@starvinggamer said:
I've always been on the registration side of Civil War and honestly the Accords are way tamer, which just makes me more mad at Cap whose stance is now just "I wanna do whatever I want" as opposed to his more nuanced stance in the original Civil War.
I dunno, I think Cap's stance was the same in both. "Don't play politics with me, Hill. Super heroes need to stay above that stuff or Washington starts telling us who the super-villains are." That's more of less the same thing he says to Ross when he doesn't trust having the Avengers at the whims of the UN and all of its members' agendas.
You're right - though, at the risk of derailing this discussion, the Superhuman Registration Act was a US Government thing which in and of itself adds some much needed weight to Cap's reasoning (considering in the real word the US was in the throws of being at war with pretty much half the middle east). In this movie it's the freaking whole UN with 170+ countries behind the treaty, which kinda makes it a bit more difficult to not see the right of it.
Almost more importantly, though, the SRA required all superhumans to register their real identities, which is a huge deal vs the Accords which just require the Avengers as a party to be answerable to the UN. Again, on paper there's not much difference to cap's actual stance, but the reasoning is a bit easier to get behind in the comics as the SRA was pretty seachanging.
Anyway, I by no means think that Cap was being a total asshole or whatever in this movie, but he definitely (IMO) was NOT in the right except for when he was actively trying to stop Stark from straight up murdering Bucky out of vengeance.
While it is the whole U.N., it's impossible to say that the representatives that comprise the U.N. do not have their own agendas. I think Cap explained it reasonably well, in few words, when he said "What if they tell us to go somewhere we don't want to go? Or stop us from going somewhere we're needed?" Not exact quotes but basically sums up what he was trying to get across.
At that point, the Avengers are basically a weapon to be pointed at a target when and if others decide it is necessary. While by no means should they be above reproach or not have to answer for their actions and thus any consequences that result from their actions, having a "governing body" that they take orders from is not necessarily the answer to the problem.
They also go a long way to justifying Cap's concerns with The Accords when he and Tony have the chat over the pens and what not. Cap says he is willing to sign but their have to be safeguards, where Tony loses Cap is when he says Wanda is effectively a prisoner (without facing any due process) as a reaction to people's fear. It's everything Cap loathes and fears made manifest. Sure, it's just a compound for now but is there any guarantee that she doesn't end up cooling her heels in The Raft because she fails to sufficiently stop a bomb again? Tony is so focused on the PR and politics that he isn't considering what he's doing all the way through. Which is not to say that he doesn't have a point, just that they make both sides understandable.
Log in to comment