The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Jazzy24]

2 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

I guess I don't see either one of them as a putz.  I see them both as complex, heroic, flawed humans.  Both with wants and needs and Achilles heels specific to their life experiences.  They are both protectors, but because they have wildly different strengths and personalities, it comes out in different ways.  I've been rewatching a lot recently, just finished the First Avengers, and in the scene when they were all sniping at each other (I've come to believe the only one affected by the scepter was Banner, because of the gamma rays, and that was Loki's plan), it was mainly because none of them knew each other personally, all they knew was their 'public image'.

I know that in the comic Steve and Tony are close friends, but in the MCU, they don't know each other.  They know OF each other, but in that first Avenger movie, who they each are under the image is completely unknown to the other, and Tony's public image is basically trash (WE know differently, because we've seen him, but Steve doesn't... and while Steve knew Howard, I've never gotten the sense that they were friends, they respected each other's talent, but that was all... in fact Steve thought of Howard was a rival for Peggy), and Tony (understandably) has daddy issues up to wazoo and Howard put Steve on a pedestal, so of course Tony was going to go in with resentment over that.   And I think as it's played out, Tony's fear of himself, and Steve's trying to be someone he's not (and never has been) because everyone else expects it, is how we got where we are.  Tony needs support around him, and he needs to let himself accept it and trust it, Steven needs to figure out who HE wants to be, not who everyone else wants him to be, and let himself be that person.  And Bucky is a big part of that for Steve, because Bucky knows him, who his is inside, better than anyone ever has, even Peggy.   

 

eta - one of the big differences I see between Tony and Steve that I think makes Tony actions particularly  in CW less appealing in general, is that his POV is heavily steeped in privilege, where Steve's POV is from a poor, sickly kid from the depression.  So Tony doesn't always realize the ramifications of things, particularly the way Steve does, because he can ignore it (like he did with the Accords, practically right after they were signed), but other's can't.  And I admit I was actually hoping for some acknowledgement of that in Homecoming, but didn't get it.  

I don't think Tony's POV is steeped in privilege. His wealth is not the main thing I associate with Tony, it's his intelligence. Also I can forgive Tony for not realizing the ramifications of things, honestly everyone is like that. Steve especially didn't realize the ramifications of his actions in CW(or just didn't care)in his attempt to save Bucky. So Tony is not the only one guilty of not realizing how great of an impact his actions have. 

[Wynterwolf]

21 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Steve especially didn't realize the ramifications of his actions in CW

Can you be more specific on what you mean here?  I'm interested in your interpretation.  

[stealinghome]

Yeah, I think Tony's privilege is a huge part of his blind spots. Basically privilege was his answer to everyone else's very legitimate objections about the Accords. "Major problems with them? No worries, we'll just figure it all out later!" Signing your name, and then assuming you can change a contract to whatever you want it to be after you've signed, is definitely a mindset that comes from a place of great privilege.

In CW, my take on Steve is that he knew very well what the consequences of his actions could/might be, but saving Bucky/not letting an innocent person be killed or framed, and then saving the world, superseded the consequences. Tony, otoh, never bothered to think about consequences because he's always been able to throw money/influence at problems and fix them, and it was a pretty rude awakening for him when suddenly that didn't work.

[Wynterwolf]

26 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

Tony, otoh, never bothered to think about consequences because he's always been able to throw money/influence at problems and fix them, and it was a pretty rude awakening for him when suddenly that didn't work.

For Tony, I think fear and exhaustion was driving his choices more than anything, and I think the consequences he was trying to avoid (global destruction) were different than the consequences he was (in my mind, unwittingly) actually helping to bring about (and the ones Steve was steadfastly against).  But definitely, I think he was able to ignore those particular consequences because he's always been able to buy or think his way out of other people's rules, and it never occurred to him that others he had no idea even existed could be hurt by the Accords as written.

 

32 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

In CW, my take on Steve is that he knew very well what the consequences of his actions could/might be

 Still curious what those are?  I'm more seeing Steve's role in things as inaction, and not paying attention to what was going on because he was distracted with Bucky.  But that also makes me curious about what Natasha knew or suspected related to Ross's agenda.  I think because of her background, she was more concerned with keeping the team together, because that's what she relied on to keep herself "in check", and she was willing to give up (too much, in my mind) control to keep the idea of the team together, but I think that eventually would have backfired even worse at some point.  

[Perfect Xero]

I think that Natasha was simply pragmatic and understood that they could sign on with the Accords to see how things played out and then go rogue later if needed. No reason to pass on access to government intel and resources for the spy/double agent.

[Wynterwolf]

20 minutes ago, Perfect Xero said:

I think that Natasha was simply pragmatic and understood that they could sign on with the Accords to see how things played out and then go rogue later if needed. No reason to pass on access to government intel and resources for the spy/double agent.

Interesting take, I think that kinda plays into her bias, though,  that she can manipulate any situation to her advantage, because she thinks like a spy and is always looking to play the angles.  But I think in this circumstance that was more than a little naive. and she was't thinking in terms of the ramifications for those on the team that were enhanced (Steve, Thor, Banner, Wanda), who would be treated differently than those that weren't.  It was kind of frightening how similar they wanted to treat enhanced people to how Hydra treated Bucky, more as objects/tools/"30 ton nukes" rather than people with rights.  

[Jazzy24]

4 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

Can you be more specific on what you mean here?  I'm interested in your interpretation.  

Him fighting the other Avengers and keeping that information from Tony about his parents murders had negative ramifications that we saw in CW and will see in Infinity War

Edited September 2, 2017 by Jazzy24

[Wynterwolf]

20 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Him fighting the other Avengers and keeping that information from Tony about his parents murders had negative ramifications that we saw in CW and will see in Infinity War

Ah, thank you.  I disagree about fighting the other Avengers, I saw that more as a function of the outside forces at work (Ross's and Zemo's manipulation, Bucky framed), but definitely agree that Steve keeping that information about Hydra having Tony's parents killed was a big mistake that played perfectly into Zemo's plans.  But I'm not sure yet about how CW events will be carried into Infinity War, I actually think it brought about some interesting team ups (Steve and Bucky's connection to T'Challa, Tony's connection to Peter) that might serve them well against Thanos.  

[tennisgurl]

21 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

 It was kind of frightening how similar they wanted to treat enhanced people to how Hydra treated Bucky, more as objects/tools/"30 ton nukes" rather than people with rights.  

Yeah, that was one of the things that really made me raise an eyebrow. I mean, what Ross said wasn't technically wrong, considering how powerful guys like Thor and Bruce are, but its the way he said it that made me think "Yeah, this is a bad idea. I would fear for any enhanced person who ends up on this list". He made it sound less like he was talking about recruiting people with amazing powers or skills, Nick Fury style, and more about collecting a bunch of valuable weapons to use as he pleases, with the tiny detail of them being people with rights and stuff being something that can be "dealt with". I think that Tony (and probably some of the other people who made the Accords) had good intentions, and there is something to be said about being aware of what kinds of powers that people have and having more training as to how to use those powers, but I see it being so easy for sketchy people like Ross to use to exploit enhanced humans/aliens/magic users/whatever in ways that are eerily similar to Hydra and their Winter Soldier program. We know that enhanced humans have been used for very illegal experimentation and abuse, and we know they have also been the subject of prejudice and hatred, so did he really see no problem from getting them all together and put their names down? It might start off well, but I can see this going sideways SO quickly, leading to people getting forced into fighting for causes they dont support, and treated like criminals if they try to say no. And maybe this starts off just being about the Avengers, but it could easily escalate to tracking down all enhanced people all over the world, and I just do not see that ending well. I think Steve had a similar thought, even if he didn't straight up say it that way. I think if Tony really thought about it, instead of getting defensive about his new pet project and doubling down, he would have seen why the others were so hesitant to do something like this, and how this could go REALLY badly for the signers, especially those with enhancements or something. Would we get into a "well, they're enhancements make them technically not human, or since they're an alien, they are not technically human, so they dont technically have right..." kind of mindset? I mean, if someone like Ross decided he wanted to use Peter Parker to go kill off some foreign rich guy they say destabilizes national security or something, would he have been alright with it? Or, even more so, if Peter didn't want to, would Tony throw Peter in superhero Azkaban like the other heroes, without a trail or possibility to get out?

I talked about this in the Spiderman thread, but I think one of Tony's biggest issues is that, due to his massive guilt complex, he gets tunnel vision when it comes to "fixing" problems, especially ones that he blames himself for, or considers his responsibility. It goes back to his first movie and that kickstart of his character development, when he realized that the weapons he and his company made were being used to hurt innocent people, and then shut down his weapons program and became Iron Man. While that has more or less worked out, this tendency to see problems, and obsessively try to "fix' them, without thinking of the consequences of what he does, or how that affects people who have differing experiences from him. You see it most obviously with the creation of Ultron, but its also in the creation of the Accords, and the creation of Damage Control, which lead to the creation of the Vulture. I know some people mentioned Tony's privilege, and I think the stuff with Toomes is where his privilege as a ridiculously rich guy seemed to come out the most. He created Damage Control with, again, good intentions to "clean up the mess created by aliens, and keep alien tech out of the hands of the general public", but he didn't think that he was taking jobs from working class contractors. He has never had to worry about having a job, so it didn't occur to him he was taking jobs from people who needed it. I think if Tony realized what he had done, he would have tried to find a way to incorporate those contractors into the work somehow, but he just didn't have the time, and, again, tunnel vision. He sees problems, and he uses his extreme wealth and intelligence to do what he thinks will solve the problems, without really thinking about other options, or how what he does can adversely affect other people. 

That isn't to say I hate Tony or anything, I love the guy and find his character to be really sympathetic and engaging. His flaws make him such a good character, even if he is also probably the most infuriating of the main MCU characters, probably because his mistakes and flaws are the most dramatic and with the biggest consequences. I do really hope we get a scene in Infinity War where someone takes a second to tell Tony that he needs to stop running around trying to solve every problems with the first thing that pops into his head, and think about the consequences of his actions. Like, if Tony actually starts going on about the Accords during Infinity War when Thor and Bruce come back and Doctor Strange and his magic friends and the Guardians crew show up, I will be rolling my eyes so hard they'll come out the other way. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by tennisgurl

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/2/2017 at 2:04 PM, Perfect Xero said:

I think that Natasha was simply pragmatic and understood that they could sign on with the Accords to see how things played out and then go rogue later if needed. No reason to pass on access to government intel and resources for the spy/double agent.

Sam actually mentions that it seemed strange for Natasha to be willing to sign the Accords, since she was the woman who told the government to kiss her ass in Winter Soldier, and she says something to the effect that she was simply reading the terrain of the situation. But at the time, it was Nat who told the Senate guys or whatever that they weren't going to arrest her or anyone else for blowing their intelligence network completely out of the water by releasing sealed files to the public in the wake of uncovering SHIELD being infiltrated. I wonder if she had to disappear again, since she helped Steve and Bucky escape at the airport by taking T'Challa out of commission. She was conspicuous in her absence at the Raft, even though Clint and the others were being jailed there, so maybe she had to pull a vanishing act before they arrested her too.

 

On 9/2/2017 at 2:33 PM, Wynterwolf said:

 (Steve, Thor, Banner, Wanda), who would be treated differently than those that weren't.  It was kind of frightening how similar they wanted to treat enhanced people to how Hydra treated Bucky, more as objects/tools/"30 ton nukes" rather than people with rights.  

What's so interesting is Vision's take on the subject. Considering that Vision was "born" because Tony and Bruce created Ultron, necessitating the creation of another being strong enough to help defeat him, it's interesting that he points out that The Avengers themselves are sort of responsible for the way things are turning out, not exactly separately but as a whole. He points out that their strength is what leads to being challenged by enemies, that challenge invites conflict, and that conflict leads to catastrophe.

[Raja]

3 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Sam actually mentions that it seemed strange for Natasha to be willing to sign the Accords, since she was the woman who told the government to kiss her ass in Winter Soldier, and she says something to the effect that she was simply reading the terrain of the situation. But at the time, it was Nat who told the Senate guys or whatever that they weren't going to arrest her or anyone else for blowing their intelligence network completely out of the water by releasing sealed files to the public in the wake of uncovering SHIELD being infiltrated. I wonder if she had to disappear again, since she helped Steve and Bucky escape at the airport by taking T'Challa out of commission. She was conspicuous in her absence at the Raft, even though Clint and the others were being jailed there, so maybe she had to pull a vanishing act before they arrested her too.

 

What's so interesting is Vision's take on the subject. Considering that Vision was "born" because Tony and Bruce created Ultron, necessitating the creation of another being strong enough to help defeat him, it's interesting that he points out that The Avengers themselves are sort of responsible for the way things are turning out, not exactly separately but as a whole. He points out that their strength is what leads to being challenged by enemies, that challenge invites conflict, and that conflict leads to catastrophe.

Why would Natasha be subject to the accords anyway? Unlike Hawkeye with his no look shots in The Avengers she never showed any enhanced capabilities. Being able to outfight soldiers and mercenaries seems to be part of every fictional spy's skill set. Two pistols and either Stark or SHIELD tech of what I guess are non lethal electric stuns doesn't make you anymore than the ex spy who is part of The Avengers

[stealinghome]

Quote

Like, if Tony actually starts going on about the Accords during Infinity War when Thor and Bruce come back and Doctor Strange and his magic friends and the Guardians crew show up, I will be rolling my eyes so hard they'll come out the other way. 

Oh, I absolutely want Steve, Clint, Sam, Wanda, Scott, and I suppose Natasha to sit on the sidelines during Infinity War, and piously tell Tony that they can't superhero and save the world because the UN won't let them. And then let Tony explain to Thor, Bruce, et al why they're sitting this one out. That scene would be solid gold. It won't ever happen, but it would be solid gold.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, Raja said:

Why would Natasha be subject to the accords anyway?

My guess would be for the same reason Sam was. Outside of using the technology that makes him Falcon, Wilson is just an ordinary human.

[Wynterwolf]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Why would Natasha be subject to the accords anyway? Unlike Hawkeye with his no look shots in The Avengers she never showed any enhanced capabilities. Being able to outfight soldiers and mercenaries seems to be part of every fictional spy's skill set. Two pistols and either Stark or SHIELD tech of what I guess are non lethal electric stuns doesn't make you anymore than the ex spy who is part of The Avengers

The Accords were binding on anyone flying under the Avenger's Initiative flag, human or enhanced.  Tony, Rhodey, Nat, Sam, Scott all rely on technology or training rather than physical enhancement, and I think you can put Clint in that group too, even if his aim is a little supernatural.

 

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

What's so interesting is Vision's take on the subject. Considering that Vision was "born" because Tony and Bruce created Ultron, necessitating the creation of another being strong enough to help defeat him, it's interesting that he points out that The Avengers themselves are sort of responsible for the way things are turning out, not exactly separately but as a whole. He points out that their strength is what leads to being challenged by enemies, that challenge invites conflict, and that conflict leads to catastrophe.

I actually found that really interesting too, but for a different reason.  Until then, I was having a hard time with Vision.  But after what he said there, what that showed me was that Vision is powerful and intelligent, but he’s not wise.  And ironically, confusing correlation with causation is a very ‘human’ mistake to make.  But I think that also illustrated that for all his power, Vision is… young and inexperienced and that can be a very dangerous combination with that much power. 

The event that essentially got the Infinity War ball rolling, was Red Skull/Hydra unearthing the tesseract, which until ‘42, had been well hidden in Norway.  It had nothing to do with the current proliferation of “super people”, in fact I think you could say the opposite of what Vision was proposing is more true, that as Earth became more of a focus for various outside Earth reasons, more and more SuperPeople have been showing themselves and stepping up to help protect earth as the scale of the threat to earth has increased (like Wanda, Scott and Peter). 

And regardless of the existence of enhanced beings aiding earth, humans are still going to create and strive and throw themselves out in the void using greater and greater technology (cough*Tony*cough), because it’s what we do.  That simply isn’t something that can be conveniently controlled.  Thinking you can keep everyone “safe” simply by limiting the actions of specific people is again… short sighted and naïve.  But that’s also basically what Hydra’s goal was with the Insight mission, so it’s definitely a popular one. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Wynterwolf

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Wynterwolf said:

Vision is… young and inexperienced and that can be a very dangerous combination with that much power.

"You're unbearably naive."
"Well.....I was born yesterday."

[Wynterwolf]

8 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"You're unbearably naive."
"Well.....I was born yesterday."

HA!  I totally had to go look that up... thank goodness for youtube!  I had a feeling that was from Ultron...  thanks for that!

[stealinghome]

Quote

The event that essentially got the Infinity War ball rolling, was Red Skull/Hydra unearthing the tesseract, which until ‘42, had been well hidden in Norway.  It had nothing to do with the current proliferation of “super people”, in fact I think you could say the opposite of what Vision was proposing is more true, that as Earth became more of a focus for various outside Earth reasons, more and more SuperPeople have been showing themselves and stepping up to help protect earth as the scale of the threat to earth has increased (like Wanda, Scott and Peter). 

Yeah, I was going to comment earlier that I think Vision wasn't entirely accurate in that assessment--imo the line was there really to point us forward to Infinity War, but it was misplaced, as it doesn't really track with what we've seen in the movies so far. If anyone has invited conflict, it's been SHIELD and Hydra; the Avengers themselves have spent most of their time on-screen fighting back against Hydra/various forces of evil and/or cleaning up SHIELD's messes.

[Perfect Xero]

3 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Sam actually mentions that it seemed strange for Natasha to be willing to sign the Accords, since she was the woman who told the government to kiss her ass in Winter Soldier, and she says something to the effect that she was simply reading the terrain of the situation. But at the time, it was Nat who told the Senate guys or whatever that they weren't going to arrest her or anyone else for blowing their intelligence network completely out of the water by releasing sealed files to the public in the wake of uncovering SHIELD being infiltrated. I wonder if she had to disappear again, since she helped Steve and Bucky escape at the airport by taking T'Challa out of commission. She was conspicuous in her absence at the Raft, even though Clint and the others were being jailed there, so maybe she had to pull a vanishing act before they arrested her too.

Apparently T'Challa inexplicably waited until the Avengers were back in the US before he told Ross about Natasha. When they're back at Avengers HQ Tony tells her that T'Challa told Ross and that they're coming for her.

[Wynterwolf]

5 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

Apparently T'Challa inexplicably waited until the Avengers were back in the US before he told Ross about Natasha. When they're back at Avengers HQ Tony tells her that T'Challa told Ross and that they're coming for her.

Yeah, that was weird right?  That conversation between Nat and Tony happens in the immediate aftermath of the airport fight, at the hospital where Rhodey is first getting checked out, and it looks like the Avengers facility (and I'm guessing they used the same set, but it's still a fairly neutral background), but I think someone would have to be using wormholes for it to be back in the US.  The timeline just doesn't support it.  So I'm... choosing (:-D) to make the assumption that their conversation took place at the first hospital they took Rhodey to, to get checked out before transferring him back to the Avengers facility.  And that T'Challa would have debriefed with Ross at the same time, as they were arresting and transporting Team Cap to the Raft facility.  

Then Tony's get's Zemo's invitation, Tony immediately flies to the Raft to talk to Sam, Sam tells him where to go and he gets to Siberia not long after Steve and Bucky do.   

Edited September 4, 2017 by Wynterwolf

[Kel Varnsen]

The timing at the end is all messed up. Steve and Bucky leave Germany directly for Siberia at the end of the battle. Tony flies back to the US, has Rhody assessed by doctors, talks to Natasha, flies to The Raft, talks to people there, leaves then flies to Siberia in his Iron Man suit and he manages to make it there shortly after Cap and Bucky. Did those guys stop for the night at a Bed and Breakfast or something? 

[Wynterwolf]

23 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Did those guys stop for the night at a Bed and Breakfast or something? 

I wouldn't have put it past them!  And I'm pretty sure I've seen an interview where ChrisE said there was more dialog between them on that flight, but it wasn't used, and it didn't get included in the deleted scenes.  So on screen they basically go directly from, "I'm not sure I'm worth all this, Steve/But I did it" to them joking about being 100 years old!  **grumble**  

 

Plus, how did Nat get to the US in that same amount of time, since she wouldn't have gone back with Team Iron Man?  That's why it works for me if that first hospital scene, and the Tony & Nat scene are still in Europe.... so, that's my head cannon.  

Edited September 4, 2017 by Wynterwolf

[Cobalt Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

The event that essentially got the Infinity War ball rolling, was Red Skull/Hydra unearthing the tesseract, which until ‘42, had been well hidden in Norway. 

And SHIELD perpetuates it,, since Howard discovered the Tesseract while looking for Steve and dredged it up from the bottom of the ocean. Rogers tells Nick in The Avengers that it should have been left where they found it, and really, why whoever was in charge at the time would want to hang on to the damned thing after what became of Red Skull makes no sense. And maybe this is another timeline glitch, but Steve was 'asleep' for seventy years. If the Tesseract was in SHIELD's possession for that long, did they just.....misplace it for a few decades and then someone remembered they had it? Because Phase Two was a recent development when SHIELD started actively using it to build weapons, and I have a hard time imagining this all-powerful cube sitting in a storage locker somewhere.

Yes, I'm overthinking it. :-)

[Wynterwolf]

9 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Yes, I'm overthinking it. :-)

Not possible.  :-D

I haven't yet spent a lot of time on events pre Steve being found, but I think it's possible Howard may have used it to perfect his version of Erskine's serum in '91.  And maybe Howard had hidden it so neither SHIELD nor Hydra knew where it was (or even that Howard had found it), at least for a time.  And then if Fury got his hands on it somehow, I could see him also hiding it until he thought he'd found a use for it... enter Phase 2.  

Edited September 4, 2017 by Wynterwolf

[Kel Varnsen]

16 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

And SHIELD perpetuates it,, since Howard discovered the Tesseract while looking for Steve and dredged it up from the bottom of the ocean. Rogers tells Nick in The Avengers that it should have been left where they found it, and really, why whoever was in charge at the time would want to hang on to the damned thing after what became of Red Skull makes no sense. And maybe this is another timeline glitch, but Steve was 'asleep' for seventy years. If the Tesseract was in SHIELD's possession for that long, did they just.....misplace it for a few decades and then someone remembered they had it? Because Phase Two was a recent development when SHIELD started actively using it to build weapons, and I have a hard time imagining this all-powerful cube sitting in a storage locker somewhere.

Yes, I'm overthinking it. :-)

Well Peggy Carter was running SHIELD, so i am not sure how she dropped the ball on that one, considering everytime anyone ever talks about her she is like the greatest agent ever. One of the big reasons i was annoyed about Agent Carter being cancelled was Marvel has never had to explain how the greatest agent ever never noticed that the agency she founded and ran was totally infiltrated by HYDRA pretty much from the start. 

[ChelseaNH]

On 9/2/2017 at 0:06 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

notice that in Tony's Wanda-induced hallucination, it's Steve who says, "You could have saved us. Why didn't you do more?" Because maybe in Steve's eyes, Tony really is just a suit of armor while he is the level-headed voice of reason who thinks everyone should work together.

Why is Steve's opinion of Tony showing up in Tony's hallucination?  Maybe Tony sees Steve as someone judging him against a standard (as his father did) and holding him accountable.  It's notable that Tony feels guilty for not living up to that (impossible) standard.

Howard was a colleague and possibly a friend, but not as much of a friend as Bucky.  The Smithsonian narration described Steve and Bucky as "inseparable" starting in childhood.  

Steve is good at setting priorities, especially in high-pressure situations.  When he faced down Bucky in the helicarrier, his first priority was disabling the Insight protocol to save millions of people.  Once that was achieved, he shifted to his next priority, of saving Bucky.  When Tony learned about his parents' murder, Steve's first priority was keeping Bucky alive.  Once that was achieved, he moved on to seeing what could be done to fix Bucky and trying to repair his relationship with Tony.

[Perfect Xero]

2 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

And SHIELD perpetuates it,, since Howard discovered the Tesseract while looking for Steve and dredged it up from the bottom of the ocean. Rogers tells Nick in The Avengers that it should have been left where they found it, and really, why whoever was in charge at the time would want to hang on to the damned thing after what became of Red Skull makes no sense. And maybe this is another timeline glitch, but Steve was 'asleep' for seventy years. If the Tesseract was in SHIELD's possession for that long, did they just.....misplace it for a few decades and then someone remembered they had it? Because Phase Two was a recent development when SHIELD started actively using it to build weapons, and I have a hard time imagining this all-powerful cube sitting in a storage locker somewhere.

Yes, I'm overthinking it. :-)

I'm betting that the Cube is going to feature in Captain Marvel.

Steve's sentiment makes sense on an emotional level, but leaving something like that where they found it would have been incredibly irresponsible. Howard or Peggy or whoever keeping the thing locked up and secure and not screwing with it because they realized it was dangerous would make a lot of sense (Howard kept experimenting on the Serum, but the Cube is a lot more dangerous in a very obvious way, so I can see even him leaving it alone), and then Fury breaking it out and attempting to weaponize it as a response to Thor and the Destroyer showing up and making them realize that they're hopelessly outgunned.

[Wynterwolf]

4 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

It's notable that Tony feels guilty for not living up to that (impossible) standard.

I think Tony's opinion of himself is indeed where a great deal of his internal damage is, particularly because he feels less than/weak because of his mental health issues.  But he's still trying to 'fix' himself with more tech (BARF, anyone?).  I'd reeeeeally love to know what caused Pepper to separate from him, and then come back to him.  

I think the hierarchy of Steve's relationships are really pretty straight forward, but at his heart MCU!Steve is a loner.  And as is often the case with loners, they have one or two people who are practically their whole emotional world.  For Steve, that is Bucky (and even more so now that he's alive again) .  Peggy had the potential to grow into something similar, and was someone he felt deeply about even with the very limited time they had together, but she's more of a cherished memory now rather than anything that is driving his current actions.  

Next you have his first tier (living) friends, people he genuinely feels he knows and trusts and can rely on to a large extent, but that he still keep a little at arms length emotionally because he feels he has to be strong for them, be a leader for them, protect them (not unlike how Tony feels, but it manifests differently):  Sam and Nat.  

Then there are people who he respects, but doesn't trust all that much:  Fury, Tony (and probably Howard fit here too).  Then it's basically everyone else he knows, who are in the general grouping of people he cares about and feels he needs to protect.  But I think this is also why he's more than a little suicidal at times, and why Bucky is so important to him emotionally right now... he's struggling to find a reason to keep going, and Bucky is his only connection to who Steve Rogers is, not Captain America. .

 

So you have Tony with his sometimes crippling self esteem issues, and you have Steve with periodic suicidal ideation, but they both still keep showing up... 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Wynterwolf

[Wynterwolf]

18 minutes ago, Perfect Xero said:

Howard kept experimenting on the Serum, but the Cube is a lot more dangerous in a very obvious way, so I can see even him leaving it alone

Hmmm, I think Howard wouldn't have been able to help himself.  Even if he knew in his heart he shouldn't mess with it, it would have been just too great of a temptation even to just try to understand it.  But yeah, I'm hoping we'll get more info from Captain Marvel too!! 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, ChelseaNH said:

Why is Steve's opinion of Tony showing up in Tony's hallucination?  Maybe Tony sees Steve as someone judging him against a standard (as his father did) and holding him accountable.  It's notable that Tony feels guilty for not living up to that (impossible) standard.

In The Avengers, when everyone has just learned about Fury's deception over Phase Two, Steve makes it pretty damn clear what his opinion of Tony is, that the only thing he has going for him is the Iron Man suit, and while Loki's scepter might have been influencing the group in a negative way, I don't see why Cap couldn't have been saying what he really meant to say. The idea that Rogers never has a negative thought about anyone except for actual enemies is directly contradicted by the fact that he's called both Nick and Natasha liars to their faces, and since he and MCU!Tony are not actually friends, I don't think there needs to be an exception made just to make him not look like a dick. :-)

[stealinghome]

I don't doubt that that comment was a cruelly-phrased but mostly-true assessment of Steve's opinion of Tony in that moment (in the same way that Tony's "everything special about you came out of a bottle" was also cruel but true to how Tony felt in that moment). However, Steve and Tony have both grown and know each other much better by Age of Ultron. I highly doubt the Helicarrier sentiments reflect how either feels about the other by AoU. 

Now, Tony's hallucination might well reflect what he's afraid Steve thinks of him, but that's Tony ish and has very little to do with Steve's ACTUAL opinion of him.

[tennisgurl]

I think by the time we got to Age of Ultron, Steve and Tony, while not best pals or anything, were friends, and while they got on each other's nerves, they still had developed some respect for each other. I think the moment between them in Avengers that was most telling was the "you wouldn't let a guy climb over you/ I would cut the wire exchange". Steve is all about self sacrifice (to the point of becoming increasingly suicidal over the series) and Tony is all about fixing problems (to the point of accidentally creating even MORE problems), and I think that keeps creating problems between them. 

I found Tony's Wanda induced vision interesting because it really sets up a big part of Tony's issues. He really thinks that, because of his wealth, power, and intelligence, it's HIS job to fix everything and save everyone. If he screws up or let's his guard down, everyone's dead, and it's all on him. It's a weird combination of guilt, anxiety, arrogance, and obsession. 

[Wynterwolf]

6 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Well Peggy Carter was running SHIELD, so i am not sure how she dropped the ball on that one, considering everytime anyone ever talks about her she is like the greatest agent ever.

She's wasn't a scientist though.  I just popped Ant Man in tonight, and I'd forgotten about the exchange in the beginning between Howard, Peggy, Mitchell Carson (Hydra) and Hank Pym, where Pym was confronting particularly Howard about stealing his formula... Peggy had no idea and she was pissed. I think Howard (and anyone Hydra, like Mitchell) was really good at hiding things from anyone he wanted, and Howard had the resources to do it.  And Peggy still trusted him.  

And another thing I was reminded of, watching Ant Man... something else that might have scared Tony (and made him more susceptible to Ross's influence) was that Ultron was a very Howard-ish thing to do.  

Edited September 5, 2017 by Wynterwolf

[Perfect Xero]

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

I think by the time we got to Age of Ultron, Steve and Tony, while not best pals or anything, were friends, and while they got on each other's nerves, they still had developed some respect for each other. I think the moment between them in Avengers that was most telling was the "you wouldn't let a guy climb over you/ I would cut the wire exchange". Steve is all about self sacrifice (to the point of becoming increasingly suicidal over the series) and Tony is all about fixing problems (to the point of accidentally creating even MORE problems), and I think that keeps creating problems between them. 

I found Tony's Wanda induced vision interesting because it really sets up a big part of Tony's issues. He really thinks that, because of his wealth, power, and intelligence, it's HIS job to fix everything and save everyone. If he screws up or let's his guard down, everyone's dead, and it's all on him. It's a weird combination of guilt, anxiety, arrogance, and obsession. 

I think a big part of Tony feeling like he has to be the one to fix things is that ... no one else seems all that interested in fixing things.

They all know that there are alien armies working with literal gods that have Earth seriously outgunned, but their thought process doesn't go much further than, "We beat the aliens once, we'll just do it again."

[Wynterwolf]

10 minutes ago, Perfect Xero said:

I think a big part of Tony feeling like he has to be the one to fix things is that ... no one else seems all that interested in fixing things.

They all know that there are alien armies working with literal gods that have Earth seriously outgunned, but their thought process doesn't go much further than, "We beat the aliens once, we'll just do it again."

Definitely.  But Tony doesn't really know how to bring other people to his point of view, or to accept and incorporate other points of view into his.  He's good at collaborating toward a specific goal (as he does with Banner) but being the leader of a team really isn't in Tony's skill set and this is where I think the team really misses someone like Fury.  But I wonder if T'Challa might be able to grow into a role like that.  

[Bruinsfan]

He definitely strikes me as more suited to in temperament, and he's now better positioned to do so as a head of state for a particularly tech-savvy nation.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/4/2017 at 2:45 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

Well Peggy Carter was running SHIELD, so i am not sure how she dropped the ball on that one, considering everytime anyone ever talks about her she is like the greatest agent ever.

 

20 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

She's wasn't a scientist though.

Not even Nick Fury's paranoid self knew something was afoot until he was unable to access the Insight files in Winter Soldier, and he's the one who tells Steve that the last time he trusted someone, he lost an eye.

My guess is that Peggy was retired by the time Howard was murdered, although they don't specify that at any point. But she's an old lady in a hospital bed when Cap visits her in WS, and she specifically mentions that even though she helped to found SHIELD, her generation had "mucked it up a bit." And Howard's death was meant to take him out of the equation because he was working with the Tesseract, right? Thought I could be misremembering that.

[ChelseaNH]

28 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Not even Nick Fury's paranoid self knew something was afoot until he was unable to access the Insight files in Winter Soldier, and he's the one who tells Steve that the last time he trusted someone, he lost an eye.

When he revealed Project Insight to Steve, I really wanted Steve to ask, "Who will you trust with these when you're no longer SHIELD?"  But that would have been too much foreshadowing.

[Wynterwolf]

2 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

My guess is that Peggy was retired by the time Howard was murdered, although they don't specify that at any point. But she's an old lady in a hospital bed when Cap visits her in WS, and she specifically mentions that even though she helped to found SHIELD, her generation had "mucked it up a bit." And Howard's death was meant to take him out of the equation because he was working with the Tesseract, right? Thought I could be misremembering that.

The scene with her and the others in Ant Man was in '89 (2 years before Howard was killed), and she still seemed pretty engaged.  But yeah, I think she knew there were serious problems, but she definitely didn't know one of the guys in that meeting with her was Hydra.  And I'm honestly not sure whether Howard did or not.  

Howard was killed to get the 5 SuperSoldier doses he had in his trunk, and not leave any witnesses (though I still think he used the Tesseract to complete it). Where ever he had it, though, Hydra didn't get their hands on it, or at least didn't keep their hands on it... 

[stealinghome]

23 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

I think a big part of Tony feeling like he has to be the one to fix things is that ... no one else seems all that interested in fixing things.

They all know that there are alien armies working with literal gods that have Earth seriously outgunned, but their thought process doesn't go much further than, "We beat the aliens once, we'll just do it again."

What would "fixing things" look like, though? What Fury and Steve both pointed out to Tony in AoU (and I think one of the things he was supposed to learn in IM3, though it's been ages since I've seen it) is that there's a fine line between preparing as much as you can for conflict (reasonable) and having the ego to think you can eradicate conflict (unreasonable). I saw the team as pretty much as prepared as possible for whatever type of crisis might come in AoU. Tony's mistake in that movie was meddling with forces he didn't understand *without consulting the team.* It's not like the rest of the team was like "you want better security measures for the Earth? Pass!" They didn't show disinterest; he just never consulted them on his larger projects. It's possible Ultron might have turned out very differently had Tony bothered to clue the rest of the team in: had Thor been there to advise on using the scepter, had Steve had some philosophical input into the project, had Natasha been there to voice some real common sense and present the worst-case scenarios as a brake....

Not sure how anything Tony did in Civil War was in the interest of saving Earth from aliens as much as assuaging his own guilt. Which, of course, has left Earth pretty UNprepared relative to AoU for the invasion we know is coming.

[Perfect Xero]

23 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

What would "fixing things" look like, though? What Fury and Steve both pointed out to Tony in AoU (and I think one of the things he was supposed to learn in IM3, though it's been ages since I've seen it) is that there's a fine line between preparing as much as you can for conflict (reasonable) and having the ego to think you can eradicate conflict (unreasonable). I saw the team as pretty much as prepared as possible for whatever type of crisis might come in AoU. Tony's mistake in that movie was meddling with forces he didn't understand *without consulting the team.* It's not like the rest of the team was like "you want better security measures for the Earth? Pass!" They didn't show disinterest; he just never consulted them on his larger projects. It's possible Ultron might have turned out very differently had Tony bothered to clue the rest of the team in: had Thor been there to advise on using the scepter, had Steve had some philosophical input into the project, had Natasha been there to voice some real common sense and present the worst-case scenarios as a brake....

Not sure how anything Tony did in Civil War was in the interest of saving Earth from aliens as much as assuaging his own guilt. Which, of course, has left Earth pretty UNprepared relative to AoU for the invasion we know is coming.

Tony was trying to keep the team together and in the good graces of most of the Earth's governments so that they'd be ready to face an alien threat. "I'm doing what has to be done... to stave off something worse."

The Accords weren't going away if Tony didn't sign on, he didn't do anything to make Steve, Wanda, Clint, and Scott fugitives. If he doesn't it just means that there's probably someone less likely to stand up to and push back against Ross running the team.

[stealinghome]

Quote

The Accords weren't going away if Tony didn't sign on,

They easily could have, though. That's the thing. The UN had no realistic power to enforce the Accords; the Avengers hold all the cards in that relationship. All the conflict in Civil War happened because Tony pushed the Accords forward like a bull in a china shop (and then acted surprised when he broke the china).

If Tony had actually listened to his teammates' reservations and gone back to the UN and said "we're willing to have a dialogue about the ideas behind the Accords, but it has to be a dialogue and not some top-down imposed nonsense that treats people like bombs instead of individuals with rights, and by the way, here are all the problems we have to work together to solve before we sign," the UN would have had to listen--or find another team of superpowered people to fight off the next alien invasion or Hydra threat--and just about everything in CA:CW could have been avoided. Tony didn't give a damn about keeping the team together; if he did, he would've actually listened to the half of the team that had reservations. I mean, he knew that half would've had to "retire" if they didn't sign, right? So at minimum Tony was okay with forcing half his teammates into retirement...that doesn't strike me as someone who cares about keeping the team together above all. Tony can talk a big game but at the end of the day, what Tony cared about in CA:CW was making himself feel better and that's what drove his actions.

[Kel Varnsen]

15 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

If Tony had actually listened to his teammates' reservations and gone back to the UN and said "we're willing to have a dialogue about the ideas behind the Accords, but it has to be a dialogue and not some top-down imposed nonsense that treats people like bombs instead of individuals with rights, and by the way, here are all the problems we have to work together to solve before we sign," the UN would have had to listen--or find another team of superpowered people to fight off the next alien invasion or Hydra threat--and just about everything in CA:CW could have been avoided. Tony didn't give a damn about keeping the team together; if he did, he would've actually listened to the half of the team that had reservations.

That should have worked, based on everything they have sort of shown about how most of the Avengers behave. But they kind of wrote it to force conflict between Cap and Tony. Cap even says "the safest hands are our own", which makes me think he wouldn't agree to any oversight, even a compromise that is proposed above. Now I totally agree that the way the accords were proposed were nonsense, but they weren't really imposed anymore than any criminal law is imposed. If they lowered the speed limit around Cap's house would he say only he had the right to decide how fast he drove?

[Wynterwolf]

Ross didn't want compromise.  He wanted control.   

[Cobalt Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

They easily could have, though. That's the thing. The UN had no realistic power to enforce the Accords; the Avengers hold all the cards in that relationship. All the conflict in Civil War happened because Tony pushed the Accords forward like a bull in a china shop (and then acted surprised when he broke the china).

Not to pick on you specifically, @stealinghome, but can we at least acknowledge that Steve's stubbornness was part of the rift as well?

I mean, I get it. Believe me, I get it; Tony's ham-handed attempts to "fix things" and his inferiority complex and spending his formative years being compared to Cap has clearly made him into a mass of issues that would take a team of shrinks years to solve, but doesn't Steve deserve a sliver of the blame?

At Peggy's funeral, Steve says that she was the one of the people who believed that when you see something wrong happening, you stand up and you say, This is wrong. If someone asks you to me, you say, No, you move. Well enough, and it's a fine sentiment, but that's the attitude he takes back to the States with him, once he's heard from  Natasha how many of the Avengers are going to sign and not sign. That no one is going to make him move.

Rhodey is the one who says that Steve's attitude is dangerously arrogant, and even after being nearly crippled, he tells Tony that he still believes in the Accords and would sign them again if given the chance. And at the very least, Wanda was not a citizen of the United States. After Lagos, when she's watching television in her room and Steve comes in to talk to her, the talking head on the news is saying something to the effect of, "What right does an enhanced individual like Wanda Maximoff have to enter a foreign country as part of a strike team?" I adore Wanda beyond the telling of it (sorry not sorry), but there's logic in saying that while covert ops in a crowd look cool in the movies, if it goes sideways for whatever reason, somebody's going to have to explain what went wrong.

[stealinghome]

Quote

But they kind of wrote it to force conflict between Cap and Tony. Cap even says "the safest hands are our own", which makes me think he wouldn't agree to any oversight, even a compromise that is proposed above. Now I totally agree that the way the accords were proposed were nonsense, but they weren't really imposed anymore than any criminal law is imposed. If they lowered the speed limit around Cap's house would he say only he had the right to decide how fast he drove?

Yeah, but Steve was also ready to sign the Accords later in the movie when Tony said that they could become a discussion instead of a top-down order. The one time we see Tony acknowledge that the Accords as written might have flaws, and that he's willing to work to change them, Steve is open to the idea. (Then Tony puts his foot in his mouth when he mentions Wanda's house arrest, but, you know.) Don't get me wrong, I think CA:CW did a disservice to pretty much all the characters--Tony and Steve and Natasha especially suffered from writing that made them act way stupider than they are (or are supposed to be) to force the conflict--but I think it's pretty telling that the one time Tony chills out on his "my way or the highway RIGHT NOW" attitude, Steve responds in kind.

The speed limit analogy doesn't really work, though, imo. A better analogy would be the government saying that it gets to remotely steer Steve's car and he has no say on where he goes, how fast he goes, what route he takes, or who he picks up along the way; also, because he's a genetically-enhanced individual, he may not even be able to opt out of being in the car the way a normal human like Clint theoretically can. In that situation, yeah, I think he (or anyone) would be justified in having significant problems with the edict.

Edited September 6, 2017 by stealinghome

[Kel Varnsen]

19 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Rhodey is the one who says that Steve's attitude is dangerously arrogant, and even after being nearly crippled, he tells Tony that he still believes in the Accords and would sign them again if given the chance. And at the very least, Wanda was not a citizen of the United States. After Lagos, when she's watching television in her room and Steve comes in to talk to her, the talking head on the news is saying something to the effect of, "What right does an enhanced individual like Wanda Maximoff have to enter a foreign country as part of a strike team?" I adore Wanda beyond the telling of it (sorry not sorry), but there's logic in saying that while covert ops in a crowd look cool in the movies, if it goes sideways for whatever reason, somebody's going to have to explain what went wrong.

Rhodey's quote about arrogance makes me wonder if Cap only trusts himself to decide what is right and wrong when fighting threats, should Daredevil when he is crippling people to fight crime. What about The Punisher, should he be above the law? Other than the fact that Cap is a good person, what makes the Avengers special?

13 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

The speed limit analogy doesn't really work, though, imo. A better analogy would be the government saying that it gets to remotely steer Steve's car and he has no say on where he goes, how fast he goes, what route he takes, or who he picks up along the way; also, because he's a genetically-enhanced individual, he may not even be able to opt out of being in the car the way a normal human like Clint theoretically can. In that situation, yeah, I think he (or anyone) would be justified in having significant problems with the edict.

My speed limit was more along the lines of without the Accords Cap's actions in Africa, and in trying to save Bucky broke a shit-ton of laws. If the accords didn't exist in the movie, how would various governments deal with those situations? Should the Avengers go on trial in Nigeria for manslaughter? Or let's play it the opposite way, if Cap was able to take Crossbones into custody, who does he get turned over to and how does he get a fair trial?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Kel Varnsen

[Wynterwolf]

So many unreliable narrators.  That was part of what I really loved about the movie, everyone had plausible personal reasons for doing what they did, coupled with also being pummeled by outside forces set on controlling them or breaking them apart.  Considering the circumstances that were set up, the fact that no one died, even by accident, was pretty telling for how much they are a family.  Tony wouldn't have been pulled so far off balance without Ross's badgering, Steve wouldn't have been so single-minded if Zemo hadn't been dangling a real, live Bucky that actually remembered him, in front of his nose (after 2 years of fruitless searching).  And Nat was caught in the middle with her own personal life preserver being torn to shreds right out from under her.  I love this movie so much.  :-)

55 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Rhodey's quote about arrogance makes me wonder if Cap only trusts himself to decide what is right and wrong when fighting threats,

Steve said in the letter he sent to Tony that he puts his trust in... "people.  And so far, they haven't let me down." So I think he is putting his stock in the personal moral code of the people they as a group decide are Avengers, and anyone that they deem an Avenger has been vetted by them.  I think that's the difference he sees between them and garden variety vigilantes,  If an Avenger goes off line, the team would deal with it, but he genuinely doesn't expect that will happen because he trusts them, and the circle of people he trusts is very small.   

Edited September 6, 2017 by Wynterwolf

[Perfect Xero]

57 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

They easily could have, though. That's the thing. The UN had no realistic power to enforce the Accords; the Avengers hold all the cards in that relationship. All the conflict in Civil War happened because Tony pushed the Accords forward like a bull in a china shop (and then acted surprised when he broke the china).

If Tony had actually listened to his teammates' reservations and gone back to the UN and said "we're willing to have a dialogue about the ideas behind the Accords, but it has to be a dialogue and not some top-down imposed nonsense that treats people like bombs instead of individuals with rights, and by the way, here are all the problems we have to work together to solve before we sign," the UN would have had to listen--or find another team of superpowered people to fight off the next alien invasion or Hydra threat--and just about everything in CA:CW could have been avoided. Tony didn't give a damn about keeping the team together; if he did, he would've actually listened to the half of the team that had reservations. I mean, he knew that half would've had to "retire" if they didn't sign, right? So at minimum Tony was okay with forcing half his teammates into retirement...that doesn't strike me as someone who cares about keeping the team together above all. Tony can talk a big game but at the end of the day, what Tony cared about in CA:CW was making himself feel better and that's what drove his actions.

A Private highly armed strike force dictating terms to the governments of the world on the weight of their strength is ... highly problematic and an incredibly dangerous precedent to establish.

That they could do that does not mean that they should do it. And, as Tony says, if they're not willing to accept limitations, are they any better than the bad guys?

There being an Avengers team to (as Nat puts it) keep a hand on the wheel and work with the government is better than there being no team.

The Avengers took unsanctioned actions against a group of mercenaries without giving any heads up to the local government, police, or emergency services and it resulted in a lot of innocent civilians dying. That half the teams feels that they should face no blowback and repercussions for this is, as Rhodes puts it, dangerously arrogant. In any real world, legal sense, they should probably be in jail for their actions in Lagos. That even this measured sort of control the UN seeks to put on them is too much for Steve is the sort of thing that people around him should find terrifying.

[ChelseaNH]

8 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

The Avengers took unsanctioned actions against a group of mercenaries without giving any heads up to the local government, police, or emergency services and it resulted in a lot of innocent civilians dying.

I'm thinking a lot of the blame for that falls on the mercenaries, especially the one who set off a bomb in a crowd -- who, lest we forget, were stealing a biological weapon.  They don't tend to do that just for the experience.

8 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

That even this measured sort of control the UN seeks to put on them is too much for Steve

200 pages of control would be too much for a lot of people.  It was also too much for Tony -- he was perfectly ready to evade control when it suited him.  If Tony was so accepting of the accords, why didn't he make Peter Parker subject to them?

Here's something about Wanda's situation -- no one told her she was under house arrest; she had to find out.  Did Tony have the authority to detain her?  And if she's being detained, why hasn't she been notified and told why?  Does she have the right to counsel?  Has she been charged with anything?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, ChelseaNH said:

Here's something about Wanda's situation -- no one told her she was under house arrest; she had to find out.  Did Tony have the authority to detain her?  And if she's being detained, why hasn't she been notified and told why?  Does she have the right to counsel?  Has she been charged with anything?

I'm just guessing, but Vision being the one who was supposed to keep Wanda from leaving meant that she was "only" being 'detained' as opposed to detained, if that makes sense. When she mentions going out to pick up a pizza, he suggests ordering in, and she replies that it would only be a twenty minute trip or something. Vision gently points out that Mr. Stark thought it would be better for her to remain at the compound so as to avoid another incident, and when she says she can take care of herself, he says that it isn't her safety that's the concern. Why they wouldn't simply tell her is likely just to add drama, since Wanda is the newest Avenger and might have still been working on her trust issues with these people, since she specifically gripes at Tony about locking her in her room.

And @Kel Varnsen raises an interesting point - if the Accords were supposed to regulate the actions of the Avengers trying to stop the world from being taken over or destroyed, what measures would be taken to provide the bad guys with proper counsel, read them their rights, and make sure they're being treated fairly? After all, most of them are enhanced too, like Loki, so would it be like the Batman/Joker situation in the comics where they keep putting The Joker into Arkham only for him to escape over and over again and wreak new havoc? If they had really wanted to lampshade the idea, they'd have had some "rights" group step in on behalf of the villains to make sure they weren't being mistreated. I'm pretty sure no one is supposed to care if Zemo spends the rest of his life in a cell the size of a phone booth.