#marvel discourse

[huntingpeople-savingsam]

A hot take:

Literally pretty much any other Avenger would be a better role model and mentor to Peter Parker than To nky St a rk

Steve: Genuinely nice guy who Peter would be rolling his eyes at bc he saw him in all those school PSAs

Thor: I don’t think I need to explain this one at all, y’all have seen Ragnarok

Natasha: That whole AoU bullshit with her thinking she’s a monster for being infertile could be resolved if she was Badass Spy Mom to literal child Peter Parker

Clint: He’s an actual father AND he’s already proven himself by how he encouraged and supported Wanda in AoU

Bruce: A little iffy because Bruce has his own shit to deal with but he’s got the whole Smart Scientist bond without the Rich Boy Dickhead energy

[daniclaytcn]

just saw a post saying how nice it is that sharon is finally getting development and is no longer, and i quote, 'just steve's side piece and peggy's niece' and i'm-

yeah, sharon never got the development she deserved because the mcu treats it's female characters terribly. but if you're saying she was 'just a love interest' before this and using misogynistic language like 'side piece'...really? don't you think the problem is with you, if that's all you got from her appearances in catws and cacw? sharon, in the past two movies she appeared in: 1) was undercover as steve's neighbor to protect him. 2) handled the situation with fury being shot quickly and effectively. 3) stood up to rumlow and refused to bow to hydra's orders. 4) joined the cia after shield fell. 5) teamed up with natasha to fight bucky in cw. 6) helped steve and sam by stealing the wings and shield and effectively becoming a traitor to the state because of it. and that's just all i can think off the top of my head right now.

sharon kissed steve (one) time and y'all are acting like she was nothing but a love interest. sure, she was never developed the way she has been so far in tfatws, but that doesn't mean she never had a personality independent of the men in her life, ffs. y'all are really being incredibly transparent with your misogyny, just say you hate women and go.

[mandaloriangf]

in ragnarok loki is the most in character than he’s ever been yet that’s the movie loki stans claim destroyed their favorite character which proves my theory that they don’t actually stan him, just a fabrication in their heads

[space-is-out-there]

Honestly I think it’s really telling of the year ahead when the first discourse of 2019 is “Would Miles Morales read Homestuck?”

[artbyblastweave]

Something I find interesting about the MCU Tom Holland Spiderman discourse is that for a long time, a joke about the comics iteration of the character was about how he had seemingly no support network or financial security, despite being on fridge-raiding, couch-crashing terms with half the superhero community. “Why doesn’t he team up with Iron Man or another adult genius hero and make bank” was, like, a default gotcha question for people who wanted to take shots at the general premise of the character. Worse then that, it was a good gotcha question, because there was no in-character reason for him not to do that; he actually tried several times over his sixty-year run to plug into bigger teams for resources, and it always fell apart due to an editorial desire to maintain the status quo, not because Spider-Man didn’t want financial support and security.

(I’m including the irrelevant panels because they’re hilarious.)

The obvious, Doylist reason he never did that, (as demonstrated by all the discourse) is that Spider-Man is most interesting as an unassuming underdog who hits below his weight and has to struggle for every tiny victory, just like most of the readership. But in a version of the universe with any other superheroes who aren’t callous morons, it’s difficult to justify keeping him that way. 

Talking strictly in terms of in-universe logic, I’m having a very difficult time justifying a version of the MCU where Spider-Man doesn’t fall into Iron Man’s orbit out of a combination of hero worship and interpersonal support. If their paths didn’t cross, it would feel contrived. But as the comics demonstrate, it might be worth that contrivance.

 This is the biggest example I can think of of Writers considering a typical superhero contrarian gotcha question and going, “Yeah, hey, why doesn’t he,” and then having the character do the thing. And as a consequence we get a Spider-Man who acts as a posthumous extension of Iron Man’s character arc. Which is, like, not bad, per se, but it feels fundamentally off, and it demonstrates that twisting in knots around other developments to maintain the core of the character is, like, a good idea sometimes.

[plxviophile]

I’ve seen a few people say “Wanda did a good thing for the town of Westview”

no. no she didn’t.

Norm, Monica and Darcy have all said that under Wanda’s control, they are in immense pain. She has taken every bit of their free will. So no, it’s not a good thing.

Wanda Maximoff (in the MCU because) has been through a lot, obviously. But her fatal flaw is taking it out on people who have done nothing to her. Wanda has killed THOUSDANDS of civilians. Yes, she blew up a hospital in Lagos. That was an accident, but she also WILLINGLY unleashed the Hulk onto Johnanessberg. Hurting civilians who have done NOTHING to her. Her pain comes from losing her parents? Her brother? What if her actions resulted in someone losing their parents, their brother....She can still be a victim but also be a perpetrator.

She is a tragic character, I sympathize with her deeply.

But what she has done is NOT okay. And we need to remember that. I don’t know if this is her villain origin story,

but she is not the hero.

[traviismeacham]

When you see tonies starting an uproar because there precious tiny stork isn’t in the New Spider-Man which, is about bloody time as it’s a SPIDER-MAN MOVIE not tony and friends movie. Let characters have a movie without tony appearing and taking over.

[bikenesmith]

house of m (2015) is nice but it fails to not Piss Me Off because it follows the trend of just about every Genosha Royalty storyline: a magnus family member is trying to usurp magneto, the secretly corrupt and/or generally rude ruler + don’t fight fire with fire Humans Can Be Oppressed Too Off Brand Xavier Politiques bs like...i think we’d all be very over it by now (i know i am).

this perpetuation of the idea that in the end magneto will inevitably be corrupt or cruel is abhorrent. not in a “how dare you! magneto is a saint” way but it feels like this offensive ‘stick it to radical minorities’ thing. like “yeah you may be oppressed…..but your radical leader is just as corrupt as your oppressors!!! oooh, oooh burn see, fighting fire with fire didn’t work, assimilate into society and you’ll stop being oppressed, [insert other privileged moderate bullshit here]”. like. really.

it’s not at all ridiculous to suggest that magneto could be a good leader, a just leader (or at least make conscious efforts to be good and just). it’s not at all downplaying (or overplaying) his character to write him in such a way. imo i think it’s downplaying his character to write him as a old warmongering oppressive jerk like so many do but you know, Just My Onion....

im just exhausted by marvels tendency to make revolutionary leaders or antiheroes or whatever, especially those that are minorities/oppressed, out to be secretly power-hungry or otherwise negative troll people

when will there be a coherent house of m storyline with believable politics and family conflicts and a mags that is not a cartoonish tyrant. when will we move past the shitty reverse racism metaphors and enter an intelligent conversation about the fate of oppressors after revolution 

[altr5312916195]

Oh no! 1 of the 54 total Marvel projects is about an Indigenous disabled woman, how will the white men cope?

WOMP WOMP other people exist, and desreve to have their stories told. Go cry to someone who cares, you're not the only person on earth who watches TV, other people can have a signular show.

[mandaloriangf]

you guys ever think about how steve lost his two best friends in the snap and then never mentions them throughout the entirety of endgame

[paig]

wait y’all watched civil war, heard both sides, picked team cap, and STILL say that tony stark is arrogant and selfish? did you like....watch the movie?

[steveroger]

hi!! i dont read comic books so i was wondering if someone here could help me: was Howard Stark involved in Isaiah's experiment? I didn't quite understand the whole thing from TFATWS alone

I don’t read the comics either so I’m not entirely sure myself!

Isaiah fought in the Korean War which ended in 1953, and he was imprisoned for 30 years. Howard replicated the serum in 1990ish? I guess the timeline fits 👀

Isaiah said that HYDRA and the CIA (?) had sampled his blood, but there was no mention of SHIELD, but then again I’m not sure if SHIELD is implicitly assumed to be a government body? Aren’t they like an external thing? Politics and bureaucracy idk 🤷🏻‍♀️ But yeah I don’t know exactly who had the serum replicates and administered it to him and subsequently experimented on him 😭

Maybe someone reading this could share their wisdom?

[radiantbeams]

i want a stucky fic (or really any steve rogers fic) where we can actually feel steve’s intense internalized homophobia and how he had to process and deal with it in the 21st century, i want him battling compulsory heterosexuality and how that was complicated tenfold when he realized he’s bi, i want him as the biggest lgbt+ ally because being gay isn’t wrong! of course not! captain america, no, steve rogers always stands up for equality and fairness! but it’s been years and he still hasn’t come out because deep down he hates himself for the way he feels, i want him jumping through hoops of justifications for why he only dates women, i want him to find bucky and bring him home and then bucky immediately coming out and that’s great that’s awesome for his best friend in the whole world to finally be able to be himself and steve is so happy for him but ultimately it just makes him feel that much more guilty that he can’t find that same kind of peace

[marvelousmistermischief]

Alright, I’m going to make one thing perfectly clear and I’m only going to say it once.

People are allowed to not like the fact that Loki and Sylvie kissed. People are allowed to not like the fact that Loki and Mobius didn’t get together. People are allowed to have opinions about the content that they consume.

Is it right to harass people for shipping or not shipping a certain pair? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

You can rant about not liking a ship if you wish, but don’t go after the people who do like that ship. Don’t post it in the main tag of that ship. Post it in the “anti-(ship)” tag rather than the main ship tag and don’t be an asshole to those who enjoy that ship.

Do I ship Loki x Sylvie? No!

Does that mean I ship Loki x Mobius? Also no!

For the record, I don’t believe that Loki and Mobius being just friends is queerbaiting. Two men are allowed to be close without being romantically involved, you know. It’s incredibly stereotypical and backwards to believe otherwise.

My peers in the MCU fandom have a reputation for crying out “queerbaiting!!1!” when their MLM ships don’t become canon. It’s honestly become so tiring at this point and only further hammers into society that men should only be allowed to be affectionate towards other men if they’re not straight. I’m so sick of it.

Would I like positive MLM and WLW relationships to be represented in the MCU? Absolutely! Do I believe the creators and actors should be attacked by rabid shippers whenever two characters canonically don’t like each other in that way? NO! Leave them be and ship your ships without being a total dickhead about it.

My point is..if you don’t like a ship, you can say so. If you do like a ship, you can say so. But don’t be vile towards people because they do or do not have the same views as you.

Oh, and to the person who called me biphobic for making a “diversity win!” joke relating to Loki and Sylvie’s kiss? Thanks for incorrectly assuming that I was a Lo/kius shipper just because I’m not a Sy/lki shipper. And thanks for calling me, a bisexual man, biphobic! That made me feel great.

Anyways, goodbye and good night. I’m leaving Tumblr until further notice.

[idlebirdsparagon]

Look, this whole nonsense from the Variety interview with Anthony Mackie didn't have to be a thing. Here's why:

Adam B. Vary, the interviewer, primed that "Sambucky Question" (in quotes because he doesn't specify that to be what he's asking about) by asking Anthony Mackie if he keeps up with fandom/fan opinion, specifically about Sam's friendship with Bucky, to which Mackie said no. Drop it there. Mackie gave a legitimate reason as to why he does not participate in fandom discussion/observation. Adam should have moved on. Adam asks:

Adam: "Did you pay much attention to how fans reacted to Sam and Bucky's sort of evolving friendship?"

Anthony: "I didn't. I try to stay away from fan stuff. Uhm, you know, the fandom is a very dangerous place, so I just, I let it be what it is and move on."

Diplomatic, succinct, and arguably justified, given how reactionary certain parts of the fan base can be.

Adam then proceeds to not actually ask for Anthony's opinion on a romantic interpretation of Sam and Bucky's relationship. He pulls the Male Friendship card after bringing up fandom desire to see Bucky as part of the LGBTQIA+ Community (in a less than nuanced observation) and fandom desire to see Sam and Bucky be romantically involved.

Adam: "...I was asking because my job is to pay attention to fandoms so I notice that, you know -- and this is a thing that's been happening with Bucky just in general as a character -- there are fans who are just, sort of outright wanting Sam and Bucky to become a couple. That they just, they love them together.

"I guess I'm interested in the-- it's so rare to see male friendship and male, sort of, platonic love in a superhero context. And Bucky's now had it twice. He had it with Steve and now he's getting it with Sam."

And then Adam asks about the platonic relationship and what that's like for Mackie to play into as an actor.

Adam: "For you as an actor, like being able to explore that element of a relationship with another male character, I'm just curious how that evolves for you and what that's like for you to play."

It's a non sequitur.

Adam didn't need to touch on fandom and shipping to ask for Mackie's personal insight on portraying platonic male relationships. If he was truly curious about that aspect, he should have made that the focus of the question, not an afterthought tacked onto pitting the ideas of male-centric romantic and platonic love against each other (which is an inherently inflammatory way to go about having that discussion).

Not to mention, in the written article, he pins that shoddy question delivery on Mackie with:

'But he resists an interpretation that Sam and Bucky are sexually or romantically attracted to each other.'

Does he now? Because I would argue, he doesn't resist so much as he clarifies how he sees the interaction between Sam and Bucky, how he played it, what it was like for him. Something he was well within his rights to do based on the question Adam posed. Extra-textual analysis and interpretation was not his focus, nor did it have to be given the actual topic of Adam's question, that being Mackie's involvement in conveying a platonic male relationship. The context for Mackie's statement is poorly represented by Adam within the article. It's a clunky answer brought about by a clunky question.

Whether Mackie would have answered the same way had Adam not introduced the romance angle, I don't know, I can't say. In listening to the podcast and reading the article, I'd rather focus on Adam perpetuating a narrative that isn't there. Therefore, I can say: that was a leading question from Adam. He put the topic of fans wanting a romance out there when it wasn't necessary background for the question he ultimately asked.

Is it rare to see male platonic relationships? Specific to a superhero context, one could say that. I'd go with uncommon over rare, but I'll concede the point on the basis of syntax and my tendency to be pedantic. There does tend to be a lot of posturing and machismo as a staple of the genre. But as Adam points out, platonic love has happened with Bucky, twice (at least canonically within the MCU and not taking into account fan interpretation). So clearly, this is something Marvel is already taking steps to represent.

Then what was the point of that exchange?

I should be able to say it was to get Mackie's take on delving into platonic love and intimacy between men, which is a conversation that is worth having, and one that he attempts to have. But Adam frames it as Mackie pushing back against shipping and seeing Sam and Bucky's relationship as sexual, which is not what that was. So it's a wash, and it's poorly executed interviewing/journalism.

Tl;dr: Adam B. Vary asked a poorly constructed question that left Anthony Mackie in the lurch for answering it.

Sidenote: I didn't get into dissecting what Mackie said beyond the surface level and its relation to Adam's question because that discussion --how fans interpret and/or read into relationships-- is something that deserves more than a few sentences of explanation and speculation; I also have inherent biases as a black lesbian who participates in and is simultaneously frustrated by shipping culture. Some of Mackie's word choice is baffling to me like "exploitation" by who specifically and to what degree? I feel like that might be the biggest point that begs clarification. But that's about all I'll say on the matter since that's not the point of this post.

Also: Anthony Mackie is not homophobic and there's no need to harass anyone over this. At all.

[captainpikeachu]

Peter Quill is supported by fandom for reacting with desires to kill the person who murdered his mother

T’Challa is supported by fandom for reacting with desires to kill the person who he thought murdered his father

Wanda Maximoff is supported by fandom for reacting with desires to kill the person she blames for her parents’ death and everyone around that person including innocent people just in the way

But Tony Stark watches his parents be killed and finding out someone he trusted lied to his face about it and that his parents’ killer is standing right there, reacts with desires to kill the person whose hands beat his father to death and choked his mother to death, is not supported by fandom, and instead is attacked for behaving as any of the three characters above did

It is utterly curious to me

Peter’s first instinct is literally fire to kill without hesitation - T’Challa could have actually killed Bucky on multiple occasions if Steve hadn’t stepped in and he certainly didn’t care to know or check if the information was legitimate - Wanda literally targeted not just Avengers who did nothing to her but also innocent civilians In Johannesburg by knowingly unleashing the Hulk onto a civilian population causing injuries and deaths and millions of dollars of damage

Every single one of these people wanted revenge and tried to exact it to varying degrees to satisfy that anger and pain - but people have no problem still allowing them to be heroes - yet Tony Stark is somehow not afforded the same understanding

Tony Stark, as told by fandom, is not allowed to be angry because Bucky is innocent, because Hydra made him, but let me ask you all this - does Bucky’s intentions erase the deaths? Is Howard Stark and Maria Stark going to come back to life now because Bucky is innocent? Oh wait, they wouldn’t, because Bucky’s hands still killed them and caused irreparable damage and left someone an orphan - Bucky’s innocence does not change the reality that the dead are still dead, and it will never change the facts that Bucky’s hands still did the deed, that those hands beat Howard Stark to death, that those hands choke Maria Stark to death - and Bucky’s innocence will not change the facts that Steve lied to Tony even up to the last moment

Tony Stark reacted as Peter Quill, T’Challa, and Wanda Maximoff all did at the loss of a parent and wanting revenge, to make someone pay - if you can accept their human emotions and reactions to loss then you can and should accept Tony for the exact same thing