So, I was listening to one of my random gaming podcasts rap about this movie today and...I think they might have sold me on Team Stark.
It was really interesting hearing about the movie through their perspective. I mean, they felt strongly enough about this as to say Cap was the surprise antagonist of the movie.
And really, in retrospect I feel like a lot of my reasons for generally falling on Team Cap side of things have to do with each of the hero's track records. Cap has a sterling reputation and always knows what's right. Stark is a perpetual fuck-up who makes all his own super villains. And, generally speaking, I like Steve and I think Tony is privileged douche who really needed the kicking he got at the end of this movie. Seeing cap put that shield through the arc reactor was one of the most emotionally satisfying moments as a die-hard Tony Stark hater.
But the more I think about each of their positions, the more I can't help but feel like Iron Man is being very reasonable and fair throughout much of the movie and that Cap is coming at this from a place of high principals that are not engaging with reality. What Tony is saying is right. They
can sign and then retake political ground later instead of just burning all their bridges from the world go. They
can become publicly accountable and still be highly effective as a group and, again, if their efficacy is clearly threatened, they can become criminals later rather than just skipping to the part where they're being hunted by every government on earth. Because surely
that won't have any negative effects on what they can get done.
The idea of blame being shifted to the UN is ludicrous because it's arguing not just against where to put the blame, but also against where authority resides. If the Avengers are UN sanctioned and the various governments were elected by the people (more or less) then the Avengers are Superheroes of the people. What they had prior to the accords essentially constituted a Might Makes Right philosophy, no? I mean, the MCU was very fortunate that the roughest, toughest guns turned out to be fairly upstanding ladies and gentlemen, but Captain America alone gets to decide what's right and what's wrong because his gang of super people have the powers to back up their claims? No, I'm sorry, but that just seems like
way too much responsibility to be vested in any one person. Even if that person is Steve Rogers. There's not enough perspective in any single human being to make that call alone.
Someone else online pointed out to me that Cap's one really good point about how the UN is made up of governments with agendas and agendas change...well, Ok, but if we leave it in the hands of just the Avengers...the avengers are also people with agendas and maybe their agendas change? Like, say, how someone could completely torpedo any and all public good will his heroic institution might have in the world at large to go tilt at windmills and fall into a super villian's master plan? Kinda like that?
And you know what? It would be a lot easier for Hydra to infiltrate and destroy an independent Avengers Initiative than it would for them to gain a controlling interest in enough UN countries to throw off the vote. Like say it was Hydra who was activating Barnes and not Zemo and they used him as a lure to catch Steve out alone and they got into his head. How long do you think it would take before the Avengers realized they'd been had? How much havoc could ensue before Widow smells the rat and the threat is neutralized (because let's be honest, we all know it would be Nat who catches that one)?
Is that better or worse than having to wait for permission and/or beg for forgiveness when the UN is not green lighting one of their missions fast enough?
I don't know, it disgusts me to admit it, but I can't help but think that Stark was right.
TL
R - I still like Steve better as a person, but objectively, I feel like Tony is more correct than Steve is now. I think that might make me Team Stark and I hate myself a little for admitting that.