stephenpe

[stephenpe]

Shoutout to all the Tony Stark ships who are Anti Steve Rogers (MCU) in their fanfics.

Shoutout to all Tony Stark ships who hate the guts out of the Whitewashed Wendy bitch.

Shoutout to all Tony Stark ships who do nothing but try to give Tony his happy ending with people he deserves to be with.

Shoutout to all Tony Stark ships who write him trying to break the generational trauma and be the good parental figure.

Shoutout to all Tony Stark ships who don't shit on Pepper in their fanfics and portray her just like the pillar of support she has been.

Last but not the least-

shoutout to all Tony Stark ships who acknowledge and give justice to all his mental health issues compassionately.

[PS: please do tell if this lands in a wrong tags, I'll try to remove it from there, no need to be rude ]

[stephenpe]

Everytime I see a Cap Stan say "Steve didn't know it was Bucky. Him and Nat only knew it was Hydra." I want to scream.

You are literally saying that Steve and Nat knew Hydra killed the Starks and chose not to tell Tony. If they didn't know it was the Winter Soldier, and therefore didn't know it was Bucky, then that means they were PROTECTING HYDRA!!!!

This is not the "Steve is a good guy" point you think it is. This makes Steve soooooo much worse.

For those confused, I'm not saying Steve is Hydra. I'm saying cap stans saying "He didn't know it was Bucky." are saying he wasn't protecting Bucky by not telling Tony.

Either he knew it was Bucky and was protecting him, or he didn't know it was Bucky and he was hiding Hydra's crime for no reason. Both are shitty and wrong, but protecting Bucky, or literally anyone, over Tony actually lines up with his past actions.

[stephenpe]

who was right in civil war enlightened one what was justified and what wasn’t

(Note: I wrote this in 40 minutes after getting out of urgentcare because I am a madlad. If there are any misspellings, discrepancies, or plot errors, I apologize in advance.)

So the biggest problem with identifying who is actually wrong in Civil War is that the script is kinda...bad.

Okay, listen.

The dialogue is pretty fantastic and everyone is in character. (For the most part.) But the conflict is mediocre at best and there are like five different storylines going at once that are supposed to parallel each other but do a really shoddy job of it.

I can't really say who was right, but I can for sure say who's side I would have been on.

Tony Stark's.

(I promise this isn't just because he's my favorite.)

So there are two main storylines that involve Tony Stark. Plot A) the Accords, and B) Bucky's whole thing. These two plotlines intertwine at certain intervals, especially the ending, but let's put a pin in that. Let's talk about the Accords first.

This is where a lot of the bad writing comes in. If you go to the MCU Wiki, it cites regulations such as wearing tracking bracelets and being thrown into prison without a trial. Here's the thing though...in CA:CW they don't mention any of these regulations even once. There is half the Avengers being thrown into the raft (which Tony breaks them out of), but the movie doesn't once cite a single regulation beyond the fact that 117 countries are trying to keep superheroes with potentially dangerous powers in check.

If they really wanted me to side with Steve on this one, they would have at least thrown something in there. At most, they just bring Thaddus Ross on screen as a kind of shorthand to prove that the Accords are corrupt, but this doesn't really hold any weight for someone who hasn't seen The Hulk or read the comics.

So the only argument they've got going is government bad=Accords bad, which...fair enough. But this movie is placed literally directly after Age of Ultron (which is another nightmare of a movie script), where it is firmly established that the Avengers making decisions on their own, without input from any higher officials, is historically a bad move.

Actually, let's back up, let's talk about the Avengers.

I don't really understand why they're still a thing after S.H.I.E.L.D. was disbanded. They aren't owned by any organization, they don't work for any organization, and they're not affiliated with any official government. Which means they can be viewed as vigilantes or terrorists, depending on how badly they botch up a mission. And considering how amazingly well Age of Ultron goes, I'm honestly not surprised that the United Nations wanted to put restrictions on them.

So -much to my chagrin-I'm actually on the government's side here.

What about the Avengers as a team?

Okay, so you have a Billionaire supergenius, a soldier from WWII with superpowers, two ex-S.H.E.I.L.D. agents, an Alien who sometimes shows up, and a scientist who turns into an uncontrollable rage creature. Adding onto that, they recruit two military veterans, a sentient robot, and the ex-nazi responsible for their last fuck-up.

If we take a look at their actual team dynamics, we have a group of people who are already split down the middle. Half the team is looking to Steve Rogers for leadership and the other half is trusting Tony Stark. These two men not only do not get along, but they don't get along to the extent that it affects how they work in a crisis. On top of this, said ex-nazi hates Tony Stark so hard that it- again- destroys an entire city and they decide to put her on the same team.

The Avengers have only had one successful onscreen mission (Avengers 2012) and that was more down to sheer luck than actually being capable of working together and carrying out a mission. They mention other missions they've been on at the beginning of Age of Ultron, but it's also noted that the collateral damage they've left in their wake was what spurred the UN into creating the Accords.

Not a great team.

So when people chalk Steve's entire argument down to the safest hands are our own, are they actually right? Should the world be entrusting their lives unquestionably in a team whose members should have been in therapy 6 movies ago (except for Rhodey and Sam, they get a pass).

Yeah hard pass, to be honest, I would have retired the team and restarted from scratch even before putting the Accords on the table. Which is why I am entirely on Tony's side because he is the more accountable between him and Steve. He tried it Steve's way in Age of Ultron, and it ultimately failed (that's another meta post for a different time). So now he's trying to keep the team together within the parameters that 117 different governments are clamoring for.

So my opinion on who was right? I lean more onto Tony's side.

Now what was justified?

Steve was justified in helping Bucky. I absolutely do not condone some of the things he did to protect him, but I can understand trying to help your best friend. It's a choice that I would make. I'm not one for saying the end justifies the means, but it's clear that Bucky was in trouble and that turning him in was a bad move. This is the one choice Steve made in Civil War that I absolutely approve of.

Tony was justified in his anger at Steve and Bucky and Bucky was not at fault for the death of Tony's parents. These two statements can and should coexist. I see a lot of people flipping out over Tony's reaction, but honestly? He's 100% justified. He just watched an incredibly traumatic tape of his mother dying with her murderer standing next to him. But that ain't what it was all about.

That's what this is about. Steve was the last person Tony could have even comprehended lying to him about something like this. It wasn't about whether or not Bucky was the killer (although that had to be upsetting). It was about Steve breaking his trust. His reaction is absolutely understandable and completely justified with this in mind.

Now what wasn't justified?

Every scene with Wanda in it, Sam putting blame on Tony for the raft situation (edit: I think it actually may have been Barton who did this, but it's been a while since I've seen the film), and Steve's worst apology ever letter. I could literally write separate metas on each of these, so all I'm gonna say is the narrative used Tony as a cope out to cause problems for other people. All of Wanda's problems (sans her parents' death, which actually wasn't Tony's fault) are caused by her own doing. All of Sam's problems were caused by his own doing. And Steve's letter was the shittiest apology I've ever read and makes me turn into a rage monster every time I think about it.

None of those things we're justified and I sigh every time I think about them.

Anyway, long story short, this movie is a dumpster fire trainwreck that either needed to go through several more drafts or should've just been tossed in the bin. Tony's motivations are far more reasonable and sympathetic, and I'm still mad at them for putting him and Bucky on opposite sides.

(Please feel free to shoot me more questions or to disagree. I love talking meta/analysis with others, and would be thrilled to hear y'all's opinions.)

[stephenpe]

(whispers): Tony Stark was right.  Pass it on.

[stephenpe]

I just realized another difference between MCU Tony and Steve.

Steve since the day one thought of himself as a better man. As a person who was better than people around him, a person meant for great things, but who ultimately lacked the power to properly stand against the people he saw as bullies. Thanks to that, he was never driven by the idea to be a better person, because he already thought himself to be a better person since the beginning.

Tony on the other hand never saw himself as a better person, not truly. He may have felt proud of his accomplishments, his intellect, his tech, but it never made him feel as a better man than everybody around him, and Afghanistan only made him admit how flawed he was and how much he needed to change. Thanks to that, he was always driven by the idea to be a better person, because he knew he was not perfect, and his mistakes had real consequences.

Not being aware of your own flaws is a flaw all on itself. That’s why MCU Steve Rogers rubs me wrong. Because he is not aware of his own shortcomings as a person, and he lives in an illusion that he is the better man who was always meant to become great and do great things. He thinks himself flawless, while he is full of flaws.

[stephenpe]

team cap stans: the accords were infringing on the avengers’ rights

me:

i’m sorry but it is the most american thing for a person to see rules and regulations meant to keep them in check and then claim those rules and regulations are a violation of their rights (COVID-19, anybody?)

the accords were not created to put enhanced individuals below others, it was created to put the Avengers under oversight. 117 countries came together, after seeing the destruction at sokovia and lagos, asking the avengers to respect their boundaries. don’t even use that article on the wiki cause i’ve read it and i still don’t see how it is abusing human rights. sure, some parts were unnecessary, like asking for dna samples and fingerprints (how the hell are those even violating human rights?) but the rest are actually reasonable.

“Any enhanced individuals who agree to sign must register with the United Nations and provide biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA samples” like i stated earlier, the entire dna and fingerprints are unnecessary however, in a profession, you are supposed to be registered under an organization (SHIELD would have been this if it wasn’t infiltrated by HYDRA) also, the parts under this line states that they were to be assessed to know their threat levels and health risks, again part of regulation within a work environment.

“Any enhanced individuals who do not sign will not be allowed to take part in any police, military, or espionage activities, or to otherwise participate in any national or international conflict, even in their own country”: this also makes sense, not to mention, being an avenger is a responsibility, not a right. if you don’t agree with the terms and conditions of a work place, you won’t be allowed to work there, how is this human rights abuse, lmao? also, i thought most of y’all hated cops and the military 💀.

“Any enhanced individuals who use their powers to break the law (including those who take part in extralegal vigilante activities), or are otherwise deemed to be a threat to the safety of the general public, may be detained indefinitely without trial.” okay, i can see the issue with this as detainment without trial is a human right violation, no buts on that one. minus the arrest without trial, it’s not a human right violation because if you break the law, you are going to be arrested for that. again, i do not support the detaining without trial.

“The use of technology to bestow individuals with innate superhuman capabilities is strictly regulated, as is the use and distribution of highly advanced technology (such as Asgardian and Chitauri weaponry)”: this is a problem??? how?*

“The Avengers will no longer be a private organization and will operate under the supervision of the United Nations”, this is also a problem? i do understand the worries steve had about government having agendas but let’s face it, the avengers should have disbanded a long ago when SHIELD fell but since they didn’t, they cannot operate anyhow and still needed oversight. as someone who once served in the military, steve should know that oversight is an important aspect of being a soldier. you just can’t do whatever you want.

now, for the part i deliberately skipped over because i wanted to save it for the last: “Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nations subcommittee”. that was the part that has a lot of team cap stans’ (and steve rogers as well) panties in a twist because how dare the un and 117 countries tell the avengers that they cannot get into any country they wanted.

as a civilian, i cannot even go to a country without the necessary documents (unless i am seeking refuge/asylum but that is a story for another day) so what makes you think the avengers can get into another country without giving the government of that particular country a heads up?

“but it’s gonna take a long time and people would die yada yada”. now, this is the part i have a problem with the most because this is basically a white saviour mentality. what makes you think those countries cannot deal with their own issues without external help? i mean, we all watched black panther, we saw the black panther and the dora milaje stopping killmonger in his tracks without any external help (and no, everett ross doesn’t count, the dude was just comic relief). what makes you think 117 countries don’t have their own brigade that would deal with their own issues? and if these countries believe they couldn’t deal with them, then they can call in the avengers to help.

before anyone brings up SHIELD being infiltrated by HYDRA or the WSC sending a nuclear bomb to New York, remember that this was within the USA and the accords never said they cannot deal with issues within their country as shown here “…are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own…” so your “what about HYDRA” argument does not hold water or even explain how the accords violates the right of the avengers.

the tldr of this post is:

1. the accords are flawed and needed amendments, if the avengers were given enough time, i believe things could have worked out

2. no, the documents were not infringing on anyone’s rights, if anything, it was stating boundaries that the avengers should respect even if they didn’t like them

3. if a civilian cannot go into any country without the necessary documentation, what makes the avengers an exception to this?

4. note: this was an additional thought which came up with rhodey blaming the accords for “weakening the avengers” except it didn’t. the only thing that weakened the avengers was the avengers splitting up because one side felt that the accords was “taking away their right to choose” which till now, i still don’t understand how it is taking away their right to choose.

5. signing the accords never meant the avengers would stop saving the world or anything.

6. if 117 countries believe they can sort out issues without external help from an american based group, then maybe they can. the black panther and the dora milaje is a great example of that.

7. yes, steve’s “safest hands are our own” is white saviour mentality. as i stated in point 6, if a country decides to sort out its own issues, i believe it should be allowed to. in addition, the accident in lagos happened because mr. “safest hands” got distracted at the mention of bucky’s name on a crucial mission. if someone can get easily distracted on such a mission, do you really expect me to believe that their hands are the safest?

[stephenpe]

The moment when Steve Rogers thought he knew better than his team if he could do something, so he didn’t ask them.

You know, when it comes to Tony being accused of keeping secrets and “not telling the team about his secret project” in AoU, a lot of people immediately brings up the fact that Steve didn’t tell Tony about his parents as an explanation that Steve fucked up too or fucked up more than Tony, and it is fine, but I think there was one instance in AoU alone when Steve did something worse than Tony.

Let me explain.

Ok, so Tony wants to make Ultron, yes? And he looped in Bruce. A lot of people think he looped him in, because they’re besties or assume that Tony did that with an ulterior motive of talking Bruce into agreeing with him, but you know what I see? Tony, even after his Wanda-induced vision, making a choice to loop in someone whom he trusts to not approve of something which is utterly wrong, reckless and possibly dangerous. Bruce is not some whimsy, who got talked into doing something bad, no matter how much he tries to act like it in the movie (I hate you Joss Whedon for making him act like this). Bruce is a person who messed with stuff he shouldn’t before, and he knows the consequences of that. He is probably the only person who would say a harsh no to Tony if he truly didn’t consider Ultron to be a good idea at all. Tony went to the scientist to get an ok. He didn’t go to the team, because frankly the team is not full of experts in science or AIs specifically, and they got permission from Thor to study the Scepter, and he didn’t object to them using the knowledge they gain in their own projects, so they were in the clear all along. So yeah, Tony didn’t need to tell the team, because he already told the most qualified person about it, and got his blessing to proceed with it.

Steve, on the other hand? He didn’t tell the team that he will bring Wanda and Pietro to the lab. He didn’t consult with anybody else, only trusting his own judgement, because he saw them helping him stop the train, and that made him believe they’re ok.

He couldn’t possibly know that they truly defected, or they just helped him to gain his trust. He just took them into the lab as if they were not Hydra operatives hell-bend on killing the team. He didn’t make a decision which only he was qualified for, because despite the fact he was there when they saved the train, making a judgement like that is not something the rest of the team is not qualified for.

He should have consulted his choice with others beforehand, he should have talked to Tony as it is his lab and his place he brought enemies to. He should talk with Bruce, if not to ask him for insight, then to at least ensure that he would not Hulk out when he sees Wanda. He should have talked to Natasha and Clint, hell to the whole team, because he was the only one who saw the twins doing something good (which also makes him qualified and unqualified to make that judgement, because he could trust his eyes instead of his instincts, Natasha is better for that, than him), and he didn’t have all the info, he couldn’t know if they’re not lying. So with his choice to bring them in, he endangered the whole team and possibly the whole world if the twins were truly lying and killed them all then and there.

I don’t say he shouldn’t give the twins a chance at least, but he should have talked with the team first before he allowed them inside just on the off chance that their heroic moment didn’t make them “the good guys” and was just a once in a lifetime thing which didn’t extend to their stance on the Avengers. They could still want to kill them all, even after helping save the civilians. Saving them doesn’t mean they don’t hate the Avengers or Tony specifically anymore.

[I dunno where the fandom takes the idea from that Steve threw the shield at Tony, while he threw it at the electonics around the cradle, but I remember finding a similar scene in which Steve was holding his shield in his hands when he threw himself at Tony, so maybe there are like several scenes online, or maybe we all are remembering this scene wrong? Anyway, Steve did aim his punch at Tony’s chest. His vulnerable area. Yeah, Tony repulsed him earlier and unibeamed him on low settings when the punch was incoming, but as far as Tony was concerned, Steve brought enemy agents in, and could as well be mind controled by them to do their bidding. He had to stop him.]

Not only that, but he also threw himself with a punch at Tony, when Tony was not wearing his armor and was only saved, because the chest piece came in time to take the punch! He could have killed him or injure him! He doesn’t know how much Tony’s chest can take, he could break his sternum! From the outside perspective, it looks as if he was betraying the team by not telling them about his choice.

He didn’t ask anybody for permission. He just did it.

[stephenpe]

It’s a good thing no one else saw what wanda did to maria after monica was so quick to excuse wanda’s actions in wv

[stephenpe]

Tony Stark, The Villain Factory

I've been wanting to talk about this for a while now, and with my finals slowly coming to a close, I can procrastinate juuusst long enough to make this post.

For a very long time there has been this trend of talking about how Tony Stark creates his own villains (and even villains for others). Even people who love his character include this in their arguments, how his character arc is defined by him attempting to rectify his past actions. His own trilogy is connected by this need of bettering himself, and that starts with fixing his mistakes and protecting the ones he loves. This change from playboy rich kid to savior of the universe is what makes him so interesting to some compared to a character like Steve Rogers, his foil.

Steve Rogers is supposed to personify good, even from the start he is defined by what is to be seen as an all encompassing selfless nature. He does good, good things come from it, he is rewarded, rinsed and repeated. He is rarely told no, because to his credit, he usually is right when it comes to what is morally correct. Since Steve Rogers starts as the good, he has nowhere to grow outside of this narrative, and is constantly surrounded by yes men. He is charismatic in a golden boy type way, America's golden boy. He isn't used to being told no, and on the off chance that he is incorrect, whether fully or partially, he is unwilling to listen to another perspective.

Of course, as previously mentioned, he is usually correct. Key word: usually. So, on the few occasions he is wrong, he is unable to grasp the concept of compromise. He has a very black and white view of the world, and he fully believes that he is always in the white.

Tony Stark, on the other hand, has a different perspective.

Oftentimes, Tony has a very negative self image of himself and his impact on the world. It's easy to forget that it wasn't him who built his empire, but his father. The comics go further in depth with his relationship with the late Howard Stark, but unfortunately the movies attempted to mellow the man out, and even redeem him slightly in later movies (see: Endgame).

In short, at his best, Howard was incredibly dismissive and harsh with his son, and at his worst downright abusive. Tony was essentially groomed to take over a company which was already responsible for providing weapons that slaughtered thousands, profiting from war and destruction. His morality started at a deficit, in the eyes of the characters, the audience, and even to himself.

Unlike Steve, who is supposed to represent two sides of the same coin when it comes to dual roles, both as Steve Rogers the soldier and Captain America the hero, Tony Stark asks the question- "Can a hero do good despite the evil his alter ego has committed?"

Tony essentially has to work against a legacy that he didn't start, a life he was groomed into, and the consequences of his unhealthy coping mechanisms. With that, the main point of this post- why I think the statement "Tony Stark is responsible for his (and others) villains" is (mostly) utter bullshit.

In order to do this, we first need to define what being responsible means. This is important, because if you just define responsible as “connected with,” it muddles down the severity of the action. 

What makes someone responsible?

Responsible means being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

The word primary is the most important here, as well as understanding that a character being angry at Tony does not equate him being responsible for their actions. This is a common tactic used to victim-blame, that person A did something to either upset or provoke person B, making person A responsible for person B’s actions. 

In order for Tony Stark to be responsible for a villain, he had to directly cause an action to take place, which then created the villain in question. He also has to be the primary cause of said action, and not just a vessel for the anger of someone who feels like they’ve been wronged and are using him as a metaphorical punching bag.

Now, let us move down the list of the villains he is known for creating, and count the ones he's actually responsible for.

Ready?

Obadiah Stane & The 10 Rings: Iron Man was the catalyst for the MCU, and the first hero (disregarding the current multiverse storyline) to hit the big screen. With it, the introduction to the first villain. The 10 Rings existed with or without Tony's presence, seeing as Howard created the company and Obadiah both oversaw its business before Tony took over in the mid to late nineties, and was the one who was working with Raza. I've seen the argument that since Stark Industries provided the weapons he is to blame for their actions, and although that's the feeling Tony has, it is factually incorrect. Stane was the one dealing under the table, not Tony- who finds out only after his kidnapping and through Christine Everheart. Let me make this point clear now.

Tony was only aware of his supplying of weapons to the American Government and Armed forces.

This will come into play again later down the line. Was it his responsibility to know what was going on in his own company that had his name on it? Absolutely- but I would also argue he had no reason to be aware of Obadiah and what he was doing behind his back. This man was supposed to be a father figure to him, a mentor- a friend of his parents and the man who guided him when they died. We never hear mention of other family, so it wouldn't be a jump to assume that Obadiah was all he had left. Jarvis (the real person) could have potentially been still alive, but even so- he definitely is not at the start of the movie.

Tony is not responsible for Obadiah's actions. He was betrayed, stabbed in the back, and almost killed by the man who he was supposed to trust. He (literally) had his heart ripped out by him. Stane's motivation is power and greed, a desire to take control of Stark Industries and all that would give him. He was angry at Tony, sure, but the only thing we saw Tony do that directly caused him to be angry was shutting down the weapons division of the company.

Tony, 1/3rd of the way into his first movie, has already started his journey towards redemption, is already trying to fix the pain he thinks he helped create- and Stane wanted to reverse it.

Also this movie ends with him sacrificing himself to make sure Stane doesn’t win and continue to hurt others- making the later jabs at him weak and not as meaningful. 

0/2 so far on created villains.

Whiplash and Hammer: 

This one is going to be quick. 

Venko was angry at Tony because of something his father did, plain and simple. 

Hammer was a competitor of Tony’s, we see multiple times throughout the movie that his work is not to the same standard. His attempt to recreate the Iron Man suit almost kills a man, his greatest weapons used by Rhodey fail, and he is overall portrayed to be a slimy individual. His bitterness towards his inadequacy is not Tony’s responsibility, Tony is not at fault for the anger of others when all he did was provide better work. It’s easy to victim-blame him in this situation because of his erratic behavior throughout this movie, but that was fueled by the fact that he was actively dying and had no bearing on Hammer’s or Venko’s actions. 

0/4 responsible so far. 

Aldrich Killian: Out of the entire trilogy, this is the only villain I would attribute to Tony. 

Sort of. 

Tony was a drunk asshole. Tony left him out on the roof. Tony upset him, and was overall a dick. I’m not going to spend that much time arguing whether someone pulling a dick move is enough to justify mass death and inhumane experimentation- because that isn’t the question here. 

(If you want my opinion, no- because if I threw my sprite at a random dude who was having a bad day, and he later killed a bunch of people and cited me as the cause, I wouldn’t be convicted as even an accesory to murder.)

Still, Tony’s direct action = Killian working with Maya and creating extremis. This is different to Hammer, where Tony didn’t directly do anything other than be better at his job. It might have led to a similar outcome, but didn’t come from the same place. I’ll give it a .5, but I don’t fully agree. 

0.5/5

Ultron: This one is probably the most talked about in the MCU. Let me be clear, this is a point, I’m not arguing against that-my problem is people like to pretend he is solely responsible for Ultron.

I’m going to outline the timeline of Ultron (the bot, not the film). 

-Aliens invade and destroy New York, and the Avengers are tasked with defeating them.

-The government attempts to drop a nuke, which Iron Man intercepts and directs into the wormhole, essentially sacrificing himself. While he is in the wormhole, he sees what they are up against. 

-After nearly dying in space, he returns with severe PTSD. Iron Man 3 shows how much the whole experience affected him, how he didn’t sleep, obsessed over the suits, over protecting the world. He develops an anxiety disorder because of it.

-He comes up with the concept of Ultron but scraps the idea. 

-While fighting a Hydra base, Wanda Maximoff, who knew (as stated in the movie by Wanda herself) that she could manipulate Tony into creating something (she did not know what at the time) that would lead to his destruction.

-She manipulates his mind and triggers his severe PTSD, which outlines his biggest fears. 

-He then takes the scepter and, after consulting Bruce Banner, uses it to create Ultron. They work on it together, but do not complete it, the super bot had not been completed and was still in progress at the time of the party. 

People like to say Bruce was forced into working on Ultron, he was not. He was apprehensive, yes- but he is a grown adult that has seven Phd’s, he can damn well think for himself. 

Neither Bruce nor Tony had the intention for it to turn evil, it was supposed to help humanity- not destroy it. The sick truth of it all is that Tony was right. As seen in Infinity War, something big was coming, and they weren’t prepared. Ultron was a failure, but the intention behind it was just and good. 

Wanda Maximoff, on the other hand, also an adult woman at the time, intended for destruction, regardless of who it hurt. She, on the flip side, did not know of Ultron, but wanted something that would destroy, for the sole reason of being angry at Tony Stark. We know that at this point she had no care for anyone other than herself and her brother, she even used the Hulk to attack a town as a distraction, something that was devastating for Bruce. If you watch the movie, her face after she whammied Stark at the beginning is sinister. She has the biggest smile on her face when she realizes that her actions were going to lead to something big. 

Tony Stark was partially responsible, yes- responsible enough that Ultron brings the score to 1.5/6 . Still, absolving Bruce’s, and much more importantly, Wanda’s contributions is absolutely not ok. 

Which nicely leads to our next villains- 

Wanda and Pietro Maximoff: Yes, they started off as bad guys. Yes, people will take every opportunity to blame Tony Stark for something. Let me first state something that should be obvious: 

Tony Stark was not responsible for the death of their parents. 

That’s it. 

(Ok that’s not it, I have more to say) 

The twin’s parents were killed when they were 10 years old, meaning they died in 1999. The Novi Grad bombings were conducted by the American Air force, which Stark Industry provided with weapons. Still, and I can not stress this enough, the manufacturer is not responsible for the acts of the user. 

If you’re angry that Tony was working for the military, then I’m sorry to tell you, but there are a lot of MCU characters that work for the military. He did not orchestrate the bombings, he did not make descisions on what the government would do in Sokovia, he did not provide his weapons illegally. 

HE DID NOT CREATE STARK INDUSTRIES. HE BARELY OVERSAW THE DAMN COMPANY BETWEEN HIS FATHER AND OBADIAH. THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHAREHOLDERS, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY THAT ALL HAD A SAY.  WHEN HE SAW THE PAIN AND DESTRUCTION THAT WAS HIS FATHER’S LEGACY, HE IMMEDIATELY SHUT IT DOWN. 

We even see in the first Iron Man how much power Obidiah had, how he was able to shut him out of the company when he did anything outside of what Stane wanted. Tony mostly kept to himself even when he was CEO, and Stane was the one shown to make the big choices. The company's connection to the United States military wasn’t even started by Tony, but by his father.  When he was exposed to the destruction and went to shut it all down and stop the manufacturing of his weapons, pretty much everyone was angry at him. Stane and Rhodey are never blamed for the deaths of Wanda’s parents, even so their connection and desire to continue working with the military after Tony’s ordeal is even more significant.

Even if it was Tony who directly made the sale, something which again, was established by his father and continued by Stane, it still would not make him responsible. 

See previous point: The manufacturer is not responsible for the acts of the user. 

This is probably the point, besides Ultron, that the most amount of people will argue with me over. 

1.5/8

Vulture: There's a very popular idea that Tony Stark is responsible for all of Spider-Man’s villains. The DOC was established as a way to rectify the damage caused by the attack on New York in 2012. Since it was all funded by Tony Stark, he is the one connected to the project. I’ve seen a lot of Tony stan’s use this as an argument for Tony, saying he is the only Avenger who cared about New York after the attack. 

I am not making that argument. 

As much as I love him, I think it’s unfair to accuse the other Avengers of not caring. We have no proof that they didn’t help in any way after the attacks. Unlike Tony, none of them have the money, nor the resources to fund an endeavor such as a complete reconstruction and clean up of a city such as New York.

Now, that isn’t to undermine Tony’s charitable actions: in the real world, not every billionaire contributes to events such as this one. Even when they do, there is a close to zero probability that they would fund the entire thing. We see how Tony uses his money to help in multiple situations, not only funding the Avengers themselves, but doing things such as buying a building the Hulk was about to destroy in Age of Ultron. 

If there wasn’t a billionaire on the team, or Tony, who you could argue did his part by almost getting himself killed getting a missile away from the city, did not contribute his own money, that burden would fall on to the government. 

In short, we see his contributions through the eyes of the villain, who is attributing his loss to the man responsible for not only saving the lives of countless others, but funding the effort to clean up a mess the Avengers didn’t create. 

This is another example of Person A being wronged by someone, attributing it to Tony, and then using that hate to justify their actions. 

You can not tell me that Tony was in the wrong for providing resources to aid in the reconstruction of a city he almost gave his life for. 

The DOC even told Toomes he could reach out and complain, and with everything else we have no reason to believe Tony wouldn’t have compensated Toomes and his crew. If there was a scene where he made the attempt and Tony denied him, then you could potentially make the argument that he was the cause. 

1.5/9

Mysterio: This one hurts me to even entertain. 

Quentin Beck, a person who worked for Tony Stark, was angry that an invention that he worked on while under contract for Stark Industries, was taken, repurposed for use in therapy, and named B.A.R.F.

Let’s break this down. 

We don’t know how much of B.A.R.F was actually Beck’s doing, since we know that his recollection of events was incorrect. A prime example of this is shown through the flashback in FFH, where on stage at Tony's joke about the name, there was a lot of laughter coming from the audience. 

In the actual scene which we see in Civil War, no one is laughing. It is either a blatant lie or a fabricated memory. 

Even if Beck was a major part in the project, he still created it for Stark Industries, which, approximately seven years prior to Civil War, shut down their weapons division. 

Beck was angry that the company didn’t want to use it as a weapon. 

This is a decision which would also probably be pushed through to the CEO, which by this time, is not Tony Stark, but Pepper Potts. We see in Iron Man three that she is the one making the big choices, probably in collaboration with members of the board alongside Tony Stark himself. There is a possibility that Tony himself didn’t even fire him, and that this is yet another example of name attribution, but that of course, is merely speculation. 

Beck says he was fired for being “erratic”- I do not doubt this, considering how he acts in FFH. He is constantly yelling and threatening his coworkers when he doesn’t get his way. 

The crew alongside him are also portrayed to be wronged by Tony, including a man named William Ginter Riva. He is the guy everyone knows from this classic interaction with Stane:

"Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps!"

"Well, I'm sorry. I'm not Tony Stark."

This is the reason Riva is shown to be angry at Tony, because Obidiah yelled at him. Not Tony himself, but Stane. Just another example of people being angry at Stane, but attributing that anger to Tony. 

The group is upset that Tony left Peter Edith instead of them- why would Tony leave Edith to a random bunch of employees, some of which were even fired or had left the company? 

Their motivation makes no sense, is unhinged, and is no way the responsibility of Tony Stark. 

1.5/10

To conclude, Tony is responsible for 1.5/10 of the villains people accuse him of being responsible for. 

That’s 15%, and that’s not even taking into account the rest of the villains in the MCU that he has nothing to do with

A rough count (that i'm low balling) is approximately 40 villains in the MCU. 1.5/40 is 3.75%. 

“But he still antagonized/motivated/upset them!”

So has every hero in every movie ever. So has a lot of victims of crimes, that is not an excuse for these people to hurt Tony, his loved ones, or any one else they so please.

[stephenpe]

Wanda: *tortures and murders a bunch of people*

Also Wanda: I would never hurt anyone

Me: *rolls eyes*

[stephenpe]

It infuriates me every time Wanda says I didn't ask for these powers. You did! You absolutely fucking did! You let Hydra do experiments on you so you could get revenge on Tony Stark. You went to literal Nazis and said hey I want some super powers. So stop fucking saying you didn't ask for this you whiny irresponsible selfish garbage human being!

[stephenpe]

I will never forget all the others cracking jokes about Thor's depression weight-gain while Tony was incredibly intuitive and noticed when Thor was struggling, offering him small things like breakfast and cutting him off from the situations that were bothering him.

And then later, when Thor desperately volunteers to bring everyone back, Tony moves in and talks him out of it. Not just because he's concerned that Thor will mess it up, but because Tony recognizes the mindset Thor is in as he has experienced it himself. If Thor were to fail, it'd likely be the end of him.

The moments are so easy to miss in the chaos of the narrative, but those, alongside the seemingly natural way he has able to bond with Nebula, just demonstrates how far Tony had grown as a character.

God damn, I miss him.

[stephenpe]

Can you imagine just trying to live a quiet life, raising your two sons who you live more than life itself, when all of a sudden, a psycho-bitch variant of yourself possesses you and forces you to commit mass murder???

That is the only Wanda I am a fan of. I've never felt more sorry for a character.

[stephenpe]

i still don’t get how it was totally ok for steve to get with peggys niece and then go back in time and disregard the fact that peggy found someone just so that he could be selfish with his oNe LasT dAnce ,,, and yet tony gets shit for not wanting to give up his family ://

[stephenpe]

kayytx:

jess-b-thot:

steve: tony, i’m gonna need you to focus-

tony: and i needed you.

this one single exchange in endgame is literally everything.

tony saw this coming. he warned the team that another alien threat was imminent. inevitable. but they all dismissed him - steve dismissed him.

the team didn’t think they needed to be prepared or have preventative measures in place; they’ll fight threats as they come and they’ll do it together. tony had warned them that that wasn’t enough; that they would lose. and steve was okay with that; “we will lose together.”

tony said he wanted to end the fight so that they could all go home and steve said that every time someone tries to stop a war before it starts innocent people die.

and then, the avengers were divided. steve left and so did the rest. they were no longer together like steve promised tony they would be.

tony was left all alone.

only tony remained an official avenger.

only tony took the responsibility and weight of the entire world on his shoulders.

only tony was desperately preparing for a war that he alone knew was coming.

and then the war came, just as he predicted.

and they lost, just as he said.

but were they together?

no.

tony lost alone.

on an alien planet billions of miles away from earth - away from the team, away from steve - tony watched helplessly as his son-figure, a wizard, and the guardians all turned to dust around him, leaving him alone with a blue alien stranger.

and with zero promise of rescue, tony had accepted that his resting place would be amongst the stars. he closed his eyes and he was finally ready to rest.

but fate had other plans for him.

he’s not allowed to rest; not yet.

and so tony is brought home. reunited with the team who left him.

and here is steve, the man who once told tony that he was okay with losing, now refusing to accept that he lost.

for years, tony had said they needed a plan, but now, after they’ve already lost, is when steve wants to use it.

now is when steve needs tony to focus. now is when steve needs tony to come up with a plan. now, not before. now, after the work is already done.

now is too fucking late.

“tony i need you” “and i needed you”

that’s exactly the thing, and tony pointed it out.

“they do their best work after the fact.” steve only ever looked back, after something has already happened. he did the work of an a-venger. tony was looking forward. he saw what was coming and wanted to stop it before it was too late. he was doing the work of a pre-venger.

that’s the fundamental difference between the two of them.

[stephenpe]

this is my favorite ao3 tag ever

[stephenpe]

Why for MCU are you team not Steve? (I guess that would make you team iron man by default)

Ugh, Steve.

The MCU and the Muffin

First, to start, I'm so burnt out of the MCU I don't think I qualify for any team. I am done. Simply done. Disney keeps throwing new shows at my face? Don't care. The Black Widow Movie came out? I aggressively do not care. I haven't been invested in the MCU since... well, ever, really. I never wrote substantial fics for it and that's telling.

But really I'd say The Avengers was the last time I was anywhere near anticipatory. Now I'm just occasionally pleasantly surprised. But usually not.

As a result, it makes even discussing it hard. As I just see the term "MCU" and "Steve" and my brain says, "You can stay, but I'm leaving."

So, I'll try, anon, I'll try.

STEEEEEEEEEEEEVE

Mostly, Steve just rubs me the wrong way. Certain directors in the MCU adore Steve, it's all about Steve, and me being as contrary as I am I dislike that. I despise being pandered to and this alone has seen me hating shows, ships, you name it.

Steve is one giant pandering to me by the MCU.

He's also just boring. There's no substance to him. None. Period. I can't even find anything to comment on. There is nothing interesting going on about him. Ever.

Watching him is akin to eating cardboard. It takes a lot of effort and I'm just left with this bland, vaguely unpleasant, taste in my mouth.

Tony, at least, is interesting. He has a lot of character development throughout his different films, has very large character flaws, and is just generally engaging.

Alright, Fine, Some More Depth

I find Steve a disturbingly righteous and naive character, filled with hubris, except the MCU is too boring to ever do anything with this.

What do I mean?

We start with Steve as a strappy young lad who wants to go to war. Why? He doesn't like bullies. No, really, this is what he says to the German expatriate who ends up making him a super soldier. He's going to Nazi Germany because he doesn't like bullies.

Granted, Steve is very young, patriotic, and idealistic. But in the war murder is in his future. Steve, should he get what he wishes, won't just be putting the Nazis in timeout. He is going to kill them or be killed himself: that is war, that is what he wishes to do.

However, instead of pointing this out to Steve, the doctor is instead impressed (and increasingly desperate as the American government is insisting he pick a test subject out of people who will become monsters with this serum).

Steve is injected with the serum, the good doctor dies, and Steve... never really realizes what he's gotten himself into. He spends much of the war putting on performances, feeling very under used, until he heroically goes in and singlehandedly brings down a HYDRA base. And then he gets to play super serial soldier, leading an elite force of trained men that... never really feels like war.

My point being, yes Steve has leadership experience here, but he also doesn't. He instead has this persona, this Captain America ideal painted through propaganda, that everyone respects because it's Captain America.

This HOWLING MONKEY period of his life is so untried that we skip almost all of it (except Bucky falling off a train, sorry Bucky, see you in fifty years).

There's no hint Steve learns anything. He still thinks war is about fighting bullies, that he's better than others because he understands what "true strength is", and over time seems to come to believe he's deserving of this immense strength.

He flies into an ice cube, many decades later is opened back up, and everyone assumes he has a lot more experience than he has. He's put in charge of the Avengers squad, because of course he is, he's Captain America!

Steve, of course, doesn't question this because that's right, he is Captain America! And he proceeds to use the authority he barely has to talk down to all of his teammates (but especially Tony, god does he not like Tony's attitude).

This is all well and good but then we get to Civil War. Steve's argument is utterly ridiculous. He refuses to hold vigilante superheroes accountable because... America and Bucky? That's pretty much it. And I would understand if it was solely Ross/the American government, but this is the United Nations. And the Avengers, frankly, should have oversight. Tony might be driven by fear in the movie but he's not wrong, these guys shouldn't be running around with missiles doing whatever they please. That's a recipe for disaster and not stable.

NOT IN STEVE'S AVENGERS.

Steve then convinces half the people to his side, not because he's right, but because he's Steve. These other people have no idea what's up with Bucky (Steve doesn't either for that matter), but they go to his side because "Steve" and "Not Tony Stark". That's it, that's his selling point, and it works because he's Captain America.

And Steven never realizes this about himself, about Tony, or about the position he's in.

But... Isn't That an Interesting Character?

That would make Steve a fantastic character. The trouble is, the MCU isn't aware that's what they wrote. They adore Steve, so when he does, well, all of the above, the story makes him out to be right. Of course Steve is the leader, of course Steve was right to bail on the Avengers and get his friends put in a floating prison, of course Steve is right to sacrifice the country of Wakanda for Vision, etc.

And because the MCU completely refuses to deal with Steve's very blatant, wonderful, character flaws: I get cardboard. Chewy, chewy, cardboard.

It's delicious.

Team Iron Man Because?

9 times out of 10 I side with Tony in those films.