• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Marvel Cinematic Universe |OT2| Discussion on released and future projects (spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
QPSKH4x.gif

R6vqYNM.gif

Sjqcjn4.gif

9epd934.gif

*me drools and rubs hands together*

The special effects look great!

Trailer had me more hyped for the film.
 

jph139

Member
It's no more illegal than the previous Avengers operations internationally. I will admit I'm a bit murky in memory on whether or not the Accords are technically active at that time. Is it that they're signed and go active at a certain time or did they still require a final vote/ceremony?

The previous Avengers operations were immensely illegal, though! Other than the events of the original Avengers, where they're essentially government contractors working for SHIELD in an official capacity, the Avengers are essentially a team of mercenaries on Tony Stark's payroll. They're not waiting for permission to attack HYDRA bases.

The international community is willing to turn a blind eye, because they're doing good work and had earned a lot of goodwill from the whole New York business. But by the time the Accords are put together, the world has agreed they'll no longer tolerate it.

Unlawful combatants is a pretty big stretch. It's also different from Guantanamo in that the Black Site and General Ross' authority comes directly from the UN, so at that point the UN would be violating its own laws with regards to Human Rights. It's not a hands are tied due to technicality issue or a murky politics issue. It would be the UN blatantly ignoring it's own laws because reasons.

I guess the question there is twofold - is the Raft being operated by the UN, with Ross holding an official position and placed in charge of it's operations? Or is it an American black site, with Team Cap surrendered to US authority because they were operating a super-prison? (Would still be weird for the secretary of state to be personally running things, though...)

I rather doubt they've gone before a judge when Stark visits, but it really depends on how you define the Avengers. Private citizens? Enemy combatants? Terrorists? Is this US jurisdiction, German, ICC?

If they've gone before a judge and officially been charged by the time Cap breaks them out, it's absolutely defensible legally. If not - which I admit is probably the case - yeah, they're being held illegally by pretty much any definition. I suspect that it's Ross doing so on behalf of the US government after Germany relinquished custody, though. The UN doesn't really have the framework to arrest or detain people.

As a digression, I think you could still make an argument for Wanda being detained, considering how little her powers are understood.
 

SpaceWolf

Banned
Steve literally tells RDJ he wants to be the one to bring Bucky in and he never lets Bucky get away from him, so your definition of escape is a bit wonky.

What? Steve helps Bucky escape from the government lead SWAT team, directly attacking members of the team so Bucky can get away. Bucky then legs it. That falls pretty neatly into the definition of "escape"

The team was detained after Bucky was captured. After the airport, they're imprisoned, without trial, which violates Human Rights (and thanks to no Xmen, they're all humans). The Accords can not retroactively supersede previous UN law.

The Accords do supersede previous UN Law, specifically in relation to all metahuman matters, yes. Because those regulations instantly become UN Law, the moment the bill is passed. That's sort of the entire point of the film. There's absolutely no indication whatsoever in the film that Steve's team being imprisoned is an illegal act, either...especially in conjunction with the Accords having recently been implemented and a General within the United States Military (General Ross) and Stark working within the facility...so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Ah, here's how we get to 20,000 pages, LoL

Just doing my part! ;p

dsyeGHr.gif
 
The previous Avengers operations were immensely illegal, though! Other than the events of the original Avengers, where they're essentially government contractors working for SHIELD in an official capacity, the Avengers are essentially a team of mercenaries on Tony Stark's payroll. They're not waiting for permission to attack HYDRA bases.

The international community is willing to turn a blind eye, because they're doing good work
and had earned a lot of goodwill from the whole New York business. But by the time the Accords are put together, the world has agreed they'll no longer tolerate it.


That's my point. It was always illegal and they weren't ever generally recieved as "bad guys" for it. Hence my "not a fugitive in the typical sense."

I guess the question there is twofold - is the Raft being operated by the UN, with Ross holding an official position and placed in charge of it's operations? Or is it an American black site, with Team Cap surrendered to US authority because they were operating a super-prison? (Would still be weird for the secretary of state to be personally running things, though...)

I rather doubt they've gone before a judge when Stark visits, but it really depends on how you define the Avengers. Private citizens? Enemy combatants? Terrorists? Is this US jurisdiction, German, ICC?

If they've gone before a judge and officially been charged by the time Cap breaks them out, it's absolutely defensible legally. If not - which I admit is probably the case - yeah, they're being held illegally by pretty much any definition. I suspect that it's Ross doing so on behalf of the US government after Germany relinquished custody, though. The UN doesn't really have the framework to arrest or detain people.

As a digression, I think you could still make an argument for Wanda being detained, considering how little her powers are understood.

Ross is placed in charge of the enforcement of the Accords by the UN, so any actions taken under them falls to their purview regardless of his political ranking with the US Gov't.

Fair enough @ Wanda. I'm still sticking to not-a-mutant = Human though. ;p

What? Steve helps Bucky escape from the government lead SWAT team, directly attacking members of the team so Bucky can get away. Bucky then legs it. That falls pretty neatly into the definition of "escape"

He attacks some and directly saves the lives of others and again, never lets Bucky escape him. Your version is how Ross would undoubtedly spin it but it's not strictly the truth as the events happen.

The Accords do supersede previous UN Law, specifically in relation to all metahuman matters, yes. Because those regulations instantly become UN Law, the moment the bill is passed. That's sort of the entire point of the film. There's absolutely no indication whatsoever in the film that Steve's team being imprisoned is an illegal act, either...especially in conjunction with the Accords having recently been implemented and a General within the United States Military (General Ross) and Stark working within the facility...so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

The can not supersede UN Law as the Accords are not aimed only at Super/Meta-humans. They apply to Widow and Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Iron Man, and Falcon. Who are normal Humans. By your logic, those laws would then also apply to any force on the planet operating within one of the signed countries borders without express UN permission. Which would apply to any and all wars, skirmishes, etc.. that happen within the signed countries borders, including actions BY those signed countries.

They're being held in a black site. The entire concept of a black site is that it's a violation of UN law simply by existing. The locations existence is the very first thing that makes Tony doubt his decision to sign the Accords.
 
I finished up Iron Fist yesterday, it was better than what I expected, but I went in with very low expectations. Still the worst effort out of all Marvel Netflix seasons. Actor playing Danny Rand can't fight, or even make believe like he could fight. He also is not cut like the Danny Rand from the comics, so that took me out of it a bit. I also never understood where the story was going where they kept changing who was going to turn on him.

I should have known better because the dude directed the worst seasons of Dexter. On the plus side, it does tamper my expectations for Inhumans.
 
Just fill up the OT3 with pictures of Carol Danvers.

Speaking of Carol, apparently Brie Larson was asked about it often during the Kong press tour. Haven't heard any of it myself to know if there's anything of substance, but she should've read the IW script by now.

As bad as Carol is, I think Larson is great and I'm excited to see how they distance the movie character from the comic character to turn Captain Marvel into an interesting and charismatic heroine.
 

jph139

Member
That's my point. It was always illegal and they weren't ever generally recieved as "bad guys" for it. Hence my "not a fugitive in the typical sense."

I buy that public opinion would be divided on Cap - I can see the "Hero or Traitor?" headlines now - but I don't buy schools showing stuff with him. He's controversial at best and condemned by the US government at worst.

Like, for example, I can't imagine a school presenting a pep talk from Edward Snowden without very specific context.

Ross is placed in charge of the enforcement of the Accords by the UN, so any actions taken under them falls to their purview regardless of his political ranking with the US Gov't.

Fair enough @ Wanda. I'm still sticking to not-a-mutant = Human though. ;p

Okay, in that case, there's an issue, because the UN doesn't have the authority to pursue and detain criminals. So maybe Ross is acting with UN oversight but using the machinery of member states (I would assume US military and German police, possibly Interpol). No one is being held on UN authority in that case. Though I imagine they would probably ask where they went, and the US going "uhh no comment" wouldn't cut it there.

The other option is that the UN, via the Sokovia Accords, authorized a temporary detention policy via some sort of task force. In that case we can't really say what their detention policy is - in this fictional framework, Team Cap may well have already had their hearings and simply have been denied bail.
 

BLACKLAC

Member
I don't know what games are being played behind the scenes but I don't see Spidey leaving the MCU after: Civil War, Homecoming, Infinity War, Avengers 4, and Homecoming 2. The character will be permanently ingrained.

It's like Obamacare for superheroes.
 

Fathead

Member
It just means there isn't a contract past that point. If Sony is making money they have no reason not to re up after.

I remember when RDJ was never gonna be in another Marvel movie.
 

curb

Banned
I think we all just need to take a breath. Once Sony sees how good MCU Spidey does compared to how inevitably poor R-rated Venom will do, I'm sure they'll change their tune.

At least, I hope they will.
 

El Topo

Member
We all agree it's painfully obvious by this public statement, on video, that there is some kind of deal going down, right?

I'm assuming if the deal works out well for both sides they'll come to an agreement. If I had to guess, maybe Sony wants even more MCU movies (e.g. Venom or Black Cat)?

Speaking of Carol, apparently Brie Larson was asked about it often during the Kong press tour. Haven't heard any of it myself to know if there's anything of substance, but she should've read the IW script by now.

What I've seen was really just fluff, e.g. talk about what she wants Captain Marvel to be. Don't think there was anything concrete.
 

curb

Banned
I'm assuming if the deal works out well for both sides they'll come to an agreement. If I had to guess, maybe Sony wants even more MCU movies (e.g. Venom or Black Cat)?

I feel like the article I read about the Venom movie indicated that it wouldn't be part of the MCU. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit:

Venom is slated for a release date of October 5, 2018, so the studio better get a move on. According to Collider, the Venom script by Dante Harper is going to launch a universe while also being R-rated.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/venom-will-be-sonys-attempt-to-break-into-r-rated-comic-1793681257

I think that's where I got it from.
 

El Topo

Member
I'm not buying it. There's just too much money on the table for them if this deal works out. Is anyone legitimately interested in a non-MCU movieverse launched by Venom?

Edit:
Admittedly, we *are* talking about Sony, so who knows?
 

mreddie

Member
Sony will crawl back to Feige. Seriously, has Sony had a hit at all since Goosebumps? I know Ghostbusters did okay but not enough to warrant a sequel.
 

curb

Banned
I'm not buying it. There's just too much money on the table for them if this deal works out. Is anyone legitimately interested in a non-MCU movieverse launched by Venom?

Edit:
Admittedly, we *are* talking about Sony, so who knows?

I think Sony is weighing MCU money vs R-Rated Deadpool/Logan money. It seems like an easy choice to us but as you said, we are talking about Sony.
 

caliph95

Member
Also shoot me if old there is theory that i have seen since Damage control is in the movie, that Vulture and his goons (maybe the sinister six), could be former employees that got screwed over.
 

Wingfan19

Unconfirmed Member
I'm wondering if Stark starts Damage Control which puts Toomes' salvage/clean up business out of business which is why he hates him so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom