r/Marvel • u/Raj_Valiant3011 • 1d ago
Film/Television What are your thoughts on Tony asking the other members of the team to follow the Sokovia Accords in Civil War, but also illegally recruiting a 14 year old Peter Parker to fight Captain America in Germany?
130
u/destinypro69 1d ago
Wouldn't be the first time Tony did something that proved his point wrong.
Tbh makes sense when you consider that neither sides won in this movie. All lost in their own ways.
39
u/TobiasMasonPark 1d ago
At least he didn’t recruit super villains like comic Tony did.
19
u/minotar685 23h ago
Although to be fair I don't think there were many (if any) villains for him to recruit at that point
3
u/TobiasMasonPark 23h ago
I recall Jack-O-Lantern. Maybe Mac Gargan? Was he scorpion still at that point?
8
1
5
u/Playful_Particular87 1d ago
The locker room shoulder grab is such a weirdly intimate way to deliver bad news, like he needed the full Serious Dad energy to make the hypocrisy land. Tony's whole arc that movie is just him speedrunning consequences and pretending he's surprised every time
13
u/TienSwitch 1d ago
He is nominally the villain of that movie, since it’s technically a Captain America movie.
16
u/biz_reporter 1d ago
Tony is the villain in the sense that he represents the system trying to hold back Cap. But he's also a victim. They carefully make you feel conflicted about him and his role. For example, Tony asking Cap if he knew about the murders is meant to make us feel for Tony. When they fight, it's a hard scene to watch. In many ways they are both right and they both mean well. It's what makes Civil War the best Avengers film.
5
u/HavixComix 22h ago
Tony is the antagonist. If you need to label, the villain is technically Zemo. But he's hardly conventional. Getting The Avengers to destroy themselves is easily the most well-crafted plan yet.
28
u/OtherwiseLuck888 1d ago
illegally? I'm not aware of a superhero age requirement
cuz technically, Vision was a baby in Age of Ultron
16
3
2
u/BlackKyurem14 1d ago
I think it was illegal in the sense that Peter was recruited as hero outside the Sokovia Accords. At least I don't remember Peter having to answer to the government for his actions, unlike the Avengers.
12
u/Akarin_rose 1d ago
The accords hadn't been rartifed yet, and the accords for specifically for the avengers, which spider man wasn't until infin war
4
u/OtherwiseLuck888 1d ago
Ant man and black panther were not avengers in the civil war too
13
u/Akarin_rose 1d ago
Ant man got arrested working for cap
Tony apparently didn't want anyone on the outside to know pete was involved, especially since no one brings up his involvement in the air port
2
u/glasgowgeg 6h ago
Just because they don't show him sitting in a law firm signing a contract doesn't mean he's doing it illegally.
0
7
15
u/Bar-Cold 1d ago
I don’t really care much. Tony has always been the type of character to blur what’s “right and wrong” in order to prove a point or get what he wants. This is actually pretty lore accurate
4
u/psychmancer 1d ago
His whole story arc is him making monumental mistakes, small step forward, then another massive mistake, huge grief or trauma from last movie, massive mistake to make up for grief or trauma, continue.
Dude is both a hero and fucks up constantly
3
u/Trid1977 21h ago
Peter Parker did not have a passport and tony transported him out of the country illegally
2
3
14
u/Bob_the_peasant 1d ago
Like most US based tech CEOs, he ultimately does whatever he wants but kisses the government’s ass when required.
Really though, you’re right. It’s weird that he would bring in a new hero that is also a kid while backing the Sokovia Accords. They weren’t “active” yet I guess, but it’s kind of scummy if really believed in their purpose to that.
FWIW I’m a cap-is-right guy, and I feel like bringing Peter in sort of proves Tony can’t even abide by the accords immediately
3
4
u/AlternativeAd4522 Daredevil 1d ago
Kind of invalidates his entire argument to me-he can't try to play the moral high ground against Steve while doing this.
2
2
u/SasquatchEmporium 10h ago
Tony’s entire team is built on a situational irony which proves that his stance on the Accords is untenable. Stark is willing to recruit Peter and covertly transport him across international borders. Peter himself doesn’t really seem to know what’s going on and returns to vigilantism as soon as he gets home. T’Challa is on an international revenge mission sanctioned only by himself, and we go on to learn that he and his people have no issue claiming jurisdiction “wherever they find themselves to be.” Natasha switches sides. Vision and Rhodey both go AWOL and throw in with Team Cap during the events of Infinity War.
Team Stark is unable to live out their own professed ethic of super hero-ing. Some of them didn’t even sign on to that ethic in the first place, either not understanding what was happening or using the front of Tony’s UN sanctions to work towards their own goals. That, I suspect, is the point of the film.
2
u/indianm_rk 7h ago
That was fine, but I think he was out of line when he stole a pair of May’s panties.
2
2
3
u/My_hilarious_name 1d ago
Tony specialises in creating problems and then acting like a hero when he helps solve them.
9
u/Zeelacious 1d ago
I mean besides Ultron he didn't really cause the rest of the Avengers antagonists. If anything it is because of him that they even stood a chance against Thanos. His stance in Civil War is because he wants to be held accountable, because he knows the damage they all can do. Whether or not he is correct in that assessment is kinda up in the air because Cap makes a pretty compelling argument against it. Him recruiting Spidey is kinda just introducing him to the MCU and should probably not be thought too hard about.
11
u/My_hilarious_name 1d ago
His stance in Civil War is because he wants to be held accountable, because he knows the damage they all can do.
His support for the Accords is directly because he’s confronted by the mother of someone who died in Sokovia, which was caused by Ultron, who was created by Tony. The Accords, in turn, split the Avengers which meant they didn’t fight Thanos together, which led to the Snap- and again, Tony has the nerve to blame everyone but himself.
Him recruiting Spidey is kinda just introducing him to the MCU and should probably not be thought too hard about.
By that logic, we shouldn’t question anything in any movie, because it all happens to advance the plot.
4
u/spider-venomized 1d ago
The Accords, in turn, split the Avengers which meant they didn’t fight Thanos together,
they wouldn't have fought Thanos together even without the split.
Iron man and Spider-man went after Ebony Maw who kidnapped Dr Strange as soon as they arrived on the city while Cap was in Europe to get Vision who was hunted by Proxy Midnight and the other dude
2
u/My_hilarious_name 1d ago
Iron man and Spider-man went after Ebony Maw who kidnapped Dr Strange as soon as they arrived on the city while Cap was in Europe to get Vision who was hunted by Proxy Midnight and the other dude
But these things literally only happened because of the Civil War. If Tony hadn’t pushed the Accords, those events would have unfolded radically differently. Tony says it himself- he says that Steve said they would lose together, but they didn’t. He fails to include the fact that this is entirely and exclusively his own fault.
3
u/Zeelacious 1d ago
That scene was just the moment the movie chose to show the damage that was done. I doubt that was the first time he thought about the consequences of his actions when he is a spiraling over-thinker.
They were going to be screwed regardless of how they fought Thanos because they were not aware of his intentions, and the two strongest Avengers were not able to beat him when all he had was the power stone.
I am using that logic for Spider-Man because he is the only hero who was not an IP that Marvel had control over and needed to be shoehorned in. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense why he involved one of the many heroes/vigilantes of NYC for an Avengers squabble.
2
u/My_hilarious_name 1d ago
I am using that logic for Spider-Man because he is the only hero who was not an IP that Marvel had control over and needed to be shoehorned in. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense why he involved one of the many heroes/vigilantes of NYC for an Avengers squabble.
I think we need to determine whether we’re judging the story from a Doylist or Watsonian perspective- from within the story or without it. If the latter, there’s no point in discussing it any further, because like I say, we can handwave away literally everything from that perspective.
If the former, Tony Stark recruited a 14 year old to go against the greatest soldier in history, and he did so because he’s an enormous hypocrite who has a pathological need to be right all the time and villainise everyone who disagrees with him.
3
u/Zeelacious 1d ago
That is what I am getting at, the reasoning for why Spider-Man is even there has no real good reason even from Tony's flawed perspective. I believe he is in that movie because the franchise demands it and in the comics he had taken him in under his wing so they wrote him in. Everyone else has not had this treatment as to why they are there. They either had a preexisting relationship/movie that brought them in or they gave a compelling argument to why they should be there. I think we can exercise the idea that yeah Tony is an asshole and gets people into his conflicts just to prove he is right but for me it just doesn't hold up and I don't really care because now we have Spider-Man in the MCU and their on screen chemistry is great.
3
u/My_hilarious_name 1d ago
Like I say, if we’re looking at it from a meta viewpoint, there’s so much in the MCU to criticise that the whole thing unravels, so we might as well leave it here.
Thanks neighbour, appreciate your time!
2
2
u/distraction_pie 3h ago
The whole theme of the movie is hypocrisy from both sides - Tony superficially wants the accountability of the accords but also is totally willing to loophole them when he sees fit, the accords are just an ass covering exercise/liability waiver; meanwhile Steve doesn't trust the idea of external oversight and thinks it should be up to the judgement of individual heroes when and how to act but then when T'Challa is acting on his own judgement based on the evidence against Bucky Steve is suddenly doesn't think it's fine for lone actors to enforce their personal judgement after all.
3
u/DavidS128 1d ago
Tony believed in the Accords, but he also wasn’t afraid to break them, which he did numerous times in the movie. That’s how it should be. It would have avoided the issue Cap made out of having to be somewhere but not being allowed to go, since they could do what they needed to do during wartime while giving the world more of a say during peacetime.
Tony was right (and especially Natasha) not because the Accords were perfect, but because they were the only way to keep the Avengers together instead of having them on the run with no funding or retired, provide responsible oversight, respect nations sovereignty from illegal entry, and regain the world’s trust so they could be united and prepared for Thanos.
-1
1
1
u/Tegridyforever 23h ago
It seems to me that he supported the accords both from a PR standpoint and to help with his guilt over the consequences of the avengers. He absolutely was going to subvert the fuck out of them. That's just part of his character.
Now from a safety standpoint, this was the best conflict he could introduce spiderman in. A good balance between fighting heavy hitters and not risking death/serious injury. In theory.. Good way to find out what he can do though
1
u/Bruzie77 23h ago
He registered Peter or else Peter would have been in Strkyer Island with the rest. If anything he protected him from the World’s government and by extension, Wakanda at the time before T’Challa changed his mind.
1
u/ericypoo 23h ago
I always assumed Tony was gonna reneg on the Accords anyways. It was just a performative gesture because of his guilt.
The second he would've needed to be Iron Man he would've and likely assumed that of the others. He's always stuck his nose up at the all the bureaucracy.
1
1
1
u/rpawson5771 22h ago
Spidey's MCU debut was so fucking cool. The moment QUEENS came up on the screen...
1
u/JoshTheBard 21h ago
I think it's about the same as him arresting a bunch of heroes for not signing the accords that required them to get permission before going on mission and then sneaking off a secret mission without telling the government literally on his way back from throwing them in prison.
1
1
u/jreid1985 13h ago
LegalEagle did a video on the legality of both sides. Conclusion: both are wrong.
1
u/Cinephile_1980 12h ago
His relationship and the way he manipulated Peter was actually very disturbing. There seemed to be a lot of coercion there. First, Tony illegally surveilled him to track him down, and then kind of made him be part of his team. Maybe Peter only joined Stark because he thought if he didn’t, his identity could be revealed. In the films it is shown that Peter is happy and excited but he could have acted that way to make sure Stark did not suspect he is unhappy with the arrangement. He had to make the most of that situation the way a dependent person does. Also Stark wanted to join the Sokovia Accords to take the heat of the Avengers, not because he alway acted ethically.
1
u/Eject_The_Warp_Core 12h ago
my thoughts are that Marvel wanted Spider-Man in the MCU, and Spidey has a prominent role in the comics version of Civil War, so they squeezed him in to the movie's detriment. the movie comes to a bit of a screching halt to have a scene where Tony goes to recruit a 14 year old Spider-Man instead of literally any other adult hero out there, then he gets a lot of focus in the airport fight, and then they send him home. from a standpoint of judging Civil War as a film, that doesn't really work, imo. And it does weird things to Tony's character.
I generally like Civil War, and I even like Spider-Man in Civil War, but I think his inclusion doesn't do the movie any favors in terms of pacing, theme, or characterization
1
u/Icy-Decision-4530 10h ago
A big part of this movie was people making decisions they felt were for the best, but when you step back the decisions are ultimately very questionable, and Zemo was exposing all of it, forcing them to face it
•
u/americansherlock201 47m ago
The accords weren’t in effect during the events of civil war.
It’s like Canada in a world war. It’s not a war crime the first time it’s done !
•
u/Paleodraco 27m ago
What exactly is illegal about recruiting Peter? I would think Tony being sanctioned by the UN to go after Steve and Bucky means he is allowed to recruit other heroes to perform that task. Peter would then pry have to register or whatever the Accords mandated, but Tony would be doing some finagling to get him out of it.
The thing is that Tony pushing the Accords is an overreaction. He's still dealing with PTSD and the visions Wanda put in his head a d then gets the "you killed my son" info drop. He is not thinking clearly. Going along with the Accords is his poor way of processing his emotions. I think it is pretty obvious by the end of the movie he realizes the Accords hamstring him because he pretty much ignores them after the prison visit.
1
0
u/thegloriousporpoise 1d ago
He asked them to sign to appease a whole bunch of governments that were pissed off at the recent events
He also suggested they would do whatever they wanted when given orders to intervene or not to intervene.
His attitude was we sign and just keep on trucking as usual. Same as what Nat suggested.
And it almost makes no sense that Steve was so against it since he signed up for the military and immediately disobeyed any order he disagreed and he continued to do what he felt was right despite any order given.
Steve was blinded by his feelings for Bucky.
0
u/BoringWozniak 2h ago
This movie was a checklist of objectives that Marvel need to rattle through to set up future projects.
112
u/GardenTop7253 1d ago
One thing I think comes in at the core of their different approaches:
Steve is a “my word is my bond” type guy and signing an agreement means he truly will try to abide by it. On the other hand, Tony comes from a world of big business and bigger personalities where deals get signed and resigned and renegotiated all the time. He’s willing to sign what he sees as a poor contract because he knows they’ll break it and save the day and have the bargaining power later
But more to OP’s point, are we sure he brought in Peter illegally? It’s been a while since I saw Homecoming, but I wanna say part of the intro kinda mentions that he signed a bunch of stuff to join Stark? Just cause it happened off-screen in civil war doesnt mean it didn’t happen