MCU: Did the Sokovia Accords accomplish...anything?

Mariolee · May 29, 2019

*Not relevant completely to Endgame, but I'm sure the discussion will lead there so spoilers ahoy*

This is obvious right? I love all of these films in the MCU, and you can see me post in nearly every thread voicing my support and having fun with speculation. However, this is one thing that's really tickled my tush.

The whole gist of Civil War was over the Sokovia Accords and having heroes be accountable for their actions. As I understood it through the movie and as what's played out through Agents of SHIELD as I remember it: the Sokovia Accords basically mean superheroes can't do whatever they want and need government authorization before doing their deed especially if it's outside of the law vigilante-ism.

Yet, in the films following Civil War including Black Panther, Spider-Man Homecoming, and Infinity War (not going to include Endgame because that's a whole different ballgame) we see no intervention of the government on the superheroes. They're still just basically doing whatever they want, destroying whatever they want. The only real effect the Accords had was splitting up the Avengers.

I get that storywise that was the whole point: to weaken the Avengers in anticipation of Infinity War and Endgame. But as a legal document itself, it's horseshit. There's literally no difference between before the Accords and now.

Double 0 · May 29, 2019

I mean, Tony was outright the intervention in Homecoming, in BP's case it was at least partially the reason he didn't kill Klaue.

And it totally worked against everyone during IW. By Endgame it didn't matter.

Pai Pai Master · May 29, 2019

Cap was right the whole time. All the Accords did was to tear down the team and make the world less safe. Even Stark had abandoned the idea by the end of the movie and in Homecoming.

I would like to see the UN try to go after Black Panther.

Kalentan · May 29, 2019

Pai Pai Master said:
Cap was right the whole time. All the Accords did was to tear down the team and make the world less safe. Even Stark had abandoned the idea by the end of the movie and in Homecoming.

I would like to see the UN try to go after Black Panther.

Eh. I'd actually argue that Endgame proved Tony was right. Steve doesn't even have a retort when Tony calls him out on it.

Neece · May 29, 2019

T'Challa didn't sign any accords. He's a king of his own sovereign nation. Why would any government entity stop him from doing anything he was doing in BP?

Spiderman also didn't sign the accords. Tony specifically tried to keep him out of that legal mess by allowing him to operate as a friendly neighborhood spiderman.

The accords were really for the avengers and their attempts to do their avengering internationally. The only film that could have possibly saw the accords effects was Infinity War, and Rhodes said fuck you general ross, we're under attack by aliens. The ramifications for such a decision weren't seen because...well, half of the planet got snapped and probably destabilized every government.

Froyo Love · May 29, 2019

The Sokovia Accords cannot accomplish anything because the politics of the MCU films demand that a heroic light be cast on superpowered individuals being able to do whatever they want with no restriction or consequences.

CloseTalker · May 29, 2019

Seems like the movie stumbled into a pretty decent analogy for actual government.

Kalentan · May 29, 2019

Neece said:
T'Challa didn't sign any accords. He's a king of his own sovereign nation. Why would any government entity stop him from doing anything he was doing in BP?

Well his father was one of the heads of the Accords and so Wakanda by association sponsored it.

Digital Dinosaur · May 29, 2019

We didn't have enough MCU fiction set between the major movies to explore what the accords did at a street level over the course of 4 - 5 years. It didn't really turn into a "superhero registration" event like has been seen in the comics.

In the end though the takeaway was that the accords were a tempting solution to the issue of extra-legal superhero activity, but ultimately impractical and unworkable.

If I had to call it, I would say that Cap was correct about the accords, but rash in taking action. Though he was baited into it by Zemo. Tony was wrong about the accords, but more careful and measured in his responses rather than running of half-cocked like Cap.

Ravelle · May 29, 2019

It would have been a cool setup to get the Thunderbolts in the MCU though, We've already got a Zemo too.

Pai Pai Master · May 29, 2019

Kalentan said:
Eh. I'd actually argue that Endgame proved Tony was right. Steve doesn't even have a retort when Tony calls him out on it.

Sorry - should have clarified that. Steve was right about the Accords specifically. He was not right to essentially give up on the team in order to hold to his ideals. Tony was rightfully angry at him, that they weren't standing together when they lost. He was not defending the Accords in that situation at all, in fact from the jump Tony says to Steve he doesn't fully believe in it, he just wants to get out ahead of the problem and, as Tony would, he wants to ease his conscience about what they did in Sokovia.

Halbrand · May 29, 2019

Ravelle said:
It would have been a cool setup to get the Thunderbolts in the MCU though, We've already got a Zemo too.

We're getting that.

DeltaRed · May 29, 2019

I think it was handled quite poorly. At the end of Civil War Rhodey is paralysed yet says it was the right thing to do and doesn't regret it then the next time you see him he's cool about it and no one brings it up again.

Sephzilla · May 29, 2019

Kalentan said:
Eh. I'd actually argue that Endgame proved Tony was right. Steve doesn't even have a retort when Tony calls him out on it.

Infinity War on the other hand proves Cap was totally right.

Balphon · May 29, 2019

Not really.

Welcome to the post-Westphalian world.

Palantiri · May 29, 2019

I mean, was Spider-man not in violation of the accords without consequence? Both in Civil War and in Homecoming? Ironman also went rogue at the end of Civil War and faced no discernable consequences.

There was potential for the accords to mean something, but the Infinity War kind of threw that arc to the wayside and it seemed that unchecked metas were needed to hold things together after the snap.

Pai Pai Master · May 29, 2019

Ravelle said:
It would have been a cool setup to get the Thunderbolts in the MCU though, We've already got a Zemo too.

I don't really think it's a coincidence that Zemo was introduced in the same movie that Thunderbolt Ross personally delivered the Accords threat to the Avengers.

GreenMamba · May 29, 2019

It got us Hannibal Burress in Spider-man Homecoming calling Captain America a war criminal.

Parthenios · May 29, 2019

In real life, politicians love to pass feel good bills in the wake of tragedies that don't necessarily accomplish anything at best, or make things worse at worst.

Ross was just using Sokovia as a power grab against the Avengers.

mreddie · May 29, 2019

Nope, it was just a means to split the team and have them out of the way til IW-Endgame. Hence why Spidey worked solo in HC and why Ant-Man and Wasp were on the run. And don't get me started on the TV stuff.

Sephzilla · May 29, 2019

The Accords really make no sense in the context of the MCU. Like, why would any of The Avengers be okay with letting Thunderbolt Ross have oversight on them and why would any of them be okay with letting government(s) that were fully infiltrated by Hryda just a few years prior control them?

If The Avengers fully went with The Accords, Banner's warning about Thanos probably would have never made it past Ross's desk.

INST · May 29, 2019

Kalentan said:
Eh. I'd actually argue that Endgame proved Tony was right. Steve doesn't even have a retort when Tony calls him out on it.

It did? How?

Pai Pai Master · May 29, 2019

Parthenios said:
In real life, politicians love to pass feel good bills in the wake of tragedies that don't necessarily accomplish anything at best, or make things worse at worst.

Ross was just using Sokovia as a power grab against the Avengers.

This. Thunderbolt Ross is never of pure intent. The Accords were just a threat to get them under government control.

In his anguish and shame following the Ultron incident, Tony went along with it. And was 100% wrong.

Fact is if Banner was actually there, they wouldn't have gone along with it. He would have stopped them. One way or another.

subpar spatula · May 29, 2019

no. it was pointless similar to how captain america winter soldier pushed the idea of cap choosing between the right thing and the goverment: shallow exploration of themes

Brakke · May 29, 2019

The MCU is totally disinterested in any system-level thinking. Remember when Black Widow leaked all of SHIELD's records to the whole earth and then it didn't matter at all?

Christian · May 29, 2019

Kalentan said:
Eh. I'd actually argue that Endgame proved Tony was right. Steve doesn't even have a retort when Tony calls him out on it.

I always kinda thought his silence was just him being the bigger person at that point in time. Tony was trapped in space, nearly died, looks to be starving, and is still processing his grief. Steve isn't about to be like, "WELL ACTUALLY TONY" at that point in time. Although maybe I read the situation wrong.

Sephzilla · May 29, 2019

Brakke said:
The MCU is totally disinterested in any system-level thinking. Remember when Black Widow leaked all of SHIELD's records to the whole earth and then it didn't matter at all?

....I mean this is what directly leads to The Avengers getting torn apart but okay

boontobias · May 29, 2019

It made movie happen. Thats the point of all this

Pai Pai Master · May 29, 2019

Brakke said:
The MCU is totally disinterested in any system-level thinking. Remember when Black Widow leaked all of SHIELD's records to the whole earth and then it didn't matter at all?

did you fuckin watch Civil War? Widow's action is literally Zemo's origin story lol. it's the reason Tony finds out about Bucky killing his parents and the reason that the Avengers break up.

Brakke · May 29, 2019

Sephzilla said:
....I mean this is what directly leads to The Avengers getting torn apart but okay

That's character dynamics. But there's no system-level consequences. If we just opened the CIA's records to the world it'd be a big damn deal that would change more things than straining some friendships.

Froyo Love · May 29, 2019

Palantiri said:
I mean, was Spider-man not in violation of the accords without consequence? Both in Civil War and in Homecoming? Ironman also went rogue at the end of Civil War and faced no discernable consequences.

There was potential for the accords to mean something, but the Infinity War kind of threw that arc to the wayside and it seemed that unchecked metas were needed to hold things together after the snap.

It didn't throw the arc to the wayside, it was the natural conclusion: the events of Infinity War prove that all that silly concern about superhumans exercising their freedom to travel the world and execute whoever they feel is evil was, in fact, terrible. Endgame then affirms that the superheroes are so upstanding that given the power to reshape reality, they only act selflessly to repair the damage that was done.

Interestingly, Hawkeye's extrajudicial murder spree is cast in a negative light, but it's just a bit of pathos to work through - certainly nothing that calls for something as horrid as regulation.

Neece · May 29, 2019

Palantiri said:
Ironman also went rogue at the end of Civil War and faced no discernable consequences.

He did?

Mariolee · May 29, 2019

Kai Dracon said:
We didn't have enough MCU fiction set between the major movies to explore what the accords did at a street level over the course of 4 - 5 years. It didn't really turn into a "superhero registration" event like has been seen in the comics.

In the end though the takeaway was that the accords were a tempting solution to the issue of extra-legal superhero activity, but ultimately impractical and unworkable.

If I had to call it, I would say that Cap was correct about the accords, but rash in taking action. Though he was baited into it by Zemo. Tony was wrong about the accords, but more careful and measured in his responses rather than running of half-cocked like Cap.

Fair. However, I disagree there wasn't enough MCU fiction between the movies considering Agents of SHIELD handled it a lot more like the comics, but I get if you want to think that's not canon.

Christian said:
I always kinda thought his silence was just him being the bigger person at that point in time. Tony was trapped in space, nearly died, looks to be starving, and is still processing his grief. Steve isn't about to be like, "WELL ACTUALLY TONY" at that point in time. Although maybe I read the situation wrong.

This is exactly it.

Pai Pai Master · May 29, 2019

Neece said:
He did?

Yes he goes to Siberia to help Steve and Bucky, behind Ross' back. He straight up lies to Ross' face.

Do you people watch movies? :(

Kalentan · May 29, 2019

INST said:
It did? How?

What the directors said:

But in the beginning of Endgame, aren't you saying who was right? Doesn't Tony actually correctly articulate that he had the right answer to that question of civil liberties versus security?

Joe Russo: To an extent.

Anthony Russo: Well, he says that in a moment of great duress. He's basically starving to death. He's been stuck in space. He's devastated.

He's saying the most hurtful things.

Anthony Russo: Yeah.

Joe Russo: He was not wrong that there was a great threat coming, and they needed to build a suit of armor around the world, and at what point do civil liberties trump—no pun intended—do civil liberties come before the government's ability to protect its citizens?

I think what's interesting is that to some extent, they had to go through this. There was a sense of destiny to this. They had to go through it to win it. And in a way both he and Cap were right.

It's not exactly 100% Tony was right and Steve was 100% wrong but to say the opposite lacks any sort of nuance.

Ultimately had Steve sided with Tony, the Avengers wouldn't have been split up. If everyone had just abandon the accords that would also be very dangerous and sets a very bad precidence of the relation of super powered people to the governments of the world.

Sephzilla · May 29, 2019

Kalentan said:
What the directors said:

It's not exactly 100% Tony was right and Steve was 100% wrong but to say the opposite lacks any sort of nuance.

Ultimately had Steve sided with Tony, the Avengers wouldn't have been split up. If everyone had just abandon the accords that would also be very dangerous and sets a very bad precidence of the relation of super powered people to the governments of the world.

If Tony didn't go behind The Avengers' backs (multiple times) then the Accords probably never happen in the first place. Lets not forget that The Sokovia Accords were a direct result of Tony.

Tony going off at Cap for "not being there" when Tony was ultimately the thing that drove The Avengers apart is some pretty shallow shit when Tony had the chance to call in Steve for help but didn't during Infinity War. It's another case of Tony projecting his own problems onto others.

Pai Pai Master · May 29, 2019

Kalentan said:
What the directors said:

It's not exactly 100% Tony was right and Steve was 100% wrong but to say the opposite lacks any sort of nuance.

Ultimately had Steve sided with Tony, the Avengers wouldn't have been split up. If everyone had just abandon the accords that would also be very dangerous and sets a very bad precidence of the relation of super powered people to the governments of the world.

Was never a winnable situation all around yeah. In the end Tony is upset with Steve because the two of them collectively couldn't find a way to keep the team together, in spite of everything else working against them. Steve agrees and doesn't have anything to say, really. And shouldn't in that moment, when someone he cares about is going through what Tony is.

Kalentan · May 29, 2019

Sephzilla said:
If Tony didn't go behind The Avengers' backs (multiple times) then the Accords probably never happen in the first place.

Lets not forget that The Sokovia Accords were a direct result of Tony.

Actually that isn't entirely correct.

While named after the incident in Sokovia, the accords weren't drafted until the 2016 incident in Lagos.

1 month passes between that incident and when the Accords are presented to the Avengers.

chezzymann · May 29, 2019

I think Iron man could have at least had to ask permission from the government before attacking thanos' plebs

Froyo Love · May 29, 2019

Sephzilla said:
The Accords really make no sense in the context of the MCU. Like, why would any of The Avengers be okay with letting Thunderbolt Ross have oversight on them and why would any of them be okay with letting government(s) that were fully infiltrated by Hryda just a few years prior control them?

If The Avengers fully went with The Accords, Banner's warning about Thanos probably would have never made it past Ross's desk.

The Avengers might be okay with governments having some say in a bunch of heavily-armed vigilantes coming into their territory to blow things up and kill people because it's the right thing to do. Captain America, for example, might put some trust in the institutions of... America.

For that matter, why should governments be okay with letting the Avengers operate without oversight? If corruption is the concern, the Avengers were infiltrated and manipulated by Loki in the first movie! They were letting SHIELD call the shots, when SHIELD was literally a Hydra operation!

Akira86 · May 29, 2019

It put Sokovia on the map?

Azerth · May 29, 2019

the accords only prevented heros form doing stuff in other countries not there own. so cap can not go to Germany and do hero stuff without permission.

excelsiorlef · May 29, 2019

Brakke said:
The MCU is totally disinterested in any system-level thinking. Remember when Black Widow leaked all of SHIELD's records to the whole earth and then it didn't matter at all?

I mean it directly enabled Zemo to carry out his plan.

Sephzilla · May 29, 2019

Kalentan said:
Actually that isn't entirely correct.

While named after the incident in Sokovia, the accords weren't drafted until the 2016 incident in Lagos.

1 month passes between that incident and when the Accords are presented to the Avengers.

I mean if we want to go down that rabbit hole, Wanda having superpowers is Stark's fault too because she would never become vengeful in the first place if Tony was a more responsible leader of Stark Industries :P

Hollywood Duo · May 29, 2019

Accords don't mean shit when half the worlds population is dead.

Kalentan · May 29, 2019

Sephzilla said:
I mean if we want to go down that rabbit hole, Wanda having superpowers is Stark's fault too because she would never become vengeful in the first place if Tony was a more responsible leader of Stark Industries :P

I mean I'm not going down a rabbit hole. It's literally in Civil War. While you could make the argument that there were some plans in mind after Sakovia, it wasn't until Captain America's team who has spent the last year leading the team, resulted in his own mess, that sparked the movement of the Accords from idea to paper.

But if we want to go down a rabbit hole, If anything it shows that the Accords were always going to be drafted one way or another. Even if Ultron didn't happen, The Avengers would have still went to other countries to fight evil, collaterial damage would ensue and the Accords would have come around under a different name.

jph139 · May 29, 2019

Well, very few movies after Civil War deal with international intervention. What T'Challa does in his own country during a coup attempt is his business. What Spider-Man does as a good samaritan/vigilante is a local issue. Ant-Man, obviously, has "this is all very illegal" as a plot point.

The Sokovia Accords are very specifically about what happened in Sokovia and Cape Town and Lagos - private American mercenaries traipsing around the world fighting "bad guys" and the fallout caused by it. Other than Cap's crew, who we see nothing of before Infinity War, there's not any characters doing that.

AdmiralSnackbar · May 29, 2019

Did the Avengers being "broken up" have anything to do with IW/EG?

Thanos's dudes surprise attack them on separate fronts on both sides of the planet. There's never a chance for any of that drama to matter until after the snap.

Sephzilla · May 29, 2019

I still maintain that Civil War and Infinity War/Endgame ultimately prove that Cap was right though.

The moment Ross gets a chance to seize control over the situation he's locking people up in super prisons, puts out a hit on Bucky with no trial and minimal evidence that Bucky actually killed the King of Wakanda, straight ignores evidence because it doesn't suit his narrative, and basically goes right down the list of doing all of the shit Cap was warning about. Then in Infinity War, the moment Cap shows up in Avengers mansion Ross is like "ARREST HIM" instead of "Hey could you help us fight the purple alien who's trying to murder half of existence?"

Not to mention both Stark and Rhodey, the two biggest supporters of the Accords, ignore the Accords in the end too.

excelsiorlef · May 29, 2019

ultimately the accords are funny because Cap is only sort of right because he's Steve Rogers and the guy getting power from the accords is General Ross

Like on an abstract level, a group of soldiers who operate worldwide wit ho no oversight is horrific sounding...

Except Steve is literally the purest heart in the galaxy and the oversight is General Ross lol

MCU: Did the Sokovia Accords accomplish...anything?

Herald of Stoptimus Crime

Herald of Stoptimus Crime

Refuses to Wash his Ass

Herald of Stoptimus Crime

Herald of Stoptimus Crime

Prophet of Truth - Chicken Chaser

Bad Praxis

Herald of Stoptimus Crime

One Winged Slayer

Herald of Stoptimus Crime

Bad Praxis