I’m already seeing male reactors get very verbally defensive about that scene in She-Hulk where Jennifer describes how, simply as a woman, she has more experience in suppressing rage than Banner because speaking out will get you labelled “hysterical”, “emotional”, “difficult”, “too much of a feminist”, the list goes on. And if you snap back at the wrong cat-caller, you can get murdered. So now mcu bros are rushing at the opportunity to cry out “this is just another ‘marvel throwing in another woke scene for woke’s sake’. But like...it isn’t untrue. Comic nerds are all for female superhero protagonists until she, god forbids, talks about the dynamics of what it’s like to live within the confines of patriarchy.

MCU fans are always clamoring for the social commentary to be more “subtle” and not so “in-your-face”, just so they can mindlessly enjoy a punchy fighty show and not have to confront any real-world intersections with racism, misogyny, xenophobia, transphobia, all the -isms and -phobias you can imagine. Additionally, even when the social criticisms are embedded into the story, the conflicts are routinely either overlooked or watered-down and discussed at the individual-level as if these are just isolated incidents and not reflective of larger phenomena. Dudebros forget that superhero comic media, from the very beginning, has always been political. A lot of the mainstream characters we know and love today were created in response to the anti-war and peace movements during the seventies in the United States (this is also not to say that there isn’t some definite war propaganda and Red Scare-inspired comics out there either).

Comics are teaching grounds for morality, human good, and bad, power, greed, corruption. Comics have been about the social commentary from the get-go. The idea that the government (and by extent society at large) is villainizing and surveilling a specific minority group who carry varying physical and genetic traits contrasting to that of the “ideal national subject” because of a perceived inherent aggression or difference based on their physical attributes *ahem ahem mutants*...where do you think they got that from?

I literally sat through a dude being like “IN MY EXPERIENCE AS A MAN, THAT IS NEVER THE CASE! IF A WOMAN GETS UPSET AND MAKES A SCENE IN PUBLIC, THE MAN ALWAYS LOOKS LIKE THE BAD GUY BECAUSE IT IS ASSUMED HE DID SOMETHING WRONG. MEN ARE THE ONES WHO CAN NEVER BE ANGRY.” (Obviously for Black men, my argument is different because when Black men express rage, they are viewed as a threat or turned into spectacle, but the person who made this rant was not a Black man, nor was he factoring race into his argument). As if masculinity and gratuitous violence have not become nearly synonymous. When male celebrities are accused of beating their partners, fans run to their defense to say “well she shouldn’t have provoked him.” When Will Smith slapped Chris Rock, the internet rooted for a televised boxing match between the actors/comedians. We all watched the Trump and Hillary debates right, where his belligerent behavior was coddled while she had to maintain composure?

We’ve collectively grown up watching male newscasters, talk show hosts, and reporters make jokes about angry women in sports, in the media or in news reports being on their periods, as a way to minimize the stressful and abusive circumstances, or people, women are subjected to. The world expects women to react to harassment with class and elegance; women’s anger, Black women especially, is never not mitigated. For male fans to come away from that scene wanting to eye roll is why the commentary is so “in-your-face” because a lot of y’all still don’t get it! Men are still finding ways to make women’s issues about them and the “loss” of their rights. In a world where Brock Turners are able to walk free, are you really trying to argue against this scene? Really? What else do you expect out of a series whose main character is AN ATTORNEY? Y’all are just not going to enjoy this series then, as per usual.

Natasha Romanoff and Ballet

We all know about Natasha being a ballerina. In AoU we saw young girls dancing and we saw her ballet slippers in Endgame

But surprise! That did not happen in the comics. At least, not at all.

Natasha only believed to be a ballerina with the Bolshoi theatre but she never was one. The Red Room implanted false memories on her and the other widows to keep them loyal as 'that (becoming a ballerina) was the dream of all Russian girls.'

Natasha believed it for DECADES. In Black Widow 2004, she found out about the implanted memories.

In that comic, Natasha visits the Bolshoi theatre to talk with her 'ballet teacher', Alex Sterenly (who was actually a scientist who brainwashed her) only to find out he isn't a ballet teacher!

Eventually, she discovered an abandoned building (I'm not 100% sure but it's probably an old building of the Red Room) and remembers how she was brainwashed.

I think it's suppossed to show that no matter what, the Red Room still has control over Natasha and other Widows. This shows that even after her defection, Natasha still isn't truly free its power and controll.

Here are two panels showing perfectly how at one point Natasha didn't even know what's real and what's not

It's so weird that people keep saying that Wanda's trauma is because of Tony. "Tony's weapons attacked her home! It's Tony's fault!" Actually, those weapons were sold by Obadiah Stane (if they were Stark Industries' weapons at all, but we'll ignore how the logo is wrong because it might just be a continuity error). Tony actually is the person who stopped Stane the instant he found out about it. So in fact, Tony is the one who prevented what happened to Wanda from ever happening again.

But for some reason we can't say that. Everyone cries foul. They say we're trying to erase Wanda's trauma. Instead of, you know, redirecting it to the proper source. But I guess it's easier to take up the narrative Wanda created (and loudly and consistently spouts) instead of looking at the truth (which is never said out loud in the movies and is left to be inferred). Because children don't understand how to think critically.

Steve Rogers Rant

(Just rewatched Avengers : age of ultron and wanted to rant about something I realised)

If anyones else remembers there the infamous on-going joke in the movie where Steve says language and the whole team makes fun of him.

For a while I remember everyone talk about how that was very out of character for Steve and talked about how the MCU tried making him into a Boy Scout like character when that’s not who he was.

And then it came to me…

Yes it was!

I’d like to remind ya’ll one very big thing about Steve; his parents were Irish, Catholic, immigrants from the 1920’s, you can bet your ass Steve Rogers has the phrase “Language!” In graved into his brain from his mother, which is probably why after he said it he was instantly like “it just slipped out” like a reflex.

Any time someone cursed or heaven forbid took the lords name in vain, Sarah Rogers was calling out “Language!” causing the sorry bastard to flinch.

As far as the whole “he’s not a Boy Scout” goes; I understand that Steve represents going against the woes of government control despite his title but that all begun after he joined the war, his entire life before that was being a good kid for his mum and neighbourhood; you can bet he was helping little old ladies down the street despite them probably being stronger then he was pre serum.

And that doesn’t just go away, even through MCU rarely brings it up the scrawny little kid is still there and Steve Rogers is such a Boy Scout… a Boy Scout who’s seen behind the curtain of governmental corruption… but a Boy Scout none the less.

Thank you that is all🖤

Marvel and the MCU gets away with so much, and most people can't even talk about it, because there will be a rabid Marvel fan breathing on your neck, because how dare you critize it.

They don't build sets, overwork and underpay the vfx artists, they don't pay comicbook writers/artists, yet they exploit their works. (HE intro for the worst example.) They don't let actors read the script, let the writers and directors do whatever they want. Even if that doesn't make sense for the overall story. Because you know the MCU is connected.

Not to mention their shitty "we're woke, you see" stuff. I'm a queer woman. But let's be honest they treat female characters very shittily most of the time. Queer representation is usually 15-20 seconds scene distributors can easily cut out. Oh, and despite the fact that Sam Wilson IS Captain America, they seem to care about Peggy Carter more.

Also, why do they produce this much content? No one has enough time to watch this many stuff, especially if it's a new person, who wants to watch this.

I didn't read it back, so I have no idea what I actually wrote here, but to to sum it up: Fuck the mcu.

I'm gonna come out and say it; No Way Home sucked. Sure, it had some good moments but in my opinion, it does not live up to the first two instalments of the trilogy. I liked the first part of the movie but as soon as I knew where the second part was going, I fell off that train pretty quickly.

Not only did it make MCU Spidey end up with the same tale as his two predecessors but it also undoes Peter's entire establishment in Marvel's overall franchise. What was the point of the last four movies putting him on the roster with Earth's MIGHTIEST Heroes if you were just going take all that away and make it like he exists in a completely separate world from them? What was the point of the three cameos we had from RDJ, Samuel L. Jackson, and Benedict Cumberbatch in their iconic roles to show that interconnected universe as with every other MCU movie, only for that to be stripped away at the very last second? Might as well have been another one of Sony's solo ventures at making a series after TASM but it's not and that's why I HATE the uncertainty of Peter Parker's future in the MCU. However, given the current failing reality of the MCU with every new movie that comes out, I can already confirm it's nothing good. In fact, it probably would be best if progress stops altogether before Marvel really is stuck in the dust and just a part of a magnificent past with no legacy to carry on. (This is a side note but that is still a big issue for me anyways that I may expand upon later in another post. In the meantime, go watch all the video essays on YouTube, I'm sure you'll find many good ones.)

He had a unique story that fit into the overarching plot of the MCU and the premise he had was different from the previous Spideys which is what was so interesting about his character development. This Peter Parker had friends that weren't introduced before, or at least, they were more developed than in other series; he had a superhero as a mentor, not a scientist turned villain due to unfortunate circumstances; he had a guy in the chair who wasn't after him or turned villain because his father was one, he had two crushes that were friends, he was part of clubs and acted more teenage-like than the last two. He interacts with other heroes, joins the Avengers, fights THE villain, perishes, comes back, loses his mentor, and is still expected to keep on going.

For crying out loud, he was asked if he was going to be the next Iron Man but he knew he wasn't which is what Far From Home set out to show us. And to all those who called him Iron Man Jr. in Homecoming, I hope you know that you make no sense and I think Marvel did a wonderful job making him stand apart. He was a kid admiring one of his role models and now that he actually had a connection to him, of course he was going to want to be like his mentor but even Tony recognized that he wanted him to be more, not like him. This shows Iron Man himself had great respect for the young hero.

Now, moving onto No Way Home, two main things that annoy the heck out of me; Peter being forgotten (obviously) and Aunt May dying. I'll start with Aunt May's death. To be honest, it was a completely unnecessary death and it actually doesn't make sense for the purpose it had in the movie. The punchline "With great power comes great responsibility." loses its premise as soon as you recall Civil War's intro to Peter in the first place. Uncle Ben had already died, Peter was Spider-Man at this point, and remember what Peter told Tony when they met, why the older hero related to him so much? "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't... and then the bad things happen... they happen because of you." So he already learned that lesson on responsibility and by the time we get to No Way Home, this kid had learned lessons also involving the universe at large. Why are we rehashing Uncle Ben's offscreen death with Aunt May if Marvel literally stated that was overdone? Make that make sense. But oh, it was to make something big and dramatic happen in the movie because we needed to mOve aLoNg. Peter lost his parents, his uncle, and mentor; can you come up with something new other than parental figure losses? Why do TASM Peter and OG Peter still have their Aunt Mays and even if it was just a deleted scene, technically TASM Peter's dad? Huh, then what do you say there? Why did MCU Peter Parker have to lose ALL his parental figures?

Finally, the thing that probably broke most of us; Peter being wiped from everyone's memory. As I stated earlier, his entire existence within the MCU just vanishes, like that, in seconds. So......... what was the point of his existence up till now in the MCU? What was the point of his specific development and growth if he was just going to get forgotten? Why was he meticulously introduced at the height of the Avengers' conflict and then constantly involved with some other MCU hero/important character if he was going to be removed from that? If the Avengers were never a big deal, why make him a part of that at all and why were we still bringing them up at the climax of the film? For those who bring up the argument that he's supposed to be a solitary hero, well that was the worst way to have introduced him then, right? But Marvel chose that route, not any other. Which is why that decision still makes no sense to me. You put him in a world where he wasn't the only superhero and he was going to interact with other heroes which none of the other Spider-Men had and that already put him in a unique position. Why give him a background that was going to get swiped?

Imagine that, making five blockbuster films that gave him a firm standing in the MCU at the peak of Phase 3 and then in his sixth film, his last standalone which is supposed to be his most shining moment, he gets the rug pulled out from underneath him to give him a blank slate? You might as well have thrown every script out from 2015 to 2019 including him before they were ever written or considered. It's the equivalent of undoing everything you just worked on in a school project that's worth 40% of your final grade. Think about that for a second. Marvel just undid 6 years of work and investment in a single character for them to go back to the beginning. Why didn't you just do that then from the start? You could have had more classic Spidey a long time ago by that train of thought (which I really didn't want because we already saw that twice and this Spidey was something fresh).

Anyways, thanks for reading. This is 2 years worth of disappointment and frustration put on the page.

DC movies might be less successful and popular than Marvel, but they are better at depicting heroism and what it stands for.

Have you seen Dark knight? The scene where Batman starts beating the shit out of Joker to get confession out of him. He locks the door so noone can get in.

Why did he lock the door as soon as he realizes Joker abducted Rachel? Because he is about to beat the shit out of Joker and he knows this is not the way. That this is not something hero should do.

Jim Gordon also knows and that is why as soon as he sees Batman locking the door, he is running to get into the interrogation room. Because he knows this is not what good guys should be doing, punching the shit out of people, even if they are criminals.

When cops do it, its police brutality. So I have no idea why is it allowed when its a Marvel hero. Now I have Thor in Ragnarok in mind, torturing Loki with obedience disc. Yall defend him with "but Loki was about to betray him". Ok. But Thor is a hero. And as such, he should know better.

Because when heroes start hurting bad guys (and we can argue all day long if Loki is a bad guy at all but lets say for purpose of this that he is), even stand above their body with smile on their faces as the bad guy is in pain, then whats the difference between them and bad guys? How are they better than them?

Dark knight,and also new The Batman (scene where Catwoman wants to kill the guy who hurt her friend but Bruce stops her) show much better the difference between hero and a villain. Ive seen Batman only once so I cant use it as example,only Dark knight which I know backwards.

In Dark knight, Bruce does few things that are not heroic. Like beating the shit out of Joker or spying on people to find him(I think we can find more), but in all these cases Bruce's behavior is framed as bad.

We see that Bruce locks the door to stop anyone from entering. Because he knows its not heroic at all,and so does the audience thanks to framing. When he uses satellites and microphones and shit to spy on people to find Joker, its highly unethical and wrong, Lucius even tells him. And audience knows as well.

Meanwhile we have Marvel "heroes" who murder as they go because "but they were hurt as a children", or humiliate and torture bad guys because "but they are bad guys so they deserve it!" We have even someone who was selling slaves to a dictator and framing never says its bad or immoral. And that person is called hero.

Dammit Im pissed at this shit

DC framed this as bad

while Marvel framed this as good and heroic

If you laugh at Loki in pain and defend it, fuck the fuck off. Block me. Dont reply to me with how its not that deep and shit or the same crap I mentioned above that he deserves it. Just. Fuck. Off.

Today in Marvel what makes hero a hero is framing. Nothing else.

The Marvels (pre-review thoughts)

Ok, so… Friday, amiright? The Marvels, a sequel to Captain Marvel is gonna release. And being real? I think it looks super fun. I wasn’t a fan of the first, but dammit I’m hyped. The tone seems lighthearted enough to nail the comedy aspect, the length is short and comfy, I love Iman to death she is the perfect Ms. Marvel, I think the character dynamics seem interesting, and the action gimmick looks especially entertaining. I’m expecting this to be a pretty decent MCU entry.

But it doesn’t matter how good it is. It’s going to bomb anyways. Horrendously so. It’s predicted to be lower than The Flash.

and that kind of pisses me off.

Nothing against you if you just aren’t interested. That’s completely valid. But let’s not pretend like that’s the only reason this will likely bomb so horribly.

Am I going to blame sexism? Yeah, sue me. It’s not the majority reason, sure, but it’s almost certainly a contributing factor.

I mean it, people have been spouting the same “ugh I’m so tiiiiired of these” for the past like five movies, but the reception for The Marvels is… different. People are absolutely BLOODTHIRSTY for this movie to fail, in a way completely unseen in Thor, Ant-Man, Guardians, etc. These people aren’t apathetic, they actively receive joy at the thought of The Marvels failing. And no, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s happening to a movie with three female leads, two of which being non-white. I don’t think there would be a reaction nearly on this level even if Taika came back for a Thor 5.

Maybe the movie will suck. It’s always a possibility.

But I’ve fallen seriously out of love with mcu discourse. The absolute vitriol these men have for Brie Larson, through all these years… it’s pathetic. It’s absolutely pathetic.

Higher further faster baby.

Tiring to see all the 'Top' posts under the she hulk tag is full of Matt Murdock/Daredevil stuff

I mean come on this is Jen's show get over it already 🙄

Sincerely,

A Daredevil fan

Me: I should write more stuff about Maggie, her mother and their relationship...

Also me: *has her drafts full of headcanons about Hank and Maggie*

What should I say? I just love them and their relationship together. Hank and his dad vibes are killing me. He would be such a good father to his kids! And it's so sad that we barely see any good father child relationships especially in marvel. Yeah i know we barely see any kind of parent child relationships because most of the time they're dead or whatever but with fathers it's even less. Like i can think of more sweet mother child relationships than father child relationships. (Talking mostly about the mcu cause i have barely read any comics yet but still)

The only good fathers I can think of from the top of my head are: Tony, Clint, Scott, Drax, Kamala's dad, Cassie's stepdad and T'Chaka that's it. Some would say Odin but tbh I don't think of him as a good dad especially if you think of Loki and Hela.

But mother child relationships? We got kamala's mom, Pepper, Frigga, Ramonad, Maria, Wanda, Laura Barton, Janet Van Dyne, Meredith Quill, Ying Li, Melina Vosokoff, the mom of Cassie Lang, Tony's mom, Nakia. Even Kate's mom. I know she did very bad things but you can't deny she was a good mother to Kate. I also read a little about Jubilee as mother. Not to forget aunt May! I know she's actually the aunt but she still stepped up as peter's mother and literally raised him, so I let this count.

The most father child realtionship were mostly shitty and/or absent in one way or another... And those good ones we do have are mostly cut short and they were never really able to be the dad they could have been. I mean Tony? Died when Morgan was like 4. Scott? Prison and then gone for 5 years. Drax? His child was killed and even if he would have been a good dad we never saw his relationship with his daughter not even in flashbacks or whatever. Also comic Kurt could have been such an amazing dad. But nooooo, Marvel said let's not do that and take his child away. So all we have left are Clint, Kamala's dad and T'Chaka. That's really sad.

And that's why most of the time I focus more on the father child relationships in my headcanons and stories. Because the males of marvel deserve to also be shown as good dads!

I don't care what anyone says but a good father is just as important to a child and this whole bad!dad trope is getting so annoying. Dads deserve to be shown as the good ones too! And kids deserve to have a good father in their lives.

Steve Rogers: A Brief Character Analysis

I have seen way too many posts over the past year that hate on or attribute incorrect character traits to Stevie Boy, so this is in response to those misconceptions and baseless grievances, of which I will be addressing four: that Steve is egotistic, impulsive, entitled, and selfish.

First, Steve Rogers is not an impulsive person when it comes to making important ethical decisions. He has made a habit of acting upon his principles to the best of his ability in specific circumstances. CACW emphasizes this aspect of Steve’s personality. He is the only one to actually read through the Accords; Tony certainly doesn’t and Vision only looks at things from a vague general perspective and not the actual policies that are being implemented. Steve isn’t against rules; when he is being held in the office in Germany he tells Tony that if there were changes to the Accords— changes that would make them actually useful— he would sign them and be a willing participant. (I have addressed related issues with the Accords here, if anyone is interested. )

The whole presentation that Ross gives is a clear sign to Steve— and, arguably, Sam— that this is the objective of the Accords: it’s a power play. (Why the other avengers don’t see this— especially Rhodey and Natasha— I have no fucking clue. Chalk it up to the Russo brothers not being capable of staying true to their characters. *cough* endgame *cough* anyway…) They use the four incidences of mass destruction that the avengers partook in to guilt them into signing and it partially works. (Ahem, Tony) But the reality of who is culpable in these instances is most definitely not as Secretary Shithead Ross makes it out to be.

The battle of New York was largely instigated by SHIELD (surprise, surprise: a government sanctioned organization) who took it upon themselves to create weapons from alien technology. That situation was further exacerbated by the world security council sending a nuke which Tony had to get rid of, a task which caused him to have major PTSD.

Washington D.C. was to stop Hydra, another power hungry organization, which had taken over SHIELD (again, a government sanctioned organization), and if they hadn’t taken down those helicarriers millions of people would have died. The deaths that resulted from their destruction were an accident and an unfortunate consequence.

Lagos was a mission to stop some of the remaining aforementioned Hydra assholes from attacking innocent people with biological weapons. Brock Rumlow is to blame for the explosion which Wanda tried to maintain. Again, an unfortunate accident.

Even Sokovia, to a certain degree was out of the avengers hands. Tony created Ultron to serve as a protector of earth; a shield, not a weapon. However, the mind stone, upon giving Ultron a consciousness, altered his programming. Tony, nor Bruce, are to blame for the actions of Ultron who acted apart from them and the programming that they gave him, just as a parent is not responsible for their grown child, who was raised to understand that killing people is wrong, murdering people. Though the two geniuses are to blame for ultron’s creation, and it is most definitely problematic that they would try to implement it without the consent of the rest of the planet (though I’m not 100% positive that that’s what happened), they are not morally culpable for the actions of an independent agent which diverted from the given programming. More than that, they did the right thing by trying to stop the vibranium-stealing metal fucker from killing everyone.

All that to say that Steve very much thinks through his decisions and impulsively acts upon ethical principles that he has already ingrained within his own psyche. However, He continues to be introspective, and is constantly questioning what the right and wrong thing to do is; this is evidenced by the conversation he has with Peggy in CATWS where he tells her that he’s doubting his own understanding of what is right and wrong in light of SHIELD’s building of the helicarriers. It’s not that he doesn’t know if the intended function of the helicarriers is wrong (because it most certainly is: “This isn’t freedom. This is fear.”), but whether or not working for SHIELD, a government organization, is the right thing to do if they are going to partake in such morally questionable practices. His actions are driven by this constant ethical and philosophical debate he has going on in his head. (Which is just another reason why endgame is a load of shit, but that is a rant for another time.)

Secondly, though his beef with Tony in the Avengers film (the only egotistic instance I could think of) seems to fit that egotistical billing, it could (and should) be argued that he is fresh out of the ice, and all he knows is that Peggy, the woman he loves and just lost, was the one who started the organization and he trusted her completely, so his trust of SHIELD is really just his trust of Peggy. Moreover, he and Tony butt heads because of the persona that the latter frequently puts on. Steve, as I will argue soon, is a very selfless and loyal person, and he is intolerant of people's bullshit. Was it a misjudgment of Tony on his part? Yes, but it's a misjudgment that even the people closest to Tony made early on in their relationships with him because Tony uses it as a mental shield (another analysis for another time.) Anyways, the fact that Steve was trying to instigate the physical fight with Tony is absolute bullshit writing, because all throughout CATFA Steve is NEVER the one to instigate the fight; he won't back down from it, but he won't be the first one to throw blows. The fact that his behavior is contrary to this in the Avengers can be attributed to the writers' and Joss Whedon's inability to understand Steve's character, something that happens way too frequently in the MCU. (Another excellent post about Steve Rogers not being impulsive and egotistical can be found here.)

Third, Steve Rogers is NOT entitled; he doesn’t expect people to follow him. He very much is still in the mindset of the little guy from Brooklyn who nobody would listen to and asshole “men” would beat up because he called them out on their bullshit. He grew up in a time where eugenics was a popular political stance, meaning he was ostracized and belittled because of his health issues and his physiology; he would have been deemed genetically inferior and therefore a lesser being by many and treated as such. His entire speech in the Triskelion in CATWS emphasizes that he doesn’t think people will follow him and he doesn’t ask them to. He asks them to do the right thing because he believes in the goodness of individuals (as he says in his letter to Tony in CACW). He appeals to their individual humanity, their individual principles and ethics; he’s not trying to rally them behind him, but is encouraging them to do what they know to be the right thing on their own and of their own volition. Furthermore, he doesn’t oppose people questioning his judgement, but he is not going to let Rhodey stand there with his air of self-righteousness and tell him that the accords are the right way to go when he hasn’t even fucking read them! (Something which doesn’t seem fitting with Rhodes’s character, but hey, what do I know? 🙄) He holds people to the same standards he holds himself (which is why he is constantly butting heads with Tony, who holds himself to a high standard but in some questionable ways) and he expects everyone to make an informed decision. Again, this is seen in his speech in CATWS; he gives the SHIELD agents all the facts (though he doesn’t exactly have time to give them proof) and lets them make the decision for themselves.

Lastly, but most importantly, Steve is selfless; he does the right thing despite it being the more difficult path. He could have easily submitted to the Accords, or retired and said “this is not my problem,” but he risked his own life and freedom because he knew that Bucky was innocent and that there was a greater threat on the horizon. Being on the run from one nation, as he did in CATWS (something that a lot of people forget) is difficult, let alone being on the run from 117. This is not an easy feat and he fucking knows it. This is most certainly not a decision he makes impulsively. He does what he does because he values all human life, despite the potential loss of his own. Though he is not perfect (he should have told Tony what had actually happened to his parents, and he definitely could have explained his position on the Accords better, though I’m not sure how in character either of these behaviors are), he is a true hero because he sacrifices his own life for the safety and freedom of all of humanity at the risk of losing both, himself. (This is the most important reason why endgame is a load of shit, but, again, a rant for another time.)

The other Avengers certainly have their flaws, but they are not all impulsive (Nat being a prime example of one who is not, Tony of one who is). And as much shit as I give Tony, he is a very robust character with lots of characteristics and a well developed back story and I love him. I might do a character analysis on him and others in the future, but I will save those essays for a later date.

Tenoch Huerta shuting down the Namor/Shuri thing better not be the a repeat of the Sambucky situation.

Definitely one of the ugliest moments in the fandom.... Y'all (you know who you are) were all too quick to tear down a PoC for not sharing your head cannons, and call him homophobic (even though he wasn't)

(Not mentioning how Sebastian Stan was deliberately baiting fans but never got any of the backlash)

Point is :

THESE ACTORS DO NOT OWE YOU SHIT.

They are there to work, and do what the script requires of them... Nothing more. They're under no obligation to share your head cannons.

Shipping gets such a bad rep because of people like this. Shipping is supposed to be fun, not something to harass people and send death threats over.

Continue shipping them if you want. But I cannot believe I have to actually say this.....

Please. PLEASE do not harass Tenoch Huerta over like this.

Be better.

Whoever designed that fighting suit, do you know that Natasha is a SUPER SPY?!? She works in the shadows!! Why does her suit have fucking lights!?

That basically goes against the premise of her character.

What’s your opinion about Tony taking Peter along with him to the airport? Of course he did NOT force him or blackmail him, people are literally making shit up to make Tony look bad (because that’s literally all they have, just words without facts) but just in general what do you think?

The way i see it, this is a good, supposed to be safe mission  preparation first mission for him, but people saying he was bad for doing this to peter.

What do you think?

I mean, storyline-wise, it's pretty forced. The MCU high-ups were like, "Spider-Man makes money; let's get him in there!" So. What can you do.

From within, I liked how we were already well past his origin story, and I loved the dynamic between two Nerdy Boys, I thought the thing about Aunt May being young was weird but fine, since I love getting away from tropes and the 'sweet grandma' trope has been beaten to death. I loved Spider-Man as he was written and acted because he was the quintessential silly nerd weirdo who got crazy excited over stuff and nerded out about weaponry and superheroes and everything.

I liked how Tony was explicitly stated to order Peter to stay back and just web them up. I like how both of them were still playing around a little bit; the "Underoos!" thing made it clear Tony wanted Steve to knock it off but never expected a real fight. Even after having Spider-Man take Steve's shield, he still didn't instigate a battle; he just wanted to use Spider-Man as a tool for de-escalation. I was pleasantly surprised, at the time, by Steve being the one to push for a battle, and for his side to end up going WAY too far over and over again, because it proved his imperfections, which I love to see in my superheroes. (I of course abhorred the backtracking in later movies.)

Overall, I thought Tony noticing Peter made sense, since Tony's been leading the Avengers in all but name since the start, no matter what anyone says about Steve, and it makes sense for Tony to be on the lookout for others like himself and the team. It also makes sense that Tony sat on this after learning who Peter was until he found he needed someone to help him get his friends back before the United States government killed them. I wasn't fond of the sudden trip to Germany, but I understood the need for speed and, with the information given about Tony's original plan, I realize he was backed against a wall and making a tough choice.

I loved how, when everything got bad as hell, Tony stopped everything and ran to Peter to order him to stand down and stay out of the fight; I loved how scared he'd been when he'd gotten to Peter's side, because the kid had been in real danger thanks to Steve's team and could have gotten hurt far worse. It is telling to me that Steve was the one to injure Peter, even after learning how young Peter was (there's no way Peter's voice was the voice of an adult, ffs), yet Steve did not ensure Peter was okay. Tony did. Tony was the one to check if the kid was all right and then ensure he stayed out of the increasingly escalating battle.

If the rest of the MCU movies hadn't come out and I hadn't been forced by a bunch of brats on the Internet to endure some of the dumbest bullshit the MCU fandom writes about how sweet angel Steve Rogers did no wrong and evil devil Tony Stark wrought the world asunder, I would actually say that I loved Civil War, for all its faults. Because Steve wanted to be a hero, Tony kept trying to hold everything together, and neither of them did a perfect job but Tony did well and Steve did horribly, and it was about time we got some character depth on Captain America and got to see Tony's merits as a leader, too.

And then. You know. The rest of the movies, and the fandom, and now I want to burn the world to ashes every time someone even mentions MCU Steve Rogers or Civil War to me.

I'm so sorry but why are we even having this whole Jen Walters CGI fiasco when Marvel could, once again, save the trouble by just using practical effects. Seriously, why is it so necessary to have She Hulk be complete CGI? Wicked exists, you know.

Just be honest if you want to punish Tony Stark for his faults.

I just read a Wanda Stan post that says that Tony never took any accountability for his actions, saying that he really needed to just take responsibility. Admit his wrongs, and all that. Except that was clearly not what they ment when I read the rest of the rant.

About half the points were good in the beginning, but I could never reblog such a flawed mess of the strawman fannon argument it devolved into. They repeatedly say paying money to help fix things after the fact or setting up programs to try and prevent it from happening again doesn’t count as taking responsibility. That all Tony's charity work, which predates Ironman, is meaningless because money is meaningless to someone that rich. They go on to say none of Tony's positive actions in any of his movies matter, and (while accusing the pro-Tony set of using fanfiction as arguments) claiming that Tony fully approved the sale of every weapon Obadiah sold on the black market under the table. It gives the impression that Tony personally signed off on the order to bomb Wanda's home. Ford is not responsible for what Darrell Brooks Jr. did with their potentially deadly product. Sokovia was a war zone canonically. Is the company in Egypt that made the bombs Russia bought the only responsible entity for the deaths in Ukraine? I thought not.

But that's not what got me to rant. You know how Tony fails to take responsibility for the problems he has in his relationship with Pepper Pots according to this?

Blaming his own bad decisions for their breakup.

Excuse me, but if I make a bad decision and I say afterwards "my life got messed up because of this bad decision I made" then guess what?

That is the textbook definition of taking accountability for one's actions. He said he messed up and tried his best to do what the person he hurt wanted to make up for it, and he succeeded in that effort.

What more do you want? He's not perfect and he certainly isn't a white knight on a shining horse, but at least be fair to the man. He tries to do better, and sometimes he does it wrong.

He got it wrong with Peter. Even if he knows the kid is nearly indestructible and expected to just have a conversation to settle things with Steve in Civil War, he still shouldn't bring a minor overseas to a fight. He knows it, too, and that's probably part of why he backs off and lets Happy be a man in the middle.

He gives Happy the responsibility of monitoring Peter because Tony doesn't think he is able to do it well - the last kid/superhero he tried to make was Ultron, and if he's a monster for that then let's be consistent and applaud him for being more cautious this time. If it really was all Tony (and not any influence from Bruce who also worked on Ultron or the corrupt mind stone scepter that forces people to experience negative emotions, and we'll pretend that Tony is obviously lying when he says "we didn't have an interface") that messed up Ultron as Tony clearly believes to be true by the time of Civil War, then having someone else as Peter's first contact is a good decision. Tony doesn't know that Peter is too intrinsically good to go down a dark path. I don't think he believes in that kind of goodness in people, anyone can go wrong with the right motivation in his mind which is why he scoffs at Rogers saying that everyone has evil ulterior motives except his Avengers 'safest hands,' but I digress.

It was Happy who dropped the ball by never responding to Peter, or telling his boss that this was a task he just couldn't handle and needed to be given to someone else. Yes, he is an employee, but Happy doesn't have the same relationship to his boss as the average fry cook has to the Burger King CEO. Stark might insist that Happy give it another try, but he isn't going to fire him. In the meantime, Happy could have texted back once or twice - even just to tell the kid that the constant alerts weren't alright on what was supposed to be an emergency line and he should keep the status updates to once or twice a day.

So many of these stan rants make it sound like only one person can be in the wrong when a mistake is made. This is childish. That Tony was wrong doesn't mean others were not also wrong. That Wanda was wrong doesn't mean she wasn't lied to. Shared responsibility doesn't mean you pick a scapegoat that get 100% of the blame, nor that someone else taking part of the blame fully absolves everyone else.

Natasha feels guilty she didn't notice that she was going on missions that helped HYDRA goals after CA: Winter Soldier because she feels she should have been able to tell the difference. It is not entirely her fault, but she isn’t blameless and wants a new, clean, chain of command to replace SHIELD because she recognizes that she could be misled into doing the wrong things if she is only relying on her own BS detector and information gathering skills.

Yes, please do also apply this to Wanda Maximoff joining Hydra. She didn't know at first, but she certainly knew by the time we met her.

Yes, a boss is responsible for an employee screw up when they give bad direction, but so is the employee when they ignore their responsibilities. So Happy does share that blame. The oof is a big oof, and there is plenty to go around.

One final note:

This is not taking accountability, this is punishment:

If the only thing that would satisfy you that Tony Stark has real remorse for his actions is him groveling on his knees, you don't want accountability you want punishment. Be honest about what you want.