Captain America: Civil War *SPOILERS*

[XPac]

1) So where is War Machine, and Vision? If they were there, as back up in the surrounding area, watching if they try to escape, that may not have happened. I did bring up using Vision and Rhodes if working with the people wasn't viable.

2) And what if she says no? Does Cap say "Oh well, I tried."? Even if Cap asked, he was setting an example of not laying low, so i would've been a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario.

Cap wouldn't have asked her to lay low in the first place. Unlike Stark he wouldn't prioritize PR over Wanda ' s personal fredom. That's more a Stark thing.

[TooFlyToFail]

And that said government would as happily locked them ALL up, as Ross said to Tony.

Everyone should also keep in mind that the UN allows some of the most atrocious human-rights abusers to sit on the Human Rights Committee. Which in and of itself shows how little faith should be placed in the 116 out of 117 number. Good number of those "yes" votes had nothing to do with "accountablility" and everything to do with leashing the Avengers so that they couldn't operate in specific nations.

Well, why can't the group that makes the decisions be made up of T'Challa, Steve, Stark, Ross, and a few other people? That way Steve can keep tabs on Ross, or whoever else could do shady things?

[Kalen O.]

The current movie proves you wrong here. Zemo was locked up in the exact same kind of high-tech isolation cell Bucky was being held in when he was arrested by Ross's task Force. Those things aren't standard issue. And he was shown being read the riot act by Everett Ross, the administrative head of Thaddeus Ross's task force, who explicitly said that he was in charge there. It's made plainly clear that Zemo was being held under the authority of Accord, not in Wakanda, which means Thaddeus Ross knows all about what happened. Also, T'Challa made a very clear point about Zemo being brought to justice as opposed to seeking revenge. Simply tossing him in a hole in Wakanda as opposed to putting him on trial under international authority wouldn't have been justice.

Hmm. Well in that case, I find the fact that we didn't see Ross' reaction to finding out Tony went behind his back to be a huge oversight on the movie's part, because that's pretty crucial to the entirety of Cap and Steve's ideological split. I just assumed Wakanda had the capabilities to produce the same kind of cell that Ross used (or hell, maybe they could have supplied the cells in the first place) and that the significance of having Everett Ross being the one to talk to Zemo in that scene was that Everett Ross is primarily known for being an ally of the Black Panther, and that he was there in Wakanda.

(As far as justice vs revenge, I would disagree there that tossing Zemo into a hole in the ground in Wakanda wouldn't be justice by T'Challa's standards. It was made clear he disagrees with his father on a number of things. If he prioritized crimes against Wakanda over crimes against the entire UN, one could make the case that imprisoning Zemo in Wakanda for crimes against his sovereign nation, according to Wakanda's own laws was the justice he had in mind).

[Kalen O.]

Fine, fine.

I think that offering them a seat at the table, or Tony and Steve demanding one, would've made everything work in the end, if they did it from the jump.

Agreed. As I said earlier, there were a number of ways where they could have made the case for why the Accords were necessary. My problem was never with the idea of the Accords it was having Tony be the spokesperson for that side of the conflict and then showing him circumvent them without consequences.

[TooFlyToFail]

Cap wouldn't have asked her to lay low in the first place. Unlike Stark he wouldn't prioritize PR over Wanda ' s personal fredom. That's more a Stark thing.

Well, when the world hates, and fears, you, you breed new enemies, and people less willing to listen to the Avengers. The people fear her, so tell her to lay low for a few weeks.

Disregarding what fear, and hate, can breed is how you get a Watchman situation.

[TooFlyToFail]

Hmm. Well in that case, I find the fact that we didn't see Ross' reaction to finding out Tony went behind his back to be a huge oversight on the movie's part, because that's pretty crucial to the entirety of Cap and Steve's ideological split. I just assumed Wakanda had the capabilities to produce the same kind of cell that Ross used (or hell, maybe they could have supplied the cells in the first place) and that the significance of having Everett Ross being the one to talk to Zemo in that scene was that Everett Ross is primarily known for being an ally of the Black Panther, and that he was there in Wakanda.

Well, that's what I meant when I said that this movie became BvS by the end of the movie. The ideologies, and plot, were thrown out the window for emotion, and emotion doesn't always make sense.

[kalorama]

Hmm. Well in that case, I find the fact that we didn't see Ross' reaction to finding out Tony went behind his back to be a huge oversight on the movie's part, because that's pretty crucial to the entirety of Cap and Steve's ideological split. I just assumed Wakanda had the capabilities to produce the same kind of cell that Ross used (or hell, maybe they could have supplied the cells in the first place) and that the significance of having Everett Ross being the one to talk to Zemo in that scene was that Everett Ross is primarily known for being an ally of the Black Panther, and that he was there in Wakanda.

But even if those assumptions were true, it doesn't change the fact that--in this movie--Everett Ross works for Thaddeus Ross under the authority of the Accord, so if he knows what Zemo did (and it was made very clear that he knew all about Zemo's plan, as he was openly mocking Zemo for its supposed failure) then Thaddeus Ross would know as well, because there would be no reason whatsoever for Everett not to tell him. Nor would there be any reason for him not to tell Secretary Ross if T'Challa were holding Zemo in Wakanda, in direct violation of the Accords and international law. So, however and from whomever he found out--Tony, T'Chall, Everett--there's really no question that Secretary Ross knows about what happened in Siberia. And Tony is not only not in jail, but he's still working under the authority of the Accords.

EDIT: And them not addressing Secretary Ross knowing really isn't that big a deal, because at the end the real split between Cap and Tony wasn't about any ideology based on international law. It was about personal loyalty and friendship being betrayed. Cap and Iron Man weren't beating the crap out of each other in that bunker because Cap broke the law or because Iron Man believed in the Accords. They were fighting because Steve chose to protect the man who murdered Tony's parents.

[dragonmp93]

Well, why can't the group that makes the decisions be made up of T'Challa, Steve, Stark, Ross, and a few other people? That way Steve can keep tabs on Ross, or whoever else could do shady things?

Because that's not the point of the Accords, the point is that if you sign it, you accept that Ross is now your immediate boss.

Well, when the world hates, and fears, you, you breed new enemies, and people less willing to listen to the Avengers. The people fear her, so tell her to lay low for a few weeks.

Disregarding what fear, and hate, can breed is how you get a Watchman situation.

Yeah, because doing that helped so much the X-men.

[TooFlyToFail]

But even if those assumptions were true, it doesn't change the fact that--in this movie--Everett Ross works for Thaddeus Ross under the authority of the Accord, so if he knows what Zemo did (and it was made very clear that he knew all about Zemo's plan, as he was openly mocking Zemo for its supposed failure) then Thaddeus Ross would know as well, because there would be no reason whatsoever for Everett not to tell him. Nor would there be any reason for him not to tell Secretary Ross if T'Challa were holding Zemo in Wakanda, in direct violation of the Accords and international law. So, however and from whomever he found out--Tony, T'Chall, Everett--there's really no question that Secretary Ross knows about what happened in Siberia. And Tony is not only not in jail, but he's still working under the authority of the Accords.

Well at this point, what would he do about Tony? He's going to lock up Tony? Does he think Rhodes, or Vision, would work for him then? Rhodes would retire, and they can't do jack to Vision. With Cap, and friends, out in the wind, they need Stark, an Avenger, to be the face of whatever kind of "order" they want to uphold. He needs Stark to keep Vision, and Rhodes, helping them, too.

Stark is kinda untouchable at the moment....which is the perfect set up for an IM4: New Avengers movie.

[TooFlyToFail]

Because that's not the point of the Accords, the point is that if you sign it, you accept that Ross is now your immediate boss.



Yeah, because doing that helped so much the X-men.

1) Well Ross can't save the world from alien invasions, so if the Avengers threatened to all retire, if they weren't involved at the top, then his hand would be forced.

2) The X-Men have the whole "next step in human evolution" problem, that breeds the fear that regular humans are a dying species. It's racism to the extreme. The Avengers don't have that problem.

[Kalen O.]

But even if those assumptions were true, it doesn't change the fact that--in this movie--Everett Ross works for Thaddeus Ross under the authority of the Accord, so if he knows what Zemo did (and it was made very clear that he knew all about Zemo's plan, as he was openly mocking Zemo for its supposed failure) then Thaddeus Ross would know as well, because there would be no reason whatsoever for Everett not to tell him. Nor would there be any reason for him not to tell Secretary Ross if T'Challa were holding Zemo in Wakanda, in direct violation of the Accords and international law. So, however and from whomever he found out--Tony, T'Chall, Everett--there's really no question that Secretary Ross knows about what happened in Siberia. And Tony is not only not in jail, but he's still working under the authority of the Accords.

Yeah, then in that case, that kinda makes me more annoyed lol. Because revealing what happened in Siberia would have invited questions about how Tony knew to find Steve in Siberia, which would have invited questions about the lapse in the security feed in the Raft....and for there to be no visible consequences (or even acknowledgment of suspicion on Ross' part) to Tony hacking a supermax prison, hiding knowledge of Cap and Bucky's whereabouts from the UN appointed authority who'd sent Tony after them in the first place, going off to Russia without authorization, permission, or knowledge from either the UN or Russia, engaging as Iron Man in a vigilante capacity, and then failing to bring in either Bucky or Steve....all without any kind of acknowledgment from the movie as to what made this different from Ross and the UN's reasons for keeping the Avengers locked up....that just really doesn't work IMO. It invalidates a lot of the thematic conflict of the movie. Like, I don't feel that you can really justify leaving something as huge as that out, when your entire movie is about accountability. It's kind of a necessary story beat.

I mean if your official, sanctioned Avenger isn't shown to face any sort of consequences for acting outside of the Accords he signed of his own free will, then what is even the point of them, in story?

[XPac]

Well, when the world hates, and fears, you, you breed new enemies, and people less willing to listen to the Avengers. The people fear her, so tell her to lay low for a few weeks.

Disregarding what fear, and hate, can breed is how you get a Watchman situation.

And yet Stark, despite likely causing more damage and harm than Wanda, freely went out whenever the heck he felt like it. And he did so because no one chose to lock him up despite what he did.

[TooFlyToFail]

And yet Stark, despite likely causing more damage and harm than Wanda, freely went out whenever the heck he felt like it. And he did so because no one chose to lock him up despite what he did.

How did he cause more harm than Wanda? Wanda manipulated him in AoU.

If you're talking about the weapons...he's not the one pulling the trigger, and it was Stane that sold his weapons on the black market.

[TooFlyToFail]

Yeah, then in that case, that kinda makes me more annoyed lol. Because revealing what happened in Siberia would have invited questions about how Tony knew to find Steve in Siberia, which would have invited questions about the lapse in the security feed in the Raft....and for there to be no visible consequences (or even acknowledgment of suspicion on Ross' part) to Tony hacking a supermax prison, hiding knowledge of Cap and Bucky's whereabouts from the UN appointed authority who'd sent Tony after them in the first place, going off to Russia without authorization, permission, or knowledge from either the UN or Russia, engaging as Iron Man in a vigilante capacity, and then failing to bring in either Bucky or Steve....all without any kind of acknowledgment from the movie as to what made this different from Ross and the UN's reasons for keeping the Avengers locked up....that just really doesn't work IMO. It invalidates a lot of the thematic conflict of the movie. Like, I don't feel that you can really justify leaving something as huge as that out, when your entire movie is about accountability. It's kind of a necessary story beat.

I mean if your official, sanctioned Avenger isn't shown to face any sort of consequences for acting outside of the Accords he signed of his own free will, then what is even the point of them, in story?

Like I said, the plot is not really there; it's drunk.

[dragonmp93]

How did he cause more harm than Wanda? Wanda manipulated him in AoU.

If you're talking about the weapons...he's not the one pulling the trigger, and it was Stane that sold his weapons on the black market.

Well, then there is the destruction he has caused in all the movies that he has been.