TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Go To

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.

    Original post 
Since Thor and now Captain America came out this year, I wanted to get what Tropers thought of the concept and execution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in general. Personally I love the idea and wonder why this idea hasn't been seriously tried before. It sorta seems to me like the DCAU in movie form (And well, ummm, with Marvel), and really 'gets' the comic book feel of a shared universe while not being completely alienating.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#118626: Jun 23rd 2020 at 10:55:18 AM

Oh, there are plenty of spy thrillers that do that, but only the ones that deal with fictional spy agencies: SHIELD, Treadstone, Division.

But when they're dealing with real life spy agencies, well, most aren't attempting to create an Alternate History, so obviously the story can't end with the CIA being disbanded, because they're still around in Real Life after the movie's over.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#118627: Jun 23rd 2020 at 11:20:30 AM

@Mile Run - Yeah. I do think there is something useful in the idea that it's harder to tell the legit SHIELD from its Hydra infiltrators than it should be.

If you're going with the metaphor of SHIELD = the police, then Rumlow fits quite well in the role of "bad apple", since at face value, he comes across to his co-workers as kind of a jerk, but still a valuable team member.

chasemaddigan I'm Sad Frogerson. Since: Oct, 2011
I'm Sad Frogerson.
#118628: Jun 23rd 2020 at 11:33:43 AM

Yeah, the movie seems to point the blame on SHIELD for allowing HYDRA to spread as far as it could and not bothering to scrutinize their fellow members for any potential warning signs. Ultimately, SHIELD needed to be completely dismantled and restructured from the ground up if it was ever going improve.

Steve: We're not salvaging anything. We're not just taking down the carriers, Nick, we're taking down SHIELD.
Fury: SHIELD had nothing to do with it.
Steve: You gave me this mission, this is how it ends. SHIELD's been compromised, you said so yourself. HYDRA grew right under your nose and nobody noticed.
Fury: Why do you think we're meeting in this cave? I noticed.
Steve: And how many paid the price before you did?
Fury: Look, I didn't know about Barnes.
Steve: Even if you have, would you have told me? Or would you have compartmentalized that too? SHIELD, HYDRA, it all goes.

Kind of screwed over Coulson and his team, but they sort of bounced back. Kinda.

Edited by chasemaddigan on Jun 23rd 2020 at 2:34:41 PM

Cross (Don’t ask)
#118629: Jun 23rd 2020 at 11:45:54 AM

Wonder how Coulson would have felt about Fury going behind Steve's back like that. Also, it's easy to see where Steve is coming from but it was poorly thought out. Sort of like how people interpret "Defund the Police".

Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#118630: Jun 23rd 2020 at 11:46:14 AM

This dialogue kinda shows Steve both at his best and at his worst at the same time.

He is very uncompromising.

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Nightwire Since: Feb, 2010
#118631: Jun 23rd 2020 at 11:46:16 AM

Edit: Nvm.

Edited by Nightwire on Jun 23rd 2020 at 11:47:25 AM

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#118632: Jun 23rd 2020 at 11:51:22 AM

[up][up]

I agree. And that does do a good job of illustrating my ambivalence.

Like on one hand, it is a really good thing to oppose authoritarianism and militarism even by so-called "good guys".

But on the other hand, I can also see parallels both with Trumpism and leftist accelerationism.

Along similar lines, I note that while the movie Civil War did a really good job rephrasing and recontextualizing it, Steve's (in)famous "No, you move" speech in the comic reads to me more like a right-wing rant than the presumably intended "liberal American defender of civil liberties" rant.

Edited by Hodor2 on Jun 23rd 2020 at 1:56:49 PM

wanderlustwarrior Role Model from Where Gods Belong Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Role Model
#118633: Jun 23rd 2020 at 12:29:16 PM

[up]True on the "you move" line. But also it's important for certain parties to actually take a stand for once and not be too beholden to a structure when the opposition has already broken it.

[up][up][up][up]"Interpret" is a key word there, given in the real world there are varying takes by the people who say it, and several have clearly stated alternatives as to where that funding would go that actually matches the needs of the communities. Steve actually was just doing the "tear it all down" aspect, without regard for what could fill the vacuum to actually help people and keep them secure. Fortunately Tony wound up filling part of the void, but unfortunately that didn't work out so great. It seems kind of like Steve's stance was "we shouldn't need a standing security force", which is in line with 'Avenging', as Tony put it in Age of Ultron, but doesn't actually help people, even the underprivileged.

...I can't believe I'm defending Age of Ultron Tony Stark.

It's like Tony's consistently doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, while Steve is... not necessarily doing the right thing for the wrong reasons all the time (but certainly sometimes), it's more that he's doing the right thing either right on time, or a little too late but not at an salvageable timing.

Edited by wanderlustwarrior on Jun 23rd 2020 at 2:34:20 PM

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#118634: Jun 23rd 2020 at 1:39:08 PM

I wouldn't necessarily say that Steve does the right thing for the wrong reasons.

However, I recall this clever analysis from I think someone's tumblr that Tony thinks he has good judgment and worries about his intentions", whereas his actual problem is the opposite

And I do think you could fairly say that Steve has the inverse of this, in which the thing he has doubts about is his judgment, whereas he should have more doubts about his intentions.

I'd still rank Steve above Tony though because I don't find "Libertarianism for me but Authoritarianism for thee" particularly appealing.

Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#118635: Jun 23rd 2020 at 2:04:36 PM

Steve acts very impulsive, Tony tries to see the big picture.

And both approaches have certainly had their ups and downs.

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
MileRun Since: Jan, 2001
#118636: Jun 23rd 2020 at 2:26:56 PM

I've been in Tony's corner for most of the Tony/Steve arguments throughout the MCU.

My issue with Steve's worldview is that he puts the entire burden of protecting the world on his own shoulders. While that's noble, it's also unsustainable. From Winter Soldier onward, Steve thinks that he has the world's greatest moral compass (which he kind of does, but that's besides the point), and so all decisions related to saving the world have to come from him. That's a very dangerous mindset.

The entire time he was arguing about oversight in Civil War, I kept thinking to myself, "But what if this was any other group? What if it wasn't being led by an impossibly pure paragon of justice?" Binding the team to UN oversight would've actually been a very responsible thing to do. At worst, Cap would probably be able to defect later if necessary, like he did in Winter Soldier, and in Avengers 2012, and kind of in TFA when he abandoned his troupe to do some actual soldiering for the first time.

Even in Age of Ultron, I don't think Tony was necessarily wrong about his "shield around the world" vision. His failing was refusing to consult with Cap over how to go about it (and also his arrogance in assuming he and Banner could do it right all by themselves). Mind you, this requires separating the metaphor from the in-universe reality; while I get "shield around the world" was a probably a stand-in for "military presence in civilian spaces," which is not okay IRL, the reality of the MCU was that hostile extraterrestrial conquerors had Earth in their sights and that an army of Good Guy Ultrons wouldn't have been such a bad idea.

chasemaddigan I'm Sad Frogerson. Since: Oct, 2011
I'm Sad Frogerson.
#118637: Jun 23rd 2020 at 2:45:34 PM

Okay, now I'm just remembering how Ultron started off as a good guy in Earth's Mightiest Heroes and how it was only once they started using him to help defend the world did he start becoming an evil AI.

wanderlustwarrior Role Model from Where Gods Belong Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Role Model
#118638: Jun 23rd 2020 at 3:29:20 PM

The thing is, even Cap knew he was too personally vested to see straight in Civil War. That's why Falcon was the one making most of the strong anti-reg arguments (Spidey also did to Tony), Why Falcon made absolutely sure Cap actually wanted to proceed at several steps, and why Clint and Lang both outright affirmed that it was their choice to act despite the regulations. Meanwhile Cap almost capitulated until he realized what Tony was doing to Wanda.

Bocaj Funny but not helpful from Here or thereabouts (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Funny but not helpful
#118639: Jun 23rd 2020 at 3:36:45 PM

Keeping her under house arrest when the government wanted to arrest arrest her?

The fiend.

Tony’s actual snafu was trying to do this without having an awkward conversation with Wanda about it

Forever liveblogging the Avengers
Prowler I'm here for our date, Rose! Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
I'm here for our date, Rose!
#118640: Jun 23rd 2020 at 3:50:03 PM

[up] Is it? The circumstances of the situation's unveiling are pretty bad, but I can't imagine Cap applauding Tony's decision in any case, even if Tony were to break it to him gently.

EDIT: D'oh! I misread.

Edited by Prowler on Jun 23rd 2020 at 4:57:42 AM

Altris from the Vortex Since: Aug, 2019 Relationship Status: Not caught up in your love affair
#118641: Jun 23rd 2020 at 3:52:04 PM

[up][up]Yeah, IIRC Tony says something along the lines of “it was for your own protection” to her at the airport, without elaborating. If he had just talked with her before that and explained his reasons for putting her under house arrest (i.e. her already-questionable citizenship issues and being seen as somewhat of a loose cannon), and that it was for her safety because of those reasons, the whole issue probably would have gone a lot better.

Edited by Altris on Jun 23rd 2020 at 3:55:04 AM

So, let's hang an anchor from the sun... also my Tumblr
chasemaddigan I'm Sad Frogerson. Since: Oct, 2011
I'm Sad Frogerson.
#118642: Jun 23rd 2020 at 4:03:53 PM

Yeah, Steve was almost ready to signing the accords until he learned about Wanda. That's what sent him over the edge.

I once heard someone describe Civil War as "Everyone's in the wrong, except for Black Panther", as he's the only one who comes away from the experience actually learning something.

Bocaj Funny but not helpful from Here or thereabouts (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Funny but not helpful
#118643: Jun 23rd 2020 at 4:06:16 PM

The irony is that both Steve and Tony are kinda paternalizing at Wanda in the scene where Steve finds out

Forever liveblogging the Avengers
Weirdguy149 Former King from Lumiose City Since: Jul, 2014 Relationship Status: I'd jump in front of a train for ya!
Former King
#118644: Jun 23rd 2020 at 4:08:10 PM

I feel like Peter came out of Civil War relatively unscathed compared to everyone else.

The legend has returned.
Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#118645: Jun 23rd 2020 at 4:14:20 PM

Peter came out thinking: "That was so awesome! I want to do it again!" and pining for another Avengers fight for months, which led to some consequences in Homecoming. But eventually he grew out of it.

MileRun Since: Jan, 2001
#118646: Jun 23rd 2020 at 4:14:51 PM

Emotionally unscathed, maybe, but he did get scuffed up a bit by Steve from Brooklyn and his big friend.

Weirdguy149 Former King from Lumiose City Since: Jul, 2014 Relationship Status: I'd jump in front of a train for ya!
Former King
#118647: Jun 23rd 2020 at 4:24:49 PM

Compared to everyone else. Everyone else besides him and T'Challa was in a holding cell, dealing with reveal implications, or crippled in Rhodey's case.

The legend has returned.
FGHIK Since: Aug, 2013
#118648: Jun 23rd 2020 at 5:53:37 PM

Spidey's main problem was his naivete. That he just immediately assumed Iron Man was 100% in the right. It's not surprising, given that he's young and Iron Man is an iconic hero, but I think that's what he should have learned in Civil War. If I were to make changes to the movie, one would be to have him end up switching sides like in the comic, or at least becoming unwilling to fight when he realizes the situation is a lot more complex than Tony led him to believe.

Edited by FGHIK on Jun 24th 2020 at 5:19:52 AM

wanderlustwarrior Role Model from Where Gods Belong Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Role Model
#118649: Jun 23rd 2020 at 7:40:07 PM

Almost all of them came into it with a flawed take.

Team Cap:

  • Steve was way too personally invested, and even then wasn't sure where he stood until it was personal. But, Rhodey did rightly call him out on being "dangerously arrogant". Too many people were too sure of their own rightness without asking questions.
  • Clint... seems to be addicted to the hero fight, given his reluctance to stay retired.
  • Lang seems to have assumed he'd just get in and out of that one particular battle without major repercussions, but he did recognize how serious the immediate threat was. Plus, there was a bit of hero worship influencing his decision making.

Team Iron Man:

  • Tony's just making up his mind for everyone, and trying to shift the guilty feeling of making harder decisions to others.
  • Rhodey's a bit of a tool of existing military structures, and goes along with it in part because he has more of a voice at the oversight table than others, but seems to have overestimated that role. Going along with Ross because of his medals and presumed legitimacy of governments, despite the very recent exposure of the US's Secretary of State and Vice President as being manipulative scumbags.
  • Vision... is an idiot. His math was entirely off. Several of the villains that arose after Tony's announcement either would've been a problem without it (Loki, the Chitauri, HYDRA, the Ten Rings), or are at least partly his fault, not the collective team's.
  • Natasha wasn't sure what she wanted at any point.
  • T'Challa went from wanting to support his father's decision, to not giving a damn about the oversight of the Accords, once revenge was more important.
  • Peter had a lot more hero worship, and was outright lied to by Tony. Had he been told the full story, he'd be anti-Accords for the right reasons (the bad things will happen anyway, even if you just stand around), and Tony knew it, given their conversation in Peter's room.

There are some people who I feel hold a bit less blame, for a couple different reasons:

  • Sharon was too personally invested in Steve. But I think she had some good reasons for being anti-Accords eventualy, since her experience in Winter Soldier, and growing up under Peggy, would've shown her that existing power structures can fail, and sometimes good people can be held back unnecessarily.
  • Sam not only supported Steve's better arguments (not all of them were winners), but was also proven right by the end of the movie. Whether with or against the Accords, the existing power structures criminalized any do-gooding. Consider over the course of the movie how little collateral damage Sam did: he got a helicopter to stop blind shooting without causing any damage by kicking it, and then he broke an airport's window and a decorative structure. And yet he's blasted full on in the chest for daring to disagree with Tony, who later admitted to being wrong. Then imprisoned alongside the two Team Cap members who actually caused collateral damage (Scott and Wanda), and treated like a criminal unlike Vision, who ''caused most of the damage and almost killed Rhodey with his carelessness). And why? Because he chose the wrong side?

I feel like Banner would've been anti-Accords due to legitimate concerns of his prior experience with Ross, even if Ross has calmed down (see below). The risk of being treated as a human weapon is way to great.

Thor wouldn't have submitted to the Accords at all, because of his external responsibilities, and also because he's a bit too jovial about it.

Ross... Ross took some humbling experiences, and took them too far. He went from seeing supers as weapons, to basically being too restrictive. This was more thoroughly seen at the Raft, and then again in Infinity War, where his priorities were just stupid.


Also, a sad side-note on real world International Law and International Humanitarian Law... more often than not, the US (and by extension its interest in the Accords) is a notoriously unreliable "ally", not even signing on to certain obvious low standards because of American Exceptionalism and desire to not be held to any scrutiny, to leave the door open to some of the shadier stuff. We (I'm an American attorney) won't let ourselves or our agents be subject to international human rights courts, and won't even allow justice in American courts to be had for foreign people (I don't mean stuff like slow/no hearings for refugees, I mean stuff like agents going into Mexico and abducting people, or border patrol shooting across the border and killing children in Mexico just because they got too close to American land, or pardoning war criminal soldiers murdering people for fun - the later two occured within the last 3 years, and he former two were Supreme Court decisions weakening accountability.

Also, both domestic and international decision making are slow. For example, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (of prisoners, mainly) took three and a half years to get put into action, and only 48 countries have willingly submitted to it.

I will point out that the above link is quite out of date, but not much has functionally changed from when it was written. I just don't have the time to go through my notes, books, and articles. I've already spent way too much time on this post, which is overall a pretty trivial point of discussion.

So basically all of that is to say that even if the US signed the Accords, no one, even American supers, can be certain of any real justice or impartial decision making, not with any reasonable speed. No, I'm not encouraging total vigilante-ism, just pointing out that in and out of the fictional setting, the Accords seem like they could still use a bit of work in execution (if not in concept as well). Also, Vision is a dangerous idiot.

Edited by wanderlustwarrior on Jun 23rd 2020 at 9:46:08 AM

windleopard from Nigeria Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
#118650: Jun 23rd 2020 at 8:16:56 PM

Tony's just making up his mind for everyone, and trying to shift the guilty feeling of making harder decisions to others.

The Accords had already been passed. Tony was just trying to get everyone else on the same page rather than have them go to war with the UN. Telling 117 countries to piss off when they ask you to start respecting sovereign borders is not going to end any other way than disastrous.

Also, this is something I don't get about Tony's critics. You guys say he is lousy at making decisions so why is the idea of him differing to other people a sign he is not thinking clearly? Tony at least knows he isn't perfect and is willing to do something about that unlike Steve.


Total posts: 186,763
Top