eunuchorn

[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

[eunuchorn]

Nah honestly, I still blame Tony's reaction a little but. Not for being angry, not at all, he had every right to be pissed and hurt. I blame him for acting on that anger and attempting murder. An initial burst of rage and attack I might be able to understand, but the dude just. Kept. Going. Far after he should have been able to take a step back and think to himself, "holy fuck hold on what am I doing?"

And he never acted sorry about it. Not once. If this makes me a Steve or Bucky dick rider, so be it. A crime of passion is still a crime.

Can Iron man dick riders take 2 seconds to use critical thinking skills. "What if it was your parents" NO ONE IS BLAMING TONY'S REACTION BUT DO YOU SERIOUSLY JUST EXPECT STEVE TO SIT THERE AND LET IT HAPPEN??

He knows Bucky has been tortured and been through fucking hell for 70 YEARS, not to mention that is his best friend, you want him to just stand and fucking watch?? They didn't 'jump tony' tony attacked first and they went as far as they needed to aka disabling Tony's weapon, that being his suit.

It makes me think that people haven't watched CATWS BC Bucky is quite literally as innocent as they can get, he was stripped of all his autonomy. He had no choice over his actions, do I need to define mind control for some people?? Seriously.

I feel like I need to reiterate like 10 times over, No one is blaming Tony but you cannot possibly blame Steve for protecting Bucky because Bucky is a victim.

[eunuchorn]

How exactly is Steve the protagonist if he has fewer speaking lines, equal screen time, less backstory development, and the editing is meant to reflect the POV of another character?

If RDJ didn't care about that, he wouldn't have improvised that speech at the beginning of Endgame. He would have gone with the original script. And if Steve was meant to be the (or just a) hero in Civil War, that speech would not have been allowed by the directors in the first place. It placed the blame solely on Steve. That certainly supports the theory that Tony was given preferential treatment in Civil War.

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

[eunuchorn]

The movie ends with Tony. The final fight between Steve and Bucky and Tony ends with a shot of Tony lying on the ground, leaving the audience with the last moment of sympathy being for him. They didn't end that fight with a shot of Steve's distraught face as he walks away from the life he built for himself, because his POV wasn't as important. Then we just get a Steve voice over where he apologizes to Tony - again, to really make sure that audiences know that it's Tony we're supposed to feel bad for. None of this is normal for a movie where Steve is supposed to be the protagonist.

And no one said it was meant to make people like Tony more - it was meant to not make people like Tony less. They couldn't have people walk out of that theater tinking Tony was wrong, that would be bad for business and RDJ wouldn't like it. As evidenced by the fact that general audiences still think that Cap was the villian in his own movie.

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

[eunuchorn]

Okay but none of this contradicts what op was saying. In Civil War, Tony has more speaking lines than Cap. Tony has just barely a minute less screen time than Cap. Tony gets to have the flashback and the backstory development. In a Captain America movie. RDJ had more to do in this movie than Chris Evans, who is supposedly the titular character. Not to mention that Cap's side of the Civil War is not explained nearly well enough, in order to make Tony's side look more sympathetic.

Idk if RDJ had anything to do with it or if the writers were just so far up Tony Stark's ass that they couldn't help but make every other hero's story about him, but, well... Either wouldn't surprise me.

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

[eunuchorn]

i know we joke about steve being an angri ball of energy or whatever but the man wrote a letter asking for forgiveness from someone who tried to kill his best friend. ok once again. he wrote a LETTER asking for FORGIVENESS from someone who tried to KILL his BEST FRIEND. no offence but steve rogers is a kind and patient ball of empathy. tony has NEVER apologised for his actions. not once in all of the thirteen films he was in.

i just don't understand how like. steve decided to own up to his mistakes and approach his teammate with such... calm compassion. how was he not furious about the fact that he and bucky had to incapacitate tony bc like, he was not gonna stop until one or both of them were dead? how did he do that. he said im sorry, and if you need me, here's my number. wtf.

[eunuchorn]

How does letting Trump get back in office change anything?

I await a chorus of crickets or some kind of face-saving non-answer.

I didn't say it would. You're welcome.

[eunuchorn]

Oh man I will always be bitter that Captain America 3 partially turned into Iron Man 4. There was no reason Tony should have slightly more screen time than Steve in Steve's own damn movie. And don't even get me started on Peter.

RDJ unfortunately contributed to this treatment of Tony - because he apparently can't stand to see Tony be wrong any more than his fans can - by demanding a bigger part in Civil War and by changing the apology he was supposed to give Steve in Endgame into just blaming Steve for everything.

Tony and RDJ got too much special main character treatment in the MCU as a whole and it honestly was a detriment to both the canon and the fandom.

Honestly, I can't believe I still see so many Tony supporters who think that Tony was entirely justified in trying to murder Bucky at the end of Civil War. That it was actually Steve's fault that Tony did that, as if Tony isn't a grown man with personal agency (unlike Bucky) who made the conscious choice to act on his anger and straight up attempt murder.

Steve is responsible for his choice to keep the truth from Tony - which he acknowledged was wrong and apologized for because he's a good person - but he is not responsible for Tony's choices. He hurt Tony, yes, but that doesn't absolve Tony of responsibility for the way he acted on that hurt.

If it's "human" and "understandable" that Tony got so angry that he tried to kill Bucky, why isn't it human and understandable that Steve would keep that secret from Tony is a misguided attempt to spare him more pain? Why should only Steve be blamed for what happened?

I'll never understand the point of view that attempted murder is justifiable but secret keeping isn't. Steve and Tony both made mistakes, but Bucky was always innocent.

[eunuchorn]

honestly steve deserved to be a little meaner in civil war

“steve you have to sign the accords”

“oh right i totally should sign my rights away to a government who i exposed to have been infiltrated by nazis for DECADES. i’m sure nothing bad will happen if i do that”

“i should let the government dictate my life when all i’ve ever done is save the world by going AGAINST the government. sounds like a great plan”

like t0ny stans love to say he was being horribly selfish and mean in civil war, which he… wasn’t, but i think he should have been