Falcon and The Winter Soldier

[TooFlyToFail]

If there was one single thing that genuinely annoyed me about MCU Civil War, it was The Avengers sitting silent while Ross guilted them over the consequences of their actions. I really wanted somebody to say "Hey Hairpiece! Ultron? That's on us. But every last one of those started with you lot letting the Hydra moles in your super-secret agency run amok!"

Not really; just Cap 2.

[The Cool Thatguy]

If there was one single thing that genuinely annoyed me about MCU Civil War, it was The Avengers sitting silent while Ross guilted them over the consequences of their actions. I really wanted somebody to say "Hey Hairpiece! Ultron? That's on us. But every last one of those started with you lot letting the Hydra moles in your super-secret agency run amok!"

I dunno, if you look at the intended scale, Ultron is easily the worst threat of the three. Loki and Hydra wanted to conquer the world, Ultron was looking to destroy it.

[Frontier]

I dunno, if you look at the intended scale, Ultron is easily the worst threat of the three. Loki and Hydra wanted to conquer the world, Ultron was looking to destroy it.

And Cap and company stopped Hydra before they could really do serious damage, while the Avengers' best attempt to stop Ultron...still caused serious damage.

[CosmiComic]

The problem is that the comics and movies will keep having the governments be severely incompetent, so the point of accountability holds less weight...when it shouldn't.

Yeah, it's artificially lopsided to make the heroes look good. Even though Civil war did not make them look good at all anyway

[inisideguy]

I will say this. There are good points on both sides regarding Walker. Here is the thing that is happening. The MCU has set the fans up to have a personal dislike of Walker from the beginning. So his actions come off worse than someone like say Tony stark who flew into a country unauthorized into the middle of foreign military conflict and killed soldiers he didn't know like bugs because they were hurting innocents.. But in a way this is also real life right? We give passes to people more that we like personally? I see both sides of this argument.

[CosmiComic]

I will say this. There are good points on both sides regarding Walker. Here is the thing that is happening. The MCU has set the fans up to have a personal dislike of Walker from the beginning. So his actions come off worse than someone like say Tony stark who flew into a country unauthorized into the middle of foreign military conflict and killed soldiers he didn't know like bugs because they were hurting innocents.. But in a way this is also real life right? We give passes to people more that we like personally? I see both sides of this argument.

I'd say people give MCU Clint a pass too, but who likes him?

[inisideguy]

I'd say people give MCU Clint a pass too, but who likes him?

LOL. Well this is possible but I think I am forgetting something what has Clint done so bad? There have been so many movies I think I blanked.

[80sbaby]

LOL. Well this is possible but I think I am forgetting something what has Clint done so bad? There have been so many movies I think I blanked.

His Ronin phase in Endgame.

[ZeroBG82]

This stuff is what I was talking about when I mentioned accountability. But somehow that's bad, according to Captain America of all people

Steve's argument in Civil War was never about accountability. It was about agency. He's not saying that it's wrong to hold the Avengers accountable for things like collateral damage or the consequences of their choices, his concern was with giving up their ability to make those choices. Steve doesn't view the Avengers as a weapon, to be directed as another group sees fit. He wants their actions and choices to be their own, even when they're bad.

Tony doesn't actually care about accountability either, when you get right down to it. He just wants the freedom (from guilt) that comes with not being the person making the choices of when and where to act. His eagerness to give up that responsibility has nothing to do with keeping bad things from happening or lessening the actual human toll, but merely with him not wanting the burden of responsibility for those things when they INEVITABLY happen.

Because we can talk about it all we want, but in these big superhero fights stuff IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Period. The Avengers can do everything possible to limit that, but the bad guys don't care and often actively seek wanton destruction. You're not going to stop it. Minimize it maybe, but you don't need government oversight for that, you just need human decency and the effort to think about it. I point you to Steve's conversation with Wanda in that very film, which by no accident immediately precedes Ross's arrival and the introduction of the Accords. The Sokovia Accords were an effort to assert control over the Avengers disguised behind claims of accountability. It was a fake argument, and all the evidence you need to see that is that it was Thunderbolt Ross making the pitch. Accountability as a smokescreen for a hostile takeover.

One criticism I do have of that film is that they don't really get into that as explicitly as they should. Tony is acting from guilt, and the fear of future guilt. Steve is the one who is actually willing to shoulder the burden of their failures along with celebrating their successes. And both of their positions are born from their experiences in a really effective and powerful way. Tony has learned that he probably does need somebody riding herd on him because of his reckless ambition and faith in himself (which has ironically destroyed itself, eaten it's own tail like Ouroboros). And Steve has learned that organizations and bureaucracies can hide agendas and nefarious deeds behind false words and layers of disguised intentions. Tony's position FEELS more acceptable because it's paying lip service to the human toll of these incidents. It hits notes of concern for safety and prosperity. But it masks what is actually an abdication of responsibility, an abandonment of agency.

An interesting thought experiment (and something I wish the film had addressed directly) is whether or not Steve would have been ok with an alternative means of accountability. An after action review from an international panel, for example. Censure and punishment if it is deemed they acted recklessly, negligently or against the common interest. Protocols put in place for rules of engagement and a means of enforcement that doesn't take the reins of decision making away from the Avengers themselves. Or, in other words, an actual mechanism of accountability without control.

[CosmiComic]

Steve's argument in Civil War was never about accountability. It was about agency. He's not saying that it's wrong to hold the Avengers accountable for things like collateral damage or the consequences of their choices, his concern was with giving up their ability to make those choices. Steve doesn't view the Avengers as a weapon, to be directed as another group sees fit. He wants their actions and choices to be their own, even when they're bad.

Tony doesn't actually care about accountability either, when you get right down to it. He just wants the freedom (from guilt) that comes with not being the person making the choices of when and where to act. His eagerness to give up that responsibility has nothing to do with keeping bad things from happening or lessening the actual human toll, but merely with him not wanting the burden of responsibility for those things when they INEVITABLY happen.

Because we can talk about it all we want, but in these big superhero fights stuff IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Period. The Avengers can do everything possible to limit that, but the bad guys don't care and often actively seek wanton destruction. You're not going to stop it. Minimize it maybe, but you don't need government oversight for that, you just need human decency and the effort to think about it. I point you to Steve's conversation with Wanda in that very film, which by no accident immediately precedes Ross's arrival and the introduction of the Accords. The Sokovia Accords were an effort to assert control over the Avengers disguised behind claims of accountability. It was a fake argument, and all the evidence you need to see that is that it was Thunderbolt Ross making the pitch. Accountability as a smokescreen for a hostile takeover.

One criticism I do have of that film is that they don't really get into that as explicitly as they should. Tony is acting from guilt, and the fear of future guilt. Steve is the one who is actually willing to shoulder the burden of their failures along with celebrating their successes. And both of their positions are born from their experiences in a really effective and powerful way. Tony has learned that he probably does need somebody riding herd on him because of his reckless ambition and faith in himself (which has ironically destroyed itself, eaten it's own tail like Ouroboros). And Steve has learned that organizations and bureaucracies can hide agendas and nefarious deeds behind false words and layers of disguised intentions. Tony's position FEELS more acceptable because it's paying lip service to the human toll of these incidents. It hits notes of concern for safety and prosperity. But it masks what is actually an abdication of responsibility, an abandonment of agency.

An interesting thought experiment (and something I wish the film had addressed directly) is whether or not Steve would have been ok with an alternative means of accountability. An after action review from an international panel, for example. Censure and punishment if it is deemed they acted recklessly, negligently or against the common interest. Protocols put in place for rules of engagement and a means of enforcement that doesn't take the reins of decision making away from the Avengers themselves. Or, in other words, an actual mechanism of accountability without control.

But Steve barely even bothered to discuss it. He was stubborn and obstinate about the whole business despite being all about saving everyone in the previous movie. He didn't even entertain the idea of some kind of compromise. Frankly, I found him somewhat unlikeable in CW, which is rare for me.

And while Ross is absolutely questionable at best, the rest of the world also wanted this. But somehow that's dangerous.

It's odd because I generally agree the bad guys did most of the damage, so blaming the Avengers seems a bit unfair. However, that doesn't mean they can't have someone overseeing them at some time. But God forbid that happen

[80sbaby]

But Steve barely even bothered to discuss it. He was stubborn and obstinate about the whole business despite being all about saving everyone in the previous movie. He didn't even entertain the idea of some kind of compromise. Frankly, I found him somewhat unlikeable in CW, which is rare for me.

And while Ross is absolutely questionable at best, the rest of the world also wanted this. But somehow that's dangerous.

It's odd because I generally agree the bad guys did most of the damage, so blaming the Avengers seems a bit unfair. However, that doesn't mean they can't have someone overseeing them at some time. But God forbid that happen

There was no compromise to be had. The Accords didn't come from Tony. They came from the U.N, who were not going to compromise because as Zero pointed out, it was really about controlling the Avengers. Steve didn't have the option to come up with another way because the Accords were a done deal. He could either sign them or not.

[Tofali]

But Steve barely even bothered to discuss it. He was stubborn and obstinate about the whole business despite being all about saving everyone in the previous movie. He didn't even entertain the idea of some kind of compromise. Frankly, I found him somewhat unlikeable in CW, which is rare for me.

And while Ross is absolutely questionable at best, the rest of the world also wanted this. But somehow that's dangerous.

It's odd because I generally agree the bad guys did most of the damage, so blaming the Avengers seems a bit unfair. However, that doesn't mean they can't have someone overseeing them at some time. But God forbid that happen

Coming from being a tool for the govt in WW2 and Hydra taking over SHIELD Steve agreeing to continue being a tool would be a disservice to his character. Idealism is his schtick - he should be learning from his past mistakes not continue repeating them.

[CosmiComic]

There was no compromise to be had. The Accords didn't come from Tony. They came from the U.N, who were not going to compromise because as Zero pointed out, it was really about controlling the Avengers. Steve didn't have the option to come up with another way because the Accords were a done deal. He could either sign them or not.

Tony said they'd be willing to compromise in German, if I'm not mistaken

Coming from being a tool for the govt in WW2 and Hydra taking over SHIELD Steve agreeing to continue being a tool would be a disservice to his character. Idealism is his schtick - he should be learning from his past mistakes not continue repeating them.

But there's a lot of space between "government tool" and "loose cannon".

[80sbaby]

Tony said they'd be willing to compromise in German, if I'm not mistaken

Tony told him to sign and then work out better terms afterwards, which is pretty stupid. Signing gives away your leverage and Tony wasn't in any real position to make that deal.

[CosmiComic]

Tony told him to sign and then work out better terms afterwards, which is pretty stupid. Signing gives away your leverage and Tony wasn't in any real position to make that deal.

I can see that. But Tony still seemed willing to talk about it. Steve acted self-righteous the whole time.