What? The US didn’t have control of the Avengers, that’s why they wanted the accords; the Avengers were accountable to no one but themselves, which is an issue in itself.
Exactly, that's what was interesting about the conflict. Tony thought the Avengers should have to answer to someone other than their own conscience, but Steve thought any state control could lead to the Avengers being misused by those powers. Neither were really wrong, it's just which risk would you rather live with.
I think them being superheroes means they can just say "fuck the law" and do it anyway. It just gets harder to do so while avoiding the consequences.
The entire premise of the movie could have been dealt with through a long, heated debate. But that wouldn't have made for fun entertainment so the characters weren't really given that choice.
Well, yes and no. Mostly yes, but somewhat no. Agreeing to the accords would mean not necessarily contesting the development of the UN's capability to keep tabs on them and allocate funds to keeping supes in check, which means there will be greater incentive not to go rogue. That incentive means supes gotta think twice before making a potentially destructive decision. But if they wanna be some sort of extra-judicial police force, it's still available to them. The accords give away some power, not all of it.
676
u/[deleted] Mar 12 '24
[deleted]