#mcu analysis

[xx-w0rlds-0k4y3st-f4g-xx]

been having a bit of an early mcu clint/natasha/steve/bucky/precanon SHIELD hyperfixation resurgence recently, and let me just say, i always shipped mcu steve and bucky bc idk man they just work, but now after that hyperfixation has been dormant for nearly 5 years and is now just reeawakening and now that I have a lot more knowledge of queer history and that stuff, most of my mcu stucky shipping is more "the writers did this and I have a feeling it wasn't on purpose"

an example being the fact that bucky calls steve 'punk', which, at the time (30s/early 40s) was one of the slang words used to describe either a prostitute (in reference to punck in a couple of Shakespeares works) or a queer man (which is where the term punk as we know it partially came from, lets be real here, whether people like it or not, punk has some pretty queer roots)

which is to lead to my point here, bucky was basically calling steve the period equivalent of fag, and I find this very funny (see: URL). i have other reasons, such as them living together (which could be written off as great depression money saving), bucky always dragging steve on dates, the area of NYC they lived in (if my knowledge is correct, it was a pretty queer area at the time, at least in the underground scene), etc. but like, the punk thing is funny to me bc given the time, it wouldn't have been like people now calling things gay or calling a friend fag or dyke to make a joke, this felt like an actual nickname (that the writers prob used the modern meaning of but I digress), this felt the same as two queer friends (or lovers in the case I'm presenting here) calling each other that bc its what they were, like one of my friends calling me fagtard bc I made one joke and I'm a queer weirdo who cant function in a classroom setting.

it feels like an honest genuine nickname with roots

leading to my conclusion that stucky may very well have been canon bc this story is fake, its a movie/comic book, steve in endgame going back to see peggy was extremely out of character knowing what we do about steve (and peggy!) in earlier movies, writers don't always do historical research, especially into queer history that may well have been relevant to the movie setting, and fuck you I make the rules here this is my dumb blog

signed someone who's first ever url was the-brooklyn-boys

[traveller-of-the-knight]

I AM MAAAAD AT ELIAS SPECTOR OK?!

So I rewatched episode 5 because I loke pain and I just realised-

At the Shiva.

He hadn't seen his son for more that a decade!

And he finally saw him crying in the middle of the street alone, after his mother's death and he just let him leave?!

Like- No, nonononono you don't do that! You don't fucking do that! That is your son! Your son you haven't seen in ages and you are just letting him go???? You are not running to hug him?! DUDE!!! I'm so going to mention this in my fanfics

[phillipjaekwoncoulson]

Welcome to my current hyperfixation, creating as accurate a timeline as possible for the life (until 1st death) of one Phillip J Coulson, under the cut for your convenience

July 8, 1964

Born in Manitowoc WI to history teacher and football coach Robert, and homemaker Julie Coulson.

Summers 1970-73

Played Little League (batted .400), fixed up a cherry red 62 Chevy with his dad

1973

Death of his father, circumstances unknown, but was considered a Defining Moment in his life. He's "forgotten more about [his dad] than he remembers." He and his mother then moved away from Manitowoc.

1982

First contact with SHIELD, right out of high school. Canon differs on whether he was recruited straight out of senior year or simply tapped and recruited after some college (reported history degree which got him on SHIELD's radar, but Coulson personally said "younger than [Skye, early 20s] when I was recruited, straight out of high school." My personal thought is that he was approached during/just after high school, but was encouraged to get a degree to help him get into SHIELD Academy

1986 (likely)

Formal recruitment into SHIELD Academy of Communications, to study data analysis and become "The analysis expert" -Agent Tripp.

1990

Coulson + Melinda May's first mission, in Sausalito, CA, with no proper exit plan that ended with May stuck in the bay for 5 hours.

(this year, presuming he entered SHIELD Academy after a 4 year college degree, is exact and lines up better with him being a Junior Agent in Captain Marvel, 1995. According to Jemma Simmons' stated biography, the Academy is a 4 year program. When undercover in HYDRA she stated she started at SHIELD at 17. She was born in 1987 and graduated the Academy "in 2004, 3 years early" meaning she only spent 1 year there max. She could not have entered the academy any younger for multiple reasons (had at least 1 PhD, and to gain a visa to study/work younger than 17 would have been nigh impossible))

1990s

Ran multiple missions with Katherine Shane and presumably had a casual relationship

1995

Junior Agent Coulson, along with Nick Fury, is tasked with investigating an unusual circumstance at a Blockbuster in LA. Plot of Captain Marvel happens here, along with the first mention of the (currently unnamed) Avengers Initiative. At this time Coulson does not know the true story of how Fury lost his eye

1996 (likely)

First meeting with Audrey Nathan (the cellist and proclaimed Coulson's true love). Proceeded to start a relationship, including trips to Hawaii (to get a tie as a gift and eat some poi) and dinners at The Richmond

Marcus Daniels' wiki says he was in a lab accident at college sometime between 1992-96. Watsonian logic, Coulson was likely picked for the case because of his previous experience with light-based powered persons

2001 (likely)

Recruitment of Clint Barton

Wiki says he was hand-picked by Fury in the early 2000s. He met Laura working with her at SHIELD and his oldest daughter was born around 2004.

2002

Coulson stationed in Cusco, Peru alongside Camilla Reyes, a member of Policia Militar del Perú, with whom he formed some form of romantic/casual relationship.

Best guess, Coulson considered all his relationships casual/incidental, saying goodbye to Audrey each time and hoping to be able to come back but making no promises of fidelity. Either that or he's a prolific cheater because Marvel can't get their stories straight. I prefer option A.

2003-5

Promoted to training teams of agents

Between being an attache to a foreign governmental body and gaining Akela (next bullet), a notoriously difficult recruit, he had to have cut his teeth training other teams/agents. Akela's training absolutely falls under this timeline as well, given how well she knew him

2006

sent his recruit Akela with a small team to raid a gulag owned by criminal Vanchat, where Akela was either captured or killed somewhere in the Shanxi Province, according to record.

2008, likely early spring

Coulson and May were sent as the Welcome Wagon to talk to a possible gifted in Bahrain, resulting in the birth of The Cavalry and May's cold personality change

2008, June

Word of The Hulk reaches SHIELD. Coulson questions whether Fury wants to fold him in, to which he's told the Hulk is "Thunderbolt Ross's problem"

2008, October

Sent as the Welcome Wagon to recruit Tony Stark to SHIELD after his return from captivity under the guise of a debrief

2008, early winter

Sends Agent Barton on a mission in Russia in which Barton runs across the Black Widow. Barton is then sent back to kill her, resulting in a standoff in Budapest, days off grid, the death of a young girl, and the recruitment of Natasha Romanoff

2009

Takes up overseeing the TAHITI project (in 2014 one of the agents who had taken part and was wiped was officially declared dead 5 years previous). Also shuts down the project due to the insurmountable issues presenting in the subjects.

2010, May

Sent to babysit Tony Stark on his house arrest, threatening to "tase him and watch Supernanny while he drools into the carpet"

2010, May/June

Sent to investigate an 084 alongside a science team and Agent Barton, resulting in the plot of Thor

2011

Captain America found in the ice. Defrosted and set up in a 1940s dummy hospital setup, presumably planned by Coulson, the resident expert on Captain America, history, and gifted recruits. Plus he "watched Steve while he was sleeping"

2012, pre-May

Hawkeye is assigned to infiltrate the helicarrier under Fury's orders and learns of the Avengers Initiative, as well as Coulson's involvement.

2012, May

Coulson dies. Had a date planned with Audrey in Portland, missed it due to gaining a new piece of Asgardian hardware in his chest

2012, June/July

Coulson undergoes multiple invasive surgeries in an attempt to revive him using Kree blood as part of the TAHITI project.

2013

Starts up a new team composed of Melinda May, Grant Ward, Jemma Simmons, and Leopold Fitz to take on interesting problems, functioning as a quick-response unit (and to allow May to keep a very close eye on Coulson)

[indominusavenger]

Looking back at Civil War and Homecoming, I found intriguing parallels at their endings. When Tony arrives back at the Avengers Compound, he looks at the Avengers symbol with what I'd describe as disdain but I think it's mostly regret and pain. Then, fast forward to Homecoming's finale at the Compound and when Peter sees it, his face lights up. He looks hopeful, happy, excited. I find these as interesting comparisons. Here they are side by side for you to see what I'm talking about.

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Do you see what I mean? I want to believe these are intentional because we end Civil War on a somber note-the Avengers are divided, Tony comes home defeated after being stranded in Siberia and he found out the truth about his parents' deaths. What's there to believe in anymore of Earth's Mightiest Heroes? And then, we get to Homecoming. At this point, several months have passed and Spider-Man has just taken down his first major supervillain and saved Iron Man's tech. Tony Stark requested Peter's presence at the Compound and this is the first time he gets to see the place. There's a hope of rekindling of sorts with his mentor. So now, we're embracing a more hopeful tone once we see the Avengers symbol again. To me, that's an important contrast.

The resentment, hurt, and defeat we see from Tony's view reflects that lost hope in the Avengers, in a way. From the veteran Avenger who is tired and tried his best to keep the team together, we feel his shame and suffering at the downfall of his best laid plans. Now, moving onto Peter, we regain that hope and enthusiasm in the Avengers because that's how he sees this team of heroes as an outsider. He's a new recruit, a young aspiring superhero that wants to fit into that world and where better than in the Avengers by Iron Man's side? He's the most relatable of the main characters because his perspective matches that of the audience; we see the Avengers with that same hope, reverence, etc. They feel untouchable, other-worldly in a sense. I think it's also supposed to be a hint from Marvel that just because of the current conditions with the Avengers at that time, they would be back together soon and not all hope is lost, hence Infinity War. But at the moment, it's simply a subtle nod to that. Notice how hope keeps coming up as the key word in this post? I conclude that this theme of hope is supposed to reflect the way we as humans work; we may lose hope due to unfortunate circumstances, however, deep inside, that feeling of hope still lingers and stirs within us. That's why it was the last thing in Pandora's Box and I think it serves to remind us that it's always there, no matter what happens. It's so integral to us, even superheroes.

[thefourthnorn]

THIS

Ok, but I’ve seen no one talk about the representation of Bob’s manic episode as Sentry. Hear me out.

He describes himself in the movie as having really high highs and really low lows. They never use the word but that’s clearly bipolar he’s describing. A manic episode followed by a depressive one.

The Void is clearly the representation of his depressive episode. Obviously. But I really think that fight as blonde boy Sentry was his mania.

It’s not the typical manic depiction we’re used to seeing, he’s very very calm during that scene. But a lot of times when experiencing mania people describe themselves as feeling indestructible, unstoppable. Bob literally calls himself a god. That’s, that’s mania, babes.

His mental health manifests in his powers. He literally becomes indestructible. He literally becomes nothing, a void.

In addition: In the end credit scene he says he can’t be Sentry without also being The Void. They go hand in hand, just like bipolar. Now, I know nothing about this guy’s comic counterpart, but going off of what the movie has shown us, I’m assuming that if he gets his mental health managed, he’s going to have both power sets. He’s going to have the Superman like powers and the shadow like powers. They’re intermingled.

[faithbetryin]

Thinking about the fact that Matt survived a building falling on him, and while he survived, the love of his life- that he just got back from being resurrected into a soulless weapon, died. They wanted to die together, yet Matt survived. Then he found refuge in the place he felt the most alone in his life: the orphanage where his mother cared for him without his knowledge. The basement of a church where he's surrounded by angel statues whilst rejecting religion, forced to be watched under their stone faces. And after a suicide attempt, he has to hear the choir singing above him, surrounded in a tomb of graves in the walls. He is surrounded by death, failure, by religious symbols and sounds. Yet he's supposed to find meaning, challenged by the comments of his mother who tells him not to dwell in selfish "self pity."

DAREDEVIL, 2.01 "RESSURECTION"

[waywardsou2]

I haven't seen anyone say this so I will. Bucky and Bob's story's parallel each other the same way two chapters follow each other

They both had pasts rooted in violence: Bucky grew up at the end of the first world war and ended up fighting in the second world war. Bob grew up in a house that was constantly filled with domestic violence and abuse

They both became human weapons, they differ here with Bucky's being involuntary and Bob's being semi-voluntary if ill informed: They were both experimented on with alternative versions of the super soldier serum that for better or worse turned them into super-powered beings

They both were taken advantage of: Bucky was abused and used as a weapon with his humanity completely discarded and Bob was used for press for Valentina's attempt to make it big in a world that was slowly loosing it's superhero's

They both have severe mental illness: Bob and Bucky both have PTSD from events in their pasts that still affect their everyday. Bob potentially has Bipolar and Bucky has anxiety and depression. (Bob probably has those too)

They were both saved by people they hurt: Bucky beat the ever loving shit out of Steve, Sam, T'Challa and Natasha yet all four of them still stuck around to help them. Bob hurt the entire time (I would say John and Yelena got the worst of it) and they still did what they could to save him and pull him back from the brink

They both have a "dark alternative self": Both Bob and Bucky have a versions of themselves that is a dark reflection of them. Bob has the void which is all his insecurities and past trauma personified and Bucky has the Winter Soldier who is a reflection of his past self

They both feel unworthy of the love from the people around them: At first Bucky was reluctant for Steve and Sam's help because he "wasn't worth all of this" and Bob seems to think that no matter what he does he will make a mistake and people will push him away

They both had to accept that their dark parts are not who they truely are: Bucky was constantly worried that in some way or another the Winter Soldier would always be there and would always come out and Bob knows that his darkness lives inside of him and if were to ever lose control of his powers the Void would come back

There are probably more things, but this is all I could think of at the moment

I just think those two are closer than a lot of people realise which is why a lot of Bucky fans are drawn to Bob

[tumblingghosts]

you are a gem for all your analyses <333

So a post discussing new Thunderbolts promotional arts appeared earlier today in the John Walker tag trying to single out John as the odd man out of this Thunderbolts team, saying how everyone in the team deserves to grow and heal but John deserves to die and never be redeemed because he's not like the others.

I'm here to explain why what you see below is totally wrong and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of John and the Thunderbolts movie.

"this man willingly joined the military"

I don't know if the poster is American or not, but this claim ignores the very important context of how John joined the military and when he joined the military. You see, John is canonically stated to have gone to West Point for college, that is a military academy, which means that during high school when John was underage, he would already have been preparing for his application process, getting letters from his congressman or senator or even the president. The selection process is incredibly stringent. You don't decide to go to West Point and apply on a whim like you do regular colleges. Attending a military academy is a long term commitment because after you graduate, you are automatically put into active duty service as an officer, your contract is signed by you agreeing at 17/18 years old to go to this military college.

Some people may not understand, but America has a hugely active military recruitment system that targets children, especially kids from disadvantaged communities. Military recruiters are literally legally given access to high schools across the country, they're allowed personal contact information of kids, they get to show up at career fairs and other activities to actively recruit children to be soldiers and lie to them about all the good things they will do and the opportunities and benefits they will receive. And THIS IS NORMALIZED in American society. The exploitation of children and turning them into soldiers is NORMALIZED. Even celebrated.

So tell me, in an environment that already normalizes and praises the idea of being a soldier and protecting your country and giving yourself for true heroic service, is it that illogical and surprising that a young underage John would have bought into the idea of service as so many other young kids do? Not to mention we don't even know if his school had a mandatory JROTC (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps) program that funnels kids straight into military service. Or if the MCU follows John's comics history and his father and his older brother both have served. Either way, John lives in an environment and a country that idealizes soldiers to kids, actively recruits and exploits kids, and heavily showers them in heroic military propaganda. A propaganda that even Steve in the 40s buys into and is eager to serve, and Steve was already an adult in his 20s. Meanwhile John was a young teenager when 9/11 happened, when the country was actively rallying its citizens through lies and getting people to buy into a war to defend freedom and protect our loved ones. If people older than John bought into this, then why is it surprising that a teenager surrounded by all this rhetoric and propaganda would buy into it, thinking that he is doing a good thing to help?

Just because indoctrination is normalized by society doesn't mean it's any less harmful indoctrination. Just because John wasn't kidnapped or forced into being a weapon doesn't mean he wasn't turned into one by the military industrial complex as a teenager. And just because he willingly signed up for something that his at best 18 year old self wouldn't have ever properly been mature enough to fully comprehend, doesn't mean he was not abused by a violent system that doesn't care about him beyond using him as a tool. The same way that violent systems of control used and abused the other members of the Thunderbolts team.

We all understand abuse and exploitation and power imbalance when an 18 year old is dating a 35 year old. When abuse happens in that context, we don't say "well the 18 year old willingly got into that relationship so who cares", so why is this kind of dismissive tone taken with John? If a domestic abuse victim stays in a relationship because of complicated feelings, do we blame the victim? What's happening here with John is a form of victim blaming. A very easy kind of victim blaming because the illusion of choice makes some people, like the above poster, think that John asked for it. So John can't be like the others. Nevermind that John's experiences likely mirrors Alexei's yet this poster never seems to call out Alexei for anything.

Yes, John willingly joined the military, but pretending that there isn't a more nuanced context of why and how he joined is to be ignorant to exploitation and indoctrination beyond just the garden variety kidnapping and forced brainwashing, and the insidious nature of that kind of trauma and exploitation. And it also ignores that John's decision was likely made when he was underage and under the influence of a hugely active military recruitment and exploitation apparatus. The creatives behind the Falcon and the Winter Soldier even once stated that the military was John's only family, which implies that he was a vulnerable and lonely child looking for a home, and the military took advantage of that so that they would ensure John would be loyal and grateful to them. They groomed him to be their weapon, no matter how "willing" he made that decision as a teenager.

------------------------

"willingly decided to try to become Captain America"

This comment shows a lack of understanding of how the military works. John didn't ask to be Cap, he didn't even know what the government and military was doing until they showed up one day to give him a new job duty two weeks before they were gonna officially unveil him. There is no willing or unwilling in the military when you're a soldier, you follow your orders. Sure, you can disobey unlawful orders, but guess what, being the next Captain America is not an unlawful order. John didn't get to choose. The military made the decision and it was his job to obey. Because if he didn't obey, he would end up in court martial and in jail. There is no agency in this. You are not an individual, you are property of the US military to do as they wish. And if you don't obey, they will make your life and your loved ones' lives hell.

-------------------------

"willingly killed people in a way that everyone knows Steve never would have"

What people? John killed one person. One person in the heat of the moment in the middle of grieving his best friend who he just watched be killed right in front of his eyes. If anyone would have understood why John did what he did, it would actually be Steve. Yes John doesn't have Steve's restraint, but let's not act like Steve doesn't know the anger and rage that comes in those moments. And if Bucky had watched Sam be killed, he would have done what John did. In fact, most of the MCU would have done what John did. Tony did. Thor did. Wanda did. Peter Parker and Peter Quill did. Yelena did. Clint did. T'Challa did it twice even after learning the lesson of letting go of revenge. Are all those heroes irredeemable and deserve to die?

Hell, in a post that accuses John of not being like the other Thunderbolts, John does the same thing that Yelena and Ava have both done, wanting to hurt and kill and lash out in pain and revenge. Yelena was going to kill Clint for revenge. Ava literally did not care if her actions would have killed civilians if it got her what she wanted to fix herself, was even ready to threaten Scott's young daughter Cassie. Both of them were no longer under the control of their abusers at that point, yet what makes their chosen rage and lashing out okay and understanding but John's somehow the most evil thing a person has ever done? What makes his pain and loss any less than theirs? In fact, in the Thunderbolts trailer, we watch Yelena just gun down guards left and right, does it make her irredeemable for choosing to still do killing when she no longer has to? Why is all this hypocritical judgment only against John?

And if we even want to address the people John killed in war and how Steve would never, let's just remember that in the Winter Soldier movie, Steve specifically states to Fury that he and the others during the war did somethings that weren't so good, that made them not sleep so well at night, but they thought they were doing it for people to be free. Yes, freedom, the same thing that the US military has been peddling since its conception. So why is it okay when Steve does terrible things in war for freedom, but John is a monster for also doing the same?

John wasn't running about happily wanting to shoot every bad guy. He never had any intentions of hurting anyone, only arresting them, even though the Flag Smashers tried to kill him and Lemar from day one. Even after Karli blew up a building with innocent people still inside it, John wasn't going to kill them but only arrest them. He only killed one Flag Smasher in the heat of the moment because he just saw Lemar die. You know what T'Challa said to Natasha after losing his father and thinking that Bucky did it? He said he would kill Bucky himself, even though Natasha pointed out that there was due process and a task force would arrest Bucky.

Why is it that violent desire for revenge is understood when other MCU heroes/protagonists do it, but John is somehow uniquely evil and not-like-the-others because he lashed out in a very human way? Why is John not allowed his humanity?

----------------------------------------

I will be the first to say John is flawed, he is imperfect, he did make mistakes. But he is not this willful evil monster that this poster tries to paint him as. He is someone whom for essentially 20 years has been trained and groomed to be a perfect weapon for a violent and abusive system that he thought of as his only family. And when this system no longer had any uses for him, it threw him out like trash and left him to drown. This poster talks about other Thunderbolts members rebuilding themselves and their sense of identity, yet this is John's struggle too. Who is he if not a soldier?

The showrunner of TFATWS literally stated that John and Bucky were two sides of the same coin of a veteran's story, of what happens when you give everything for a cause that abandons you and doesn't care for you back. Even the writers of this show understood and deliberately wanted to link John and Bucky's mutual struggles as veterans. Yet this poster wants to exclude John, because the illusion of choice made his trauma and indoctrination and grooming less "real" than the others somehow. This isn't trauma olympics. John is a broken and abused and abandoned weapon, just like every member of the Thunderbolts team. And quite frankly I'm sick and tired of people ignoring this reality because their own hate of the character blinds them to nuance and context.

Death is not the only acceptable character arc for John. He can grow to be a better person and learn to stand up against the system that harmed him and many others. And they can and will redeem him, you know why? They already did. Because John already in TFATWS finale chose to walk away from easy revenge so he could save lives. He has already proven that he could be worthy of that shield and title even if he no longer has it. And the Thunderbolts movie is about ALL of this team learning to overcome their past trauma, of learning to love and accept each other, yes even John. He isn't the exception. He is a integral part of this new team and family. And if you think that Thunderbolts is just gonna be a movie that is designed to kick John out and otherize him, then you've missed the point of this story that the cast and director have stated many times in interviews already. Hopefully Thunderbolts will teach you some important lessons about bias and judgment.

The poster of the comments says that they need to still rewatch TFATWS, and I would say to that, yes, yes you do need to rewatch, preferably rewatch with your eyes, ears, brain, and heart open, because you have missed many important contexts and nuances in your desire to only see John as some unforgivable monster.

By the way, Alexei and John are literally characters sharing the same background, Alexei is just as willing of a participant, yet the fact that those comments never once judge Alexei for actively participating in child trafficking and letting the abuse of little girls keep happening, and somehow Alexei still isn't so irredeemable and could be counted among the others who should get to learn to heal and grow is certainly a choice.

Anyways, here is hoping that when Thunderbolts finally releases, people will learn a lesson about John and how wrong some of yall are.

[snevins]

the day people stop dropping brain dead john walker (mcu) takes is the day i will finally know peace

like he’s such a morally complex and interesting character who was a perfect narrative foil to sam and the long-standing arc of what it means to pick up that shield and be captain america. he perfectly displays the sentiment we got back in the first captain america movie “not a great soldier, but a good man”. the us government picks a great soldier, the greatest one they have available. they do not understand that being captain america is so much more than that. a guy like john walker thrives in the morally grey environments of war but you make him the beacon of morality and goodness that is captain america and he crumbles. he was not made for it. the us military made him into a soldier, a weapon, and asked him to be something else. he acts the way that a soldier acts, does what a soldier would do, but captain america was never supposed to be a soldier, so he fucks up and makes the wrong decisions at almost every turn. he’s doing his best but he wasn’t built for this so it isn’t enough

his character is also such a good commentary on the us military, how the government asks terrible and life ruining things of its soldiers and then leaves them behind at its earliest convenience.

like john walker is the definition of “i am what you made me”. they made him exactly who he is, he lived his life by their mandates, he did everything they ever asked of him, and it wasn’t enough because they asked him to do something he could never do, stop being a soldier

[prettydjarinsoloinspires]

no but think about the Loki from Thor. from Avengers. the fact that he’s fighting for something good that he believes in means so much. the fact that he can sit there and say he just wants his friends back. these friends. the ones who see him for him. who don’t judge him. who he feels like he BELONGS with.

when has Loki ever felt like he belongs anywhere? he’s always been the outsider, the outcast, the villain. at the TVA he has felt appreciated and accepted. no one is singling him out or giving him a hard time for being himself. he FITS. he has come so so far. and shipping aside, the main reason for that is Mobius. someone who has seen every dark crevice of his life and his bad choices and his darkest moments and treated him with compassion and understanding.

the orphaned, abandoned, misunderstood villain has been able to write his own story because one ordinary man believed in him.

[kingofthewilderwest]

We need to start questioning the conflation of "maturity" with "increased stakes."

It's not to say higher stakes is always a bad choice. The first half of the How to Train Your Dragon book series has an endearingly whimsical, child-like feel. Hiccup's issues in the first half of book one are an obnoxious, cat-sized Toothless pooping in his helmet. The movie adaptation might have made the book and its counterpart distant cousins, but it was a thoughtful move to alter concepts to the appropriately theatrical: books and movies aren't the same medium. Hiccup riding alone on Toothless, exchanging fire blasts with a mountain-sized dragon, and losing his leg came off as well-done storytelling.

Hiccup staring at a prosthetic never happened in the book. He didn't lose his leg in his encounter with the Green Death. It was, as the creative powers behind the movie said, a result of the increased stakes. They didn't do this just to be more dramatic; they did it because it seemed that, based on how their narrative was going, this made sense. And this was a soft, quiet, shocking, breath-taking scene that instilled how good the movie handled its stakes. It gave us a reflective reaction to consequences that audiences might not have expected. This movie understood timing, pauses, quietness, narrative arc, poignance, reflection, emotion, love, and heart.

We know about the conflation of live action as "more mature" than animation. But a medium doesn't change maturity levels. We all know that's bogus, and many analyses have been given on that. Disney live actions add extraneous gunk, down to Gaston having a past relationship with war (so I've heard, from the people who actually watched the movie), and Disney giving us the sad scoop on why Belle's mom isn't around. Furthermore, lots of times, when I see the conversion of animation to live action, I notice creators feel a need to "raise the stakes" -- in line with the erroneous view of "giving maturity."

But "higher stakes" often means inserting action in place of mindful interaction. I feel today's Hollywood movies, in their treatment of "action," don't let movies pause and breathe anymore - ergo, they don't let us think. Isn't it more juvenile to actively avoid thought in favor of "hey look I made the building go boom"? There may be less "stakes" in introspection and mindful dialogue, but that's what gives it its maturity. That's how we went from Iron Man 1, with its grounded treatment of war and abuse, to the mindless high spectacle MCU is today.

Snappy one-liners or moments that clap at contemporary issues don't substitute for maturity. What can make a story mature is characters grappling with issues in a natural narrative through-line. A snappy one-liner is its own form of speedy spectacle.

We know about the conflation of "gore and sex" with "mature audiences." I believe they're right that graphic sex and gore is designed for adults. But that doesn't make it mature, and that doesn't make it the only way to target a medium for adults.

"Realisticness" isn't maturity. Per above regarding animation: realistic visuals are nothing. And if you think that putting more Debbie Downer material into your adaptation makes it more adult, you have to ask yourself why the themes that spoke to people's souls got muddled in its midst. We weren't mature enough to interact with the most subtle, nuanced, and impacting voice of the story. But hey! Look! There's more corpses, I guess!

It's not the visuals, it's not the events. It's not the "things." It's not the basic insertion of the external. Get past the superficial, get past the top layer of presentation. It's the mind. It's the ability to think. It's the ability to be still. It's the ability to be interested and attentive when something is slow or quotidian, because we can understand why that is important for narrative growth or arcs or themes or commentary on the human condition. It's the ability to know when and when not to include something. It's the ability to make resonant impact. It's the ability to be deep with your emotions or your themes. It's the ability to take what you have and grow it in a way by which we can derive something deeper.

Maturity is critical thought and well-conducted, appropriate responses to content of any kind.

As DeBlois tells Empire, the move to live-action brings a different emphasis to How To Train Your Dragon; a new heft, both physically and emotionally. “It’s so dialed-up in terms of stakes — having a fully credible, photo-real dragon stomping around trying to kill him,” the director says.

And maybe that DeBlois quote is taken out of context. Maybe there's more going on than that one sentence conveys. Maybe Empire is making their own erroneous assumptions. But "so dialed-up in terms of stakes," isn't, on its own, a good appeal. The animated movie already dialed things up - and knew when to include or not include something. A live-action that imitates the visuals of the animated movie exactly, as if no independent thought has been done to its unique adaptation, to the pros and cons of the medium, to what a independently-presented story needs and doesn't need... It has to make you wonder: how many conflations of "maturity" are going on?

How long are we going to keep making our own conflations?

[fizz-pop-thwip]

Oh Steve and Bucky's physicality? Why yes, I will deep dive into that, only if you insist 🙂‍↕️

The serums lead them to where they are now obviously, and the serums are DIFFERENT. Steve's was refined, the og. Its not just a biological feat beyond most people's understanding but what Erskine created was an ART. Utterly refined, working and 'super soldier-ing' in the most efficient and effective ways possible. Steve obviously had the MOST physical change, something Hydras serum wouldn't have achieved even if Bucky was Steve's original size when he got it.

Steve is lean (Not truely lean but leanER then Bucky.) his serum had the power and engineering to rely on the SUPER half for most of his strength. Does he have the correct muscle mass to be able to lift a bus? No. But does he have the super strength to make up for that? Yes. If we can take ANYTHING away from this over a decade old fandom, Steve is shaped like a Dorito, broad shoulders and smaller waist and lean, powerful muscle.

Bucky on the other hand, his serum wasn't so well crafted. To catch up with Captain Americas strength, hydra had to rely more on muscle mass and real strength. Bucky is bigger, wider, more raw muscle, obviously still with super strength but just less, not as much to make up for less muscle. Bucky's more rectangular, he's less then half an inch shorter then Steve, if that, but everything else culminates and makes you THINK he would be taller, you know?

I believe in general Bucky's weight fluctuates much more than Steve's ever would, (With Steve's serum being how it was, I doubt MUCH change is happening to his body, point blank period.) maybe Bucky's skinner when he's first starting to heal. He has muscles, there's no changing that any time soon with the serum in him but hes not really eating properly and hes been so sick. He's just paler and feeling weaker overall. And later when he's more healed, less nightmares, less stress, he puts on a bit of weight. With him not being as active as an assassin might be and adopting better eating habits, he gets some tummy on him.

Steve ADORES it, goes crazy for it but he goes crazy for Bucky always so maybe that doesn't say much. He just loves how healthy it makes him look, how it represents his progress in a way.

I think Steve also just naturally forgets he's technically the taller one. They're practically the same height really anyway but Steve carries himself differently around Bucky, not to mention their history. The natural feeling is just that he's smaller and that results in a lot of accidental knocking heads.

Anyway this is my copium for the evening, goodnight😴

[artbyblastweave]

My thesis on the current state of the superhero film space is that the MCU is currently in the middle of a five-or-six-year long attempted pivot into an embrace of the ramped-up, gonzo world-of-weirdness aesthetic of traditional comic books, but it's frankly too late; they built too much of their initial brand and house style on a baby-steps, toned-down soft-pedal approach where every character builds up to their comic-book styling once they've felt out the reception via focus groups, and you can't introduce a B-lister without at least an after-credit scene's worth of buildup. Everything was structured around swearing up and down to the audience that they aren't silly or childish for daring to take these characters seriously. I do think that kind of measured approach actually was appropriate for ensuring the project's survival in the 2010s, but these days it severely impedes their ability to believably do any story that's predicated on there being a big normalized superhuman subculture that's just out of sight; that's simply never been how this world has been shown to function narratively.

By contrast, the DCU films are, at least since 2017, significantly more willing to assume audience familiarity with the basic idea of a superhero universe, and have been much more willing to treat the superhero as an understood social category within the universe, which allows them to do smaller-scale narratives about B-and-C-list weirdos that can hit the ground running rather than blowing the first 40 minutes explaining everything. Shazam is predicated on Billy knowing what superheroes are from the news and wanting to be one, Birds of Prey is predicated on Gotham being the kind of city where a quartet of vigilantes can get into it with a crime syndicate in an abandoned funhouse, and The Suicide Squad is predicated on there being so many disposable D-list supervillains in jail that you can get a dozen of them killed on an illicit black-op without anyone noticing. This same aesthetic impulse also generated some real duds, but the disconnected nature of the films after they gave up on the unified DCEU means that Black Adam or Flash taking a dive doesn't really affect any of the other one-offs.

The Gunnverse is really embracing this approach as the backbone of their second attempt at a unified live-action setting- Superman as a resident of a world where superhero is an understood kind of guy and not necessarily a well-liked kind. I don't think it's a secret that this is clearly my preferred idiom, but I'm also curious to see whether you can sustain it as the house style of an MCU-scale endeavor. If there's a failure point- beyond mere audience exhaustion and market saturation- I'm curious to see what it'll end up being.

[indominusavenger]

I'm gonna come out and say it; No Way Home sucked. Sure, it had some good moments but in my opinion, it does not live up to the first two instalments of the trilogy. I liked the first part of the movie but as soon as I knew where the second part was going, I fell off that train pretty quickly.

Not only did it make MCU Spidey end up with the same tale as his two predecessors but it also undoes Peter's entire establishment in Marvel's overall franchise. What was the point of the last four movies putting him on the roster with Earth's MIGHTIEST Heroes if you were just going to take all that away and make it like he exists in a completely separate world from them? What was the point of the three cameos we had from RDJ, Samuel L. Jackson, and Benedict Cumberbatch in their iconic roles to show that interconnected universe as with every other MCU movie, only for that to be stripped away at the very last second? Might as well have been another one of Sony's solo ventures at making a series after TASM but it's not and that's why I HATE the uncertainty of Peter Parker's future in the MCU. However, given the current failing reality of the MCU with every new movie that comes out, I can already confirm it's nothing good. In fact, it probably would be best if progress stops altogether before Marvel really is stuck in the dust and just a part of a magnificent past with no legacy to carry on. (This is a side note but that is still a big issue for me anyways that I may expand upon later in another post. In the meantime, go watch all the video essays on YouTube, I'm sure you'll find many good ones.)

He had a unique story that fit into the overarching plot of the MCU and the premise he had was different from the previous Spideys which is what was so interesting about his character development. This Peter Parker had friends that weren't introduced before, or at least, they were more developed than in other series; he had a superhero as a mentor, not a scientist turned villain due to unfortunate circumstances; he had a guy in the chair who wasn't after him or turned villain because his father was one, he had two crushes that were friends, he was part of clubs and acted more teenage-like than the last two. He interacts with other heroes, joins the Avengers, fights THE villain, perishes, comes back, loses his mentor, and is still expected to keep on going.

For crying out loud, he was asked if he was going to be the next Iron Man but he knew he wasn't which is what Far From Home set out to show us. And to all those who called him Iron Man Jr. in Homecoming, I hope you know that you make no sense and I think Marvel did a wonderful job making him stand apart. He was a kid admiring one of his role models and now that he actually had a connection to him, of course he was going to want to be like his mentor but even Tony recognized that he wanted him to be more, not like him. This shows Iron Man himself had great respect for the young hero.

Now, moving onto No Way Home, two main things that annoy the heck out of me; Peter being forgotten (obviously) and Aunt May dying. I'll start with Aunt May's death. To be honest, it was a completely unnecessary death and it actually doesn't make sense for the purpose it had in the movie. The punchline "With great power comes great responsibility." loses its premise as soon as you recall Civil War's intro to Peter in the first place. Uncle Ben had already died, Peter was Spider-Man at this point, and remember what Peter told Tony when they met, why the older hero related to him so much? "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't... and then the bad things happen... they happen because of you." So he already learned that lesson on responsibility and by the time we get to No Way Home, this kid had learned lessons also involving the universe at large. Why are we rehashing Uncle Ben's offscreen death with Aunt May if Marvel literally stated that was overdone? Make that make sense. But oh, it was to make something big and dramatic happen in the movie because we needed to mOve aLoNg. Peter lost his parents, his uncle, and mentor; can you come up with something new other than parental figure losses? Why do TASM Peter and OG Peter still have their Aunt Mays and even if it was just a deleted scene, technically TASM Peter's dad? Huh, then what do you say there? Why did MCU Peter Parker have to lose ALL his parental figures?

Finally, the thing that probably broke most of us; Peter being wiped from everyone's memory. As I stated earlier, his entire existence within the MCU just vanishes, like that, in seconds. So......... what was the point of his existence up till now in the MCU? What was the point of his specific development and growth if he was just going to get forgotten? Why was he meticulously introduced at the height of the Avengers' conflict and then constantly involved with some other MCU hero/important character if he was going to be removed from that? If the Avengers were never a big deal, why make him a part of that at all and why were we still bringing them up at the climax of the film? For those who bring up the argument that he's supposed to be a solitary hero, well that was the worst way to have introduced him then, right? But Marvel chose that route, not any other. Which is why that decision still makes no sense to me. You put him in a world where he wasn't the only superhero and he was going to interact with other heroes which none of the other Spider-Men had and that already put him in a unique position. Why give him a background that was going to get swiped?

Imagine that, making five blockbuster films that gave him a firm standing in the MCU at the peak of Phase 3 and then in his sixth film, his last standalone which is supposed to be his most shining moment, he gets the rug pulled out from underneath him to give him a blank slate? You might as well have thrown every script out from 2015 to 2019 including him before they were ever written or considered. It's the equivalent of undoing everything you just worked on in a school project that's worth 40% of your final grade. Think about that for a second. Marvel just undid 6 years of work and investment in a single character for them to go back to the beginning. Why didn't you just do that then from the start? You could have had more classic Spidey a long time ago by that train of thought (which I really didn't want because we already saw that twice and this Spidey was something fresh).

Anyways, thanks for reading. This is 2 years worth of disappointment and frustration put on the page.

[gloriousburden]

Omg so many people love to mock Avengers Loki’s hair for being “greasy”/“unwashed” (which I can’t stand because it’s so obviously hair gel…) but love and even praise his hair in Ragnarok/the all black suit outfit when his hair with that outfit GENUINELY looks greasy and not even just slicked back/styled with gel.

It’s so obviously styled. Greasy/unwashed hair doesn’t do that. Even when I was more tolerant of Ragnarok… I knew this was a mess. Does Loki’s hair in Avengers look crunchy? Yes. Does it look greasy/unwashed? NO!

Btw I really never cared for the all black suit outfit 😭😭😭😭 it’s nothing special to me, and I prefer Stuttgart/Thor 1 when he was wearing a suit. Feel like I’m definitely in the minority though.

On a more positive note, though…

Shitty pictures, but I actually kind of like what they did with his hair in IW. Is it perfect? No, but I like how you could see a bit of his natural waves more (which is adorable), the amount of volume, the fact it’s ever so slightly side parted/moved to the side, the way it’s more in his face and not entirely tucked/styled behind his ears, and how disheveled it is. It’s more natural looking, and not so crunchy/overly defined to the point it lacks volume/separation.

It’s so cute to me that he has naturally more wavy hair rather than straight, so I’m glad that they sort of let that show. Like in TDW too, since his hair had a more natural wave even though it was seemingly still styled. As well as obviously after his breakdown.

[tumblingghosts]

OH MY GOSH. IMMACULATE. THANK YOU <33

i have tried to dislike you for your obsession with john walker but after seeing you fight for his honor repeatedly in every post attacking him i have to admit... i kinda fw you.

and you might be convincing me hes not that bad...

at the very least you are incredibly entertaining please never stop waging your one person war against the haters 🙏

Awwww thank you! And I’m glad to have been able to entertain you! 👍🏼

Don’t worry, I have no intention to stop fighting for Johnny boy’s honor! It shall be my lifelong goal to keep waging the war! 🫡

I’m happy to hear I might be convincing you that John isn’t so bad lol 😝 hopefully with Thunderbolts coming out, Marvel will finally help me with doing some of the convincing work 😉

In the meantime, if you’re up for it, you can always read my very long 200+ pages John essay here: