Why is DC sucking so much?

[Keltest]

Except the like...14 super powered fights that took place in public since then? With presumably a lot more to come.

You mean the fights that resulted in the renegades being locked up? Or the ones that resulted in them fleeing the country? Because that sounds like theyre doing exactly what they were supposed to do.

The accords aren't meant to stop all superhero activity, just to give them accountability and oversight so you don't have, say, a man in a weaponized prosthetic suit flying into a war zone unannounced and shooting people without permission, and causing injuries and destruction of equipment when he gets mistaken for a hostile.

[Sapphire Guard]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of Accords, but the movie went out of its way to set them up as a strawman, by making them as oppressive and useless as possible (Making Ross the face and giving him the authority to order the German police to arrest a suspect in Romania for a terrorist attack in Vienna, forcing Tony himself to defy them to get things done, and so on.)

Funny thing about all these arguments is, we don't have the text, so their isn't much to base our arguments on.

Civil War paints it as 'sign or retire', with nothing at all about registration, where AoS made registration suddenly a big issue. Meanwhile, the Netflix shows are just ignoring the whole thing. We don't really know what the Accords are.

The Accords are not happy with Black Panther at all, he just has diplomatic immunity so they're powerless to stop him.

Justice League's characters aren't undercooked because there's 6 of them, it's undercooked because its simultaneously a sequel and override of the last film, directed by a man more interested in vaguely allegorical visuals than character building.

The character building was cut by the suits and/or Whedon. Snyder is getting a lot of flack for decisions he had nothing to do with.

That only works if you actually use the Trinity from the comics. You cannot do that and then do emo mopey "darker and edgier" Superman.

Which Trinity from the comics? There are many conflicting versions. Superman and Wonder Woman got their introductory movies, Batman didn't need one, because the audience knew everything relevant already, there was shade thrown just for rehashing the Wayne murders in the precredits. Character building for Cyborg/Aquaman/Flash was shot, Whedon and/or the suits just inexplicably cut it in favour of checking in on random Ukrainian family.

[Dr.Samurai]

They don't actually keep supers under control. There's no upside. So we're trading in this risk of abuse for no benefit. That's not a reasonable exchange.

Well, it's legalese. The Accords isn't meant to physically control anyone. It's meant to lay down a set of rules and protocols that people have to abide by or suffer legal consequences. We see this after the airport battle. Bucky and Cap escape. But Clint, Scott, Sam, et al are under arrest and imprisoned. That is precisely what the Accords are meant to do. Play by these rules or retire or face imprisonment.

This is how all laws work. There is no one actually physically forcing me to drive within the speed limit. I have to choose to. And if I don't and a law enforcer is aware, he will enforce the law.

The upside is that someone is culpable that answers to the people. In the videos that Ross shows, we see the Hulk presumably killing someone with just the rubble falling from his building leaps. We see people presumably drowning when the helicarriers crash into the waters around SHIELD headquarters. Now in Lagos, the Avengers took it upon themselves to go to another country and start a battle in the middle of a crowded bazaar and for that dozens of people were killed.

Presumably (again, I keep using that world lol), you could just treat each Avenger as a private citizen and take them to court that way. I don't know the specifics on that. But I think the Accords is a recognition of the Avengers' potential, and an attempt to say "Look, we know that you're doing good, but you've got to answer to someone. The UN seems like the best answer we have at the moment." Otherwise people are just going to point at Captain America and Scarlett Witch and say "Why do you get to kill my loved one? Who gave you permission to do this? What makes you above all of us?" With the Accords, the UN has to answer those questions and pay restitutions to the people.

[Forum Explorer]

Technically, but he's typically treated as American by the narrative of the stories, and he almost always stays in America. He's not exactly what you'd think of when you envision your typical Canadian.

A hairy man who spends a lot of time out in the woods? Sounds pretty Canadian to me.

I get what you're saying here. No rules are perfect, it's always a question of upsides vs. downsides. The basic intent of the Sokovia Accords will have the upside of keeping supers under control, and the downside that supers may be legally compelled to act in ways they find morally questionable. On it's face, these seem like a reasonable set of rules. But they have a particular problem:


They don't actually keep supers under control. There's no upside. So we're trading in this risk of abuse for no benefit. That's not a reasonable exchange.

That's ultimately the problem with superheroes in general. Superheroes are great! Right up until they disagree with you. By their nature, it's almost impossible to actually put a meaningful control on them. As soon as they decide they don't want to follow a particular rule, then whatever 'system' to control them goes out the window, and the only people who can meaningfully counter them are more supers. Who have the same problem.

And because the only counter is more superheroes, you can't afford to alienate the ones you've got. So you let them get away with a lot of crap. Like going after the Winter Solider on their own, or recruiting minors to help them fight. Because if you don't have any supers, you lose.

So ultimately, yeah, it doesn't work. It's an illusion that you are trying to convince the heroes to believe in. Because the truth is they can do whatever they want, and you can't really do anything about it.

[theNater]

In what way don't they keep supers under control? Steve and the others have to go underground or risk being detained again. They are, functionally, retired, which was one of the whole points.

Well, it's legalese. The Accords isn't meant to physically control anyone. It's meant to lay down a set of rules and protocols that people have to abide by or suffer legal consequences. We see this after the airport battle. Bucky and Cap escape. But Clint, Scott, Sam, et al are under arrest and imprisoned. That is precisely what the Accords are meant to do. Play by these rules or retire or face imprisonment.

Tony Stark, guys. He signs on, agrees to play by the rules, and is completely ignoring them within days. And suffers no consequences for it. He clearly demonstrates that any oversight provided by the Accords are, as Forum Explorer notes, merely an illusion.

[Anonymouswizard]

Tony Stark, guys. He signs on, agrees to play by the rules, and is completely ignoring them within days. And suffers no consequences for it. He clearly demonstrates that any oversight provided by the Accords are, as Forum Explorer notes, merely an illusion.

Witnesses are kind of useful there... I don't think there are any that actually wanted to see Tony punished for his actions.

[Keltest]

Witnesses are kind of useful there... I don't think there are any that actually wanted to see Tony punished for his actions.

Also, by my recall, he didn't actually break any of the accords except maybe when he attacked Steve. The avengers aren't attack dogs, and just traveling isn't illegal.

[Dr.Samurai]

Tony Stark, guys. He signs on, agrees to play by the rules, and is completely ignoring them within days.

I'm not sure what this is meant to prove. I think we're deviating from the point that I, at least, was making about the Accords. It's law, and it works like other laws. You break it and get caught breaking it, and you suffer legal ramifications.

Tony was playing by the rules up until he realized that Bucky really was framed, and there really were five super deadly super soldiers being released, and now only Cap and Bucky were arriving to fight them alone. He doesn't change his mind on the Accords. He says "Cap is off the reservation" but he needs help.

This is the part where people say the movie sets up Team Cap as in the right, because if Tony has any hope of arriving to Siberia on time to help Cap and Bucky, he can't possibly try to explain the scenario to Ross and get the green light. We see when he arrives to the prison that Ross is already upset with the way the airport battle went down. So Tony decides to go against the Accords. Secretly, though, which is the key.

And suffers no consequences for it.

Because no one knows what he did. I don't remember a part in the movie where it is established that Ross is aware that Tony knew of Cap's whereabouts and that he intervened, but I could be forgetting. Likewise, T'Challa doesn't tell Ross about the fight in Siberia or that he has Bucky in cryo.

He clearly demonstrates that any oversight provided by the Accords are, as Forum Explorer notes, merely an illusion.

Sure, an illusion like any sort of "control" is an illusion. It's just law. It works so long as the people follow it. When they don't follow it (and law enforcers know about it) they have to face the consequences.

It's not perfect, but that's not a reason to not try. Last we saw, Wanda is in a straight-jacket, Clint, Sam, and Scott are imprisoned, and Steve is a fugitive. Natasha is on the run, as Tony told her "They're coming for you." And if they do find out that T'Challa is holding the Winter Soldier, they will have to go to battle with Wakanda to retrieve him. This is how the Accords work. Not by physically stopping an enhanced individual from doing anything, but by incentivizing them to do so in accordance with international laws and protocols.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Registered supers are very much attack dogs. They sit in their kennels until someone like Ross gives them a mission to complete in a specified manner. They do so (or go to prison without trial (apparently) for disobeying orders), at which point they return to their kennels to await the next time they're unleashed.

[Anteros]

You mean the fights that resulted in the renegades being locked up? Or the ones that resulted in them fleeing the country? Because that sounds like theyre doing exactly what they were supposed to do.

Oh yeah, that's definitely going to stick. Definitely not going to have a ton of unsupervised heroes running around by the very next movie. Also, what good does fleeing the country do? It's an international treaty.

[Cikomyr]

But it can work other ways too. Just because its shown to work one way does not mean its the only way it can be applied.

In this case, the entire point of the accord is providing legitimacy, accountability and oversight. Yes, some people may want to see it as treating Supers like attack dogs, but others can also see it merely as a way to formalize what is essentially global scale privately-financed vigilantism.

I can see Tony Stark breaking the chain of command, head into Russia unilateraly because he believes there is a Clear and Present danger. But then, for the love of God, have him present his findings and explain his actions to a committee who can then decide whether or not his actions were justified and warranted disobeying the chain of command.

Captain America want everything to depend on his judgement. That he is the best and final judge of the proper course of action to take, and that compromising that judgement is paramount to betraying his principles.

But Civil War also clearly shown that Captain America's judgement is faillible.

Twice

Once at the beginning, when he lets himself be distracted by the "Bucky" reference, which could have led to his death, the death of his team members and more than 50 innocent peoples.

Another time, at the end, when it is revealed that he hid the circumstances of the Starks' death to Tony. He thought he was doing the right thing. But he wasn't, and it led to absolute disaster, because Cap being honest to Stark from the beginning would have probably not left him open to such a gut punch.

The movie proves that both the Accord side and Cap side were fallible. That both were imperfect ideologies. To think that the movie actually shilled for one position unilaterally is to be blind to the flaws on display of the position you support.

[Metahuman1]

Apparently a lot if you Flee to Wakaneda and Black Panther feels like he owes you one cause he's willing to tell Cap at the end that he all but dares anyone to try and come across his boarder looking for a fight at the end of the movie.

Even though it's being pointed out to him it's against the rules, again, he's pointing out that he is above the rules and they can't enforce them on him, so to him, they don't even begin to matter.





Which is consistent with his portrayal all movie. (As to the earlier scene, yeah, Diplomatic Immunity gives him full rights to do exactly what the Accords were allegedly set up in response to, except add in intending to commit deliberate murder in an augmented prosthetic weapons suit on top of that.


It's almost like not locking him up for that right away reeked of hypocrisy and told you once again that the rules are just there to be used by corrupt persons for there own ends by making supers a weapon for people like that to aim.)


And as for Ross, how many people have died cause Ross deliberately caused Banner to hulk out for no other reason than to prove that Banner is a monster and he needs to be captured and then mass produced by Ross under Ross's Control?

And as for him not being in charge, I'll believe it after the United Nations fires him and makes it explicitly clear to the world at large he has approximately 0 authority over ANY soul with ANY super powers, even if there active duty military or his freaking secretary, anymore.




The movie doesn't set it up. It let's such laws pass, and then shows you exactly what they would wind up looking like. Unless you seriously want to tell me there is no such thing as a bad or corrupt or self serving politician with a bend toward being a control freak in the real world, anywhere, ever?



And no, no Stark didn't do it in anticipation of the Accords. He did it after they were signed. And it was imprisonment. In a bigger cell than most, but imprisonment none the less.

If he'd wanted it to be something else, he could have sat down with Wanda and requested she stay out of the public eye for a few weeks, take a vacation, go skiing in the Swiss Alps or something, he'll pay for it. Get some head space and clear her mind of the whole thing. Hell, even offer to send a counselor up to talk to her regularly for that few weeks.


If he'd done that, the reasonable thing to do, he could tell Ross "She's Isolated and receiving professional mental evaluations, they'll have results for us in a couple of months but until then unless we get another alien invasion in the mean time, she's not a thing to worry about." And tell Steve "I offered, as a privet citizen, to send her and a counselor to go to Switzerland on a 3 week Skii trip to a privet spot I rented in the alps. She agreed voluntarily to do it so she could just clear her head of the whole thing. No punishment, no confinement, she just wanted a break and some space and she's getting it and unless the counselor says something is terribly wrong with her, she'll be back from her vacation in a few weeks, just like everyone else on the plant who takes vacations, and it'll be back to business as usual for her."


Hell, if he'd done that, he would have ruined the bad guys plan right there.

[Darth Ultron]

So ultimately, yeah, it doesn't work. It's an illusion that you are trying to convince the heroes to believe in. Because the truth is they can do whatever they want, and you can't really do anything about it.

The ''Civil War'' is the Comics makes a bit more sense:

All the governments have all ways been uneasy with Superheros. Though it is accepted that they do good, and more so do a job no one else can do, so governments are willing to not look so hard. Many of the public groups of heroes, like the Avengers, do accept some light government oversight...but they also agree to limit their actions to ''special'' things. So if a fifth dimensional alien monster shows up in New York the heroes respond...but literally anything else, they stay home.

Of course, the comics also exist in that ''life is just a dream'' type universe....where, amazingly and impossibly, the heroes by action or inaction don't kill anyone.

[Velaryon]

I'm going to ignore the debate RE: Civil War and return to the original topic of why DC films are performing poorly. I can't say much about Justice League since I haven't seen it yet, but this film was set up to fail by everything that has come before it. I'm also not going to comment on the animated films or TV shows, since I haven't seen too much of them and I don't think their problems are related to those of the movies.

First, let's look at the films individually:

Spoiler: Film by film, what I think went wrong

Show

Man of Steel - This movie has a LOT wrong with it, starting with Action Hero Jor-El. It's like someone said "Oh $#!* guys, we actually got Russell Crowe to sign on! Quick, we gotta write in some extra scenes for him to justify the money we're gonna have to pay!" It's a Superman origin film - if the scenes on Krypton last longer than about 2 minutes, you're doing it wrong. "But Velaryon," you might be saying, "Those scenes were as much to set up Zod as the villain as they were to tell Superman's origin!" Doesn't matter, they were overlong and a terrible way to start off the film. Zod was only chosen as the villain because they were trying to capitalize on positive memories of Superman II and make people forget about the underwhelming Superman Returns. He's not an ideal first villain for a rebooted franchise.

But it only gets worse from there. The film's tone is off, because Zack Snyder has only one speed - dark and gritty. It worked for 300 and Watchmen, but it doesn't work here. I'm pretty sure at this point DC was just thinking "Well, Batman worked but Green Lantern and our last attempt at Superman didn't, so I guess people want dark and gritty." So we got a needlessly angsty and supposedly conflicted Superman, and as others have described in this thread, they didn't even do it right.

Suicide Squad has a lot wrong with it as well. For starters, it's no secret that the film was plagued by extensive rewrites and studio interference, and that's almost always a bad sign. It's also pretty clear that they tried to grab that R rating and shoehorn in more humor to emulate the success of Deadpool. Obviously, it didn't work, but that's far from the only problem with this film. They took a big risk with Jared Leto's version of the Joker, and I think it's pretty safe to say that it didn't go over as well as the last time (Ledger's version). Some people liked it, many didn't.

The villains were bland and uninteresting, which is a problem since superhero films are only as good as their villains most of the time. Worst of all though, is that many of the characters were pretty superfluous. Only Diablo and Deadshot were particularly significant to the outcome, and Harley was there as the most recognizable character in order to sell the film. She didn't have much to do though, and the others could have been left out entirely without losing anything important.

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice was a step up from Man of Steel, but still a long way from great. Ben Affleck turned out to be a better Batman than many people expected, but his characterization is still heavily flawed (using guns, killing people, etc.) We definitely did not need another origin story, but a solo film introducing this version of Batman and showing him as the older, angrier, and more grizzled version he appears to be would probably have been a good idea. However, there's more: Superman isn't much improved from what we saw in his previous film either. Jesse Eisenberg was a horrible miscast as Lex Luthor. Wonder Woman was done well, but by the time she showed up, the movie was already pretty bad.

Speaking of which, Wonder Woman is easily the best film DC has put out since The Dark Knight. It isn't perfect, but it sheds the grimdark tone and stays faithful to the character. With Justice League coming out so soon afterward, I can only imagine that they didn't have time to learn the lesson that they needed to: namely that being faithful to the character is the single most important thing you must get right when making a comic book film. Did the film have flaws? Sure, but none of them were terribly important IMO, since the movie was successful and well received.

So the common threads here should be:
1. When making a superhero movie, portraying the character correctly is the most important thing to get right.
2. Grimdark tone and washed out colors works for Batman, but not all the other characters.
3. Zack Snyder needs to stop making superhero films.

However, there's still more to cover when it comes to the problems of the DC cinematic universe.

They're trying to do too much in one film. Marvel spent five whole films setting up The Avengers, introducing Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor all in their own films before bringing them together (even if they rebooted Hulk in the process). Meanwhile, DC failed to do the same. Superman, Wonder Woman, and to a much lesser extent Batman were set up beforehand, leaving Aquaman, Flash, and Cyborg all to be introduced during the team-up (since movie Flash is not related to TV series Flash, right?) I think they at least should have done the Aquaman solo film before Justice League, as that would have helped. I also think giving this version of Batman his own film (not an origin story, but something to introduce the older, more grizzled version that Affleck is portraying, in contrast to what we've seen before), preferably set before BvS.

[Dr.Samurai]

Oh yeah, that's definitely going to stick. Definitely not going to have a ton of unsupervised heroes running around by the very next movie.

Yeah but that's being kind of meta, no? I don't think the people behind the Accords have enacted it believing that it won't work. By the end of the movie, we have half of the Avengers locked away and two of them on the run as fugitives.

Rhodes reaffirms his commitment to the Accords despite all that has happened, so you've got one "super" enforcer. Vision, I believe, will also reaffirm his belief that oversight cannot be dismissed. He predicted catastrophe would happen, but even he couldn't predict to what degree (that he could become "distracted" and accidentally misfire). So that's another potential "super" enforcer. While Tony appears to brush Ross off, he still appears to believe the Accords are the right way to go by the end of the movie. He ignores the Accords to save Cap, but I think that's Tony making his own judgment call in that moment, as opposed to abandoning the Accords completely (this would make him a hypocrite, as opposed to someone that has changed his mind on the Accords). He never tells Ross they're through; he puts Ross on hold. I think Tony will try to have it both ways.

So you've got at least a couple of super enforcers (probably more if we include Tony and T'challa even though they're being hypocrites) and the rest either in prison or on the run. Seems like the Accords are working. (But I agree with you that by Infinity War everyone will be running around willy nilly lol. But that's just the MCU. As of the end of the movie, the Accords are not a total loss. They are doing what they set out to do.)

Also, what good does fleeing the country do? It's an international treaty.

They go to countries that allow them to lay low. It puts them on the run. They can't live a "normal" life.

Even though it's being pointed out to him it's against the rules, again, he's pointing out that he is above the rules and they can't enforce them on him, so to him, they don't even begin to matter.

Which is consistent with his portrayal all movie. (As to the earlier scene, yeah, Diplomatic Immunity gives him full rights to do exactly what the Accords were allegedly set up in response to, except add in intending to commit deliberate murder in an augmented prosthetic weapons suit on top of that.

It's almost like not locking him up for that right away reeked of hypocrisy and told you once again that the rules are just there to be used by corrupt persons for there own ends by making supers a weapon for people like that to aim.)

He got a pass because it was revealed that he's the freaking king of a nation. It's absolutely *nothing* for Ross to say "T'challa was working under our supervision in keeping with the Accords", whereas it is an international nightmare and prelude to war if he instead arrests and imprisons the king of Wakanda. That's just politics.

If Black Panther was just some random civilian, you can absolutely bet that it would have been a different story. But he's a king, and his father had just died. There are political and sympathetic reasons to give him a pass. Cap is the heart and soul of the Avengers, so Tony is allowed to take another shot at getting him to sign the Accords. But that's it. In the next battle Black Panther is fighting alongside Tony (within the provisions of the Accords) and Cap is going fugitive.

And as for him not being in charge, I'll believe it after the United Nations fires him and makes it explicitly clear to the world at large he has approximately 0 authority over ANY soul with ANY super powers, even if there active duty military or his freaking secretary, anymore.

The Avengers would answer to the UN. So no, he's not in charge. He may be heavily involved since these are mostly US citizens and the US has no interest in allowing it's private citizens to get embroiled (and by proxy get the US embroiled) in international catastrophes. So I can see why he's front and center, but the Accords is an international agreement enforced by the UN. (Though I admit the movie would have been served by having agents of the UN present.)

If he'd wanted it to be something else, he could have sat down with Wanda and requested she stay out of the public eye for a few weeks, take a vacation, go skiing in the Swiss Alps or something, he'll pay for it. Get some head space and clear her mind of the whole thing. Hell, even offer to send a counselor up to talk to her regularly for that few weeks.

I think you're attributing too much to the fact that Tony is imperfect. For all intents and purposes, he did do this. He probably banked on Wanda not wanting to leave the compound anyways and assumed she'd shutter herself. If she didn't, he asked Vision to try and keep her distracted/occupied. I don't think Tony was far off since Wanda didn't really put up a fight and allowed herself (read: agreed) to be kept home.

Cap was almost about to sign until he heard Wanda was under house arrest. That killed the entire endeavor for him. Think about that. He almost agreed to sign the Accords and safely bring Bucky in and get him help, but once he heard that Tony had arranged for Wanda to stay at the compound, he became unmovable once again. I don't hold it against Tony that he didn't bother to mention to Cap that he had Wanda kept at the compound. Cap seems pretty rigid. Wanda seemed guilty and distraught over what she did. It's a safe bet that she'll probably stay there without Tony making a big fuss about it. Cap is a different story. It's a safe bet not approaching him about it is better than checking in with him first.

Tony's failure is in thinking that he can manage everything and everyone. He's meeting with Ross privately and setting up the meeting about the Accords. He's speaking with Vision privately about keeping Wanda detained. He's decided to detain Wanda without telling anyone else, including her. He knows Bucky needs to be brought in and he thinks he can convince Cap to sign the Accords by helping him find and save Bucky. And he uses this to manage Ross' need for resolution to the whole scenario. This is what Clint says at the end from his cell "Tony knows what's best for everyone, even if you don't know it yourself" (or something to that effect).

So you're right that maybe Tony should have been more open with Cap and the others. But Tony already has everyone figured out. Vision used to be his AI and isn't quite human, of course he'll agree if Tony asks him to keep Wanda in the house. Wanda is emotionally distraught and feels guilty and ashamed that she lost control of her powers and killed people, of course she won't fight too hard about being under house arrest. Cap is himself emotionally distraught and distracted because his friend is in mortal danger, best not to tell him about things he doesn't need to know about. I'm the only one scratching Ross' back right now, so he'll give me some leeway in trying to get Steve to turn around. Etc.

The difference is that I don't think these failings means Tony's intent wasn't good. I don't think he wanted or intended to see his friends and allies in prison, or in a straight jacket, or on the run from the law. I think he genuinely thought the situation would get managed, but it didn't turn out that way.

In this case, the entire point of the accord is providing legitimacy, accountability and oversight. Yes, some people may want to see it as treating Supers like attack dogs, but others can also see it merely as a way to formalize what is essentially global scale privately-financed vigilantism.

I can see Tony Stark breaking the chain of command, head into Russia unilateraly because he believes there is a Clear and Present danger. But then, for the love of God, have him present his findings and explain his actions to a committee who can then decide whether or not his actions were justified and warranted disobeying the chain of command.

Captain America want everything to depend on his judgement. That he is the best and final judge of the proper course of action to take, and that compromising that judgement is paramount to betraying his principles.

But Civil War also clearly shown that Captain America's judgement is faillible.

The movie proves that both the Accord side and Cap side were fallible. That both were imperfect ideologies. To think that the movie actually shilled for one position unilaterally is to be blind to the flaws on display of the position you support.

QFT.

They're trying to do too much in one film. Marvel spent five whole films setting up The Avengers, introducing Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor all in their own films before bringing them together (even if they rebooted Hulk in the process). Meanwhile, DC failed to do the same. Superman, Wonder Woman, and to a much lesser extent Batman were set up beforehand, leaving Aquaman, Flash, and Cyborg all to be introduced during the team-up (since movie Flash is not related to TV series Flash, right?) I think they at least should have done the Aquaman solo film before Justice League, as that would have helped. I also think giving this version of Batman his own film (not an origin story, but something to introduce the older, more grizzled version that Affleck is portraying, in contrast to what we've seen before), preferably set before BvS.

I was disappointed when they originally announced that BvS would basically kick off the DCEU and feature an old grizzled darker Batman. I was like... so the DCEU will have an old killer Batman? Why make that choice? Seems odd that the on-screen representation of Batman for your cinematic universe will be the Batman from the Dark Night Returns. Why not give us Batman in his prime?

Then, you're giving us mopey grim frowny Superman? At the time I thought they'd change it up from MoS. But he didn't change at all in BvS, and he's still angry and frowny when he returns in JL. Who are these people you are depicting in the DCEU?

Wonder Woman is good. I was disappointed with Flash in JL partly because his backstory seems interesting. His father framed for the murder of his mother? That's nuts. I don't know the Flash's backstory, so that would have been cool to see in it's own movie. Instead... does he get out of prison at the end of the movie? I don't remember. Anyways, there was more I wanted to add to your post but I'm sleepy...

[Lethologica]

Yeah but that's being kind of meta, no? I don't think the people behind the Accords have enacted it believing that it won't work. By the end of the movie, we have half of the Avengers locked away and two of them on the run as fugitives.

Unless I misunderstood the ending, we have that half of the Avengers broken out of prison by Cap.

I think you're attributing too much to the fact that Tony is imperfect. For all intents and purposes, he did do this. He probably banked on Wanda not wanting to leave the compound anyways and assumed she'd shutter herself. If she didn't, he asked Vision to try and keep her distracted/occupied. I don't think Tony was far off since Wanda didn't really put up a fight and allowed herself (read: agreed) to be kept home.

Cap was almost about to sign until he heard Wanda was under house arrest. That killed the entire endeavor for him. Think about that. He almost agreed to sign the Accords and safely bring Bucky in and get him help, but once he heard that Tony had arranged for Wanda to stay at the compound, he became unmovable once again. I don't hold it against Tony that he didn't bother to mention to Cap that he had Wanda kept at the compound. Cap seems pretty rigid. Wanda seemed guilty and distraught over what she did. It's a safe bet that she'll probably stay there without Tony making a big fuss about it. Cap is a different story. It's a safe bet not approaching him about it is better than checking in with him first.

Tony's failure is in thinking that he can manage everything and everyone. He's meeting with Ross privately and setting up the meeting about the Accords. He's speaking with Vision privately about keeping Wanda detained. He's decided to detain Wanda without telling anyone else, including her. He knows Bucky needs to be brought in and he thinks he can convince Cap to sign the Accords by helping him find and save Bucky. And he uses this to manage Ross' need for resolution to the whole scenario. This is what Clint says at the end from his cell "Tony knows what's best for everyone, even if you don't know it yourself" (or something to that effect).

Fittingly, Tony fails to get consensus on oversight because he wasn't willing to let anyone else oversee his behavior.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm not sure what this is meant to prove. I think we're deviating from the point that I, at least, was making about the Accords. It's law, and it works like other laws. You break it and get caught breaking it, and you suffer legal ramifications.

Tony was playing by the rules up until he realized that Bucky really was framed, and there really were five super deadly super soldiers being released, and now only Cap and Bucky were arriving to fight them alone. He doesn't change his mind on the Accords. He says "Cap is off the reservation" but he needs help.

This is the part where people say the movie sets up Team Cap as in the right, because if Tony has any hope of arriving to Siberia on time to help Cap and Bucky, he can't possibly try to explain the scenario to Ross and get the green light. We see when he arrives to the prison that Ross is already upset with the way the airport battle went down. So Tony decides to go against the Accords. Secretly, though, which is the key.

Because no one knows what he did. I don't remember a part in the movie where it is established that Ross is aware that Tony knew of Cap's whereabouts and that he intervened, but I could be forgetting. Likewise, T'Challa doesn't tell Ross about the fight in Siberia or that he has Bucky in cryo.

Sure, an illusion like any sort of "control" is an illusion. It's just law. It works so long as the people follow it. When they don't follow it (and law enforcers know about it) they have to face the consequences.

It's not perfect, but that's not a reason to not try. Last we saw, Wanda is in a straight-jacket, Clint, Sam, and Scott are imprisoned, and Steve is a fugitive. Natasha is on the run, as Tony told her "They're coming for you." And if they do find out that T'Challa is holding the Winter Soldier, they will have to go to battle with Wakanda to retrieve him. This is how the Accords work. Not by physically stopping an enhanced individual from doing anything, but by incentivizing them to do so in accordance with international laws and protocols.

Steve already broke them out of prison. And Tony put Ross on hold, effectively saying 'I'm not going after them'. And that's what I mean by it's an illusion. It's been made abundantly clear throughout the Marvel EU that the only effective counter to a super is another super. The Accords are just an elaborate trick to try and sell the illusion that the world does have control over the heroes, both to themselves, and to the heroes.

But they don't. Not really. If the Avengers had just laughed at Ross and stayed as a group, what could they have done? Tried to fight them? Much bigger and more advanced armies have tried and failed.

And I think by the end of the movie, Tony has seen through the illusion that he has to listen to normal humans. He goes behind Ross's back by shorting out the security in the prison to talk to the other heroes, he goes solo on the mission to stop the waking of all the extra Winter Soldiers, and he puts Ross on hold when Ross tries to tell him about the breakout.

I'm not saying that oversight is a bad thing or anything like that, but just that it simply doesn't work when there is such a massive gap between ordinary people and capes.

When people realize there isn't any consequence for breaking the law, they'll start ignoring it entirely. And effectively there can't be a consequence for the heroes because they are simply needed too badly to risk alienating them.

The ''Civil War'' is the Comics makes a bit more sense:

All the governments have all ways been uneasy with Superheros. Though it is accepted that they do good, and more so do a job no one else can do, so governments are willing to not look so hard. Many of the public groups of heroes, like the Avengers, do accept some light government oversight...but they also agree to limit their actions to ''special'' things. So if a fifth dimensional alien monster shows up in New York the heroes respond...but literally anything else, they stay home.

Of course, the comics also exist in that ''life is just a dream'' type universe....where, amazingly and impossibly, the heroes by action or inaction don't kill anyone.

...No it didn't.

Not saying what you said is wrong, but the Civil War in the comics was handled extraordinarily poorly.

[Rater202]

Not saying what you said is wrong, but the Civil War in the comics was handled extraordinarily poorly.

Marvel just can't do Hero versus Hero storylines effectively. Characterizations will be bent and exaggerated.

(Inhumans vs X-Men, for example, had Inhumans and Nuhumans who supported altering or destroying the Terrigin Cloud becuase it was killing mutants side with the main Inhumans during the conflict, the new Ms. Marvel participated despite the fact that the Champions, of which she's a founding member, were fouded on the grounds of "we're all sickj of these Hero vs Hero" conflicts, and the Inhumans did a complete 180 on their stance o dealing with the Terrigin Cloud hwen they ound it it was about to go Nuclear becuase "preservinng our culture isn't worth evena single mutant lie" even though dozens o Mutants had already died and Medusa knew about that without doing anything about it and Black Bolt or all intents and purposes murdered Cyclops in cold blood when he tried to alter the other Cloud to make it less harmful without permission and told people that the clouds were dangerous to mutants and humans(which they are, despite Medusa's claim that terrigin isn't, unless the inhuman shilling also includes a retcon.) Somehow, this makes Cyclops the new Hitler.)

To be fair though, I don't think there's such a thing as a good Hero vs Hero storyline unless one o the heroes was written rom the begining to be going of the deep end into villainy.

[Avilan the Grey]

You have to remember that the Civil War comic spawned a real one at Marvel. Almost all writers except the writer of Iron Man saw, and portrayed, Tony as the one being in the wrong. Which made the whole thing weird when in one comic book or two the perspective was the opposite.
Especially since the Iron Man comic was the one supposingly tying the whole thing together

[Cikomyr]

You have to remember that the Civil War comic spawned a real one at Marvel. Almost all writers except the writer of Iron Man saw, and portrayed, Tony as the one being in the wrong. Which made the whole thing weird when in one comic book or two the perspective was the opposite.
Especially since the Iron Man comic was the one supposingly tying the whole thing together

The problem with Civil War was straightforward. The story is supposed to be about two apparently good but opposing points of views. But one of these point of view is a thematic that has been depicted as outright evil by a large segment of Marvelverse. How can anyone defend super registration when mutant registration has been seen as an evil?

Thus you ended up with a one-sided argument with heroes needing to be twisted into villany just to keep up with the story.

[Dr.Samurai]

Unless I misunderstood the ending, we have that half of the Avengers broken out of prison by Cap.


Fittingly, Tony fails to get consensus on oversight because he wasn't willing to let anyone else oversee his behavior.

Agreed and agreed. Maybe I'm unclear on what we're arguing. I originally brought Civil War up to contrast a concept done well with DC's attempt at superhero conflict. My impression has been that people are arguing it wasn't done well because it didn't work... exactly as intended or not everyone signed on or the characters have moral failings, etc. So yes, Cap frees them, but now they are all fugitives. The Accords are still in play. So long as they have someone to enforce them (Rhodes will as soon as he is healed, and my money is on Vision as well).

Steve already broke them out of prison. And Tony put Ross on hold, effectively saying 'I'm not going after them'. And that's what I mean by it's an illusion. It's been made abundantly clear throughout the Marvel EU that the only effective counter to a super is another super. The Accords are just an elaborate trick to try and sell the illusion that the world does have control over the heroes, both to themselves, and to the heroes.

Rhodes is not an illusion. That's the point. It works if they buy into it. That's the trick; to give them a reason to buy into. I understand that if Rhodes turns around and says "You know what, screw the Accords, I'm doing what I want" it will be a difficult problem for the UN. But Rhodes isn't saying that. So for all intents and purposes the illusion is very real and fully weaponized.

But they don't. Not really. If the Avengers had just laughed at Ross and stayed as a group, what could they have done? Tried to fight them? Much bigger and more advanced armies have tried and failed.

Most of the Avengers that participated in Civil War can be killed by a bullet, let alone a drone strike. Rhodes is aware of this reality when he appeals to the team to be serious, that it's a handful of them versus over one hundred *nations*. Part of the reason Cap was charging forward through the movie is because there was a kill-on-sight order on Bucky. And he can be killed, easily, if multiple nations are hunting him down. They are vulnerable. This isn't Thor and Banner we're talking about here.

And I think by the end of the movie, Tony has seen through the illusion that he has to listen to normal humans. He goes behind Ross's back by shorting out the security in the prison to talk to the other heroes, he goes solo on the mission to stop the waking of all the extra Winter Soldiers, and he puts Ross on hold when Ross tries to tell him about the breakout.

I'm not convinced Tony has given up completely on the Accords. Out of everyone on the team, he has the most to lose. Tony has... ridiculous assets. For him, becoming a fugitive is probably not an option. I'm assuming these things can be taken away from him legally. The others are soldiers and already lay low. Tony is a billionaire playboy. He can still work within the Accords to handle problems they point him at, but he might just be "busy" every time it's a matter of tracking down the former Avengers and bringing them in.

I'm not saying that oversight is a bad thing or anything like that, but just that it simply doesn't work when there is such a massive gap between ordinary people and capes.

It does if they want it to. The Accords have Rhodes. He is a match for Tony, and realistically a match for any of the other "soldiers" (Black Widow, Clint, Cap, Bucky).

When people realize there isn't any consequence for breaking the law, they'll start ignoring it entirely. And effectively there can't be a consequence for the heroes because they are simply needed too badly to risk alienating them.

When *some* people realize, they'll start ignoring the law entirely. Not all. That is what created the conflict in the first place.

Some people do things because they believe it to be the right thing to do, not simply because they would be punished otherwise.

[Cikomyr]

In a way, the Accords are a lot like Pratchett's Things That Dont Exist Except When We Believe in Them.

Like Justice. Mercy. Duty. The Accords are meant as a way for superheroes to stop being fully unnaccountablr individuals, and it is meant to appeal to the better nature of the heroes.

[Anonymouswizard]

On the Accords, I honestly don't think they affect Thor in any meaningful way (at least at the moment). He's a citizen of a nation with no ties to the UN, who effectively just comes here to hang out with his friends. Sure, his superheroing will be cut into, but he honestly doesn't seem to do a lot of it on Earth, being focused on the other Asgardian realms.

Spoiler

Show

And after Ragnarok he is the leader of a nation with no ties to Earth, at the moment he's unlikely to be in a position where the Accords can affect him at all. Assuming they're still around after Infinity War it's really going to depend on where New Asgard is built and whether Thor feels the need to deal with the UN about them.

Back to DC, a weird thing I've just realised. While I don't like some of Marvel's films, I've still seen most of them, but I've seen none of DC's ones since the Dark Knight trilogy ended. Their adverts seem to suck as well, they can't actually get me interested in the films the same way the adverts for Thor: Ragnarok or Doctor Strange did, or even like the latest Star Wars advert manages ('I know this might be terrible, but if it's not good it looks like the enjoyable kind of terrible').

[lord_khaine]

I'm not convinced Tony has given up completely on the Accords. Out of everyone on the team, he has the most to lose. Tony has... ridiculous assets. For him, becoming a fugitive is probably not an option. I'm assuming these things can be taken away from him legally. The others are soldiers and already lay low. Tony is a billionaire playboy. He can still work within the Accords to handle problems they point him at, but he might just be "busy" every time it's a matter of tracking down the former Avengers and bringing them in.

I am generally in favor of some sort of oversigt, but kinda confused about comments like this, or the ones calling those who sign attack dogs.
As far as i can see there are nothing that turns members of the accord into any sort of soldier. They say what the Avengers cant do, and where they should ask for permission before entering another soverign state.
But i cant see anything that prevents Tony from giving Ross a 3 meter tall holographic finger if he tells Tony to do something he is morally against.

At the very worst Ross can keep Tony from doing hero work, but then risk being forced to come back crawling the next time there is an alien invasion.

[Cikomyr]

I am generally in favor of some sort of oversigt, but kinda confused about comments like this, or the ones calling those who sign attack dogs.
As far as i can see there are nothing that turns members of the accord into any sort of soldier. They say what the Avengers cant do, and where they should ask for permission before entering another soverign state.
But i cant see anything that prevents Tony from giving Ross a 3 meter tall holographic finger if he tells Tony to do something he is morally against.

At the very worst Ross can keep Tony from doing hero work, but then risk being forced to come back crawling the next time there is an alien invasion.

But Ross may or may not be the overwhelming tyrant of the Accords. He maybe was the man in charge of the specific crisis of Civil War, but that does not mean he is the ultimate Judge, Jury and Prosecutor of the Accords. There may be a panel in place meant to review transgressions and/or adjust policies.

Just because an exdcutive chain of command is in place hardly means there is nothing else. Why would the UN completely surrender their authority to the US Secretary of [Something]?

[Dr.Samurai]

On the Accords, I honestly don't think they affect Thor in any meaningful way (at least at the moment). He's a citizen of a nation with no ties to the UN, who effectively just comes here to hang out with his friends. Sure, his superheroing will be cut into, but he honestly doesn't seem to do a lot of it on Earth, being focused on the other Asgardian realms.

Spoiler

Show

And after Ragnarok he is the leader of a nation with no ties to Earth, at the moment he's unlikely to be in a position where the Accords can affect him at all. Assuming they're still around after Infinity War it's really going to depend on where New Asgard is built and whether Thor feels the need to deal with the UN about them.

Spoiler: True.

Show

It's implied at the end of Ragnarok that they will set up New Asgard in Norway, but yeah you're right, there are legal implications. Thor was never made into a superhero with an alter ego masquerading as an Earthling. That said, the Accords may have provisions for individuals like Thor and Vision that are not traditional citizens of any nation.

Back to DC, a weird thing I've just realised. While I don't like some of Marvel's films, I've still seen most of them, but I've seen none of DC's ones since the Dark Knight trilogy ended. Their adverts seem to suck as well, they can't actually get me interested in the films the same way the adverts for Thor: Ragnarok or Doctor Strange did, or even like the latest Star Wars advert manages ('I know this might be terrible, but if it's not good it looks like the enjoyable kind of terrible').

Very true. And interest has just declined with each movie. Each DC movie does worst than the last, including their Avengers-analog, Justice League (the worst performer at the box office so far). Forty percent of BvS movie goers didn't return to see JL. Worldwide that number is 30-50% as well. The only trailer that got me excited was Man of Steel. After I watched Man of Steel, I posted online "Give credit where credit is due; Snyder can make one hell of a trailer...". But after that I agree with you, none of the other movies had trailers that made me interested in the movie or that made me think the movie would be good.

There's also a problem, I think, with all of the marketing for your Justice League movie missing Superman, the heart and soul of the team. These are just weird decisions to make (along with your DCEU Batman being a gun-toting burnt out compromise). It takes interest for granted I think.

[Starbuck_II]

On the Accords, I honestly don't think they affect Thor in any meaningful way (at least at the moment). He's a citizen of a nation with no ties to the UN, who effectively just comes here to hang out with his friends. Sure, his superheroing will be cut into, but he honestly doesn't seem to do a lot of it on Earth, being focused on the other Asgardian realms.
.

Wait, wasn't Thor a prince, thus diplomatic immunity was well?

[Cikomyr]

Wait, wasn't Thor a prince, thus diplomatic immunity was well?

You need signed treaties for diplomatic immunities. Even if its the basis of the diplomatic negotiation you will hold.

[Keltest]

You need signed treaties for diplomatic immunities. Even if its the basis of the diplomatic negotiation you will hold.

Also, I'd wager that a vast majority of the UN believe Thor to be just another hero with a gimmick rather than the literal entity that had been worshipped as a god by earlier mankind.

[Giggling Ghast]

I think it’s kind of funny that a thread about DC movies basically evolved (devolved?) into a debate about the Sokovia Accords.