AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat > Sports & Entertainment

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-10-13, 01:26   Link #261
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
See, the difference here is that the "government officials" did NOT take responsibility.

As far as we know, the one who decided that Bucky needed to die, did not get punished for it.

This is proof that the Accords doesn't work. This proves that Accords doesn't allow responsibility to be handed out. Yes, a mistake was made, but there was no consequences for the mistake because the person who made it, hid himself behind bureaucracy.
And Tony Stark wasn't punished for creating Ultron. Cap wasn't punished for his less than stellar performance against Crossbones. That proves that the lack of Accords doesn't work either.

More to the point, just because, in hindsight, a decision is wrong, it doesn't mean it's an actionable offense. And you haven't answered my question.

Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2016-10-13 at 17:24.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-13, 02:24   Link #262
Magin
#1 Akashiya Moka Fan
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Where magic is real
Age: 35
Send a message via AIM to Magin Send a message via MSN to Magin
I want to just throw my opinon in about a (very good) movie, and I shook off all the dust on discussion, it seems

After taking a day or two to think about this movie, it basically comes down to this: we, as the audience, have extra knowledge. If we were regular MCU characters, and non-metahuman at that, we'd all be pro-Accords; make the Avengers sign it so that they take responsibility for the world (despite it ultimately not putting responsibility anywhere). Hell, my biggest issue, as I stated the first time around is if you bind the Avengers to this law, what happens when a major catastrophe that only they can solve (hint: Thanos) occurs? Do you keep them bound to the law, even if it means countless people will die? Or do you let them act as your so-called vigilante force?

In regards to Cap therefore rescuing Bucky... because we know that Bucky was a HYDRA slave, it makes sense for us to have Cap rescue him. Anyone else, and it's a case of "Captain America is helping a murder". In fact, I would argue that Black Panther, when first introduced, only made things worse- yes, Cap was getting beat up pretty badly, but then he had to deal with two opponents, one of whom was hell-bent on killing Bucky (since we don't learn about the framing until much later on).

Also, responsibity... it;s one of those things superhero movies tend to conveniently ignore, and then you get Civil War. In AoU, does anyone besides the audience (and the rest of the team) actually know that Stark created Ultron? Granted, I myself don't remember anything regarding this. Otherwise, it would've been a case of the Avengers taking out just another threat to the world. And Cap failing against Crossbones? In the movie, because of Wanda, she's the one who ultimately took all the blame, despite what happened with Cap. I;'d argue that the Accords were the way of taking responsibility for that. Personally, even though people did die, I would call it a rookie mistake and have her sit out on a few missions (though we know how well THAT actually went)
__________________
Gifted...or Cursed?

R+V fanfic- Chapter 4 of A Water Bride and a Vampire is now up at FF.net!

All fans of Inner or Outer Moka, come join her fanclub!
Magin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-13, 02:38   Link #263
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magin View Post
I want to just throw my opinon in about a (very good) movie, and I shook off all the dust on discussion, it seems

After taking a day or two to think about this movie, it basically comes down to this: we, as the audience, have extra knowledge. If we were regular MCU characters, and non-metahuman at that, we'd all be pro-Accords; make the Avengers sign it so that they take responsibility for the world (despite it ultimately not putting responsibility anywhere). Hell, my biggest issue, as I stated the first time around is if you bind the Avengers to this law, what happens when a major catastrophe that only they can solve (hint: Thanos) occurs? Do you keep them bound to the law, even if it means countless people will die? Or do you let them act as your so-called vigilante force?
Like I said way before, if there's a need, a real need, not just "I'm too lazy to fill out the paperwork", to break the law to save the world, then they'll break the law and sort it out later. Actually, it's already what they do. I'm sure a lot of Avengers activities are illegal as hell. The Accords are, in fact, a way to make at least some of them legal. It's a way to turn heroes from technical criminals into law abiding people.

Quote:
Also, responsibity... it;s one of those things superhero movies tend to conveniently ignore, and then you get Civil War. In AoU, does anyone besides the audience (and the rest of the team) actually know that Stark created Ultron? Granted, I myself don't remember anything regarding this. Otherwise, it would've been a case of the Avengers taking out just another threat to the world. And Cap failing against Crossbones? In the movie, because of Wanda, she's the one who ultimately took all the blame, despite what happened with Cap. I;'d argue that the Accords were the way of taking responsibility for that. Personally, even though people did die, I would call it a rookie mistake and have her sit out on a few missions (though we know how well THAT actually went)
Cap's the leader, the one who decided the op. With all its risks, including that of releasing a deadly bio weapon into a city. The buck stops with him - with the Accords, it wouldn't.

As for Wanda, she may be the public face of the failure, but she didn't do anything really wrong. She did the best she could with what she had, in the situation Cap put her in.

Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2016-10-13 at 12:53.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-13, 07:56   Link #264
Tactics
Haven't You Heard?
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: South-east Asia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magin View Post
Also, responsibity... it;s one of those things superhero movies tend to conveniently ignore, and then you get Civil War. In AoU, does anyone besides the audience (and the rest of the team) actually know that Stark created Ultron?
They know.

In AoU, Fury demand Tony explanation, implying higher-ups know that Ultron is Tony creation or somehow related to Tony.
That's not counting fact that Ultron tend to talk about Tony and using his new Iron Legion before Ultron modified it into his 'clones'.

Moreover, in Ant-Man, there's a news about Stark is the one taking responsibilities for mess happened during AoU.
Implying if people blame Avengers, all that angst goes to him. So don't be surprised if his appearance in Civil War is kinda mess, impatient, compare to calm and neat Tony at first Avenger movie; I know how it feels to take all paperworks when your teammates are going 'like I care' to that responsibilities, not counting the day when your loyal and trustworthy girlfriend chose to broke up thanks to all that problem.

__________________
Life is simple, that's why it became complicated. -
Tactics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-13, 16:09   Link #265
Rising Dragon
Goat Herder
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Age: 36
I think the point of the Accords in this movie is to demonstrate that there's no right solution. As you both have said--having the Accords did not help. But neither did not having the Accords.
__________________
Rising Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-13, 20:18   Link #266
Tactics
Haven't You Heard?
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: South-east Asia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rising Dragon View Post
I think the point of the Accords in this movie is to demonstrate that there's no right solution. As you both have said--having the Accords did not help. But neither did not having the Accords.
Its hard to tell if there's no right solution.
Accord wasn't implemented yet, and Steve faction not even tried to negotiate the regulation even with Tony said they still have opportunity to negotiate how Accord regulate superhuman if Steve express interest to sign.

The movie content itself basically half for Accord vote and half for Bucky, made it hard to say that having Accord didn't help.
__________________
Life is simple, that's why it became complicated. -
Tactics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-14, 11:36   Link #267
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rising Dragon View Post
I think the point of the Accords in this movie is to demonstrate that there's no right solution. As you both have said--having the Accords did not help. But neither did not having the Accords.
I don't know what is so confusing.

The IDEA of the Accords, and the reason we need an Accords, is entirely right and justified.

What the Accords ended up BEING, and how it is implemented in the film, is retarded, useless, and destructive.

So the only way you can be pro-Accords is if you like the idea of having the Accords, but don't care that it is not functional.

You can like the argument for the Accords while still saying the Accords as written should not exist.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
marvel cinematic universe

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.