The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Silver Raven]

OK, I really don't know what to make of this.  It comes from the official Marvel Entertainment YouTube channel, but other than that ...

 

Well, you just have to watch it for yourselves.

 

"Guardians' Inferno" | Marvel Studios’ Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From the Civil War thread:

7 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

did Ross actually think a super strong immortal prince/god from another galaxy who can call down an interdimensional portal would bother with the accords or could in any way be forced tp sign them.

In The Avengers, Fury tells everyone that Phase Two was a direct response to Loki sending The Destroyer after his brother, that they'd had "a visitor from another dimension that leveled a small town." Presumably the program was scrapped after Thor took Loki's whiny ass back to Asgard with the Tesseract, so if we follow that chain of events, the failure of the development of weapons to face enhanced individuals in battle, a restrictive government program to keep them under control almost seems logical. Remember, the World Security Council or whatever it was wanted to drop a nuclear bomb on Manhattan when the Chitauri were attacking New York, be damned to the civilian population, and they'd even deployed the missile, leaving Stark to intercept it and carry it through the hole in space that was allowing the alien army to launch their assault. These are not people who make clear-headed decisions.

[scriggle]

If anyone is interested in unsubstantiated rumors about the MCU going forward:
 

Spoiler

 

spoilers in the link name

I would definitely be on board with a Cap4. Yes, I'm still bitter that Cap3 was more Avengers2.5 than a Cap movie. Evans has said he's game if they want him.

 

[Bruinsfan]

One of the things about tech level, I can see a number of the inventions like Iron Man's new element-powered arc reactors, Pym particles, etc. being so godawfully expensive to produce that only a crazy billionaire with an obsession would ever implement it, or requiring such rare materials that mass production is impossible. I mean, the technology to make effectively indestructible vibranium armor has existed since WWII and any government or military organization would want that. Only catch is aside from Cap's shield, the entire world supply of it was in the hands of a small isolationist nation until Ulysses Klaue managed to steal a big batch of it.

[Dandesun]

Isn't it fortunate that Howard, Tony and Hank all have plenty of cash to work on their wild imaginings? And Wakanda seems similar since Shuri is supposed to be the inventor extraordinaire there. (So excited.)

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

One of the things about tech level, I can see a number of the inventions like Iron Man's new element-powered arc reactors, Pym particles, etc. being so godawfully expensive to produce that only a crazy billionaire with an obsession would ever implement it, or requiring such rare materials that mass production is impossible. I mean, the technology to make effectively indestructible vibranium armor has existed since WWII and any government or military organization would want that. Only catch is aside from Cap's shield, the entire world supply of it was in the hands of a small isolationist nation until Ulysses Klaue managed to steal a big batch of it.

Yea the crazy inventions like arc reactors would probably be out of reach to the average person. But that is the same as the real. I mean no one can buy a space shuttle, but the space shuttle program led to all kinds of spin off tech that was made available to society as a whole.

 

On 8/8/2017 at 6:54 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

These are not people who make clear-headed decisions.

Yea the people running the show in the MCU seem to be dummies. Did it really never occur to anyone that those jets on the helicarrier in Avengers might be useful for something prior to trying to nuke NYC? I have to figure that a couple of fighter jets could do some serious damage to one of those space worm things. But they never seemed to bother.

7 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Isn't it fortunate that Howard, Tony and Hank all have plenty of cash to work on their wild imaginings? And Wakanda seems similar since Shuri is supposed to be the inventor extraordinaire there. (So excited.)

I haven't read a lot of coverage of the movie, but will they not be making T'Challa a genius as well? One thing I liked about the BP comics was the Panther was super smart like Stark or Reed Richards, but also a master tactician like Cap.

[Raja]

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

 

Yea the people running the show in the MCU seem to be dummies. Did it really never occur to anyone that those jets on the helicarrier in Avengers might be useful for something prior to trying to nuke NYC? I have to figure that a couple of fighter jets could do some serious damage to one of those space worm things. But they never seemed to bother.

 

The response time did seem weird. The USAF combat air patrol was able to engage Iron Man went after the 10 Rings in the first movie but National Guard ground troops were able to get to New York and aid the police before any jet fighters during the Battle of New York in The Avengers. All of the air battle fell to Thor, Iron Man with the occasional blind fired arrow.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Man, it's hard to figure out what post goes where sometimes.

18 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Wanda, a day or so earlier, unleashed a green rage monster on a city full of innocent people, if she and Steve are trying to puzzle out the source of Ultron not knowing the difference between saving and destroying.

Wanda: "I know you're angry..."
Bruce: "Oh, we're way past that. I could choke the life out of you without changing a shade."

Yes, what Wanda did was awful, and yes she had her faculties about her when she did it. Had the Russos bothered to have her even mention her brother in Civil War, we might have gotten some insight into how (if) she changed since the end of Age of Ultron and was no longer intent on destroying Stark and everyone associated with Stark. But Tony was the one who decided there wasn't time for "a city hall debate" before he and Banner got to work, and because Bruce is a pushover he went along with it. Twice, and that was after he complained that he was caught in a time loop and that doing what Tony wanted was where it all went wrong to begin with. Not like he was wrong, and while Wanda did manipulate Tony and use his worst fears against him, what Stark did with that fear - create a murderbot who said he was there to save the world/destroy the Avengers - is just as much on him and Bruce, who helped even though he pretty clearly thought it was a terrible idea.

If nothing else, Steve deciding that Wanda and Pietro were worth taking back with him to stop the reworking of Ultron is worth noting, IMO. Being that Steve is the arbiter of all things that are good and right in the MCU, his stamp of approval ought to be worth something, even if Wanda's isn't.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Cobalt Stargazer
I hate coding

[ChelseaNH]

It's possible Wanda didn't anticipate that the Hulk would head into the city.  They were well outside the population center, after all.  He could have gone rampaging through all those dry-docked ships.

The fact that the twins helped save people from the runaway train showed they weren't complacent about hurting civilians.  That's consistent with their own experience as collateral damage.  They made mistakes, but I think a lot of that had to do with inexperience.

[Perfect Xero]

They saved people from that train ... AFTER they found out that Ultron was going to kill everyone on Earth, including them, and realized they had to switch sides to ensure their own survival.

[stealinghome]

But in the scene where Wanda reads Ultron's mind, Wanda and Pietro quite clearly vocalize that they're appalled at Ultron's entire plan for world destruction/domination. "How could you? You said we would destroy the Avengers. Make a better world.... [It will be better] when everyone is dead??... You're a madman." At that point, Wanda and Pietro had a get out of jail free card, being Ultron's minions. They ran away due to moral revulsion at his whole plan (and then ended up helping the Avengers--when they could have just shrugged and disappeared and let the Avengers handle Ultron alone--because they felt responsible).

Wanda and Pietro made mistakes in AoU, most definitely, but genocide clearly wasn't what they signed up for.

Edited August 14, 2017 by stealinghome

[Perfect Xero]

43 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

But in the scene where Wanda reads Ultron's mind, Wanda and Pietro quite clearly vocalize that they're appalled at Ultron's entire plan for world destruction/domination. "How could you? You said we would destroy the Avengers. Make a better world.... [It will be better] when everyone is dead??... You're a madman." At that point, Wanda and Pietro had a get out of jail free card, being Ultron's minions. They ran away due to moral revulsion at his whole plan (and then ended up helping the Avengers--when they could have just shrugged and disappeared and let the Avengers handle Ultron alone--because they felt responsible).

Wanda and Pietro made mistakes in AoU, most definitely, but genocide clearly wasn't what they signed up for.

Again, they were fine when they thought the plan was only killing some people, and Wanda was personally fine with putting the lives of numerous strangers in danger. It was only once they learned that they and their country were included in his plan that the moral repulsion kicked in.

They do, inexplicably, get a get out of jail free card for their actions, but they absolutely should not.

"You know what's cool? Murder. I love me some murder. Lets murder those people that I don't like, and any innocent people that happen to get caught in the crossfire!

"Okay, I'm also a big fan of murder, so we can work together to accomplish this."

"Yay! We are besties now! Somehow murdering the people who saved the world from an alien invasion will make the world a better place!"

"By the  by, you are included in the list of people that I'm going to murder."

"Murder me? How dare you! Murder is wrong!"

[scriggle]

Redemption is a running theme through the Avengers in the MCU.

Thor learns what it means to be a true leader, redeeming himself.

Tony stops SI's weapons manufacturing and changes the focus of his company, taking up the Iron Man persona as an act of redemption.

Natasha is a former KGB assassin, redeeming herself by working first for SHIELD and then with the Avengers.

With Banner and Cap, it's less clear but I believe they both are seeking redemption for what they see as their past mistakes and failings.

The redemption theme was continuing with the twins. Pietro died saving Hawkeye. Wanda is earning on her redemption by working with the avengers.

Edited August 15, 2017 by scriggle

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Perfect Xero said:

Again, they were fine when they thought the plan was only killing some people, and Wanda was personally fine with putting the lives of numerous strangers in danger. It was only once they learned that they and their country were included in his plan that the moral repulsion kicked in.

They do, inexplicably, get a get out of jail free card for their actions, but they absolutely should not.

How far should we take that logic, though?

As @scriggle says, most if not all of the characters in the MCU have pasts that are stained if not dripping with blood. Natasha tells Loki during The Avengers that when she and Barton first met, she didn't care for who or on who she used her skill set, and that because he made a different call and went against orders, most likely to kill her, she owed him a debt that she had yet to repay. Because Loki is an asshole, he mocks her and tells her that there's no way she could ever wipe out "that much red" and that she's an idiot to try bargaining for Clint's life when the fate of the world is at stake. Regardless, she was once a killer for hire who did it at best for money and at worst because she enjoyed it, and now she isn't. She didn't/doesn't even have the excuse of having watched her mother and father drop out of sight into the hole they'd just been using as their kitchen floor.

Then there's Bucky, and.....well....despite my general anti-Barnes sentiments there are enough similarities between his case and Wanda's (experimented on, wanted to protect their countries, got twisted into something dangerous) that I have to give him the thumbs-up just to be consistent.

[Kel Varnsen]

4 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

 Regardless, she was once a killer for hire who did it at best for money and at worst because she enjoyed it, and now she isn't. 

It has been years since i have watched Avengers, but i don't recall them ever saying BW was a contract killer. KGB agent/assassin for sure but I am not sure i would call that the same as being a hitwoman.

[Bruinsfan]

I'll note that the only people Wanda and Pietro seemed particularly cavalier about harming or killing were a gang of murderous illegal arms dealers and the boon companions of the man who designed the bomb that killed their parents and left them buried in rubble with their corpses for three days. I can't really fault them for their choice of targets given the circumstances, only for not having the foresight to predict the collateral damage.

[Perfect Xero]

2 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

I'll note that the only people Wanda and Pietro seemed particularly cavalier about harming or killing were a gang of murderous illegal arms dealers and the boon companions of the man who designed the bomb that killed their parents and left them buried in rubble with their corpses for three days. I can't really fault them for their choice of targets given the circumstances, only for not having the foresight to predict the collateral damage.

And the entire population of Johannesburg?

They hold a grudge against the man who stopped selling weapons a decade ago and then saved the world from an alien invasion. Keep in mind that he built the weapon, he didn't fire it. He may well have not even sold it to whoever used it (I don't recall), since Iron Man 1 showed that it was Stane selling weapons behind his back on the black market to people that Tony didn't approve of. In either event, he's since denounced selling weapons and moved his company away from it. But, hey, what does any of that matter? They hold a grudge against the rest of the Avengers because ... they worked together with him to stop an alien invasion? They worked together with him to stop literal Nazi fascists?

 

3 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

How far should we take that logic, though?

As @scriggle says, most if not all of the characters in the MCU have pasts that are stained if not dripping with blood. Natasha tells Loki during The Avengers that when she and Barton first met, she didn't care for who or on who she used her skill set, and that because he made a different call and went against orders, most likely to kill her, she owed him a debt that she had yet to repay. Because Loki is an asshole, he mocks her and tells her that there's no way she could ever wipe out "that much red" and that she's an idiot to try bargaining for Clint's life when the fate of the world is at stake. Regardless, she was once a killer for hire who did it at best for money and at worst because she enjoyed it, and now she isn't. She didn't/doesn't even have the excuse of having watched her mother and father drop out of sight into the hole they'd just been using as their kitchen floor.

Then there's Bucky, and.....well....despite my general anti-Barnes sentiments there are enough similarities between his case and Wanda's (experimented on, wanted to protect their countries, got twisted into something dangerous) that I have to give him the thumbs-up just to be consistent.

Natasha was taken as a child and trained to be an agent/assassin. I think her reasons for doing those things are more than money or enjoying it. It was the only life she'd known since childhood. We've also seen Natasha directly express regret for her past actions and recognition that they were wrong. I've never gotten the impression that Wanda thought that she was in the wrong in Age of Ultron, heck, she's self righteously chastising her teammates in Civil War for not trying to kill their friends while she chucks cars at people.

[ainon]

13 hours ago, scriggle said:

Redemption is a running theme through the Avengers in the MCU.

Thor learns what it means to be a true leader, redeeming himself.

Tony stops SI's weapons manufacturing and changes the focus of his company, taking up the Iron Man persona as an act of redemption.

Natasha is a former KGB assassin, redeeming herself by working first for SHIELD and then with the Avengers.

With Banner and Cap, it's less clear but I believe they both are seeking redemption for what they see as their past mistakes and failings.

The redemption theme was continuing with the twins. Pietro died saving Hawkeye. Wanda is earning on her redemption by working with the avengers.

I think the distinction to me is that none, other than the twins, started off with the intent of causing harm to others. Tony Stark and Bruce Banner are the archetypical inventor/scientist whose creations turn on them - Tony nearly killed by the very weapon he designed, Bruce by apparently having a very poor sense of occupational laboratory safety - but their original intent were positive. Even Tony the weapons designer, since we come to understand he was naively living under the illusion that his weapons would only ever be in the hands of 'good people' and we even see him resist his captors' demands to build weapons for them despite being tortured. Natasha had a very dark past, but she was raised to be an assassin, then chose to switch sides and do the right thing. 

Wanda and Pietro however started off with revenge on their minds and actively took steps to transform themselves to achieve their revenge. And yet when Wanda had her opportunity to kill Tony Stark at the start of 'Age of Ultron', she chose instead to toy with him for maximum destruction and damage. She basically played a version of Zemo's Civil War game herself, but somehow landed in the company of people who were gracious enough to forgive her for what she'd done and bring her in to their team. 

So while I agree she's working on her redemption now with the Avengers, I don't see her doing a sincere job of it. I thought she was cocky about her capabilities at the start of Civil War, and later, after the dust had settled, she had the nerve to be sad about people being afraid of her ... well of course! She'd just proven to the world that she doesn't yet have full control of her very frightening powers! That she was merely under house arrest in a friendly compound with Vision for company, instead of in a full-security jail somewhere, was something she should have been humble and grateful for while perhaps thinking of how to improve her control over her powers. Instead she destroyed some more property while sulking that she got grounded.

Maybe some day Wanda will honestly understand what redemption is about, but I didn't see it happening yet in Civil War.     

[anna0852]

@ainon and @Perfect Xero

Thank You!

[ChelseaNH]

Natasha was taken as a child and trained to be an agent/assassin.

Wanda and Pietro were children when their home was destroyed and their parents killed, when they spent three days trapped in the rubble waiting to die from either another explosion or shifting debris or starvation.  On top of that, Sokovia is a recurring war zone, and they were recruited by Hydra for experimentation which killed everyone else.  Having a focus like revenge on Tony Stark probably helped them to survive in that environment.  And from their perspective, the Avengers were bringing war to Sokovia again.  (Yes, yes, Hydra's weapons were hitting the city -- did the twins know that?  Or did they just know they were under attack?)   I doubt being raised by Hydra left them with the usual warm fuzzies about Our Heroes to begin with.

[Bruinsfan]

11 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

And the entire population of Johannesburg?

As others have said, they probably didn't have any idea the Hulk would run off to wreck downtown Johannesburg rather than venting his rage on his teammates and a bunch of drydocked wrecks. That falls under unpredicted collateral damage as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying going after Stark for revenge was morally right, but I don't see it as an indication the twins were malevolent/evil in general as opposed to consumed by vengeance.

[scriggle]

1 hour ago, ainon said:

Even Tony the weapons designer, since we come to understand he was naively living under the illusion that his weapons would only ever be in the hands of 'good people'

Being an absentee CEO does not absolve him of culpability. IMHO it makes him more culpable because he didn't care enough to ensure he knew what was going on with his company.

But okay, he was naive. But was he so naive that he believed there would never be any collateral damage, that no innocents would be killed even if his weapons were only ever used by "good people"? He's supposed to be a genius; he should've been able to figure that out. Tony has plenty of red in his ledger however indirectly. By becoming Iron Man he is attempting to redeem himself.

@ChelseaNH has given the twins' backstory. it's a matter of trying to see things from their perspective. To them, they were at war. It's explicitly pointed out in AoU.

Maria Hill: File says they volunteered for Strucker's experiments. It's nuts."
Steve Rogers: "Right. What kind of monster would let a German scientist experiment on them to protect their country?"
Maria Hill: "We're not at war, Captain."
Steve Rogers: "They are."

1 hour ago, ainon said:

She'd just proven to the world that she doesn't yet have full control of her very frightening powers! That she was merely under house arrest in a friendly compound with Vision for company, instead of in a full-security jail somewhere, was something she should have been humble and grateful for while perhaps thinking of how to improve her control over her powers. Instead she destroyed some more property while sulking that she got grounded.

Wanda had nothing to do with the bomb going off. Rumlow set off the bomb. Wanda was using her powers to contain the explosion and remove it from the crowded market. Unfortunately she lost the containment field near the building. Lives were lost but Wanda did all she could to save lives. Had she not contained and moved the explosion hundreds likely would've been killed instead of a dozen.

As far as we know, there were no criminal charges against her. Tony decided that for PR purposes she couldn't leave the compound. He didn't tell anyone except Vision this. Maybe if he had explained to her, to all the avengers, "hey lay low for a few days," then it wouldn't leave such a bad taste for me. But he didn't. A gilded cage is still a cage. Holding someone against their will because others may be afraid of them does not make it right.

[Vera]

2 hours ago, scriggle said:

Being an absentee CEO does not absolve him of culpability. IMHO it makes him more culpable because he didn't care enough to ensure he knew what was going on with his company.

But okay, he was naive. But was he so naive that he believed there would never be any collateral damage, that no innocents would be killed even if his weapons were only ever used by "good people"? He's supposed to be a genius; he should've been able to figure that out. Tony has plenty of red in his ledger however indirectly. By becoming Iron Man he is attempting to redeem himself.

This. Tony is 38 years old in IM1. At 38 , he neglects his own company thereby resulting in Stane getting away with the black marketing of weapons and deaths of innocent people and is apparantly naive enough to believe that civilians, the people not on the front lines, would be perfectly fine. 

In the next movie, he gets intoxicated while in his suit (a weapon in itself) of armor at his part thereby endangering the lives of all the people there. 

He (along with Bruce) are responsible for the creation of Ultron. He takes a minor to a fight without permission of the minor’s legal guardian. What would have happened if instead of Rhodey, Peter was hit by Vision's beam instead? How was he planning on explaining that to May? Steve is the one who has to save the remaining Avengers from the Raft. Tony who also breaks the Accords is free. He's now 47 years old. 

The Twins are at least decades younger than him (Clint makes a quip that Wanda can go to high school). They didn't have the privilege Tony did growing up. They were kids who were brought up in a war zone. At some point they are experimented on by Hydra. It is far easier for me to understand where they are coming from. They massively fucked up with Ultron. But Pietro died while getting the people of Sokovia to safety and protecting Barton. Wanda has been helping out with the Avengers since then. She has a long way to go.

[Perfect Xero]

Tony has done a lot of bad shit, but Tony's entire character is that he's a guy who recognizes that he screwed up and is trying to atone for it. He's flawed and isn't always going about it in the right way, but his motivation is clearly in the right. Tony is regularly yelled at and called out by the other characters for his screw ups.

Wanda's characters is ... She was angry and acting maliciously out of a desire to hurt people to get revenge.

She only switched sides when she realized that her own life was in danger, never accepted or apologized for her role in all of the bad shit she directly caused by screwing with people's heads (and, in fact, took a shot a the guy whose brain she screwed with and put all the blame on him), but she gets constant pep talks and coddling and characters make major decisions based on Wanda (a criminal who deserves to be in prison for her crimes) being interred. Everyone goes out of their way to protect Wanda from feeling bad about the bad shit she's done.

 

6 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

 

Wanda and Pietro were children when their home was destroyed and their parents killed, when they spent three days trapped in the rubble waiting to die from either another explosion or shifting debris or starvation.  On top of that, Sokovia is a recurring war zone, and they were recruited by Hydra for experimentation which killed everyone else.  Having a focus like revenge on Tony Stark probably helped them to survive in that environment.  And from their perspective, the Avengers were bringing war to Sokovia again.  (Yes, yes, Hydra's weapons were hitting the city -- did the twins know that?  Or did they just know they were under attack?)   I doubt being raised by Hydra left them with the usual warm fuzzies about Our Heroes to begin with.

So the Hulk just randomly jumped in the direction of a major city? It's almost like someone with the mutant power to alter probability was involved in Banner Hulking out and going on a smashing spree. Even if she didn't, she never expresses any concern or regret over it.

They were not raised by Hydra, we see shots of them protesting before they were recruited, they're clearly not kids.

The desire for revenge is understandable to a certain point, but Wanda and Pietro blew past that IMO.

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, scriggle said:

Wanda had nothing to do with the bomb going off. Rumlow set off the bomb. Wanda was using her powers to contain the explosion and remove it from the crowded market. Unfortunately she lost the containment field near the building. Lives were lost but Wanda did all she could to save lives. Had she not contained and moved the explosion hundreds likely would've been killed instead of a dozen.

 

Not sure I entirely agree with that. If some bad guys are robbing a bank and some idiot cowboy decides to take the law into his own hands and starts trying to shoot them, and someone else gets killed the cowboy is still partially responsible. Because you could also just as easily say that if the Avengers hadn't shown up Rumlow would have just stolen the stuff and left without setting off the bomb (that was meant for Cap). Or if they had perhaps tried to involve law enforcement, then there could have been people there to clear the streets and make sure bystanders would be less likely to get hurt. Isn't that way the public taking the law into their own hands is generally frowned upon?

[scriggle]

3 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Not sure I entirely agree with that. If some bad guys are robbing a bank and some idiot cowboy decides to take the law into his own hands and starts trying to shoot them, and someone else gets killed the cowboy is still partially responsible. Because you could also just as easily say that if the Avengers hadn't shown up Rumlow would have just stolen the stuff and left without setting off the bomb (that was meant for Cap). Or if they had perhaps tried to involve law enforcement, then there could have been people there to clear the streets and make sure bystanders would be less likely to get hurt. Isn't that way the public taking the law into their own hands is generally frowned upon?

You could say that about every movie in the MCU.

If superhero A hadn't done X, then bad guy B wouldn't have done Y. Actually isn't that the whole plot of IM2?

[Kel Varnsen]

6 minutes ago, scriggle said:

You could say that about every movie in the MCU.

If superhero A hadn't done X, then bad guy B wouldn't have done Y. Actually isn't that the whole plot of IM2?

Of course. What bugged me was the plot of Civil Was was just about the entire world asking Superheros to stop doing that and follow the rule of law and Cap said no.

[scriggle]

2 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Of course. What bugged me was the plot of Civil Was was just about the entire world asking Superheros to stop doing that and follow the rule of law and Cap said no.

No, the Accords were about controlling enhanced individuals. The full title was Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals. Let's not even get into how ridiculous it was for General Ross to drop that document on the table and tell the avengers that it was going to ratified in 3 days and they had to sign it or retire. Steve had very legitimate objections and questions about them especially considering Ross is presented as the face of the Accords.

[Kel Varnsen]

Just now, scriggle said:

No, the Accords were about controlling enhanced individuals. The full title was Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals. Let's not even get into how ridiculous it was for General Ross to drop that document on the table and tell the avengers that it was going to ratified in 3 days and they had to sign it or retire. Steve had very legitimate objections and questions about them especially considering Ross is presented as the face of the Accords.

Ok but even forgetting about the accords, acting as a vigilante, even to stop criminals, is illegal in most of the world.  Secretly crossing international borders to do that is extra illegal. Sure the way the accords were introduced was shitty, but finding a way to legitimize the Avengers so that their actions aren't breaking the law seems like the smart thing to do.

[scriggle]

2 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Ok but even forgetting about the accords, acting as a vigilante, even to stop criminals, is illegal in most of the world.  Secretly crossing international borders to do that is extra illegal. Sure the way the accords were introduced was shitty, but finding a way to legitimize the Avengers so that their actions aren't breaking the law seems like the smart thing to do.

I agree. Oversight is good. If the UN had approached the Avengers and said "we need to work something out here in the way you operate," I think all the Avengers would have been on board with that. Instead they were handed an ultimatum.

[stealinghome]

Thus the fundamental weakness of CA:CW--for the plot to work, the movie required too many smart people to act really, really stupid.

[VCRTracking]

2 hours ago, stealinghome said:

Thus the fundamental weakness of CA:CW--for the plot to work, the movie required too many smart people to act really, really stupid

It also works because none of them are complete assholes. They only acted halfway jerky. If they went all the way the movie would have been over before the third act.

7 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

but she gets constant pep talks and coddling and characters make major decisions based on Wanda (a criminal who deserves to be in prison for her crimes) being interred. Everyone goes out of their way to protect Wanda from feeling bad about the bad shit she's done.

Because Steve is an all around good person and Clint owes her and Vision has a crush on her.  I now realize Wanda committed one of the worst crimes a fictional female character can make on these boards. She is perceived to be receiving special treatment from other characters and is allowed to get away with shit.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

15 hours ago, scriggle said:

Wanda had nothing to do with the bomb going off. Rumlow set off the bomb. Wanda was using her powers to contain the explosion and remove it from the crowded market. Unfortunately she lost the containment field near the building. Lives were lost but Wanda did all she could to save lives. Had she not contained and moved the explosion hundreds likely would've been killed instead of a dozen.

Also, Rumlow wanted to blow himself up and take Steve with him for dropping a fifty story building on his face and turning it into hamburger - "I think I look pretty good, all things considered" - because he mentioned that Bucky remembered Rogers during Winter Soldier as a distraction. Steve tells Wanda later when he finds her watches the news about the incident that he should have clocked the bomb before it was detonated, and outside of being a mindreader there's no way he could have done that. Her miscalculation was a mistake, but no more of a mistake than Steve underestimating Rumlow's willingness to die just so he could kill him too.
 

11 hours ago, Vera said:

The Twins are at least decades younger than him (Clint makes a quip that Wanda can go to high school). They didn't have the privilege Tony did growing up. They were kids who were brought up in a war zone. At some point they are experimented on by Hydra. It is far easier for me to understand where they are coming from. They massively fucked up with Ultron. But Pietro died while getting the people of Sokovia to safety and protecting Barton. Wanda has been helping out with the Avengers since then. She has a long way to go.

When Tony lets it slip that Wanda is under house arrest, Steve (who may or may not have been on the verge of signing the Accords) gets annoyed and says that every time he thinks Stark understands or gets it or whatever, he does something to prove that he really doesn't. Tony says that the government isn't in the habit of allowing a "weapon of mass destruction" to walk around free, and Cap is all, "She's a kid!" Granted, Steve is ninety so of course she's a kid in comparison to him, but when Barton is at the compound he says that if she wants a normal life she can go to high school, but if she wants to make amends then she should get off her ass.

And I think that's where the disagreement is. Unlike Barnes, whose Hydra programming was still very much in place during Civil War, Wanda usually has her powers in check. As for the fight at the airport, Clint did seem to be taking it easy on Natasha, because she asks if they were still friends, and he replies that it depended on how hard she hit him. Either way, it'd be kind of difficult to atone for her screwups (both with Ultron and for her botched attempt to control Rumlow going splodey) if she's sidelined because Ross, who sees all enhanced people as a threat, said she should be locked in her room.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, VCRTracking said:

It also works because none of them are complete assholes. They only acted halfway jerky. If they went all the way the movie would have been over before the third act.

Because Steve is an all around good person and Clint owes her and Vision has a crush on her.  I now realize Wanda committed one of the worst crimes a fictional female character can make on these boards. She is perceived to be receiving special treatment from other characters and is allowed to get away with shit.

Well, now let's not start that when its 4:30 AM here.

As the one who pretty much started this discussion, if anyone gets away with shit, its Barnes. I said it upthread, but I can't deal with him on a genuine level because, although his entire backstory gives every reason that I should wish only good things for him, there's too much fandom - and shipper - craziness involving the character for that. Not necessarily here on these boards, but in other places where its less controlled. Hell, Barnes killed Tony's parents, and somehow the fault is Stark's for not offering him tea and dumplings so they could sit down and have a discussion about it. As flawed as Tony is - and he is flawed, absolutely - that Civil War nearly turns him into a murderer while Steve betrays that friendship for Bucky's sake still pisses me off. It makes me not like Steve as much as I normally do, because Sam's "Oh, just like that we're supposed to be cool?" is pretty much my reaction as well. Irrationality for the win, I guess.

[ChelseaNH]

17 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

She only switched sides when she realized that her own life was in danger,

You keep saying that, but it's still not convincing.

never accepted or apologized for her role in all of the bad shit she directly caused

As opposed to Tony, who regularly acknowledges his errors and apologizes?

by screwing with people's heads

We saw her trapping people in nightmares; we didn't see her changing what they believe.  Are you claiming that Tony would never have created Ultron without her?  How, then, would Ultron have been different?

(and, in fact, took a shot a the guy whose brain she screwed with and put all the blame on him)

All the blame?  How do you get that?

but she gets constant pep talks and coddling

We have been watching different movies.

and characters make major decisions based on Wanda (a criminal who deserves to be in prison for her crimes) being interred.

Because that's the only thing that happened that mattered?

[ChelseaNH]

7 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

that Civil War nearly turns him into a murderer while Steve betrays that friendship for Bucky's sake

I totally get Tony feeling murderous about the guy who murdered his parents in the moment.  (It's just that acting on murderous impulses is never a good thing.)  And I totally get why Steve would choose his childhood BFF, who fought beside him in the war, for whom he feels guilt and responsibility, over Tony.

(Sorry, trying to edit my previous post to add this got too complicated with the quoting.)

[VCRTracking]

In Age of Ultron Joss Whedon wanted to introduce the twins as effective villains for the first half the transition into heroes into act 3.  I think he succeeded but I get others don't feel that way. I think Quicksilver's death and Wanda's grief was punishment enough.

Whedon in his TV shows has always introduced characters who start out as villains and end up redeeming themselves. Usually they get to have arcs that last a season or two with a LOT of bumps on the way. Having it in a movie over two hours is not as effective and there would still be resentment by people after that.

25 minutes ago, ChelseaNH said:

8 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

that Civil War nearly turns him into a murderer while Steve betrays that friendship for Bucky's sake

I totally get Tony feeling murderous about the guy who murdered his parents in the moment.  (It's just that acting on murderous impulses is never a good thing.)  And I totally get why Steve would choose his childhood BFF, who fought beside him in the war, for whom he feels guilt and responsibility, over Tony.

(Sorry, trying to edit my previous post to add this got too complicated with the quoting.)

And I feel bad for Bucky. He was forced to do horrible things which he now has guilt for. I hate when It's why I hate when they have people brainwashed into being villains in movies. I don't want to feel bad for Lady Deathstrike in X-Men 2 or

 

Baroness

in GI JOE. I want to root for their defeat because they're evil but now I feel sorry for them because they were innocent victims. I still feel sorry for the Constructicons in G1 Transformers who were Omega Supreme's friend until they were turned into bad guys! Hell I still feel sorry for that doctor in The Naked Gun who was brainwashed into trying to kill OJ and got killed!

Edited August 16, 2017 by VCRTracking

[Dandesun]

I get the Barnes overload. I've had to unfollow some tumblrs out there because it's just so much Stan. I actually thought 'I should not be seeing this much of Sebastian Stan's face unless I were actively dating him. And I"m not sure I'd see this much of his face even if I WERE actively dating him.' But, you know, fandom. There are pockets of it that are just too much. Bucky was not going to recognize Howard and Maria. One, he didn't even fucking KNOW Maria. And Howard was completely different by the time Hydra sent the Soldier after him. Tony reacted in a way that is understandable to a point. But Bucky got a raw fucking deal in life. Period. He didn't join Hydra. He didn't do any of that mess of his own free will. And the movies do a pretty good job of showing what Hydra did to him... none of it good, as well as showing some difference in the Winter Soldier vs Bucky Barnes vs whatever the hell he is now... 

I've said it before but Steve is the only one who was ever going to short-circuit Bucky's decades long programming and brainwashing. Certainly by the 90s he would have been so indoctrinated that a glimpse of someone he once knew (in what capacity? Any relationship Barnes and Howard would have had is pure speculation. They certainly knew OF each other but how well? How closely did any of the Commandos work with Howard? It's hard to say. The Commandos knew Peggy but Peggy did field work which is something that Howard didn't do as far as we know. He flew Cap across the lines in First Avenger because he WAS a civilian and didn't have to follow protocol and he was an idea guy, not a field guy.) The point is that it's ridiculous to think that seeing Howard would have caused anything to flicker in Barnes by the 90s. And that's not the narrative. The narrative is that Steve and Bucky were so close, so deep in each others pockets, so ingrained in each others lives that only losing Bucky would cause Steve to shift from 'I don't want to kill anyone' to 'I won't rest until Hydra is wiped out of existence' and only Steve would be able to say one word 'Bucky?' and shake the Soldier's programming to the very core to the point where they had to torture him all over again to wipe it out.

(Psst. Love story. Come on.)

Seriously, though, even before I jumped onto the Steve/Bucky bandwagon it was made extremely clear that these guys would do anything for each other. Not Howard. Not Tony. Not even Peggy. Bucky and Steve hold singularly important places in the life of the other of that pairing. And, yeah, I feel horrible for Bucky for what he went through. It was horrible. And I feel terrible for Steve who holds himself responsible because it was his failure in not reaching Bucky in time (and perhaps not going back to reclaim the body) that resulted in decades long torture for the person who means the most to him. I mean... that just sucks so hard.

[scriggle]

8 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Well, now let's not start that when its 4:30 AM here.

As the one who pretty much started this discussion, if anyone gets away with shit, its Barnes. I said it upthread, but I can't deal with him on a genuine level because, although his entire backstory gives every reason that I should wish only good things for him, there's too much fandom - and shipper - craziness involving the character for that. Not necessarily here on these boards, but in other places where its less controlled. Hell, Barnes killed Tony's parents, and somehow the fault is Stark's for not offering him tea and dumplings so they could sit down and have a discussion about it. As flawed as Tony is - and he is flawed, absolutely - that Civil War nearly turns him into a murderer while Steve betrays that friendship for Bucky's sake still pisses me off. It makes me not like Steve as much as I normally do, because Sam's "Oh, just like that we're supposed to be cool?" is pretty much my reaction as well. Irrationality for the win, I guess.

How does Bucky get away with shit? He was captured by HYDRA, spent 70 years as a POW. The mind wipes in the chair. the brainwashing, the cryo-freezing. The man didn't even know his own name. He had no agency, no self-determination. HYDRA turned him into a weapon. The weapon HYDRA pointed at the Starks and pulled the trigger. Tony did not owe him "tea and dumplings" but he knew what Bucky had been through. He called him "Manchurian Candidate"; that's explicit acknowledgement that he knew Bucky was not in control of his actions. Tony can feel angry. He can yell, scream, punch him in the face. What he cannot do is commit murder. So cool motive, still murder.

As I said in a different forum, the MCU has not shown that Tony and Steve were good friends. I know it's different in the comics, but in the MCU it seems to me as if they are friendly work colleagues at best. I can't recall a single instance where Tony refers to Steve as Steve and not Cap. To me that illustrates that Tony doesn't see the difference between Steve Rogers and Captain America. So Steve choosing his childhood best friend, the person he had even when he nothing, the person he feels he failed and let fall to his death only to find out it was a fate worse than death, makes sense to me.

You mention that fandom has turned you off Bucky as a character. For me, fandom has turned me off Tony as a character. In some corners of the internet there is such a rabid defense of all Tony's actions, excusing every mistake he's made, demonizing all other characters to prop up Tony, that I can no longer abide by Tony.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

I get the Barnes overload. I've had to unfollow some tumblrs out there because it's just so much Stan. I actually thought 'I should not be seeing this much of Sebastian Stan's face unless I were actively dating him.

I went to "The Martian" tag on Tumblr after I had seen the movie on cable and it was mostly posts about Sebastian Stan's character!

53 minutes ago, scriggle said:

You mention that fandom has turned you off Bucky as a character. For me, fandom has turned me off Tony as a character. In some corners of the internet there is such a rabid defense of all Tony's actions, excusing every mistake he's made, demonizing all other characters to prop up Tony, that I can no longer abide by Tony.

That's true of a lot of fictional characters and real life celebrities on the internet, not just Tony.

[scriggle]

29 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

That's true of a lot of fictional characters and real life celebrities on the internet, not just Tony.

That may be. But this is the first time in some 20+ years of being involved in fandom on the internet that I have encountered it ratcheted up to 11 like this. I dunno, maybe I've just been hanging out in smaller fandoms or simply fandoms that inspired less wank.

Edited August 16, 2017 by scriggle

[Shannon L.]

So, what I'm learning is that I should be grateful that I never bothered to join Tumblr or follow any kind of fandom sites? 

[Dandesun]

HA! Well... it's got it's corners certainly. Personally, I've discovered never to do a search on tumblr while I'm at work because it honestly does not matter what I search for I inevitably end up with a whole lot of cock on the page. And don't even get me started on the porn blog that liked me for sharing some video that the Monterey Bay Aquarium posted of wild seals visiting their tidepool. Either I don't understand tumblr or I don't understand porn. It could be both.

Fandom didn't get weird with tumblr, though. (Neither did porn for that matter.) It just seems to get more and more visual over the years. I've been in various fandoms since the 90s and it's not hard for a war to start or for anyone to dig their heels in regarding their fave or their most hated and have it turn into a clusterfuck. It's the same as any other fan situation out there whether it's cars or sports or comics or movies or whatever. At the same time, I've met incredible life long friends through fandom and learned a lot and had my POV opened to all sorts of new things. And I have particular love of the Steve/Bucky fandom these days because the research and the information about America in the early 20th century particularly in New York has been fascinating to read. But I'm interested in history so that appeals to me in a big way.

So, like anything, fandom has its upsides and its downsides. As informative and welcoming as it can be, it can also be exhausting and full of its own bullshit. You just have to figure out your own tolerance for it.

But seriously, don't search for anything on tumblr at work.

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, Dandesun said:

So, like anything, fandom has its upsides and its downsides. As informative and welcoming as it can be, it can also be exhausting and full of its own bullshit. You just have to figure out your own tolerance for it.

I get it.  I'm not surprised by what you're all saying--I've heard the stories and witnessed a little of it here and there.  I'm just glad I stopped reading entertainment magazines and going to websites in search of what people think about my favorite characters or actors or what my favorite actors are doing and saying (although, I will click on stories that sound interesting--I just won't search for them).  I love the Marvel movies and am still not sick of them.  In fact,  I'm still dreading the day they are done.  Now, if they start declining steadily in quality, then I'll fully admit that it's time to call it a day.  So far, though, even the worst of them are still pretty good, imo.

I have my favorite characters, but do like all of them and think the actors not only do a great job, but play well against each other. However,  I'm still able to understand the arguments for and against certain characters and story lines.  For example, I'm a Bucky fan, but I completely understand why Tony was angry enough to want to kill him.  I also understand how rabid fans can turn one off.   I've said on the Celebrity News thread that ignorance really is bliss sometimes. 

[Wynterwolf]

Yeah, I find I can get more out of tumblr kind third hand... I follow some people on twitter who will link to good tumblr posts, so I get a lot of enjoyment out of it that way, but it's sort of buffered.  

I have always really felt for Tony and the circumstances he was in (but I have purposely stayed away from Tony-apologist rhetoric).  And I always felt like I understood the choices he made, even the destructive and emotional ones, so it was always easy for me to not hold those things against him, even when I wholeheartedly didn't want him to succeed.  

I think to a large extent, he was manipulated by Ross and his agenda with the Accords, as well his own fears and insecurities, which were certainly exacerbated by Wanda, but she didn't create those issues.  So for me Ross is more the villain and architect of the rift, maybe even more than Zemo.  Because if Ross had been sincere about what I think most of the countries supporting the Accords wanted, which were some common sense safe guards, they would have made sure they discussed it fully, with everyone.  But Ross took advantage of the general climate of fear of the unknown, and of Tony's (multiple... seriously, his whole world was practically falling apart) vulnerabilities, to get something that ended up treated people like objects (and given our current political situation, that scenario doesn't seem at all unrealistic to me).

Plus, Steve had personal issues of his own to deal with, both about searching for Bucky and searching for his own place in this world, which he was struggling with even before he knew Bucky was still alive.  So I suspect it's likely he wasn't around much to help with shouldering the responsibility of running the Avenger's, which left Tony with minimal emotional support in a time of a great deal of chaos & uncertainty.   But I still think Tony has some apologizing of his own that he still needs to do, whether that be in deed or words.  And I am without question (because the progression of the story is my favorite kind of romance trope, and the actors sell it like whoa) a Steve/Bucky 'shipper'... but that just makes the complexities of the relationships, and the underlying drama, even more compelling to me.  

[Perfect Xero]

8 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

You keep saying that, but it's still not convincing.

 

Wanda teamed up with Ultron based on the idea of destroying the Avengers, she didn't stop working with Ultron until she discovered that his plan included killing the entire human race (which includes her). Those are the things that happened, I'm not sure how they need to be convincing?

 

Quote

As opposed to Tony, who regularly acknowledges his errors and apologizes?

Tony attempting to atone for his mistakes is, pretty much, his entire motivation as a character.

And Tony's 'errors' usually aren't personal things like maliciously screwing with someones brain to get revenge on them. Personal attacks require personal apologies.

I certainly believe that Tony owes both Cap and Bucky an apology for the way he went after Bucky at the end of Civil War, but he hasn't communicated with either of them since then, so we'll see how that plays out in Infinity War (though I get a feeling that such personal things might get lost with the 700 or so characters that are going to be in the film).
 

Quote

 

We saw her trapping people in nightmares; we didn't see her changing what they believe.  Are you claiming that Tony would never have created Ultron without her?  How, then, would Ultron have been different?

Trauma, particularly fresh trauma (like being trapped in a nightmare), can alter how people make decisions.

At the very least, if not for her, Tony would have been clear headed and wouldn't have been in a panicked rush to create Ultron and would have had a much better chance to do it right (because usually when Tony creates science things, they work the way he intends).

We never see what she does to Bruce, but we're never shown a nightmare for him. When Cap shows up with the twins to stop them from creating Vision, however, Bruce seems to think that Wanda is controlling Cap. Which suggests, IMO, that Wanda did something to Bruce other than give him a nightmare.

We also see her directly controlling people in Sokovia as part of the evacuation effort.

So, yes, I think it highly likely that her 'nightmares' included something more.

[stealinghome]

So, yes, I think it highly likely that her 'nightmares' included something more.

I would argue the opposite. If Wanda is shown on-screen to be directly controlling people, but is NOT shown directly controlling Tony when she gave him his nightmare, then she didn't use any mind control or mind suggestiveness or whatever on him. If that was the case, the movie would have actually shown it, as the movie did show her actively controllling people at other times.

The other counterpoint is Cap, Nat, and Thor, of course, who also received nightmares/visions like Tony's. All were shaken up by them, but it's not like there was any mind control there either.

[ChelseaNH]

13 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Those are the things that happened, I'm not sure how they need to be convincing?

Correlation is not causality.

13 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Tony attempting to atone for his mistakes is, pretty much, his entire motivation as a character.

We are definitely watching different movies.  I see Tony motivated by solving problems and by proving to everyone he's the smartest person in the room, among other things.  Tony's regrets are more about changing his results than changing himself.  When he messed up by creating Ultron, he didn't even question whether he should try again.

 

13 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Tony would have been clear headed and wouldn't have been in a panicked rush to create Ultron

Tony was in a rush to create Ultron because he only had the scepter for a few days before Thor took it back to Asgard.

13 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Bruce seems to think that Wanda is controlling Cap

"She's not in your head?"  We see her controlling what they perceive, not how they react.  As far as the evacuation goes, it's not clear what she's doing, but I doubt she's remote-control operating hundreds, if not thousands, of people.  How do you keep track of who needs to go down stairs or step over an obstacle?

[Bruinsfan]

14 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Wanda teamed up with Ultron based on the idea of destroying the Avengers, she didn't stop working with Ultron until she discovered that his plan included killing the entire human race (which includes her). Those are the things that happened, I'm not sure how they need to be convincing?

You seem to be overlooking that this is also the point Wanda discovered that Ultron's plans included destroying anyone besides the Avengers. He uncorked his evolve or die/asteroid's-a-comin' rant in the same scene where she was first able to read his thoughts through the link with the Vision body; up until then he'd been promising the twins that he intended to make the world better by getting rid of the Avengers, whom they saw as invaders bringing more suffering to their homeland. And letting them deal non-lethally with the people he was taking raw materials from.

Of course I had the distinct impression that Ultron's plan changed several times on the fly. First he thought the Avengers were misguided and needed to be eliminated for the good of humanity. Then he moved on to culling the weak to "improve" humanity and presenting himself as a godlike savior figure to be admired by the survivors. Then to wiping out all organic life out of spite, apparently.

[Perfect Xero]

2 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

Correlation is not causality.

We are definitely watching different movies.  I see Tony motivated by solving problems and by proving to everyone he's the smartest person in the room, among other things.  Tony's regrets are more about changing his results than changing himself.  When he messed up by creating Ultron, he didn't even question whether he should try again.

 

Tony was in a rush to create Ultron because he only had the scepter for a few days before Thor took it back to Asgard.

"She's not in your head?"  We see her controlling what they perceive, not how they react.  As far as the evacuation goes, it's not clear what she's doing, but I doubt she's remote-control operating hundreds, if not thousands, of people.  How do you keep track of who needs to go down stairs or step over an obstacle?

So Wanda was always going to flip on Ultron and finding out that he was going to kill everyone on Earth was just a coincidence and irrelevant to her decision making process?

Tony was in a Rush to create Ultron because of the stuff Wanda put in his head, that he also only had access to the scepter for a short time compounded this. (The scepter itself having been shown to have the ability to heighten peoples moods and influence their behavior may have also had something to do with it, but no one in the movie seems to remember that bit from the first Avengers). The fact of the matter is that directly after wanda influenced Tony he created Ultron, after he further away from that influence he created Vision. The biggest variable is Wanda and her influence.

So what did Wanda do to Bruce/Hulk that made him think that Wanda was controlling what Cap sees and causing him to act against them.

There are levels of mind control that don't require being a puppet master and controlling ever little action. She puts the thoughts in their head to get up and go somewhere and stay calm, and then the people do it to the best of their ability.