Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Bazza]

Cross posted with the Avengers Adversary thread

 

Avengers greatest adversary is themselves. (But also their greatest strength). Was thinking specifically about the comics, but equally applies to the MCU team too. 

 

Within the MCU, the biggest mistake goes to Steve Rogers, whose decision to destroy 3 battle helicarriers which scuttled the entire Earth's fleet to ward of any future alien invasion. The repercussions of this lead to Tony Stark developing the Ultron program for globalised security as SHIELD was abolished (but survived in an unofficial capacity). It is perfectly reasonable that the governments of UK, South Africa, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, China get an explanation why a SHIELD employee made this decision and not the Director or Alexander Pierce? Yes, Alexander Pierce WAS Hydra which is a satisfactory answer, but that doesn't absolve Director Nick Fury of responsibility, and being held accountable. SHIELD had regained control of the three helicarriers which no doubt cost billions and yet Steve's group which included Fury and Hill, still went along with the decision they be destroyed, without thinking of the longer term impact this would have for global security? In Thor 2, London got attacked, again by aliens (Dark Elves, granted before Cap 2, and hence before helicarriers made operational) which highlights the importance of a global security response force or fleet.

 

(I agree the end of The Winter Soldier was spectacular action and climax to the film.)

 

For what it is worth, I like MCU Captain Steve Rogers, and Colonel Nick Fury, but they botched this decision. In a recent Agents of SHIELD episode the US President suggested that SHIELD would have to remain unofficial as the public doesn't forget helicarriers falling from the sky. Simply, they didn't think it through far enough. 

In the trailer to Captain America Civil War we finally get to see how some of the governments of the free world respond to the lack of a global security force, and to make one -- the Avengers -- accountable. This is what the United Nations' Sokovia Accords are about. 

From my perspective Tony sees the big picture of needing a global security force, and cooperating with authority is a turnaround for him (cf: IM 2, Avengers 2). Steve whose background is the Army and authority/chain of command was severely let down, understandably, with Hydra's infiltration of SHIELD, but I'm unsure if he has a solution to the problem he created. Tony tried with Ultron, and we know Steve's reaction to that.

I'm looking forward to Civil War to get some answers to these questions.

 

Re civil War: as a citizen I side with Tony, but if i was a superhero I'd likely be siding with Steve. I feel if people are going to make a career/job/living out of it then they should register/be licenced like many other professions. 

My 2 cents.

[Bazza]

Oh, and in case no one has seen this before ->

 

 

 

Mostly agree with Steve's monologue here. 

[Pattern Ghost]

Is that real dialog or an internet edit? Lot of F-bombs for Cap, so guessing the latter?

[Hermit]

Is that real dialog or an internet edit? Lot of F-bombs for Cap, so guessing the latter?

The latter, "I don't need your Civil War" was a great set of rewordedCW comics by MightyGodKing.... 10 x better than the originals

Here... 

 

I should say it is NSFW, full of profanity, crudity, and juvenile humor....

and STILL makes more sense than the original writing

[Ragitsu]

Is that real dialog

 

I wish .

[Lord Liaden]

 

Within the MCU, the biggest mistake goes to Steve Rogers, whose decision to destroy 3 battle helicarriers which scuttled the entire Earth's fleet to ward of any future alien invasion. The repercussions of this lead to Tony Stark developing the Ultron program for globalised security as SHIELD was abolished (but survived in an unofficial capacity). It is perfectly reasonable that the governments of UK, South Africa, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, China get an explanation why a SHIELD employee made this decision and not the Director or Alexander Pierce? Yes, Alexander Pierce WAS Hydra which is a satisfactory answer, but that doesn't absolve Director Nick Fury of responsibility, and being held accountable. SHIELD had regained control of the three helicarriers which no doubt cost billions and yet Steve's group which included Fury and Hill, still went along with the decision they be destroyed, without thinking of the longer term impact this would have for global security? In Thor 2, London got attacked, again by aliens (Dark Elves, granted before Cap 2, and hence before helicarriers made operational) which highlights the importance of a global security response force or fleet.

 

(I agree the end of The Winter Soldier was spectacular action and climax to the film.)

 

 

It wasn't my impression that Cap and co. had "regained control of the three helicarriers." Those were still full of HYDRA crew, whom Cap and Falcon were in no position to fully subdue by themselves. What they seemed to gain control of -- at least temporarily -- was the targeting system for the carriers' automated guns. Is it reasonable to assume that if their crews had been left intact on those craft, they would not have eventually gotten control of their weapons back? Shooting them down while they had the chance may have been their only viable option.

 

But beyond that, Nick Fury's statement of the carriers' purpose was not to protect against alien threats; it was to deal with perceived terrestrial threats such as terrorists, as soon as those were identified... and eliminate them before they had acted. Or as Cap put it, punishing them before the crime. From his perspective, the ships' very existence amounted to "holding a gun to the head of everyone on Earth, and calling it protection."

 

Tony Stark's actions in creating Ultron were an extension of that basic concept: concentrating nearly-unlimited power to control into a small package, something that as it turned out, could be corrupted and turned against its purpose. The fact that Tony was ultimately responsible for the damage Ultron did probably had a lot to do with his change of heart about putting the Avengers under supervision, since they in a way represent the same concentration of power. But Cap probably sees the team's independence as the best way to assure that power doesn't become corrupted, as he says: "We're not perfect, but the safest hands are still ours."

 

Over and above those issues, though, Bucky appears to be the catalyst for this conflict. I noticed in the first trailer that Cap mentioned the special forces coming for Bucky were "not planning on taking you alive." Steve Rogers isn't trying to keep his closest friend from being arrested and tried by government forces, but from being assassinated by government forces. Knowing and believing in Bucky as he does, Steve likely sees this as one more example of the need for superheroes not to be subject to political agendas.

 

(Please note that all of the above are raised as subjects for discussion. I recognize those points can be legitimately disagreed with and debated. In fact I'm looking forward to it.)

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I agree with those points. Take that!

[Bazza]

 

It wasn't my impression that Cap and co. had "regained control of the three helicarriers." Those were still full of HYDRA crew, whom Cap and Falcon were in no position to fully subdue by themselves. What they seemed to gain control of -- at least temporarily -- was the targeting system for the carriers' automated guns. Is it reasonable to assume that if their crews had been left intact on those craft, they would not have eventually gotten control of their weapons back? Shooting them down while they had the chance may have been their only viable option.

 

But beyond that, Nick Fury's statement of the carriers' purpose was not to protect against alien threats; it was to deal with perceived terrestrial threats such as terrorists, as soon as those were identified... and eliminate them before they had acted. Or as Cap put it, punishing them before the crime. From his perspective, the ships' very existence amounted to "holding a gun to the head of everyone on Earth, and calling it protection."

 

Tony Stark's actions in creating Ultron were an extension of that basic concept: concentrating nearly-unlimited power to control into a small package, something that as it turned out, could be corrupted and turned against its purpose. The fact that Tony was ultimately responsible for the damage Ultron did probably had a lot to do with his change of heart about putting the Avengers under supervision, since they in a way represent the same concentration of power. But Cap probably sees the team's independence as the best way to assure that power doesn't become corrupted, as he says: "We're not perfect, but the safest hands are still ours."

 

Over and above those issues, though, Bucky appears to be the catalyst for this conflict. I noticed in the first trailer that Cap mentioned the special forces coming for Bucky were "not planning on taking you alive." Steve Rogers isn't trying to keep his closest friend from being arrested and tried by government forces, but from being assassinated by government forces. Knowing and believing in Bucky as he does, Steve likely sees this as one more example of the need for superheroes not to be subject to political agendas.

 

(Please note that all of the above are raised as subjects for discussion. I recognize those points can be legitimately disagreed with and debated. In fact I'm looking forward to it.)

Very good rebuttal, you've given me quite a bit to think about. Thank you.

[zslane]

I was not previously familiar with that fanwank Steve Rogers dialogue, but I feel it is more than a little crass to try and pass that diatribe off as something Cap would say. While Cap might believe some small part of that, he would never express it so openly, or in so many (ugly) words. The message there, regardless of its potential merit, suffers from a fairly repugnant presentation, at least when viewed through the lens of Cap's flawless character.

[Ragitsu]

Re civil War: as a citizen I side with Tony, but if i was a superhero I'd likely be siding with Steve. I feel if people are going to make a career/job/living out of it then they should register/be licenced like many other professions.

 

Most superheroes don't derive any profit from their good deeds aside from the satisfaction that they've made the world slightly better. Folks like Luke Cage and Wade Wilson/Deadpool are the exceptions.

 

Also, would you feel the same way as a citizen if it were a close friend or family member that had these superhuman abilities?

[Ragitsu]

*stuff*

 

It was created in response to a horrifically written series of comics that tried to justify some solidly moronic ideas on a mass scale at a time when United States citizens were, overall, much more willing to sell away their liberties.

 

A little profanity to hammer the point home wasn't such a bad thing.

 

(Believe you me, it was scary to be someone seeing darn near everyone else go along willingly with the Bush war machine.)

[Vondy]

Mostly agree with Steve's monologue here.

While Steve might believe those things, he would never express them that way. He is not that crass or codescending. He has to much dignity and class to behave that way.

[zslane]

If I'm not mistaken, Marvel had an official, in-continuity reaction to 9/11. Steve Rogers acted with all the dignity I would expect from him, despite the horror of that event. Regardless of how truly, mind-bendingly, shamefully craven the policies (and the public willingness to enact them) were that followed in the real world, I still don't stand behind such a distorted characterization of Cap. The ends simply do not justify the means, IMO. Cap should be treated with as much dignity as he has shown throughout 75 years of horrors, atrocities, and tragedies, both home and abroad.

[Ragitsu]

If I'm not mistaken, Marvel had an official, in-continuity reaction to 9/11. Steve Rogers acted with all the dignity I would expect from him, despite the horror of that event. Regardless of how truly, mind-bendingly, shamefully craven the policies (and the public willingness to enact them) were that followed in the real world, I still don't stand behind such a distorted characterization of Cap. The ends simply do not justify the means, IMO. Cap should be treated with as much dignity as he has shown throughout 75 years of horrors, atrocities, and tragedies, both home and abroad.

 

As a fully accurate representation of the character, it falls short.

 

As a way to get a message across, it works wonderfully.

 

Look up "OOC is Serious Business". Contrast can be a surprisingly useful tool.

[zslane]

As a way to get a message across, it works wonderfully.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. In this case, the message loses all its potency, at least for me, thanks to the vehicle appropriated for that purpose.

[Ragitsu]

In this case, the message loses all its potency, at least for me, thanks to the vehicle appropriated for that purpose.

 

I point back to "OOC is Serious Business"

[Pattern Ghost]

Gosh dang it to heck!

[Greywind]

Most superheroes don't derive any profit from their good deeds aside from the satisfaction that they've made the world slightly better. Folks like Luke Cage and Wade Wilson/Deadpool are the exceptions.

 

Also, would you feel the same way as a citizen if it were a close friend or family member that had these superhuman abilities?

 

The active Avengers line-up got paid weekly by the Maria Stark Foundation.

[Ragitsu]

The active Avengers line-up got paid weekly by the Maria Stark Foundation.

 

They're already signed up, though.

[Greywind]

Yeah, well, with the Initiative, you're either an Avenger or a villain. There is no middle ground.

[Starlord]

The active Avengers line-up got paid weekly by the Maria Stark Foundation.

 

$1000.00 a week barely covers cowl-repair costs, man!

[Pattern Ghost]

$1000.00 a week barely covers cowl-repair costs, man!

 

It was listed at that rate in the FASERIP Marvel supplement, which came out in the 80s. That's pretty decent by 80s standards.

[Vondy]

$52,000 in 1980 adjusted for inflation is worth $160,355.93 today.

 

So, Avengers get paid slightly less than Congressmen do.

 

But then, even when the Battle of New York is taken into account, they also do less damage than Congress.

[Lord Liaden]

Gosh dang it to heck!

 

Language!

[Lord Liaden]

A new "international" (apparently Japanese) trailer for Civil War has come out including a brief exchange between Hawkeye and Black Widow which some folks may not have seen before. I set the time on this trailer to start just before that scene; you can watch the whole thing if you wish, but the BW/H scene is the only one which hasn't already appeared in the official American trailers.

 

https://youtu.be/qqKUOgSQgko?t=1m29s