[ SECRET POST #5245 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5245 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 39 secrets from Secret Submission Post #751.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. https://i.imgur.com/EMPXrp3.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

His stance would have had more standing had he not broken it in the same movie.

[(Anonymous)]

And keeps breaking it! All while insisting he is right.

(Point out the clause in the Accords that OK's giving children advanced weaponry with "Instant Kill Mode."

I'm waiting Disney.)

[(Anonymous)]

+100

[(Anonymous)]

Yup.

He was all for the accords until they got in his way from doing something and then he just fucks off and ignores them. Either oversight matters or it doesn't movie, you can't have your character vouching for that DISREGARD the notion in the same movie just because he feels like it.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pretty sure the point of Civil War was supposed to be that Cap and Tony were both being idiots and dragging everyone else down with them because their individual personal dramas had them so far up their own asses that they couldn't have a grownup discussion about the issue. Unfortunately, the loudest fans on both sides are completely rabid, so fandom doesn't get to have the grownup discussion either.

[(Anonymous)]

Except Steve didn't have his head in his own ass at all. Whether he was right or not about the Accords, he genuinely believed they were wrong. And everything else he did was either to protect Bucky, who was actually innocent and deserved protection, or to go destroy what he believed were the other super soldiers created by Hydra.

Tony was the only one being an ass. Which was frustrating because I think he was actually right that there needed to be laws in place. But he went about it the wrong way, and everything else he did was so wrong-headed that it ruined any chance of it being a balanced movie with both sides equally wrong or right.

[(Anonymous)]

You're right and you should say it.

[feotakahari]

People were having this exact same argument over the comic.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, but it was kinda different though. I remember siding with Cap back then whereas I was team Accords in the movie (even though I hate Tony Stark whatever the media).

Then again I'm about ten years older and I lived in a state where assholes do fight for their god-given right to bear arms for a while since then.

[(Anonymous)]

The comics were dumb in a very different way, though. Nobody in the MCU version was making Clone Thor, for one thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Using the attack on NYC as reason to control superheroes when the Official Government Reaction would have straight up nuked 8 million people makes me think the people trying to control super heroes aren't on the level.

But, like, they couldn't just use Sarkovia because that was mainly Tony/Bruce doing super science with no related superhuman abilities. So none of it actually makes sense. Which leaves us with the realization that either the movie is poorly thought out and poorly executed OR that there is another vast conspiracy driving all the worlds governments.

Again.

Who said Hydra was over again?

[(Anonymous)]

Personally, I just found it really weird that The Guy In A Suit presumed to talk on behalf of all the fancy superheroes when he's one of the ones without a literal physical superpower. He could just never suit up again and be normal. It's not really the case for some of the others.

[(Anonymous)]

My way of dealing with the fucking dumb Civil War storyline is to decide Zemo was behind the whole thing as part of his No Superheroes deal - keep them arguing and let them take each other out. Yes, I think superheroes should be accountable, no, I don't think the Sokovia Accords as presented by the US Military would have done that.

[(Anonymous)]

As soon as General Ross appeared I wondered how I was supposed to take the Accords being completely legit seriously, it should have been an entirely new character if they were actually meant to be a reasonable. But no, General fucking Ross trying to sell superhero accountability? The man who okayed the injection of knock-off super-solider serum into a subordinate, which created Abomination, just because he wanted to catch Bruce? This man happily tears up everywhere he goes just to catch ONE PERSON, and I'm supposed to think he should be listened to? Pull the other one movie.

But then this movie was only made because Marvel wanted their hero vs hero movie to compete with BvS so it's no surprise that the main conflict of the story was all over the place.

I do agree with superhero oversight and accountability, just not what the movie was trying to put out because again: General fucking Ross. Also the governments of the MCU 'verse just generally being pretty evil?

[tabaqui]

Yeah, i really hated that whole story line. Basically, 98 percent of Ultron and Civil War, and quite a lot of Infinity War and Endgame. The Accords were just the freakin' tip of the hell no iceberg.

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty much what everyone else said. Tony was fine with the Accords until they applied to him, and then he ignored them and did what he wanted.

Ross is a steaming pile of crap, and if he's the government rep for this, I immediately distrust it. At least Steve read the Accords, because I don't think Tony did.

As mentioned, all those incidents were not the Avengers' fault. NYC and the helicarriers were the government, Lago was Wanda trying to help, and Sokovia? That was Tony.

The Tony stans irk me mightily, because they won't see reason about this mess.

[meadowphoenix]

The only actual decision that seems unilaterally made about other people in Civil War is being cagey about keeping Wanda on the compound, which frankly is definitely something he should have told her, but was not in fact unilateral unless Vision isn't considered a person.

Let's keep Tony to his actual faults, aka bringing a child into an international conflict.

[(Anonymous)]

i always thought tony was the weirdest character to affix this stance to, yeah the movie tries to go with the guilt angle over sokovia, but in every movie tony's appeared in his entire thing is doing whatever the hell he wants despite what others say, including this one! so having him be the mouthpiece for the accords was such a bizarre choice.

but then this plot point was muddled from the start and just a flimsy excuse to get superheros to punch one another.

[(Anonymous)]

Why you can't believe this, OP? Have you read their POV and posts?
I mean I'm firmly Team!IM and I can still see why someone might be Team!CA.

[(Anonymous)]

*shrugs* You and I have substantially different ways of construing the same content.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you're definitely an American.

[(Anonymous)]

The answer to your question is probably a mix of "people like Tony" and "RDJ has very pretty eyelashes".

[(Anonymous)]

The Accords are so badly set up and characters make so little sense at times that I just refuse to spend too much time discussing it as if there was some "right" or "wrong" side to it. It was just a plot device to stage a "fight between superheroes" - that's all there was to it.

[(Anonymous)]

Have I fallen through some sort of time blackhole back to 2016?