#anti Christopher Markus

[hersheysmcboom]

Mcu writers: you ingrates, YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW TALENT!

Fans: NO TALENT!! NO TALENT!!

[cblgblog]

Hey, so I remember you addressing whether or not Marcus and McFeely actually intended Steve to be Peggy’s husband all along. But I was wondering if you knew of any interviews where they actually share that progress? Like, I just happened upon a civil war interview where they state Peggy as Steve’s ideal person romantically as well as behaviorally, but also stated that she was someone Steve only kissed once (in defense of Sharon). Any idea what changed, steggy expert?

I mean, you said expert, not me. All I have are my own thoughts, mostly. But it’s nice to be called an expert at something, so thanks for that.

I’m very hit and miss with interviews, btw, I probably catch maybe a quarter of everything that comes out, depending what part of the fandom we’re talking about, so bear that in mind. That said, here’s a short post EG interview where the M’s talk about it some, and how it’s very much their interpretation of it, not necessarily everyone’s.

And here is possibly the interview you mention. If it’s not the same, it seems similar.

With that, I feel like context is important. Yes they said that she was a woman he had kissed once but they said that in reference to how he might consider Sharon related or not related to himself. Because the antis will take something like that and say that they were admitting Peggy wasn’t that important to him, since they only kissed once. Which isn’t the point they were making. The point was to combat people calling Staron incest—which it never was, that was histrionic nonsense, this fandom simply has no chill. There’s a world of difference between something that’s weird in the eyes of some people and incest, and that’s the point he was making.

Honestly, even if the writers always pictured Steve as the husband—and I don’t have any reason to disbelieve them there—they wrote CW how they did. Doesn’t mean they were in charge of all—or any, really—of the decisions that were made. The Russos or Kevin the overlord, someone had a different idea of how things were going to play out, at least while CW was being made, or Staron wouldn’t have come into play at all. Something clearly changed with the people driving the ship. When or how specifically they made the official turn, and who was responsible for it ultimately? Not sure, I’ve never read anything that goes in depth with it, but my default answer is that everything is ultimately down to Kevin the overlord, since he’s the man on top of the trash pile.

If anyone has more/better info than me, feel free to tag in here. Like I said, my encyclopedic knowledge of official answers is sadly lacking.

[ljones41]

MCU’s Biggest Problem

It is time for the MCU to get rid of the Sokovia Accords.  NOW.  Ever since its debut in “Captain America:  Civil War”, it has done squat for the franchise.  Writers for the franchise have either mishandled this narrative device in movies and television shows like “Civil War”, “Ant-Man & the Wasp” and “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” with sloppy or implausible writing; or have completely ignored it.  Worse, moviegoers are still expected to believe that an accord is a law (it’s not).  I get the feeling that Kevin Feige, writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and the writers for “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” and other MCU projects do not know the definition of “accord”.  Also, Feige and his writers, along with Mutant Enemy and its writers have failed to grasp that the Sokovia Accords is basically a violation of the U.S. Constitution, something I had immediately knew six years ago.  Are fans of the MCU really expected to believe that it is okay for any government to strictly monitor, harass or imprison people from a certain group, due to the actions of a handful of individuals from that particular group?  Isn’t that a form of bigotry?  Are you telling me that Kevin Feige, Marvel Films, Disney Studios and the Mutant Enemy production company are advocates of bigotry after all?  If not . . . find a way to finally get rid of the Sokovia Accords.

[claudia1829things]

Ignoring a Writing Blooper

I had noticed a major blunder in the MCU film, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”.  Following the bombing of the Sokovia Accords conference in Vienna, Austria; Bucky Barnes became the major suspect, thanks to Helmut Zemo framing him.  Bucky was spotted living in Bucharest, Romania.  

However, screenwriters Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus had German police special forces - the GSG-9 - go to Romania in order to arrest Bucky Barnes.  I had questioned this writing decision, considering that a) Bucky Barnes was an American citizen; b) he was living in Romania at the time of the bombing; c) the bombing occurred on Austrian soil; d) the GSG-9 has no jurisdiction outside of Germany or over NON-GERMAN citizens or property.  Also, Romania had its own special police forces - the Independent Unit for Special Interventions and Actions aka the SIAS.

When I had brought this up on forums or message boards like Quora or Reddit, I received some of the most contrived excuses ever known to man.  NO ONE wanted to admit the presence of a writing blooper in “CIVIL WAR”, a MCU movie.  This determination to pretend that McFeely and Markus had not committed a writing blooper struck me as incredibly blind and very pathetic.

[flayjunior19]

Love Natasha Romanoff, but I hated what they did in Endgame

(In advance, I apologize for any lack of spelling, since English is not the first language, and I am hardly learning.)I like Natasha Romanoff, and it bothers me what happened to her in Endgame, I do not have to say that since many, from magazines, Web sites, etc. They have talked about the subject. But it is disgusting the double standards of some Natasha Stan, when they try to justify all the bad decisions of people like Russos and M & M. implying that one is not a Stan or a Black Widow fan, if he does not like what they did to her in Endgame (I mean being the only woman on the team to have to die for Manpain, an old sexist troop that I see many suffer from selective memory) Natasha did not die for her "five big boys", as those Russos bastards or fake Natasha Stan suggest, she died because according to them a woman from the FX team, she wanted Natasha to be the one to commit suicide in Vormir, instead of Clint, why? Who knows, I do not even know if that story is true or is an excuse for the Russos / M & M to escape criticism, if one woman asked for the death of another. Less true sexist? How the death of Gamora, the first and only one female character of the guardian team of the galaxy (outside Mantis) and who apparently like Natasha, few in their group care. Natasha never received a proper funeral or farewell, being she one of the most public Avengers as shown in TWS or CW, the excuse that she is a spy incognita does not work. Only less than two minutes from the group of his "five boys" gathered around the lake and after that, outside Clint and Bruce, only total forgetfulness gets her. De Gamora is worse, is replaced by a younger version of the year 2014, which Peter Quill wants to find, forgetting about his dead girlfriend, nobody of the other guardians seem to care, and Rocket did not even mention Gamora as his family to Thor, when they traveled to the past in Asgard. So no, Natasha did not deserve that sexist decision, just because Marvel and Disney did not know what to do with the character. And it is denoted from Age of Ultron this type of decisions around the character. Her solo movie may be a prequel, a kind of late "compensation" after killing the character, then getting rid of it, and quite possibly BW will never return to the MCU. One of the decisions that would be used in the draft of Endgame around her, is that she would direct an orphanage of the children who lost their family members after the Snap, and who would have shown more growth and maturity of the character, making denoting (and not only to direct what remains of the Avengers and Guardians of the galaxy in five years) that she is worthy, and that only because two things obscure it. One is her dark past of which we know nothing, those who read the comics could get an idea, but the Natasha of the comics is different from the Natasha of the MCU, and the latter we know from little to nothing. As far as our eyes and the casual public, it should have been she and not Clint who survived Vormir, because Clint spent five years killing people like a butcher (no one knows if he kill innocents as well, witnesses at the wrong time) more of them were Mexicans and Asians, in a clear xenophobic reference. Therefore, in the eyes of the casual public it should be Clint who should have sacrificed himself to redeem himself and not Natasha, whose sins we know little or nothing about, and with whom many have built a connection with her, since she has had more development and character growth that Hawkeye.

But we all know that the real covert reason was because she could not have a normal family, get married and have children, because she is sterile. And that bad thing written by Joss Whedom in Age of Ultron attacks again, albeit in a more subtle way. It is rather misogynistic that after being the only woman on the team to sacrifice herself, her decision is that as Clint has family, wife and children, his life is worth more than hers. When in our eyes she has done more than Clint in five years and much more before, she has a stronger emotional connection with the audience than Clint, and hearing that and seeing her depart for that decision is a clear sign of irresponsibility and misogyny. It is as if after a clear 'political' agenda is denoted in the film, in which families made up of men and women were worth more than another kind of family or family love, as a clear example that Steve mentions Peggy and never Sam or Bucky throughout the film (and in the end give up his present family to form another in the past with a woman) that Tony left the world to play the father with Morgan for five years (then die for according to directors "he can rest in peace "in death" which is horrible, but necessary if they want Captain Marvel to be the next leader of the Avenger as Feige says). As in a 'subtle' way, they imply that without a nuclear family, Natasha's life is not worth it, and without having an appropriate funeral, and practically forgotten without one or two mentions, unlike Iron Man, the bad treatment is shown. He has given the character. It is only expected that next year, the Black Widow film, even if late, show how and do honor and justice to the Natasha Romanoff we love, before she leaves the MCU, maybe forever, as Iron Man or Captain America (and these last two are doubtful, before someone else takes the mantle and their name) and that the real fanatics, the Natasha Stan and BW Stan (and those atrophied who suffer from cognitive dissonance to defend the interests and agendas of a corporation multimillionaire, who are worth less if you defend them as zombies, when they do not do anything for you) can enjoy one last time with her.

[ifandomus]

I think you have entirely missed the point @tllgrrl. And your arguments (especially in the second comment) really aren't the arguments you think they are.

1.

It's not about the amount of content; it's the quality of it. And Bucky’s content is filled with victim-blaming and ableism. His entire character in tfatws was just victim-blaming + ableism + out of character. And the writers and directors of the second and third Captain America movies and the third and fourth Avengers movies (Christopher Markus, Stephen Mcfeely, and the Russo brothers) + the director and head writer of tfatws (Kari Skogland and Malcolm Spellman) have all made clear that they blatantly victim-blame Bucky in several disgusting comments.

Let's use another form of bigotry than ableism to check if we would all be ok with his treatment. If Bucky was canonically gay, would it be ok to treat him with homophobia? To take it a step further, would it be ok to frame treating him with homophobia as justified? I don't know about you, but that sounds horrible to me. So why is it for Bucky to be treated with ableism and victim-blaming? And for them to frame that treatment as the way, he should be treated? Because that is what the MCU is doing.

So what do we want? That is simple; we just want Bucky to be treated decently, especially is canonically a representation for 2 groups of marginalized people, so the way they treat him is based on bigotry (ableism and victim-blaming).

Now about the quantity of the content. The MCU didn't come up with the Winter Soldier plotline. That plotline was inspired by comics that were published 6 years before the first Cap movie premiered. And the MCU wanted to adapt this plotline before they even cast the role, and it was one of the main reasons why they cast Sebastian. They always intended to bring Bucky back for more movies.

Also, Sebastian Stan was becoming more and more known before tfatws. So I'm not sure what this point is about.

2.

This whole argument reminds me of the ‘you're just defending him because you want to sleep with him’ argument, which is never a good look.

@dreamykitten20 was clearly not referring to anything remotely related to sex appeal; it was about an emotional connection. Bucky is a character that very clearly goes against typical masculine ideas for what a male protagonist should be, and the reasons why tends to make women connect to him, and it also makes toxic masculine men feel very uncomfortable. And unfortunately, most of the male writers and creators in the MCU have a lot of toxic masculinity, which always bleeds into their work.

Here is a meta about why women tend to like characters like Loki and Bucky more. The tags on this reblog (by @anniethelen) are also amazing:

why does marvel hate bucky barnes. hes literally done nothing wrong

confused as to why marvel went from treating him as a pow who was tortured, manipulated, and brainwashed for 70 years who should not be held accountable for actions his body was forced to make……….to a villain constantly having to “redeem” himself and alleviate his guilt (not to mention the way they’ve slowly deconstructed/ruined his friendship w steve)

[beheworthy]

Okay this is a slightly unrelated contribution to the Thor-Russo-Waititi thing, BUT:

There were only 3 things I liked from Ragnarok and that was 1) Thor losing his hammer/realizing he was still capable without it, 2) Thor losing his eye (and hair) because it was a dramatic change and showed he’d have to face long-term consequences, and 3) the whole “Asgard is a people not a place,” tied with Thor accepting responsibility and becoming king.

And every goddamn thing I liked was abandoned in the next two Avengers movies 🙃🙃

1. This was already done in Thor1 much more effectively. It must be the blatant repetition with no effort whatsoever that makes it appealing in Gagnarok.

2. Cutting his hair to represent dramatic change is as stupid and juvenile as it sounds. Film school grads would come up with better metaphors. Watuti is truly a genius.

Losing his eye to show long term consequences is the LAZIEST MOST DUMBED DOWN way to show long term consequences. How about we show it in how he reacts

in his behavior like going on sucide missions

hiding tears behind smiles

and actually losing his mind/going completely insane

Or how about some symbolism like lighting up his face in red and blue hues at the same time that symbolise him being numbed by his grief yet enraged by his loss and as a result actually succumbing to insanity.

Oh look Infinity War did it a 100 times better and it didn't have to rely on the stupid crutch of a lost eye. It used a much nuanced way of showing grief and loss than taking his eye out which by being a physical reminder at all times absolves you of putting the hardwork of actually showing him grieve and make anus jokes in lieu of it. I repeat, the lost eye is a stand in for his loss and a free pass for Waititit to make anus jokes instead of showing Thor grieve.

3. First off - No it is not. It's the place - that's the whole freakin point. The magic is in the soil of Asgard, so to speak. It's the realm eternal where the gods live. It's the place that matters. It gave Hela her powers which makes you question why didn't Thor die as well when Asgard exploded but I love how Gagnarok has no plot holes.

If that fake deep line is true, why doesn't New Asgard on Earth have similar properties? The same people who lived on Asgard live here. Then why is it not the Realm Eternal with the golden apples and immortal gods? But boy do I love how Gagnarok just doesn't have any plot holes whatsoever.

Secondly, how does that deep fake line tie into Thor accepting kingship? It doesn't. Saying that this is when he finally accepted responsibility is retroactively making it a conflict when it wasn't (a specialty of Waitti).

Thor was always a good King who accepted responsibility and cared about his people. He rejected the throne because he didn't want to get involved in politics. That was the whole conflict. But in Gagnarok, he becomes King because his dad died, hilariously. No conflict, let alone resolution by a dumb one liner. In the biz, we call it bad writing.

I LOVE how the next two films erased everything Gagnarok established. Serves it right for erasing everything Thor1 and 2 established. :)

PS: I am not mad at you or anything, anon. I'm only enraged at this shitshow of a movie is all. It's been 84 years.

[i-want-your-bones]

petition for brie larson (as captain marvel) and tessa thompson (as valkyrie) to recreate page 360 in @brittalundin ‘s book Ship It to rebel against markus & mcfeely & the russos for being cowards about lgbt representation

[letsbreakhearts]

Rules and Muses

Before interacting, there are a few things you have to consider before approaching me:  

First things first: Mun =/= muse! The most important rule of mine, because I do write about all kind of dark and disturbing topics, since I have no trigger whatsoever and like to explore the depth of mankind's cruelty in fiction. Obviously said content is tagged as tw:(name of the trigger) and therefore easily manageable with the right tools. If this still rubs you the wrong way, because you either are a prude puretist, really easily triggered to past trauma, or simply not able of separating fiction from reality, I ask you politely to stop reading here and leave this blog instantly. Consider yourself warned. Any further consumption of this blog’s content is on you, mate. 

All heavy topics in threads need some upfront plotting, to keep it all consensual. I don’t want to accidentally throw someone off. Plotting in general is always preferred.

This blog is nsfw by default. Minors and Personals get blocked most of the time.

All ships are welcome, but I obviously have my favourites and some I never wrote before definitely need more plotting than those I write on a regular basis. 

Reasons for me to unfollow/soft block you: Your rules say: If you write “xy” I will not follow/block you; You are literally spamming my dash with personal/ooc posts; You post/share a lot of negativity and whining; You share anon hate, instead of just turning the anon function off, aka get involved in drama that is easily avoided; You participate in call out culture; OOC political commentary/activism and other non-rp related stuff that I don’t want on my rp dash; Ship bashing and kinkshaming; You turn out to be an Anti of some sort; You share any hate for the character or actors I write as/use as FC. Disclaimer: You are of course free to do whatever you want with your blog, as I am free to avoid your blog without any reason given.

If you ever feel the need to unfollow or block me, just do it. No explanation needed.

If I lose interest in interacting with you, I will unfollow and most likely softblock, or even hardblock you without any reason given. Please don’t take this too personal.

What does private mean: I have my fav mutuals who occasionally get more replies than others. Plus I am very hesitant about following new people unless you offer me something I hadn’t found a partner for before. On this note, If you approach me first, I want you to have a vague idea what you want to write with whom of my muses and some time and creativity to plot a little bit beforehand. 

I have the right to not interact with you without any reason given. 

Don’t reblog any of my self written ooc posts and psas. Same goes for rps you aren’t taking a part in. 

Asks and memes are no longer my main focus. Do not spam my ask box but rather plot with me via IM please. 

I do all lengths of threads. I also tend to edit my posts and use icons but my writing partner don’t have to. Edit your post after your own liking, or not at all.

Muses with the same FC, as well as duplicates are welcome obviously.

I don’t do passwords!

My IM is open for plotting.

For those who are interested in such things: Hello, I’m Fuchs, a lazy German hobby artist and writer. English isn’t my first language and I procrastinate A LOT. On top of that I sometimes just need ages to be happy with the stuff I write. Short: Please be patient with me, if you see me online but don’t reply right away. I also tend to have a lot of threads. So please don’t ask me to reply faster. Not gonna happen.

Muses

BOLD = Mains || Italic = only as request || Others: Available but not always muse for

Detroit: Become Human

Gavin Reed (D:BH)

RK900 (D:BH)

Leo Manfred (D:BH)

Markus (D:BH)

Daniel (D:BH)

Cole Anderson (D:BH)

Hank Anderson (D:BH)

Connor (D:BH)

60 (D:BH)

Captain Allen (D:BH)

Marvel

Tony Stark (MCU)

Quentin Beck (MCU)

Steve Rogers  (MCU)

Peter Parker (Tom) (MCU)

Peter Parker (Andrew) (Sony)

Peter Quill  (MCU)

Frank Castle  (MCU)

Scott Lang (MCU)

Eddie Brock (“MCU”)

Benjamin PointDEXter  (MCU)

Flash Thompson (MCU)

Bucky Barnes (MCU)

Erik Lehnsherr  (MCU)

Harley Keener (MCU)

Peter Parker (Tobey) (Sony)

Peter B. Parker (MCU)

Brock Rumlow (MCU)

Sherlock BBC

Sebastian Moran (Sherlock BBC)

John Watson (Sherlock BBC)

Witcher 

Jaskier

Geralt of Rivia 

The Boys

Homelander (The Boys)

William Billy Butcher(The Boys)

The Walking Dead

Marlon (TWD Tell Tale)

Negan (TWD)

Rick Grimes (TWD)

Shane Walsh  (TWD)

Daryl Dixon  (TWD)

Carl Grimes(TWD)

Star Trek

James T. Kirk (Star Trek)

Leonard H. McCoy (Star Trek)

Star Wars

Poe Dameron (Star Wars)

Kylo Ren  (Star Wars)

General Hux  (Star Wars)

Finn (Star Wars)

Stranger Things

Billy Hargrove (Stranger Things)

Steve Harrington (Stranger Things)

Jim Hopper (Stranger Things)

Uncharted

Rafe Adler (Uncharted)

Sam Drake  (Uncharted)

Nathan Drake  (Uncharted)

Red Dead Redemption

Arthur Morgan (RDR2)

John Marston  (RDR2)

Far Cry

John Seed (FC5)

Joseph Seed  (FC5)

Jacob Seed  (FC5)

Staci Pratt  (FC5)

Men in Black

Agent H (MIB International)

Life is Strange

Nathan Prescott (LIS)

Sean Eduardo Diaz  (LIS)

Daniel Diaz (LIS)

Until Dawn

Joshua Washington (Until Dawn) 

Christopher Hartley(Until Dawn) 

Michael Munroe(Until Dawn) 

The Dragon Prince

High Mage Viren (The Dragon Prince) 

Crownguard Soren (The Dragon Prince) 

King Harrow (The Dragon Prince) 

James Bond

James Bond / 007 (FC: Daniel Craig) 

Kingsman

Gary “Eggsy” Unwin (Kingsman) 

The Nice Guys

Holland March (The Nice Guys) 

Blade Runner

K /Joe (Blade Runner 2049)

Man of Medan

Conrad (Man of Medan)

Blair Witch

Ellis (Blair Witch) 

Baby Driver

Buddy 

Breaking Bad

Saul Goodman

Jesse Pinkman

Walter White

Michael “Mike” Ehrmantraut

Todd Alquist

[ifandomus]

Im reblogging this again because I was wondering who the writers were and just found out. They are the same writers who wrote all 3 cap movies. Meaning that they are the same heartless bastards who wrote all of Buckys torture and trigger scenes wich clearly showed that Bucky had no autonomy or agency. And then in an interview after ca:cw said that Bucky is ‘100% guilty’ and should be punished. For you know, the things hydra did with his body while he was completly unable to consent, and wouldnt have consented to if he had any say in it!!

I already knew I hated these bastards, but after finding out that they wrote endgame I hate them even more. Wich I truly did not think was possible.

no bc fr

[ljones41]

During a recent re-watch of “Captain America: Civil War”, I found myself pondering over a situation that has bothered me since the film’s release, four years go.  Why did the MCU set up this situation in which Steve Rogers never tells Tony Stark that HYDRA might be responsible for Howard and Maria Stark’s deaths?  Why did Kevin Feige allowed this?  

I believe this subplot went against Steve’s nature.  It did not make sense that Steve would keep this information a secret . . . just to spare Tony’s feelings.  Especially during the period in which the Avengers were hunting down HYDRA operatives between the events of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and “The Avengers: Age of Ultron”.  Steve had an  ugly history with HYDRA, which was capped by the events in “The Winter Soldier”.  If anything, I could see him being the first to inform Tony of his suspicions about the deaths of the latter’s parents.  

By the way, I say “the first”, because Natasha Romanoff also knew that HYDRA was involved in the Starks’ deaths.  Both she and Steve were at that S.S.R./S.H.I.E.L.D. base in New Jersey when they encountered Arnim Zola A.I. and saw Why did she keep this knowledge a secret?  Why did screenwriters McFeely and Markus fail to point out that she also knew?

Did McFeely and Markus allow Steve to keep this information a secret in order to portray him with more ambiguity?  If so, they did so at the expense of his characterization.  Personally, I do not see why they thought this little plot arc was necessary to paint Steve in an ambiguous or negative light.  

The writing pair had already accomplished this in their portrayal of Steve in “The Winter Soldier”.  Especially in scenes that feature him and then S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Nick Fury.  I realize that many would disagree with me, but I believe Steve’s interactions with Fury in “The Winter Soldiers” portrayed him at his worst, while being completely in character.  Perhaps the two screenwriters, the Russo brothers and Feige were unaware of this.  I know a lot of the franchise’s fans were.

But this little arc that featured Steve’s failure to tell Tony the truth about the latter’s parents?  Unnecessary and badly written.

[claudia1829things]

When it comes to portraying time traveling and the consequences of it, screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, along with directors Anthony and Joseph Russo, REALLY SUCK AT IT.  

I have never come across a movie featuring time travel that had so much lazy writing as “THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME” did.  Apparently, the Russo brothers and the two screenwriters came up with some ludicrous theory about time travel so that none of the characters in the movie faced any consequences for traveling through time in the first place.  If this movie ever win a screenwriting award, then I’ll truly know that Hollywood is fucked.

[angryschnauzer]

Ya'know, for all the arguments over how End Game ended, massive plot holes, and in all pretty shitty behaviour that the writers had the characters portray, AT LEAST it wasnt this ending for Steve Rogers;

And ignore the fact that it mentions about bloody mashed potatoes, thats only a minor point where buzzfeed actually reveal that the writers were going to have Thanos travel back to 2014 and decapitate Cap, only to bring his head back to 2023 and launch it at that era Cap.

For all the anti End Game, anti Steggy, Pro Stucky threads, i would rather have had Steve alive but old, than watch him be decapitated. It was bad enough watching Tony die on screen, could you all have actually handled seeing Steve be beheaded? I was fucking traumatised enough from the snap in Infinity War. Its the only Marvel movie to this day that i have only seen once.

So give me Steve Rogers and his slightly incestuious relationship with his (now) niece Sharon Carter, over watching him be beheaded.

[ifandomus]

Next day:

Peggy (at work): “Good morning Dr. Zola. How is your work going?”

[thefilmstage]

The best thing Marvel ever did was split their Avengers 1.0 saga's final chapter in two since it allowed Infinity War to deliver what no other entry could: stakes. Despite knowing they were always false due to the giant gauntlet in the room that literally bends time and space to its whims, they hurt nonetheless simply because we were forced to sit with those results for a full year before discovering how things might be put right. Had Anthony and Joe Russo conversely fixed everything ten minutes after seeing Thanos snap half of all life in the universe dead, that potent drama and pain would have been rendered hollow and thus the harrowing journey taken moot. We therefore needed devastated heroes and a monster relieved to truly care.

Think of it in terms of concerts and the notion that fans love going to a tour's last show because in their mind it's when everything is left on the stage. Reality, however, exposes that the penultimate date is actually best because that last show can't stop the comfort of completion from creeping in. So here's Marvel throwing the kitchen sink at us creatively and emotionally with a film that all but centers its main villain as the anti-hero of his story rather than the antagonist of ours to remind us that good guys don't always win. We marked our calendars for Avengers: Endgame before sitting down for its predecessor, so driven by the allure of the end that we were willingly blindsided by its set-up's unyielding severity.

So when the dust finally settles, the aftermath isn't quite as good. Many of us think it is because the band plays all their hits for us to sing along to, but that sharpened knife blade of precision that made us gasp in shock had dulled. Thanos (Josh Brolin) may like to state that he and his warped plan of making the future sustainable for those he so graciously spares is inevitable, but the only real inevitability is that the path to salvation can never prove as impactful as the one to hell. In the grand scheme of things, screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely's job was to salvage the wreckage they so perfectly wrought. Not everyone is feasibly able to come back, but a vast majority will.

Continue reading our Avengers: Endgame review.

[chiliconsharls]

I would like to thank you for spreading the Good Word that fighting against the Accords in CACW was ABSOLUTELY NONSENSE BECAUSE IT WAS ONE HUNDRED AND FUCKING SEVENTEEN COUNTRIES ASKING THE FUCKING AVENGERS TO GODDAMN ASK BEFORE ENTERING THEIR COUNTRY AND FUCKING SHIT UP AND THEN JUST BOUNCING and really it was everyone ignoring this and being ridiculous and hardcore TONY VS STEVE!!1!! one extreme or the other that made me RUN from the MCU fandom so just Bless You, Lone MCU Blog I Still Follow

first of all: thanks for the compliment. second of all: i wholeheartedly agree with you in everything & will never be able to fathom how some people failed to see this Very Important Point.

but third of all: i wanna let it be clear that my posts regarding rhodey’s sudden dismissal of the accords aren’t meant as a jab to anti-accords/team cap people or to state that i, personally, think they were right (which i do, but that’s not the point) but rather about the inconsistency regarding the writing of rhodey in infinity war. 

i’m not saying iw writers having rhodey agree with the accords is an All Very Wrong thing to do because there are ways you can bend and shift rhodey’s character around to have him stand behind the principles & ideals of becoming anti-accords (i find a Rhodey-going-rogue-from-the-government storyline quite plausible and compelling), i’m not saying this. I’m saying that having Rhodey agree with the Accords after previously being very adamant about them and his supporting of them without properly explaining this 180 turn is what’s wrong. Bending & twisting Rhodey’s character to the point where he’s literally opposing his statements & beliefs without exploring his reasons behind that huge change of heart is what’s wrong. Thinking Rhodey’s characterization isn’t important and that Rhodey’s character traits are disposable or interchangeable is what’s wrong. Failing to see that Rhodey as a character is strong-willed and has very acute analytical, critical thinking skills and destroying his previous characterization for your plot is a big disservice to his character. And wrong.

I’m not pissed because Rhodey welcomed Team Cap with open arms. I’m not pissed because Rhodey now seems to regret having signing the Accords because I support the Accords/think they are right. I’m pissed because I love the character of James Rhodes as I have known him for ten years and Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely thought it was a great idea to step on him on his first and pretty much only relevant IW scene.