I think if their debate stayed a political/philosophical one, Tony and Steve would have eventually come to a middle ground on the Accords. But then the matter of Bucky, and Zemo's manipulations made things a lot more personal and caused the deep rift that lasted into the Infinity Saga. I mean, they had their differences, but they were friends, and respected each other. I mean, the scene where Steve thought that Tony was going to say that him and Pepper were pregnant, Steve's face lights up with joy for a moment.
I thought about that too. The “Civil War” wasn’t just about the Accords. It was about whether or not to save a man who was on the wrong path but has the potential to become a powerful asset. A powerful asset who Steve loved and Tony came to hate. It’s like adding a new person to a long-established friend group and half the people liking the newbie and half of them not. It’s a tricky situation.
I think Steve’s instincts and values were right, but his lack of self-reflection caused his actions to be quite wrong. Plus, Tony would never sit around and wait for the government to call the shots. Even within Civil War, the MOMENT he had doubts he abandoned their mandates and went to make peace with Steve. I’m not on either side because both of them had solid points but their decisions were just awful. The Avengers needed to be able to keep each other in check. That was the answer, in my book.
I think part of it was Tony is used to breaking rules- he wanted to sign the accords because he wanted a check on himself, but if things went south he would have totally broken them. I have a harder time seeing Steve knowingly agree to something he knows he would backpedal on if things got nasty. I really love the HISHE for Civil War, precisely bc it shows so many of the points at which better decisions should have been made if all the characters had been acting normal (this type of conflict is always quite contrived upon close examination) BUT it is still an awesome movie which I love, excellent, and an interesting way to explore the question of gov. oversight.
I just feel like the UN/USA were being WILLFULLY disengenuous about "oversight" when they still General Ross in a position of massive power and influence even after he created the Abomination, and they even decide for him to give the "You need Oversight" lecture and take this moment to blame everything since NY on the Avengers. The entire thing just felt like a power grab to try and have an Avengers level team to threaten the rest of the world with which just would've opened up a new type of superhero warfare between the existing military powers in the world.
YES. And- in-universe their answer was to nuke NYC, which the Avengers stopped from both being necessary and from happening. (It’s been retconned that hydra had infiltrated the World Security Council and wanted to use the opportunity to kill the Avengers- but still) Your example makes more sense than mine, but just I agree.
@@moxmox8058 oh the fact that Hydra GOT onto WSC is reason enough to not trust some New Council with Avengers Oversight. Hydra was thought dead once before and managed to infiltrate SHIELD while it was being created. Hydra would find their way into whatever oversight committee they drum up
I agree, which is why I like the way the MCU handled the Accord vs the comics. This is so nuanced and grey it makes it so much harder to choose a side. Whereas in the comics the Accord gave off 10 stages of genocide vibes.
@Angel Regan Facts. Where as this one made it easy to understand his side and thought process. By the end I just felt sad they couldn't Talk-no-Jutsu their way out of it.
I love the way the movie’s added to the nuance without making the conflict feel stuffy by having everyone’s (not just Tony and Steve’s) perspective being just as motivated by personal, emotional wants/needs on top of any kind of broader political ideology.
I think another part to consider in both Tony and Steve's perspective is how the Accords would make certain members be classified as weapons instead of people. Tony's "powers" are his suit, his property. The Accords don't threaten his legal standing as a person. Steve's a super soldier by way of government experimentation. He's been used as propaganda tool and is dealing with the consequences of Bucky being reduced to nothing but a weapon for years. Tony's a private citizen who's of the most privileged class he treats the legal loss of personhood as something they can negotiate later while Steve understands he has more to be concerned for.
ok but ur bookshelf not only is a really nice but the book choices are impeccable would u consider a bookshelf tour? (also is it ok to think they both were in the wrong and not take sides cause it seems like a big part of the movie is that they both did it wrong)
In the mcu anyway, the avengers never felt like an actual team or friends, just a bunch of people who happen to like saving lives dealing with each other and sometimes working together. That's why it works well that they couldn't just come together and check themselves. Like Tony went straight to the government instead of sitting down with everyone and saying "ay yo we gotta clean this shit up" and that's why i always end up on Steve's side lol.
This is a great explanation, I didnt think about the perspectives they were coming from and I mainly focused on their perspectives within the movie. Also, love all of the books in the background, would love to hear you breakdown the Heroes of Olympus. I love Rick Riordan!
Maybe it’s just me but... Both of them are right and wrong. They both shoot to the extremes and don’t look for what’s right, which is moderation. Edit: an Add-on here is how they should have handled it. Tony is right that they should have had moderation. He’s wrong about giving the UN the power to wield them like a loaded gun. What they needed to do was create something new, made up of people they trust. Nick Fury, Maria Hill and bevy of others would make a good avengers council with Cap and Tony as balancing agents along with one of those “nice” politicians from the marvel universe. Shit the guy from BP and Civil war (whose name escapes me) played by Bilbo Baggins would have been a perfect decision. The funniest thing to me? The people who screamed that Captain Marvel (A film with almost 0 political leanings) was political, all didn’t catch the political overtones of the entire MCU and it’s message about how tribalism leads to extremism and to fix your issues, you literally have to meet your allies in the middle. Cap and Tony start on different ends of the ideological spectrum and by the end of Civil War, they are at the furthest they could. It’s not until Endgame do they draw closer, this line was the moment where they came back to near moderation: “Do you trust me?” “I do.” The two literally pass each other on their way to the other end of the see saw and come back and save reality by fighting and standing together. Feels like we need to understand that right now
Honestly the only right choice felt like neithe compromise/negotiation would have been best. Neither are right or wrong on their own. This is why I hate that they made civil war a cap movie and not an avengers movie
This reminds me of a tweet that I read, a few weeks ago. It pretty much said that the Avengers wouldn't be liked and accepted by the public because of the severe after-effects of their battles.
This is what I’ve always thought too. Like I get that they’re heroes and all, but i feel like in the real world, they would be more controversial figures. Some people would like them, and others would hate them. Depends on where they live, or their personal experiences with the Avengers. They’d be the subject of many debates in the real world; a whole political talking point.
That, “it depends” is applied outside of the Air Force a LOT more than you’d like! I agree with a lot of what was said about Tony’s motivating trauma & guilt. I think that Tony’s life had been steadily taking him to this point where he was not only increasingly aware of the impact & influence of his actions, but that he had more blood on his hands than he could even begin to account for. I think that Tony’s increased awareness & subsequent guilt led him to look at his own & the country’s history & think that checks on him & the Avengers as an “industry”/“entity” were needed. It is SO key to remember that Tony had always operated & thought as a civilian, inventor & businessman. So while he intellectually knew that his enterprise started as & he had been more than the generic words “a defense contractor”, he’d been a legal arms dealer & developer who viewed the increased ability to take lives & kill more effectively using his products abstractly - as numbers on a page & the lives he chose to try & better protect were of those that paid him &/or US troops. Through the events that made him Iron Man & his experiences in the suit, Tony realized that intended users & actual users weren’t always the same, & he began to care about people & civilians more globally. So he also saw that combatants who weren’t terrorists or extremists were likely just people also fighting to protect their country & its interests above those of other nations (just like any legitimate military should). Since I’ve written a TON I’ll try to be more succinct with Steve. I think so many of Steve’s driving influences (even with Bucky) came down to loss & desired preservation of agency, freedom, & the ability to have legitimate checks on oversight entities. Steve had sacrificed all he had & knew to be a soldier & then clandestine operator for his country, only to see the government & system he’d put such unquestioning faith in that he’d ceded autonomy of his own body, infiltrated & corrupted by the very enemy he’d given & lost everything to fight. As Zola even noted (though he was pleased) Hydra spread like an unchecked parasitic disease, destroyed countless lives (including Bucky’s & Tony’s) & mocked the sacrifices & suffering of so many, including Steve.
Tony: AIM, Ultron, Zemo (via Ultron), Vulture, Mysterio Howard: Iron Monger, Whiplash The Starks are responsible for at least a quarter of Villains in the MCU. Should be called the "Tony" Accords
Steve is angry and not trusting the government. Especially how things ended with the Winter Soldier. The Government not only was infiltrator by Hydra but they also KNOWINGLY held his best friend from WW2 under mind control while he was under the ice. They employed the Doctor that HE captured and the fought against their own interest. Tony wants to just protect and keep as much life preserved as possible. Coming off of avenger, when they lost Coluson ( he didnt die he went to Agents of Shield), Iron Man 2 where he lost his home and also lost Pepper. Iron Man three where Pepper was given the Extremeist treatment. He wants to have a check on his power as he sees he is not responsible enough to use it himself. He would never admit that. (Tony being Tony) That is the case. The bottom line for me is that Cap, believes in people. Tony believes in processes and powers. I dont like the government as they pose as one big THING when they are justified but they are separate when they do something wrong. Dont believe me, get a traffic ticket and you will learn all about how different parts of the Government dont communicate unless they is something to take credit for. OR look at the capital riots on Jan 6 and compare that to the BLM protest. BLM protesters, the wall of moms, walking the streets were pepper sprayed and collected in unmarks vans and held until their case was thrown out. Compare that to Jan 6. People were storming the captial building tossing *ish and raiding the building while screaming "KILL MIKE PENCE" NO POLICE WHERE CALLED FOR HOURS. For as powerful as the Government is we need to have someone that CAN operate outside of the government. Keep in mind the GOVERNMENT, wanted to NUKE NYC during the Avenger. They were willing to sacrifice EVERYONE in NYC while the Avengers were fighting the aliens. I would trust Cap, before Tony's judgement.
I think generally the part that frustrated me the most about the movie is yes I understand, this is a movie and they need to move things along, but it just isn't possible for them to have immediately created the accords and required right then for people to sign it that fast. It would require negotiation and lawyers and time and if they did that, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. But of course that would be a boring movie and I know that, I do, but it still MAKES ME GRIT MY TEETH because it's unreasonable. Outside of that Steve was 100% correct about not trusting the government because don't we see in our every day life that they all have motivations and agendas that do not have the best interests of everyone in mind? They would have to be overseen by people they don't know or don't even trust the motives of? No way. Also any team that involves seeing General Ross who is a corrupt monster as their ally, yeah, bad idea. Proving the point that the government isn't trustworthy. It's not that I don't understand where Tony's coming from, I just think big picture it is a bad idea. "The safest hands are our own" is correct in terms of the Avengers team. We never got to see what the Avengers team did when half of them ran away, how it actually looked to be under the government's thumb for awhile, which is kind of a mistake. The problem with the movie (outside of me yelling negotiation) is that it's not really about the Accords. That's a background thing that is pushed aside pretty quickly and it becomes all about Bucky. It feels like they knew that the Accords conflict couldn't possibly carry an actual movie so they shuttled it to the side to focus on Bucky. The Civil War wasn't over the Accords, it was over Bucky in the end, so it's kind of disjointed to me.
I think both sides have points and the storytelling is great for how the characters get to that point. But Tony looses ground on his side when Steve is trying to tell him about the Dr trying to get to the other Winter Soldiers and Tony ignores that instead of asking what Steve has learned. He's still very much a man who only listens to his own voice
The Accords had carried over into Agents of SHIELD with the plot of season 4 following Civil War, and i found that very interesting of how the Accords was handled there considering the craziness in that show
I tried to like this MULTIPLE times. You are very articulate and analytical. I really appreciate your perspective. I think I agree with Steve but I really empathize with Tony. Both Steve and Tony were trying to do the most good for the most people. Middle ground is definitely the way to on this one!
I love the book in the background that says “the subtle art of not giving a fuck” This video was also very informational and helpful, but that book is just it for me Ngl
Tony recruited a powered teenager and smuggled him in and out of Germany to enforce a law both of them were breaking by doing so. A teenager he failed to adequately mentor or subsequently report, btw. Mentoring requires communication and Tony’s shit at communication. Happy’s not really any better. A bit of real two-way communication would have ruined the plot of Homecoming, IMO. Tony actually mentoring and not acting like his usually crappy self. Then again, his screwing ol’ Toomes sight unseen after The Avengers set the stage for it in the first place, so it’s quite consistently apropos. After the events of Winter Soldier, Steve had a damn good reason to distrust the motives of those behind the push to control the team. He had no idea who to trust. For a very good reason. Tony dismissed this rather casually for a man who wouldn’t even let his own team question his earlier decisions. Decisions with a spectacularly large body count attached to them. As opposed to ANY of the others.’ Wanda’s tactical error in Lagos still saved more people than it killed and yet Tony’s treatment of her was at best paternalistic. At no point did he try to discuss the matter with her or deal with her emotional fallout. She did her best in the moment and was treated like a casual killer, a human WMD. By TONY. Shitty leadership. So shitty. I do wish they’d given Steve a chance to talk to her about it, though. Head canon suggests a short conversation at the airport before the battle. Because that’s the kind of guy Steve is. How much of what Ross used to justify the Accords could be laid at any of the Avengers’ feet? New York? Nope. That was on SHIELD. Washington DC? SHIELD again. Unless they preferred Cap just let Hydra murder millions with its super weapons? Sokovia is on Tony. 100%. Because he didn’t want to hear the “‘man wasn’t meant to meddle’ medley” and deliberately hid what he was doing from the others. Cap just stopped a rogue government agency from committing mass murder and the world’s response was “You need to be on someone’s leash.” That wasn’t going to happen. I also don’t really buy the idea they could get that many countries to agree on anything, as at least some would want the advantage powered people might provide and they’d resist on principle. Especially if they hadn’t suffered themselves. Look around and that should be obvious by now. Plus Wakanda had NO business signing onto the accords if T’Challa was going to be out doing his own thing anyway. It’s as bad as Tony. It really seems any effort to enforce the Accords was minimal, at best. Before Thanos rendered them basically moot. One last note. I am generally not in favor of rules and laws that aren’t or can’t truly be equally enforced. They’re usually just an excuse for targeted harassment. And the Accords were a recipe for just that kind of happy horseshit. IMO. None of this is meant to reflect on my appreciation of Tony as a character. I just think the picture of him as a hero is a lot more nuanced than at first blush. Tony’s nearly the agent of chaos Loki is, yet he’s a hero to most folks. Even those who hate Loki. I think it’s funny. If the “big three” are robots, wizards, and aliens, it’s weird nobody mentions mad scientists. They’re arguably a bigger threat and have been from the beginning. From Zola through Sharon’s chemist to Tony himself.
I agree, especially with the Wanda part. If Wanda hadn't done that, WAY more people would've died, including Steve, and then they'd probably try to blame her for NOT saving them. She was trying to deal with a ton of guilt and the only people who would even talk to her were Vision and Steve. She then got thrown into a big fight with a bunch of superheroes and locked in a maximum security prison with a straightjacket and a SHOCK COLLAR. Like wtf?
The point you made about the conflicts not being the Avengers fault is something I always said as well and thought was so stupid. The scene where Ross is showing the video saying "oh, look at the destruction you caused in New York and Washington". Uh, that wasn't the Avengers fault?!? Aliens attacked and Hydra were going to wipe out a whole bunch of innocent people. If the Avengers hadn't rocked up a hell of a lot more people would have been killed (hell, the military wanted to nuke New York to stop the Chitauri). Like you said, with the exception of Ultron (and that was more Tony than the Avengers as a whole) the Avengers never started those fights - they just finished them.
I do not know if you have watched AoS but they had the Accords in season 4 and AoS handled really well. They had Inhumans on the show and they showed how the Accords were affecting the “superpowered” people, the hate for Inhumans became worse and some enemies got ahold of the list and started hunting them down and killing them. I feel like the Accords were a good idea in hindsight, but in reality they hurt more people then they helped
@@tyesmith7201 Thank u Had Wanda not done what she did, and had That woman not hit Tony where it hurt in the elevator scene of civil war, he would've never done what he did. In a way, age of ultron and breaking up the avengers was good and bad. On 1 hand it added new avengers to the team as well as opened their eyes to the dangers of space. On the other hand it fragmented them, and I think if they all stood together they would've beaten thanos. He kinda only won infinity war because not only were they all separated but each time he was finna hold an L, he just had the perfect stone for the job. Thanos was the mcu megaman lol
@@jalel7962 Exactly On 1 hand we would've never gotten spidey in the mix but on the other hand Tony literally did the opposite of what the accords said, he never gave away Peter's identity even tho the accords clearly state any super powered individuals should be reported to the gov. But also can we talk about Mcu spidey? No cap,I wanted Peter to be a bit more mature(maybe have a few gadgets made and some villains under his belt already) , going so far as to question the guys he's fighting as to why they doing what they doing, trying to understand team caps motives. If he's truly caps BIGGEST fan, why not ask his so called idol WHY he's doing what he is? If u truly respect him odds are he's gonna have at least a semi feasable reason for his actions am I right?🤷🏾♂️ I honestly expected Peter to break UP the fighting, and tell the 2 sides they are like family, and shouldn't be fighting. Spidey was the chance to show what the common outsider sees in the avengers. A team that has their differences but puts them aside to work as 1, to "forever fight as 1". Ppl hype up Mcu spidey as being comic accurate, but he followed blindly. Sumn neither Amazing NOR Ultimate Peter did without asking some kind of questions.
@@moxmox8058 Yo I ain't think of that lol. Tbh I think it was just that Tony was holding that expo that day and she decided to pull up and give him a piece of her mind. In a way she wasn't in the wrong. But just looked at it very black and white when it's more to it than she realized. It's the issue with the civilians in not only the mcu but the comics too(cough world war hulk). They don't see the full picture.
Much like the comics I side with Captain America in the MCU. In Civil War(film) Tony was moving based on emotion and Zemo framing Bucky did nothing short of add fuel to that proverbial fire. As pop culture knowledgeable as Stark is he should know when it comes to A.I. tampering is a no no yet Ultron happened. The Avengers jurisdiction is the entire planet and no collective of governments should be the ones to dictate who, where, when they save whomever. The justice league is beholden to the US. If nothing else after the battle at the airport and finding the truth of Bucky’s involvement in the accords explosion, his trip to the Raft shows just how wrong he was about his decision making throughout the film. Sorry for the long message but this is my take.
I totally agree. Both Tony and Cap have very validated points! The Senator in the movies seemed to me way too eager to have them sign. Essentially taking control of the Avengers, which is, in my opinion, one of the reasons Cap didn't like the idea, which of course, there were many other reasons on top of that too. Then there's Tony's side, which you are right, power needs to be checked. People should always question the people at the top. Why are you writing this law? Does this legislation benefit the people as a whole or only the elite few? To many time people in power, whether in the real or fantasy world, have abused their position for personal gain or to enrich a few. People should ask the how and why.
I think the writers tried so hard and succeeded in making the audience actually have a hard time choosing a side. That is exactly why the marketing made the fans chose a side BEFORE the release, but then wanted the teams to have conflict about why they chose the team they chose. I think the character of Black Widow was a perfect example of this.
Thank you for this! It was amazing well-balanced and thought out. The thing that makes me side with Tony though, is “if we don’t do this, it’ll be done to us. And that won’t be pretty.” He’s 100% right. An American-based team of super-powered individuals, running around all over the world, ignoring borders and flouting the will of all those other countries they’re running around and blowing stuff up in, is 100% gonna get the rest of the world pissed eventually. You cooperate when asked, you generally have a LOT more leeway then if you wait until someone decides to force you to comply. If it was the American government? I’d be more inclined to say no way. But being put under the UN seems like their best case scenario. And, in the MCU, you didn’t HAVE to register. You just had to sign if you wanted the right to keep flying around the world and punching people in the face. Don’t wanna sign, simply stop being a superhero. Seems reasonable enough to me. If you’re going to use violence to protect and defend society.....society should be the one legitimizing and authorizing it. Right? They’re basically international (and beyond) cops. Cops with more firepower than most small nations. Seems only fair to say hey, you wanna bring that shit into my country, I get some say in what happens when you’re there. P.S: People in these comments just really wanting Tony to be 100% in the wrong. I really just don’t get the level of spite people have towards him, and I never will.
the reality is you can have caps avengers. but you could end up with the seven from the boys who are buck wild unchecked and allowed to do whatever. keep in mind the whole issue with clint. who went buck wild after the snap lost his family and started killing the left behind bad guys as ronin.
@@frenchfries2998 you don’t think he would’ve gotten grief therapy like everyone else? Or at least something ? Personally I’m on cap side especially in the comics. But they need some over sight or at least government support if it missions like sokvia , and what happen in nyc. Instead finding out after and dealing with the mass casualties too .
I know the accords weren't that perfect but I feel like Tony would have fought for them and made more reforms, I love them both but personally I'm team Tony
@@mariavi33 They were still working them out. If the Avengers shown unilaterally they are willing to listen to the world's concerns, these would have been reworked.
I see both sides and agree both have points. I feel they would have benefited from a lot of negotiations. However I side with Steve one because Bucky is my favorite Marvel character and, more importantly, the Accords are ten shades of unconstitutional. In the mcu, had everyone signed the accords, the only people who didn't disobey them were Clint and Bucky. Tony's ink has barely dried on the paper before he disobey them and gives an unregistered mutant unauthorized tech (sorry I love Peter look at it from a legal standpoint) For a full explanation very I would NEVER sign the accords: m.th-cam.com/video/TDMd40a-A4c/w-d-xo.html
In the MCU, Tony experienced captivity and the death of American soldiers who he was deluded(?) to believe he was to protect dying in front of him. So, seeing soldiers dying in front of his eyes NOT a greater driver of change in his behaviour than the guilt of one grieving mother? Just asking.
@GyvonJ I’m in a military vehicle, chatting with people and having a drink and >BOOM!< ...They’re dead in front of your eyes, and your chest is expressing blood... Yes, a mother’s rage has merit... but, even Stark said, “I should have been dead...”
Civil war is very interesting. The UN/Ross just realized they can't make new super powered beings they can control like hydra tried to and Tony tried to and Ross tried in the pass with hulk and abomination so why not use the law and recent tragedies as a way to control the avengers. They didn't actually care about civilian lives since the shield security council wanted to blow up NYC with a nuke. They used the accords as a way to gain control. Tony learning from iron man 2 decided it's better to sign to build trust and goodwill especially with the public instead of be head strong and arrogant like he was in the past about his iron man suit hearings. Tony realizes he's a billionaire and can lobby once it's made law and fight in court Amy discrepancies if need be but at least this way the avengers stay together while he goes off trying to repair his relationship with pepper. He fears something bigger is coming than hydra something like aliens from the battle of new York. He also feels this will personally help his conscience that he's not having the avengers be some private militia that can go into any country they want and impose their will how Loki tried to do with earth or how Ultron felt he deserved to. Tony doesn't want the avengers that he funds and builds for become the very thing he shut down at stark enterprises, just another tool for military control with massive casualties. He's trying to repair the messes he's made in life and having the avengers be legally reeled in but still remain together and able to break the rules when needed is better than them all hunted down. Tony doesn't really care about the specifics in the accords look at homecoming he gave an unregistered teen weaponized stark tech to mentor him to lead the avengers now that cap was gone. That wasn't probably approved by the accords but tony doesn't care. He even goes to fight with bucky and Steve the other winter soldier just on the down low and off the books. Tony is very much a rules are meant to be broken kind of guy. Cap is the opposite. After finding out hydra took over shined nearly from the very beginning and he, Peggy, and even Howard accomplishments amounted to nothing since hydra grew right underneath their nose in shield, Steve can't trust any governmental organization the same. He now has in the back of his head who is making these orders and to serve what goal are they hydra or allies. He is after winter soldier big time freedom vs security and on the freedom side. Even if it makes the world less safe he truly believes freedom is better than restricting people's freedoms but to maintain safety. spoilers: I think civil war cap or at least winter soldier cap would make the same decision Sylvie made in the season finale of Loki. Freewill matters more to both of them than peace and security of the multiverse vs Tony and Loki. I like civil war a lot
Tony believed that the accords were needed because people with powers could become dangerous and needed safegaurds Steve believed that the accords were not needed because he knew governments change and while we may trust them now the next regime may not be. They were both concerned about what could happened if power went unchecked. They both had points.They both needed to listen to each other. Do like, as people point out, Steve is probably the only one who read the actual entire thing. He is seen with it in his lap.
Of course Tony read the whole damn thing. Remember when he became an expert on some random topic over night in the first Avengers? He was already talking about lawyers, and making changes once the thing was signed. That’s one of the main reasons he wanted to do it; he knows they had some leverage if they agreed, instead of waiting until they were forced into it.
I can completly see where both sides are coming from and both sides have valid points, but I have to go with team cap. Especially after reading some of the points in the accords. There are tree points wich I had the most issues with. Any enhanced person who signs the accords is giving up their human right to privacy. They would have to give up all personal information about themselves, and give samples of their biometric data like dna and fingerprints. They would have to wear a tracking braclet at all times. They would not be able to travel for any reason including personal ones without approval. They would have to go through a power assesment test and if they are deemed a threat they would be locked up indefinetly. Wanda for example definetly would have been considered too powerful and would have been locked up. Its hard to be sure who else would but I am guessing Bruce would have been locked up too and many others. Especially if it was Ross or people like him who decided. This brings me to my second point wich is that anyone who signs can be locked up without legal representation and a trial. If they are considered too powerful or breaks the accords they are locked up for life without a trial or a lawyer. We for example see Bucky be denied a lawyer after he is arrested, we also see Ross dismiss the evidence that Bucky was framed. (So we see regristration, monitoring and internment of a minority group. Its not hard to see how Steve who grew up in the 30s and fought in ww2 was able to see some historical parallels.) The third point is that the accords would hinder the avengers from helping. They would have to wait for the UNs approval for everything wich could take weeks at least. And the UN does not have a good track record in stopping horrible events like genocide from happening. If an alien army is attacking Earth they would either have to let people die or break the accords. Everyone who fought in infinity war broke the accords for example. They would also have to wait for smaller events. For example if a child was kidnapped right by one of the avengers they would have to call the UN and wait for approval if they got it, or they would help and be locked up for breaking the accords. They would also have to go and do what the UN decides, wich essentialy turns the avengers into the UNs personal hit squad. We know how the different countries in the UN have different levels of influence. So its not hard to imagine where would be considered a priority, and where it wouldnt. They would also risk not going where they were needed. Examples of this is where Ross dissmisses the evidence of Zemo being a threat, and when he orders Rhodey to arrest team cap while Earth was going to be attacked by Thanos. Oversight is a good idea, but most of the accords were not. All they did was control enhanced people and hinder first responders from doing their jobs. They also violate human rights. The accords could be a good idea if they were done right, but they would have to be reformed before anyone signed. Anyone signing, especially someone as influential as Tony would be giving up any leverage they had to get then amended. This is why I am team cap. Source for the mcu accords: marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Sokovia_Accords
I would always stand on Steve's when it comes to Bucky. He wanted to save his best friend, who was captured in a mission Steve led and who was enslaved, tortured and abused for decades. I can also understand, that Tony was shocked seeing his mum dying and that he lost his temper. But I would always stand by the guy who wants to save his friend. From the political point of view, I would not like to have super Hero group that is mostly american to play world police. As European I would not trust them easily, especially after the mess they caused in Nigeria or Sokovia. As it is a movie, we know as audience that these people try to help as best as possible. But imagine how would you feel about a Chinese for example super hero group that states "we are independent and want to help". Would you believe them in reality? I would doubt it. Tony is on the right side from me, from the political point of view, Steve from the personal. That makes the movie so interesting and I love it.
I understand that Tony has some good points, but I can't help but pick Steve's side. It feels like Tony is only signing the accords because he feels guilty. Which he should, because the whole of Sokovia was destroyed because of him.
The main thing that most people seem to overlook about the accords is the people behind them: This "panel", who is charge of it? Evidently Ross in Infinity war and civil war. Ross created the Hulk and the abomination, the Hulk through lies. And he is the secretary of defense. And he refers to an alien who has risked his life to save humans from seriously awful threats, as a "nuke". Added to which the claim of accountability is obviously bullshit. Furthermore: Bucky as the winter soldier obviously is an invaluable source of info on Hydra, which begs the question: why were they so keen to have him sent to Wakanda where he probably would have been killed off with the truth dying with him. Added to which Ross explicitly stated that he wanted to kill off Bucky earlier than that. Plus during the time between the events of the incredible hulk movie, and the winter soldier, Hydra was deeply embedded in US politics, and probably still did have a strong foothold in civil war. The mere fact that Ross went from a reckless, lying, cruel General who made the Hulk and the abomination, to the secretary of defense, with a congressional medal is... very curious.... and I am sure Hydra would love to have the Avengers on a parking brake at least so... yeah... let's face it: the sokovia accords reek of Hydra. 117 counties would only ever want the avengers on parking brakes if they were being lied to, and as Ross showed that footage, it's heavily implied that the avengers were seen by those countries as to blame for them. Which is of course a complete lie. The sokovia accords were at best a parking brake, at worst a means of evil monsters lying to make the avengers their property. The trouble with accountability is that ultimately, Tony alone is to blame for Ultron, think about it: the mind stone was used to instill the "freedom is life's great lie" bullshit into Clint and others, it was used by Hydra, who are "humanity cannot be trusted with it's own freedom" for exploring AIs. Tony decided to not talk it out with Thor, an alien from an advanced civilization who might have had valuable input, and Tony made Ultron out of that Stone, which he didn't fully understand and some coding which obviously didn't work. So where's Tony's punishment? Lagos was a clumsy, heat of the moment, brought about by overwhelming resistance accident. Ultron was a pre-medidated act of impatience, arrogance and vanity. No one gives a shit about accountability, they care about responsibility. And responsibility is... well...all about responding. Who would ever trust people like Ross and people like Tony, who is by his own admission a "textbook narcissist", and who implicitly blackmailed Peter, with authority over the Avengers? People like Tony and Ross care so much about being seen by others as good, that they forget how to actually be good. And in the end the sokovia accords went to shit in Infinity war because as Steve pointed out: the place that they need to go that they were not allowed to go, ended up being where they were needed the most and Ross was brushed aside. I get that sometimes in life you have to tolerate other people's imperfections for the sake of what is best, but Ross? That's really unacceptable and the funny thing is: Tony in civil war, and both Homecoming and Infinity war, invalidated the sokovia accords by breaking the rules because he didn't trust the people in charge. So yeah: at some points in life as an avenger you have to go behind untrustworthy people's backs to save the day and there's no shame in that. Responsibility is one thing. So is accountability. Trust? That's another thing too. Take trust out of the equation and... what are you left with?
The guy from Iron Man 3 was Charlie Spencer, not Charlie Parker. Don't feel bad, I had to look it up too. It's too bad. For a second there I thought we'd discovered a mind blowing connection.
I think that no matter what the Avengers should have stayed together and faced the UN together so that they can find a middle ground that benefits everyone. Oversight for powered individuals is important but that doesn't mean that the Accords are perfect and that they don't have to amended.
I think for me,I'd have to read the accords to really know whose side I would be on. I watched the film and I understand each side but I couldn't and still can't decide.
Hey, Poli-Sci here too! I generally agree with you. However, Steve becomes a criminal in this film. A multi-national criminal. Hurting soldiers, police, civilians. Steve became the supremacist that everyone denied he was in TFATWS. He not only decided that HE was above the law, he decided that HE was the best judge/jury/executioner. Steven didn't feel that his friends should be punished, so he broke them out of the Raft, we didn't see it but it's safe to say a lot of damage was done and people injured in the prison break. If Steve had been as "Good" as people claim, he could have brought in Bucky and stood with him and tried to work with Tony and Natasha, et al. to prove Bucky's innocence. Jarvis could have broken down the faked video in seconds. There's him trying to kill Tony, him stopping short of decapitation doesn't mean he wasn't trying for a while, and that he left Tony with a damaged suit in Siberia. This movie made Steve Rogers the greatest villain in the MCU. I don't think any movie afterwards redeems him. After all, like Tony said, Steve was the reason Thanos won. (It really does not matter what is in the Accords. They were international laws created by, and ratified by the United Nations. You can't decide you don't like a law and then choose to ignore it. Not without consequences and punishment.) Team Tony Forever.
Another POV to add is that one of the major plus for Team Cap is that 'we trust these people', but as someone who's not American ... If an American superhero-team came unchecked to my country with no oversight, no talking to the government, no possible consequences or checks - all that boring stuff. Then even if they said they were helping ... I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them. I think that a lot of history of America is one of not being the one who's been invaded (aside from in the very beginning, when the country was literally stolen from underneath the indigenous people who already lived there), but of being the invader (who doesn't see themselves as such). The US is already in an enormous position of power (only China and Russia would currently rival the US on this front, and I bet many people would feel like raising a serious stink if either of those countries had their own Avengers-team). So while I think Steve is right in the instance/case we're presented with in the movies (I'm only talking about the accords from what we know about them within the MCU and the movies, specifically CA:CW) in regards to Bucky, like, here's a guy who is undeniably a victim who'll get caught in the wheels of the machine. We know Bucky didn't do it, but as an outsider who does not know this, I can imagine wanting to make sure that Hydras former top hitman is, in fact, innocent of this particular murder. Either way it would need to be investigated and the only way to make sure that Bucky wouldn't get disappeared would - to my mind - be transparency and oversight. I also wonder about when it went from the UN wanting to have a say in where the Avengers is deployed to being a thing that rests solely in the hands of General Ross, because I just can't imagine every other 117 countries being okay with that, but apparently they are in universe, so there's that. But above aside, I'd also need to actually read the accords to know which side I'd ultimately stand on. Both have valid points and both have some serious pitfalls that would need to be addressed.
At the end of WandaVision I was on Tony's side (VOMIT!!). Wanda enslaved and tortured 1000s of people for a week and then just flew off. But Tony Stark is just a businessman who wanted to play hero. I just cant like him. I am and will always be on Steve's side.
Wanda had no idea everyone else was affected though. She created that dimension out of grief but she didn't know she trapped actual people there until Agatha showed her. When she found out, she freed them and gave up that life she had with her family. 🤷🏽No one died. Also, it was only a few dozen people. Not even close to 1000. As far as Tony is concerned, he made mistakes sure but "playing hero" is not exactly fair since the Avengers couldn't do a lot of things without him. He built a time machine, an infinity gauntlet which brought half of the universe back and he saved that universe from Thanos by sacrificing himself even though he had a family of his own.
I was team Tony because I know if I was in that position I would absolutely want oversight because I’d be real scared of fucking up and killing people.
Ahh accidentally deleted my comment in any case thank you for all the content you make been binging videos at work your one of the content creators whose content rally is a comfort for me and I could be wrong but those look like rangers apprentice books in the bg which if they are I'm amazed bc its so rarwbto see anyone whose read them
I completely get what you're saying but I gotta admit I'm Team Tony all the way, not because I don't understand Team Cap's POV, but because I wish they had just trusted Tony more. All along Tony was doing his best to keep the team together and the others just kept refusing his attempts to help without listening (I'm still really salty about Cap blaming him for splitting the team up just because he signed the accords). If they had just taken the time to tell him the truth about Zemo and the winter soldiers he would've helped them (like he *did* as soon as he realized). Also Steve lying about the death of Tony's parents, then beating him to a pulp 2 on 1 when he didn't keep calm with their killer in his face (and I'm convinced Tony held back there bc we know the suit can blow up TANKS in an instant, if he wanted them dead they would be) and then leaving him alone and wounded in the freezing cold of Siberia with a disabled suit are way too much for me, I gotta side with Tony on this one.
I disagree, Steve did try to tell the truth to Tony and Tony wouldn't listen at the airport scene, and by the time they got to siberia it wasn't even about the accords it was about his parents (also tony initiated the fight). I'm in between, I think neither team was right and that was the point of the movie.
neither Tony or Steve was completly right. The only Avenger who was 100 percent right was Natasha Romanoff. as Soon as Ross Told Tony and Nat that he was going to Killed Steve, Sam, and Bucky all three innocent people she switched sides. Hell I was Team Tony until that scene lol.
@@violetwolfe1204 Sorry about this rant, I’m just kinda passionate about this (one of my many hyperfixations) so bear with me 😅. Sorry about any mistakes, I haven’t watched the full thing in a while bc it’s too painful. I was talking mostly about that scene where Tony begs Steve to sign the accords and tells him he’ll get Bucky help and everything and Steve is *about to sign* but as soon as he hears that Wanda is “confined” in the compound (a state of the art building with every luxury humanly possible, because she doesn’t have a visa and there are people&press out for blood about the Lagos thing) and Steve takes it all back, then at the airport when he says “you did that [break the Avengers apart] when you signed” I’m just like ???? 117 countries asked for the Avengers to have oversight and Tony agreed?? And he wasn’t even the only one! *Steve* almost signed! How is that breaking the Avengers apart? Also, Tony went to Siberia just to help with the winter soldiers problem regardless of the accords, bc he didn’t find out about his parents until he was already there right? And yeah, Tony threw the first blow but I don’t blame him for being angry when his mother’s killer is in his face and more importantly someone he considered a friend knew about it all along and didn’t think to tell him. I really wish Steve, as Tony’s friend and someone much less emotional in the moment, would’ve tried to calm Tony down and deescalate the situation peacefully but instead both he and Bucky immediately square up to fight. And then leave him behind alone after. Both sides had equally valid points about the accords, but I think in terms of treatment of the other side Team Tony was a bit better
@@tsukihimeyfan I agree with a lot of those points, yeah tony had the right to be pissed but I think blaming Bucky was not a rational decision, he was literally tortured and brainwashed and went through A LOT to put that behind him. At first yeah, it makes sense to blame him but he should’ve come to his senses eventually. I think both sides have their ups and downs but if you’ve watched agents of shield it’s clear the accords did more harm than good, all powered people who signed were required to be tracked at all time which could be easily hacked and just seems inhumane (heh). The accords as an idea made sense but the way they were written and done in the MCU allowed the government to pretty much get rid of due process if anyone violated them or didn’t sign. Not to mention the implications of Tony bringing a MINOR to a fight with superheroes (who was enhanced and therefore breaking the accords). I completely agree I think the thing breaking the avengers apart wasn’t tony but it was both of them and how they handled it. Steve and tony should’ve listened to each other and had a reasonable conversation longer than like 2 minutes. (Also I find it dumb how everyone blamed Wanda for the death but if it had exploded on the ground way more people would’ve died? I get that she directly caused it but it was completely an accident and if she wasn’t there more people would’ve died, including Steve)
@@violetwolfe1204 yeah you’re absolutely right, they should’ve definitely talked more. I don’t blame Tony for not calming down in the middle of a fight against 2 supersoldiers though, one who “betrayed” him and one who killed his parents (unwilling though it might have been). I just wish Steve had just sat Tony down and told Tony the truth about his parents much earlier. I’m 100% certain he would’ve taken it much better if he’d learned about it from a sympathetic friend, especially since once things calmed down Tony clearly didn’t do anything to try to track Bucky down or attack him😔 also I didn’t know anything about Agents of Shield, thank you for the info :) I was just working with what I saw in the movies and nothing else 😅
This is probably the best real world look at the Civil War issue: th-cam.com/video/TDMd40a-A4c/w-d-xo.html . I think I like that look is because the Accords are likely to not be enforceable on their face and heroes in general are already in violation in a number of laws. With that being said I would have to fall back on the mythos of the comics in which the characters are pretty typical. Tony Stark makes bad decisions all the time until he makes a good one. Capt America is annoyingly good, just like Superman. So annoying that I disliked the character for a long time but if worse came to worse I would trust that Steve Rogers has the best moral decision making skills if I fail to come up with something good. Tony's first instinct would be wrong.
The language for the MCU Sokovvia Accords is trash you basically become a non-person controlled by the government if you have powers or are involved with powered people. That said I'm siding with Tony. There needs to be some checks and balances. Ultron was 100 percent a problem created by the Avenger's lack of oversite. You can blame Wanda cause the only reason he went through with it was because she mind whammied him but she later joins the avenger's so moot point there. I believe if Tony and Steve actually sat down and discussed what they wanted, which they only did for like 5 mins during the movie, they could have changed the bill and made something both of them were happy with. Why does every superhero situation feel like it could easily be solved with reason and clear communication?
They do need oversight, but the way the accords were done was not the way to go, especially if you violate them you get sent to a maximum security prison, put in a STRAIGHTJACKET AND COLLAR if you're powered, and not given due process.
@@violetwolfe1204 they Had the oversight it was Shield and we know how that didn't work out. Hell they still had oversight in Age of Ultron with Fury's and Coulson Teams lol.
Are you really blaming Wanda for something Tony did? Watch it again 😬 Tony had always planned on making Ultron BEFORE he met Wanda. He already had the legion. He already had the nightmares. Nightmares hes been seeing since the first Avengers movies. Ultron was already in the making.
I feel like you would enjoy the How It Should Have Ended (HISHE) for Civil War. There are a lot of moments where communication skills could have foiled the plot 🙂 Still a fun movie and an enjoyable way to explore the issue of oversight for sure.
Middle ground would have been good. And Tony was willing to work with Steve. Till Steve royally fucked everyone over for Bucky, and then compounded it with fucking over Tony personally again. Had he fucking worked with Tony they would have all been better off, Bucky would have been safes as well etc. Steve and his high mindedness that goes out of the window the moment it becomes personal just pisses me off so much still. I ABHOR this movie and this Steve.
Tony was fighting for his friends (and their ability to save the planet in the future) just as hard. “I’m trying to keep you from tearing the Avengers apart.”
I was on the fence until I learned Steve didn't tell Tony about the true cause of death of Howard stark that bucky killed them on behalf of hydra and Tony's mom that was just plain wrong even if u say bucky was brainwashed that doesn't make any less wrong and that's even before we talk about the victims who bucky killed when he was the winter soldier after that I had mixed feelings about Steve and started to side with Tony more not saying iron man is always right he's not he caused alot of problems in his attempt to fix others but I know he didn't deserve to have Steve defend his mother's killer just my opinion not defending anyone just don't think Steve was doing the right thing in that moment
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
I think if their debate stayed a political/philosophical one, Tony and Steve would have eventually come to a middle ground on the Accords. But then the matter of Bucky, and Zemo's manipulations made things a lot more personal and caused the deep rift that lasted into the Infinity Saga. I mean, they had their differences, but they were friends, and respected each other. I mean, the scene where Steve thought that Tony was going to say that him and Pepper were pregnant, Steve's face lights up with joy for a moment.
I thought about that too. The “Civil War” wasn’t just about the Accords. It was about whether or not to save a man who was on the wrong path but has the potential to become a powerful asset. A powerful asset who Steve loved and Tony came to hate. It’s like adding a new person to a long-established friend group and half the people liking the newbie and half of them not. It’s a tricky situation.
I think Steve’s instincts and values were right, but his lack of self-reflection caused his actions to be quite wrong. Plus, Tony would never sit around and wait for the government to call the shots. Even within Civil War, the MOMENT he had doubts he abandoned their mandates and went to make peace with Steve. I’m not on either side because both of them had solid points but their decisions were just awful.
The Avengers needed to be able to keep each other in check. That was the answer, in my book.
I think part of it was Tony is used to breaking rules- he wanted to sign the accords because he wanted a check on himself, but if things went south he would have totally broken them.
I have a harder time seeing Steve knowingly agree to something he knows he would backpedal on if things got nasty.
I really love the HISHE for Civil War, precisely bc it shows so many of the points at which better decisions should have been made if all the characters had been acting normal (this type of conflict is always quite contrived upon close examination)
BUT it is still an awesome movie which I love, excellent, and an interesting way to explore the question of gov. oversight.
I just feel like the UN/USA were being WILLFULLY disengenuous about "oversight" when they still General Ross in a position of massive power and influence even after he created the Abomination, and they even decide for him to give the "You need Oversight" lecture and take this moment to blame everything since NY on the Avengers.
The entire thing just felt like a power grab to try and have an Avengers level team to threaten the rest of the world with which just would've opened up a new type of superhero warfare between the existing military powers in the world.
YES. And- in-universe their answer was to nuke NYC, which the Avengers stopped from both being necessary and from happening. (It’s been retconned that hydra had infiltrated the World Security Council and wanted to use the opportunity to kill the Avengers- but still)
Your example makes more sense than mine, but just I agree.
@@moxmox8058 oh the fact that Hydra GOT onto WSC is reason enough to not trust some New Council with Avengers Oversight. Hydra was thought dead once before and managed to infiltrate SHIELD while it was being created. Hydra would find their way into whatever oversight committee they drum up
I agree, which is why I like the way the MCU handled the Accord vs the comics. This is so nuanced and grey it makes it so much harder to choose a side. Whereas in the comics the Accord gave off 10 stages of genocide vibes.
Tony is just shifting the blame
@Angel Regan Facts. Where as this one made it easy to understand his side and thought process. By the end I just felt sad they couldn't Talk-no-Jutsu their way out of it.
I love the way the movie’s added to the nuance without making the conflict feel stuffy by having everyone’s (not just Tony and Steve’s) perspective being just as motivated by personal, emotional wants/needs on top of any kind of broader political ideology.
I think another part to consider in both Tony and Steve's perspective is how the Accords would make certain members be classified as weapons instead of people. Tony's "powers" are his suit, his property. The Accords don't threaten his legal standing as a person. Steve's a super soldier by way of government experimentation. He's been used as propaganda tool and is dealing with the consequences of Bucky being reduced to nothing but a weapon for years. Tony's a private citizen who's of the most privileged class he treats the legal loss of personhood as something they can negotiate later while Steve understands he has more to be concerned for.
Nicque, thank you for explaining this. I always had the hardest time understanding The Accords in Civil War.
ok but ur bookshelf not only is a really nice but the book choices are impeccable would u consider a bookshelf tour? (also is it ok to think they both were in the wrong and not take sides cause it seems like a big part of the movie is that they both did it wrong)
I aggre with you and abt the bookshelf tour
oh my god I'm so glad I scrolled the comments!!! I was thinking the same thing! I've always admired her bookshelf. Would love a bookshelf tour
I haven't seen a modern Kama Sutra in like a decade LOL
In the mcu anyway, the avengers never felt like an actual team or friends, just a bunch of people who happen to like saving lives dealing with each other and sometimes working together. That's why it works well that they couldn't just come together and check themselves. Like Tony went straight to the government instead of sitting down with everyone and saying "ay yo we gotta clean this shit up" and that's why i always end up on Steve's side lol.
This is a great explanation, I didnt think about the perspectives they were coming from and I mainly focused on their perspectives within the movie.
Also, love all of the books in the background, would love to hear you breakdown the Heroes of Olympus. I love Rick Riordan!
Maybe it’s just me but...
Both of them are right and wrong. They both shoot to the extremes and don’t look for what’s right, which is moderation.
Edit: an Add-on here is how they should have handled it.
Tony is right that they should have had moderation. He’s wrong about giving the UN the power to wield them like a loaded gun.
What they needed to do was create something new, made up of people they trust. Nick Fury, Maria Hill and bevy of others would make a good avengers council with Cap and Tony as balancing agents along with one of those “nice” politicians from the marvel universe. Shit the guy from BP and Civil war (whose name escapes me) played by Bilbo Baggins would have been a perfect decision.
The funniest thing to me? The people who screamed that Captain Marvel (A film with almost 0 political leanings) was political, all didn’t catch the political overtones of the entire MCU and it’s message about how tribalism leads to extremism and to fix your issues, you literally have to meet your allies in the middle. Cap and Tony start on different ends of the ideological spectrum and by the end of Civil War, they are at the furthest they could. It’s not until Endgame do they draw closer, this line was the moment where they came back to near moderation:
“Do you trust me?”
“I do.”
The two literally pass each other on their way to the other end of the see saw and come back and save reality by fighting and standing together.
Feels like we need to understand that right now
Honestly the only right choice felt like neithe compromise/negotiation would have been best. Neither are right or wrong on their own. This is why I hate that they made civil war a cap movie and not an avengers movie
This reminds me of a tweet that I read, a few weeks ago. It pretty much said that the Avengers wouldn't be liked and accepted by the public because of the severe after-effects of their battles.
This is what I’ve always thought too. Like I get that they’re heroes and all, but i feel like in the real world, they would be more controversial figures. Some people would like them, and others would hate them. Depends on where they live, or their personal experiences with the Avengers. They’d be the subject of many debates in the real world; a whole political talking point.
That, “it depends” is applied outside of the Air Force a LOT more than you’d like! I agree with a lot of what was said about Tony’s motivating trauma & guilt. I think that Tony’s life had been steadily taking him to this point where he was not only increasingly aware of the impact & influence of his actions, but that he had more blood on his hands than he could even begin to account for. I think that Tony’s increased awareness & subsequent guilt led him to look at his own & the country’s history & think that checks on him & the Avengers as an “industry”/“entity” were needed. It is SO key to remember that Tony had always operated & thought as a civilian, inventor & businessman. So while he intellectually knew that his enterprise started as & he had been more than the generic words “a defense contractor”, he’d been a legal arms dealer & developer who viewed the increased ability to take lives & kill more effectively using his products abstractly - as numbers on a page & the lives he chose to try & better protect were of those that paid him &/or US troops. Through the events that made him Iron Man & his experiences in the suit, Tony realized that intended users & actual users weren’t always the same, & he began to care about people & civilians more globally. So he also saw that combatants who weren’t terrorists or extremists were likely just people also fighting to protect their country & its interests above those of other nations (just like any legitimate military should). Since I’ve written a TON I’ll try to be more succinct with Steve. I think so many of Steve’s driving influences (even with Bucky) came down to loss & desired preservation of agency, freedom, & the ability to have legitimate checks on oversight entities. Steve had sacrificed all he had & knew to be a soldier & then clandestine operator for his country, only to see the government & system he’d put such unquestioning faith in that he’d ceded autonomy of his own body, infiltrated & corrupted by the very enemy he’d given & lost everything to fight. As Zola even noted (though he was pleased) Hydra spread like an unchecked parasitic disease, destroyed countless lives (including Bucky’s & Tony’s) & mocked the sacrifices & suffering of so many, including Steve.
Tony: AIM, Ultron, Zemo (via Ultron), Vulture, Mysterio
Howard: Iron Monger, Whiplash
The Starks are responsible for at least a quarter of Villains in the MCU.
Should be called the "Tony" Accords
Steve is angry and not trusting the government. Especially how things ended with the Winter Soldier. The Government not only was infiltrator by Hydra but they also KNOWINGLY held his best friend from WW2 under mind control while he was under the ice. They employed the Doctor that HE captured and the fought against their own interest.
Tony wants to just protect and keep as much life preserved as possible. Coming off of avenger, when they lost Coluson ( he didnt die he went to Agents of Shield), Iron Man 2 where he lost his home and also lost Pepper. Iron Man three where Pepper was given the Extremeist treatment. He wants to have a check on his power as he sees he is not responsible enough to use it himself. He would never admit that. (Tony being Tony) That is the case. The bottom line for me is that Cap, believes in people. Tony believes in processes and powers. I dont like the government as they pose as one big THING when they are justified but they are separate when they do something wrong. Dont believe me, get a traffic ticket and you will learn all about how different parts of the Government dont communicate unless they is something to take credit for. OR look at the capital riots on Jan 6 and compare that to the BLM protest. BLM protesters, the wall of moms, walking the streets were pepper sprayed and collected in unmarks vans and held until their case was thrown out. Compare that to Jan 6. People were storming the captial building tossing *ish and raiding the building while screaming "KILL MIKE PENCE" NO POLICE WHERE CALLED FOR HOURS. For as powerful as the Government is we need to have someone that CAN operate outside of the government. Keep in mind the GOVERNMENT, wanted to NUKE NYC during the Avenger. They were willing to sacrifice EVERYONE in NYC while the Avengers were fighting the aliens. I would trust Cap, before Tony's judgement.
I think generally the part that frustrated me the most about the movie is yes I understand, this is a movie and they need to move things along, but it just isn't possible for them to have immediately created the accords and required right then for people to sign it that fast. It would require negotiation and lawyers and time and if they did that, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. But of course that would be a boring movie and I know that, I do, but it still MAKES ME GRIT MY TEETH because it's unreasonable.
Outside of that Steve was 100% correct about not trusting the government because don't we see in our every day life that they all have motivations and agendas that do not have the best interests of everyone in mind? They would have to be overseen by people they don't know or don't even trust the motives of? No way. Also any team that involves seeing General Ross who is a corrupt monster as their ally, yeah, bad idea. Proving the point that the government isn't trustworthy. It's not that I don't understand where Tony's coming from, I just think big picture it is a bad idea. "The safest hands are our own" is correct in terms of the Avengers team. We never got to see what the Avengers team did when half of them ran away, how it actually looked to be under the government's thumb for awhile, which is kind of a mistake.
The problem with the movie (outside of me yelling negotiation) is that it's not really about the Accords. That's a background thing that is pushed aside pretty quickly and it becomes all about Bucky. It feels like they knew that the Accords conflict couldn't possibly carry an actual movie so they shuttled it to the side to focus on Bucky. The Civil War wasn't over the Accords, it was over Bucky in the end, so it's kind of disjointed to me.
I think both sides have points and the storytelling is great for how the characters get to that point.
But Tony looses ground on his side when Steve is trying to tell him about the Dr trying to get to the other Winter Soldiers and Tony ignores that instead of asking what Steve has learned. He's still very much a man who only listens to his own voice
I think the next conflict will be carol and Sam
Yess. I feel Sam may be disappointed or sad when he finds out because he trusts her to an extent
@@Toni.adebisi finds out what?
@Oluwantonti oh God I think your confusing her with Sharon Carter lol
Carol is captain marvel
@@Toni.adebisi Captain Marvel and Captain America dont know each other in the MCU
The Accords had carried over into Agents of SHIELD with the plot of season 4 following Civil War, and i found that very interesting of how the Accords was handled there considering the craziness in that show
I tried to like this MULTIPLE times. You are very articulate and analytical. I really appreciate your perspective. I think I agree with Steve but I really empathize with Tony. Both Steve and Tony were trying to do the most good for the most people. Middle ground is definitely the way to on this one!
I love the book in the background that says “the subtle art of not giving a fuck”
This video was also very informational and helpful, but that book is just it for me Ngl
Tony recruited a powered teenager and smuggled him in and out of Germany to enforce a law both of them were breaking by doing so. A teenager he failed to adequately mentor or subsequently report, btw. Mentoring requires communication and Tony’s shit at communication. Happy’s not really any better. A bit of real two-way communication would have ruined the plot of Homecoming, IMO. Tony actually mentoring and not acting like his usually crappy self. Then again, his screwing ol’ Toomes sight unseen after The Avengers set the stage for it in the first place, so it’s quite consistently apropos.
After the events of Winter Soldier, Steve had a damn good reason to distrust the motives of those behind the push to control the team. He had no idea who to trust. For a very good reason. Tony dismissed this rather casually for a man who wouldn’t even let his own team question his earlier decisions. Decisions with a spectacularly large body count attached to them. As opposed to ANY of the others.’
Wanda’s tactical error in Lagos still saved more people than it killed and yet Tony’s treatment of her was at best paternalistic. At no point did he try to discuss the matter with her or deal with her emotional fallout. She did her best in the moment and was treated like a casual killer, a human WMD. By TONY. Shitty leadership. So shitty.
I do wish they’d given Steve a chance to talk to her about it, though. Head canon suggests a short conversation at the airport before the battle. Because that’s the kind of guy Steve is.
How much of what Ross used to justify the Accords could be laid at any of the Avengers’ feet? New York? Nope. That was on SHIELD. Washington DC? SHIELD again. Unless they preferred Cap just let Hydra murder millions with its super weapons? Sokovia is on Tony. 100%. Because he didn’t want to hear the “‘man wasn’t meant to meddle’ medley” and deliberately hid what he was doing from the others.
Cap just stopped a rogue government agency from committing mass murder and the world’s response was “You need to be on someone’s leash.”
That wasn’t going to happen.
I also don’t really buy the idea they could get that many countries to agree on anything, as at least some would want the advantage powered people might provide and they’d resist on principle. Especially if they hadn’t suffered themselves. Look around and that should be obvious by now.
Plus Wakanda had NO business signing onto the accords if T’Challa was going to be out doing his own thing anyway. It’s as bad as Tony.
It really seems any effort to enforce the Accords was minimal, at best. Before Thanos rendered them basically moot.
One last note. I am generally not in favor of rules and laws that aren’t or can’t truly be equally enforced. They’re usually just an excuse for targeted harassment. And the Accords were a recipe for just that kind of happy horseshit. IMO.
None of this is meant to reflect on my appreciation of Tony as a character. I just think the picture of him as a hero is a lot more nuanced than at first blush. Tony’s nearly the agent of chaos Loki is, yet he’s a hero to most folks. Even those who hate Loki. I think it’s funny.
If the “big three” are robots, wizards, and aliens, it’s weird nobody mentions mad scientists. They’re arguably a bigger threat and have been from the beginning. From Zola through Sharon’s chemist to Tony himself.
I agree, especially with the Wanda part. If Wanda hadn't done that, WAY more people would've died, including Steve, and then they'd probably try to blame her for NOT saving them. She was trying to deal with a ton of guilt and the only people who would even talk to her were Vision and Steve. She then got thrown into a big fight with a bunch of superheroes and locked in a maximum security prison with a straightjacket and a SHOCK COLLAR. Like wtf?
Well said.
The point you made about the conflicts not being the Avengers fault is something I always said as well and thought was so stupid. The scene where Ross is showing the video saying "oh, look at the destruction you caused in New York and Washington". Uh, that wasn't the Avengers fault?!? Aliens attacked and Hydra were going to wipe out a whole bunch of innocent people. If the Avengers hadn't rocked up a hell of a lot more people would have been killed (hell, the military wanted to nuke New York to stop the Chitauri). Like you said, with the exception of Ultron (and that was more Tony than the Avengers as a whole) the Avengers never started those fights - they just finished them.
I do not know if you have watched AoS but they had the Accords in season 4 and AoS handled really well. They had Inhumans on the show and they showed how the Accords were affecting the “superpowered” people, the hate for Inhumans became worse and some enemies got ahold of the list and started hunting them down and killing them. I feel like the Accords were a good idea in hindsight, but in reality they hurt more people then they helped
Yeah, Steve saw the accords as the same Nazi crap he was fighting against in the beginning.
Me personally I'm team Cap somewhat.
I feel like Tony only did it because he was guilt tripped.
That's how I felt too Tony was acting out of guilt, Steve was acting out of common sense
@@tyesmith7201
Thank u
Had Wanda not done what she did, and had That woman not hit Tony where it hurt in the elevator scene of civil war, he would've never done what he did.
In a way, age of ultron and breaking up the avengers was good and bad.
On 1 hand it added new avengers to the team as well as opened their eyes to the dangers of space.
On the other hand it fragmented them, and I think if they all stood together they would've beaten thanos. He kinda only won infinity war because not only were they all separated but each time he was finna hold an L, he just had the perfect stone for the job.
Thanos was the mcu megaman lol
Agreed. Understandable guilt, but still guilt.
100% Zemo dropped Tony’s location on that woman’s doorstep
100% at least a possibility...
@@jalel7962
Exactly
On 1 hand we would've never gotten spidey in the mix but on the other hand Tony literally did the opposite of what the accords said, he never gave away Peter's identity even tho the accords clearly state any super powered individuals should be reported to the gov.
But also can we talk about Mcu spidey?
No cap,I wanted Peter to be a bit more mature(maybe have a few gadgets made and some villains under his belt already) , going so far as to question the guys he's fighting as to why they doing what they doing, trying to understand team caps motives. If he's truly caps BIGGEST fan, why not ask his so called idol WHY he's doing what he is? If u truly respect him odds are he's gonna have at least a semi feasable reason for his actions am I right?🤷🏾♂️
I honestly expected Peter to break UP the fighting, and tell the 2 sides they are like family, and shouldn't be fighting. Spidey was the chance to show what the common outsider sees in the avengers. A team that has their differences but puts them aside to work as 1, to "forever fight as 1".
Ppl hype up Mcu spidey as being comic accurate, but he followed blindly. Sumn neither Amazing NOR Ultimate Peter did without asking some kind of questions.
@@moxmox8058
Yo I ain't think of that lol.
Tbh I think it was just that Tony was holding that expo that day and she decided to pull up and give him a piece of her mind. In a way she wasn't in the wrong. But just looked at it very black and white when it's more to it than she realized. It's the issue with the civilians in not only the mcu but the comics too(cough world war hulk). They don't see the full picture.
Much like the comics I side with Captain America in the MCU. In Civil War(film) Tony was moving based on emotion and Zemo framing Bucky did nothing short of add fuel to that proverbial fire. As pop culture knowledgeable as Stark is he should know when it comes to A.I. tampering is a no no yet Ultron happened. The Avengers jurisdiction is the entire planet and no collective of governments should be the ones to dictate who, where, when they save whomever. The justice league is beholden to the US. If nothing else after the battle at the airport and finding the truth of Bucky’s involvement in the accords explosion, his trip to the Raft shows just how wrong he was about his decision making throughout the film. Sorry for the long message but this is my take.
Very interesting perspective!
I totally agree. Both Tony and Cap have very validated points! The Senator in the movies seemed to me way too eager to have them sign. Essentially taking control of the Avengers, which is, in my opinion, one of the reasons Cap didn't like the idea, which of course, there were many other reasons on top of that too. Then there's Tony's side, which you are right, power needs to be checked. People should always question the people at the top. Why are you writing this law? Does this legislation benefit the people as a whole or only the elite few? To many time people in power, whether in the real or fantasy world, have abused their position for personal gain or to enrich a few. People should ask the how and why.
I think the writers tried so hard and succeeded in making the audience actually have a hard time choosing a side. That is exactly why the marketing made the fans chose a side BEFORE the release, but then wanted the teams to have conflict about why they chose the team they chose.
I think the character of Black Widow was a perfect example of this.
Thank you for this! It was amazing well-balanced and thought out.
The thing that makes me side with Tony though, is “if we don’t do this, it’ll be done to us. And that won’t be pretty.”
He’s 100% right. An American-based team of super-powered individuals, running around all over the world, ignoring borders and flouting the will of all those other countries they’re running around and blowing stuff up in, is 100% gonna get the rest of the world pissed eventually.
You cooperate when asked, you generally have a LOT more leeway then if you wait until someone decides to force you to comply.
If it was the American government? I’d be more inclined to say no way. But being put under the UN seems like their best case scenario.
And, in the MCU, you didn’t HAVE to register. You just had to sign if you wanted the right to keep flying around the world and punching people in the face. Don’t wanna sign, simply stop being a superhero.
Seems reasonable enough to me. If you’re going to use violence to protect and defend society.....society should be the one legitimizing and authorizing it. Right?
They’re basically international (and beyond) cops. Cops with more firepower than most small nations. Seems only fair to say hey, you wanna bring that shit into my country, I get some say in what happens when you’re there.
P.S: People in these comments just really wanting Tony to be 100% in the wrong. I really just don’t get the level of spite people have towards him, and I never will.
the reality is you can have caps avengers. but you could end up with the seven from the boys who are buck wild unchecked and allowed to do whatever. keep in mind the whole issue with clint. who went buck wild after the snap lost his family and started killing the left behind bad guys as ronin.
Clint would do that either way being under government control would change nothing
@@frenchfries2998 you don’t think he would’ve gotten grief therapy like everyone else? Or at least something ? Personally I’m on cap side especially in the comics. But they need some over sight or at least government support if it missions like sokvia , and what happen in nyc. Instead finding out after and dealing with the mass casualties too .
The whole point of Civil War was that they were both right so they should have found a middle ground.
All I could pay attention to was the book in the background that said the subtle art of not giving a fuck
I know the accords weren't that perfect but I feel like Tony would have fought for them and made more reforms, I love them both but personally I'm team Tony
But signing gives up any leverage to get the accords reformed. If they were going to reform them they would have to do it before anyone signed.
Always.
@@mariavi33 They were still working them out. If the Avengers shown unilaterally they are willing to listen to the world's concerns, these would have been reworked.
@@lillimarq The terms of the Accords were already finished; all that remained was getting all enhanced people to sign and register themselves.
Awesome
Why was I not prepared to be triggered by, "it depends..." :-)
Hello Air Force😂
I see both sides and agree both have points. I feel they would have benefited from a lot of negotiations.
However I side with Steve one because Bucky is my favorite Marvel character and, more importantly, the Accords are ten shades of unconstitutional. In the mcu, had everyone signed the accords, the only people who didn't disobey them were Clint and Bucky. Tony's ink has barely dried on the paper before he disobey them and gives an unregistered mutant unauthorized tech (sorry I love Peter look at it from a legal standpoint)
For a full explanation very I would NEVER sign the accords: m.th-cam.com/video/TDMd40a-A4c/w-d-xo.html
Oh crap I see you with the Heroes of Olympus books out 😂😂
In the MCU, Tony experienced captivity and the death of American soldiers who he was deluded(?) to believe he was to protect dying in front of him. So, seeing soldiers dying in front of his eyes NOT a greater driver of change in his behaviour than the guilt of one grieving mother? Just asking.
@GyvonJ I’m in a military vehicle, chatting with people and having a drink and >BOOM!< ...They’re dead in front of your eyes, and your chest is expressing blood... Yes, a mother’s rage has merit... but, even Stark said, “I should have been dead...”
Civil war is very interesting. The UN/Ross just realized they can't make new super powered beings they can control like hydra tried to and Tony tried to and Ross tried in the pass with hulk and abomination so why not use the law and recent tragedies as a way to control the avengers. They didn't actually care about civilian lives since the shield security council wanted to blow up NYC with a nuke. They used the accords as a way to gain control.
Tony learning from iron man 2 decided it's better to sign to build trust and goodwill especially with the public instead of be head strong and arrogant like he was in the past about his iron man suit hearings. Tony realizes he's a billionaire and can lobby once it's made law and fight in court Amy discrepancies if need be but at least this way the avengers stay together while he goes off trying to repair his relationship with pepper. He fears something bigger is coming than hydra something like aliens from the battle of new York. He also feels this will personally help his conscience that he's not having the avengers be some private militia that can go into any country they want and impose their will how Loki tried to do with earth or how Ultron felt he deserved to. Tony doesn't want the avengers that he funds and builds for become the very thing he shut down at stark enterprises, just another tool for military control with massive casualties. He's trying to repair the messes he's made in life and having the avengers be legally reeled in but still remain together and able to break the rules when needed is better than them all hunted down. Tony doesn't really care about the specifics in the accords look at homecoming he gave an unregistered teen weaponized stark tech to mentor him to lead the avengers now that cap was gone. That wasn't probably approved by the accords but tony doesn't care. He even goes to fight with bucky and Steve the other winter soldier just on the down low and off the books. Tony is very much a rules are meant to be broken kind of guy.
Cap is the opposite. After finding out hydra took over shined nearly from the very beginning and he, Peggy, and even Howard accomplishments amounted to nothing since hydra grew right underneath their nose in shield, Steve can't trust any governmental organization the same. He now has in the back of his head who is making these orders and to serve what goal are they hydra or allies. He is after winter soldier big time freedom vs security and on the freedom side. Even if it makes the world less safe he truly believes freedom is better than restricting people's freedoms but to maintain safety. spoilers: I think civil war cap or at least winter soldier cap would make the same decision Sylvie made in the season finale of Loki. Freewill matters more to both of them than peace and security of the multiverse vs Tony and Loki. I like civil war a lot
Tony believed that the accords were needed because people with powers could become dangerous and needed safegaurds
Steve believed that the accords were not needed because he knew governments change and while we may trust them now the next regime may not be.
They were both concerned about what could happened if power went unchecked.
They both had points.They both needed to listen to each other.
Do like, as people point out, Steve is probably the only one who read the actual entire thing. He is seen with it in his lap.
Of course Tony read the whole damn thing. Remember when he became an expert on some random topic over night in the first Avengers?
He was already talking about lawyers, and making changes once the thing was signed. That’s one of the main reasons he wanted to do it; he knows they had some leverage if they agreed, instead of waiting until they were forced into it.
I can completly see where both sides are coming from and both sides have valid points, but I have to go with team cap. Especially after reading some of the points in the accords. There are tree points wich I had the most issues with.
Any enhanced person who signs the accords is giving up their human right to privacy. They would have to give up all personal information about themselves, and give samples of their biometric data like dna and fingerprints. They would have to wear a tracking braclet at all times. They would not be able to travel for any reason including personal ones without approval. They would have to go through a power assesment test and if they are deemed a threat they would be locked up indefinetly. Wanda for example definetly would have been considered too powerful and would have been locked up. Its hard to be sure who else would but I am guessing Bruce would have been locked up too and many others. Especially if it was Ross or people like him who decided.
This brings me to my second point wich is that anyone who signs can be locked up without legal representation and a trial. If they are considered too powerful or breaks the accords they are locked up for life without a trial or a lawyer. We for example see Bucky be denied a lawyer after he is arrested, we also see Ross dismiss the evidence that Bucky was framed.
(So we see regristration, monitoring and internment of a minority group. Its not hard to see how Steve who grew up in the 30s and fought in ww2 was able to see some historical parallels.)
The third point is that the accords would hinder the avengers from helping. They would have to wait for the UNs approval for everything wich could take weeks at least. And the UN does not have a good track record in stopping horrible events like genocide from happening. If an alien army is attacking Earth they would either have to let people die or break the accords. Everyone who fought in infinity war broke the accords for example. They would also have to wait for smaller events. For example if a child was kidnapped right by one of the avengers they would have to call the UN and wait for approval if they got it, or they would help and be locked up for breaking the accords. They would also have to go and do what the UN decides, wich essentialy turns the avengers into the UNs personal hit squad. We know how the different countries in the UN have different levels of influence. So its not hard to imagine where would be considered a priority, and where it wouldnt. They would also risk not going where they were needed. Examples of this is where Ross dissmisses the evidence of Zemo being a threat, and when he orders Rhodey to arrest team cap while Earth was going to be attacked by Thanos.
Oversight is a good idea, but most of the accords were not. All they did was control enhanced people and hinder first responders from doing their jobs. They also violate human rights. The accords could be a good idea if they were done right, but they would have to be reformed before anyone signed. Anyone signing, especially someone as influential as Tony would be giving up any leverage they had to get then amended. This is why I am team cap.
Source for the mcu accords:
marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Sokovia_Accords
I would always stand on Steve's when it comes to Bucky. He wanted to save his best friend, who was captured in a mission Steve led and who was enslaved, tortured and abused for decades. I can also understand, that Tony was shocked seeing his mum dying and that he lost his temper. But I would always stand by the guy who wants to save his friend. From the political point of view, I would not like to have super Hero group that is mostly american to play world police. As European I would not trust them easily, especially after the mess they caused in Nigeria or Sokovia. As it is a movie, we know as audience that these people try to help as best as possible. But imagine how would you feel about a Chinese for example super hero group that states "we are independent and want to help". Would you believe them in reality? I would doubt it. Tony is on the right side from me, from the political point of view, Steve from the personal. That makes the movie so interesting and I love it.
I understand that Tony has some good points, but I can't help but pick Steve's side. It feels like Tony is only signing the accords because he feels guilty. Which he should, because the whole of Sokovia was destroyed because of him.
Very good Tks, but as a Veteran I’m Steve.
The main thing that most people seem to overlook about the accords is the people behind them:
This "panel", who is charge of it? Evidently Ross in Infinity war and civil war.
Ross created the Hulk and the abomination, the Hulk through lies. And he is the secretary of defense. And he refers to an alien who has risked his life to save humans from seriously awful threats, as a "nuke". Added to which the claim of accountability is obviously bullshit.
Furthermore: Bucky as the winter soldier obviously is an invaluable source of info on Hydra, which begs the question: why were they so keen to have him sent to Wakanda where he probably would have been killed off with the truth dying with him. Added to which Ross explicitly stated that he wanted to kill off Bucky earlier than that.
Plus during the time between the events of the incredible hulk movie, and the winter soldier, Hydra was deeply embedded in US politics, and probably still did have a strong foothold in civil war. The mere fact that Ross went from a reckless, lying, cruel General who made the Hulk and the abomination, to the secretary of defense, with a congressional medal is... very curious.... and I am sure Hydra would love to have the Avengers on a parking brake at least so... yeah... let's face it: the sokovia accords reek of Hydra.
117 counties would only ever want the avengers on parking brakes if they were being lied to, and as Ross showed that footage, it's heavily implied that the avengers were seen by those countries as to blame for them. Which is of course a complete lie.
The sokovia accords were at best a parking brake, at worst a means of evil monsters lying to make the avengers their property.
The trouble with accountability is that ultimately, Tony alone is to blame for Ultron, think about it: the mind stone was used to instill the "freedom is life's great lie" bullshit into Clint and others, it was used by Hydra, who are "humanity cannot be trusted with it's own freedom" for exploring AIs. Tony decided to not talk it out with Thor, an alien from an advanced civilization who might have had valuable input, and Tony made Ultron out of that Stone, which he didn't fully understand and some coding which obviously didn't work.
So where's Tony's punishment?
Lagos was a clumsy, heat of the moment, brought about by overwhelming resistance accident.
Ultron was a pre-medidated act of impatience, arrogance and vanity.
No one gives a shit about accountability, they care about responsibility. And responsibility is... well...all about responding.
Who would ever trust people like Ross and people like Tony, who is by his own admission a "textbook narcissist", and who implicitly blackmailed Peter, with authority over the Avengers?
People like Tony and Ross care so much about being seen by others as good, that they forget how to actually be good.
And in the end the sokovia accords went to shit in Infinity war because as Steve pointed out: the place that they need to go that they were not allowed to go, ended up being where they were needed the most and Ross was brushed aside.
I get that sometimes in life you have to tolerate other people's imperfections for the sake of what is best, but Ross? That's really unacceptable and the funny thing is: Tony in civil war, and both Homecoming and Infinity war, invalidated the sokovia accords by breaking the rules because he didn't trust the people in charge.
So yeah: at some points in life as an avenger you have to go behind untrustworthy people's backs to save the day and there's no shame in that.
Responsibility is one thing. So is accountability. Trust? That's another thing too. Take trust out of the equation and... what are you left with?
The guy from Iron Man 3 was Charlie Spencer, not Charlie Parker. Don't feel bad, I had to look it up too.
It's too bad. For a second there I thought we'd discovered a mind blowing connection.
I think that no matter what the Avengers should have stayed together and faced the UN together so that they can find a middle ground that benefits everyone. Oversight for powered individuals is important but that doesn't mean that the Accords are perfect and that they don't have to amended.
With the choice put in front of them i was Team Tony
I think for me,I'd have to read the accords to really know whose side I would be on. I watched the film and I understand each side but I couldn't and still can't decide.
Woahhhh very good videos
Hey, Poli-Sci here too! I generally agree with you. However, Steve becomes a criminal in this film. A multi-national criminal. Hurting soldiers, police, civilians. Steve became the supremacist that everyone denied he was in TFATWS. He not only decided that HE was above the law, he decided that HE was the best judge/jury/executioner. Steven didn't feel that his friends should be punished, so he broke them out of the Raft, we didn't see it but it's safe to say a lot of damage was done and people injured in the prison break. If Steve had been as "Good" as people claim, he could have brought in Bucky and stood with him and tried to work with Tony and Natasha, et al. to prove Bucky's innocence. Jarvis could have broken down the faked video in seconds. There's him trying to kill Tony, him stopping short of decapitation doesn't mean he wasn't trying for a while, and that he left Tony with a damaged suit in Siberia. This movie made Steve Rogers the greatest villain in the MCU. I don't think any movie afterwards redeems him. After all, like Tony said, Steve was the reason Thanos won. (It really does not matter what is in the Accords. They were international laws created by, and ratified by the United Nations. You can't decide you don't like a law and then choose to ignore it. Not without consequences and punishment.) Team Tony Forever.
Another POV to add is that one of the major plus for Team Cap is that 'we trust these people', but as someone who's not American ... If an American superhero-team came unchecked to my country with no oversight, no talking to the government, no possible consequences or checks - all that boring stuff. Then even if they said they were helping ... I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them. I think that a lot of history of America is one of not being the one who's been invaded (aside from in the very beginning, when the country was literally stolen from underneath the indigenous people who already lived there), but of being the invader (who doesn't see themselves as such). The US is already in an enormous position of power (only China and Russia would currently rival the US on this front, and I bet many people would feel like raising a serious stink if either of those countries had their own Avengers-team). So while I think Steve is right in the instance/case we're presented with in the movies (I'm only talking about the accords from what we know about them within the MCU and the movies, specifically CA:CW) in regards to Bucky, like, here's a guy who is undeniably a victim who'll get caught in the wheels of the machine. We know Bucky didn't do it, but as an outsider who does not know this, I can imagine wanting to make sure that Hydras former top hitman is, in fact, innocent of this particular murder. Either way it would need to be investigated and the only way to make sure that Bucky wouldn't get disappeared would - to my mind - be transparency and oversight.
I also wonder about when it went from the UN wanting to have a say in where the Avengers is deployed to being a thing that rests solely in the hands of General Ross, because I just can't imagine every other 117 countries being okay with that, but apparently they are in universe, so there's that.
But above aside, I'd also need to actually read the accords to know which side I'd ultimately stand on. Both have valid points and both have some serious pitfalls that would need to be addressed.
Did u forget about Lagos Steve murdered innocent people cuz of his actions
m.th-cam.com/video/RmC70aEXXpA/w-d-xo.html
At the end of WandaVision I was on Tony's side (VOMIT!!). Wanda enslaved and tortured 1000s of people for a week and then just flew off. But Tony Stark is just a businessman who wanted to play hero. I just cant like him. I am and will always be on Steve's side.
Wanda had no idea everyone else was affected though. She created that dimension out of grief but she didn't know she trapped actual people there until Agatha showed her. When she found out, she freed them and gave up that life she had with her family. 🤷🏽No one died. Also, it was only a few dozen people. Not even close to 1000. As far as Tony is concerned, he made mistakes sure but "playing hero" is not exactly fair since the Avengers couldn't do a lot of things without him. He built a time machine, an infinity gauntlet which brought half of the universe back and he saved that universe from Thanos by sacrificing himself even though he had a family of his own.
This entire vid has been my opinion since the movie came out years ago.
I was team Tony because I know if I was in that position I would absolutely want oversight because I’d be real scared of fucking up and killing people.
is that the kama sutra in the background?
Ahh accidentally deleted my comment in any case thank you for all the content you make been binging videos at work your one of the content creators whose content rally is a comfort for me and I could be wrong but those look like rangers apprentice books in the bg which if they are I'm amazed bc its so rarwbto see anyone whose read them
DO THE ETERNALS
I completely get what you're saying but I gotta admit I'm Team Tony all the way, not because I don't understand Team Cap's POV, but because I wish they had just trusted Tony more. All along Tony was doing his best to keep the team together and the others just kept refusing his attempts to help without listening (I'm still really salty about Cap blaming him for splitting the team up just because he signed the accords). If they had just taken the time to tell him the truth about Zemo and the winter soldiers he would've helped them (like he *did* as soon as he realized). Also Steve lying about the death of Tony's parents, then beating him to a pulp 2 on 1 when he didn't keep calm with their killer in his face (and I'm convinced Tony held back there bc we know the suit can blow up TANKS in an instant, if he wanted them dead they would be) and then leaving him alone and wounded in the freezing cold of Siberia with a disabled suit are way too much for me, I gotta side with Tony on this one.
I disagree, Steve did try to tell the truth to Tony and Tony wouldn't listen at the airport scene, and by the time they got to siberia it wasn't even about the accords it was about his parents (also tony initiated the fight). I'm in between, I think neither team was right and that was the point of the movie.
neither Tony or Steve was completly right. The only Avenger who was 100 percent right was Natasha Romanoff. as Soon as Ross Told Tony and Nat that he was going to Killed Steve, Sam, and Bucky all three innocent people she switched sides. Hell I was Team Tony until that scene lol.
@@violetwolfe1204 Sorry about this rant, I’m just kinda passionate about this (one of my many hyperfixations) so bear with me 😅. Sorry about any mistakes, I haven’t watched the full thing in a while bc it’s too painful. I was talking mostly about that scene where Tony begs Steve to sign the accords and tells him he’ll get Bucky help and everything and Steve is *about to sign* but as soon as he hears that Wanda is “confined” in the compound (a state of the art building with every luxury humanly possible, because she doesn’t have a visa and there are people&press out for blood about the Lagos thing) and Steve takes it all back, then at the airport when he says “you did that [break the Avengers apart] when you signed” I’m just like ???? 117 countries asked for the Avengers to have oversight and Tony agreed?? And he wasn’t even the only one! *Steve* almost signed! How is that breaking the Avengers apart? Also, Tony went to Siberia just to help with the winter soldiers problem regardless of the accords, bc he didn’t find out about his parents until he was already there right? And yeah, Tony threw the first blow but I don’t blame him for being angry when his mother’s killer is in his face and more importantly someone he considered a friend knew about it all along and didn’t think to tell him. I really wish Steve, as Tony’s friend and someone much less emotional in the moment, would’ve tried to calm Tony down and deescalate the situation peacefully but instead both he and Bucky immediately square up to fight. And then leave him behind alone after. Both sides had equally valid points about the accords, but I think in terms of treatment of the other side Team Tony was a bit better
@@tsukihimeyfan I agree with a lot of those points, yeah tony had the right to be pissed but I think blaming Bucky was not a rational decision, he was literally tortured and brainwashed and went through A LOT to put that behind him. At first yeah, it makes sense to blame him but he should’ve come to his senses eventually. I think both sides have their ups and downs but if you’ve watched agents of shield it’s clear the accords did more harm than good, all powered people who signed were required to be tracked at all time which could be easily hacked and just seems inhumane (heh). The accords as an idea made sense but the way they were written and done in the MCU allowed the government to pretty much get rid of due process if anyone violated them or didn’t sign. Not to mention the implications of Tony bringing a MINOR to a fight with superheroes (who was enhanced and therefore breaking the accords). I completely agree I think the thing breaking the avengers apart wasn’t tony but it was both of them and how they handled it. Steve and tony should’ve listened to each other and had a reasonable conversation longer than like 2 minutes. (Also I find it dumb how everyone blamed Wanda for the death but if it had exploded on the ground way more people would’ve died? I get that she directly caused it but it was completely an accident and if she wasn’t there more people would’ve died, including Steve)
@@violetwolfe1204 yeah you’re absolutely right, they should’ve definitely talked more. I don’t blame Tony for not calming down in the middle of a fight against 2 supersoldiers though, one who “betrayed” him and one who killed his parents (unwilling though it might have been). I just wish Steve had just sat Tony down and told Tony the truth about his parents much earlier. I’m 100% certain he would’ve taken it much better if he’d learned about it from a sympathetic friend, especially since once things calmed down Tony clearly didn’t do anything to try to track Bucky down or attack him😔 also I didn’t know anything about Agents of Shield, thank you for the info :) I was just working with what I saw in the movies and nothing else 😅
This is probably the best real world look at the Civil War issue: th-cam.com/video/TDMd40a-A4c/w-d-xo.html . I think I like that look is because the Accords are likely to not be enforceable on their face and heroes in general are already in violation in a number of laws. With that being said I would have to fall back on the mythos of the comics in which the characters are pretty typical. Tony Stark makes bad decisions all the time until he makes a good one. Capt America is annoyingly good, just like Superman. So annoying that I disliked the character for a long time but if worse came to worse I would trust that Steve Rogers has the best moral decision making skills if I fail to come up with something good. Tony's first instinct would be wrong.
The language for the MCU Sokovvia Accords is trash you basically become a non-person controlled by the government if you have powers or are involved with powered people. That said I'm siding with Tony. There needs to be some checks and balances. Ultron was 100 percent a problem created by the Avenger's lack of oversite. You can blame Wanda cause the only reason he went through with it was because she mind whammied him but she later joins the avenger's so moot point there. I believe if Tony and Steve actually sat down and discussed what they wanted, which they only did for like 5 mins during the movie, they could have changed the bill and made something both of them were happy with. Why does every superhero situation feel like it could easily be solved with reason and clear communication?
They do need oversight, but the way the accords were done was not the way to go, especially if you violate them you get sent to a maximum security prison, put in a STRAIGHTJACKET AND COLLAR if you're powered, and not given due process.
@@violetwolfe1204 they Had the oversight it was Shield and we know how that didn't work out. Hell they still had oversight in Age of Ultron with Fury's and Coulson Teams lol.
Are you really blaming Wanda for something Tony did?
Watch it again 😬 Tony had always planned on making Ultron BEFORE he met Wanda. He already had the legion. He already had the nightmares. Nightmares hes been seeing since the first Avengers movies. Ultron was already in the making.
I feel like you would enjoy the How It Should Have Ended (HISHE) for Civil War. There are a lot of moments where communication skills could have foiled the plot 🙂
Still a fun movie and an enjoyable way to explore the issue of oversight for sure.
@@moxmox8058 Yeah I saw that, it was great
Middle ground would have been good. And Tony was willing to work with Steve. Till Steve royally fucked everyone over for Bucky, and then compounded it with fucking over Tony personally again. Had he fucking worked with Tony they would have all been better off, Bucky would have been safes as well etc. Steve and his high mindedness that goes out of the window the moment it becomes personal just pisses me off so much still. I ABHOR this movie and this Steve.
300th liked!
Nice breakdown.
I feel Tony was doing mostly the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Steve was doing the wrong thing for right reasons.
Cap fought to defend the rights of his friends, their freedom, and true liberty.
Tony fought because Alfre Woodard read him to filth in a hallway.
Tony was fighting for his friends (and their ability to save the planet in the future) just as hard.
“I’m trying to keep you from tearing the Avengers apart.”
I was on the fence until I learned Steve didn't tell Tony about the true cause of death of Howard stark that bucky killed them on behalf of hydra and Tony's mom that was just plain wrong even if u say bucky was brainwashed that doesn't make any less wrong and that's even before we talk about the victims who bucky killed when he was the winter soldier after that I had mixed feelings about Steve and started to side with Tony more not saying iron man is always right he's not he caused alot of problems in his attempt to fix others but I know he didn't deserve to have Steve defend his mother's killer just my opinion not defending anyone just don't think Steve was doing the right thing in that moment