Regarding the airport scene… I have a question about Ant-Man. Small-Scott still has the same amount of strength that Normal-Scott has, right? By that logic, wouldn’t Giant-Scott also only be as strong as Normal-Scott? Certainly seemed to have more punch/impact.
If you can explain the internal monologue that gets Batman from “Why did you say that name?” to “Okay, I’m not going to kill you,” I’d love to hear it. Because the movie doesn’t provide any context for how one would follow from the other. Here’s the best I can come up with:
“Wait, did this guy know my mom? I’d better not kill him until I can figure this out.”
Or if you want to manufacture character motivations out of thin air:
“He just said my mom’s name, which reminds me how she always believed in peaceful solutions to our problems. Maybe I should stop and rethink this.”
Again, that’s not supported by anything in the script, but they could have put (another) flashback in the movie with his mom. But besides those, how do you get Bruce Wayne to a point where he doesn’t want to kill Superman? Superman is still a threat. He’s still an alien with massive destructive power. Where does Bruce Wayne’s change of heart come from? I don’t see how it was earned.
And yeah, I realize you’re busting my chops. I am genuinely curious about how the character growth in BvS happens though.
Because soldiers aren’t slaves. At the very least, he should be well into retirement from WWII, and from SHIELD once it was disbanded. And yes, we don’t know what’s in the Sokovia Accords, but it sure seems like they’re treating superheroes as assets (Thor, Banner, and Wanda were all compared to inanimate objects), and they seem to have no problem with imprisoning superheroes with no due process and no rights.
And based on the other movies in the series, we’ve seen the government overstep their bounds and either resort to extreme solutions (like nuking New York) or be corrupted from the inside (making HYDRA weapons, or just becoming HYDRA). Superheroes are premised on the idea that there’s a team of people who are mobile enough and powerful enough to respond to threats on short notice, which is pretty much the antithesis of a 117-country tribunal to decide where they should go and what they should do. One filibuster and Sokovia is a crater. I don’t think “heroes should be free to be heroic” is an outrageous stance.
Uh, first of all, you obviously know nothing about physics. It’s explained very clearly in the comic: When he is small, he retains his human strength, and his speed and reflexes are vastly improved because of the reduction in size. And when he is bigger, he gains strength, and his speed and reflexes are vastly improved because of the increase in size. It’s all very scientific.
And while we’re on the subject: Falcon’s speed and reflexes are improved because he has wings; Black Panther’s are improved because he dresses like a panther; and Black Widow’s are improved because she wears skintight leather. That’s just logic.
Sure, and the Flash can run even faster because he wears a red costume. Makes total sense to me.
Red goes fast. That’s why they paint sports cars red.
Yeah if the choice is between nuking a highly populated area or letting the superheroes try, let them try. That agency was 100% wrong in that regard, and I don’t care who they report to, and all the superheroes knew it. Even the guy with his hand on a nuke button has opportunities not to push it. Just following orders it not a defense for ordinary people. I think Team Captain is more about allowing superheroes a chance to make judgment calls and act on what they know best, their abilities and limits and the people they work with.
The fact that Tony created Ultron doesn’t make him any worse than Einstein, and if Einstein were alive today, what would we charge him with on a world-wide level? What world organization would be in charge of what he does and how does it and when he does it, the UN?
Einstein didn’t actually make any weapons of destruction. If you meant Oppenheimer, he was literally working for the government during a war. Tony took it on himself to create Ultron with barely a debate with Banner. That’s classic mad scientist overstepping.
I get your point, but my point is, when we have scientists and engineers create weapons, or lead to discoveries that leads to the creation of weapons… not all of them are government employees. They’re certainly not regulated by some world order, and they’re not necessarily held accountable for events that are caused by their creations. Just because we don’t really have rogue weapons now, that we know of, doesn’t mean that when we do the person who created them, all their actions, all their judgments will suddenly be regulated by a world agency.
Okay, but I’m not sure how that ties into what we saw in this movie. The Accords weren’t about regulating thought or invention. According to what the movie gave us, the Accord was about keeping superpowered operators in check by putting them under direct control of a multinational body.
So if Tony decided to give everyone an Iron Man suit that would be cool under the Accord as long as people just used it to get to and from work and not for saving the world?
From what I gathered, if you were a suit based superhero you did have to give up the device if you didn’t sign the Accord and if you were a skill based hero you had to retire if you didn’t sign the Accord. Seems like stiff regulation of inventions and thought to me.
I’d have to at least agree with the sentiment that Stark is somewhat culpable for what Ultron did. This was not simply the manufacturing of a weapon/technological item. He made it AND turned it on. It’s in the usage where I’d say any fault resides. That doesn’t make Stark a bad guy, but he created something with capabilities that could reasonably be expected to cause harm, and then activated it without sufficient safety protocols and it indeed wound up causing massive damage and loss of life.
Well, again, we’re back to the government regulating things like tanks and RPGs. In the most basic terms, Tony’s suit is a weapons platform that we’d balk at a civilian - any civilian - owning or operating. I’ve got no qualms about that.
If I invented a robot that immediately busted out of my garage workshop and murdered my neighbor, there would be legal consequences, right? Tony invented a robot that tried to blow up the world and succeeded in killing hundreds. What was his consequence? Was there even a fine?
Edit: It’s funny to me because when I first watched Winter Soldier I thought, “I bet that ship crashing into Washington DC killed some people” but you know, comic books, so I just shrugged and went with it. I get that the ships were going to kill a lot more people, but I was a bit disturbed that there didn’t seem to be any talk about the destruction caused.
So the Accords are regulating inventions and thoughts. It’s not just suits, they are forcing people into retirement because they are too good at what they do.
Like I said if Tony decided to give everyone on earth an Iron Man suit so they could fly to and from work, would that be cool under the Accords? I mean the Iron Man suit seems like it would be great for mining, is Tony allowed to sell the suit to miners or is it the suit itself that is inherently dangerous? From what I gathered it is the suit itself, which means the Accords grants the U.N. huge amounts of control over the most advanced technology on the planet.
It’s funny that Tony so easily acquiesced to the U.N. when he told the U.S. Gov to shove off when they tried to regulate his invention with a much lighter touch.
So that’s bad or good? I’m not sure what you’re arguing for/against.
Just to be clear for this discussion, I think the Accords are needed. Superpowered beings should not get to do whatever the hell they think they should by right of their powers. It shouldn’t be okay for them to say “Nah, I’m good.” when it comes to laws and jurisdictions.
Tony’s suits might be good for mining, but so is dynamite. We regulate the sale and use of explosives.
Oh I’m just disputing when you said “The Accords weren’t about regulating thought or invention.” That is exactly its purpose.
We do regulate the use of explosives, but explosives of some kind can be bought by just about everyone in the U.S. Just like we regulate guns in the U.S. but we don’t stop people from defending themselves with them. The Accords are basically saying that the U.N. has a monopoly on these suit-inventions. Might be good, might be bad, but they are absolutely regulating thought and invention.
And also add they are regulating skill. Black Window and ArrowGuy aren’t super powered, they are just awesome at what they do.
I gotta agree with Telefrog that I don’t understand your argument, RayRayK. Nobody regulates thought or invention in and of itself. It’s easy to google up the Anarchist’s Cookbook and find out how to make your own napalm. It’s (evidently) common knowledge how to build a nuclear bomb, though much more difficult to get your hands on nuclear materials, and it’s access to those materials that is very carefully regulated. I would guess, if we were to extend the real world into Marvel World, that actually building A Thing is quite hard. I think this is borne out by all the failed experiments trying to create another super soldier like Captain America, and the difficulty Lebowski had in duplicating Stark’s Iron Man suit back in the first movie. I guess Stark could hand out suits to whoever he wants, but he’d still control their manufacture since, apparently, nobody else can really make them.
No, I disagree. You can still invent whatever you want. I could go into my garage right now and “invent” a robot. What happens afterwards is a different story and part of that is going to be decided by what I put on it. Pincer claws or rubber fingers? Probably OK. Machine guns and mini-missiles? Nope. Thoughts are also free. Anyone signing the Accords can think whatever they want. They just have to comply, like we do with every law.
Sure, but you agree that at a certain point, we need regulations on what civilians can own in the way of explosives, right? Even fireworks are regulated.
I mean no you can’t invent “whatever you want” If you invented another Iron Man suit it would seem to be a problem under The Accord. Like I said earlier, it doesn’t seem to be how it’s used but that it exists that matters. If the usage mattered, why couldn’t they say “or just stop fighting world ending events and become an entertainer.” That third option of peaceful use is never introduced.
Right, because it’s a weapons platform. It’s technically a problem under our normal everyday laws, not just the Accord.
They absolutely do regulate inventions and thought all the time. Try being a Christian in China. In terms of inventions, I’d point to the crossbow, movable type, and the introduction of firearms as examples where there were big (Failed) attempts at regulating inventions.