i have a question about peter parker that the movie didn’t answer: did tony have him sign the accords?
did tony get peter, legally a minor, to sign the un accords? it would have been without the knowledge or consent of his guardian, obviously. did he get peter to sign to try and protect him, since the internet has already found spiderman? okay, legit. but what happens if the government feels justified in either a.) attempting to make use of peter’s abilities and deploying him on missions or b.) deciding that an enhanced minor is a liability and transferring him to protective custody? what happens then?
i ask this, but honestly, the way peter just goes home to queens indicates to me that peter didn’t sign shit. it indicates to me that tony made a call– that he decided peter’s privacy and safety and continued anonymity was more important than getting peter to sign on the dotted line. furthermore, it indicates that rhodey, vision, and the rest of the pro-accords team have also agreed to keep peter’s identity and status out of their mouths in public. i mean, did they all just forget he was there? did they ever have a conversation like “hey tony, what happened to the kid in the pajamas, ross seems pretty upset about us not bringing him back” and tony was like “shut the fuck up, nobody’s saying nothing about that kid”???? and they were all like, “okay, no prob, let him roam free, kid’s got a good heart and he’s fighting for the little guy.” i mean, ?????? is that not essentially???? steve’s argument???? about autonomy??????
i’m not saying tony or steve is wrong or right. what i am saying is, while peter’s presence in the airport fight was pretty damn amazing, the more i think about it, the more i realize his story opens a massive fucking plot chasm as far as the “everybody must sign” argument goes. like, nobody in the accords admin chain is gonna get security cam footage from the airport and be like “hey, stark, who the fuck is this kid you drove to the fight?”
In MCU, The Sokovia Accords is not about all superheroes registering their identities. The document is just for the current Avengers team to sign saying they will answer to someone (like kinda how they were doing with SHIELD before that fell) because in the UN eyes, they lack responsibility. Peter is not an Avenger’s member, nor was he a responsible party member in any of the tragic deaths that the Avengers are being held responsible for by the UN. Tony just borrowed him for help to try and bring in Steve’s team. But Peter would not have to sign since it’s not about/doesn’t include him.
This is what had to be signed and by whom.
Granted, we have no idea if this document is still functioning or was trashed since only three of the Avenger’s members were left at the end of the movie and one of them is down (Rhodey). There is literally no Avenger’s anymore so there’s no point to it anymore. Yet, those that did not sign that were supposed to (to accept responsibility) will still be considered criminals for their actions.
This is how I understand it since they never mention superhero registration. Hope I helped!
i appreciate this answer, thank you, but it raises another question:
so, why is scott lang in jail?
if the sokovia accords are explicitly only for the named avengers, why is scott lang in jail?
i suppose you can argue that it’s his participation in the airport fight: destruction of property, aiding wanted fugitives, aggravated assault. but those would be civilian crimes, and since he is in no way a recognized avenger, nor is he named in the accords, he remains a civilian. so why is he being held with the other violators of the accords in a superhero supermax without a lawyer or trial?
you don’t have to answer this, of course, but the movie should. who are the accords really for? and are we still, post-movie, supposed to see the accords as a good solution for lack of oversight, when their enforcement plays out like the patriot act? (let me be clear: i don’t blame tony for this. he didn’t write the damn accords. i came out of the movie feeling like tony was tricked, lied to, by the government. i kept waiting for him or someone to clearly articulate that. his exchange with clint in supermax was the closest it came.)
this might be a different point but as long as we’re on the topic – how the hell was Tony perfectly fine recruiting Peter to the fight when he’s supposed to be guilt-wracked over getting that other boy killed? I mean, Peter is far from helpless and maybe Tony didn’t expect it to play out like that, but he still willingly put him on the tarmac with the Winter Soldier, someone he believes to be an unhinged murderer, even if he thinks that all the others on Steve’s side wouldn’t intentionally hurt a kid.
Peter could have gotten killed, and that knowledge should have been like a neon sign in Tony’s mind, but he acted all blase about it until he suddenly realized Peter HAD gotten kind of hurt?? he was willing to use a starstruck kid as a tool and put him in harm’s way??
I’m not saying I’m unsympathetic to Tony, and I loved his interaction with Peter, but when we’re following the plot of the movie, it seems just as shoehorned and unjustified as The Kiss?? like they’re just doing it to re-jumpstart yet another Spider-Man franchise, as if we need another one? Tony sniffing Peter out and giving him a grant is A+ stuff, but I just can’t buy that he’d risk getting a kid killed like that.
I don’t really think Tony had anything particularly against the Winter Soldier before the ending. This movie is all about people’s personal reasons for wanting/not wanting the Accords.
Steve was afraid of a repeat of the SHIELD/Hydra incident and I can understand his reluctance in relinquishing his autonomy to make a judgement call. Besides, he just found out that the best friend he’d thought was dead turned out to be alive in the cruelest way possible. A friend that they were obviously gonna kill or imprison for life even if he was, in the end, just another victim.
Tony was afraid of what he’d do without supervision (e.g. Ultron) and was still massively suffering from an untreated PTSD ever since the first Avengers movie (as seen on his Iron Man movies). Calling in Spiderman probably wasn’t a racional decision on his part. His team had just been split in half and they were ordering him to bring his friends in as criminals. It does feel like an excuse for a new Spidey franchise but I can see him making the decision without really thinking about the consequences of it (hence why he thinks he needs the Accords). He even said at one part of the fight that Peter’s job was to stay away and just make the other party’s lives difficult. He didn’t want him to be in the middle of the fight and didn’t imagine the kid would end up badly hurt. It wasn’t a good call on Tony’s part either way, but I can sympathize.
everybody’s adding interesting stuff to this post, so I feel bad butting into the meta party one more time, but: at the end of the day, I came away from the movie caring less about people’s personal reasons for supporting/opposing the accords, and much more about the arbitrary enforcement of the accords by general ross.
like, a lot of meta ink is being spilled about tony and steve’s very different, but equally compelling, reasoning; but can we talk about the fact that the accords were being enforced at the fucking WHIM of a single person through the entire movie? ross called every shot. when tony did the right thing and brought him the intel on zemo– intel that threw everything into question– ross’s answer was “so fucking what.” he is, canonically, the same dude that tried to kill bruce banner. he has a longstanding vendetta against enhanced humans. and he is the one the government places in total control over the accords! WHY DOESN’T ANY CHARACTER TALK ABOUT THIS? why isn’t that the fucking cornerstone of the anti-accords argument? that immediately, day one, right out of the gate, we are being asked to submit ourselves to someone who has a history of trying to kill or imprison enhanced individuals without trial.
the villains of this movie– zemo and ross (he’s not evil but he is obstructionist)– are becoming invisible, as we keep circling between steve and tony, steve and tony. but what are the accords going to mean, going forward? what happens the next time peter parker wrecks part of nyc while he’s saving it– will he be hunted and sent to the raft? will he NOT? who decides who is authorized to operate as a powered hero and who isn’t? thaddeus ross, full stop??? where is the oversight the accords promised– why does it seem to be held in the hands of one visibly biased man?
I love tony. I get his side of the argument. he’s not wrong to want what he wants. but the accords, as they were shown enforced in this film, are EXACTLY what steve described as being his biggest fear. they consolidate power and authority into the hands of someone with an agenda– someone whose agenda is to either totally CONTROL or else DESTROY enhanced people.