Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wanda is definitely not aware that the happiness the people of Westview are expressing is part of the hex. She thinks they're happy with the life she's forced on them and appears visibly shaken when she learns otherwise.

I liked the bit with the Illuminati. Was pretty cool to see John Krasinski as Reed Richards and Anson Mount as proper Black Bolt. The X-Men TV theme when Charles wheeled in was cool.
It was then even better when every single one got brutally murdered.

 LunarSol wrote:
Wanda is definitely not aware that the happiness the people of Westview are expressing is part of the hex. She thinks they're happy with the life she's forced on them and appears visibly shaken when she learns otherwise.

Exactly. I don't think it wasn't that hard to understand.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Is it to ok to create an AI that caused the deaths of thousands just because you think the world needed better/cleverer/bigger guns, which oh wait was the family business?

So, again, you're really understating the importance of intent here. Tony did not intend to create a genocidal machine. He doesn't even think he's anywhere near actually creating an AI, he's just as surprised as everyone else when Ultron first reveals himself to the Avengers at the party. By contrast absolutely no one can argue that Wanda did not intend to hold the people of Westview captive. It's clear from her first interaction with the SWORD agents that she knows exactly what she's doing and has no intention of stopping.

What about selling guns to criminals or enemy nations? The bomb who killed Wanda's familiy was from Stark Industries.

Literally the instant he finds out his weapons are being used by warlords and terrorists, he calls a press conference and declares his company is no longer making weapons.

I think you just hate the character for whatever reason, which is fine, but intent is absolutely relevant here. Wanda isn't doing anything by accident, but Tony does.

I'm sorry but for someone as brilliant as Tony I can't accept the whole "Oh, I was designing and selling weapons of mass destruction but I never thought someone "bad" could have used them". I think it's much more realistic to accept that Stark kept both his eyes shut in the name of profits, or maybe he just didn't care, and then just tried to avoid heat and responsabilities on him and his company later.

And maybe Ultron got out of hand but what he designed was ethically and morally unacceptable in a democracy anyway, and he ignored all the hints Cap gave him on purpose. I don't hate the character, I like it for what it is. Which is clearly not what you see in it.

I also disagree about Wanda, I genuinely believe she never wanted to hurt anybody before the fell under the influence of the Darkhold. I think she actually believed that she was giving Westview citizens a better life. The life she always wanted, a perfect one, so it had to be better than real life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

You do understand that the 'vaguely eastern european war refugee' is supposed to make her sympathetic to audience, not alien, right?

I've absolutely no idea where you're getting 'she's a loner' from. She went from normal family life to possibly codependent relationship with her twin, to team member to possibly codependent relationship (but almost certainly unhealthy and toxic, given Wandavision). From what we're shown, she has _never_ been alone until Wandavision, and being left to her own devices is a vehicle for becoming a monster.

And yet that's what the writers did since the beginning, they alienated her. She never had a signficant relationship with any human being after her brother died. And when she was with her brother he was treated just like an instrument, not even a person. From what we're shown since she was part of the Avengers she was either "just" a team mate or even a prisoner, after Civil War. Never a "refugee", only an asset at best. And her lover was a machine. So yeah, I feel like she's been pretty much alone all the time.

She only had a normal life when she was a child, after war she never was normal. Also I can't even understand why you call her a monster. Even under the Darkhold she only killed soldiers and fighers who get in her way, some of them (see what the Illuminati did to their Strange) clearly not even "good". The only "innocent" person she wanted to kill or she actually killed was America, who even multiple versions of Strange also wanted to kill for "the greater good". I certainly feel more sympathy for Wanda, even the Scarlet Witch, than the Illuminati.

 Blackie wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Wanda is definitely not aware that the happiness the people of Westview are expressing is part of the hex. She thinks they're happy with the life she's forced on them and appears visibly shaken when she learns otherwise.

Exactly. I don't think it wasn't that hard to understand.

I don't think she thought they were happy but I also don't think she thought they were sad. She was so ensconced in her illusion that she was oblivious to the possible harm she was causing. She had Vis and the kids and everything seemed alright and that is all she really wanted to know.

Blackie wrote:Also I can't even understand why you call her a monster.

She tortured a town of innocent and unrelated people for months. When confronted, she came out, told everyone to leave her property (ie the town and its people) and consciously, willingly chose to go back in and continue to do it.

I have no other word but monster. There is no 'evil magic book' to blame for this. And her 'illusion' that she wasn't responsible and didn't do anything wrong doesn't last. She just starts treating the whole thing flippantly (see the 'stay-cation' and camera interview episodes), rather than looking for answers as to what's going on. Because at that point she knows enough, and just wants to wallow in her creation.

She only had a normal life when she was a child, after war she never was normal

No one has a 'normal' life. But we weren't discussing 'normality.' I was disputing 'she's a loner' when she had never, ever been alone, nor shown any desire to be (until after she went bad).

And yet that's what the writers did since the beginning, they alienated her.

They really didn't. They pick up infinity war with her off on a romantic foreign get-away to see if her new-found relationship would 'work.' That's such a cliche of normality its banal.
Then her friends and team-mates showed up to help. That's the opposite of alienation. 'Just' a teammate is a weird trivialization of one of the more significant relationships people can have.

Voss wrote:

She tortured a town of innocent and unrelated people for months. When confronted, she came out, told everyone to leave her property (ie the town and its people) and consciously, willingly chose to go back in and continue to do it.

I have no other word but monster.

I do. I believe she didn't want to cause any harm. I believe she thought her fairytale was actually a better life for the citizens, until she realized it wasn't and left.

I might see a monster in Tony Stark instead. He's a gun dealer who caused countless deaths. And maybe some of the damage he caused was unintentional but when you own a company that produces and sells weapons of mass destruction you can't say "oh, I wasn't aware of what was actually happening with our products". What happens if you create bombs? People are gonna use them. I found really hard to believe Tony didn't know he was causing massive harm by running his company, to me it seems much easier to believe that Wanda didn't know, or couldn't realize, she was hurting the citizens of Westview by giving them the life she created instead.

Also the idea of a massive surveillance system, which he wanted to create (and that might even already exist without people's knowledge), sounds pretty evil to me. Like real life evil, not just something written for a fantasy movie.

And the fact that he didn't directly killed anyone is also irrelevant, since he actually fought against the good superheroes at the airport, using everything he had against them. He couldn't hurt any of them because they were all as powerful as him, unlike the fighter/monks from Kamar Taj, who didn't stand a chance against the witch. He and his comrades couldn't hurt those superheroes becuase they didn't manage to do it. Black Panther in particular clearly wanted to kill The Winter Soldier. Choosing to fight against Cap, which is the embodiment of good, might already be the treshold to define someone as a monster. To me it is. If it is for you too, then I can understand why you might think of Wanda that way. Otherwise I don't.

She didn't mean to cause them harm, however when it became apparent that she was holding people against their will and that she knew the construct (the hex, or whatever) was something she was sustaining she... chose to continue it anyway, even threatening SWORD agents to stay away.

She was not the good guy.

 Blackie wrote:

Voss wrote:

She tortured a town of innocent and unrelated people for months. When confronted, she came out, told everyone to leave her property (ie the town and its people) and consciously, willingly chose to go back in and continue to do it.

I have no other word but monster.

I do. I believe she didn't want to cause any harm. I believe she thought her fairytale was actually a better life for the citizens, until she realized it wasn't and left.

You're pretty blatantly wrong. When she wasn't aware, she was concerned. Trying to figure out what was going on and why, because she was afraid for herself and Vision. At _no_ point did she think things were a 'better life.'

After she became aware, she openly did not care. She willingly chose to continue. At that point she could have worked with SWORD to shut it down, not threaten them to stay away from what was hers.
Whether she 'wanted' to cause harm became irrelevant at that point. She willingly chose to continue doing harm.


I don't really care enough about Tony to argue with you about it. This, though...

Choosing to fight against Cap, which is the embodiment of good, might already be the treshold to define someone as a monster. To me it is. If it is for you too, then I can understand why you might think of Wanda that way. Otherwise I don't.

Cap isn't vaguely the 'embodiment of good' He's a propaganda symbol who happened to do some good things in what was probably the most morally easy war to ever happen. (Gosh, are the genocidal aggressors bad guys? I think they are. Best fight them.)

In Civil War, Cap's motivations were entirely selfish. He wanted to protect his buddy. That's it. That was his entire argument. Regardless of the fact that he was a violent assassin who could be triggered and kill more people at any time. That isn't good. Its understandable, but from an 'embodiment of goodness' perspective, its pretty careless, even reprehensible. But there isn't any moral dimension to his decision. It was just 'friend in danger from the authorities, friendship wins.'

And that isn't even the first time- his personal connections overrode orders, morality and sense repeatedly through his films. That can be admirable but it isn't 'Good'

That was NOT caps entire argument.

First, his argument was that he should be the one to bring in Bucky because he is the least likely to get killed doing it. Then the people sent to arrest Bucky never intended to arrest him. Their job was to kill on sight. No trial. Just execute a factually innocent man for a crime he didn't commit.

Then, when Bucky was in prison because caps intervention resulted in an arrest instead of an assassination he figures out that the bits don't add up and someone else is doing things.

In the aftermath of that, cap tries to find the actual bomber who seems to be trying to wake up a group of winter soldiers and Tony doesn't give a single gak about the mounting evidence and decides to try to fight the people trying to catch and stop the actual bad guy who all evidence is pointing towards trying to unleash a group of super soldier assassins.

Tony perfectly exemplifies everything wrong with the Sokovia Accords that Cap argues in the movie. What happens when they send us somewhere and we don't agree with the mission? "Go arrest these people trying to save lives." What happens when we need to be somewhere and they won't send us? "Cap is trying to catch the actual villain and Ross and Co don't care even when Tony gets the evidence that Bucky didn't do it.

Tony as a tool of the Accords does what he is told and as a result of fighting the actual heroes trying to stop the actual villain cause even more destruction and the crippling of his best friend when they all could have showed up in Russia and stopped Zemo together.

Cap was 100% right the entire time in Civil War. Tony was the short sighted, selfish, guilty conscious but refusing to take personal responsibility piece of gak he has been the entire time.

Steve Rogers is the Moral Compass of Marvel. When he says something going on isn't right, you should listen.

I made a comparison with Tony Stark only because, like Wanda, he's an actual villain in a previous MCU episode.

Never said that Wanda was good, what she did in WandaVision and Multiverse of Madness is definitely wrong, and her motivations were entirely selfish. I just don't understand why she has to be considered a monster, who deserves no emphaty, when several other superheroes did real acts of evil and didn't get the same label.

What about Thor when he executed Thanos? He was harmeless, not a threat to anyone and yet Thor executed him anyway, of course without facing any consequence. No one deserves to be executed without trial, and actually I can even argue that no one deserves to be executed after a trial either since death penalty is illegal in the vast majority of the civilized world. Thor was definitely a monster for that.

What about Hawkeye going berserk after the blip, living only for the bloodshed? And before someone replies: "But... but... but those were bad guys!!!!" we don't know anything about most of the people who Hawkeye actually killed. Maybe even some kids that were tricked or forced to be there, or stupid/desperate enough to join a criminal organization. And again how many of those "criminals" actually deserved a death penalty? The fun part is that Hawkeye's victims never did anything to him or his family, he only wanted to kill someone to justify his existence. That's more than enough to make him a monster.

Black Panther wanted to kill Bucky for personal revenge, also without a trial and with little evidence in his hands. Jelena wanted to kill Hawkeye just based on rumors.

But no, those are good guys who maybe just "lost it". Even if there's no turning back from their actions. Controlling the mind of someone for some days is something unforgivable instead, enough to define someone a monster. I don't justify her actions or condone her, I just understand her.

I think the strenght of some recent MCU episodes comes from characters like the modern Wanda or the Tony Stark in Age of Ultron and Civil War. Multiverse of Madness and WandaVision are IMHO the MCU's peaks so far.

Also Thanos was great since he was never evil, as he actually believe he was saving the world, just mad.

Cap was 100% right the entire time in Civil War.

Eh, maybe 75% right. Zemo didn’t actually want to wake up a bunch of Winter Soldiers after all…

 Lance845 wrote:
That was NOT caps entire argument.

First, his argument was that he should be the one to bring in Bucky because he is the least likely to get killed doing it. Then the people sent to arrest Bucky never intended to arrest him. Their job was to kill on sight. No trial. Just execute a factually innocent man for a crime he didn't commit.

Then, when Bucky was in prison because caps intervention resulted in an arrest instead of an assassination he figures out that the bits don't add up and someone else is doing things.

In the aftermath of that, cap tries to find the actual bomber who seems to be trying to wake up a group of winter soldiers and Tony doesn't give a single gak about the mounting evidence and decides to try to fight the people trying to catch and stop the actual bad guy who all evidence is pointing towards trying to unleash a group of super soldier assassins.

Tony perfectly exemplifies everything wrong with the Sokovia Accords that Cap argues in the movie. What happens when they send us somewhere and we don't agree with the mission? "Go arrest these people trying to save lives." What happens when we need to be somewhere and they won't send us? "Cap is trying to catch the actual villain and Ross and Co don't care even when Tony gets the evidence that Bucky didn't do it.

Tony as a tool of the Accords does what he is told and as a result of fighting the actual heroes trying to stop the actual villain cause even more destruction and the crippling of his best friend when they all could have showed up in Russia and stopped Zemo together.

Cap was 100% right the entire time in Civil War. Tony was the short sighted, selfish, guilty conscious but refusing to take personal responsibility piece of gak he has been the entire time.

Steve Rogers is the Moral Compass of Marvel. When he says something going on isn't right, you should listen.

I’d argue Tony was seeing the Bigger Picture.

The Accords May have been imperfect. But Tony is the only one intimately familiar with the harm Zero Oversight can lead to. With Cap hurtling off as he did? Well you’ve done a good job of explaining his justification for doing it. But we the audience have a perspective those in-universe just don’t.

Cap is kind of retreading The First Avenger. Disobeying orders to save Bucky and who knows how many others. That’s what he does. He’s genuinely more of a Hero than a Soldier.

But in doing so, he’s proving those who demanded the Accords right. His actions could easily become an argument for even more restrictions. Tony sees that. The important is 100% Cap’s fault. Completely. Tony offers to just take him in. Tony came ready for a fight, but wanting to avoid it. Hence taking Spidey along to assist in capture.

This is all what makes the MCU so good. Motivations. Even if they’re a bit Out There, folk still have reasons for what they’re doing. Even if the audience firmly disagree with a given motivation? It’s still there. Like Wanda going 27 levels of insane. We may think they’re monstrous motivations, but they’re still there, and most even have some level of sympathy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


I’d argue Tony was seeing the Bigger Picture.

By this logic Thanos might have been right as well as he was the only one who was seeing the bigger picture.

 Blackie wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


I’d argue Tony was seeing the Bigger Picture.

By this logic Thanos might have been right as well as he was the only one who was seeing the bigger picture.

By Thanos’ own standards? Yes. Exactly that. But he was of course insane. Remember his campaign came first, with gathering the stones seeming the logical conclusion to that. So he’d likely be so far gone down his rabbit hole, he wouldn’t be thinking “but…couldn’t I use them to reorder the Universe so everything resource wise is doubled up, or becomes infinitely renewable/abundant, so overpopulation which is only a factor of limited resources becomes a thing of the past?”.

This is what I’m driving at though. Bad motivations or poorly thought through motivations are still motivations, and the MCU provides those.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That was NOT caps entire argument.

First, his argument was that he should be the one to bring in Bucky because he is the least likely to get killed doing it. Then the people sent to arrest Bucky never intended to arrest him. Their job was to kill on sight. No trial. Just execute a factually innocent man for a crime he didn't commit.

Then, when Bucky was in prison because caps intervention resulted in an arrest instead of an assassination he figures out that the bits don't add up and someone else is doing things.

In the aftermath of that, cap tries to find the actual bomber who seems to be trying to wake up a group of winter soldiers and Tony doesn't give a single gak about the mounting evidence and decides to try to fight the people trying to catch and stop the actual bad guy who all evidence is pointing towards trying to unleash a group of super soldier assassins.

Tony perfectly exemplifies everything wrong with the Sokovia Accords that Cap argues in the movie. What happens when they send us somewhere and we don't agree with the mission? "Go arrest these people trying to save lives." What happens when we need to be somewhere and they won't send us? "Cap is trying to catch the actual villain and Ross and Co don't care even when Tony gets the evidence that Bucky didn't do it.

Tony as a tool of the Accords does what he is told and as a result of fighting the actual heroes trying to stop the actual villain cause even more destruction and the crippling of his best friend when they all could have showed up in Russia and stopped Zemo together.

Cap was 100% right the entire time in Civil War. Tony was the short sighted, selfish, guilty conscious but refusing to take personal responsibility piece of gak he has been the entire time.

Steve Rogers is the Moral Compass of Marvel. When he says something going on isn't right, you should listen.

I’d argue Tony was seeing the Bigger Picture.

The Accords May have been imperfect. But Tony is the only one intimately familiar with the harm Zero Oversight can lead to. With Cap hurtling off as he did? Well you’ve done a good job of explaining his justification for doing it. But we the audience have a perspective those in-universe just don’t.

Cap is kind of retreading The First Avenger. Disobeying orders to save Bucky and who knows how many others. That’s what he does. He’s genuinely more of a Hero than a Soldier.

But in doing so, he’s proving those who demanded the Accords right. His actions could easily become an argument for even more restrictions. Tony sees that. The important is 100% Cap’s fault. Completely. Tony offers to just take him in. Tony came ready for a fight, but wanting to avoid it. Hence taking Spidey along to assist in capture.

This is all what makes the MCU so good. Motivations. Even if they’re a bit Out There, folk still have reasons for what they’re doing. Even if the audience firmly disagree with a given motivation? It’s still there. Like Wanda going 27 levels of insane. We may think they’re monstrous motivations, but they’re still there, and most even have some level of sympathy.

What important is that NONE of the events used to justify the Accords are caps fault. HALF are Tony's.

TONY unleashed Ultron because despite seeing the bigger picture he doesn't actually plan well enough to puts checks and balances on himself. TONY needs to be held accountable and TONY never is. Which by the way is another argument Cap has about the Accords. This doesn't actually hold us accountable. it just shifts the blame. Now it's not US responsible for our actions. It's THEM for sending us. Perfect for Tony. Every time Tony gets involved in something extra things are destroyed as a result of Tonys own actions. More destruction occurs because of his plan.

Every time Cap gets involved he minimizes losses and contains the damage to the best of his abilities. Cap plans a retreat with the biggest destruction at the air port resulting from Vision acting on Tony's orders. Tony CHOOSES to throw the hulk through a building leveling it. Tony CHOOSES to build a satellite full of weaponized drones that he can call on at will. If Cap knew that satellite existed what do you think he would have said and done about it? "Holding a gun to the head of every person in the world and calling it protection." Tony literally builds a copy of Hydras plan at his own personal control. Tony is LITERALLY a monster.

I do appreciate that Cap is the only person that's seen actually reading the accords. I suspect Tony did as well though.

This is all great discussion in a general Marvel thread, but what about the Multiverse of Madness?

Is it so bad that it can not even generate its own discussion of content?

So, I'll reiterate what I said before. Elizabeth Olsen really doesn't sell the heel turn and results in the plot of the film feeling a little weak. Her plan is full of holes, some of which are immediately pointed out and her conviction just doesn't back up the lengths she goes to.

That said, the film itself is one of the most creative and fun things I've sat through in a while. It's clever, both in its world logic, cinematography, and special effects. It's got that glorious haunted house thrill ride vibe the whole way through that left me with that same thrilling glee and the artistry involved, even if I was a little let down by the plot and character work.

As a Dr Strange solo film I vastly prefer it to the original and really manages to take the character in all the wild directions the first film shows he's capable of, but never fully embraces. It's good, its fun, its flawed. I loved it, but I'm not going to argue with anyone who felt let down by its weaker elements either.

I'll say that it's better than it's alternate universe self, the Multiverse of Morbius.

It's Morbin time!

The Darkhold probably should have manifested a bit more than just making her fingers black: black eyes, weird veins across her skin, ect. Have a moment where she is slightly separated from it and you see the horror bits start to recede. It would have made the heel turn more reasonable and given a nice visual cue.

I think she's fine visually, I mean Olsen doesn't sell the character's decisions. In the three scenes where she does any significant amount of talking, she doesn't come across with the conviction that backs up the carnage that follows. Leading Wong to her throne of evil and even resolving to destroy it all along with herself just doesn't command the intensity that lines of with the extreme actions she takes.

 Lance845 wrote:
That was NOT caps entire argument.

First, his argument was that he should be the one to bring in Bucky because he is the least likely to get killed doing it. Then the people sent to arrest Bucky never intended to arrest him. Their job was to kill on sight. No trial. Just execute a factually innocent man for a crime he didn't commit.

Yeah. No. Bucky wasn't 'a factually innocent man.' He was an extremely guilty man coincidentally innocent of _this_ specific crime. But he had a long, long, long history of murder, sabotage and assorted espionage crap, and everyone had very good reason to believe he was a suspect, and absolutely solid reasons to arrest him in general (and put him down if he resisted), because he did actually do loads of horrible crimes.

Then, when Bucky was in prison because caps intervention resulted in an arrest instead of an assassination he figures out that the bits don't add up and someone else is doing things.

In the aftermath of that, cap tries to find the actual bomber who seems to be trying to wake up a group of winter soldiers and Tony doesn't give a single gak about the mounting evidence and decides to try to fight the people trying to catch and stop the actual bad guy who all evidence is pointing towards trying to unleash a group of super soldier assassins.

Tony perfectly exemplifies everything wrong with the Sokovia Accords that Cap argues in the movie. What happens when they send us somewhere and we don't agree with the mission? "Go arrest these people trying to save lives." What happens when we need to be somewhere and they won't send us? "Cap is trying to catch the actual villain and Ross and Co don't care even when Tony gets the evidence that Bucky didn't do it.

Tony as a tool of the Accords does what he is told and as a result of fighting the actual heroes trying to stop the actual villain cause even more destruction and the crippling of his best friend when they all could have showed up in Russia and stopped Zemo together.

Cap was 100% right the entire time in Civil War. Tony was the short sighted, selfish, guilty conscious but refusing to take personal responsibility piece of gak he has been the entire time.

I absolutely don't agree, partly I don't care about the personal crap about these two character and their back story. Bucky is absolutely a murderer, and the Imperius defense isn't something the world state of the MCU would take seriously. Cap was the short sighted and selfish one- it was ALLL about his buddy, and all about Caps guilty conscience for leaving him behind back in the day. There is very little to indicate that Cap would care about ANY of this if it hadn't affected Bucky.

Look, the Accords aren't great. But they're entirely based on how nations behave. You don't send tank battalion to wreck up other countries in pursuit of secret goals. (And the Avengers are basically walking tank battalions themselves, except the spies, which have bloody operational records that are also problematic). The nations are entirely reasonable in wanting nothing like the Hulk wrecking the Nigerian capital again. [That the incident in Civil War itself is muddled and minor by comparison is part of its problem with the film].
The truly laughable part is the idea that the Avengers somehow have to 'sign on' to the Accords. No country is going to care what their opinion is, they're private citizens (and/or American operatives, depending on if Captain is being used as a honorary title or a rank he hasn't actually earned, and who the SHIELD operatives belong to at this point, after they've outed themselves as working for a Hydra infested intelligence agency with wtf??? for oversight and non-specific allegiance). They don't get a vote on whether or not nations are going to allow them in to wreck their territory, rather than just passing on intelligence like rational people.

Steve Rogers is the Moral Compass of Marvel. When he says something going on isn't right, you should listen.

Bollocks. Except for Infinity War when he can't (and gives a grand total of 6 people advice about the importance of living their lives when he himself does not), Cap bounces and abandons everybody and does none of the real work rebuilding (which is frankly why Falcon and Winter Soldier happens at all). He's great if you need someone to jump on a grenade in the moment, but MCU Cap is utterly horrible for being there to clean up the messes, or even function politically or socially. That isn't someone you listen to. That's a bullet catcher you put at the front of an operation. And the complete messes that are the aftermath of their invasions of sovereign nations (that he's leading) are real good examples that justify the Accords in the first place.

Steve is a grunt (well, propaganda tool) with magic strength, and presumably good tactical skills (something that's hard to judge in a film given how little writers know about such things). That's... about it.

Voss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That was NOT caps entire argument.

First, his argument was that he should be the one to bring in Bucky because he is the least likely to get killed doing it. Then the people sent to arrest Bucky never intended to arrest him. Their job was to kill on sight. No trial. Just execute a factually innocent man for a crime he didn't commit.

Yeah. No. Bucky wasn't 'a factually innocent man.' He was an extremely guilty man coincidentally innocent of _this_ specific crime. But he had a long, long, long history of murder, sabotage and assorted espionage crap, and everyone had very good reason to believe he was a suspect, and absolutely solid reasons to arrest him in general (and put him down if he resisted), because he did actually do loads of horrible crimes.

A literally mind controlled person acting against their will is not guilty of the crimes committed. He didn't do those crimes. His controllers did.

Then, when Bucky was in prison because caps intervention resulted in an arrest instead of an assassination he figures out that the bits don't add up and someone else is doing things.

In the aftermath of that, cap tries to find the actual bomber who seems to be trying to wake up a group of winter soldiers and Tony doesn't give a single gak about the mounting evidence and decides to try to fight the people trying to catch and stop the actual bad guy who all evidence is pointing towards trying to unleash a group of super soldier assassins.

Tony perfectly exemplifies everything wrong with the Sokovia Accords that Cap argues in the movie. What happens when they send us somewhere and we don't agree with the mission? "Go arrest these people trying to save lives." What happens when we need to be somewhere and they won't send us? "Cap is trying to catch the actual villain and Ross and Co don't care even when Tony gets the evidence that Bucky didn't do it.

Tony as a tool of the Accords does what he is told and as a result of fighting the actual heroes trying to stop the actual villain cause even more destruction and the crippling of his best friend when they all could have showed up in Russia and stopped Zemo together.

Cap was 100% right the entire time in Civil War. Tony was the short sighted, selfish, guilty conscious but refusing to take personal responsibility piece of gak he has been the entire time.

I absolutely don't agree, partly I don't care about the personal crap about these two character and their back story. Bucky is absolutely a murderer, and the Imperius defense isn't something the world state of the MCU would take seriously. Cap was the short sighted and selfish one- it was ALLL about his buddy, and all about Caps guilty conscience for leaving him behind back in the day. There is very little to indicate that Cap would care about ANY of this if it hadn't affected Bucky.

You mean besides the reason he wanted to go to war in the first place? All the times he threw himself into danger to save others. Proved the quality of his character. You might remember that Cap decided he would fight the entirety of shield on his own if they were all hydra to stop project insight. Not to save bucky. To save everyone.

Look, the Accords aren't great. But they're entirely based on how nations behave. You don't send tank battalion to wreck up other countries in pursuit of secret goals. (And the Avengers are basically walking tank battalions themselves, except the spies, which have bloody operational records that are also problematic). The nations are entirely reasonable in wanting nothing like the Hulk wrecking the Nigerian capital again. [That the incident in Civil War itself is muddled and minor by comparison is part of its problem with the film].
The truly laughable part is the idea that the Avengers somehow have to 'sign on' to the Accords. No country is going to care what their opinion is, they're private citizens (and/or American operatives, depending on if Captain is being used as a honorary title or a rank he hasn't actually earned, and who the SHIELD operatives belong to at this point, after they've outed themselves as working for a Hydra infested intelligence agency with wtf??? for oversight and non-specific allegiance). They don't get a vote on whether or not nations are going to allow them in to wreck their territory, rather than just passing on intelligence like rational people.

Them signing the accords isn't about their approval. It's about getting them to sign up. If they don't sign up they retire or become fugitives. If they do sign up they become agents of the accords.

Steve Rogers is the Moral Compass of Marvel. When he says something going on isn't right, you should listen.

Bollocks. Except for Infinity War when he can't (and gives a grand total of 6 people advice about the importance of living their lives when he himself does not), Cap bounces and abandons everybody and does none of the real work rebuilding (which is frankly why Falcon and Winter Soldier happens at all). He's great if you need someone to jump on a grenade in the moment, but MCU Cap is utterly horrible for being there to clean up the messes, or even function politically or socially. That isn't someone you listen to. That's a bullet catcher you put at the front of an operation. And the complete messes that are the aftermath of their invasions of sovereign nations (that he's leading) are real good examples that justify the Accords in the first place.

Steve is a grunt (well, propaganda tool) with magic strength, and presumably good tactical skills (something that's hard to judge in a film given how little writers know about such things). That's... about it.

I think you watch different movies.

 LunarSol wrote:
So, I'll reiterate what I said before. Elizabeth Olsen really doesn't sell the heel turn and results in the plot of the film feeling a little weak. Her plan is full of holes, some of which are immediately pointed out and her conviction just doesn't back up the lengths she goes to.

Wanda isn't the typical super villain taken from a comic, she's a desperate lonely person who's under the influence of a book that corrupts the people's souls. I don't know if her plan's holes are intended but they're certainly realistic all things considered.

Wanda is a broken person who went against anything and anyone to fulfil her goal, which was simply something to justify her existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's good, its fun, its flawed. I loved it, but I'm not going to argue with anyone who felt let down by its weaker elements either.

I have the impression that for some people the movie's weaker elements are conceptual, rather than how it was done. Making Wanda a real villain is apparently unbereable for someone, it reminds me of those who criticized the last season of Game of Thrones not because it was rushed and poorly written, but because they couldn't stand an evil/mad Daenerys. I think that, just like Daenerys, Wanda's storyline was consistent with the character instead. Also, several MCU fans love to see "tv series style" episodes, in which the director's hand is invisibile, while there's a strong Sam Raimi's presence in this movie.

Finally got to watch it. Much better than a first Strange movie, and overall one of the better MCU ones. After googling who the woman from the post credit scene is I already cannot wait for the third movie.

Finally got around to it.

Boy howdy, those are probably some nice effects and scenery in the astral plane at the beginning of the film. Too bad they all wooshed by and I didn't get to look at them.

An hour of terrible 'motivations' and 'temptations.' That's a lot of yadda yadda to chew through to get to the actual film (roughly an hour).

Why is the big magic battle a straightforward siege with energy blasts? Why does literally no one have any sense of subtlety, esoteric magics, attacking from dimensional angles that aren't defended or just some impressive spell vs counterspell? I spent most of this week watching a D&D liveplay session that was soooo much deeper and more impressive than this crap. And more emotionally invested, too.

Woo. Two minute jaunt through the multiverse ending in vomit. Yay.

Made me laugh: Bruce Campbell cameo (pizza ball vender) made to fight himself. Then immediately horrified that its going to go on for _3 weeks_

Still don't care about a fairly standard failed relationship, that didn't work out for perfectly normal human reasons.

Wait, Mordo tried to kill Strange? Multiple times? When did we skip the far more interesting stuff? Former friends with real motivations behind their actions? And lasting consequences that won't be immediately nullified by 'not our universe, don't care, doesn't matter'


Seriously, was the whole thing with the illuminati meant to be funny? 'Telepathic trilling' was an odd choice of subtitles, but the whole sequence seemed more a dark humor parody than something to take seriously.

Also, "He's not like all the other Stevens" made me think of Steven Universe, especially the alternate timeline Stevens. "I learned to stay true to myself, by watching myself die."

Musical battle was cool, it was the kind of creativity I was looking for in basically the entire rest of the movie. At least the scenery finally slowed down and we got to appreciate it a bit.

And after an hour and forty five minutes of special effects, everyone learned the obvious, glaring lessons that didn't need teaching. Huzzah. Still 20 minutes of runtime (including credits), so I guess we'll beat it all to death.

I agree. It was shiny, but for me was a couple of hours of “well that may as well happen”.

Nice use of the British Museum for the illuminati fight though.

Agreed on all counts, Voss. MoM was a steaming pile.

As always, Ryan George speaks truth!

Voss wrote:


...And after an hour and forty five minutes of special effects, everyone learned the obvious, glaring lessons that didn't need teaching. Huzzah. Still 20 minutes of runtime (including credits), so I guess we'll beat it all to death.

What you described pretty much sums up 99.9% of the superheroes movies. We take them for what they are.