#mcu rant

[legalandnotease]

You know what annoys me most about Endgame (well a lot of things do), but most of all?

The way that it completely ignores what Natasha did. How crucial her actions were to the ultimate victory. Instead they tried to make Endgame into Iron Man 4, and pretend Tony saved everyone singlehandedly. Yet the truth is the plan to reverse the snap would *never have worked* without Natasha's sacrifice.

They had to have all of the stones to snap everybody back- and they also had to have all the Stones to snap Thanos away. Even one missing, and not only would the Snapped have stayed dead, but Thanos would have won a second time.

In truth, it was Natasha who saved the universe and Natasha who ensured ultimate victory against Thanos. Anybody could have snapped Thanos away (it didn't have to be Tony), but few could have paid the ultimate price for the Soul Stone.

In fact: let's talk about the Soul Stone. It was the most difficult and costly of all the Stones to obtain. I read that some theories that the souls of the Snapped were contained in the Stone, and so it was the key to bringing everyne back.

Meaning that Stone was also the one which allowed Thanos and his army to be Snapped away.

So again, it all comes back to Natasha, and her choice on Vormir.

Yet she didn't even get a funeral. The movie just completely ignores her to give Tony all the credit and all the fuss when he actually did very little.

And had to be emotionally blackmailed and tricked to do even that. Natasha was willing every step of the way.

[honda-odyssey-the-queer-allegory]

HOW DID WE GO FROM THIS

TO THIS

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Y'all, I'm so excited but so scared for some Bucky angst/action. Hopefully, we also get some cool interactions between Yelena and Bucky (while respecting the fact that Yelena is aroace) 🤭

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

[hiraikotsusama]

ATTENTION! THIS IS A RANT POST ABOUT THOR: RAGNAROK

If you are not interested/a Ragnarok fan please skip, or just don't leave negative comments, thank you.

Ok, here we go.

I personally hate how overrated Thor: Ragnarok is.

People only started criticising Waititi's direction after the Love and Thunder flop, and I was honestly flabbergasted, because... They were criticising the exact same things they loved so much in Ragnarok.

For example, they criticised Thor being too stupid and unserious but... He was already an idiot in Ragnarok? Which, by the way, even as a Loki stan, was the thing I hated the most about the movie (I guess the Odinsons just have a tendency of becoming idiotic scapegoats in every modern piece of media that depicts them. Yes, I'm also referencing the Loki series here.)

But moving on.

Another thing that was funny to me was people (rightfully) criticising the lack of seriousness and conflict with such a great villain. And, once again, I was there standing like... It's the SAME THING that happened in Ragnarok?? Like, the movie that's supposed to be about Ragnarok literally only had like 20 minutes of apocalypse/main conflict with Hela/Surtr in it! Most of the goddamn movie takes place on a dumb garbage planet with the Grandmaster (another wasted character) just fucking around. Little side note here, the Grandmaster is supposed to be the Collector's brother (in the comics and cartoon they both collect rare things and people and compete over it, yadda yadda) and yet this isn't referenced in any way? His powers are never shown. Like what? The potential? Wasted like that? UGH.

Also, this movie adds shallow characters. First of all, obviously, the Grandmaster, who I already covered. Then, and here I'm taking a deep breath waiting to get crucified, Valkyrie.

Ok, I'm going to try and explain this one easily. Valkyrie isn't a bad character, ok? I'm already going to say this since I want to clarify it as soon as possible. I don't think she's bad and I don't dislike her. The problem is, she is given a shallow personality and shallow purpose, at least when I look at her. For instance, I appreciated the way her trauma was portrayed, with her drinking and all, but they do joke about it sometimes (too many) and that I do not appreciate. But then. Her personality just... Ends there. And again, this is comprehensible in a way, but what I do not understand is her just switching sides randomly, like she didn't capture and shock Thor just hours before in the movie. That, plus her serving little purpose to the plot is what irks me the most. Like, the main things she does in the movie are:

1. Capturing Thor and bringing him to the GM.

2. Telling them about the only way out of the planet.

3. Being there in the final battle.

And if this was a better written movie, this would make her a necessary character. But in Ragnarok... She isn't.

She catches Thor, then dips. Ok, just have him randomly land in the GM's throne room, or have him getting caught by another rando who then dips.

The escape? Loki has lived with the GM (and his most trusted court members/whatever they are supposed to be) for two weeks. Do you really think that someone like him couldn't gather such a massive piece of info in this time? Or even better, do you think he hasn't noticed the GIANT EINSTEIN-ROSEN BRIDGE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SKY? He is intelligent. That's the point of his character. He would- SHOULD- have figured it out in a matter of days, the only thing stopping him was getting to a decent ship to cross said bridge, and that's what he actually needed his brother (and maybe Hulk, even if his presence was pretty random) for.

The final battle was disappointing, so I'm not even going to comment this one.

All of this to say that, with the way the character/movie was written, Valkyrie could have been removed, a few changes could have been made and the movie would have been the same. Yeah, she's friends with Hulk, which, cool, but once again this bond isn't used in any way besides her joking with him and Bruce. Her character was treated way better in the What If episodes she appeared in.

[Edit: someone reblogged and thought I was implying that her character should be thrown away. To be clear, I wasn't, I actually like her and do acknowledge that Jane, too, was shallow as a character, I just didn't mention her because she doesn't appear in this movie. All I was saying is that the writing makes her just be there, which is something that pisses me off, too. This was just to point out that Ragnarok just added so many characters with potential that was never used, and Valkyrie is one of them. Hell, you could take away half of the secondary characters, if not (almost) all of them, and the movie would stay the same.]

Then we have Korg. Yeah, I got nothing to say, he's an idiot that used to be a serious/half-important character in comics/series and got severely distorted in this movie like most other characters starring in it. Funnily enough, just like Valkyrie, his character is treated better and is way more useful in What If, which is honestly ironic.

Then, I could talk about the mistreatment of both Thor and Loki's characters but that would take a post the length of the Divine Comedy, so I'll just cut it short and cover the most important points.

Thor and Loki are obviously not appreciated (Loki is disliked more, of course he is), and therefore are written in a very OOC way. Thor turns into a full blabbering idiot and Loki is interpreted as someone whose only purpose is to betray, stab and rule. And that's all I'm going to say for now, even though I might extend the discourse in a future post.

And now, oooh boy, Hela. I loved Hela, I was excited as soon as she appeared on screen. And what happened next? Her brothers got lost in space and we didn't see them interact with her in any way besides her introduction and the short ahh dialogue with Thor in the final battle. I hate this so much. Once again, the movie that's supposed to talk about Ragnarok only shows the conflict in the last 20 minutes of the movie. And we barely see Hela, or at least we don't get to see her as much as we should, given that she's supposed to be the main antagonist of the damn movie. Her character was great, for all that we could see, but she is a walking definition of wasted potential and I despise it.

Now, there is something I do appreciate about the movie, and it's the characterization of Hulk. He finally isn't reduced to a stupid destroyer or dumb beast, and as a huge Hulk fan and Agents of S.M.A.S.H. watcher I liked this. This, and Heimdall being given some scenes and characterization, too. That's it. That's what I liked about the movie.

Now, short list of things I hated to finish the post: Fandral and Volstagg being killed like flies, Hogun meeting a similar fate right after, Sif not even appearing (so much for Sif and the Three Warriors); the constant jokes that were obviously made for an audience of four years olds; Skurge (or whatever his name was) just... Being there? Another useless/misused/mischaracterised character I didn't mention before, because DAMN is this character STUPID; STRANGE just appearing at some point and dipping (like he couldn't help them?? WHY EVEN MAKE HIM SHOW UP AT ALL UGHHH).

I think that's about it for now, thanks for reading this stupid rant. I'm open for constructive criticism and comments, and also for peaceful discussion, so DM me or leave a comment if you feel like interacting.

[natr0manova]

Natasha Romanoff and Ballet

We all know about Natasha being a ballerina. In AoU we saw young girls dancing and we saw her ballet slippers in Endgame

But surprise! That did not happen in the comics. At least, not at all.

Natasha only believed to be a ballerina with the Bolshoi theatre but she never was one. The Red Room implanted false memories on her and the other widows to keep them loyal as 'that (becoming a ballerina) was the dream of all Russian girls.'

Natasha believed it for DECADES. In Black Widow 2004, she found out about the implanted memories.

In that comic, Natasha visits the Bolshoi theatre to talk with her 'ballet teacher', Alex Sterenly (who was actually a scientist who brainwashed her) only to find out he isn't a ballet teacher!

Eventually, she discovered an abandoned building (I'm not 100% sure but it's probably an old building of the Red Room) and remembers how she was brainwashed.

I think it's suppossed to show that no matter what, the Red Room still has control over Natasha and other Widows. This shows that even after her defection, Natasha still isn't truly free its power and controll.

Here are two panels showing perfectly how at one point Natasha didn't even know what's real and what's not

[fandomismylife]

A message for MCU writers: WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK YALL

I just watched Multiverse of Madness for the first time. YOU KILLED OFF WANDA????

You could have taken her story and made a whole tragic ass side plot where she heals and goes back to normal, but NO. YOU DECIDED TO CRUSH HER WITH A GODDAM ANCIENT STRUCTURE.

YOU COULD HAVE MADE A HIT MOVIE OR MOVIE SERIES, YOU COULD HAVE FED YOUR FANDOM, YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN HER KIDS BACK.

BUT YOU DECIDED TO GIVE HER THE ERNESTO DE LA CRUZ TREATMENT. TURNED HER INTO A GODDAM PANCAKE.

- Signed, ANGRY MCU FAN

[shipperoffanonships]

Tony Stark: I hereby reinstate 'Prima Nocta'.

Tony stans: LOL he's so witty and funny-

Well, you idiots, here's what "Prima Nocta" means:

A term derived from medieval legends and historical myths. It refers to the supposed right of a feudal lord to take the virginity of a vassal's bride on her wedding night.

OK, it's not accepted to be a true practice BUT YOU GET THE POINT.

[tyconix]

I think Spider-man should keep his identity a MAJOR SECRET.

The way people perceive him and treat him rely on NOT knowing who he is. Especially other heros! It is so much more entertaining to see that tension and those misunderstandings, instead of just using, "i have cameras around the city" or "I literately stalked you". It is so much funnier for these highly trainer spies and trackers to just- lose him, at a street corner or something. cameras everywhere except that one blind spot he always disappears from. For some reason all photos of him are blurry and unfocused, and his mask always rips in just the right spot so that you can't actually see his face. It fits with the Parker Luck (tm), because his life would probably be easier if they just figured it out- but they can't, because he's a slippery fast elusive vigilante that never sticks around. Who's actually just incredibly unlucky and late for class. which I think is far more hilarious.

I think its what the MCU made me miss, because in the literal first movie of his, everyone knows his age, identity, friendship, house. HIS villian, knows who he is, and this isn't like, kingpin or Green Gobiln its...THE VULTURE??? LIKE- okay i guess everyone can know about the ONLY character that had a secret identity? every other hero is a world recognized super star at that point, why must you take this one too? Wheres the funny "why do your socks look like that peter?" when he's wearing his suit under a robe, or the frantic pulling away of his backpack whenever someone gets close. We lose so much tension between his friends too, ned already knows, MJ already probably knows, flash is too dumb to figure it out, and other characters either don't matter or care about it, or move away. AUNT MAY knows so those phone calls where he's trying to come up with an excuse while at a bank robbery? literately robbed from us.

[kabishkat19]

Steve Rogers Rant

(Just rewatched Avengers : age of ultron and wanted to rant about something I realised)

If anyones else remembers there the infamous on-going joke in the movie where Steve says language and the whole team makes fun of him.

For a while I remember everyone talk about how that was very out of character for Steve and talked about how the MCU tried making him into a Boy Scout like character when that’s not who he was.

And then it came to me…

Yes it was!

I’d like to remind ya’ll one very big thing about Steve; his parents were Irish, Catholic, immigrants from the 1920’s, you can bet your ass Steve Rogers has the phrase “Language!” In graved into his brain from his mother, which is probably why after he said it he was instantly like “it just slipped out” like a reflex.

Any time someone cursed or heaven forbid took the lords name in vain, Sarah Rogers was calling out “Language!” causing the sorry bastard to flinch.

As far as the whole “he’s not a Boy Scout” goes; I understand that Steve represents going against the woes of government control despite his title but that all begun after he joined the war, his entire life before that was being a good kid for his mum and neighbourhood; you can bet he was helping little old ladies down the street despite them probably being stronger then he was pre serum.

And that doesn’t just go away, even through MCU rarely brings it up the scrawny little kid is still there and Steve Rogers is such a Boy Scout… a Boy Scout who’s seen behind the curtain of governmental corruption… but a Boy Scout none the less.

Thank you that is all🖤

[nicoveil]

Sylvie is an insult to genderfluid people.

So is mcu Loki but not as bad

[fandom-rants]

What’s your opinion about Tony taking Peter along with him to the airport? Of course he did NOT force him or blackmail him, people are literally making shit up to make Tony look bad (because that’s literally all they have, just words without facts) but just in general what do you think?

The way i see it, this is a good, supposed to be safe mission  preparation first mission for him, but people saying he was bad for doing this to peter.

What do you think?

I mean, storyline-wise, it's pretty forced. The MCU high-ups were like, "Spider-Man makes money; let's get him in there!" So. What can you do.

From within, I liked how we were already well past his origin story, and I loved the dynamic between two Nerdy Boys, I thought the thing about Aunt May being young was weird but fine, since I love getting away from tropes and the 'sweet grandma' trope has been beaten to death. I loved Spider-Man as he was written and acted because he was the quintessential silly nerd weirdo who got crazy excited over stuff and nerded out about weaponry and superheroes and everything.

I liked how Tony was explicitly stated to order Peter to stay back and just web them up. I like how both of them were still playing around a little bit; the "Underoos!" thing made it clear Tony wanted Steve to knock it off but never expected a real fight. Even after having Spider-Man take Steve's shield, he still didn't instigate a battle; he just wanted to use Spider-Man as a tool for de-escalation. I was pleasantly surprised, at the time, by Steve being the one to push for a battle, and for his side to end up going WAY too far over and over again, because it proved his imperfections, which I love to see in my superheroes. (I of course abhorred the backtracking in later movies.)

Overall, I thought Tony noticing Peter made sense, since Tony's been leading the Avengers in all but name since the start, no matter what anyone says about Steve, and it makes sense for Tony to be on the lookout for others like himself and the team. It also makes sense that Tony sat on this after learning who Peter was until he found he needed someone to help him get his friends back before the United States government killed them. I wasn't fond of the sudden trip to Germany, but I understood the need for speed and, with the information given about Tony's original plan, I realize he was backed against a wall and making a tough choice.

I loved how, when everything got bad as hell, Tony stopped everything and ran to Peter to order him to stand down and stay out of the fight; I loved how scared he'd been when he'd gotten to Peter's side, because the kid had been in real danger thanks to Steve's team and could have gotten hurt far worse. It is telling to me that Steve was the one to injure Peter, even after learning how young Peter was (there's no way Peter's voice was the voice of an adult, ffs), yet Steve did not ensure Peter was okay. Tony did. Tony was the one to check if the kid was all right and then ensure he stayed out of the increasingly escalating battle.

If the rest of the MCU movies hadn't come out and I hadn't been forced by a bunch of brats on the Internet to endure some of the dumbest bullshit the MCU fandom writes about how sweet angel Steve Rogers did no wrong and evil devil Tony Stark wrought the world asunder, I would actually say that I loved Civil War, for all its faults. Because Steve wanted to be a hero, Tony kept trying to hold everything together, and neither of them did a perfect job but Tony did well and Steve did horribly, and it was about time we got some character depth on Captain America and got to see Tony's merits as a leader, too.

And then. You know. The rest of the movies, and the fandom, and now I want to burn the world to ashes every time someone even mentions MCU Steve Rogers or Civil War to me.

[legalandnotease]

One claim I often see Tony fans making is that Steve was being selfish for not "considering children born during the Snap" in the team's desire to bring everybody back.

This is obviously a form of emotional blackmail After all- how could *anybody* want to erase *billions* of children?

Well, this claim is wrong for a number of reasons

1: There is no evidence of large-scale births or an increasing birth rate during the Snap. Tony fans often say that there must have been millions and milions of children born during the Snap, but this makes no sense because, as a general rule humans do not simply "get over" losing their entire family an "move on".

Even losing one child can be an emotional blow that person never recovers from. Clint Barton lost all 3 of his children, and we know he did not simply "move on" and start a new family.

People do not simply recover from such things in a few years and create new families. It almost never happens.

Furthermore, population dynamics come to play: some planets lost as much as 3/4 of their population due to Thanos pre-Snap genocides.

Even for those who lost "only" half though this would mean half of all birthing females and existing children snapped.

Fewer birthing females means..... a lower birth rate. Also take account of things like infertility and the fact that some women who lost thier children would have been beyond childbearing age: notable case - Queen Ramonda.

Even assuming people were interested in relationships and reproduction (and most were not) the birth rate during the Snap would have been expontentially lower then it was before.

Real life disasters and catastrophes also reveal that it takes a long time for the population to recover. The Black Death killed 1/3 to 1/2 of the population of Europe in the Middle Ages- and it took something along the lines of 3 to 4 centuries for the population to reach the level that it had been before the plague struck.

Literally: it can take HUNDREDS of years for the population to recover. The idea that the world would have returned to normal after only 5 years is ludicrous.

2: The children killed by the Snap.

Half of the human race were snapped. This would have included children. Potentially hundeds of millions of children were killed by the Snap. This is far more than the number who who have been born during the Snap.

There's another issue however: many children would have died after the Snap.

Sick children whose parents or doctors were snapped and were unable to get the medical treatment they needed

Young children whose parents were snapped would have died within a few days if nobody found them.

Children in poorer countries would have been the first to succumb to things like famines and food shortages caused by the Snap.

However, children in rich countries would have followed. Food shortages and the breakdown of intractructure would have caused problems witht the availability of food and medical supplies. Diseases would have become more common without the medicines to keep them in check, and poor sanitation.

In other words, potentiallly hundreds of millions more children would have died after the Snap in addition to those who had been Snappped.

None of those children would have been bought back by Bruce's Snap in Endgame. They would have stayed dead. All because of Tony's selfish insistence that he "didn't change anything from the last 5 years".

So, no matter how Tony fans want to try and twist things: Tony Stark was quite prepared to sacrifice *hundreds of millions* if not billions of children for the sake of his desire to preserve his personal paradise.

He did not, in fact, "save everybody" at all. He saved only those bought back after the Snap and ... not really even them as they had to contend with years of social and economic problems.

You know what the most interesting irony of it all is though? Tony fucked over all those people for nothing. Pepper was already pregnant before the Snap, so reversing it would not have erased Morgan anyway.

[fandomtrashfox]

The 'Loki Series' is to Loki what 'Allstars Batman and Robin the boy wonder' is to Batman.

While both grossly misinterpret the characters they're using, pull stupid unnecessary fanservice, take leaps in logic, have very little consistency, romanticize abuse, and blatantly spit in the faces of the original characters, at least Batman doesn't have an incest relationship in the Allstars comics.

Either way, both of them sound like they were written by edgelords.

[indominusavenger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[alligatorrat]

thoughts on Gamora's death

Go

Ok but like in all honesty-

I think her death felt very fitting and while it was upsetting.

of course i would of liked for her to live because i love the guardians but i still think it made a lot of sense

Even with her coming back as her past self I think how they went with that and her character all felt very fitting. 

Maybe not the part of her joining the ravagers that feels iffy to me, i get what they were trying to accomplish with that but i'm not sure if that felt right or not. 

Maybe it doesn't feel right because we didn't get to watch her grow with them, idk

It makes sense for her death to be in this huge event for the mcu but it also sucks for anyone who maybe only want to watch the gotg

i just got a friend into gotg by showing them a comic i had and now they’re trying to get into the movies but they don't care much for the other characters so it's confusing for them at times with all these references to events that are only relevant for these other characters and not the guardians

But it still makes sense to me for this huge event having all these characters from across the mcu to come together like they did, and it also made sense for there to be casualties like gamora

I'm happy that they didn't just brush her death under the rug, granted characters apart of the avengers obviously don't care because why would they, they don't know gamora, but the guardians it tore them u p

All of the writers for gotg treated her death wonderfully in my opinion, and i love the part with the gamora in vol 3 where she mentions that that gamora that we all got to know is just a potential possibility of what she could have been.

 Vol 3 gamora is a variant, she's not the same gamora and i love how they make sure to shed light on that, but also don't make that stop the guardians from grieving, it would have felt wrong for them to replace gamora with this variant, because that not their gamora and never will be.

I probably have more on her death to say but i can't think of much else to say at the moment

[natr0manova]

Natasha should've been a super soldier and should've been born in 1928.

She's a cold war legend and fought in WW2, which is a really important event for her.

(*cough* Nikolai & Rose *cough*)

She was used for propaganda reasons, especially during the cold war, and the mcu was like: no.

Her being born in 1984 takes away a lot from her character (and created a plothole).

[zmbzgtz]

i kind of want to yap about marvel rq.

aou ; i absolutely love this movie. one of, if not, my favourite marvel movie. (civil war is close bc my memory of it is watching it w my childhood friend) anyways, there are some issues with the movie. for example, pietro’s death was the biggest issue of the movie imo and thats what i will focus on.

for introductions, hai, im cas, a huge marvel fan and have been since ‘15. aou or avengers age of ultron is a marvel film and is the second avengers movie, but is the 9th (technically 11th), installment of marvel. *not including the incredible hulk. (9th excluding gotg)

to give a quick summary ; “when tony stark (rdj) jump-stars a dormant peace-keeping program, things go terribly awry, forcing him, thor (chris hemsworth), the incredible hulk (mark ruffalo), and the rest of the avengers to assemble. as the fate of earth hangs in the balance, the team is put to the ultimate test as they battle ultron, a technological terror hell-bent on human extinction. along the way, they encounter two mysterious and powerful newcomers, pietro and wanda maximoff.” (directly quoted from the about section of movie)

so, basically, the movie is about stopping ultron to put it simply, however, along the way, the two twins wanda and pietro maximoff soon join in to help bc they disagree w ultron’s idea of human extinction as they only wanted to end the avengers. however, pietro soon dies to save clint barton (hawkeye) while ultron was shooting at them from the avenger’s quinjet.

“why is this an issue?”

“a character died, so what?”

let me just say that, pietro has super speed. and if he has that, shouldn’t he be able to dodge bullets? (he quite literally DID in the comics, saving BOTH clint AND wanda) so this just doesn’t make sense ??

another issue is that his death was random? although, yes, there WAS foreshadowing, it still.. js didn’t make sense? in a deleted scene where thor was possessed, he stated that, in order to end ultron there needed to be “human sacrifice”. that would add a lot more to his death and make it have some meaning.

and finally, no one fucking acknowledges it in the movies? the one who does is fucking CLINT? NOT WANDA, his OWN twin sister. nah, she dgaf anymore. clint names his son after pietro, “nathaniel pietro barton” and he later on helps / protects wanda bc her brother saved clint’s life. however, wanda NEVER fucking mentions him again and it’s so?? what the fuck??

in conclusion, pietro should NOT have died. thank you 4 coming to my ted talk.