Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 19:09:42 GMT
In TWS, we find out that the WSC was compromised by a bunch of morons from HYDRA. What makes the pro-SA people in CW think the UN will be any different?
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 25, 2018 19:29:58 GMT
Which is the main reason CW is contrived and stupid. Stark being pro-SA makes zero sense. In Ironman 1, Stark didnt even realise that the board of his company, headed by Obidiah Stane who he trusted with his weapons, were using Starks weapons to kill innocents and trade with terrorists. In Ironman 2 Stark is firmly againat government controlling his tech. Now in CW, hes happy to be have the Avengers controlled by higher up suits, basically ignoring the fact that this sort of transfer of authority resulted in abuse of power at Stark Industries and ignoring his own stance of not releasing technology to 3rd parties
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 25, 2018 19:45:07 GMT
Which is the main reason CW is contrived and stupid. Stark being pro-SA makes zero sense. In Ironman 1, Stark didnt even realise that the board of his company, headed by Obidiah Stane who he trusted with his weapons, were using Starks weapons to kill innocents and trade with terrorists. That's another thing that didn't make any sense in Iron Man 1. US soldiers were killed by terrorists using weapons that had a "Stark Industries" label on them. The families of the soldiers who were killed by the "Stark Industries" weapons would've demanded answers from the government. DHS would've started an investigation to determine how weapons created by Stark Industries ended up in the hands of terrorists. DHS would've gotten a warrant to search through Stark Industries' computers and records to determine where the security lapse is and if there was a possible coverup. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 25, 2018 19:49:56 GMT
Which is the main reason CW is contrived and stupid. Stark being pro-SA makes zero sense. In Ironman 1, Stark didnt even realise that the board of his company, headed by Obidiah Stane who he trusted with his weapons, were using Starks weapons to kill innocents and trade with terrorists. That's another thing that didn't make any sense in Iron Man 1. US soldiers were killed by terrorists using weapons that had a "Stark Industries" label on them. The families of the soldiers who were killed by the "Stark Industries" weapons would've demanded answers from the government. DHS would've started an investigation to determine how weapons created by Stark Industries ended up in the hands of terrorists. DHS would've gotten a warrant to search through Stark Industries' computers and records to determine where the security lapse is and if there was a possible coverup. Correct. And your point is also shown in Age of Ultron when Wanda and Peitro say they're parents were killed by a bomb labelled Stark. So clearly, having government control dangerous weapons whether they be in the form of missiles or superhumans, is clearly not the answer. Did Stark not even notice Hydra being present as a parasite in SHIELD, the original point of Dennis Reynolds? BvS gets a lot of flak for having weak reasons why Batman would fight Superman, but for me Civil Wars contrived conflict is much worse. Its actually insulting. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 25, 2018 19:54:05 GMT
That's another thing that didn't make any sense in Iron Man 1. US soldiers were killed by terrorists using weapons that had a "Stark Industries" label on them. The families of the soldiers who were killed by the "Stark Industries" weapons would've demanded answers from the government. DHS would've started an investigation to determine how weapons created by Stark Industries ended up in the hands of terrorists. DHS would've gotten a warrant to search through Stark Industries' computers and records to determine where the security lapse is and if there was a possible coverup. BvS gets a lot of flak for having weak reasons why Batman would fight Superman, but for me Civil Wars contrived conflict is much worse. Its actually insulting. Yep, the entire plot of Civil War is really contrived. There was no reason at all for any conflict or any airport "fight". |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Mar 25, 2018 20:00:48 GMT
In TWS, we find out that the WSC was compromised by a bunch of morons from HYDRA. What makes the pro-SA people in CW think the UN will be any different? Presumably because Hydra had been exposed in TWS and was considered to be no longer a viable threat by some folks. Considering the the nature of the MCU, that’s a rather naive view ... which is why Captain America was right to trust in himself and Tony Stark was wrong to put his trust in a bunch of faceless bureaucrats with their own hidden agendas. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Mar 25, 2018 20:05:53 GMT
but for me Civil Wars contrived conflict is much worse. Its actually insulting. Are you saying that Tony Stark’s position on the Sokovia Accords was so wrong headed that it was insulting to anyone with half a brain? |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 25, 2018 20:34:03 GMT
but for me Civil Wars contrived conflict is much worse. Its actually insulting. Are you saying that Tony Stark’s position on the Sokovia Accords was so wrong headed that it was insulting to anyone with half a brain? it was insulting as they expect you to forget Starks history in previous films. |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Mar 25, 2018 21:00:20 GMT
Are you saying that Tony Stark’s position on the Sokovia Accords was so wrong headed that it was insulting to anyone with half a brain? it was insulting as they expect you to forget Starks history in previous films. I don't think Stark was totally pro-SA. That mostly came from feeling guilty when that mother told him his son was killed in Sokovia. But also, you can tell he's not completely for the Accords because he never turned in Peter for being Spider-Man. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Mar 25, 2018 21:22:36 GMT
Maybe they thought the UN is nazi free?
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Mar 25, 2018 21:26:15 GMT
Are you saying that Tony Stark’s position on the Sokovia Accords was so wrong headed that it was insulting to anyone with half a brain? it was insulting as they expect you to forget Starks history in previous films. In case you missed it, Tony Stark is a changed man in CW. He is not the same person he was in Iron Man. It’s called charactor development. Most folks view that as a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 25, 2018 21:40:36 GMT
it was insulting as they expect you to forget Starks history in previous films. In case you missed it, Tony Stark is a changed man in CW. He is not the same person he was in Iron Man. It’s called charactor development. Most folks view that as a good thing. Character development that doesnt make sense from his past actions and beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Mar 25, 2018 21:52:47 GMT
In case you missed it, Tony Stark is a changed man in CW. He is not the same person he was in Iron Man. It’s called charactor development. Most folks view that as a good thing. Character development that doesnt make sense from his past actions and beliefs. If you act the same and believe the same thing, then that is the antithesis of charactor development. Clearly, Tony Stark is having a crisis of conscious in CW. He is looking at the world with different eyes. Most folks would view that as a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 25, 2018 21:58:55 GMT
Character development that doesnt make sense from his past actions and beliefs. If you act the same and believe the same thing, then that is the antithesis of charactor development. Clearly, Tony Stark is having a crisis of conscious in CW. He is looking at the world with different eyes. Most folks would view that as a good thing. Its a good thing if it can be seen how and why Stark changes his view from A to B. Simply saying character development isnt good enough im afraid. The justification CW presents is really weak and it hurts the scenario that Stark would reverse his ideology |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Mar 25, 2018 22:14:12 GMT
If you act the same and believe the same thing, then that is the antithesis of charactor development. Clearly, Tony Stark is having a crisis of conscious in CW. He is looking at the world with different eyes. Most folks would view that as a good thing. Its a good thing if it can be seen how and why Stark changes his view from A to B. Simply saying character development isnt good enough im afraid. The justification CW presents is really weak and it hurts the scenario that Stark would reverse his ideology In CW Stark was confronted by the grieving mother of a young man he had accidentally killed in Sokovia. That encounter obviously had a profound effect on him and provided the tipping point that led to his position on the Sokovia Accords. Seems like a compelling enough reason to me. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 26, 2018 0:05:25 GMT
Which is the main reason CW is contrived and stupid. If you hate character development and internal conflict. Which is Marvel's bread and butter. He didn't have as much faith in himself due to everything that had happened. It's called character development. I mean sure, the XCU has people stay the same for decades but that doesn't mean other series have to be that sterile. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 26, 2018 0:06:41 GMT
If you act the same and believe the same thing, then that is the antithesis of charactor development. Clearly, Tony Stark is having a crisis of conscious in CW. He is looking at the world with different eyes. Most folks would view that as a good thing. Its a good thing if it can be seen how and why Stark changes his view from A to B. You need to be spoonfed? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 26, 2018 3:55:25 GMT
Its a good thing if it can be seen how and why Stark changes his view from A to B. You need to be spoonfed? So basically you're hungry. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 26, 2018 10:02:29 GMT
That encounter obviously had a profound effect on him and provided the tipping point that led to his position on the Sokovia Accords. Seems like a compelling enough reason to me. It would be a compelling and acceptable reason if the following 4 points didnt go against Stark: 1) He has witnessed first hand what people in authority of large scale operations are capable of. Obidiah Stane who was Tonys business partner, dealt with 3rd world terrorists, supplied weapons to enemies in wars and tried to take over Stark Industries for sinister reasons under the veil of friendship. The first movie establishes Tony cant fully trust anyone associated with his weapons business (which is 1 big reason he tries to shut it down), he can only trust himself and Pepper. 2) The whole plot in IM2 is Stark adamantly refusing to give over his tech to the government and publicly snubbing the Senator (who later is revealed to be a HYDRA member) in the enquiry hearing. This is a direct result from his experience in IM1; not being able to trust his weaponry in the hands of outsiders, no matter how official or high their rank is. 3) Going to Dennis Renyolds original point, SHIELD was found out to have multiple HYDRA infiltrators within the organisation. They managed to take over SHIELD and were seconds away from wiping out millions of targets - using Helicarrier technology developed by Tony Stark himself. Winter Soldier revealed the realistic character change in Cap where he now no longer can trust his superiors in office. Although Stark isnt in the film, you can imagine his position wouldnt be too different. 4) In Age of Ultron, Wanda and Pietro reveal a Stark label bomb killed their parents when they were young, which turn them against the Avengers. So Starks weapons killing innocent civilans has been going on for decades. To believe that hed do a complete 180 on his position after some grieving mother roasts him is a big stretch. But also the incident that killed this kid was Ultron, made and developed by Tony Stark alone. To turn around and say The Avengers need to be put in check collectively, when not only was it not their fault but The Avengers also saved the world by cleaning up Tonys mess, is astonishingly arrogant and egotistical from Stark. Tony should be put in check, not the Avengers. All combined, theres no way to believe realistically Stark would take the stance he did in CW given previous film history. No way. Its poor, sloppy contrived writing just to create a conflict when theres no organic reason for it to exist. You can say, "thats character development, its a good thing". But its poor character development, and that certainly isnt good. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 26, 2018 10:29:59 GMT
If you hate character development and internal conflict. Which is Marvel's bread and butter. Marvels bread and butter is cookie cutter straightforward plots like Antman, Dr Strange and Guardians. When they try to do deeper stories like Civil War, they fail. He should have more faith in himself than government agencies. If he has no faith in himself, then retire and leave the Avengers. Fixed. Mistique , Xavier and Magneto all go through character changes and growth from FC to Apocalypse. |
|
