*yawn*
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
How did they fail to exploit it? Dr Strange had nothing to do with the Accords, they were mentioned in Homecoming and Ant-Man and the Wasp. What do you want, for the plots of all the films after CW to be about heroes being pressured into working for the UN or not?
Marvel went through a big fucking deal to set up this so-called civil war and Sokovia Accords and the studio barely explored it. So, yeah . . . I do believe it would have been the right thing to do . . . if not in all of the movies that "Civil War", but at least in more than one.
I would have applauded Marvel's use of the Accords in "Ant-Man & the Wasp", if it were not for the fact that the Sokovia Accords is not a law. It's an agreement between the U.N., the countries that signed it and the individuals that signed. Those who didn't sign it - like Steve, Sam, Scott, Hope, and Wanda should not have been affected by it. Their behavior should NOT have been regulated by the Accords, because they didn't sign it. Natasha and Clint should not have been encouraged to sign the Accords because they're not enhanced beings. But apparently, the idiots who wrote this story arc in the first place did not know the difference between an accord and an agreement. And before you respond that we're talking about fiction, I'll remind you that the writers for the Civil War arc in the comics had the good sense to create an actual law - Mutant Registration Act - as the center of this story and not a damn accord.
Last edited:
It's an accord about how countries are going to regulate enhanced individuals. Saying 'it's just an accord between countries so can't possibly apply to anyone who didn't sign it' is ridiculous, because the whole point of the accords is to apply a unified standard to how enhanced individuals can or can't use their powers. If Captain America can do whatever he wants because 'he didn't sign the accords', then so can anyone else, which would obviously make the entire thing pointless.
In the real world, the accords perhaps would have to lead to the individual countries passing their own individual laws based on the accords in order to make everything legally binding (like the process surrounding EU 'laws'), and Civil War perhaps skipped over that part what with everything taking place right after the accords are signed (though, I suppose they could have already put laws into congress concurrently) but I don't think that's an unreasonable license for an action movie to take.
But please do go on about how stupid the MCU is for completely ignoring the accords only to then turn around and flatly admit that Ant-Man and the Wasp actually totally fits your own idea of what they should've done to explore the accords, but that totally doesn't count because you think they used the wrong legal term. That's totally a well-reasoned, logical position.
Okay, I'll go on.
When I first saw "Captain America: Civil War", I thought it was a flawed movie, but somewhat decent. But the more I saw this movie and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was nothing more than a contrived piece of shit that is so overrated by critics and moviegoers alike. It's just stupid. Only "Doctor Strange" and "Spider-man: Homecoming" were even worse. Hell, all three films, along with "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2" (with its weak narrative) and "Thor: Ragnarok" - a movie with a narrative with tragic overtones that was conveyed as a comedy (good fucking grief!!!) and filled with plot holes, were a lot worse than "Justice League". Only "The Avengers: Age of Ultron" was the 2017 DC movie's equal. And I'm not being that kind.
I have not seen this in the MCU. The franchise has not revealed or announced any actual law that hsa emerged from the Sokovia Accords. Everyone is still referring to the Accords.
Once again, this forum proves that it is incapable of facing any writing flaws in the MCU films. It's like the Mary Sue Blog, Disney's greatest publicity machine.
When I first saw "Captain America: Civil War", I thought it was a flawed movie, but somewhat decent. But the more I saw this movie and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was nothing more than a contrived piece of shit that is so overrated by critics and moviegoers alike. It's just stupid. Only "Doctor Strange" and "Spider-man: Homecoming" were even worse. Hell, all three films, along with "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2" (with its weak narrative) and "Thor: Ragnarok" - a movie with a narrative with tragic overtones that was conveyed as a comedy (good fucking grief!!!) and filled with plot holes, were a lot worse than "Justice League". Only "The Avengers: Age of Ultron" was the 2017 DC movie's equal. And I'm not being that kind.
I have not seen this in the MCU. The franchise has not revealed or announced any actual law that hsa emerged from the Sokovia Accords. Everyone is still referring to the Accords.
Once again, this forum proves that it is incapable of facing any writing flaws in the MCU films. It's like the Mary Sue Blog, Disney's greatest publicity machine.
It doesn't need to be mentioned in the movies. That's the whole point. No one in the audience cares about the fine political points of exactly what the legal framework is. All that matters is that there are legal rules introduced that the superheroes now have to follow, or else face legal consequences (if they're caught not following them). That's the point of the story. Attacking it for being framed as a treaty instead of a law is completely missing said point.
Also, Justice League was a terrible movie for many reasons. Plot holes weren't a major part of that, though. The Justice League plot is extremely simple and straightforward, but also boring as hell and utterly dependent on the lamest villain in superhero movie history. Which is without even mentioning the boring heroes and high school level special effects.
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
I don't think that's quite correct. It may have been presented that way, but it's either a treaty with the force of law or there is some enacting legislation. Agents of SHIELD and Ant-Man and the Wasp both make that clear, but I thought it was clear from Thunderbolt Ross's actions in Civil War.
Superhero Registration Act. The Mutant Registration Act was something different. Arguably, it's a precursor, but still different.
Damn, you are really going to incredible lengths to stretch to find something to complain about with the MCU now. But I guess it says a lot about how good the movies actually are that this is the best you could come up with.
Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue.
Every once in a while the (not really) "canon" comics are brought up in discussion. If you are interested in reading them (with surprisingly few major contradictions to be found), Marvel is collecting them into a single edition. This is something that I hoped that they would do, but not in hardcover! 
There is some pretty good stuff towards the beginning. Both "Iron Man 2: Public Identity" and "Fury's Big Week" are both good (if light) reading. The more recent stuff hasn't been all that engaging, but they do reveal some interesting details.
There is some pretty good stuff towards the beginning. Both "Iron Man 2: Public Identity" and "Fury's Big Week" are both good (if light) reading. The more recent stuff hasn't been all that engaging, but they do reveal some interesting details.
Last edited:
Hardcover is to be expected for an initial release. When it comes to a big collection like that, they go Hardcover first because it's got a higher price point and it looks better on a bookshelf. Then they release the paperback later to get the people who didn't want to pay for the Hardcover.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that each country that agrees to the accords passes their own laws so their citizens are legally required to obey the accords. What effect does an individual person signing the accords have? Tony Stark signs, he's now allowed to be Iron Man with permission of the UN, when the UN says so. Steve Rogers doesn't so he can't be Captain America at all, or the USA arrests him. So any person who wants to engage in authorized super heroics contacts their government and signs the accords. That gels with how it was shown in Agents of Shield.
I always assumed that Peter Parker's "internship" with Tony Stark and his daily calls to Happy was Stark's way of making sure Peter was in compliance with the Accords
Last edited:
Maybe you should stop watching MCU films... it doesn't sound like you like them... so why bother watching them?
I fully expected this news to be satire until I saw that it came from Variety.
Scarlet Witch makes sense, especially if Vision is part of it. Both Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany have joked in the past about a potential show would be a domestic affair.
However, I'm surprised by the Loki development. Not that I didn't think Loki was actually dead, but because I didn't think Tom Hiddleston would commit to a series, even if he already did The Night Manager.
Last edited: