I have not seen the Civil War movie nor did I read the Civil War comics that it was based on but I have read the Wearing The Cape series (by Marion G. Harmon).
In the back-story of his series, Mr. Harmon brings up an important point.
Super-Beings Are Potentially Dangerous both to the average citizen and to tyrannical governments.
In the comics, while "Good Guys" the Super-Heroes are actually vigilantes acting outside the Law.
If Superman, Thor, etc. actually violated the laws/rules that the police, the military, & the average citizen have to follow, who can "take them to task"? (Especially if the Super-Heroes have secret identities.}
In the comics, it is "simple". The Super-Heroes are written to be "Always Correct" so "Only Bad People Want To Control Them".
While it varies (by government) in the Wearing The Cape universe, to have a career of "Super-Heroing", there are rules that a Super-Being have to follow especially if the Super-Being works with Law-Enforcement.
In the US, you don't have to be "registered" as a Super-Being and you're free to live out your life as you chose.
Mind you, a minor who develops Super-Powers has to be educated separately from non-powered children. Considering how "real" children can behave, that is likely a good idea. :wink:
Of course, there will be people who after developing Super-Powers, who would continue (or begin) criminal actions.
But yes, the problem with the movie is a lack of "prudence" in the actions of the government.
Oh, The Major Problem (For Me) in the Movie is the Idea of putting the Avengers under the control of the United Nations.
No Real Government (US or otherwise) would allow the UN to have complete control of all Super-Beings. The United Nations isn't allowed to have military forces completely under its control so why would the US Government allow the UN to control the Avengers?
<I>It is also worth noting that a treaty such as the Sokovia Accords could be signed by the U.S. president but, unless it was ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, it could not take effect and thus would have no power over any American citizen or the country at large.</i>
I actually noted this to my geek group when the movie came out.
I know Tony is....like PTSD as heck.. but wow, arrest folks now!
In the comic series, which further gave weight to the comic series, which included other series besides just the Avengers, that treaty had been ratified. While I personally agree with Captain America, I also understand that if this was based in reality, governments would not want an incredibly powerful group of individuals not under government control on some level. There are good reasons, and bad reasons for this, all of which kind of got touched on throughout the multi-series Civil War, but didn't really get touched on in the movie, for obvious reasons.
I have not seen the Civil War movie nor did I read the Civil War comics that it was based on but I have read the Wearing The Cape series (by Marion G. Harmon).
In the back-story of his series, Mr. Harmon brings up an important point.
Super-Beings Are Potentially Dangerous both to the average citizen and to tyrannical governments.
In the comics, while "Good Guys" the Super-Heroes are actually vigilantes acting outside the Law.
If Superman, Thor, etc. actually violated the laws/rules that the police, the military, & the average citizen have to follow, who can "take them to task"? (Especially if the Super-Heroes have secret identities.}
In the comics, it is "simple". The Super-Heroes are written to be "Always Correct" so "Only Bad People Want To Control Them".
While it varies (by government) in the Wearing The Cape universe, to have a career of "Super-Heroing", there are rules that a Super-Being have to follow especially if the Super-Being works with Law-Enforcement.
In the US, you don't have to be "registered" as a Super-Being and you're free to live out your life as you chose.
Mind you, a minor who develops Super-Powers has to be educated separately from non-powered children. Considering how "real" children can behave, that is likely a good idea. :wink:
Of course, there will be people who after developing Super-Powers, who would continue (or begin) criminal actions.
But yes, the problem with the movie is a lack of "prudence" in the actions of the government.
Oh, The Major Problem (For Me) in the Movie is the Idea of putting the Avengers under the control of the United Nations.
No Real Government (US or otherwise) would allow the UN to have complete control of all Super-Beings. The United Nations isn't allowed to have military forces completely under its control so why would the US Government allow the UN to control the Avengers?
<I>It is also worth noting that a treaty such as the Sokovia Accords could be signed by the U.S. president but, unless it was ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, it could not take effect and thus would have no power over any American citizen or the country at large.</i>
I actually noted this to my geek group when the movie came out.
I know Tony is....like PTSD as heck.. but wow, arrest folks now!
:has a thought, watches first thing in detail:
K... flash of Hulk in New York....
Literally NOTHING else was the Avengers.
Just "bad stuff around them."
In the comic series, which further gave weight to the comic series, which included other series besides just the Avengers, that treaty had been ratified. While I personally agree with Captain America, I also understand that if this was based in reality, governments would not want an incredibly powerful group of individuals not under government control on some level. There are good reasons, and bad reasons for this, all of which kind of got touched on throughout the multi-series Civil War, but didn't really get touched on in the movie, for obvious reasons.
Elkin recommended you; I'm glad he did.