Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
![]()
![]()
Fair enough. Except for one thing: can you say for sure it was because she was a woman? Do you REALLY think he would have left her use the suit if she was a man? No. He refused to put her in danger because she was his daughter, and he cared about her life more than some person he recruited for the task. Unreasonable and clumsy? Yes. Misogynistic? Hell no! Plus, even assuming you are right, he learns from this, since he agrees to let her use the suit at the end.
.... You didn't watch Iron Man 2, did you? Stark didn't give the War Machine to the government; Rhodes took it from him (weither Stark let him take it or not is up to Alternative Character Interpretation) and he let Rhodes keep it. 'Rhodes, not the government. And as far as I remember the government hasn't been able to mass-produce Iron Man suits, so Stark must be ensuring they don't completely own the War Machine. And as I said before, Tony might have not launch a "terrorist" attack on anyone trying to copy it, but he did go on a quest to destroy weapons Stane was selling, and went to fight terrorist in other countries which could be considered an act of war. How exactly is that different from Pym destroying his own company (which by the way he did without killing anyone)? How is Stane selling weapons to terrorists more of a crime than what Cross did?
edited 20th Jul '15 8:52:56 AM by Theokal3
It's honestly hard to say one way or another what would have happened if Hope had been Pym's son.
Men are more protective of daughters than sons. Sons are encouraged to go out and seize the world. Daughters are encouraged to stay here where their father can protect them from men trying to seize the world. It's pretty much unthinkable for a father in media to tell his son to Stay in the Kitchen - when it does happen, it's because the father is dissatisfied with the son's performance rather than anything about their family relationship.
Beloved sons are dismissed because they're incompetent. Highly competent daughters are dismissed because "My child must be protected!"
edited 20th Jul '15 9:01:10 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.If Hope were a man, Hank wouldn't come off as any less wrong. You can't simultaneously hold the views that "This mission is so important that I'll overstep any legal boundaries to accomplish it, because otherwise millions will die!" and "This mission is not so important that I'll allow my child to do it, despite her/him being clearly the most qualified person. Instead I'll waste precious time training an outsider, potentially dooming countless lives." without coming off as kinda selfish and irrational.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
First of all, it wasn't still Pym's company. It was mentioned in the film that he was no longer in charge. It was Cross's now, and Cross was even considering changing the name as evidenced by the displays he used for his demonstrations. Pym was the founder but had been muscled out of the company, which is why he's no longer in the loop or possessing of any power over it. If he DID have the ability to just say no to everything Cross wants to do, his actions would have been even more irrational and pointless than they already were.
Second, Fury outright calls Stark out on giving the Iron Man to Rhodes. It's not Alternate Character Interpretation, the movie makes it clear that what Rhodes supposedly did is impossible. After giving an Iron Man to COL Rhodes of the United States Air Force, Stark proceeds to allow them to keep it and even helps upgrade it in the supplemental materials between 2 and 3. The War Machine is Tony playing ball with the government; what started as a contingency plan for his work to continue after his death has developed into a peace offering between Stark's privatization of world peace and the men and women who are responsible for exactly that.
Third, if nobody died during the explosion - this is never clearly answered - it's not by any deliberate action on Pym's part. The bombing was performed at a time when the building was certain to be full of people, and we actually see a security guard who only survived because Luis, whose involvement Pym was sternly opposed to, had a crisis of conscience and went back to grab him before bailing. Even Tyler Durden of Fight Club had the common decency to perform his terrorist bombings at a time when he was reasonably sure the buildings would be empty.
And finally, there is a world of difference between shooting up terrorists and shooting up businessmen.
edited 20th Jul '15 9:03:01 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.So I just saw the movie, and it was a lot better than I expected. The is probably the best I've ever seen Pym treated, and even with that it still works having Lang as the hero. Performance-wise I don't think there's a single one that I could consider outright bad, the most obnoxious being Pena, T.I., and the other guy, and even then they aren't as groan-inducing as Kat Den-*is pelted with bricks*
I actually like that Cross was a simpler villain. It reminded me a lot of Ronan from Got G, if you replaced "zealous pride" with "growingly-insane sociopathy". Though I'll admit the Pym Particles driving him mad kinda came out of nowhere to me. Same with him suddenly being Dangerously Genre-Savvy, even if it was based on Pym and Lang making some notable mistakes.
I'll also admit that Lang slowly becoming snarkier kinda threw me off. He starts off the movie in a pretty good spot, being funny but still deeply caring for his daughter and having a lot of baggage to deal with. However, towards the end he becomes the Snarky White Guy Protagonist that we've come to see in a lot of Marvel's other stuff, which was a bit disappointing.
Cassie being so young is also a bit of a bummer, though that's more of me personally wanting Stature in a hypothetical Young Avengers film. That'd be pretty cool, right? Daughter taking up after her father after we've clearly spent some time with the father? I dunno, I'd think so. And no, I'm not counting Hank and Hope, since Hank's retired and we're actively seeing Scott through several films.
Ant-Man vs. Falcon comes out of nowhere but is one of the big highlights. As noted before, both get to be pretty awesome, and even Ant-Man winning doesn't make Falcon look that much worse. And it seems to look like it's going to tie into Civil War pretty well. I'm also surprised no one's talking much about the opening scene, and whatever sorcery they did to make Michael Douglas look young. Like, damn that was impressive.
As for the "misogyny" of Hank Pym being argued right now, I don't see it. At all. At no point is it ever brought up as such, even in an "institutional sexism" kind of way. And Pym fucking up is the whole point. He fucks up his relationship with Hope in an attempt to keep her safe while he tried to find a way to bring Janet back, brought Cross too close only to motivate him by pushing back too hard, and goes through all the effort to bring in Lang because, in Lang's own words, he's expendable. He never denies Hope's competence, which she clearly establishes, and his offering in the mid-credits scene is not him accepting her abilities but him opening himself up.
edited 20th Jul '15 9:14:37 AM by Watchtower
![]()
Okay, seriously, this is the most contrived accusation of misogyny I have ever heard since that time someone accused me of being sexist because I saw Kuvira as a Villain Sue. Your affirmations are unfounded. Nothing in Hank's attitude suggests he wants to protect her because she is a woman, and the assumptions men will systematically think to protect women and encourage men to go in action is a gross prejudice. It's hard to say how he would have acted if she was his son, you say? Then again, you have no proof this would have been different.
And even if what you say about Iron Man 2 is true, that doesn't change anything to the fact Stark refuses to let the government mass-produce his tech and limits it to one individual. And that him refusing to give it to the government is presented as the right thing to do in the movie and in the comic.
I pretty much assumed the bombs were set so they would go off when nobody innocent would still be inside the company, and considering the mess that was happening I am pretty sure the building was evacuated by the cops outside anyway. You are pretty much assuming people died in this with no real proof, once again, you are making hypothesis.
The problem isn't that Stark shot terrorists, it's that he went and led an attack in the middle of a foreign country in disregard of the authority of both said country and America, which is essentially an act of war. It's pretty much the same thing as terrorism, in that it's just as illegal. I am sorry, but really you are being a hypocrite by saying what Stark did was different.
Yes, Cassie becoming Stature later on would have been awesome^^
edited 20th Jul '15 9:31:25 AM by Theokal3
![]()
Yeah I think the whole misogyny debate is just one guy creating a strawman argument over why he/she dislike Hank Pym's character.
It would of been understandable if the poster just talk about his amoral for casually breaking the law to suit his needs and his irrational decisions in carrying out his plans like choosing a random guy with no experience using the suit instead of his more skilled daughter. Instead, the person went with making claims that he is a mysogynist and terrorist ignoring key points like The Wasp being his equal partner back in his younger days and that his actions while definitely illegal it is no different from Captain America's action in Winter Soldier when he destroyed the SHIELD when it is controlled by HYDRA.
You said it. This guy is clearly grasping at straws.
![]()
![]()
On your fourth and last point (since someone else is already giving you a counter arguement), so what you are saying is that attacking terrorist is okay whether or not they want to be one but at businessmen who are knowingly breaking the law and funding war for profit by selling weapons to dangerous terrorist who wants to fuck over the world is terrible? Does this mean Superman is the bad guy for wanting to bring Lex Luther to justice, cause this just confirms that everything Luther thinks is true.
edited 20th Jul '15 9:37:03 AM by BigK1337
I don't think Hank necessarily has to be seen as a misogynist, but I do think there are some Unfortunate Implications to be gleamed from the fact, in a franchise heavily lopsided towards white male leads, the screenwriters wrote a subplot that's all about a competent woman being denied the chance to do superheroics, and only getting to do it eventually with permission from her father.
What's more, even though Hank's decision is still clearly pretty selfish and irrational even if not misogynistic, the movie seems to treat it as a virtue — it's with the realisation that her dad forbids her from endangering herself to save lives because he loves her that Hope starts to forgive him.
edited 20th Jul '15 9:37:25 AM by DrDougsh
Yeah, Tobias Drake, you are super reaching with a lot of that reasoning.
1) Regarding why Hank left SHIELD: It is obvious that Hank left SHIELD because they were trying to figure out the Pym Particles, not because Jan died. Jan died in 1987. Hank left SHIELD in 1989. Why would he wait two years?
2) Regarding Cross and why Pym is sabotaging him: he knows he's making weapons, which is a problem. But he also knows that Cross is probably selling to Martin Donovan's character, which Pym knows works with terrorists and warlords. You even said "selling to terrorists" is a crime, so Pym has knowledge of his work about to be sold to terrorists. This is vastly different from Iron Man, whose work was already sold to terrorists — and Iron Man then went and blew up all the stuff that Stane had sold. It was only through luck that Coulson and SHIELD were already there to take over — and guess what? By the time of Ant-Man, SHIELD isn't around any longer (or at least not in any capacity for Hank to give his information) and Hank really doesn't trust them anyway.
3) It's also clear that they were not trying to kill anyone during the explosion. They got an alarm out to evacuate everyone. Hell, Luis even went back and grabbed the security guard he knocked out and brought him out. There were no casualties aside from those Cross killed.
About Pym not knowing about HYDRA: Again, while he didn't know about that specifically, he did know that Cross was selling to a guy who likes to sell to warlords. Should he have gone to the government or the Avengers instead? Of course he should have, Scott flat-out says "I think our first move should be to call the Avengers." Hank dismisses this, clearly assuming (incorrectly) that giving Tony this tech would be bad enough to not warrant their involvement.
Likewise, Hank left SHIELD because he discovered them trying to recreate his formula. The fact that he had recently lost his wife likely didn't help, but it was far from the root cause.
And finally, as noted, Janet and Hank were working on a Wasp suit for Hope, who was what, eight at the time? Clearly they didn't have a problem with the idea of her becoming a hero eventually.
edit:
'ed
edited 20th Jul '15 9:41:01 AM by Discar
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.You know what, I'll give that. It's a fair point. I mentioned with the mid-credits scene that Pym is supposed to be opening himself up to his daughter, and I think that bit there was meant to be the starting point for that but it didn't quite translate through.
Except it's not. Him refusing to give his technology to the government at the beginning of Iron Man 2 is part of his self-destructive behavior; Tony's character arc in Iron Man 2 is that he's becoming reckless and irresponsible, and his speech at the Senate hearing is part of that portrayal.
Hank Pym starts the movie as Tony Stark from the start of Iron Man 2, and ends the movie as Tony Stark still from the start of Iron Man 2, having failed to grow as a person or overcome any of his numerous flaws outside of being a monstrously emotionally abusive father in yet another sterling example of the film's redemption story failing to actually redeem anybody or anything.
The point of contention is not whether or not people died in the bombing; it's whether or not Pym's plan accounted for the people in the building that would be caught in the blast. He staged the bombing at a time he could be certain there were people inside. Any police evacuation is entirely on the police doing their jobs and is not a consequence of Pym's plan.
You're seriously equating the bombing of any company that engages in military contracting with actively stepping between bullets and innocent people who are about to become recipients of those bullets? Your argument is that these two actions are identical?
If Stark had blasted his way into Stane's office in the Iron Man suit, shot him in the face, and then burned the building down with people inside it, he would not be a hero.
Claiming that any action is justifiable so long as it's done to a Bad Guy is Protagonist-Centered Morality at its finest.
Conversely, if Pym's plan had been to use Scott to break into Cross Industries, obtain evidence of his wrongdoing, and turn that evidence over to the authorities to apprehend and prosecute Cross for his crimes, then Pym would be doing the same thing Tony and Pepper did.
Pym has knowledge of his work about to be sold to someone who he believes might distribute it to terrorists, but he has no evidence one way or another. If he did, the heist wouldn't be necessary. Obtaining that evidence should have been the goal here.
When Stark blew up his weapons, he was attacking terrorist groups that were engaged in murdering people. He did not start lobbying missiles at Stark, Hammer, and any other defense contractor in the business of making weapons.
Coulson's presence in the building made matters more convenient for Pepper, but that does not change the fact that their course of action was absolutely not "Destroy Stark Industries and all of its research in a massive explosion, at a time when the building is full of people."
edited 20th Jul '15 10:37:54 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.How do you feel about Dr. Strange going deeper into the realms which man is not supposed to comprehended and eventually bring out an Abstract Being? It's clear Marvel is changing genres for a cosmic horror story - the giant space whales that forever haunt Tony, average Joes popping up as Inhumans, and a reality that can drive you mad
edited 20th Jul '15 11:06:04 AM by xbimpy
tl;dr Hank Pym is worse than Red Skull. Times five. Hundred. Thousand. Million.
And at least Red Skull admits it.
Suggesting new subject of discussion in 3...2...1...So how about that Chadwick Boseman. What will Black Panther's role in Civil War be? Whose side will he be on? That Other Wiki says he'll be a third party to knock their heads together. Thoughts? :hmm
Him refusing to give his technology to the government at the beginning of Iron Man 2 is part of his self-destructive behavior
Mmm, no it wasn't. His destruction behavior was getting drunk in the Iron Man suit. It's pretty clear that he still wants to keep his suit out of the hands of the government no matter what. That hasn't changed by the end of the movie.
He let Rhodey have a suit because he's Rhodey, he's Tony's friend and Tony knew he wouldn't abuse the suit. But the government can't reverse engineer it without Stark slamming them with a lawsuit (because they technically stole it) and by the time of Iron Man 3, there is still only one suit for Rhodey. You'd think if Tony was finally allowing the government access to his suits, there would be a lot, but nope. Tony isn't allowing the government access; he's allowing Rhodey access.
You are taking things out of context and then trying to apply the law in one case and not in another. Pym blowing up the building is illegal, yes. So is Captain America destroying the Triskelian — in fact, he didn't have a plan to evacuate the building then, either, did he? He just wanted the helicarriers to shoot each other and then crash. Without evidence that Hydra was even in control of SHIELD! I mean, doesn't that make Captain America a domestic terrorist, too? There were innocent people in Pymtech and there were innocent people in the Triskelian, too.
edited 20th Jul '15 11:04:42 AM by alliterator

That's a good point. Does Hank not wanting Hope to wear the suit have anything to do with her being female? Or does it have to do with the fact that she's his child?
One is sexist, the other is just being an Overprotective Dad and to call it misogynistic is offensive.