eunuchorn

[eunuchorn]

i actually love the idea of thor and steve's friendship. like they literally have so much in common hello??

they are both strong, tall, blonde, have weapons that are a greater representation of their beliefs and legacy, both distinctly are outsiders™, both very righteous and deeply protective of their nerdy brunette significant other.

marvel ROBBED us of this friendship

[eunuchorn]

thorsteve, kiss #7 (on the lips, passionate). i wasnt gonna do thorsteve today but sgtjimbarnes swayed me with talk of wall pinning ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[eunuchorn]

Oh boy.

1) By the rules of time travel (as I understood them, anyway, feel free to correct) in the MCU, there was no way for Steve to actually stop those things from happening. He could change them, obviously, but that would just create a new timeline. The timeline where those things happened would still exist, Steve just wouldn't be part of it anymore. So regardless of whether or not I liked the ending, I can at least understand where it's coming from.

2) I never said I liked Steve's ending in Endgame. Personally I thought it was a pretty bad ending, not necessarily because it was out of character (though I do think it kinda was), but mostly because I am not a huge fan of time travel as a solution to problems. Since I see Steve's character arc and one of his main struggles as being about his inability to let go of the past, I don't think it was a very good solution for him to just... not have to. Narratively I don't find it particularly good or interesting for a character to sidestep their struggle like that. But I don't consider it character assassination, really. I mostly see it as the writers not knowing how else to give Steve a definite ending. Any solution where Steve lived and stayed in the present would be very open-ended. At this point, I'm mostly just glad that he didn't get killed off and got a bad but happy ending. I can learn to live with it.

3) Nothing I wrote even suggested that I was "absolutely fine" with Steve's ending or any of your points, so I don't know why you felt the need to act like it did. I specifically added "not saying I agree or disagree" because I saw that as beside the point. All I said was that I think claiming to have authority over who is a "true fan" is toxic. That claiming to have authority over which opinion is the "correct" one is toxic. Especially with a character like Steve Rogers who has been interpreted and formed by so many different writers, universes, and stories across literal decades. I dislike fandom police. I can disagree or agree with any and all takes, but I'm not going to pretend there is an objectively correct one, or that anyone who disagrees with me is a false fan or something. Everything you wrote in your post and everything else I've touched on above is beside that point. Sorry for not confirming your opinion as the one true take I guess.

just going to say that you’re not a real steve rogers stan if you think endgame made sense for his character. you prefer fanon, and that’s ok, but the real steve rogers would never go back in time rather than March forward. he would never abandon his friends. he would always choose a pickett line over a pickett fence. bc that man could retire from being captain america, but never from being steve rogers

[eunuchorn]

No one fan has the authority to decide the "correct" interpretation or opinion of a character, world, or story. "You're only a real fan if..." rhetoric is toxic af. Not saying i agree or disagree with this take on Steve Rogers' character, but it's only a take. Not an objective fact. Everyone who is a fan of Steve... is a fan of Steve.

just going to say that you’re not a real steve rogers stan if you think endgame made sense for his character. you prefer fanon, and that’s ok, but the real steve rogers would never go back in time rather than March forward. he would never abandon his friends. he would always choose a pickett line over a pickett fence. bc that man could retire from being captain america, but never from being steve rogers

[eunuchorn]

I just saw a tiktok with over 300k likes about that scene in Avengers Endgame where Tony goes off on Steve about how everything was Steve's fault and he's a liar and Tony was right about everything yada yada yada which said that Tony was 100% right and Steve deserved it and it's the best scene in the franchise.

This is why I avoid the MCU fandom. And Tony stans. And Stony shippers too, tbh, even though I used to be one.

I hate that scene so much. No matter what the Tony fans think, Steve did not deserve it. I wish Tony had apologized for it.

[eunuchorn]

Chris Evans as Steve Rogers | Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

[eunuchorn]

Even after 7 years its still kind of annoying to see certain people in MCU fandom saying "Bucky doesn't deserve to be saved or redeemed!", " Bucky deserves to die!" and acting like he's the worst, most evil person in the universe.

And the way they try and justify their idea by saying "HE KILLED PEOPLE!" like he's the only person in universe who ever did such a thing. Um no. Anyone can see that is not so.

The real truth is they're just spoiled brats who think hurting T*ny is some unforgivable sin and they're mad because he's still breathing. This is why Bucky needs to do something really great or amazingly heroic in Thunderbolts. Just to give them all the Middle finger.

Unfortunately there is probably nothing that Bucky can do to redeem himself in those people's eyes. They're not coming from a genuine place, all they care about is Tony being right and everyone else being wrong, regardless of the actual narrative. They're the same people who watched that scene in Endgame when Tony went off on Steve and thought Steve deserved it (he did not). They're the same people who will shout until they're blue in the face that Tony wasn't responsible for Ultron because Wanda gave him a nightmare, but will then turn around and say that mind control isn't an excuse for what Bucky did 🙄 The MCU fandom is overrun by these Tony stans, and there is really nothing we can do except ignore and block. And occasionally complain. The rest of us know that Bucky was a victim, not a villain, and that he became a hero in the end.

[eunuchorn]

if i was 26 and had just woken up from a 70 year suicide-induced coma with no one in the present remembering who i am and instead conflating me with the ever changing image of the role i played in ww2 that now serves as american propaganda and 2 weeks ago i was watching guys get half of their faces blown off and a week after that the love of my life fell off of a moving train with me only being able to watch and then i had to like... deal with a billionaire nepo baby war profiteer calling me an old man and saying there's nothing special about me i would have started killing people. but unfortunately it happened to steve rogers. and he has, like, morals. so

[eunuchorn]

Y’know the truth is I don’t think Tony Stark would bother me nearly as much if his fans were just even slightly normal about him. Like antis get this reputation for being crazy obsessive hateful people, but in my experience they’re just frustrated fans that want a place to vent about an otherwise very popular character. It’s the stans who will cross tag and send death threats to blogs that dare disparage their precious baby. It’s the stans that clamor for unfair amounts of screen time and encourage the co-opting of other characters to surround Tony Stark. I don’t see antis writing a thousand 10k fanfics about Team Iron Man getting tortured and groveling to Steve. Idk maybe this is an unfortunately common fandom behavior?? It just seems so unnecessary to me

[eunuchorn]

[eunuchorn]

Will admit that I don't understand what "null in essence" means. They were on different teams about the Accords. They were all split up by the end of Civil War, and none of those issues had been resolved on screen by the start of Infinity War. Tony and Rhodey still supported and worked under the Accords at the end of Civil War. Steve, Sam, and Nat were international fugitives, Wanda and Vision took off, Clint and Scott got placed under house arrest... Sure, Steve gave Tony a vague hint about breaking out Team Cap and Tony didn't rat them out, but how did that change anything? They were all still split up because of the Accords, and Tony ignored Steve's olive branch regarding their personal conflict. All of Team Cap (plus Nat) were punished or faced consequences for what happened with the Accords. Nothing was nullified for them.

People who think that Steve's motivation in Captain America: Civil War was about Bucky so fundamentally misunderstand Steve Rogers as a character that I have to wonder if we actually watched the same movie.

Steve's opposition to the Accords had nothing to do with Bucky. Full stop. Even if Bucky didn't exist, CA:CW would still have played out the exact same way (except the fight with Tony at the end, obviously). Sooner or later, Steve would have run into a situation where he felt compelled to act, but doing so would go against the Accords. In CA:CW, that situation happened to be the kill order on Bucky, but it could have been a totally different situation and the result would still have been the same. Steve would have chosen to act, knowing it went against the Accords, and he would have found himself on the opposite side of the law. Even the ones who actually signed the Accords, i.e team Iron Man, found themselves in that situation eventually:

Natasha chose to go against orders and let Steve and Bucky get away after the airport fight so they could stop the other winter soldiers.

Tony chose to go against Ross's direct orders and went to help Steve in Siberia.

Vision went on the run with Wanda and helped her avoid arrest.

Rhodey went against Ross's direct orders and chose to help Cap and the rest in Infinity War instead of arresting them.

All of them found themselves in situations where they chose to act in violation of the Accords, because to not do so would be morally wrong. Which was Steve's entire point. Legality isn't the same as morality and putting their powers in the hands of political agendas would inevitably cause the Avengers to either have to fight someone who didn't deserve to be fought, or to be kept from fighting someone who should have been stopped. As shown in the examples above.

So Bucky was totally irrelevant to Steve's decision regarding the Accords. Bucky or no Bucky, Steve would have refused to sign, found himself in a situation where he felt morally compelled to act, and ended up with an arrest warrant on his ass. Which, presumably, Tony would have tried to carry out. And boom, the general plot of the movie happens anyway. That's what the civil war was about, not Steve's relationship with Bucky. The fact that it was Bucky's situation that was the catalyst, instead of some other thing, was coincidental (or, rather, it was because it's a Cap movie and personal stakes as a secondary/parallel plot is more narratively compelling).

[eunuchorn]

People who think that Steve's motivation in Captain America: Civil War was about Bucky so fundamentally misunderstand Steve Rogers as a character that I have to wonder if we actually watched the same movie.

Steve's opposition to the Accords had nothing to do with Bucky. Full stop. Even if Bucky didn't exist, CA:CW would still have played out the exact same way (except the fight with Tony at the end, obviously). Sooner or later, Steve would have run into a situation where he felt compelled to act, but doing so would go against the Accords. In CA:CW, that situation happened to be the kill order on Bucky, but it could have been a totally different situation and the result would still have been the same. Steve would have chosen to act, knowing it went against the Accords, and he would have found himself on the opposite side of the law. Even the ones who actually signed the Accords, i.e team Iron Man, found themselves in that situation eventually:

Natasha chose to go against orders and let Steve and Bucky get away after the airport fight so they could stop the other winter soldiers.

Tony chose to go against Ross's direct orders and went to help Steve in Siberia.

Vision went on the run with Wanda and helped her avoid arrest.

Rhodey went against Ross's direct orders and chose to help Cap and the rest in Infinity War instead of arresting them.

All of them found themselves in situations where they chose to act in violation of the Accords, because to not do so would be morally wrong. Which was Steve's entire point. Legality isn't the same as morality and putting their powers in the hands of political agendas would inevitably cause the Avengers to either have to fight someone who didn't deserve to be fought, or to be kept from fighting someone who should have been stopped. As shown in the examples above.

So Bucky was totally irrelevant to Steve's decision regarding the Accords. Bucky or no Bucky, Steve would have refused to sign, found himself in a situation where he felt morally compelled to act, and ended up with an arrest warrant on his ass. Which, presumably, Tony would have tried to carry out. And boom, the general plot of the movie happens anyway. That's what the civil war was about, not Steve's relationship with Bucky. The fact that it was Bucky's situation that was the catalyst, instead of some other thing, was coincidental (or, rather, it was because it's a Cap movie and personal stakes as a secondary/parallel plot is more narratively compelling).

[eunuchorn]

DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE (2024) dir. Shawn Levy

[eunuchorn]

The thing about war, boy, is while it happens, you’ve no idea what's going on–and when it’s over, everyone spends the rest of your life telling you what you did. - Robert Jackson Bennett, The Tainted Cup

[eunuchorn]

The Chris Evans cameo in Deadpool and Wolverine is so fucking perfect I can't stop thinking about it.

Everyone who has read the Deadpool comics knows that Deadpool loves Captain America. Admires him. Fetishizes him, almost. So when you see Chris Evans, you don't really question it. It makes sense that Cap would make an appearance in Deadpool's first MCU movie. But then the movie goes Captain America? Psych! It's Johnny Storm! and it's like it's also saying you thought this was about the MCU? Psych! It's a love letter to Fox/Marvel! Sure, the movie is obviously about Deadpool's entrance into the MCU, but more than that it's a goodbye and a salute to the Fox/Marvel era, and the Chris Evans cameo - the first of the Fox/Marvel guest stars - introduces that switcheroo so well. It's very clever.

And obviously the joke itself is perfectly executed and hilarious, too.

[eunuchorn]

Its gone beyond T*ny Stans trying to say that his attempting to murder Bucky was "understandable".

Now they're trying to outright change history and saying there is no evidence T*ny was tying to kill him at all. Or even trying to blame Bucky for starting it because he tried to shoot at Tony just before Tony jumped up.

Oh and apparently T*ny was;t to blame for Ultron because he was "mind controlled" by Wanda.

One thing I've always found funny is how little certain Tony stans seem to even know about the movies' canon events. "Bucky and Steve jumped Tony first", "Tony wasn't trying to kill Bucky", "Steve and Bucky left Tony for dead with the broken arc reactor", etc etc. Like, did you even watch the movie? Did you follow Tony's story arc at all? I've seen so many Tony stans who straight up forgot that Tony removed the arc reactor and shrapnel in IM3, so he was never in any danger when Steve destroyed it. It was simply powering his suit. Same with the "Tony was jumped" narrative. Like, Tony very clearly threw the first punch. That's not even up for interpretation, that's just what happened. And Tony was clearly trying to kill Bucky, considering he blew his arm off and tried to do the same with his head. Makes me wonder if they even actually like the movies, or if they just watched them all once years ago and then attached themselves to the fandom version of Tony Stark. The one who can do no wrong.

[eunuchorn]

I don't think it was meant to show that at all, considering that there was absolutely no push back on it. Steve was just blamed for everything and then that's that. Steve can only be a hero as long as he doesn't go against Tony.

I don't think they meant for him to be an villian/not a hero, I just think they meant to provide as much sympathy and star power to Tony Stark as possible, even if it meant making Cap second best in his own movie. And the result was that audiences didn't see him as a hero.

(And I think classifying Steve Rogers as a military golden boy is at this point kinda off, considering that he spent 4 of the movies he was in being firmly on the opposite side of the government and being used for military purposes.)

Anyway. I don't want to keep spamming op's post. Civil War was, in the end, not a Cap movie. And it's totally plausible that RDJ had something do with that. Maybe not, but considering how much power he has and how much those guys pay him... I wouldn't be surprised. That's all.

reminder rdj literally threatened to walk from cap 3 because he didn’t have enough screentime (aka not make enough money from it) and didn’t like how tony would be portrayed and after they did major rewrites had the audacity to call it iron man 4 in interviews