while doing so shoots Tony in the face.
    So does this look like a guy who's in control of his actions? No it doesn't. Yeah, he knows, that Bucky probably deep down is a nice guy. But all he can see is a dangerous unpredictable Assasin, who either can't control himself, never actually broke the brainwashing or maybe gone crazy during those years and is now borderline shizophrenic or whatever. Bucky's action don't look like those of a sound man. And Steve's intel is entirely based on this man.


    Funnily enough... different words, but this situation pretty much happened didn't it. Tony told Steve that Bucky killed a bunch of people. And that his judgement was askew. He didn't mention the doctor, because at that point, he didn't know anything about the doctor but whatever Steve just told him. But the other stuff... he pretty much said. Did Steve listen? no.

    Would you stop with the Kidnapping already? Kidnapping if you seize and carry sombody AWAY and hold him captive by using force. He didn't bring her anywhere so if anything it looks a lot more like false imprisonment or unlawful detention. And then... was she actually imprisoned? No. The moment she wanted to go, she could. Yeah she had to shake Vision off, who didn't want to let her go, but it's not like Vision could actually stop her if she wanted to go. Had he actually wanted to hold her captive, he'd have put her in a straight jacked, and put the collar around her neck. He didn't. He wanted to hold her out of the media and the public. That's why he gave her some fun entertainment and somebody to spare her time who could, if she only halfheartedly wanted to leave, actually stop her, but whom she also felt quite fond of. He let them have a nice little afternoon. And he just hoped she wouldn't realize what was going on. Yeah, he withheld information. But he didn't force her to stay there. Because I'm sure, if Ross can find ways to imprison her, so can Tony.... but that's not what he wanted. Yeah it was a bad call, because she's an Avenger too, but he tried to protect her, because turnse out, Steve is not the only one who thinks of her more like a kid than an adult. Yeah Tony probably also thinks of her as a weapon, but he thinks of all of them as weapons to some degree, due to their powers. Btw. what Tony calls weapon, Steve tends to call soldier. While soldier still sounds a little nicer, you can't make the mistake to think that Tony doesn't think of her as human too.

    Really? If you heard that somebody had a nice little evening with a person she's fond of, in the appartement she lives in, with no closed doors, and nothing out of the ordinary, but probably the simple fact that the owner of the house maybe shut the radio down and asked the nice person she's with, to not let her go. But who, if she actually wants to go, can go no problem, because she's the strongest person in the house and noone actually locked the doors... You think that would be a scandal. Is it a scandal when you're best friends try to throw you a party, and ask another friend to play a party of chess with you, so you'd be occupied for as long as they need to prepare everything? It would probably be a bit of a 'bad call' when your friend actually tried to stop you and hold you, when you want to go. But it would still be no scandal, if you'd b clearly the stronger person and could just shake that hold and go anyway...

    Steve is a responsible adult. Why can't he do it himself, if he doesn't trust Tony to do it. If he showed willingness to work with the Government in some way, he could have easily done just as much as Tony could.

    No, he didn't because hat Wanda wanted to, she could have gone any time - as she later did.


    Oh... that would also mean, that she's legally prohibited to enter the US, right? But it's okay to live on the Compound, for what ever reason that seems to be accepted. That would mean... well that she can't really leave the house without immediately tresspassing onto foreign soil right? Thanks for reminding. What a weird legal position to be in.
    And btw. as she has entered the US illegaly (plus whatever status she has because of the other things she did) Tony and Vision might have been even authorised to actually hold her their with force.

    No, they wouldn't have deported her. They'd have arrested her. Like they arrested Cap and Falcon. That was how they wanted to make the deal to get them to sign. That was the governments strategy during the whole movie. They finally enforced the laws, that they let slip all those movies before whenever the Avengers appeared. Falcon and Sam fight in Bucharest with no permission. Even Falcon who didn't really harm anybody - still breaking the law, so they brought them into custody, and offered a deal to let those things slide (Again like all those years before), if they were willing to work with them. They'd have done the same with Wanda, no doubt about it. They wanted her to sign, she didn't... so what? You think they'll just accept her breaking laws again and again, even if she's unwilling to work with them?

    Well Clint was quite sure she could overpower him. So why shouldn't Tony know it. Even if. Tony knew Vision was fond of Wanda and wouldn't want to fight her let alone harm her. He also knows that Wanda is crazy powerful. I'm pretty sure he knew, that if Wanda wanted to get away, she could. Not like he was surprised when she actually did get away. A little frustrated maybe but not surprised.
     
    #81 Ceies, Apr 3, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  7. Fincher Coming Undone

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    836
    Except that I agreed with what Steve said about the Accords in that scene, and I think there should be government oversight. For him to say that there would need be safeguards in place later is to say that there weren't safeguards already. They go where the U.N. says, and they don't go where the U.N. doesn't say, period. Just like Ross described it.

    Tony doesn't know that. He assumes it, and treats his assumption as enough to put an end the conversation while not even considering that Steve and the others might know something he doesn't. And if he dismisses Steve's allies other than Sam because he thinks they don't know the whole story...well, he doesn't know the whole story, either. He thinks he knows everything, he may go well through life thinking he knows everything in general, but his ego doesn't absolve him of responsibility for his actions.

    Like a lot of things, it could be shifted to make Tony look better at least. If he'd said something like, "And did Bucky the terrorist tell you this?" before writing it off, that would have helped. But he didn't. For wanting the situation to be complicated (and I don't believe they wanted Tony to be a villain, at least), the filmmakers sure approached a lot of dialogue in a way that makes Tony look worse.

    Steve knew what Tony said about people dying, and him calling Steve's judgment askew when he's not hearing Steve out before that makes his argument worthless.

    Okay, false imprisonment. From a legal standpoint there may be a distinction, but from a moral standpoint I don't think it makes any real difference in and of itself. If Tony had moved her against her will to the compound and then held her there, that wouldn't be some moral event horizon he'd failed to cross yet.

    Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that everyone knows that Wanda can beat up Vision, that there's no doubt whether she can escape . Well, let's say instead that a man locks a woman in an apartment, and he says, "I'll let you go as soon as you have sex with me. What's that, you don't want to have sex with me? Well, okay, but I'm not holding you prisoner because you can leave anytime you want by having sex with me."

    Wanda doesn't want to fight Vision. She probably doesn't want to use her powers at all at the moment, and Tony's using her feelings to manipulate and control her. He has no right to define the terms of her freedom. If she wants to leave, then he needs to let her go, period. She shouldn't have to do something she doesn't want to do in order to exercise a right that's already hers.

    When is it established that even Tony can make the necessary changes? Steve wants to believe that he can when he says that he can. Tony's more of a mover and shaker kind of character, and he's been communicating with the government about this during this time, so Steve was temporarily willing to defer to his expertise on the subject, but when Tony turned unreliable, Steve couldn't assume that he'd be able to fix things from the inside himself, if he was even that much in the inside after what happened with Bucky.

    When she asked Vision why he wasn't letting her leave, he said it was a question of safety, not a matter of the government intending to arrest her. So either he was lying to her there and had been withholding pretty important information about her own life up to that point, or that wasn't the reason why.

    I think eventually she might have gotten in trouble (her being an undocumented immigrant isn't anywhere near as pressing as Steve and Sam inserting themselves in the hunt for the U.N. bomber, when the government didn't want them operating on their own at all), but I don't see why her being at the compound would prevent that once they decided to take action.
     
    #82 Fincher, Apr 3, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  8. BullMcGiveny Probably Disagree

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Honestly, I thought Stark was the only one written as someone with sense. Everyone else, the entire world, Cap himself, were made stupid. Except for the bit where he was apparently psychic (ie knowing about Bucky killing the Starks)
     
  9. Ceies Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? Steve saying he doesn't trust governments (in general because people with agendas), and the safest hands are our own, and what if we want to do something they don't... that's a clear no to oversight. He doesn't want to answer to the authorities, because he doesn't trust them. And even if he would, should he find himself in disagreement with him (also very much in general, because he's not only talking about those cases where moralty and conscience demands that you act but also of gerneral disagreement).

    Steve had no intel whatsoever, when he thought Bucky wasn't the UN-Bomber. He just assumed that. They even talked about it later, and thus Tony knew, in this case, Steve has no cleu... He just trusts his friend. Why should it be different know. How should Steve on the run - spending most of his time getting allies who had nothing to do with the situation prior - get any more intel? No... it was reasonable for Tony to assume, that Steve either acted on Bucky's intel, or on none at all. He couldn't know... no, but it was reasonable of him to assume. Especially since Steve made no comment to the contrary.


    and he doesnt assume they do. thats why whe he finds out, he was wrong, he tries to make it right.

    They could also be shifted to make him look bad, or to make Steve look better. And you seem to read a lot more bad in Tony than you read in Steve's actions. Steve could have just told Tony everything he knew, without waiting for Tony to ask for every little detail. Oh, he could have called him way earlier and tell him all this. But Steve and Sam together decided fairly early on that they didn't want Tony involved and didn't want to tell him everything. Yeah Tony could have asked more... but Steve could have just told him too... But he didn't because he had decided way before, that Tony could not be trusted. And then he demanded, that Tony trust him, when he gave him no real information, no proof and no evidence.

    Yet Steve did not react to Tony's comment. Tony's comment is a perfect and reasonable response to what Steve said. It actually proves that Tony listened, because - yeah, he was stubbornly not understanding what Steve meant to tell him, but he did give a reasonable response. Steve said, it wasn't Bucky. Tony answered, that Steve is wrong, because his judgement is askew and Bucky killed people. That's a perfectly resonable response. Because honestly, if a guy just shot you in the face, and then your friend tells you, that you're searching the wrong guy, you'd also doubt your friends judgement, because you know, that man just shot you in the face, and you assume, he had bombed the UN before. It's perfectly reasonable. And it's a direct response to what Steve said.
    Then Steve is the one not listening. Because instead of telling Tony, why Bucky is not the man or that Bucky is not dangerous, he tells him, that there are 5 more people equally dangerous. But that doesn't make Bucky any less dangerous or any less responsible. This is not a good response to what Tony said... It's not a response at all... it's using Tony's fear of Bucky to demonize a new threat that Tony at that point knows nothing about. But it doesn't take away from the threat that is Bucky himself.

    Funny how you just tried to argue legally... and now go back to moral. Because it makes a very real different, if somebody is just legally wrong, against actual criminal law (because those aren't necessarily the same) or just morally questionable. Yeah I agree, that Tony's decision to leave Wanda out of the debate was questionably. It wasn't evil or criminal though and that's a major difference. It's just as questionable as Cap using his name and sway to get his friends to help him. Because guess what it took to get Wanda to 'break out of the compound'? Clint didn't really give her a rundown of the situation there. He came in and said: Cap needs you! That's morally questionable if those people only find out on the plane, that they are about to fight their other friends over a matter they no nothing about.

    And that again is not the same. Your drawing parallels where there are none and making ridiculous comparisons. If in your scenario Wanda is not actually locked up, but the only thing preventing her from going is the physically stronger captor... than that would be... probably a mix of sexual harassment and assault. It's not the same. Vision didn't sexually harass or assault Wanda. Nor did he physically assault her. He just tried to keep her their by being nice and friendly. Even when Wanda finally wanted to go, Vision wasn't the one to attack her. He asked Clint to please consider - in a threatening tone, I admit, but still just asking - and Clint answered by activating his taser arrows that he had placed there before. Clint is the one who attacked first. Then Vision attacked Clint. Only Clint. (who at that point was acutally trespassing.) He told Wanda he wouldn't let her go... yeah, but he didn't attack her. Then Wanda attacked him... So... please... this is neither assault, nor sexual assault or harrasment, nor is it kidnapping and its not even actual false imprisonment... if anything it's a threat, that has no weight behind it, because he's not really threatening with anything and they all seem to be pretty sure, she can take him out if she wanted to.

    As I said, there's a difference between a legal right and an acutal right... Yeah you could also say, I don't have the right to eat all cockies in the cockie jar I own with my sister... but it's an entirely different matter if I actually steal something that doesn't belong to me at all. Tony had no right to keep her out of the debate, yeah, but she's an adult woman isn't she? And she knew about the Accords... so why did she just spent her time cooking with Vision, if she was so interested in the debate? We should really stop looking at Wanda as the innocent little kid that gets her rights invaded by evil big bad Tony... because she's not actually restricted in her freedom... She can quite literally do whatever she wants. All Tony does is try to put her in an environment, where she does not WANT to leave. And that is wrong and probably legally questionable if she actually were a child and he not her father... but she's no child. She's a responsible adult, and we should treat her that way. If you coax a child with sweets to follow you arround <- that's questionable and can easily turn into a legal affair. If you do the same with an adult, who's fully responsible for his own actions, it's neither illegal, nor evil... nor anything really.

    I heavily disagree.Wanda was the most powerful, regarded as the most dangerous, most uncontrollable and not to mention most hated and distrusted by the public. On top of that she was - not by power but by legal status - the weakest link. Cap and Sam were trusted members Avengers. Both with a successfull and wildly known history in the US military. Cap on top of that was a world war II veteran and a national hero to the US. Plus he was part - if not leader of the original Avengers that everyone still remembered saving the world from the Chitauri. (whether they critizise some minor details, it's wildly known, that they saved the world.) Yeah, while it's very important to get Cap on their side - Sam not so much - he's very hard to get their hands on, because he is-... well Captain America. It was pretty much a godsent for them, that he basically painted a target at his own head, by helping Bucky.
    Wanda on the other hand was massively more powerful, more dangerous, known to be an ex hydra asset, who willingly helped and killed for them, had worked with Ultron for a while, thus being one of the people behind the insident that ended with Sokovia (much like Tony, only that Tony to a degree accepted the blame and drew consequences and showed the public that he was willing to repent and left the avengers...), that was one of the people responsible for Lagos (in their eyes, as I don't really blame her for it, but the media made pretty clear who they blamed.)... plus she was an illegal immigrant to the US, with a questionable legal status, new to the whole avengers game, and still learning about her own powers. It would have been the easiest thing in the world, to use her difficult legal status to bribe Cap and the others (and herself) to do what they wanted. And by keeping her out of the debate, Tony was in fact protecting her.

    I don't really know why the Compound is different than the rest of the US. But it's part of the Avengers. Plus it's actually Tony's. So when the Tony signed it makes sense that all his assets and the Avengers assets also get a special status under the UN not the US. And it would have been a terrible show of distrust, if the first thing they do, after Tony signed, was storming the Avengers headquarter, hauling Wanda away from it and forcing the rest of the Avengers to sign. Tony's status as officially recognized avenger who had signed the accords is at that point a fairly strong political position. So if not necessarily legally explainable, its very possible that Tony had enough political prowess to protect Wanda at that time, even if she had no right to be there... as I said, I don't really know, but those are two possible explanations. And it is very likely, that Tony - as the Avenger on the forefront of the Pro-Accord fraction - holding his hand over Wanda, has some sway in the political playfield, even if she has no legal right to actually be there. It's a very difficult situation, and we know that there were people like Ross who just searched for a reason to get not only Cap's Team but Tony to into the Raft and have them out of his hair forever. But the vast majority of UN delegates - people like T'Chaka - I think, wanted to work with the Avengers. So it's important that they don't alienate the one Avenger who was publcicly on their side during the whole debate.
    Yeah, I assume, after Cap fled, when the whole thing went chaotic, they didn't really think about Wanda anymore... but before... it was definitally easier and safer for her far away from the debate.

    (Not saying it was morally right to keep her away, since she is no child.)

    There was a scene in CA: Winter Solder (I think) when they blew up the Hydra base. There was also an article about Howard Starks death and a little flash/picture of it happening, I think. That's how he knew. It was among the data their. I guess he didn't know what really happened, but only, that SOME HYDRA assasin killed the Starks. And since he knew that Bucky was one of ther prime assets he assumed it was him. But I think he never bothered to actually check, because he didn't really want to know.
     
    #84 Ceies, Apr 4, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  10. Samuron Reprint

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    41
    "Be careful, Steve. You might not want to pull on that thread."
     
  11. Fincher Coming Undone

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    836
    They weren't discussing government oversight as a theory and under what circumstances they would and wouldn't be willing to do it. They were discussing whether they should sign a particular document they'd been handed. Now, if the conversation had gone on long enough, maybe it'd have developed further than broad strokes, but at a base level Steve takes issue with, "We should go wherever they say and not go wherever they don't say".

    Rhodey said he was in favor of oversight and trusted the U.N. Does that mean that if they told him to go kill some innocent civilians, he'd just go right ahead because a good soldier always does what they're told? No, I'm going to assume that he actually has his limits rather than take what he said completely literally. Soldiers in the military are supposed to follow orders in general, but they're actually supposed to disobey wrong orders. If the Accords doesn't account for personal judgment, then they're inherently problematic.

    There's no way Steve acted on no intel at all, when he's talking about five more winter soldiers. And the topic of where Steve got his information never came up on either side. The conversation was short and mostly one sided while Tony joked around and acted dismissive.

    And no, it's not reasonable to assume things when the livelihoods of your friends as well as potentially the cost of human lives is at stake. Tony had a convenient way of finding out, and it would have taken him all of five seconds to confirm where Steve got his information. And Steve is working with others, so he could have had someone else gathering information. Or Bucky could have shown him proof, or led him somewhere where he was able to find it.

    Like I said, Tony hadn't presented himself as trustworthy. Steve is trying to get Tony to see his side now because Tony's inserting himself into the situation. It's not like he walked up to Tony on the street and said, "We need to go with Bucky to fight winter soldiers. No time to explain." He didn't have no time to explain at all. Tony has twelve hours to bring him in, and I'm sure if they apprehended them and called in, it wouldn't matter that they hadn't gotten back yet. What is General Ross going to do, attack the Quinjet with the prisoners onboard? Steve's the one who's in a hurry to reach Siberia before the doctor and the winter soldiers leave, and he's willing to take the time to come to try to find a peaceful way out. But I guess because he didn't speak fast enough, that makes him in the wrong?

    When Tony was trying to get Tony to sign, he started by talking about the pens instead of giving a detailed explanation of why he should sign. So I guess Steve should have just walked out then and there. Sorry, Tony, it's your own fault for not talking faster and wasting his time with pen talk. It's not like anything important might be happening that would call for patience. And why should Steve be patient when Tony started the airfield dialogue by quipping about meeting people at the airport?

    Tony was literally listening; I don't mean that he was over there texting while the conversation was going on. And Steve may not have used the best choice of words, but he was probably reacting to the idea that Tony wasn't willing to hear him out (which turned out to be true, and was suggested by his initial reaction) and trying to lead with what he considered the most important information. First, it's the doctor, he's the badguy. Second, Bucky's innocent. Third, if you don't believe Bucky's innocent, well, what about these five other winter soldiers? I think mentioning winter soldiers, who are brainwashed, and saying that the doctor wants to get to them, pretty well suggests that the doctor wants to control brainwashed soldiers. If Steve had literally said that Bucky was brainwashed when he broke out, was that supposed to win Tony over? If he said, oh, but he's better now, well, you yourself said that Steve had claimed that before. He needed to get Tony willing to listen before he could possibly argue from a point of nuance, and the threat of five brainwashed terrorists would seem like a pretty big selling point.

    I wasn't saying that false imprisonment is illegal and therefore it's automatically wrong. I was appealing to the idea that holding people against their will is wrong and should be illegal, as it is. But if you want to get into the legality of it, in the United States, in some jurisdictions, there needs to be no reasonable means of escape for it to be false imprisonment. Note that only some jurisdictions say that. As far I'm concerned, fighting her way out doesn't constitute a reasonable means of escape. She shouldn't have to fight anyone for her freedom to leave.

    Also, he doesn't need to have physically assaulted her for it to be false imprisonment. The implication made by saying he can't let her leave when she's made it clear that she is leaving would be enough. Also, false imprisonment can be a product of coercion, and putting her in a position where she has to fight someone, knowing that she wouldn't want to do that and using it to keep her there, is a form of coercion. I think if it went to court, they'd be considered guilty. I think they're guilty, certainly. Their intentions were clear. If they thought she actually wanted to stay, they wouldn't have tried to hold her there.

    First, it was her choice, not Tony's, and any argument he could make could be made to her. Second, they can't do too much with her legal status because the Accords are a worldwide concern. So sending her away to Sokovia wouldn't fix the problem, anyway. They're better off trying to get her to sign than immediately raising the notion of pawning her off on another country, which could be seen as a threat by that country if she's considered so dangerous. Do they want to spark an international incident?

    There may be possible explanations, but you said (or at least seemed to be saying) that I was approaching Steve's actions from a more lenient viewpoint than Tony's, giving him more credit. However, here you're basically saying that the situation could have been one where Tony was right to think that. Are we supposed to take his word for it? Steve's decisions are being second-guessed, whether he should have tried to get government help to go after Zemo, whether Tony would have believed him if he'd told him earlier.

    I'm not even sure that's what Tony meant. When I first saw it, I thought the idea was that Wanda might go out and get in some public incident, and then her undocumented status would come into it. However, they're talking about Wanda being confined, Tony says she has no visa, Steve says she's just a kid. I'm starting to think that Tony was saying that it was okay for him to hold her because she's an illegal immigrant. Which simply isn't true. He isn't some ultimate lawman who can punish anyone for any crime in any way he sees fit (never mind that it wouldn't be the actual reason and that he was just fine with her being in the country when she became an Avenger). He's not the INS. And under the Accords, which he endorses, he's not supposed to be acting at all without permission.

    And again, Wanda wasn't told anything about her undocumented status when she asked Vision.

    Vision: It's a question of safety.

    Wanda: I can protect myself.

    Vision: Not yours. Mr. Stark would like to avoid the possibility of another public incident.


    So whether Tony was using that as a (likely impromptu) excuse for his behavior, or whether he was trying to protect her from it, he was treating like his child, like she had no say in her own life.
     
  12. Ceies Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    No even when the Accords where first brought to them, and they hadn't read the actual papers yet, but just the idea of what they were about was presented to them for the very first time, Steve showed a hostile position to them and made his first general arguments about governments, agendas and responsibility. That was before reading the accords, after just learning what they were about.

    I agree. Which makes Steve's complete "what if they wanted us to do something we don't like/ not wanted us to go somewhere we wanted to go"-Argument redundant.

    He acted on no intel at all, when he thought Bucky was not the one at fault here. Yeah, the way he spoke sounds much like he had some kind of information from Bucky. But there's still a difference between intel and ... well information. Yeah... Bucky might have told him there were 5 more WS somewhere... but that doesn't mean that anyone wanted to activate them. What if Steve knew for a long time that there were 5 more WS, but deemed them no threat for the time being - he doesn't deem Bucky a threat after all... So what if he's only acting on the hunch, that now they are a threat?

    But IF Bucky had shown him proof, why didn't Steve send this proof to the authorities, like any normal citizen would? Why didn't he call Tony, if he had clear evidence or undeniable proof, or even good intel on a situation? Why couldn't he just show his proof on the airport if there was any? The truth is, Steve had no proof. None whatsoever. Had Steve had any better proof than Bucky's word, he'd have shown that to Tony, because Tony despite what you might think, is not unreasonable. Apparently Tony still trusts Steve to come to him, if he actually has information that concerns them both - hence his betrayed feelings when he found out Steve never told him about his parents.
    It's not Tony's job to ask him to explain himself, it's Tony's job to stop them. And if Steve doesn't want to be stopped, he better show his undeniable proof that he doesn't have. If he has no proof... well maybe he should have stopped fighting and explain everything in a more peaceful environment and leave it to Tony to check.

    Exactly... Tony had 12 hours and Steve knew that. So why didn't he say: 'Alright Tony. We give up. You can take us into custody. But first I want you to use those twelve hours to follow me to this place because there's this and that.' It would have been the perfect chance to use those 12 hours to get to Siberia all together. They might have even been able to find a deal for Wanda, Clint and Scott, that they could just leave and go home, because at that point they hadn't done anything yet. The only thing Steve needed to do, would be to tell Tony, that he was willing to give up. But he didn't. He kept insisting that he had to go.
    Steve had time to explain. It's not about speaking fast enough, but talking at all. And clearly Steve was not trying to surrender to Tony. Or trying to make a deal that would in the end give the UN what they wanted. He wanted to get to Siberia, and he wanted Tony to let him go. He didn't want to give up and strike a deal with Tony.

    So doing a good job at saving the world is less important, when somebody makes a joke. He didn't need to be patient.
    Right, Tony didn't do his best job negotiating. But neither did Cap. Yeah, Tony could have asked more questions, before calling spidey (although they could have still talked after that. Spideys attack wasn't particularly aggresive. Nobody was hurt and everything was still fine.) Yeah, Tony could have tried to have more trust in Steve. But that goes both ways. Steve could have tried to give Tony what he needed, he should have had more trust in Tony and he could have tried to explain Bucky's whole situation better. Those were to people who talked past each other, one not particularly eager to wait for the whole story, the other not particularly eager to tell the whole story... So that's that. But the failure lies on both sides.

    Third is wrong... Third is: More winter Soldiers. I have to stop the doctor. I can't let him win. I have to do this PERSONALLY. I'm not willing to submit to you, Tony, because I can't.

    Tony: First: I have to bring you in. Help me out, because I don't particularly want to fight you. Second: Your Judgement is askew because he's your best friend. But he's dangerous. I have to bring him in.
    Then Natasha: We can't let you go. You know this. (We've just told you.) Do you really want to go through with this, because if you really need to do it personally, you have to go through us.

    Steve's "I can't, Tony, I can't" is pretty much where on Tony's side every further argument is useless, because if Steve doesn't want to do something. He won't. That's Steve in a nutshell. So whatever Arguments Tony or Natasha might have brought at that point is useless, because Steve had it in his head that he had to go on, no matter what. So Natashas final attempt is to beg him, to stop. Because else they'd fight friend vs. friend. But if you know Steve, at that point you know already, what the answer is going to be, because Steve stands up to what he thinks is right and does what he thinks he needs to do... And yeah, Tony's impatient and doesn't wait to hear that answer, but at that point, it was pretty clear, where this was going.

    In very specific cases... probably. But there's always a line where something is less of a criminal offense and more of a bagatelle. A wife telling her husband, if you leave I'm going to get my divorce, is nothing. A wife telling her husband, if you leave, I'll get a divorce and all your money and the children, is... probably still nothing - though in this situation the husband is probably in a worse situation than dear old Wanda. A wife telling grabbing her physically stronger husband by the arm and telling him, he won't let her leave, him tearing away and going... is probably... a bagatelle? Now, immagine our dear wife rasing her fist and saying no, I won't let you leave, and he just hits her in the face and goes... well what's that? You see... it's not always that easy. You could also say Wanda's guilty of criminal damage and excessive force, since she could just phase him and go through him... she pretty much prove that by phasing him and let Clint slip through.

    (I'm using Vision as the wife here, because he's the weaker one.)

    But she was not really kept their by threatening her she'd have to fight if she'd go. For the most part she was kept their by giving her a fun time. Only after somebody broke into the compound, and started placing shock traps, and telling her she had to go, did Vision say, he wouldn't let her leave. He didn't even say her, she'd have to fight him if she wanted to go. He doesn't want to fight her himself. That's why when she starts fighting him, he looks quite shocked and doesn't like not at all fight back. And she knows it, too... It's not like she seems surprised that he doesn't fight back. It's not like they don't know she can defeat him. Wanda, until Clint basically asked her to fight, did not WANT to go. Only when Clint told her that she should please leave the compound did she also want to do it. And then she didn't hesitate very long to do it with force... If at all it was the worst kind of coercion. Pretty much: 'I won't let you leave' - 'I don't care.'

    But I guess it wouldn't serve to further argue about it. I'm pretty sure, what Vision did was hardly more than Bagatelle... but you obviously see it differently. And I already conceded that it was indeed morally questionable, even if we can't find common ground on the legal issue.

    Unless of course they'd want to charge her with... whatever she did as Hydra assasin. Or the people of Sokovia could try to charge her for the damage there... They didn't get their hands on Tony after all. It's not like the her immigration status is the worst, they could charge her for.
    And yeah they'd obviously try to use that to make her sign. But they'd bring her into custody first. First they'd say immigration issue. Then they'd say, but Sokovia doesn't want you back (did you know, countries apparently don't have to take there illegal immigrants back :o), then they'd say, they'd keep her in custody for public security. Then it would get legally questionable... So they'd pull something else out of their hats, until she'd sign. Those are possibilities...

    Yup

    I don't really understand what you mean. I don't think we should just take Tony's decision or his opinions without second guessing that.
    In the quote you used, I'm basically saying, that I assume, Tony had some political sway due to his status as 'officially recognized' Avenger, that could be the reason why the USA would tolerate Wandas presence on the compound.

    The arguement between Steve and Tony was very heated. At that point both of them are getting rather vile. Tony said to Wanda (maybe to Cap to, I don't know don't want to rewatch the movie) that he wanted to protect her. Vision said he wanted to protect the public. And I think he wanted both. He might not have chosen the best way to do that, and they definitally should have asked her before protecting her (just like Steve should probably ask the world before protecting it) Then Cap and Tony start argueing over it, and both say some awful stuff. Tony tries to justifies himself with the immigration thing, Steve says, she's a kid... Which is if we're honest just as bad. Because Wanda is no kid. She's an adult. Which means she has to take full responsibility for her actions, and if she gets in trouble with the law she'll find out (as she does in the movie), that even though Steve calls her a Kid, she'll be treated like an adult anyway. Calling her a kid is denieing her her self-responsibility, just like Tony does... Interestingly enough, none of those two actually ask her about her thought about the accords, or what she wants to do... And both treat her just like a child. Even Tony giving her 'house arrest' in a way, is treating her like a child. They are both wrong. If Wanda grown up, she has to stand up to her mistakes herself, and suffer the consequences - that's what steve doesn't want to see. Because yeah, even if he sees a kid in her, she still is an illegal immigrant... but not actually a child. And Tony is wrong to decide over her head to keep her out of the debate and confined to the compound, even if he does it to protect her. I also think he knows he's wrong, that's why he gives this 'she's an illegal immigrant' reason to give himself some righteousness. But he thinks it's for the best anyway...

    I think Tony over the whole course of the Movie tried to do the right thing, and tried to protect his friends. Until they pretty clearly showed him, that they didn't care for his protection.
    And he made some questionable decisions along the way. Like deciding over Wandas head. But there's no reason to believe, that he actually wanted her imprisoned, or punished for her 'crimes', because there's nothing in his behaviour or in the way Wanda was actually confined that would resemble punishment. Even when he asks Ross to have him capture Cap, he does it to protect them. Not because he's particularly eager to throw them into prison himself.
    I also think, that he was supporting the accords, mainly because he believed in them, but also, because he thought that way he could protect the others. He obviously knew, that Steve wouldn't like them. That's why he tried to coax him into signing by talking about the pen not the content of the papers. But he also begged Steve to sign, because the alternative (whatever that was) was apparently worse. At least that's what he believed.

    Lastly I also think... to a degree it's true that he was swayed to sign a bit by his own guilt. I don't think it makes the accords themselves or his decision any less right or wrong. Some fans seem to dismiss his decision as 'he only acted out of guilt and wasn't thinking straight.' I don't, but I think, it also played a role. But not his own guilt. But somehow wanting to protect his former team mates to make the same mistakes. Because you can see in the movie, that his mistakes haunt him. He brings it up himself two or three times, how he screwed up with ultron. Not to mention the times somebody else brings it up. It haunts him, and he doesn't want his team mates to suffer the same. This I think is also a reason. Steve also brings it up at some point. But it's not selfish, so Tony wouldn't need to feel guilt anymore. Because Accords or no it wouldn't undo Ultron. He'd still be guilty of that. Nothing would change there. And Tony is not really an Avenger anymore. So it's not to prevent himself from doing a mistake, not to deminish his own guilt, but to prevent the same thing from happening to them. And again I think Tony should have talked to his team mates about this earlier on. I think they should have talked about Ultron way earlier. They never really discussed the whole thing as a team. Tony just accepted the blame and left. The rest of the team has no real idea, what it's like. Because they don't really feel guilty. None of them feel responsible for Ultron, because Tony took all the blame, and with everything else they can diminish their guilt, by weighing the lifes they possibly saved against those lost. But it's not that easy, and it shouldn't be that easy. And I think, they as a Team should have talked about that way earlier. And especially I think they should have talked about it with Wanda.
     
  13. Fincher Coming Undone

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    836
    Okay, so I just had a bunch of stuff I wrote get lost when my computer went crazy, and I don't feel like writing it up again, and for that matter I feel like we've been debating the details for a while. So I'm just going to jump to the ending part.

    I don't disagree that Tony thinks what he's doing is best. It's not like he's going through most of the movie thinking, "My friends will pay! I'll ruin their lives and lock them away, and then I'll rule all! Mwa ha ha!" Here's the thing, though; someone doesn't have to be malevolent to be a badguy. Movie Magneto has good intentions; he wants to protect his species, which is a more than understandable motive. Okay, he also believes his species is superior, but it's easy to understand why, and it's not like his ultimate goal is to ruin everyone else's day. It's just that the circumstances of being feared and threatened by the world have led him down a dark path.

    Now I'm not saying Tony is Magneto, but there are different degrees of badguy, and comic book movies often go fairly extreme. Technically speaking, Steve is the protagonist because it's a Captain America movie, but he's also the protagonist to me because I agree with his side of things. This makes Tony the antagonist, and an antagonist doing what I consider badguy things.

    At the beginning, it's Steve and his friends (goodguys) trying to stop the mercenaries (badguys). Then it's about the Accords, and I'm against the Accords as they're presented, so still on Steve's side. Jump forward to the climax, and Steve (goodguy) is trying to stop Tony (badguy) from killing Bucky. There's no more illusions, Zemo's out of the picture, this is the big showdown, and Steve's the one fighting on the right side. In between, Zemo tricks both of them some, it's definitely a pyrrhic victory for Steve, but Zemo didn't make Tony confine Wanda or bring Peter into it. Tony wasn't under someone else's control like Bucky was (and people still mention The Winter Soldier when talking about MCU badguys). Even if I agreed that Steve acted badly at certain times, the through line of the conflict is that I agree with Steve and that Tony opposed him and did some really bad things in the process.

    I'd also say that while he isn't Magneto, I can see in his actions in this movie how he could go down that path. Not Steve, because Steve's a rock, but it wouldn't surprise me if killing Bucky would have been a point of no return moment for Tony. He kills an ultimately innocent person who was the best friend of a former friend (because I don't think even Steve could forgive him after that), he's isolated from at least some of his other friends, he's lost Pepper. Maybe this is when he becomes an alcoholic.

    As it is, I think Tony's going to walk back from this and behave better in the immediate future, but it's going to take more than that for me to forgive him. Aside from the things he did...well, first, maybe this is just me, but the last time I found Tony all that likeable was the first Avengers. He wasn't a badguy in Iron Man 3, but he was an a******. Some here have said that he's gotten better as a person, but I think he's gotten worse, and part of that may be that he's not as charming and that makes his flaws more glaring. Second, this was personal. It's not like Wanda in Age of Ultron where she was a stranger to the team. Tony was supposed to be their friend, and he imprisoned some of them and tried to kill another. I guess Zemo did his job too well, because right now I feel "done" with Tony.
     
  14. Steamteck Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was a little worried about this when CW was first announced. That Tony would be spoiled for me. I'm not done with Tony ( although my best friend definitely feels Tony is ALWAYS wrong) but he definitely also needs to fix things and atone (again!)

    If he doesn't hand Steve's shield back to him personally pretty soon , I'll be very disappointed
     
  15. Ceies Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gotta say, it was the same for me. But I'm all fine with Tony. He's still all Tony, and I'm actually agreeing with most of his reasonings. And while I don't think he always choses the best path of action, I don't think he particularly screwed up.

    Tony got older. And I think you see that in him. And that's why I actually like his development. At the beginning he was a charming bundle of youthfull 'I'll do what I want - your problem if you don't like that' recklessness. And he dumped down on that... a lot. He's way more reactive than actually taking the initiative and he thinks more about what he does.

    I don't really think, it makes him more likeable, because young characters are in general more fun and more likeable than adults and because he's not quite as charming, and if you could earlier excuse his mistakes with his reckless or lack of experience or naivity, as long as he was trying to do good, now he's not so reckless anymore, which make his mistakes much more his own. So if he screws up now, we hold him responsible, because he obviously thought about whether or not to do it, and if he still does it... well... Stane sells his Weapons, ... well he's young and he doesn't know about it. So... that's okay. His Screw ups in Iron Man 2: well he was dying, cut him some slack, plus he was recklessly riding his fame wave... In Avengers, not only is he the best established character... but he... doesn't really screw up during the movie. He has that famous line about cutting the wire, but shortly after that, we see him risking his savety to jumpstart the helicarrier... So it seems as if he's just saying that, but in the end, is very willing to 'lie on the wire' anyway. Iron Man 3, when he practically invites the 'Mandarin' to attack him... obviously reckless again... But starting there we also get a feeling of 'shouldn't he have learned by now'. But there's still a lot going on in his life - namely his mental issues, so it seems somewhat understandable that he just snabs. With Ultron it's much the same. It's reckless, he doesn't think it through, again it's motivated by mental issues and a luring threat, and it goes wrong way to early to do something about it... But... Still at least I kind of get a feeling of, 'when's he starting to think it through'. And that's I think why he probably seems less likable in the later movies. Because while his screw ups seem charming in the beginning. During the course of these movies, he seems older, more mature, more confident, he get's himself in a top position in this teem, he gets... probably even more arrogant... but then he keeps repeating the same mistake of not thinking a little further.

    But I think it changes with Civil War. Which is why I really like this Tony. Because he's much more responsible. And when I say responsible, I don't mean, that he doesn't make mistakes anymore, but he's thinking things through, and when he screws up still, he is responsible himself, not because he forgot something or because he didn't think hard enough. There's not a single thing happening in the movie, that he didn't see coming (aside from the Video at the end), and while he doesn't necessarily like it, he doesn't really make excuses either, because he accepted the risk beforehand, and till the end... he's quite sure he wasn't wrong... and probably wasn't. (And I don't mean this in a moral way, but a rational way, hear me out first)

    Let's take Wanda as an example. When he confined her to the compound, he obviously thought that it was the best option, to keep her save and everybody else too. But it was WRONG. Like you said, he had no right to do it... It's not really excusable because he didn't do it on a whim. He carefully thought about it. And even if it probably was the best solution - depending on what you believe - it doesn't change the fact that he did something morally wrong, and he did it willingly, knowing it was wrong, and he chose not to ask her about it.
    Compared to that, Ultron was excuseable. Because he didn't think it through and it turned out way worse and then he apoligized. Confining Wanda is different, because he knew she wouldn't like it, so he didn't tell her, but he also knew, it was probably the only way to keep her out of the discussion and this would be the best outcome for everyone. So he did something morally wrong, with good intention, that he thought, was the best/ only way, to protect her, and when she finds it out, and it goes wrong, he doesn't apologize, because unlike with Ultron, where he simply didn't know, here he knows exactly what he's doing and he stands to this decision. So he doesn't apologize, because he's (I think) still fairly certain that he made the best decision, even if she and Steve wouldn't agree.
    Same thing with the Accords. He knew, Steve probably wouldn't agree with him, but he thought, he could talk him into signing eventually, if given enough time. When he didn't have the time, he still tried to talk him into signing, because he thought, that was for the best. But at that point he also knew, that something might occur, and rip the avengers in two. He hoped it wouldn't happen, but he didn't look at all surprised or unprepared when it did (he actually made quite a few comments that in hindsight sounded as if he knew what was coming). But he still thought, that his decision was the best, and had everything worked out, it would have been for the best, and the worst case scenario would probably be still worse than anything that actually happened (he hinted in that direction), so he went with his decision and stayed their and didn't apologize when it went wrong, even though Steve or Hawkeye or others later thought he was wrong, or blamed him for whatever happened. He didn't apologize to them, because he still thought he made the best decision. Unlike with Ultron, where he immediately knew he screwed up.
    He's not past making mistakes and he knows that too, because he does apologize about being wrong about Bucky and acting on wrong intel. BUt he never actually admits that confining Wanda or signing the Accords was wrong.
    Even when he meets with Hawkeye on the Raft, he tells him: 'Yeah sorry, I didn't know about the Raft' and he probably didn't but Hawkeye's right and of course Tony knew they'd imprison them somewhere. And it's not really admitting a mistake from Tony's side. It's a 'yeah, I wish it would have gone differently, but I'm not backing down from my position, and it's your fault you're here, even if I don't particularly like it.'

    And that's why I really like Tony here. Because he's making rational decisions. And he's not being infallible and probably not making all the right choices. (And I can sadly see it, that in the end it was all wrong and a big screw up, even worse than we know by now. - Though I wouldn't like it, because I think - as said, that by know, he's screwed up often enough.) But In this movie, I see a grown up Tony, who learned from earlier mistakes, makes decisions he doesn't particularly like either (because he doesn't like working under authorities himself), but thinks are for the best. And he's not reckless about it, but tries to come to the most logical conclusion without acting on whims and wishes. He grew up. He's more thinking, more planning.. But he's still Tony, and when he starts making reckless decisions based on his whims, like following Cap to Siberia and of course his purely emotional decision to 'kill Bucky'... well.

    I actually thinks it ties in perfectly with two of the quotes from prior Avengers movie: The one about cutting the wire from Tony, and Steve's quote, that they'd fail together. Because I think, when Tony said he'd cut the wire it was not because he was put under pressure and had to say something, but later proofed he would also - if he had to - lie on the wire, but I actually think he meant it. Tony doesn't want to lose. He wants to find the best way with the least sacrifices along the way, and if that's the less corageous, less heroic or the most boring way to do - it doesn't matter. And I don't think Tony wants to die with the Avengers protecting earth. We have to remember that he built Ultron because he's one of the few characters who always has the looming threat of Thanos in the back of his mind. For Steve it's still very much 'whatever threat arrives, whoever attacks, we'll deal with it, when it comes.' Hydra, Rumlow... those 'minor earthern threats' are still very much on his radar. For Tony, since the Avengers it's all about the looming threat in the future. All about Thanos. And while Steve acts on 'as long as Thanos isn't here we don't need to prepare for a war, that hasn't started yet', Tony doesn't care about Hydra or anything... that much. Of course he fights it, but his focus is all on Thanos. If the Accords mean that they can battle Thanos united, not only the Avengers, but the entire world together, and that it wouldn't just be those few heroes dying together, but the Earth winning as one, than they are worth it. And needed.
    So Steve was willing to fight all those minor threats, but Tony is fairly sure, that the way the Avengers are know, even if they can manage the minor threats, in the end, they'll all die, because they are not prepared for Thanos.
    Tony's very willing to leave some of those minor threats, let them do a little chaos, deal with them a little later (because yeah the Accords would probably slow the reaction time of them down a bit), if it meant, that when Thanos arrived they were stronger, newly restructured, with more intel, better contacts, and a world that had already decided to fight Thanos together, rather than each country on their own.

    Oh... Btw. Am I the only one, who thinks Scott and Hawkeye on the Raft are particular *******s?
    I mean I understand where they're coming from. But Scott sounds, as if Tony has betrayed his trust, as if they were friends, when they don't know each other at all. 'A friend always told me never to trust a Stark.' Well, okay? But you didn't trust him, so what are you talking about. And Hawkeye making a joke about Rhodes' broken back, that's just... no.
     
    #90 Ceies, Apr 6, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  16. Steamteck Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope Scott and Clint's comments worked just fine for me. I'm sure lots of others saw it your way though.
     
  17. Capsfan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you mind to elaborate on that? What made you think so?
    I don't think we should call a person "stupid" just because his personal relationships made him a little selfish and biased. It's a very human feature.
     
  18. Schlosser85 A Very Stable Genius

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    41,355
    Likes Received:
    19,325
    Made psychic? Zola revealed to him that HYDRA had Howard killed in TWS two years before Civil War.
     
  19. BullMcGiveny Probably Disagree

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    HYDRA, not the Winter Soldier.
     
  20. metaphysician Not a Side-Kick

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    12,337
    Likes Received:
    824
    Its hardly a huge leap to surmise. Sure, its *possible* Hydra could have used something other than their greatest assassin to take out one of their greatest enemies. . . which is the possibility Steve hung to, in choosing not to look into the matter. However, he still deep down knew that it probably was Bucky. And that he chose to avoid looking at the matter. That's what he holds against himself.
     
  21. BullMcGiveny Probably Disagree

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    The way the narrative treats it, as does Tony, he did know with a degree of certainty. The fact that he didn't share this "knowledge" is presented as a major transgression.

    Howard Stark was a 70 year old businessman. No, it wouldn't have taken their best assassin to kill him. The fact that HYDRA saw the need to do just that is one of many instances of plot idiocy.
     
  22. NealKenneth Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is one of the weirdest ongoing discussions I've stumbled across on this site.

    Winter Soldier killing Stark...Stark is one of wealthiest people on the planet and a founder of a powerful security organization. You bet your ass I'd send my best guy for that mission. He's basically Steve Jobs combined with Nick Fury! What difference does it make how old he is?

    As for Tony himself, I view him as a villain in the film but bringing Peter along is 100% consistant with his character. In fact, he chose Peter BECAUSE of the kid in Sokovia. He's thinking "Well, I ruined that other kids life so hopefully I can help another kid." It's part of how he tries to redeem himself.
     
  23. Capsfan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Zola showed a picture of the Winter Soldier right before the pictures of Fury's and Howard's demise. Steve knows, who shot Fury. It's as simple as that.

    In fact, if Steve didn't know about Bucky, then nothing wound have prevented him to tell Tony about HYDRA killing his parents.

    P.S Tony is irresponsible, yes, but he's not a villain.
     
    #98 Capsfan, Jun 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
  24. BullMcGiveny Probably Disagree

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did someone ever try to assassinate Steve Jobs? Money doesn't make you bulletproof.

    Stark wasn't a fighter, he didn't have training that made him hard to kill. He had connections and influence, which were useful in starting SHIELD. Him being akin to Nick Fury is really pushing it.

    70 year olds aren't particularly sturdy.
     
    #99 BullMcGiveny, Jun 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
  25. NealKenneth Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Haha no not physically, but the wealthy tend to have pretty great armed protection (including bodyguards etc.), particularily if they have a military/government history. All retired presidents have a secret service detail until they die for example, even if they die at 95 years old.

    So if anything, the "plot hole" is that Stark didn't seem to have any, rather than that an enemy force would send their best man. But all it really is is another well-written, well-executed plot point that's being targeting by someone with a vendetta against the MCU for whatever reason.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"