|
It's a good thing we put the Moratorium of Steel up so we could devote more time to arguing who was right in Civil War.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:It's a good thing we put the Moratorium of Steel up so we could devote more time to arguing who was right in Civil War. Unironically agreed, yeah. It's a much better conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Tony imprisoning Wanda is an interesting compromise. If Wanda had decided of her own accord to hole up somewhere, ok, but she didn't seem thrilled that Vision was keeping her there against her will for her own (or Stark's) protection. That's true. But I wonder, would she have preferred to stand trial? The movie just avoids that question. It's clear we're supposed to think that her house arrest is "unfair", but neither she nor Steve seem to prefer a trial. In fact the implication seems to be that her suffering consequences at all is wrong, although that might just be be me interpreting things incorrectly. Phylodox posted:That’s oversimplifying. They shouldn’t be able to do whatever they want without consequences. That’s not what Steve wants, either. He wants himself and his teammates, as sovereign citizens, to be able to act on their principles. Government oversight runs the risk of turning the Avengers into Team America: World Police. As sovereign citizens, you should follow the laws. When you're a vigilante, you break laws. He can't just enter a foreign nation and go all gung ho and cause collateral damage, then high tail it back to the US. They already are Team America, World Police, only no one can tell them to not, say, go into france and destroy the Eifel Tower because they think Doctor Versacè hid poisoned Gucci bags there or whatever. Government oversight is there precisely to stop them from acting like Team America, which is exactly what they were doing. Retro Futurist posted:It's a good thing we put the Moratorium of Steel up so we could devote more time to arguing who was right in Civil War. No one is stopping you from posting about something else. Have at it, champ!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
McCloud posted:That's true. But I wonder, would she have preferred to stand trial? The movie just avoids that question. It's clear we're supposed to think that her house arrest is "unfair", but neither she nor Steve seem to prefer a trial. In fact the implication seems to be that her suffering consequences at all is wrong, although that might just be be me interpreting things incorrectly. Maybe i'm not interpreting this correctly but your paragraph here implies that she has something to stand trial for as opposed to the other people that went on that mission. Why would she stand trial but not Cap? Not Widow? Rumlow triggered the bomb, she tried to save the lives of the people in the market but caused the death of others instead. That doesn't make her uniquely culpable as opposed to the rest of the team (though, technically of course, you could have a trial to test that point). The real issue was with the vigilante mission itself and perhaps Cap's decision to bring someone powerful and untrained into the field, not with her action at the end of it. And its been a little bit since I've seen it, but my understanding was that she was being kept in the compound by Tony for more PR reasons rather than anything else since public perception was against her after the incident. It wasn't because she was guilty of any particular wrongdoing above and beyond what Cap or Widow did. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Maybe i'm not interpreting this correctly but your paragraph here implies that she has something to stand trial for as opposed to the other people that went on that mission. Why would she stand trial but not Cap? Not Widow? Rumlow triggered the bomb, she tried to save the lives of the people in the market but caused the death of others instead. That doesn't make her uniquely culpable as opposed to the rest of the team (though, technically of course, you could have a trial to test that point). The real issue was with the vigilante mission itself and perhaps Cap's decision to bring someone powerful and untrained into the field, not with her action at the end of it. That's what Vision claims, yes. (I always felt it was implied they don't think she can control herself if provoked either.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/screenrant/status/971013039976861697
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Maybe i'm not interpreting this correctly but your paragraph here implies that she has something to stand trial for as opposed to the other people that went on that mission. Why would she stand trial but not Cap? Not Widow? Rumlow triggered the bomb, she tried to save the lives of the people in the market but caused the death of others instead. That doesn't make her uniquely culpable as opposed to the rest of the team (though, technically of course, you could have a trial to test that point). The real issue was with the vigilante mission itself and perhaps Cap's decision to bring someone powerful and untrained into the field, not with her action at the end of it. You ask very good questions. Why is it she gets "preferential" treatment, and not cap? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying her trying to save lives was wrong. But in a functioning rule of law, we still put people on trial to determine their culpability and/or guilt, and everyone participating in that mission should have stood trial, because they were not there as law enforcement officers, but as vigilantes. They are, either directly or indirectly, responsible for what went down. I haven't seen it in ages either, but my recollection was that Tony kept her out of sight as a compromise to keep her from standing trial, but I might be wrong there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Also remember that Wanda doesn't realize at first that she's being held against her will. She's just feeling awful about what happened and Vision makes her food. It's once she wants to leave that she finds out she's not allowed. Also you guys are jumping right into "should there have been consequences or not" and zipping past the fact that there was no proper investigation into what happened. People get blown up and it immediately jumps to "The Avengers need goverment oversight" and trying to appease Wakanda by accepting blame. So it's more about HOW the government responds to the incident that divides the team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
McCloud posted:As sovereign citizens, you should follow the laws. When you're a vigilante, you break laws. He can't just enter a foreign nation and go all gung ho and cause collateral damage, then high tail it back to the US. They already are Team America, World Police, only no one can tell them to not, say, go into france and destroy the Eifel Tower because they think Doctor Versacè hid poisoned Gucci bags there or whatever. Government oversight is there precisely to stop them from acting like Team America, which is exactly what they were doing. They didn’t cause collateral damage. They minimized it. And they didn’t go in gung-ho, they were following up a lead on a known HYDRA agent when all hell broke loose. And they don’t try to escape repercussions (well, except for Tony). Steve isn’t opposed to the idea of he or Wanda standing trial. He’s against the idea of superheroes being treated like an even more powerful version of SHIELD or the CIA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
I'm feeling very conflicted about thisJamesman posted:Also remember that Wanda doesn't realize at first that she's being held against her will. She's just feeling awful about what happened and Vision makes her food. It's once she wants to leave that she finds out she's not allowed. This happened in nigeria, not wakanda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
McCloud posted:I'm feeling very conflicted about this It was Wakandans that got killed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:They didn’t cause collateral damage. They minimized it. And they didn’t go in gung-ho, they were following up a lead on a known HYDRA agent when all hell broke loose. And they don’t try to escape repercussions (well, except for Tony). Steve isn’t opposed to the idea of he or Wanda standing trial. He’s against the idea of superheroes being treated like an even more powerful version of SHIELD or the CIA. They were following a lead. From whom? Did they contact local law enforcement or government officials? Did they get their permission? Or did they just sneak in and did their thing? And Steve, by virtue of being against oversight, is trying to escape the repercussions, because they arose as a result from what happened in Nigeria. The point is, sovereign nations should absolutely have a say in whether Cap or Tony or the Hulk get to go in there for wacky adventures. The law applies to them as well. Cap rejects that. We also don't know if Steve is opposed to a trial, because the movie doesn't really explore his feelings to it (I think. Again, memory bit fuzzy). We do know he reacts strongly to her being under house arrest, and my assumption is that he would react strongly to them having to stand trial too. Jamesman posted:It was Wakandans that got killed. Was it? I remember Wakandans dying to the bombing of the UN embassy, but not in Nigeria.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:It was Wakandans that got killed. In fact given what we know about T'Chaka later on in Black Panther it's entirely reasonable to suggest that the only reason he was such an ardent driving force behind the Sokovia Accords was because a Wakandan outreach group were the ones who got killed and that if Wanda had left Crossbones' suicide bomb where it was to kill a hundred Nigerians that T'Chaka wouldn't have cared all that much. McCloud posted:Was it? I remember Wakandans dying to the bombing of the UN embassy, but not in Nigeria. Are you actually for real doing the thing where you're trying to argue that other peoples' interpretations of a thing is wrong when you can't even remember the pertinent details of the thing you're arguing about? Crossbones sets off a suicide vest in the middle of a crowded Nigerian market square. Wanda grabs the explosion in a bubble of telekinesis to try to contain it but the blast is too powerful. She hurls it up into the air so that when the bubble pops it won't vaporize everyone around it but she misjudges her throw and the blast hits a building where a Wakandan outreach group was. This is what prompts T'Chaka's strong insistence on pushing the Sokovia Accords forward. Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:In fact given what we know about T'Chaka later on in Black Panther it's entirely reasonable to suggest that the only reason he was such an ardent driving force behind the Sokovia Accords was because a Wakandan outreach group were the ones who got killed and that if Wanda had left Crossbones' suicide bomb where it was to kill a hundred Nigerians that T'Chaka wouldn't have cared all that much. Nah, not trying to argue at all about this. I double checked the wiki, and he's totally right. I just completely forgot that Wakandans were part of the casualties. I wonder how much pull T'Chaka had with the UN considering, as far as they're concerned, they're just a small third world nation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Look man, we can't all be expected to watch these films before we argue about them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Look man, we can't all be expected to watch these films before we argue about them. Be honest, when has that stopped anyone from commenting on poo poo. Edit: Especially on the internet
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:The Avengers never worked for SHIELD. Steve worked for SHIELD, yeah, but the Avengers were only brought together by them. They were freelance pretty much from the beginning. And Clint and Natasha. Which is exactly half of The Avengers in the first movie. The only freelancers were the monster and the god from another world. I promise to pay infinity money to DC's next attempt at a cinematic universe if they decide to skip Barry Allen and Hal Jordan. I just kinda hate them. Aphrodite posted:That's what Vision claims, yes. I really like the conversation she has with Hawkguy when he shows up to get her out of the compound. Deciding to be active rather than passive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:And Clint and Natasha. Which is exactly half of The Avengers in the first movie. The only freelancers were the monster and the god from another world. And Tony, who never really worked for SHIELD as some full time operative so much as an occasional consultant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Nah, not trying to argue at all about this. I double checked the wiki, and he's totally right. I just completely forgot that Wakandans were part of the casualties. It wasn't so much about who was killed, so much as it was about there being an international incident where civilians died. If Wakanda wasn't a think, the US government would have been apologizing to Nigeria. At least in the MCU's version of the US government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
I know we all hate Tom Cruise for Scientology but he's a hard worker who totally commits to his roles and loves scifi movies. Think of all the scifi movies, some terrible some excellent, he's put out in the last 10 to 15 years. I think he'd be a great pick for GL, though I don't think that article is definitive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:I know we all hate Tom Cruise for Scientology but he's a hard worker who totally commits to his roles and loves scifi movies. Think of all the scifi movies, some terrible some excellent, he's put out in the last 10 to 15 years. I think he'd be a great pick for GL, though I don't think that article is definitive. Yeah, Cruise is a pretty solid actor, but someone who really, really needs to get cast as a villain again at some point. He was amazing in Collateral and no one has really tapped that side of his acting since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
My general impression was that at the beginning of Civil War, the Avengers are kind of generically official, having been formed by SHIELD and being full of high-profile, popular heroes including Captain America so that nobody has actually fired them. But they basically sit in a fuzzy area of the international community where they theoretically work for the governments of the world but no specific body actually has authority to give them directions. EDIT: My take on Civil War is that it's basically about how the political is always really the personal, and that attempts to decode Steve and Tony's "agendas" will fail because they don't really have those. Steve would have to admit that Tony is right about the Avengers needing to answer to somebody, but ultimately Steve wants his Bucky and won't permit anybody to hurt him. Tony wants somebody to curb his worst impulses and is constantly trying to create new limiters on himself but is also constantly doing everything in his power to evade those limits and undercut himself. Neither one has an internally consistent position about how things "should" work that you can weigh against the other. Rand Brittain fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
McCloud posted:They were following a lead. From whom? Did they contact local law enforcement or government officials? You see newspaper clippings in Steve's room about Rumlow robbing police stations and selling arms to terrorists, so it's not exactly top secret stuff. The police station they're staking out has hired private security, implying they're already aware of the threat. quote:Did they get their permission? Or did they just sneak in and did their thing? At the beginning of the movie, their "thing" consists of being in Lagos and sitting around near a police station. They simply positioned themselves so that, should an emergency arise, they'd be in a position to help. Dastardly! quote:And Steve, by virtue of being against oversight, is trying to escape the repercussions, because they arose as a result from what happened in Nigeria. The point is, sovereign nations should absolutely have a say in whether Cap or Tony or the Hulk get to go in there for wacky adventures. The law applies to them as well. Cap rejects that. There's a difference here that you're glossing over. Steve is absolutely okay with him (but not Wanda, since Steve blames himself entirely) suffering the consequences for what happened in Nigeria. What he's not okay with is for that incident to be used as a pretext to press-gang all Avengers and/or enhanced individuals into service wherever the UN sees fit. And he's opposed to Wanda being held under house arrest because, again, he think's he's to blame for what happened in Lagos, not Wanda, and because she's being held against her will without due process. SonicRulez posted:And Clint and Natasha. Which is exactly half of The Avengers in the first movie. The only freelancers were the monster and the god from another world. That's really iffy, since by the time they arguably become the Avengers (the Battle of New York) both Clint and Nat are working separately from SHIELD (and, to a certain degree, against them, since they're with Tony, who stops SHIELD's nuke). Like, they're still SHIELD agents, but that's separate from being Avengers. And by the time Age of Ultron rolls around, SHIELD isn't really a thing, anymore. Phylodox fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
There's no way they declared any of the weaponry they brought in to customs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:My general impression was that at the beginning of Civil War, the Avengers are kind of generically official, having been formed by SHIELD and being full of high-profile, popular heroes including Captain America so that nobody has actually fired them. But they basically sit in a fuzzy area of the international community where they theoretically work for the governments of the world but no specific body actually has authority to give them directions. I agree. It's like after they legit saved the world maybe people were even a little scared of not letting them do what they want in case something bad and world-ending happened again and they'd be needed. But, the situation with Crossbones was a tipping point, a lot of discontent had been built with the Hulk attack in Ultron and so the next big thing was always gonna make the general public and the world governments demand action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:
The UN is the representation of the world governments, and absolutely the kind of organisation who should decide when and where they should be deployed. That's the problem. He'd rather be an independent agent than be accountable to the various world governments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
McCloud posted:The UN is the representation of the world governments, and absolutely the kind of organisation who should decide when and where they should be deployed. That's the problem. He'd rather be an independent agent than be accountable to the various world governments. That's debatable even in the real world. And this is a world where the most powerful intelligence agency in existence turned out to be a front for literal super-Nazis. Super-Nazis who already duped and used Steve once. And this is a world where alien invasions and robot overlords are actually a thing. The Avengers need to be able to meet those threats, not wait to be deployed (or not) by a UN security council or government office. Imagine The Avengers if they had actually submitted to SHIELD's authority. "Loki's opened a massive portal over New York! We need to fight those aliens and close that portal!" "Negative, Captain. We're deploying you to Washington DC to secure the president. We have the situation in New York under control." ka-nuke
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
The UN would absolutely be the kind of organization that would keep the Avengers out if aliens attacked a third world country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
What? Why? zoux posted:I know we all hate Tom Cruise for Scientology but he's a hard worker who totally commits to his roles and loves scifi movies. Think of all the scifi movies, some terrible some excellent, he's put out in the last 10 to 15 years. I think he'd be a great pick for GL, though I don't think that article is definitive. Oh, Tom Cruise is a fine actor, but do we really need an A-list star for this? It's like Edward Norton in Incredible Hulk, yes he was good but both Norton and Cruise are known to try to take over aspects, like Norton's editing, or Cruise making demands of the Mummy script. Plus Cruise isn't as young as he was, and he doesn't seem to understand (one of the changes to the Mummy script he demanded was apparently describing his characters as a "young man"). It just seems like B or C-listers would be a better choice. Although a story about an ageing Hal Jordan who's getting too old to be a test pilot and is unsure about what to do with his life until he gets the ring could be good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
catlord posted:What? Why? The stunts he does in the Mission: Impossible movies suggest that he has the ability to overcome great fear. Since he went out and got a helicopter pilot licence so he could do a stunt in the latest M:I movie, I feel like he's one of the only actors dedicated enough to actually travel to Oa and train with Kilowog for the sake of the role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
I don't even like Green Lantern but imaging the Tom Cruise intensity as he channels the GL oath gives me chills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
It's funny to remember that in Civil War, the Avengers were being chastised for the damage and death in New York, when the original plan was to straight-up launch a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:It's funny to remember that in Civil War, the Avengers were being chastised for the damage and death in New York, when the original plan was to straight-up launch a nuke. What really muddies the waters is what the hell the World Security Council is supposed to be. The MCU has the UN but it also has SHIELD and it also has the WSC which seems to supercede SHIELD but not necessarily have anything to do with the UN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
I recognize that as comic book nerds, we're going to "Uh, technically" each other a lot, but there's really not a debate as to whether or not Widow and Hawkeye work for the government in the first Avengers movie. They work for Nick Fury. Fury is the head of SHIELD. He disobeyed an order from the shadow council, but they didn't proceed to fire him or his subordinates over it. Fury put together the Avengers Initiative. No, they didn't all get paychecks and ID badges, but there was a time that they worked directly under Fury. A brief time, but a time nonetheless. Jamesman posted:It's funny to remember that in Civil War, the Avengers were being chastised for the damage and death in New York, when the original plan was to straight-up launch a nuke. It's really bizarre and I feel like if they had a second go at it, they might have changed that plot point in some way. That's an insane way to respond to a threat even when that threat is aliens in a world of super people. Surely they would deploy the military first. I mean at least 2 of the Avengers team is out there using regular bombs and bullets. Just talking about it makes me want to go back and watch that last 45 minutes or so of The Avengers though. That is action movie heaven or at least it was at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
I'm all for Tom Cruise as Hal if they go original Parallax and the new guys are recruited to stop him. Like Apocalypse Now in space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:It's funny to remember that in Civil War, the Avengers were being chastised for the damage and death in New York, when the original plan was to straight-up launch a nuke. I guess it probably would've actually worked considering that Tony's trick did, at least. So there's that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
I’m conflicted because Hal Jordan is such a boring blank slate of a character, but that also means you can just invent a better personality for him and no one will argue against it. I’d rather just see John or Guy or Kyle or literally any other human GL though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:That's debatable even in the real world. And this is a world where the most powerful intelligence agency in existence turned out to be a front for literal super-Nazis. Super-Nazis who already duped and used Steve once. Let's reverse it a bit. Would the US tolerate North Korean superpowered folks operating in the US? It's one thing if there's a galactic invasion, but two-bit thugs should be below their paygrade, and if they stuck to invasions and global threats they probably wouldn't have gotten the backlash. But that's kinda missing the point, because the situation is contrived by the writers, the whole basic arguement in CW is kinda flimsy at times. See: Jamesman posted:It's funny to remember that in Civil War, the Avengers were being chastised for the damage and death in New York, when the original plan was to straight-up launch a nuke. Rough Lobster posted:I don't even like Green Lantern but imaging the Tom Cruise intensity as he channels the GL oath gives me chills. I intensely dislike Tom Cruise, the person, but Tom Cruise the actor is drat good, and if he stars as a GL I will have to go see it, and hearing him swear that Lantern oath would make it all worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Hal rules, and it only makes sense to have he star of Top Gun play him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
Tom Cruise would probably do the role justice, because the Guardians are canon in his religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 22:54
|
|