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
Clint and Scott joined Cap's team because they (and Cap) were under the impression that there was a serious supervillain-type threat that they needed to deal with. Tony stopped them, and they got tossed into Fantasy Gitmo with no lawyer, no trial, no civil rights, and no indication of any release date.
They had every reason to blame him. Choosing to act as superheroes may put additional responsibilities on them, but it should never means they cease to have civil rights.
And I'm saying this as someone who believes Cap acted foolishly and recklessly. If a bunch of Russian superheroes invaded America to deal with something they claimed was a threat, without ever notifying the American government in advance or getting its consent, it would go over very badly and could easily spark a war. There's no reason to think Cap doing the equivalent in Russia would have a better outcome. He was comparatively lucky that nothung worse than the break-up of the Avengers happened. Individuals with abilities equivalent to a military force cannot just casually disregard international borders and sovereignty.
edited 24th Sep '17 4:51:02 AM by Galadriel
I'd actually call it an Insufferable Humanist Complex, personally. One of the things I've always bonded with Stark over is that he shares my misotheism. Tony Stark talking smack to eldritch beings of unfathomable power is one of my favorite things that happens in comics.
To that end, Stark having a drink with Loki is my favorite MCU scene, bar none.
Honestly, I think you're both right on this. Sharknado is right that all of Stark's actual character flaws get downplayed to the point of nonexistence. The filmmakers want Tony's flaws to be mild quibbles in an otherwise outstanding character. They try too hard to make him generically heroic at a cost of being able to talk about the real problems he has.
At the same time, Adric is right that they dump on him constantly. Because the filmmakers also want Tony to be a repentant doer of wrongs. They got that recognizing his f*ck ups and trying to make them right makes him interesting, so they keep having him f*ck up in bag, flashy Isolated Incident situations. All while not actually talking about the real places in which the comic book character f*cks up a lot.
It's much like the conversation we've had about Civil War ignoring Wanda's crimes; they want to have this conversation about whether or not what Tony did in this specific instance was wrong, while quashing discussion about his behavior patterns and whether or not he's legitimately heroic. You're supposed to see him as a virtuous hero who may or may not have gone astray, and not probe any deeper than that.
edited 24th Sep '17 7:57:36 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'd say they've done a pretty good job establishing Tony's ego as his central character flaw.
The whole plot of Iron Man 2 is driven by Tony's inability to accept that someone else could rival his technological know-how. He dismisses the idea that anyone else could build similar technology to his Iron Man suits, and so doesn't see the villain's threat coming until it's too late. And he believes that, if he can't find a solution to the poisoning that's killing him, then no one else possibly could, either, so he never asks anyone else for help until Nick Fury forces some help upon him.
In The Avengers he antagonizes Steve because he clearly doesn't like the idea that anyone (*cough* Daddy *cough*) would think Captain America was better than he is.
In Iron Man 3, his first response to his friend being hurt in a terrorist attack is to go on TV and challenge the terrorist organization to come-at-me-bro! The terrorists proceed to come-at-him-bro!, destryoing his home, almost killing him and Pepper, and leaving him lost and with barely any resources for most of the movie.
And in Age of Ultron . . . well, I don't think I need to go into how hubris plays into Ultron's creation, right?
The ongoing theme with Tony is "heritage"...what kind of heritage he will leave to the world due to his actions. In the first movie he realises what the "Merchant of Death" title actually means and since then he has set everything on creating something better to make of for what he did in the past. This has been his motivation throughout, and his big flaw is that he constantly overreaches. He never trusts the world to right itself, he always wants to do it for it.
Steve's ongoing theme is the relationship between individual ideals and the government. Steve has a pretty idea how the world should look like, too, but he doesn't want to force it into that direction, instead he tries to lead by example. That is the central conflict between those two characters.
Both comic book and movie Tony have a hero complex, but in the comics Tony it's more of a God complex. With RDJ it's more of a Peter Pan complex, a need to make up for the attention he always wanted from his father and never got.
The two would probably look superficially similar from the outside, in-universe, but given RDJ was our viewpoint character or close to it for much of these movies, we see how invincible Iron Man isn't, which is an interesting choice.
Honestly, the problem with the first Iron Man is that they tried to copy the same elements from Tony's origin in the 70s without taking modern context into consideration. If people have an issue with deaths in a war, they aim their ire at governments not weapons manufacturers. Tony isn't forcing anyone to buy his weapons and there's zero proof he's involved in anything illegal prior to becoming Iron Man.
Also, Tony had shut down the Ultron Project before Wanda used her powers on him and wasn't it Steve who told Tony and Bruce to analyse the staff?
Defense contractors do actually come under fire regardless of whether or not we're at war. The military-industrial complex is one of the complexes that American citizens are becoming more and more wary of our government engaging.
But it's usually because of how much money is being wasted on it. The government allocates hundreds of billions of dollars to buy new tanks that they're just going to let sit around and rot so they can buy some new tanks next year. Much of our economy is driven by wasteful spending on new toys for our military just for the sake of spending money on the new toys and not because they contribute anything valuable to our war effort.
Meanwhile, other programs suffer. It's not uncommon to see people talk about whether we can really afford to spend so much money on X welfare program while pumping 12x as much money into new ballistic missiles.
The Jericho, the weapon that kicked this all off, probably would never have seen actual use in a combat zone if Stark Industries wasn't selling them under the table to terrorists. It was made by Americans, ostensibly for Americans, but only functionally useful to kill Americans (and miscellaneous Middle Eastern civilians).
Meanwhile, poor people are starving to death because there's just not enough money in America's budget for better food stamps programs. We needed that money for the Jericho!
edited 24th Sep '17 11:35:17 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.If you take the sheer amount of lobbying involved in being a successful weapons contractor into account, they're not forcing anyone to buy their products but they're certainly expending a large amount of effort to ensure that they do so - they're not separate from the system.
edited 24th Sep '17 11:46:00 AM by KnownUnknown
That. Besideswhich, while Tony doesn't have the ability to make the government stop spending so much on defense, he can at least choose to no longer be part of it. And that's what he does. At no point does he indicate that this is going to make the problem go away; he is simply removing himself from the equation.
"I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero accountability." "I came to realize that I have more to offer this world than just making things that blow up."
He's not saying, "I'm going to stop making weapons and this will singlehandedly end the military-industrial complex." He's saying, "I'm shocked and horrified by the military-industrial complex and even though I can't make it go away, I can and am exercising my rights as a free citizen to not participate in it anymore."
edited 24th Sep '17 11:55:31 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.If you're someone interested in conflict for the sheer sake of it, sure.
Yup. And they know how to grease up the palms and do some fine wheeling and dealing. "Hey, buying my weapons could mean more manufacturing jobs for your district!" and the like. There's a reason why there are people invested in going to war even when it's an objectively terrible idea, because the sales or manufacturing of arms will still benefit them somehow.
If you ever wanna see a film on the subject of arms dealing and the shady shit that goes along with it, War Dogs with Jonah Hill is really good.
edited 24th Sep '17 12:10:14 PM by comicwriter
The whole point is that Tony recognizes that his weapons are part of a "system which is comfortable with zero accountability". He isn't necessarily anti-weapons, he just doesn't trust the US government to use his weapons wisely, so he decides to keep control over his weapon inventions.
The excuse "someone will sell it anyway" is a weak one, btw.
Okay, subject change. Apparently in Infinity War we'll see Barton being Ronin. What I want to know is if they'll clarify whether this is new, or if he's going back to the Ronin persona after years of living as Hawkeye.
Also, will we need to bring back the "Beefy Bucky" tag for Infinity War, or will they use his time in cryofreeze to justify his physique being more like it was in Winter Soldier?
Was there any proof of the Ronin rumors or is that just an inferred thing based on hearsay at the Tokyo set? Regarding "beefy Bucky" Sebastian Stan made some self-aware jokes about the reason he looked so wide in Civil War was because Bucky spent a lot of his first real taste of freedom gorging on food and snacks. So I don't expect them to actually reference it beyond that.

Also Quicksilver's death was a complete fluke. Ultron didn't even realize that he was dead, nor was it intentional. So I'm really supposed to buy that that's enough to suddenly go "well no need to mention Wanda helping him, or sicking Hulk on Johannsburg where a bunch of people died."
Nope, not near good-enough, nor is one line of dialogue from here. And honestly, I wouldn't be harping on this really at all IF the next movie that she appears in didn't try and play her as the poor innocent victim that's being picked on.
Sorry, but they opened the door for that. If they hadn't have taken this approach in CW, then I could have overlooked the AOU stuff. But they didn't, so yeah it's like "you're lucky that you're not sitting in a maximum security prison for the rest of your life lady. I and pretty much anyone else would be if we pulled even half of the stuff that you did in the last movie. And all for the sake of your petty vengeance against one man."
And heck, Zemo does much the same thing (and arguable has more sympathetic motivations for it) and yet he doesn't get a "get out of jail free card" at the end now does he?