Subpar Spatula
Banned
He's a man in a suit chasing down a bad guy. That's what a vigilante is.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Captain America: Civil War SPOILER Thread - #TeamThanos
- Thread starter Son Of D
- Start date
- Status
He's a man in a suit chasing down a bad guy. That's what a vigilante is.
No one is using Tony's state of mind at the end of the movie to rationalize Ultron or him signing the Accords, ya dingleberry.
Xamtheking
Member
When is the Falcon/Bucky buddy comedy spinoff film
Subpar Spatula
Banned
No one thought or defended Tony's actions from Avengers to now and used Tony's broken mind as a reason. The movie even tries to convey that. I don't know how the audience picked up broken as the word but it's really weird. I suppose it's easier to defend your position if you choose more charged words.
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
What the hell are you talking about? Are you some strawman construction worker, because you're like a professional at making them.
No one has ever argued Tony created Ultron because of 'brokenness'. He created it as a failsafe for the Avengers to retire and as a way to combat his PTSD. He straight-up said this in the movie.
Tony was on his side for the Accords because Ultron caused mass deaths and it was like 90% his fault. He doesn't trust himself nor his teammates to function without causing huge collateral damage, plus the guilt from Ultron is spurring him to atone for his sins, in a sense. What's more is, if the Avengers didn't sign, they'd have to retire. The Avengers are the last of Tony's bonds.
What you said, 'Tony's broken man, you don't understand!' is no one has ever used as an explanation for Tony's actions. Know why? Because they actually watched the movie, which literally spells out Tony's rationale for all his decisions.
You like being reductionist because truth be told, you don't really have an argument against the movie. Dude, BvS sucked. Just get over it. It might have hurt you psychologically, but damn, no need to take out your anger on better movies, lmao.
If you think T'Challa was being a hero in this movie, you're even dumber than I thought.
He wasn't taking the law into his own hands as a vigilante would, he was trying to dish out revenge. The Bride in Kill Bill isn't a vigilante. Dae-su in Oldboy isn't a vigilante. John Wick isn't a vigilante.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
That's not a point or a prediction. It's a threat. And Hawkguy immediately chose 'retire'.
How was he not? Unless I missed the law that says murder is ok if you think they killed your dad.
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
And besides, BP was never stated to have been on the Accords' side of things. He showed up in Vienna to support his father.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
That's one thing I definitely noticed more on my second viewing. T'Challa is constantly going for the kill strike on Bucky from the moment he's in the suit. Even during the airport fight which some people claimed there are no stakes, when everyone else is trying to capture their opponent T'Challa is still fucking laser focused on trying to murder Bucky.
First time I saw the movie i was caught up in the hype, just like whoah Panther so badass. Now I see how utterly brutal and reckless he was being the whole time.
I dunno. He said he was in support of the Accords to Natasha. He just said he didnt like the politics of it. He didn't go into detail but I think he was saying he agrees that reckless hero work needs oversight but he may not agree with forcing it on the Avengers. Maybe if it were up to him he would try to sit down and come to a better understanding rather than enforcing it with laws and criminalization.
First time I saw the movie i was caught up in the hype, just like whoah Panther so badass. Now I see how utterly brutal and reckless he was being the whole time.
I dunno. He said he was in support of the Accords to Natasha. He just said he didnt like the politics of it. He didn't go into detail but I think he was saying he agrees that reckless hero work needs oversight but he may not agree with forcing it on the Avengers. Maybe if it were up to him he would try to sit down and come to a better understanding rather than enforcing it with laws and criminalization.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
If no one uses Tony's mental state as a reason for his actions then it will never be brought up again.
Please tone down the insults to zero. If you can't respect another person because they have a differing opinion than you then just don't respond. Dislike my position? Ignore it instead of lashing out. This goes for Yeezus as well.
T'Challa is a vigilante. Revenge tales are vigilantism because you're taking the law into your own hands. You don't have to continuously stop/prevent/halt/whatever word you want to use crime to be a vigilante--a single act is all it takes.
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
They most certainly won't be used for Tony creating Ultron or signing the Accords. Because they never have been.
Move on buddy, and get to your next incorrect nitpick. Let me guess, Cap's costume looks cheap?
lmao deal with it. It's hard debating with someone being deliberately obtuse. Arguing with you is like arguing with FutureXMDCComicsZone, except I'm sure his arguments are even more coherent than yours.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
The Accords were to prevent super powered beings from doing what they want. Black Panther isn't super powered? He's not on Punisher's level of power, obviously.
Then we'll have to end this discussion since you don't want to continue in a fashion where insults aren't said.
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
Concession accepted, moving on.
It's pretty hilarious how you chose to just back out once all your points were refuted, lmao. Good luck guek, you're gonna keep falling for his dumb traps.
A Pretty Panda
fuckin' called it, man
when are they incorporating the proton cannon into the mcu
The Sokovia Accords was about THE AVENGERS and no one else specifically. It wasn't the super hero registration act. There are no other super heroes other than the Avengers that have global attention. If you really don't want to be accused of being stupid, get your facts straight and admit when you're wrong.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
The Sokovia Accords was about THE AVENGERS and no one else specifically. It wasn't the super hero registration act. There are no other super heroes other than the Avengers that have global attention. If you really don't want to be accused of being stupid, get your facts straight and admit when you're wrong.
You have to understand the movie doesn't really show this so we can just assume it's for all super powered people hence why Ant Man is in prison at the end. Still, in the meaning of the word "vigilante" BP is a vigilante.
Edit: Image means nothing since new evidence came to light to show it's wrong.
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
antman is in jail because he was helping people escape the law
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Doesn't necessarily mean he has to be in the Raft. It gives the illusion the Accords mean the Avengers and any other super powered person. It would make sense since there'd be so many loop holes otherwise.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The fuck? That's so dumb that I don't even know what to... wait, Banner isn't even on it? whatwhatwhat
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I also thought it was funny that Vision was pro-reg and all about responsibility but caused more destruction at the airport than everyone else combined. Intentionally, no less.
Hawkeye hasn't been active for just as long, but there he is on the form. Nice to know that if they came back the law wouldn't apply to them, though. lol
Hawkeye hasn't been active for just as long, but there he is on the form. Nice to know that if they came back the law wouldn't apply to them, though. lol
Subpar Spatula
Banned
You'd think people like Banner would be in a clause somewhere that says, "new super individuals will be regulated as well or ones hiding". The signing of this Accord, to me now, seems to be a gesture of good faith rather than signing over the ability to confront evil doers. The countries themselves could have signed it and put it into effect with the same consequences.
I'm even more confused about this movie now.
friskykillface
Banned
Prrrrroooooooootooonnnnnnnnnn cannonnnnn
Probably during the end of infinity wart 1 or during part 2 when everyone preps for battle
The Sokovia Accords was about THE AVENGERS and no one else specifically. It wasn't the super hero registration act. There are no other super heroes other than the Avengers that have global attention. If you really don't want to be accused of being stupid, get your facts straight and admit when you're wrong.
In the episode of Agents of SHIELD that aired right after Civil War's release, General Talbot tells Coulson that the president needs to know if he has any enhanced people, in this case Inhumans, on his team because they would need to be registered.
I'm about 3 episodes behind on AoS...
How is that possible though when Shield is still officially considered a rogue organization by the US government? Did Shield become officially sanctioned again?
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Callibretto
Member
publically, people only know about ATCU, while in reality Talbot as head of ATCU work together with Coulson
Yeah that's what I thought, in which case there's no legal reason they would need to sign the Accords because technically they're already working outside the law. The Accords aren't a form of registration either, merely a recognition of UN oversight. If Quake signed the Accords for example, it would mean she'd have to get UN permission for all Shield operations.
It sounds like a case of misunderstanding by the AoS writers but I'll have to finish the season before I can make up my mind on it.
Callibretto
Member
I don't think the registration for Quake is the same as the Accords. The Accord are international agreement supported by more than a hundred country. I think right now, SHIELD and ATCU are working under US government, no other country officially know SHIELD still exist.
So I think the inhuman registration is a separate thing started solely by the US government, the Accords just make for a convenient timing to push similar thing for the inhuman/other less known enhanched people.
Ah that would make sense.
Blackpanther25
Member
IIRC Coulson stated something very similar to you
that the SHIELD is a shadow organization in the US government and the inhuman agents should not register because they need to remain unknown for special ops
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Revenge is justice, just skewed. Justice is not a law thing, it's a personal thing as well.
Right, he wants to punish a crime summarily.
Black Panther is trying to hunt down and kill a guy because somebody in his family got hurt. He's pretty much the iconic example of a vigilante.
It's a matter of intent. T'Challa didn't hunt Bucky because he believed it was what the law wanted. The law wanted Bucky to be transferred into custody and then extradited to Wakkanda. T'Challa wanted him dead.
Google defines "Vigilante" as
google said:
Whereas Dictionary.com has both
Dictionary.com said:
Bernthall's Punisher fits both definitions at different times. Punisher's motivations determine which definition of vigilante he fits. When Punisher kills people like the guy peddling pedophilia, he's not doing it because he has an axe to grind. He's doing it because he thinks the law has failed and he's dishing out what is deserved, When he goes after the Irish though, he's avenging the death of his family. He's appeasing his own rage. These are two similar but distinct definitions of "vigilante." T'Challa happens to just be the 2nd. The Avengers though, they don't go out on personal missions, or at least they're not supposed to. Tony took a step into the other Punisher territory where he wanted to kill someone out of rage. His intentions have always been good up to now, even if his results often blow up in his face. He went straight for murder this time, as did T'Challa.
I mean, it's all supposed to be a theme of centered on actions taken out of anger. Zemo did what he did because he was pissed at the loss of his family. He hated the Avengers for what happened and blames them. T'Challa was enraged enough to kill on sight for the whole movie. Tony loses his shit and stops being a hero. All those actions were driven by rage. T'Challa just happened to be the one who broke the cycle that demanded murder in response to murder.
You use that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
I guess what he's trying to say is he wasn't a vigilante until his father died. And I guess later allying with Cap at the end?
Ants.
Jest Chillin
Member
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
Is there a thread or discussion anywhere on the direct comparison between Batman's motives in BvS and Iron Man's motives in Civil War?
It just seems crazy to me how no one was jumping all over Iron Man when he knew Bucky was under mind control, yet people freaked the hell out over Batman fighting Superman. Seems hypocritical, to say the least.
It just seems crazy to me how no one was jumping all over Iron Man when he knew Bucky was under mind control, yet people freaked the hell out over Batman fighting Superman. Seems hypocritical, to say the least.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
It's not hypocritical, it's just a case of Tony being a more likable character and his motives being more directly understandable. Batman is incredibly self-important and arrogant, he believes he's doing the world a favour by killing Superman; Tony simply wants to get revenge for his parent's death, it's mindless but it's way more empathetic than Batman being a douche.
And again, it's another case of CW's writing just being plain better.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
More directly understandable than a broken Batman after fighting crime for most of his life and watching his friends, people he worked with, and many others die around him in that MoS battle with Zod? To me, it makes perfect sense that he's someone who wants to beat the shit out of the people involved with that destruction. Also considering he's goddamn Batman and has this vision of Superman turning evil. With all the pain Batman suffered through, I can see how he'd want to get a possible Superman-fucks-more-shit-up situation under control.
I just dislike how people assert this narrative that BvS was poorly written when that's not true at all. People make it seem like it's a fact that nothing in it makes sense, when in actuality most of it can and has been explained by others as to how the plot does make sense lol.
I just dislike how people assert this narrative that BvS was poorly written when that's not true at all. People make it seem like it's a fact that nothing in it makes sense, when in actuality most of it can and has been explained by others as to how the plot does make sense lol.
darkazcura
Member
I disagree a lot. I have never really felt like Iron Man's motives were empathetic, because like you said, it was mindless.
I agree with your point regarding batman fear of superman but still thought that BvS was poorly written.
But to be fair, I also think Civil War is poorly written (even if I enjoyed it a lot) and I'm genuinely surprised to see how much people are willing to justify anything (Black panther is not a vigilante, seriously ?)
- Why Iron Man, with a 36 hours deadline, spends X hours to fly to New York, flirt with Aunt May and recruit a teenager instead of trying to find a solution with his friends, or investigate ?
- With so much quick witted heroes in the room, why cant someone says "What were we supposed to do in New York ?"
- How quick someone like the secretary of states can go from "I really appreciate what you've done" to "you should all go in special prisons and you're lucky you arent in one stark" ?
I like lots of things about the movie, but the writing is mediocre at best.
- Status