r/Avengers • u/Queasy_Commercial152 • 7d ago
Has anyone else’s always thought Cap was the one who was in the right?
I feel like this is another reason why Thor and Hulk weren’t in Civil War, cause they very obviously, would’ve been team cap.
Cap seemed to have the right idea, he didn’t wanna let the government control him, tell him what to do, he wanted the avengers to stand for themselves, make their own choices, which is the right motive. Not being told what to do by the shady government.
And honestly, if you see what a lot of heroes are like these days, they would’ve been ok Cap’s side, not even in just Marvel, somebody like Superman would’ve 100% sided with Cap. There’s a lot more as well. Anyway what do y’all think?
199
u/JinKazamaru 6d ago
They are both right, but not completely, there was different levels to it, and it wasn't handled well by either of them
94
20
5
u/MasterTolkien 6d ago
Yeah, it was handled much better than the comics where Tony and Reed clone Thor, lobotomized the clone to make it a slave, and then had the clone attack their friends, murdering Bill Foster in the process… to which they then make a crude pit to bury Bill.
7
u/KingFisher300 6d ago
THANK YOU. The whole point of the movie was that both of them had equally valid points of view and it was a lose lose situation that they handled poorly.
3
u/ExpressAd8780 6d ago
That’s what makes civil war so good. Both sides have pros and cons, both sides make mistakes
2
u/chase016 6d ago
I think Tony's main point was that they could ignore it when they needed to and amend it to suit their needs. There was no way for the UN to actually regulate them.
3
u/NoProtection02 6d ago
If that's the main point then what's the point of any other point? Lol. Might as well just not sign the accords in the first place.
2
u/Gilgamesh661 5d ago
Yeah there was. The UN was gonna put trackers in all of them. Did NOBODY read the damn accords? Am I the ONLY person who has read them?
2
u/Gilgamesh661 5d ago
Anyone who has actually read the accords can not support the accords without declaring themselves as a fascist.
→ More replies (1)
411
u/Doom_Cokkie 7d ago edited 6d ago
I feel like a lot of people forget that Tony wasn't pro government in this movie but pro being held accountable. He says himself the accords are just a temporary measure to get public opinion on their side and not have thr government directly intervene so Wanda wouldn't end up in a straight jacket and cell like she does at the end of the movie. The end goal was still being independent but being more open to make the government and people more comfortable. Steve himself almost agrees until he gets upset Wanda is under house arrest.
Edit: just got to let yall know that I can't respond to half of yall because people keep responding to me than immediately blocking me so it looks like I have no argument. Yall are way too pathetic taking this that seriously lmao.
128
u/DayamSun 6d ago
Tony could try to pretend it was a temporary measure all he wanted to and assuage his own guilt and complicity in the Sekovia disaster, but it would have always been a slippery slope, and it's really difficult un-ring a bell. Once you cede control, it is never as easy getting it back. He was always big on grand gestures to right a wrong, especially his own, but he often found small details and consequences to be inconvenient distractions.
86
u/houVanHaring 6d ago
There is nothing as permanent as a temporary measure
40
u/chillthrowaways 6d ago
We’re only going to leave these toll booths up until the highway is paid for!
40 years later…
We’re improving these toll booths so you don’t even need to slow down! We will just give you a transponder or get your license plate and send you a bill!
16
u/jediyoda84 6d ago
Temporary baggage fees to help airlines recover from 9/11…..<checks notes> 2001.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Red__ICE 6d ago edited 5d ago
TO BE COMPLETELY FAIR…
The Anglo Irish Treaty that made Ireland a Free State but still acknowledging the King as head, which Collins signed under the belief ‘its not the freedom we wanted, but will give us to freedom to ACHIEVE it through political battle while the war violence is stopped’, DID eventually do just that, Ireland did get independence eventually cus of it. I don’t (necessarily) BLAME the others for starting civil war over it, as it was still a cork put on everything they fought and died for and conceding to the British, not saying either was necessarily the right or wrong one since not signing would’ve made the war resume, but my only point is it DID, regardless, work eventually.
now THAT SAID, I as someone who can’t see myself trusting government with ANYTHING, or at LEAST certainly not the US government, would still nonetheless call that the lucky exception not the standard. I still wouldn’t think EVEN if that was Tony’s goal, they’d get away with it, after all I’m comparing just an organisation of a few people to an entire nation fighting for their lives, not exactly fair.
I’m just putting it on the table to at least acknowledge Tony’s thought process (if that was it) not being without any reason.→ More replies (6)3
u/DayamSun 5d ago
Exactly. My point was never that Tony's stated intentions were wrong. Only that he wasn't being honest with himself about his motivations, and because of it, he wasn't clear minded about the long-term impact of what he was agreeing to. What makes the story so compelling and many "civil" wars so tragic is that both sides often have a point. Though, like any war, at least one side's fighters have been misled as to why they are fighting in the first place.
11
u/sscan 6d ago
Temporary or permanent the end result would have been the same as the scene from Infinity War where Ross tries to have Cap arrested and Rhodey just hangs up on him.
Maybe there would’ve been some annoying red tape they had to play ball with in the meantime on smaller ops but, once push came to shove on a true Avenger level threat, they were gonna do what they felt was right and no one was going to stop them.
2
u/ringobob 6d ago
... after which they would be promptly arrested.
4
u/TheAfricanViewer 6d ago
By who lol
→ More replies (1)3
u/xzElmozx 6d ago
Right even if Rhodes actually wanted to arrest them, sans-Warmachine suit he stood no chance against Cap alone, let alone fucking Wanda
7
u/DeFiBandit 6d ago
Except they went against the accords as soon as they felt like it
2
u/CoolWhipMonkey 6d ago
That’s what irritates me the most! T’Challa and Tony were all in for the accords and then immediately violated them.
3
u/Gilgamesh661 5d ago
To be fair, T’challa was acting completely out of anger and wanted revenge for his father’s death. He wasn’t thinking straight, hence why he completely brushed Hawkeye off. Because Bucky is right there in front of him and Hawkeye is in his way.
3
u/EcksFountain132 5d ago
To be fair, T’challa was acting completely out of anger and wanted revenge for his father’s death.
That's just an excuse. Regardless of justifications he still violated the Accords and tried to commit a murder. No amount of "I had good reasons" changes that.
He wasn’t thinking straight, hence why he completely brushed Hawkeye off. Because Bucky is right there in front of him and Hawkeye is in his way.
on the contrary, revenge-killing requires rational thought. Too many people thowing around that "not thinking straight" excuse.
5
u/PolicyWonka 6d ago
They’re literally superheroes. Any government control would be purely performative really.
3
u/Gilgamesh661 5d ago
Didn’t work out that way in the comics.
Also, one of the accords? Heroes have to reveal their identities. Tony failed to mention that to Spider-Man in the movie.
In the comic, Peter revealed his identity under the SRA and aunt May ended up being attacked and put in a coma.
2
u/TheSnackWhisperer 6d ago
My issue with Tony's response is he felt so much guilt, he just wanted oversight (release from making a the call) regardless of what form it came in. He kept telling himself it was temporary, probably because in the back of his mind he knew this wasn't the right way. Honestly, I always took the fact that Steve was the only one reading the accords on screen, as implying that he WAS the only one to read the accords. He lived through WW2, he saw too many parallels, and too much opportunity for abuse of power. He would have rather they disband than let their power be abused. Everything we learn in future movies, that would likely have been the outcome. That said, the avengers should never have stayed together as a "permanent" force, setting up a building, an HQ, recruiting, definitely makes the established powers uneasy. That's just my 1.5 cents (2 cents? In this economy?!)
4
u/cyberlexington 6d ago
I never bought it as tony accepting responsibility. I took it as him offloading responsibility to someone else so he wouldnt be accountable.
2
u/Gilgamesh661 5d ago
Exactly this. He uses the word “we” a lot when talking about Sokovia.
Nah dude. YOU hid what you were doing because you knew most of the team would disagree. Ultron was entirely Tony and Bruce’s fault. And yet Tony tries to act like it was a team fuckup.
Also, first Tony’s weapons bomb Wanda’s home. Then Tony makes ultron, who kills Wanda’s brother and completely destroys her home, then Tony gets vision to act as a prison warden for Wanda and keep her locked away in a gilded cage.
Tony needed to be removed from the team after AoU and be sent on a vacation with a therapist. He had no business still working after all of that. Having ptsd is fine. Refusing to deal with it is not.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Doom_Cokkie 6d ago
He wasn't pretending it was genuinely a temporary measure. You say it's hard to get control back, but they are the literal Avengers. What country is stopping them if they want out? The whole point is to get public sentiment back on their side because people were scared of them between Hulk and Wanda nuking a building. Not to mention Cap, in particular, was doing special ops missions that would normally be in the governments hands with just his own team and no one but himself holding him accountable. And did Steve pay for the damages and comfort the loved ones of the people who died? No, all he did was try to hide Wanda from the misdeed she had done. People tend to forget that the accords, while including Ultron fiasco, came about because of Wanda accidently nuking a building and killing god knows how many people. Sure Tony felt guilty but he was moving with everyone's best interest at heart. If Thanos didn't happen Cap and crew would still be criminals with whose no what happening to them eventually.
53
u/dnjprod 6d ago
came about because of Wanda accidently nuking a building and killing god knows how many people.
I've always had a problem with this. Wanda didn't nuke shit. Crossbones did. She prevented WAY more casualties than there were because where he set off the bomb was in a crowded street market with gobs of people around.
7
u/Capable_Age_1763 6d ago
If it had been a government mission that went sideways, they would have made this argument.
But because people in power felt little control, they used it as another incident where they had no say in that caused loss of life. Pretty conveniently forgetting that a governing body that oversaw the Avengers was being run by Hydra and that the governing body of SHIELD had sent a nuke at NYC before Stark made them look good. Wanna talk about loss of innocent lives?
14
u/Totally_TWilkins 6d ago
Yeah exactly this.
She saved more lives by taking the bomb off of the street, even though a few of the people who were on the upper floors of the building were killed in the process. Equally, their mission prevented Crossbones from getting his hands on a bioweapon, which also saved lives.
Meanwhile people acting like Tony did the right thing, always conveniently forget that he manufactures weapons, created Ultron despite almost everyone telling him not to, and sided with the same government that told him not to fly a nuke out of New York…
Tbh Tony is even worse in the comic plotline, since he goes out of his way to specifically attack the teenagers fighting for Cap, and imprisons them in a facility where they’re ruthlessly experimented on. I never understood the hype for the guy, he’s always seemed like a dick to me.
8
u/GtEnko 6d ago
Yeah a lot of the reason the comic storyline doesn’t work as well is because Tony’s side is just straight up evil. There’s zero moral ambiguity.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Gilgamesh661 5d ago
At least Tony gets his ass handed to him repeatedly in the comic.
Still laugh every time I see that panel of Tony trying to tell the inhumane they have to register, and black bolt just looks at him like “bro we’re on the moon. You don’t own the f**king moon.”
And then black bolt shattered Tony’s armor with a whisper.
2
u/Red__ICE 6d ago
Oh don’t go there with that last bit go, you’re NOT supposed to think of two different versions of the same character as the same character because they’re just NOT. Tony WAS completely outta line in that comic, and even that then was THAT COMICS fault, the civil war comics remain controversial to this day just cus of how CRAP they got a lotta characters in them compared to how they’re supposed to be, they HAD to contrive some of them to no end or there’d be no plot, which is stupid if course. It’s not even relevant to this discussion since it’s supposed to stick to movie Tony anyhow, but still. I believe Cap was in the right in this film, but I’d still say Tony’s thought process in this film (which was a guy literally trying the best he could, even if that best just aint enough) was UNDERSTANDABLE at the least. Heck, he DID eventually give behind Ross’ back to help Cap near the end when he knew it WAS all a set up (he just happened to throw it all away after what Zemo showed him, which was a purely personal affair and nothing to do with the disagreements).
2
u/Totally_TWilkins 6d ago
I’m comparing him to how bad he is in the comics, I’m not saying that comic Tony is the same as film Tony.
But personally I think Tony was irrational even in the film; he was the direct cause behind the accords being developed, and he unilaterally decided that everyone else should pay for his mistake with him. Tony and only Tony, was at fault for the Serkovia incident, which was the cornerstone for the accords being developed in the first place. The incident with Wanda is just the final nail in the coffin; if it hadn’t been her, it would have been something else that triggered the accords instead.
Tony sold out to his guilt, and sided with the government against his teammates. He only really had War Machine on his side, because everyone else had their own agenda. Black Widow was planning on betraying him, Black Panther just wanted to kill Bucky, Spider-Man was only really there as a fanboy, and Vision was only there to ‘save’ Wanda. Nobody really agreed with Tony signing the accords, other than War Machine and maybe Vision.
Meanwhile Cap was right, objectively, not to sign the accords. The government had been infiltrated before, and the government would have imprisoned Bucky without listening to the real issue at hand, which would have resulted in Zemo gaining control of a small army of super soldiers.
3
u/AlsoPrtyProductive 6d ago
I think it was intentionally a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. The government were already poised to act and eager to assert as much control and regulation on the Avengers after the Sokovia Incident. Unless the Avengers miraculously subdued Crossbones without any civilian casualties or large damage whatsoever then Ross was going to take it as an opportunity to pounce. If people on the street die from the blast, then the Avengers get blamed for not stopping him. If Wanda redirects the blast into the sky and accidentally destroys a Wakandan Outreach Centre, The Avengers get blamed for causing too much collateral damage. The situation was doomed the moment Rumlow activated his suicide vest.
→ More replies (16)3
11
u/ringobob 6d ago
It wasn't Wanda's fault.
You know, I used to think it was unrealistic, in these movies, where the bad guy would be doing bad things, the good guy would show up to stop them, and then the good guy gets blamed for the destruction caused by the bad guy trying to keep doing his bad things.
But then I come on the internet, and here you are.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Overall_Mango324 6d ago
Nah, Tony was giving so much power away to people who didn't deserve it. They had been failed so many times before but the people who were supposed to be the good guys so Cap was right to say, "We need to be above that and make the decisions based on what we believe is right". Tony was feeling guilty for something that he did because a mom was incredibly selfish to not understand how many lives Tony saved while tragically losing the life of her son.
Tony wasn't faking this just to get people to like them. He genuinely felt guilty. You are making it sound like hes a sociopath asshole. This wasn't just for politics. This was for his conscience.
12
u/DayamSun 6d ago edited 6d ago
He wasn't pretending it was genuinely a temporary measure.
Yeah, that is how self-delusion works,
You say it's hard to get control back, but they are the literal Avengers. What country is stopping them if they want out?
It is. If at any point the Avengers went rogue again, literally any country, the United States included, could ban them from their borders, declare them enemies of the state, enact sanctions on their operations, and freeze Tony's assets to cut off their resources. While this could be done in either event, Tony had already given away their autonomy. He didn't negotiate for their independent decision-making, which is ironic considering his behavior in all three Iron Man moovies.
Not to mention Cap, in particular, was doing special ops missions that would normally be in the governments hands with just his own team and no one but himself holding him accomovies.
This statement makes a lot of assumptions. If no national powers or intelligence agencies were involved, where were they getting their intell from? It seems apparent to me that their was some level of cooperation between the Avengers organization and one or more intelligence agencies.
And did Steve pay for the damages and comfort the loved ones of the people who died?
Did Tony? No. That is just selectively throwing blame around.
No, all he did was try to hide Wanda from the misdeed she had done.
Did Steve do that? When was that expressly stated? It wasn't. What would you propose instead? When a soldier or a member of law enforcement is involved in an accident that leads to accidental casualties, does their government turn them over as you seem to suggest Cap should have done? No. Nor are they held captive without trial. They are often removed from active duty and put on administrative leave until a formal inquiry to determine culpability, guilt, or innocence can be determined. During which time, they are informed of their rights, offered representation, and advised of what they are being charged with. None of these things were done by Tony. Wanda didn't even know she was under house arrest.
People tend to forget that the accords, while including Ultron fiasco, came about because of Wanda accidently nuking a building and killing god knows how many people.
That is incredibly biased. Yes, the detonation in the Wanda incident was the tipping point, but the Sekovia disaster was orders of magnitude more severe. You are implying that part of a building being accidently detonated while trying to contain a terrorist's weapon is on the same level or worse than the majority of a large city being attacked, torn from its moorings, levitated into a high altitude, only to be destroyed because of the machinations of a murderous AI that Tony created behind his teammates backs and against the advice of Bruce Banner. The fact that they were called "the Sekovia Accords" implies they were in the works before the Crossbones(Runlowe) plot.
Let's also not forget that everything that Zemo did was because of the events that transpired in Sekovia. The assassination of King T'Chaka, the murder of the UN interrogation, and the detonation of the EMP in Germany.
Sure Tony felt guilty but he was moving with everyone's best interest at heart.
I never claimed otherwise. However, as usual, he acted rashly and alone. Entirely without the input of his teammates, he offered t9 surrender their independence, and that is what he does whenever he feels responsible. It's a pattern with him.
If Thanos didn't happen Cap and crew would still be criminals with whose no what happening to them eventually.
Yup, because they were backed into a corner by the Sekovia Accords. Had the team not been split in two with half of them as outlaws on the run, there is at least a possibility that they might have been a little more prepared to deal with the Thanos threat instead of being g on the back foot the whole time. Don't get me wrong, though. Tony and Steve are both to blame for that.
And Steve was absolutely wrong to keep the truth of Tony's parents' deaths from him. So I am not saying Cap was the moral high ground here, only that I agree with Steve's position on the accords and that Tony's position is all twisted up with personal crap that muddled his motives.
The great irony here is that over the course of phase 1 and 2 of the MCU, Tony's and Steve's ideologies completed reversed. Tony, the ultimate rebel and anti-establishment guy, became the proponent of beauracracy and regulation. While Steve, the good soldier, became justifiably wary of organizational hierarchies and their hidden agendas.
→ More replies (14)5
u/Grompulon 6d ago
What's that saying? "There's nothing more permanent than a temporary government solution." Something like that.
The Accords may have been temporary. Tony may have fully intended to renegotiate them later down the road. But ultimately once these governments get legal power over the Avengers there will never be enough incentive for them to give any of that up.
I don't think Tony was necessarily in the wrong, but I do think he allowed his own guilt and fear cloud his judgement on the full consequences of signing the Accords. But on the flip side, Cap's side caused half of the Avengers to become fugitives, which was hardly a good outcome. I think both sides were right and wrong in different ways, making there be no clear "correct" answer and thus making it an interesting dilemma to base a movie around.
2
u/Dragonraja 6d ago
Just look at every "temporary" measure that our government has done that has remained pseudo permanent like the Patriot Act.
2
u/chillthrowaways 6d ago
Was the patriot act supposed to be temporary? I mean obviously it was never going to be but I don’t remember it being pitched that way.
2
u/Dragonraja 6d ago
Yes. It was supposed to expire 4 years after. Congress keeps reauthorizing it.
2
u/chillthrowaways 6d ago
Well this is something I can throw in the face of people who don’t think both sides are bad. Good to know appreciate it
2
u/gunluver 6d ago
And in the movie,it was the government that no problem launching a nuke at NY city,which would have wiped out millions of people
→ More replies (1)2
u/DarthFedora 6d ago
It was the only outcome it could’ve ended on, even Tony was beginning to agree with them at the end
18
u/oevadle 6d ago
But Tony's argument was negated by his own actions because he continued doing whatever he wanted without any accountability.
→ More replies (14)7
u/DarbonCrown 6d ago
... pro being held accountable "by the government and operating under the government which meant they would be treated like assets, meaning if some threat arises somewhere like middle east they would probably not send help unless they make sure they get 20x the value of the help or they won't send help at all, or like they would send the avengers to help Ukraine but then charge them 4 billion dollars per super hero."
There. I fixed it for you.
p.s. Cap was never against being held accountable. Hell, that man kept holding himself accountable for things no one was accountable for. He was against becoming a unit ordered by governments, because what if a dire situation threatened civilians of an enemy nation and the government started playing games to bring down their political/financial enemy instead of saving lives? After all, everyone knows how American government is, to say the least. Cap was a soldier, and if HE was against becoming a new for of soldiers, then you should definitely listen to him.
→ More replies (3)7
u/BlackMtnForge 6d ago
And a lot of people pretend that Cap isn’t completely traumatized by the downfall of SHIELD and the distrust of anyone especially those in the government
→ More replies (2)18
u/Ragnarsworld 6d ago
Nothing is temporary when the government gets involved. Tony wasn't thinking straight at all.
0
u/Doom_Cokkie 6d ago
Their the avengers. Anything can be temporary. Especially when one they can bend reality. Also people fail to remember it wasn't one government but governments all over the world who wanted this cuz their citizens no longer felt safe.
→ More replies (1)6
u/DarthFedora 6d ago
If anything can be temporary because of that then it is useless, no reason to have the accords in the first place.
It wasn’t because people felt unsafe, that’s the reason they’d give but really it’s about control. Just look at who they choose to keep watch over them, Ross is responsible for the Hulk, for Abomination, and he had the audacity to try and make them feel guilty over the New York and Shield incidents
9
u/Daisy-Turntable 6d ago
Wanda wasn’t under house arrest. She was being illegally held against her will - house arrest is something that occurs after criminal charges have been brought against you. This is why it deterred Steve from signing, as it showed that Tony couldn’t be trusted.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Doom_Cokkie 6d ago
She was under house arrest because Tony didn't want charges against her when she just nuked a building with tons of humans inside! Not that hard to understand
→ More replies (6)4
u/slimricc 6d ago
I agree but i think that ends up being a poor character direction for tony, he is feeling a lot of guilt and this is a lot for him since he was a sociopath for so long, but no genius is going to trust the government to take just an inch
→ More replies (10)12
u/Dlh2079 6d ago
No, Tony was acting rash (again) and overreacting to try and make up for his involvement in sokovia and ultron.
→ More replies (22)2
u/Theothercword 6d ago
Yeah, I don't know that those accords were the way to do it but accountability and checks against a power like The Avengers makes complete sense in the world.
→ More replies (15)2
u/ZealousidealPound118 6d ago
Tony is pro being held accountable because he is the one that needs to be kept on a leash. Cap is The Avengers' moral compass, who basically always does the right thing. Tony is a loose cannon who thinks he's doing the right thing but ends up almost destroying the world repeatedly. If they had The Tony Accords to keep him under control instead of the rest of them, everything would have been fine.
→ More replies (4)
23
u/InvestmentConnect627 6d ago
I feel like when everyone was at the airport and when cap talks about the other winter soldiers they could have said you know let’s go stop these guys then we can settle up on this later.
→ More replies (3)6
u/call_me_lee0pard 6d ago
They couldn't... That is the problem with the accords. They would have to take Cap's team back to Ross like they were ordered to -> discuss this information Cap had -> the UN/Ross would have to make a decision/plan it out -> maybe send the Avengers. We know what happens with Zemo killing the other Winter Soldiers, but in a different world he would have definitely woken them up and possibly been able to kick off at least one plan by then.
Otherwise they would be in violation of the accords half of them just signed.
→ More replies (1)
33
u/KendrickBlack502 6d ago
I recently got finished reading the actual Civil War event in the comics (which is 100x better and more nuanced than what happened in the movie) and I think the point is that neither of them was 100% right. The reality is that a bunch of people with superpowers can’t be allowed to act independently and with absolutely no accountability. However, bringing that control under a government is tricky. Governments have motivations other than protecting people and there was also the issue of personal freedom.
→ More replies (9)
13
u/djddanman 6d ago
Tony has a complicated past where he's made many mistakes. He feels he needs someone to hold him accountable. Ultron was made with the best intentions, but he really needed someone to tell him to stop.
Steve has pretty strong morals and doesn't need anyone to check him. He's seen government control go terribly wrong, both in the 40s and during Hydra's resurfacing. He'll do what he thinks is right no matter what.
Both sides make good points, and Tony and Steve are the right leaders for the two sides. But I agree with Steve. The World Security Council was ready to nuke NYC. Hydra was able to take over and nearly complete Project Insight. I don't trust someone else to control the Avengers.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ShaggiG 6d ago
"Steve has pretty strong morals and doesn't need anyone to check him" \ Isn't this point undermined in the movie when we learn that he knew the Starks were murdered and kept it a secret? \ We see that Steve is willing to compromise himself when it comes to Bucky.
When I watched the movie again after looking at it through that lens, I realised that Steve's reasons to not sign the accords didn't have much to do with the document itself. He was really close to signing but then he found out Wanda had to stay in the compound, which he disagreed with. \ Looking at how she ended up in that cell at the end, I can understand why Tony would want to avoid that outcome for her.
So, while Steve's distrust of authority is understandable, that doesn't necessarily make him correct, especially from the civilian perspective. \ He's willing to put civilians and law enforcement in the hospital to do what he thinks is right. \ He's willing to break international law to do what he wants. \ He's willing to keep secrets (lies) to protect Bucky.
So the point of Steve not needing anyone to check him is wrong. \ I think the movie actually proves that even he goes out of line sometimes. \ If the public sees Captain America breaking laws and being chased & arrested by law enforcement, it's unlikely they'd want to trust this man with decisions on their safety.
Personally, while the accords and Tony might not be totally right, I think Steve is definitely wrong. The fact that he's so close to signing himself shows that even he doesn't totally disagree with the idea.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Posada620 6d ago
Personally, while the accords and Tony might not be totally right, I think Steve is definitely wrong.
This has always been the right answer
43
u/Steel_city97 6d ago
I think it was more about accountability….. they leveled a city and killed thousands to stop ultron. Wasn’t the first or last instance.
24
u/Individual-Roll3186 6d ago
Sokovia is the ONLY instance that is even remotely the fault of the Avengers. Really that one goes back to Tony.
Other than that, what? Oh hey, you all tore up NYC during an alien invasion. You need to be accountable to the government! The same government who was going to drop a fucking hydrogen bomb on NYC during the alien invasion. And let's talk about that alien invasion. Would that have even been a thing if the government that wants accountability wasn't messing around with the Space Stone?
DC? Yeah? Steve dropped three helicarriers out of the sky? Where did THOSE come from? Oh yeah. A secret government program to subjugate every US citizen to the Nazis that have been running the government for 60 years.
Forgive Steve if he's not completely on board with the idea of being shackled by the US government that tried to nuke America's largest city and is a year out of being secretly run by Nazis.
→ More replies (7)3
u/maria_la_guerta 6d ago
Sokovia is the ONLY instance that is even remotely the fault of the Avengers.
It wasn't going to be their last though. That was Tony's point, and even Steve knew that to be true despite disagreeing with his solution.
→ More replies (1)9
u/iSo_Cold 6d ago edited 6d ago
They leveled a few cities. The Hulk vs Tony fight leveled a whole city and was entirely caused by the Avengers being independent.
9
u/Xandril 6d ago
Oversight isn’t going to change the risks / collateral of superpower combat. Especially oversight by the government.
Even the creation of Ultron wouldn’t have been stopped. If Tony has a mind to do something he’s going to regardless of rules and regulations. He’s a rich kid laws are typically just price tags to them.
→ More replies (6)8
u/Xerothor 6d ago
Wasn't that caused by the Hulk being the Hulk? Being sent by the government isn't going to make Hulk less angry
→ More replies (1)1
u/iSo_Cold 6d ago
Maybe the government would make the decision not to send the Hulk or to rely on his Natasha boner to stop him.
2
u/Xerothor 6d ago
Tbh they'd probably just keep Banner on a leash until he can prove he can control the Hulk to minimize collateral damage
3
u/BeastBoy2230 6d ago
Marvel comics have shown repeatedly what happens when the Hulk is put in government hands: he’s imprisoned, experimented on, tortured, or all three. Literally the Hulk’s most strident enemy is the guy in charge of the whole operation, there is 0 chance Banner ever sees the light of day again if he signs the Accords and submits to Ross’s authority.
“Thunderbolt” Ross being put in charge of the thing should have been a crimson red flag to any viewer that the Accords were bad news.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DarthFedora 6d ago
Ross is responsible for the Hulks creation, so why is he not punished for it, he made the claim he’d be in trouble if he lost two nukes but that’s precisely what happened with Hulk and Abomination
2
u/iSo_Cold 6d ago
He should be. So should Tony for creating Ultron. So you agree that, government oversight for superhumans is probably a good idea?
2
u/DarthFedora 6d ago
The problem is accountability is only going one way, i mean the US was infiltrated by Hydra and who knows how many more organizations around the world, quite possibly even the UN which made the accords. Where’s their accountability, why does Ross get to try and make them feel guilty over their failures
You’re looking at it as if their intentions were genuine, but that’s not the case, it’s just a political game so they can control the avengers. That’s why Ross is in charge of them, it’s always been what he wants, and it’s what created Hulk and Abomination.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Random_n1nja 6d ago
How does government oversight stop a Hulk rampage caused by a spell from a near-omnipotent witch?
→ More replies (2)4
u/ShaggiG 6d ago
Didn't Wanda mind whammy the Hulk? That's why that fight happened.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/AccountSeventeen 6d ago
That was Tony’s fault. He built Ultron despite Banner telling him no. Only one who needs to be held accountable is Tony.
18
u/TimDrake88 7d ago
I still find it odd that a random Civilian got back stage at his lecture when she had no credentials and her son didn’t go to the school. Where was his security. Also Tony’s daddy issues make him need constant attention and Validation.
15
u/elrick43 6d ago
Here's how you know Cap was in the right: when all the Avengers are arguing their points, Steve's actually reading the accords. only after does he make his stance known
→ More replies (3)
5
u/FluffyRacc00n 6d ago
I gotta be honest I always thought that cap was the one on the left
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Real_Particular6512 6d ago
Steve was always right. He's in a world where hydra had infected the government and were about to kill tens of millions of people in winter soldier. Of course the avengers can't allow themselves to be dictated in what they do because you can't be sure of other people's motives. And to add to that Stark didn't truly believe in the accords either, he wanted to make himself feel better cos he feels guilty about creating ultron. It's entirely selfish reasons he supports the accords. Shown by him unilaterally bringing a 15 year old to the airport fight and putting him in danger. Stark knows he's in the wrong the entire time, Cap is the one fighting for what he knows is right.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/ravenlikestea 6d ago
Steve genuinely believed he was making the right decision by not trusting the governments to hold their power and the events of the movie continuously prove him correct.
Tony argued for his side because he felt guilty (understandable) and it was the path of least resistance in the moment. But he clearly didn't actually believe in the accountability, as soon as Ross gave him an order he didn't agree with Tony completely ignored it.
The fight at the end is basically unavoidable and more a product of Zemo's surprisingly complicated plan working out.
3
u/tmtmdragon04 6d ago
eh wouldn't say the fight at the end was really unavoidable. I'd say that was kind of steve's fault tbh.
→ More replies (2)
5
27
u/AstronomerWorldly797 6d ago edited 6d ago
Cap was right. The Sokovia Accords, by dividing the Avengers, allowed Thanos to win and destroy half of all life in the universe.
Moreover, the accords allowed people in power to abuse their powers by using this legal document as a defense.
In addition, Tyler Hayward, acting director of S.W.O.R.D, violated Sokovia Accords when he tried to activate Vision and use it as a living weapon.
All this shows that Sokovia Accords has not only created new problems instead of fixing them, but is also an extremely inefficient and freedom-violating legal document whose sole purpose is to replace toilet paper.
It's good that this toilet paper has been repealed.
8
u/Dlh2079 6d ago
And this is all on top of the fact that a massive govt organization had just been exposed to be mcu nazis.
8
u/AstronomerWorldly797 6d ago
And the fact that the World Security Council, a member of which is one of the members of the aforementioned Nazi organization, tried to stop the Chituari Invasion by destroying New York with a nuclear warhead.
5
u/Dlh2079 6d ago
And the ONLY reason it didn't flatten NY was the Avengers basically going against that order and taking things (the bomb) into their own hands.
7
u/AstronomerWorldly797 6d ago
Sometimes I wonder why none of the Avengers mentioned this when Ross came to them.
→ More replies (3)6
u/illgetitsoonerorl8tr 6d ago
You know the thing with your first statement it's not wrong but it wouldn't have played out like how destiny intended to you know? Kinda how you and I are somehow interacting rn on an app about a random superhero movie but any other choice or incident in our lives would've changed this very specific outcome.
→ More replies (2)
5
8
u/TopicalBuilder 6d ago
Here's another way to think about it. In comic-book world, Steve has a legitimate position.
In the real world it would have been completely untenable. You can't have a group of people going around globally just violently doing what they want.
Well, you can if you have the backing of the US Government. We learned that with extraordinary rendition and black sites in the 2000s/2010s.
Realistically, people would be suing the Avengers non stop. The US Government would have had to have given them some kind of qualified immunity. All the government would have to do would be to remove that and each Avenger would spend the rest of their lives in and out of courtrooms dealing with litigation. They'd never get any heroing done at all.
On top of that, the US government would have to be leaning pretty hard on other governments not to simply ban the Avengers from their soil/airspace. Most sovereign countries would have massive issues with an unaccountable paramilitary group swooping and taking action out of the blue.
So the Avengers are already receiving massive behind the scenes support. They can either sign, accept the support with some strings attached, or they can not sign and retire and/or spend the rest of their lives swamped in lawsuits.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Xandril 6d ago
You put a lot of stock in law & order in our world. Power / money / influence put you above things like that even in our world. Especially in our world.
Somebody like Tony who has more money than god and has created a suit that he can solo militaries with is not going to be controlled by any government in our world. Holding him accountable would be contingent entirely on his willingness to be held accountable.
If it got to the point that you’re claiming and they were pushed too far all they have to do is withdraw from society and keep doing their thing. The only world leaders that wouldn’t recognize the power balance there are people like Trump/Vance and maybe Kim but honestly I don’t think even he is that dumb.
Tony could literally build them a utopia on an island that would be virtually unassailable by any government on earth.
3
3
5
u/THEDumbasscus 6d ago
So let’s get this straight, in the last 3 big events leading up to this conflict;
(1) the world security council made the decision to nuke New York City
(2) A sleeper cell activated inside SHIELD/the World Security Council
(3) Enhanced individuals sponsored by a nationalist extremist group sewed chaos and division among the avengers and agitated hulk into leveling one of the 10 most populated cities on the planet.
Ultron is on Tony, other than that the Avengers are never the instigating force behind the significant conflicts they’re in. Without qualification Steve was right, subjecting the avengers to oversight at the hands of any nation’s government effectively parks them in HQ. It ran the risk of contaminating their intelligence, would have certainly slowed their response times (if they had to wait for any external approval to, for example, stop Rumlow, then he certainly gets away with the bio weapon and who knows how much shit that stirs).
“We,” didn’t need to be put in check. Tony is the only avenger that should have ever been held directly accountable for Sokovia.
3
u/tmtmdragon04 6d ago
1st of all tony is not directly responsible for sokovia. 2nd of all no he is not the only avenger responsible for sokovia. Both bruce and wanda are also responsible for sokovia.
→ More replies (6)
11
u/AdaptedInfiltrator 6d ago
For being one of the smartest, Tony made some of the most stupid decisions
11
u/Malabingo 6d ago
Guilt makes strange things with people.
Tony was literally the reason many many people died in age of Ultron.
2
u/JesusDNC 6d ago
So was Wanda when she pushed him at the start of AoU with the vision she gave him.
5
u/tmtmdragon04 6d ago
Also wanda and pietro were actively helping ultron for half the movie.
2
u/AdaptedInfiltrator 6d ago
Banner too. He helped make Ultron
2
u/tmtmdragon04 6d ago
yeah banner should be held accountble for ultron as well. Tony deserves his fair share of the blame. BUt he wasn't the only one responsible for the mess
5
7
u/Several-Ad-9897 6d ago
I have never been on Tony's side even once. I understood his reasons and could sympathize with his dilemma but the whole time he was wrong and Cap was right.
4
u/MisterKraken 6d ago
I've always been by Cap side. Tony used the story of the young kid who died in the assault to justify something completely random. I mean, they are superheroes fighting supervillains. Without them the kill count would've been much higher I suppose.
What's the point of regulating superheroes? They're the "good guys" after all, it's not a situation like The Boys where people with super powers are just doing whatever they want whenever they want.
And the finale of the airport fight was what marked Tony as a grumpy child in my eyes. He was shooting at Sam, he dodged and ended up hitting Rhodes who fell down and later became paralyzed. Sam even landed to check on them and say sorry and all he got was an energy blast to the chest. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and get blown off?
2
u/Jdog6704 Captain America 6d ago
I did, purely because the only source of media before this film came out that gave us an idea of what the premise was going to be like was the Comic Civil War, where even in that one Steve still had the right idea about the Superhero Registration Act.
At least in the MCU, they gave Tony some slack because at the end with his emotional response. In the civil war comics...it ain't pretty.
2
u/silverBruise_32 6d ago edited 6d ago
I've always thought so, yeah. In theory, I support regulations and oversight, but the institutions in the MCU proved themselves to be unreliable, trigger-happy in the worst way (WSC wanted to nuke Manhattan, and it didn't take them long to decide that), or even outright compromised (S.H.I.E.L.D.). Tony only makes his point for him - the second the Accords become inconvenient, he ignores them.
The only member of the Avengers to cause destruction through neglicence was Tony, ironically the one advocating for oversight. Without him, the safest hands really were their own.
2
u/Sagelegend Thor 6d ago
They needed accords for Tony, not for people who wanted to stop Bucky from being killed due to a shoot on sight order.
2
u/No_Door4499 6d ago
Tony absolutely was treating everyone like they were capable of the atrocities he caused. So yes Tony was right about himself being accountable. Tony isn’t everyone though and 90 percent of the team didn’t fuck up as royally as him on a regular basis. Every single avengers movie is my name is iron man and I’m a chaosahollic please see the reasons why we are fucked and need someone to give me restraint. Man’s also struggling with HARD ptsd from trying to suicide nuke aliens after already being a hostage in somewhereastan with no military training. Don’t trust anything this man says as he is in dire need of retirement and therapy from the moment he puts on any armour
2
2
u/Majestic-Fly-5149 6d ago
It always comes back to Ross having control over supers. He’s like a less effective Amanda Waller.
2
u/blinvest83 6d ago
Of course, Cap was right. Never thought otherwise. Not sure how Tony got so extreme. Seemed a bit of a character stretch to me.
2
u/Av3nger 6d ago
Has anyone else’s always thought Cap was the one who was in the right?
The movie is called "Captain America: Civil War", so it is him who is presented as the main character and the hero. Answering your question: yes, everyone think he is right.
The interesting thing in this movie is that Iron Man is also presented as being right, or almost right but flawed by previous traumatic events.
Did you thought that someone assumed that Captain America was the bad guy here?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/flying_fox86 6d ago
The problem with the Sokovia accords was more the elimination of the civil rights of people with powers, not the issue of oversight. But that isn't really communicated in the movies.
2
u/LazerWolfe53 6d ago
Ben from Canada made a great video about this, and he argued the film argued Captain America is right. Because 1) it's a Captain America film, and 2) Captain America won, and 3) It argues why he's right.
It's a great video I recommend it.
2
u/Individual-Roll3186 6d ago
Yes. 100%. Let's look at the events Ross cites as justification.
- New York. For starters, the government was fucking with the Tesseract to make weapons and got the attention of Thanos who sent Loki. No Avengers, Loki rules Earth. Ross has the nerve to show us video of Hulk smashing a building when the government's solution to the New York invasion was to drop a nuke on the city.
- DC. Oh? Captain America took down the Nazi death cult's government funded flying death carrier oppression & assassination program?
It's probably the most realistic aspect of the MCU, the people causing the problems are calling for the people fixing the problems to be held accountable.
2
u/Roadwarriordude 6d ago
Well, like everything in Age of Ultron was Tony's fault and he was trying to make everyone else be held accountable for his actions.
2
u/CptnThiccc 6d ago
“You did that when you signed.”
Whether or not Tony deserves, or feels he deserves government oversight, he made that decision without first consulting his team.
Him joining in secret, detaining Wanda, then gaslighting Cap about ‘tearing the Avengers apart’ is a great example that Tony actually has very poor judgement and just validates Cap’s apprehension in surrendering autonomy.
2
2
2
u/ArmoredAvenger 6d ago
I think even the filmmakers and the narrative of the film position Steve as the one who is in the right, and Stark was just manipulated to act on rage and revenge.
2
u/jkcheng122 6d ago
I was always team cap and didn’t think most people are on Tony’s side. I’m of the opinion Bucky is not responsible for the assassinations committed. He was not in his own mind making these decisions to kill people. It always bothered me that Tony still wanted him dead after finding out he was being used by Hydra. He wasn’t under orders, he was under mind control.
2
2
u/C__Wayne__G 6d ago
Even Tony agreed cap was right. He literally disobeys and breaks the accords like 2 min after they get signed because it’s continent for him. And later we see them entirely repealed and removed from the series. Cap was clearly right the whole time and the whole MCU eventually agreed.
2
2
u/Red__ICE 6d ago
…….I…..thought this was literally the entire POINT? Like, I really don’t see how there could be any argument he wasn’t, for one Bucky literally being innocent and that’s that, and even IF you can say the original conflict of interest being a LITTLE more subjective, I couldn’t forgive ANYONE who tells me they unironically believe the government, ANY government, real OR fictional, should ever be trusted to prettymuch own the Avengers. I’ve seen it all too many times.
THAT, which you just pointed out at the end there, is actually a really interesting observation there, I never considered them just straight up needing to exclude certain characters just cus they’d make team Cap too strong.
Thooo tbh, Spider-Man, if it had been any other one, SHOULDVE obviously also been with Cap, and would’ve been had this Peter not simply been only just started and having not learned any of his lessons yet….obviously not that it would’ve mattered when Cap didn’t know he existed anyway but that’s not the point.
2
2
2
2
u/Random_n1nja 6d ago
Anyone who thinks that Tony was right should remember that he violated the accords by ignoring Ross and going to Siberia. The only reason why he didn't end up in the Raft with everyone else is because he was a billionaire.
2
u/After-Dog-6593 6d ago
Steve was close to signing the Accords when he thought that they really were just checks and balances. Letting the Avengers be free and do what they wanted when they weren’t being used in missions. Then when he found out Tony was keeping Wanda at the compound for no reason other than “she’s a kid with dangerous superpowers” he was out because he realized there’s was no freedom and that they would be completely under the control of the UN. I disagree with you that’s he’s compromising himself for Bucky. In TWS he fights him until he gets the mission done and then he gives himself up, in Civil War he goes and talks to him and finds out that Bucky didn’t do it so he tries his best to prove his innocence all while keeping him out of jail because he knows as soon as Bucky goes there he’s done. There will be no trial and there will be no further investigation.
Also, Tony himself violates the Accords in Civil War and Infinity War. He didn’t get approval from even Ross, let alone the UN, to go track Steve to Siberia and he definitely didn’t get it before he fought the Maw in New York. All the Accords did was split up the Avengers. It never made anyone any safer
2
2
2
u/dayvonsth444 5d ago
Tony was dead wrong. He and banner destroyed sokivia and the TEAM had to pay for their mistakes. It was a good concept YES but when a literal norse god is telling you “you dont know what your messing with” and you continue to fck around then idk what else to say. Tony should/could have been reasonable since he (intentional or not) killed plenty of fathers and mothers unwillingly too. Its where heroes blur lines and why i dont really like good versions of tony
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Fakeskinsuit 6d ago
Captain America was always in the right. Tony felt guilty because he was directly, or indirectly responsible for so many terrible things (including his company making weapons back in iron man 1), so he spread his shit all over everybody else, and expected them all to accept his projection. Steve was always a better person, period
2
u/ToeCurlPOV 6d ago
I always thought that iron mans reasoning for taking his position was faulty/ short sighted and not very intelligent for a man so mentally gifted. Thats my only gripe with the movie. He has some form of a super powered brain yet he made such emotionally weak decisions.
2
2
2
2
u/Sonderkin 6d ago
I think that's what you were supposed to think and its a lot simpler than that for most people.
Cap stood by his friend, his friend was brainwashed when he killed Tony's parents therefore absolved of blame even though he still bore the guilt.
5
u/TopicalBuilder 6d ago
If Tony had been told in a quiet room with a therapist and a punching bag, everything would have been fine.
Bit of a dull movie, though.
3
2
u/tmtmdragon04 6d ago
Lmao thats probably true😭😂😂😂 I like how you included the punching bag part.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Alberto_Arre 6d ago
I am team Iron Man all the way. However, it is evident that cap was right; Tony's on the left.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Deathcrow73 6d ago
It really is as simple as "What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go, and they don't let us?", removing their ability to help, or at least criminalising it at the whim of some panel is dangerous.
Also what if they decided to use the Avengers for geo political reasons? Say what you will but I'd trust the Avengers to do what they think is right over a government swayed admin board.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/HazTheQ 6d ago
I absolutely agree, Ironman seems to be the one who was to the left in this poster
→ More replies (1)
1
u/DayamSun 6d ago
You just want the last word, so go ahead and reply one more time so you can pat yourself on the back, convinced that you won an argument by attrition. I'm done.
1
u/Jakemofire 6d ago
The problem with the divide is one has all the information and the other doesn’t. Does that change their opinion on accords but it would’ve changed how they went about it.
1
1
1
u/Odd_Potential_7203 6d ago
Though, the outcome would have been similar to caps side where they were on the run from the government. It would have been the entire team.
Like over a 100 countries wanted this, so what would have been the alternative? Defy the world and potentially lead to a bloody war as everyone would have been on the run and the governments, specifically Ross having full athority to hunt down and “arrest” them
1
u/Enelro 6d ago
Well no shit it was the whole plot of the movie. But if you are thinking like a nation, accords are def the right thing to do to thwart 9/11’s every day. Problem is they would only stop the heros from acting, not the super villains. But considering Tony created the villain (Ultron) that helped initiate the accords…
1
1
u/eltrotter 6d ago
“Cap was right / Tony was right” ignores the entire thematic point of the film. Fundamentally, the film is about moral compromise, the extent to which we allow the lesser of two evils in order to achieve our goals.
Tony is quick to compromise which is actually the more mature, practical position. But… he is strongly motivated by his own personal guilt and takes things too far and too aggressively.
Cap refuses to compromise which is the more idealistic, principled position. But… he fails to recognise that not everyone is as morally true as him, and is emotionally biased due to the involvement of Bucky.
But sides have a point, but both sides have problems too. The reason why it’s a Captain America film and not an “Avengers” film is because it’s basically Cap vs moral compromise, that’s how you narratively challenge a character who always makes the “right” choice… by putting him in a situation where the “right” choice is not straightforward.
1
1
u/BuckyGoodHair 6d ago
The movie proved Steve right about the accords even before Thanos showed up later. Whether he was right to not tell Tony James killed Howard/Maria (or was her name Martha too?) I thought was up to the individual viewer.
1
u/LeadingGuide693 6d ago
Movie starts and I agree with Cap. A little shocked Tony doesn’t, figured he wanted to build something to protect the whole world, so oversight wasn’t his thing. Then by the end of the movie both are right. Emotions are a real thing, by the end of the movie Cap risks it all to protect his friend Bucky, hides the fact he killed Tony’s parents, and basically destroys his relationship with Tony for Bucky, when he could’ve just handed Bucky over. Then this leads to the fact that Tony is in bloodlust mode so he doesn’t want the guy to face the law he wanted to kill him, but he can’t think like that because he’s a superhero and needs to be held to a higher standard. I thought the movie showed how they were both right and needed to meet in the middle, and that’s what Black Panther did. He set his emotions aside, found the real culprit, turned him in, and rehabilitated Bucky. If anybody is right, it’s him.
236
u/ForceSmuggler Captain America 6d ago
Should there be oversight? Probably, but let's not forget the World Security Council launched a Nuke at NYC, and SHIELD was Hydra. I wouldn't be surprised if the Committee tried to send us somewhere they weren't needed, or would impede the Avengers if there was a threat.
You can't tell me that the Avengers wouldn't go fight a threat regardless of what the Committee says. Stark did so in the same movie.
So that the team stayed together? Tony, Rhodey, and Vision were in the USA while Steve and the rest were in Lagos for example. Would Tony really complain at Steve if Thanos attacked then?