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
I'd say Rhodey did steal the suit, because, again, he has authorized access. Tony then lets him keep it because, well, he trusts one of his close friends not to be an asshat with it.
Good fucking Christ, does everyone here need to do a marathon to refresh everyone's memories? Because the sheer amount of misinformation being flung around is staggering.
I agree that he let Rhodey take the suit and that this was all but stated. Apologies, there are a number of debates going on right now and "Did he or did he not allow the suit to be taken?" is one of them.
The point is, Tony's a politician. He flipped the government a giant middle finger at the start of Iron Man 2, shortly before nearly killing himself driving his own stock car much to the shock and horror of everyone he knows, and then hitting rock bottom by piloting the Iron Man shitfaced at his birthday party. All of this was part of the central conflict of his character arc.
Tony at the end of Iron Man 2 is a different person than he was at the end of Iron Man 1, because that's how Character Development works. By the end of Iron Man 2, he's allowed the government to keep an Iron Man suit as a peace offering, he's trying to jump onboard with S.H.I.E.L.D. and even offers to do his consulting for free, etc. He's playing ball.
He's been playing ball ever since, with his privatization of world peace - which ultimately evolves to become the Avengers, after S.H.I.E.L.D.'s version falls through - stepping up to fill the gap after S.H.I.E.L.D. collapses. He will likely still be playing ball when Civil War happens.
edited 20th Jul '15 12:57:54 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Moving on:
Duvernay elaborates on why she turned ''Black Panther'' down
.
I'm surprised they were that close to a done deal. Also, zing at the journalists who jumped the gun.
Just because Rhodey has the ability to take one of the suits does not mean Stark let Rhodey take on the of suits. Tony was shit-drunk in his Iron Man armor and needed a good metal punch to the face before he did something really stupid.
..Sorry if I get pissy, but the word "let" has become a massive Berserk Button for me, because it gets completely misused. Something happening is very different from allowing something to happen.
Here's the thing about that scene: either Tony let Rhodey take the suit or he let him keep it, and the two aren't very different from each other.
We can argue back and forth about Rhodey's authorization to not only enter the armory but to be suited up by the snarky AI that runs the place and would know damn well what Rhodey is and is not authorized for, but even if Rhodey genuinely stole the suit, Tony woke up the next morning, realized his buddy just beat the shit out of him and took one of his suits, and promptly went to get some donuts.
Whether he made the decision before or immediately after the birthday party, no attempt to recover the Mk.II was ever made.
edited 20th Jul '15 1:10:35 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.That's a fair point. It's not explicitly stated that that was Stark's plan. But even if it wasn't his idea before the birthday party, I think it's still a fair, if not confirmed interpretation, that Tony was trying to goad Rhodey into taking a suit.
He already demonstrated enough of a problem discussing his impending death with Pepper, when I look at the lead-up to the fight, I see Tony creating a situation that would force Rhodes to step up, because he isn't adjusted enough to sit down and say "I'm dying, I want you to have a suit."
It'll be interesting to see what direction and genre the Black Panther and Captain Marvel movies take, considering the many different paths in terms of style the other films took.
Wonder who will be chosen to write and direct them though? Originally, the director of Selma was wanted for Black Panther, but she passed due to commitment and creative issues
.
![]()
Yes, but Hank didn't trust Tony with this. Because he made the too common mistake to think Tony was 100% like his father, or maybe out of pride. Hank was unreasonnable on this, nobody is questioning this, but I don't think he was meant to be reasonnable in that area, and from his point of view his choice is understandable. Again, Hank Pym is a flawed character, but that doesn't make him despicable.
Agreed. I especially can't wait for the Captain Marvel movie, because I am REALLY longing for a female superhero movie that would actually be good.
edited 20th Jul '15 1:37:45 PM by Theokal3
Yes, destroying enemy vessels that are actively endangering the lives of millions of people is legal and expected behavior of a soldier.
Oh for fucks sake: Captain America was not a soldier when he destroyed the helicarriers. When he was employed by SHIELD, he was an agent of SHIELD, but he was not employed by SHIELD or the US government when he took down the helicarriers. That was illegal as shit.
But nobody cares about him destroying the helicarriers because it was the right thing to do. And yet you are declaring Pym a domestic terrorist for bombing the weapons and research that were being sold to terrorist organizations and also declaring it Scott's fault a supervillain took his daughter hostage. Both of which are bullshit.
We get it: you don't like the film. But making up bullshit reasons isn't going to convince anyone else.
edited 20th Jul '15 1:43:56 PM by alliterator
Cap was acting on Fury's authority when he took down the Helicarriers, which were Hydra vessels filled with Hydra operatives that were about to unload weapons of mass destruction at civilians. The comparison you are trying to make does not work, no matter how hard you keep hammering that square peg at that round hole. Captain America is not a civilian vigilante who took it upon himself to step up and blow away insurgents in the name of righteousness; he's a soldier, THE soldier, the ultimate representation of what a soldier is supposed to embody.
Here's the thing: even if Hank Pym had been acting on the authority of a legal authority, planting bombs in a research facility run by U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and blowing it to Hell would still be considered completely unacceptable behavior. The correct thing to do would have been to arrest Cross on suspicious of connections to terrorist organizations and investigate the company's dealings.
The building was not a Hydra vessel. It didn't have guns pointed at anyone. It was a corporation run by a corrupt CEO involved in shady dealings. A terrorist bombing is a completely over-the-top response, and one that only made sense because it wasn't about Cross, it was about destroying the Pym Particle research and every last trace of it.
You don't get to just blow up anyone who you think is morally reprehensible. If you did, terrorism wouldn't be a crime.
edited 20th Jul '15 2:26:53 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Cap was acting on Fury's authority when he took down the Helicarriers
Except at the time, Fury didn't have any authority. Fury faked his own death. He wasn't not the head of SHIELD anymore. Cap didn't have to obey his orders - in fact, Cap refused his orders to keep SHIELD around and instead told him that they would tear SHIELD down. Remember Fury saying, "I guess you're the one giving the orders now"? Right. That's because Fury has no authority.
Captain America is not a civilian vigilante who took it upon himself to step up and blow away insurgents in the name of righteousness
He wasn't at the beginning of TWS, but after he left SHIELD, he was. Remember: when he needed help, he didn't go to any SHIELD or government agent, he went to a civilian: Sam Wilson.
he's a soldier, THE soldier, the ultimate representation of what a soldier is supposed to embody.
Yeah, that doesn't matter: if he's not employed by the government or a government agency, destroying a vessel or ship is insanely illegal. Cap was not employed by the US government or SHIELD. He was acting independently. What he did was, again, illegal as shit.
And yet nobody cares because he was right. Just like Pym was right.
So get over it.
You don't get to just blow up anyone who you think is morally reprehensible. If you did, terrorism wouldn't be a crime.
That's not what terrorism is. Terrorism is, and I quote, "The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda."
Destroying a building to stop terrorists or others from acquiring weapons they would abuse is not terrorism. Yes, it's still illegal, about as illegal as what Cap did in destroying the helicarriers. But, again, not terrorism.
edited 20th Jul '15 2:36:29 PM by alliterator
...do you actually think a soldier loses his rank when he dies, goes to ground, or is otherwise missing from active duty?
There is so much wrong with that post that I honestly don't even know where to begin, other than, "Learn how military works before basing your argument around a soldier killing enemies in combat being equivalent to civilians bombing civilian structures."
edited 20th Jul '15 2:39:54 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
SHIELD was not the military. SHIELD was a fictional international organization that had ranks like "Level 7" and "Level 6."
There is something so wrong with your post when you things like, "Even though he wasn't employed by SHIELD or the government, he still has the authority to kill people because...of stuff!"
Who is giving him the authority? Where does his authorization come from?
edited 20th Jul '15 2:46:57 PM by alliterator
I'm kind of wondering the extent to which the impetus for this discussion is because Tobias is a huge Tony fan and since Pym isn't, Tobias naturally dislikes Pym.
But yeah, while Cap has a huge amount of moral authority, he didn't really have legal authority as such. I mean in the specific instance, he was fighting a treasonous coup within SHIELD, but I definitely don't agree with the broader idea that soldiers have some kind of legal right to "save the government from itself".
I'd say that Cap's legal authority (i.e. none) is the same as that of a veteran who starts shooting at the White House because he thinks President Obama is trying to institute a Muslim theocracy. The difference is that Cap is morally in the right.
S.H.I.E.L.D. was a military organization. It conducted itself in a military capacity. That it was a fictional organization is no grounds for ignoring military protocol in favor of making up whatever rules suit your argument.
Look, here's the thing: even setting aside the fact that there is no basis to claim he was a civilian at the time, it doesn't even matter if Cap was acting on S.H.I.E.L.D. authority.
The Helicarriers were hostile terrorist vehicles attempting to unload weapons of destruction at civilian targets. There is nothing unlawful about stopping them from doing so. Honestly, even if Cap, Falcon, and Widow were all civilian vigilantes who stepped up to the task, their actions would still be justified because they were protecting innocent lives from the guns pointed at their heads. Civilians are allowed to use force in the event of an immediate threat to innocent life.
The same does not hold true for weapons deals. Cross attempting to sell the Yellowjacket to Hydra was not an immediate threat to anybody's life. Pym would have been unjustified if his response was merely limited to shooting Cross in the head, because despite being a reprehensible human being, Darren Cross was not actively endangering anybody until the Hydra agents pulled guns on Pym - at which point it becomes a self-defense situation.
Pym had all the time in the world to fulfill his legal obligation to report Cross's activities and he never did. Furthermore, even in the situation in which Cross pulled the guns, the building was never a threat to anyone at all. It merely housed a business, it was not a fortress of war capable of ending countless lives. There is no such thing as a self-defense bombing.
Police and military agencies handle crooked weapons deals all the time. There's nothing new about that. There is no reason they would have been unable to handle Cross. However, if they did, the Pym Particles would be confiscated as evidence and potentially fall into government hands. Pym found this outcome unacceptable, because his main focus was eliminating all traces of the research.
If you were standing outside a warehouse and you heard arms dealers inside selling guns to cartels, you would be expected to call the police. If you kicked in the door and started shooting folks, you would go to jail, even though they were Bad Guys doing Bad Things; this is because neither your life nor anyone else's was in immediate danger before you turned the situation violent.
Not the government. Their own military, and they do have a right to investigate unethical behavior within their own ranks. S.H.I.E.L.D. is a peacekeeping organization; rooting out terrorists is part and parcel of their responsibility, even if those terrorists are operating within their own agency.
I truly do not understand why anyone would ever think that a military organization is not allowed to protect its citizens from members of its own ranks that are trying to harm them.
edited 20th Jul '15 3:01:33 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Because blowing up his company wouldn't solve anything. The weapons were already out there.
And in the second instance? He let Rhodey take the suit. This was all but stated in the movie. Nothing was stolen.
Look what he does with the people actually abusing the weapons? Oh, that's right, he blows them up! It's doubtful Stark would go for killing the agents, but I don't think he'd have any qualms whatsoever about destroying the tech if it's being used to hurt people.
edited 20th Jul '15 12:56:15 PM by Khfan429