Check out Try Movavi Video Editor at bit.ly/2Y24blL 30% off Promo Code: MovaviBuddy Sonia's video will be going up later on, check back here and in the description for a link! HER CHANNEL: th-cam.com/channels/-CDQ-MPUdBWcjB7SrD1HZA.html As always, I look forward to the discussion in the comments - here's to some spilled tea! Once again if you like the video, please consider backing me on Patreon or donating via Ko-Fi to help keep the channel going. PATREON: www.patreon.com/jacksaint KOFI: ko-fi.com/lackingsaint TWITTER: twitter.com/LackingSaint TWITCH: www.twitch.tv/lacksaint COMMUNITY: discord.gg/BttSM9j
One little thing that annoyed me in Far From Home is that apparently Tony can order a hit on anyone on the planet at a moment's notice. And yet the whole Captain America Winter Soldier was about stopping this level of power.
I think the main difference is that one was assigned an 'algorithm' that would target literally anyone that might possibly commit a crime regardless of circumstances or the fact that they might not, and Tony's was meant to pick a specific person. Both are incredibly messed up, but I think 'basically a sniper strapped to a drone' is morally a good bit better than systematic murder.
The interesting thing is that both Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are wrong in Civil War. Tony, for his belief in escalating infringement on civil liberties in the name of protection against potential threats (having not learnt the real lesson from Age of Ultron) and Steve, for his insistence on the inherent 'righteousness' of the Avengers and their freedom from accountability.
That's also insinuating that they could also be right as well. However I'd argue that Captain America was truly in the right in the end. Since the Secret Avegners fought in the infinity war and in Endgame. However it was how Ironman treated Spiderman in his movie is what got me onto team Cap
For me the greatest insult of the civil war was how personal it got. Socovia accords could give governments power over superhero and thus putting them in dangerous position but lack of any control would create dangerous vigilantes. Instead of finding the golden mean they decided to fight because Bucky this or Bucky that, blah blah blah They acted like kids in high-school But without the drama the movie would end up with boring old people talking not with exciting fight
bengolious I don’t think Captain America is so much against the idea of accountability as much as he is against conscripting he and his fellow weapons of mass destruction into the hands of world governments, which he had learned the past month were half made up out of actual Nazis. I don’t think Captain America would be against putting some checks and balances on his own capabilities and what he can be considered accountable for. His whole deal is sacrifice. He is the man would would dive on a grenade, to “lay down on a wire, and let he other guy crawl over [him]”. He’d do whatever he needs to do to save people’s lives. He just knows a thing or two about how dangerous it is to have a corrupt system decide who is and isn’t the bad guy.
The irony is Tony never truly believed in the Sokovia Accords, it was just coping mechanism to combat the guilt he felt for having a hand in the creation of Ultron. While veering away unneeded bad publicity and government pressure for a time being by signing on. Evident when Tony deemed it necessary to break agreement of the SA near climax of CW.
The thing is that having oversight and accountibility is the right thing that should and would happen if heroes really existed. It's bad for the writers though because you hamstring your narrative universe if heroes can't act alone and their heroism doesn't come from their own character and moral compass. So every time films and comics deal with this issue they have to tip the scale to get the answer the writers want to have. Which is fine for the story but undermines the political allegorical aspects and the realism that is the main point of pursuing this theme in the first place.
Hi everyone, im from Argentina and due to my english limitations, all I can contribute to the discussion is a quote from the argentinian comic-book writer, Hector German Oesterheld: "The only valid hero is the collective one"
Nunca he oído de el o sus cómics y después de leer tu comentario lo busqué en el internet y... wow. Su historia es muy impactante y quiero leer El Eternauta AHORA. No encuentro mucha información y miré que hay dos versiones. Cuál recomiendes, el original o la segunda versión de 1969?
Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily lead to authoritarianism. The problem with Tony's take on utilitarianism (and why I would strongly disagree with his exact stances being applied in our world) is he was overconfident in his own abilities. He sought to consolidate his own power because he only trusted himself. This seems to be the source of most of the problems he caused.
No. Tony Stark causes most of hia own troubles, becausr he's a deeply fkawed human being, on a fundamental level. It's everyone elses fault, for not realizing rhis fact, abd treating the man like a moral saint.
Which is kind of the point. I wouldn't say that the MCU truly buys into the notion of extraordinary people, because all those special people are frankly a mess and prone to making huge mistakes - just that their mistakes have even worse consequences. Nobody can equal Tony Stark. Not even Tony Stark himself.
@@swanpride But it does. Necessarily. This is the inherent problem with superhero comics. It relies on the main characters being superhuman moral agents.
Which is the reason why a lot of stories about exploring the notion, and the answer is always the same: That even heroes are flawed people, and you can't trust that anyone will always do the right thing. Other than perhaps Steve Rogers. And even he can be compromised. The superhumans are a feature of Superhero stories (duh), but that doesn't necessarily translate into the message of those stories being that this is a good thing. Like, at all.
Spiderman Far From Home constantly told us that tony is a hero while showing us that he absolutely is not. He stole a man's work, took credit for it, and then fired him. He created a portable Project Insight and then gave it to a teenager without any instructions on how to use it, only a note to remind us of his huge ego. No one in mcu canon has called this out and I have no doubt in my mind that they ever will.
BuckyBarnesAndNoble inchresting how the villains in both homecoming and ffh are working class ppl who were exploited by the govt/their boss and want justice for that but are framed as evil murderers 🤔
stargirl3212 I dunno. Toomes and his crew were, IMO, written as very sympathetic characters. I mean, yeah, they were thieves, but they weren’t psychopathic criminals like Mysterio and his crew, and their beef with Stark was written as a justifiable one.
@stargirl3212 Beck wasn’t really working class and was framed as a murderer because he actually was. Tony screwed him but ended up being right about his instability, in hindsight. Toomes and his crew were working class guys who got screwed, but I’d say they’re extremely obviously portrayed as very sympathetic. Far more than Beck, who was going to murder a bunch of people to trick everyone into thinking he was the next Iron Man.
This is why I love Watchmen so much. It is a direct criticism of the Great Man theory. The main villian in Watchmen is not some outside threat that the superhero team has to stop, but is instead one of the "heroes" himself, who takes this theory to it's logical extreme, deciding that he gets to murder millions of innocent people in an attempt to save more because he's been given this position of authority as a superhero. It's easy to say Captain America has everyone's best interests in mind because of his ideals, but what happens when you replace him with the Comedian, who's a sadistic fascist. It's easy to say Superman's powers make him the perfect sentinel against major threats, but what happens when you replace him with Dr. Manhattan, a being who has grown to such god-like power, that he now sees humanity and more specifically human life as an irrelevant concept. It's also important to note that the writer of the graphic novel, Alan Moore, is an anarchist, so it makes sense that he would be sceptical of a small group of powerful individuals having ultimate authority over these kinds of decisions.
@@eartianwerewolf I don't know if you're referring to me or Jack, but if it's me, then 1: I'm a she and 2: I already replied and said that I haven't seen it.
Yeah Watchmen! There is so much in Watchmen that still works and provokes questions. I like that the comic doesn't really paints Adrian as a good or a bad guy. He is a narcissistic mass murderer with a god complex, but he goes and ends The Cold War, there are no other alternative solutions presented in the story. Even his reaction to Dr Manhattans final line can be interperated in many ways. Is he worried that he has committed these horrible crimes for nothing, or of a selfish doubt over his perceived perfection? One Punch Man kind of has an interesting moral question of why people do good. I mean we have most heroes who are heroes out of a desire for fame and fortune, Mumen Rider wants to save people and Saitama just does it for fun. But the manga doesn't really go anywere with the whole question of intention vs result as I remember.
"Tony's way of thinking is the reason everyone has to take their shoes off at the airport - but he's not taking his shoes off" Perfect mirror image of Thanos, he sees himself as the only person in the universe who can be trusted, the only one with "the will to act".
So sad we didn't get a third mcu spider-man movie, couldn't wait to see peter buts the knee caps of the Stark Industry Workers as soon as they tried to unionize.
Well there it goes, doctor strange is the new Tony. That way everything is magic and nothing matters anymore because they could just wipe collateral damage out am I right
"tony's opposition to the use of his devastating weapons is never about their use in the first place, but because the bad guys got them" dude yess that stood out to me the first time i watched it-- my mom (who watched it with me) kept talking about all the "antiwar themes" and I was like wHERE
Also, is it weird that I agreed with and enjoyed most of the analysis in this video, but still consider Tony Stark one of my favorite MCU characters? Like I definitely don't agree with him in terms of the broader ideology he represents, but I still really like his personality and growth in relation to other characters. Guilty pleasure, I guess
@@awesomellama8141 I think he's likeable because the writers do such a good job at illustrating the WHY behind his at times very selfish and egocentric actions, even if we don't agree with them.
Yeah… no. Tony doesn’t let anyone get ahold of stark weapons, not even shield. He’s firmly against war because of his experience in the cave. It’s not that hard to follow. Tony Stark was raise an an asshole rich kid, but then he was slapped in the face with the reality of his fortune. It doesn’t matter that it was the ten rings, it matters that he had to live through the consequences of his actions for the first time. We even see in the second movie that he’s opposed to giving the US military weapons, because he’s anti war in general
I was shocked that Peter kept Edith at the end of the movie. I was certain he was going to get rid of or at least lock her away because that sort of power is completely unacceptable for anybody to hold.
@@andresacosta4832 You have no idea how confusing this comment was to me a year later when I completely forgot who Edith was and just got it in my notifications.
I'm super charmed by the idea of a hero who confronts a villain and says "let's look at the underlying root causes of your frustration and see if we can solve those together..." thus addressing fundamental problems and not the symptoms. Black Panther is like that and so is Squirrel Girl?
I like Tony Stark strictly as a character in a piece of fiction, as a vehicle for a particular kind of drama in fiction. He's entertaining as a storylover/writer the way a difficult mathematical equation can be entertaining to solve on paper for math nerds. If I met him in real life, though, I'd immediately send him to the guillotine.
In real life, billionaires aren't going to put their own life on the line for everyone else. So while certain technology in Iron Man could exist, extremely wealthy people like this simply doesn't exist. If Tony Stark was real, he wouldn't be Iron Man, but just another Elon Musk.
Still sticking to my fan theory. That when Doc Strange met Tony in Infinity War he thought "Jesus christ this nutcase moron's gonna get us all killed" So of the MANY timelines in which they defeat Thanos he picked the one where both Thanos and Tony die. Look at his face when they ask how many they win and he says "....................One"
If this is in some way confirmed and Marvel actually has it in them to openly question whether Tony is an almost inherently and perpetually problematic figure in the world of the MCU would be fucking amazing
I think I disagree with part of your thesis; Thanos, the logical conclusion of Tony’s utilitarian ethical system (who believes that one half of the universe’s life must be sacrificed to guarantee the survival of the other), is stopped in a battle with no civilian casualties, not by the latter’s encroachment upon civil liberties (which has led to countless failures e.g. Ultron, Mysterio etc.), but by the combined forces of the MCU, and ultimately by his own self-sacrifice. In other words, I think Thanos is a dark reflection of Tony’s pure utilitarianism, which he himself defeats. Thanks anyway - it's always great to see an analysis of this sort of mass-appeal consumerist media because of how it reflects on the values of the system that produced it (be those values good or bad)
This assumes Thanos was actually trying for some kind of utilitarism, rather than a phsycological "take that" against ideoloical opponents from this past.
You have a point. COMBINED FORCES. Aliens, Gods, and people from all over the world (though mostly the US) come together to stop Thanos. At what point do you have enough "great men" in a story that it stops qualifying as a story about "the actions of individuals"? When does it become about a "movement" instead?
This part at 36:33 is what makes Boseman's recent passing hit me even harder; of all the characters in the MCU, he offered something truly different, and the way Boseman portrayed that thoughtful introspection and empathy is now lost forever. I know they can re-cast him, but it won't be the same.
i keep thinking about that one quote by either jenny or dan that basically goes: "the government can't be trusted and what we really need is a group of specialized people with massive power and weapons and no oversight to keep us safe"
@@Stop_Gooning No, not a mafia. Just another government. What's a government if not "a group of specialized people with massive power and weapons and no oversight", after all?
@@Merione in a way, doesn't Cap sort of reject that idea still? He doesn't believe in establishments. In the end, all he really believes in is choosing to act when something has to be done. That's not Authoritarian. That's just a citizen standing up for what's right.
@@Nomad-1993 The problem with your argument is that there's no real consensus on "what's right". If it's Cap, then sure, he's a good person. But if it's someone else, then how can we be sure that their beliefs about what's right aren't selfish or authoritarian? Do we just have to trust them to do the right thing?
@@Merione yes I see your point. And I don't necessarily mean to say he knows what's exactly what's right. What I mean is to him, it's like the good samaritan law but on steroids. He's supposed to be more of a reactionary good , not a police officer.
I find it important to reflect over the fact that while Iron Man can shed his suit and be only Tony Stark, Steve Rogers can't step out of his powers. I feel it informs their opposing viewpoints a lot.
This whole analysis is why I think Black Panther is undoubtedly their best film. It's the only one in which the sympathy we feel for the villain, who has been victimized by institutional problems, materializes into genuine change for the protagonist *and* the will to enact the needed changes.
How about Star Lord? Ego: "If you kill me, you'll be just like everybody else!" Peter: "What's so wrong with that?" Rejecting the Divine Parentage trope so often idealized in these comics.
My comment has nothing to do with if your parents are good or bad, but the idea that YOU are special because of your parents. Like Luke Skywalker being special because of Vader, and Rey because of Palpatine, or any random fantasy main character with hidden ancestry. It is a refreshing egalitarian idea that shit like that doesn´t matter.
@@dqarqeer8603 Yes, I do. Everyone should aspire for something higher/bigger than their surrounding. Trying to assimilate oneself into the surrounding means rejecting one’s individuality.
30:44 I think this kind of puts the thumb on the erasure of Uncle Ben (and the downplaying of Aunt May) for the sake of playing up Peter's idolisation of Tony bugs me. Even though he's one of the superheroes, in the comics, Peter's ideals come from the everyday commonfolk around him (which Ben and May are huge representations of) and he's often unknowingly kept in check by them. In the MCU, that world is kind of replaced by Tony and his tech (and Happy). I find that to be a massive loss for Peter's story and what he could contribute to the MCU. (I think I basically said the same thing on the FFH video but oh well)
@@PancakemonsterFO4 I JUST watched it with my sisters a couple of days ago when I was visiting. I was truly worried that my being so done with spiderman was going to marr my enjoyment of something so special. My fears were unwarranted. I enjoyed myself so thoroughly. I have not seen anything that good, made with so much care, in quite a while. Miles' story wasn't Peter's. He was a very different character. And a very well-developed one at that. I haven't read the comics but I care so much about him now. Lovliest boy in New York. Also, I am a big fan of all kinds of visual art, so I wanted to full-on weep at how creative and LOUD the film was. I am still recovering from its much welcomed assault of colours. The scene where Prowler is chasing Miles down, and he hops on his bike - we first see three panels worth of the engine firing up and then they all fade out, only for the the bike to blow smoke that curls up and fills the entire screen as it speeds away...... UGH. I am not forgetting that anytime soon.
While I want Peter's family to play a bigger role, I don't think Peter idolizes Stark in the MCU. The only times he really invested is calling him "Mr. Stark" (he's a teenager and he's an adult, makes sense they aren't formal) and when he said "I just wanted to be like you" on the bridge. Otherwise, we don't actually see him fanboy over Stark as much as Fanboy over being an Avenger. If anything, the scenes with Tony shows Tony being the one with an actual investment in Peter's character. Peter repeatedly disobeys Stark and argues with him on principles when he can. I'd argue that shows a subtle influence of his different upbringing that we can likely attribute to Ben. The tech I will agree he seems invested in, but I break that down into the fact that realistically the homemade suit is as far as a kid with his household income could go, and the fact that Tony creates stuff for all the Avengers. the last Act of Homecoming shows nonetheless that his heroism isn't dependent on that. I feel his gravitation towards Tony comes less from emulation. Rather, from the fact that he had to lay low for months as Spiderman prior to Civil War and couldn't tell anyone about it, and that Tony making him an Avenger would make his life easier. So I argue that their relationship is best described as this- Tony values peter as a person, and in return Peter trusts Tony.
@@cutecommie idk dragonball tends to have very separate narrative plot lines that neither interconnected with each other, it just one separate story to the next like jojo in a sense
I can't remember the last time I've seen any kind of recruitment ad from any branch of military. And I do watch ads. Really, the only places I see the military are news media and movies.
With films, most of the time studios agree to film within the military's guidelines in exchange for access to military resources for props/settings, so probably not a huge amount of money on films
I think the Tony vs Steve debate is very interesting to me as a non American, because they are both very US central in their values. I wouldn't want either of them to tramble into my own country's business without invitation 🤷♀️
The idea of the Marvel Cinematic Universe being "about" something is such a foreign concept because it deliberately appeals to the kinds of people who hate the idea of any fiction ever being "about" anything.
Thats the appearance but even the most mindless nothing has ideology behind them. For example, clearly Tony Stark being the greatest hero is pro-capitalism and pro-USA, it's not like its the leader of the CPC or the president of Russia going out to punch bad people but a billionarie "genius"
I think this accidentally summarizes why I love the GotG movie line so much. There is bare if ever only one character accomplishing something. It's them working together that enables them to succeed in the first place. And let's have a think about the people in that team: Peter Quill, though the son of Ego in this version, is hardly amazingly empowered by Avengers standards nor does he embody some ideological bulwark of Might makes Right like Steve Rogers and Tony Stark do. He's flawed and without his friends and adopted family he'd be dead, or worse, would have been his own greates villain. Rocket, an abuse victim lashing out constantly and driving people away from him, only through the combined realization that he needs help to heal from both himself and his friends results in that process starting. Groot, a wholesome boi with little to no direction other than the one his friends provide. Through being part of a team is the only way for him to affect any change, else he'd just wander about, wholesomely. (It's also no coincidence that the kindest character is the one who starts out as a duo with Rocket.) Gamora, similar to Rocket, really, only that she's less impulsive and carries way more regret for her own actions. And again, without her team she probably would not be able to do, well, anything. At best she might enable Nebula to come around and then they both croak because Thanos really does not forgive. Drax... Well, let's just say that if he were to continue on his quest alone he'd die trying and in absolute despair and anguish, plain and simple. And then there's the whole thing of the Guardians making allies along the way, even if some are temporary or tentative. It's only together that they are strong. So yeah, Power of Friendship and the Collective.
To be fair, Stan Lee wanted Tony to be a "Villain" of 1960s imagery motivated to achieve good. His authoritarian tendencies being only carried over into other storylines. Simply put, RDJ is probably the cleanest Tony could get while being at a certain degree of accuracy.
With Iron Man, Stan Lee wanted to see if they could make an unlikable character popular. However, he didn't make a villain. Actual Stan Lee quote: "I think I gave myself a dare. It was the height of the Cold War. The readers, the young readers, if there was one thing they hated, it was war, it was the military. So I got a hero who represented that to the hundredth degree. He was a weapons manufacturer, he was providing weapons for the Army, he was rich, he was an industrialist. I thought it would be fun to take the kind of character that nobody would like, none of our readers would like, and shove him down their throats and make them like him ... And he became very popular."
After watching this video I'm convinced that the marvel cinematic universe is about two steps away from being the same world as depicted in "Starship Troopers" but without the tongue in cheek irony.
The Great Men and Chosen One Archetype may be my biggest problem with Steven Universe, with made fighting a political genocidal war machine into a family quabble, also that the masses are basically pets to protect rather than be allies.
That and the decision on how to handle the situation falls to either giant leader woman #1 or her son, and wanting to end a literally genocidal conflict non peacefully ends up getting you imprisoned.
Also, there is the tiny, little detail how the Marvel movies made Steve Roger the official U. S. banner, always giving excuses for his U. S. exepcionalism mentality, when the Steve Rogers of the comics always very quick to condemn the U. S. for the misdeeds of his own government, hell, he become a war criminal and never, ever, ever, suffer the consequences, he rewarded for it, by lifting Thor hammer and having a happy ending.
Why I agree Comic Cap was more openly critical, I wouldn't say MCU Steve wasn't. He was critical in WS when he questioned Nick Fury on his "secrets", clearly from a moral perspectives. He likewise distanced himself from Government deeds by Ultron, as with the Avengers under the Sokovvia Accords he was concerned over countries' "Agendas". I don't think he excluded the US. I blame it more on film presentation, which you nailed on the head in your other comment on US accountability. The "symbol" for the US, Ross, is only shallowly analyzed which sucks when more stuff with him and Bruce would show how warped the US military becomes with their ambitions in the name of having a technological advantage. He is really sidestepped. Fury, who was portrayed often as villianous in the Ultimate Universe, is portrayed more as a necessary evil. I can jive with that, but with the wasted potential of Ross as a character for Steve to clash with Fury likewise suffers.
@@thatguycalledphil6808 But in Winter Soldiers they blame all the U. S. misdeeds into Hydra, not in the governmental officials that were in charge of the technology, is always the other in the Marvel movies, there is never accountability for anything, if you behave bad, you get a reward, if you actually critic the status quo you are drop down.
@@TheKeyser94 "But in Winter Soldiers they blame all the U. S. misdeeds into Hydra," I don't disagree, I even saw you other comment talking about that and mentioned that on "accountability". "not in the governmental officials that were in charge of the technology, is always the other in the Marvel movies, there is never accountability for anything," Hence why I went on about Ross in the MCU. Despite being a someone directly responsible for Bruce and his Daughter's miserable lives, he still gets perks. I even mention how Fury could work in a more accountable way, but that inherently doesn't work with how it is written. "if you behave bad, you get a reward, if you actually critic the status quo you are drop down." I'm not sure how this worked for Cap, seeing how he worked against the principles even when it was with Fury. In this case, in regards to undeserved awares, the issue seems to Fury as he was the one who actually had the blame shifted away from. In that case he lost much of his power, only recovered recently in FFH, yet is still portrayed as problematic.
3 facts about the MCU: 1- Tony is the biggest villain in the MCU 2-Nat should've survived even if it meant killing off Hawkeye 3- Captain America's ass is 100% edible
@@Humorless_Wokescold Really? I mean Tony has caused problems before, but those problems have been solved, usually with the help of Tony Stark. Thanos literally killed half of life in the universe, a event so damaging, that the ramifications of the event may probably last forever.
@@IkeOkerekeNews ok, but excluding Thanos... Tony is problematic. I think I speak for the congregation of those commenting here when I say that. Forgive me, if I am being presumptuous. 🤗
Amazing coincidence that I'd just finished watching Renegade Cut's vid on Independence Day and American exceptionalism right before watching the premiere of this. This is an almost perfect companion piece considering the parts with Tony. You're spot on with how the great man theory is endemic in superhero fiction and arguably an integral part. After all, their exceptionality is what makes them interesting enough to be "heroes".
@@ericsheldahl5158 I would still recommend MHA though in that regard. And things like Spiderverse. They get around the Great Man problem by emphasizing it not being "the hero" but being heroic.
@@petermann673 Yeah, I still enjoy My Hero Academia and Spider-Verse, but I have different sets of issues with those... Like the way MHA's author draws underage girls, and treatment of all its female characters across the board. Or Spider-Verse's overt celebration of product and over-the-top fan identity reinforcement. They're still good stories, well-told, and I like them, but they're not without fault.
I would argue that the MCU doesn't actually come down on Tony's side, for two reasons: 1. His ideology taken to the extreme is Thanos, and they make him the villain. 2. They didn't need any of the measures Tony was taking in the end. But I agree otherwise
but it's just like when tony defeats his rogue AI with another AI. the MCU repeatedly shows fighting fire with fire but this time its better fire so you win. Depicting Tony Stark OG defeating Tony Stark Thanos Edition is just the conclusion to a long history of bad Stark decisions being miraculously validated - ie supported by the writers
@@ishopeatsea But there isn't really a fire Tony started in Infinity War or Endgame. Thanos isn't Tony's creation he's just a reflection of his ideology over the course of the last few movies taken to the extreme, and that's what Tony dies to stop.
@@jovan1198 Tony doesn't need to make fire though. He IS fire. If Thanos is a reflection of Tony than in the end it's still Tony defeating another power with his own exceptional Tony power. It would be more meaningful if it did not end in Tony being the one to defeat Thanos. Something Tony created beating Tony and Tony beating bigger purple Tony is really only a marginal difference. We still end up with Authoritarian Protecter Man beating the Bad Inevitable Threat, or at least I think that's what the whole point of this was ifI'm following correctly.
I feel like there's a version of Endgame where instead of immediately killing Thanos, he's forced to see how horribly his plan was which leads to him realizing he can't unilaterally enforce his bad ideas for the sake of saving the world considering they always turn out terrible (hi, Tony) and then joins the fight at the end to defeat his past self. Bonus points for that since it would have shades of the original Infinity Gauntlet and Infinity War storylines.
Scarlet Witch: You took everything from me Thanos: I don't even know who you are Scarlet Witch: You will Scarlet Witch: "Uses her telepathic abilities which she is canonically stated to have in-universe to force Thanos to see the perspective of everyone he harmed in his crusade" Or she could just throw some big rocks at him...... that's cool too
@@samaelmalkira9420 Wouldn't work with their version of Thanos. He supposedly endured the greatest pain at the fullest intensity when murdering his own daughter (it's bullshit, the whole Thanos as father figure is, but it's still the vision validated by the movie since he gets the soul stone) so that would not affect his outlook unless you'd change a loooot more of those movies.
@@Arkayjiya That scene is so fucking dumb. It's the dumb low-point of the movie. Because he has the Reality Stone, which means he can do whatever he likes. The way I expected the scene to go was he would kill her, then NOT get the Soul Stone because he's a monster and doesn't actually love her. Then he'd go ape-shit, kill Red Skull and use the Reality Stone to break the rules and get it anyway. It would make sense because the wider meta of Thanos in the movie is that he breaks the conventional rules of the Marvel formula. They shoulda won, but didn't. Thanos using violence and breaking the rules because he's too dumb to think of something else is like the entire backbone of his character.
@@samaelmalkira9420 Wow... that's _such_ a good rewrite of the scene! (Both of them, actually!) But it (the latter) wouldn't have been sympathetic enough to Thanos for the writers. 😕
@@AstraIVagabond I know right. Which is why Infinity War is the stupidest MCU movie. Because Thanos is essentially a giant, purple dumbass with no redeeming qualities. The movie has to be dragged down to his level for him to be made sympathetic. Remember the really interesting argument about violence vs. imagination that Mordo and Strange had? Where the fuck was that? Instead Strange just says "Moida is baad" and punches him. It's also probably why they left out the part from the comics where Thanos is the one who blows up Titan because they told him to fuck off. They never confirm it in the movie buuuuut....... Star Lord: What the hell happened to this planet? It's six degrees off it's axis ~~~~~~~~~~ Doc Strange: So what happened here? Thanos: Ran outta food lol. I told them I did Doc Strange: The planet was knocked off it's axis by..............resource depletion? Thanos:...................yea
@@andrewcoyle_the3rd I don't care for Tony's character, but RDJ has a great ass. Chris's ain't that great, actually. The new Cap tho...... * thirst for Sam Wilson intensifies *
I don't think the MCU actually lands on Tony's side; Thanos, like you said, is the logical conclusion of Tony's obsession with perpetual war. Tony's way didn't work. The Infinity War-Endgame thematic arc was kind of a comparison between Thanos's "The strongest choices require the strongest wills" and the Avengers' eventual "Whatever it takes". The latter is essentially "Whatever it takes, but I'm only making bets on my own life", while Thanos's version was deciding over everyone else's life. In fact, they explicitly call back to that Age of Ultron scene to make the thesis that Tony's way (creating a suit of armor around the world) doesn't work, but Steve's way (fighting him together when he comes) does work. The word "Endgame" is IN THE TITLE of the movie, I don't know why more people aren't paying attention to this. I thought this was very clear; there's a reason why Thanos won on that first movie. For the record, I do wish they had taken the time to fight Thanos with an argument as to why his actions were wrong, as opposed to just fighting him.
But Steve's philosophy ultimately led to failure during Infinity War all the same, just as Tony's did in Age of Ultron. Isn't that why Tony brought back up the "suit of armor around the world" solution in the first place? Not necessarily trying to debate, but that's what I seem to remember.
Clay3613 oh and you’ve met them yourself? You literally have no basis to say such a thing, but go ahead, continue demonizing your fellow man. There’s no telling what evils this world will see with your thinking.
On the subject of power creep, I want to make a note that it is talked about a whole hell of a lot in the Anime circles. As it is so common that it is a fresh of breath air when a show subverts it and doesn't have characters getting exponentially more and more powerful. I suppose this is due to the majority of anime being adaptations of manga, which falls into the same pitfalls as comics. Personally I am more of a fan of series that have a much more erratic scaling, JJBA for example has main villains with insane powers but each villain isn't better than the previous. Diavolo vs Dio would be a fight that would be hard to even parse, the ability to stop time and the ability to skip it, it turns into a duel in front of the O.K. Corral whoever acts first would be the victor.
11:50 Tony’s 2 beliefs post war on terror 14:40 Rival: I don’t like bullies. 22:44 Answer: Whatever it takes 29:00 The Great Man 32:30 Who should hold power
One thing you could have mentioned in this video is Mysterio, a character that tries to take advantage of the strong man ideology that the Marvel universe has perpetuated throughout its run by pretending to be the strong man people could place their trust in to vanquish evil, one that Mysterio creates himself to cause damage.
It’s incredibly hard for any fantastical piece of fiction to promote many people over great man theory as novels are meant to be from the PoV of individuals and as a story, it is unstatafying if the conflict wasn’t solved by the protagonists. It’s not just MCU, basically all fiction really. But I’d be happy to be pointed to counter examples
@@ryanratchford2530 No, is more about suspense and drama, mostly suspense, is a very old book, the entire premise is based on the deconstruction of The Grand Man theory, Dostoievski live it in the fresh when he nearly was executed by the Tzar, only to find that was a mockery, the Tzar had forgiven their lives in the last minute, showing that their lives means nothing to him.
Power Creep is hardly restricted to tcgs, comic books and the MCU. The escalation of stakes is a broader issue in film, fantasy, and TV, though I do agree it feels especially noticeable in the MCU where it seems like every new film somehow manages to be a global or universal threat.
So, personal take, I didn't see Tony's "I just wanted to build a suit of armor around the world", line as the movie saying Tony was right; he was clearly at least not ALL right based off his failure in Age of Ultron. I saw it more as characterizing; as you said, Tony made great progress with paranoia in Iron Man 3, but with this new failure, he felt like his old paranoia was justified. After all, as that piece of wisdom goes: paranoid people are not unnerved when their paranoia is confirmed, they feel validated. That's just my 2 cents, though.
24:04 - That's actually _such_ a strong parallel. I feel a bit like you didn't do it justice by dismissing it as a cutaway pun! It's such a stark counterpart (so many inadvertent puns this comment... I'm so proud) to the ideological term ('Eternal War') and it's literally the title of the movie in which (in conjunction with Endgame) the entire saga famously culminates. I'm a fan of the MCU - but this was a good look at it from a (more) critical thematic perspective. It's an angle I haven't not considered at all - and I don't necessarily agree with all your points - but thanks for making me think about it in more detail. Looking forward to your future work too!
I can only speak for myself, but the reason why I watch the MCU are the themes in it. I like it to have some fun while also being left with something to think about. Naturally every franchise has its own overriding theme - Legacy for Ironman, Worthiness for Thor, The individual vs the system for Captain America, Fatherhood for Ant-man, Family for the GOTG aso - but I think they are all united under the big banner of "what makes a hero a hero and how does someone wield his power responsible - and should it be wielded at all". Some movies do better with those themes than others, but they are usually interesting to watch.
So, I have thought about your essay and to be honest, I find it extremely reductive. I will explain by picking one example: Age of Ultron. It is REALLY simplifying the story to say "Tony does the same thing twice". On a broader scope: If scientist would stop doing something just because it failed the first time around, there would be never any invention at all. Being a scientist is ALL about trying again and again until you get it right. So, what is the difference between Ultron and Vision? Simply, how they came to be. Ultron was created by Tony in an attempt to "stop a war before it even started", and he did it on his own, with no help whatsoever. Vision is the product of ALL the main avenger - He is made of vibranium like caps shield, out of Jarvis, which is Tony's most precious creation, Bruce is the one who gives him life and Thor is providing energy from his hammer. He is created in reaction the existence of Ultron, to deal with a threat which is already there. While Ultron is all about forcing the world in a specific direction. Vision is all about accepting that at the end of the day, the world will not be around for forever, accepting the limits of human life (which is also a huge theme in Doctor Strange, btw). And once you consider Ultron, it also shows how utterly wrong you are about where the MCU falls in the conflict between Steve and Tony. It never takes a side, not even in Endgame. Because at the end of the day, Tony isn't able to plan for everything, It always comes down to personal choices, to the sacrifice a singular human is ready to make in the protection of others. While Steve was always accepting that he might have to leap on another bomb down the line, Tony was always all about avoiding this leap - only to having to do it after all in the end. Everything Tony did to "prepare" for Thanos ended up utterly useless, twice. In the end, he was defeated by personal choices.
@Julian Francisco Oh, I understood the point. I happen to disagree with it, though, but that is not my problem with the essay. My problem is the same I have with most video essays about the MCU: Since the MCU is so vast, it is pretty easy to pick every moment which fits into the thesis one wants to argue while dismissing everything which doesn't fit. I went for the Age of Ultron argument because it was easier to pick something, which is actually mentioned in the essay to show that even by the pretty low standard of "I don't tell you how to interpret this, I just throw out information and leave it to you to make your conclusion", the moments which are picked and how they are presented are carefully curated to push the viewer to a specific conclusion - hence it is actually an extremely subjective essay, it just tries to be cute by pretending that it isn't. Here are some moments of the MCU which go right against the notion that there will always be the bigger conflict which can only be solved with more violence. Above all the ending of Doctor Strange which is NOT about the hero amassing more power than the villain, but about the hero staging what is the superhero version of a peaceful protest designed to stop the invader until he is ready to "bargain". You know, in a way Tony ensured that Thanos could get the infinity stones in the first place because he decided to take the fight to him instead of turning the ship around and hiding the time stone at the safest place possible. So no, the movies aren't saying that Tony is right. They allow the audience to examine the problem and come to their own conclusion. That is exactly what I love so much about them, that they don't pontify, they show.
@@Humorless_Wokescold "Tony's philosophy is the one consistently vindicated by the films." Steve outright told Tony that "Whenever someone tries to stop a war before it starts, innocent people die." Afterwards, Fury talks to Tony eventually beating the truth out of him that Tony attacked rash because he was haunted by the sensation and experience of not doing everything he could and not dying with them. When he creates Vision, that wasn't saying he was right to create Ultron. Vision was the result of multiple Avengers cooperating and Tony not being motivated by fear, but by actually analyzing the situation in the current. "Tony is right to be afraid of what's coming, he is right to over prepare, and Steve is wrong for thinking personal freedoms are in anyway important." Steve outright said in Endgame that the "suit around the world" didn't work to Tony's face. He was silent when Tony pointed out that they didn't "fall together", the failed separated and where still alive. That scene didn't vindicate Stark. If anything obvious was shown was that they failed because they didn't work together. "The heroes won because they literally moved through time to deny him the opportunity to amass the power to threaten them. That is 100% inline with Tony's paranoid thinking." No, that was not the plan. The plan was to get the Stones and return them to fix what was done, not to stop past Thanos. Tony was against it because of the low odds but agreed once he perfected the science and took the risk. So it wasn't in line with Tony's thinking, since it wasn't even his plan.
"Over 5 hours of movies spent on Thanos trying to justify his misguided views about saving civilization, with not one scene actually breaking down why what he says is wrong" (35:38). THANK YOU! Thank you so much for pointing out this glaring flaw. This was my biggest problem with Infinity War and Endgame: By letting Thanos make his case and never refuting it, they are passively promoting Thanos' eugenecist ideology. The closest that the movies came to actually calling Thanos' ideas _wrong_ were two scenes: 1. In Infinity War, Gamora yells "You don't know that!" at Thanos 2. In Endgame, Thanos himself says that he was wrong because as long as some people survive, they will remember what they lost That's it. A four-word desperate resort to unpredictability, and the villain himself musing that the only problem with his genocidal plan was that it did not have enough genocide. Ugh. I do wish you dwelled a bit longer on how Iron Man 1 criticized the military-industrial complex by showing Obadiah dealing weapons to the terrorists under the table, but you were totally right to point out that the film ultimately had a black-and-white, good-military-versus-evil-terrorists ideology.
@@kokofan50 Judging by the follower count of r/ThanosDidNothingWrong and by the resurgence of racist eugenics ideology from the alt-right? Yes, it does.
@@IkeOkerekeNews Because it can be less exhausting than dealing with people who know you used to care and don't understand why you no longer do so, not to mention people who assume everyone cares and feel personally affronted by your indifference.
Personally, when I watched Civil War (yesterday), I read that story as a battle between Captain America's belief in the Avengers right to act unilaterally without oversight or explanation and Tony's decision that they should have to voluntarily sign up to be overseen (which is admittedly only a result of his own guilt and not because he actually believes it). I did think that in this movie they both essentially swapped positions though, out of absolutely nowhere
Tony’s Utilitarianism reminds me a lot of a recent law we got in the UK. I believe it’s the Emergency Powers Act (2016). It gives insane surveillance powers to the Government, if it feels there’s a threat to national security (like with terrorism). It’s a terrible law. The Police KNEW about the Manchester Arena terrorist beforehand; who’d even been reported many times; and yet the attack was still carried out. Also, Cap’s retirement in Endgame, whilst being a bit of a bummer, serves to remind us of his individual autonomy. He can always object, even if it was a tad dramatic, and Bucky still remained young...
That upset you about Roger retirement? Not that he escaped the law, and reward for his U. S. exepcionalism? I can act with total impunity, without any accountability whatsoever, and have a happy ending because international laws doesn't applied to me.
It's pretty interesting how Thanos himself is a twisted version of the Great Man, he wants to be remembered much like Tony. Yet the MCU just goes "Thanos is the great man, so to stop him you need another great man"
Great video and I'm glad you mentioned that T'challa is basically the Anti-thesis on these ideals based on how he deals with Zemo and Killmonger. It makes me excited for Black Panther 2 and if they further explore this.
i am glad you can make fun of them. i, on the other hand, am constantly frustrated by them not being better cos i am too emotionally invested at this point
you put into words every problem i have with the MCU and specifically tony, steve and the story formula of the movies themselves, you made it make logical sense without dumbing down anything and i am SO GLAD YOU DID THANK YOU I LOVE THIS SO MUCH
These in-depth videos are one of the best parts of TH-cam, I swear. I've always been very against Tony but I thought it was because he is a narcissistic and prepotent person but there was more underneath. I have close to no knowledge about the war on terror since I'm not America and I was quite young when that happened but the way you expressed the whole shebang made me realize how much I hate Tony's ideology lol Now every time someone gives me shit for being Team Cap, I'll send them this video lol
I quite liked the video... and agree with most of them... except when you said Marvel chooses Tony's side. As I see that scene was just Tony choosing to blame others for Peter's "death". He lashes out at Steve... but I never saw this as the movie saying that is what we should've done. In the end what saved the day was not Tony's ideology, but Steve's. Yes... Tony was the one who snapped his fingers, but that was only possible because every person in that battle was there, and had a role, fighting for freedom.
While the MCU in fact implies that Tony’s presence and actions are actually highly responsible for a lot of the shit that goes down the fact remains that they cater to him at every turn After Creating Ultron tony should have been arrested or put on trial in the world court instead it’s business as usual and tony can do whatever he wants regardless of any consequences cause he’s just too damn rich and big to fail or be held accountable even the Accords are him himself signing them because He feels like he needs too, rather than any governing body forcing him to under penalty of law, execution or imprisonment so again tony cannot be accountable to anything but himself cause he’s the rich playboy whose the darling of the fans and universe.
Tony's utilitarianism frequently is shown to be the correct course; however, I wonder if this is not the nature of the genre. After-all, violent utilitarianism is the over-riding philosophy of nearly every Western and Action film. I would suggest that Guardians of the Galaxy offers a variation to the Great Man theme. Instead of a Great Man defeating an Evil Great Man, what we are presented is more Community or Group defeating an Evil Great Man. In this sense, it is a variation to Great Men of History theme.
On the "hypocrisy" of Steve in Civil War: I disagree with this assertion, seeing as how the subjects are sapient, feeling individuals who may or may not have done anything wrong, but would still have their rights infringed upon regardless. If it comes down to what they could do, there are already laws in place for that. Tony just wanted more power. For a good cause, but his solutions unerringly, irrevocably always led to him getting more, and everyone else getting less.
Verager Not to mention that Steve “I literally jumped on a grenade that one time” Rogers probably doesn’t have a problem with doing away with his own accountability if it meant saving lives. He just didn’t want to be conscripted to people and organizations that showed themselves to him to be secretly half-full of actual Nazis.
@@theoneandonlymichaelmccormick the issue is that that still leaves Steve and the others as separate from any kind of accountability especially if he views every government and or the UN and etc as untrustworthy so there’s technically no body he will and or would consider signing under therefore rendering the whole issue moot the issue still leaves Steve ironically holding himself and his crew to their own standards with no oversight or accountability and the fact that no one can make them do so cause they have a lot of super powered people behind them essentially making themselves the law unto themselves and i find that very convenient. Tony is a hypocrite but rogers just conveniently allows himself to be set up as his own private army/commander
The Avengers make an unapproved military operation on soil of foreign country and when civilians die his defence is that it was necesarry? Who gave him the power to decide that? He is 100% hypocritical for thinking he is the only one who can decide what is necesarry action. He would be taking away the right to decide from ordinary people who don't want his destructuve interventions in their country.
I always thought the soldiers in the first Iron Man were being portrayed as simple and ultimately good people acting under the thumb of politicians and economic pressures. i guess me silly, too
While that may describe a good chunk of the military (especially impressionable high schoolers targeted by recruiters with the promise of college, healthcare, and whatnot), a[n in]decent sum of military servicemen are the kinds of people who would be attracted by the War on Terror and occupying the Middle East. The documentary The Kill Team (2013; not to be confused with the 2019 fictionalized version by the same director) sheds some light on this. To quote one of the soldiers involved in the murders of Afghan civilians in regards to the media's 'few bad apples' narrative, "We're just the ones that got caught." I'd also recommend seeing what Iraq Veterans Against the War activist Vincent Emanuele has to say about it (/watch?v=SeywFJ8sXoY). Of course, it is ultimately the result of politicians and economic pressures (as Vulture says in Homecoming, "We fight their wars"), but those factors only give a space to those who would abuse that power and lack of accountability.
That was intentional so that tony could have his mia culpa moment realizing that the good old American patriot boys were killed by his weapons but imagine if they weren’t soldiers written to be sympathetic and instead were black water mercenaries or more realistically given the fact that tony is one of the private military industrial complex that the pentagon and army blow like trained hookers they were CIA black ops does anyone think we’d have the same feeling seeing them blown away?
One of us is remembering the ending of Far From Home wrong. Because when I saw Spider-Man take the drone army back from the villain, he destroyed it. He didn't turn into another Tony, he went down the other path
I also want to say: Killmonger was completely cheated by the whole 'great man' idea. He entered the ritual combat, won the ritual combat (which is how T'chala and his family came to power), said he was going to use his power to enforce his moral code on the world, and is portrayed as the villain of the story. Last time I checked, that's what Iron Man does, that's what S.H.I.E.L.D. does, but when Killmonger does it to help black people instead of large corporations or extrajudicial government bodies, he's the bad guy. But, hey, they did build a new B-ball court in his old neighborhood, so I guess racism is solved forever!
Yes... BUT Killmonger is a psychopath who derives pleasure from killing. His plan to "help" black people was to give them weapons so they could enact violence against the systems that oppressed them. He could have used the wealth of technology Wakanda has to offer to elevate them out of their current situations. His goal wasn't to end suffering or end poverty, but to flip the status quo so that the oppressed become the oppressors. THAT'S why he was the "bad guy"
@@Stop_Gooning Is revolution in general a bad thing? The whole point of this video seems to be that the Marvel superheroes ultimately fall on the side of preserving the status quo (with some improvements) - because the present system must be preserved in order for Disney to continue making movies. Corporate ideology is put into the mouths of our literal heroes. So we return to my first question: Are all revolutions inherently wrong because they disrupt present power structures? I'm unsure of whether revolution is good; it's certainly produced some terrible results. But are we then to believe that monarchic feudalism with large, global empires is the morally correct system - because disrupting it caused damage to the ruling class? Also, you suggest that a black power revolution would automatically result in anti-white tyranny, and I think that's a jump of the gun. White people are afraid of giving others power because they fear they will be treated like minorities have been treated in history.....but I'm not sure it logically follows. It sounds like "I will give you $1, but I can't let you hold the wallet because I'm afraid you won't give me $1." I believe that black power empowers all of us (am white, if that's relevant)
@@exquisitecorpse4917 You forget how Black Panther adds commentary on HOW he learned to over power, by learning from the U.S military. Meaning that US destablization was wrong and his based on that training would result in the same destruction. Everett Ross in the movie explicitly explained it. You conflate general "Black power" with his "Black Power". He explicitly advocated for arming masses of people under his rule to take over. Basically a world wide Junta. He wanted to reverse the position of power, not simply eliminate it. Look up how many African dictators had a background in Colonial western military education.
@@exquisitecorpse4917 Name a revolution that actually improved the lives of those under the "status quo" Never happened, it was just new aristocracy taking the place of the old
the reason killmonger was bad was cause he wanted to do Imperalism But This Time Its Us [black men (not black people btw but specifically men)]... additionally the way he took power was very similar to the us playbook for destabilizing govts. like he literally marked himself for how many kills he had as a *us soldier* so it wasnt the same as violence for a revolution
That's why I liked Worm's exploration of this issues in superhero stories. 'Morality is contingent upon survival. Do anything necessary to survive. Your descendents can hate you later.' Is what some fans come up as the message of the story. “Do morals matter, if our alternative is a grim and hopeless end?” Is an actual quote. It's up to the reader wheter the protagonists decisions were justified or not.
In the comics, there were much more nuance. Civil war storyline was about equality and government over reach by registering all super humans. Tont Stark had a very specific political beliefs which Captain America was against. In the movies, they didnt wanna go there so they created a stupid friend loyalty with Captain America.
@@SEAL341 The second you're overstaying a visa, you're here illegally. Don't break the law if you don't want to be detained or deported. Where's the confusion?
@@spenser9908 Those people in those concentration camps haven't broken any law and yet are being treated terribly. All they've asked for is asylum. The confusion is in your reactionary mind. Fuckoff.
@@SEAL341 Obama did the exact same thing. Overstaying a visa is illegal. How are they being treated terribly anyway? You don't just get asylum for free just because you're too lazy to go through the process of gaining citizenship, you sap. Jesus. You're bending over for these people lol.
Well, okay. But hear me out, the reason I, myself personally did not question Tony Stark's snap at the end of ENDGAME is that it speaks to his characters sacrifice after Steve told him he'd never been one to make a sacrifice. It wasn't because he was a hero and snapped. It wouldn't have made sense for any other avenger. It had to be Tony because of his story arc. It makes the most sense.
I mostly take issue with the snap itself because he's defeating Thanos-the ultimate conclusion of his own extreme ideology-on Thanos' terms, which is by eradicating the "other" he sees as a threat (ending countless lives in an instant, even if on a smaller scale; it's still pretty massive). He's one of the most brilliant minds around, with the power of a god at his fingertips (or on his knuckles), and the most creative solution he can come up with is essentially "kill 'em all and let God sort it out." It's not a question of whether or not Thanos deserved to die-though I will wager that past-Thanos wasn't yet guilty of the crime he was being punished for, which goes against Steve's insistence that "the punishment is supposed to come after the crime"; though he likely would've followed his future self's path, it still contradicts the ethics of the comic Iron Man, who went into a second "Civil War" with Captain Marvel over the ethics of punishing people for future crimes even though they had a precognitive who could foresee them-but the fact that he's being dealt the same hand he would've dealt others. Even aside from him, though, as mentioned in the video, it was firmly established that there were those within his ranks who were simply brainwashed children, stolen from their families and drafted into his "Infinity War" against their will, so I don't think they deserved to die in a flash. I just think a team of the world's most powerful geniuses could've come up with a better solution after all the time they spent planning for that moment.
That’s not even true since in the first Avenger Movie has Tony sacrifice himself to take the nuke to the alien mothership and it’s only because of thor that his heart was restarted/he lived
I'm more of the opinion that the MCU's overarching theme is the consequences of dismissing others' mental health. The entire MCU relies on Tony Stark not getting help for his mental health problems - even Far From Home, post-mortem - Mysterio is even SPECIFICALLY ANGRY that Tony used his technology to make a mental health aide... and, of course, named it BARF. Because if Tony got help, he wouldn't spiral trying to fix things on his own, and if that didn't happen, there would be no plot. Tony just wants to fix the problems he's caused, nobody helps him, he's not very good at it, creates new problems, and the cycle continues. Saving the world and laying on the wire is all very heroic but it shouldn't be ignored that Tony Stark ultimately commits suicide. He chooses to die. Strip bare the trappings of superheroes, the story of Anthony Edwin Stark in the MCU is a spiral of increasing trauma ignored by his friends and family that ends in a suicide. You also start to see it touched on in other characters, like Thor or Killmonger or Bucky. I hope we get to see some happier endings than we got for Tony or Erik - as Killmonger's death was also, effectively, a suicide. I have hope for Bucky, who's getting a spinoff with Sam who is an honest to God social worker, please dear God let one of the most traumatized characters get some real actual help. I'm sure there are other themes, like those you've mentioned, but this was my major takeaway.
37:10 no. It isn't. What Stan Lee wanted when he first created the FF, When he first created Spider-Man was to move away from the propaganda fueled good guys and bad guys approach of golden age comics to a more complicated look at the word; in which, Peter Parker learning his lesson didn't just make him start justifying himself if he did something wrong, no. He never justified his his biggest mistake: his uncle's death because of irresponsibility and his failure to save his girlfriend even if he tried that time. He holds himself accountable to these situations and tries to redeem himself every single day. What Stan Lee wanted is to reinvent the war driven ideals of Timely comics to a universe built upon the idea that doing what's right matters more than the "greater good". He didn't want a world where these "big men" couldn't be held accountable, he wanted a world where heroes could still be accountable for their actions, good or bad.
Thank you for finally being the one to finally sit down and explore what these movies are actually trying to say. Its really got me thinking, and a bit concerned, since I did grow up on these movies since I was around 7 or 8, and they have impacted my morality and views on the world. I just could never figure out what they're actually saying, at least in terms of the overall narrative. Your analysis on Steve's own ideals...has left me in an awkward position, especially in regards to anarchism, social activism, or any ideal similar. In terms of accountability, does that mean we hold each other accountable for unjust actions? How are we different in terms of the Avengers, at least Cap's view of them, guided by our sense of right to act on things? I feel this is one of the many reasons we as leftist tend to be so...divisive in regards to certain topics and arguments. As a collective, we are still fallible. And while its much better than the vision Tony Stark seems to represent, it does make me wonder my own limitations. There are some situations I will not be able to make the decision to hold myself accountable for, or even want to. If that happens, does that make me any less right, or as we as a collective suppose to form guidelines that shift and move, but still applies? And what branch of our idealogy do we truly hold ourselves to? No wonder I was Team Cap during that whole mess. But again, thank you for the analysis, it shook the way I looked at these movies and now I have to take a deeper look into them to see what I've been missing.
@@coreyander286 That's very true. While my stance remains where it is, I wanted to ensure my intentions come from a right place. If my actions are in line with my intent. But you're absolutely right. It's all down to choice and risk
I disagree with pretty much everything Tony Stark does, except the Sokovia Accords. Partly because that reverses some of his worst trends, partly because people who can single-handedly depopulate a city if they catch it off-guard should be handled with oversight less comparable to police officers and more comparable to nuclear weapons.
Disagreement: Regarding Disney's portrayal of Tony's morals. TLDR: Tony is rarely portrayed as successful overall in his solo undertakings. Don't me wrong, the commentary was great up to this point, and even following it, but I feel there should be context with Tony lashing out on Cap. Briefly put, Steve wasn't silent on Tony's utilitarianism, he was silent because Tony brought up on how they didn't "fall together" Steve said they would in Ultron. Now, given how Tony decided not to call Cap, and how he emphasized how he failed, I feel he wasn't genuinely blame Cap but was pointing out how everything went wrong in his debilitated state. If Marvel felt his idea was right, why make the solution sole of his doing? They didn't, in fact Thanos can be argued to be his ideals unchecked. Thanos "bonded" with Tony, saying they are both cursed with knowledge. With Thanos it is perpetual inbalance and strife, with Tony it is perpetual wars to fight. Something I pointed out, was that when Tony worked alone in the subsequent films he fails, but when receiving input from others (Pepper, Rhodey, Smulder, Fury, or Steve) he succeeds. In Endgame, he intially dismisses the Time Heist yet when reconsiders it he is blown away and puts is confidence in others. Time actually passes for them to consider how to do this, more elaborately than we see them before. This comes off as progress for Tony as a problem solver. As for trusting him to kill Thanos' army despite the potential innocents, well, lets clarify. This applies for his interference in Afghanistan but not in the final fight, seeing as it was a fight that came to him and not one he interfered in. Likewise he had no way of knowing who was innocent or not, therefore I would argue he was just in being "thorough". The comics address some of Thanos's henchmen, but the rest are presumbly drones (that portrayal of armies in fiction I would argue can still be problematic). As for the drones in FFH, that I will admit is very wrong, but her me out. They were likely built post Infinity War seeing how during his lashout with Steve, it's implied that he never had a "armor around the world". For the sake of simplicity, we can assume it was made when he restricted himself in the woods with Pepper. He's not overseeing the world, just looking after what he can, but the drone-satellite lingers in space unused. It's a metaphor for how in the wake of the current situation, his dream is fruitless. As for giving EDITH to Peter, keep in mind that EDITH is much more than just the drones but a security AI system of various functions. He probably figured that it would've been given to Peter under better circumstances avoiding the issue with Brad, but the issues only follows once Fury is the one to give it to him (why did Fury even have it?). He knew Peter, trusting him that he was "better" than he was. Peter shows a natural revulsion to the drones, and by the end of FFH he destroys them. It's might be a leap, but perhaps Tony predicted that Peter would do that but not under such disastrous means.
I miss when Thanos' ultimate goal was just to get in favor with (Ms.) Death by giving her an absurd gift... I, very early on, took my distance from cinema adaptations of super heroes, in part because i knew cinema would never portrait this kind of story, in part because of ideological bullshit I never fully extracted from my subconscious mind (bullshit which I know HQ is not exempt from). And this video helped me starting this task. For that, I thank you.
Hit one of the big reasons why I just didn't enjoy Civil War: I already felt Winter Soldier was a bit too wishy-washy on some of the politics it seemed interested in delving into, but at least in that we see Cap work to dismantle unaccountable power. Then we get into Civil War and Cap's values end up looking inverted, mostly in service of getting the audience to a big set piece fight scene where the heroes all fight. And yeah, there's ultimately something uncomfortable about the fact that the MCU good guys are depicted most often as being set apart from not only corporate interests, but both the state and the common people, as well. Say what one wants to about the tropes that undergird Superman, for example, but one of his foundational characteristics is that while he's an overpowered alien, he's very much a product of a common-man upbringing...basically the rural version of Spider-man's barely middle class Queens background.
Check out Try Movavi Video Editor at bit.ly/2Y24blL
30% off Promo Code: MovaviBuddy
Sonia's video will be going up later on, check back here and in the description for a link!
HER CHANNEL: th-cam.com/channels/-CDQ-MPUdBWcjB7SrD1HZA.html
As always, I look forward to the discussion in the comments - here's to some spilled tea! Once again if you like the video, please consider backing me on Patreon or donating via Ko-Fi to help keep the channel going.
PATREON: www.patreon.com/jacksaint
KOFI: ko-fi.com/lackingsaint
TWITTER: twitter.com/LackingSaint
TWITCH: www.twitch.tv/lacksaint
COMMUNITY: discord.gg/BttSM9j
Could you maybe leave a link to Sonja's channel?
So that I can subscribe and don't have to check whether the description here has changed.
Jennifer Fuss th-cam.com/channels/-CDQ-MPUdBWcjB7SrD1HZA.html here’s her channel
"I just privitized world peace" I always abhorred this line and I'm glad this is being addressed. 💯🍻
No fuck movavi
Sorry jack, buddy xoxo
@@JenniferFuss Good call, my bad!
One little thing that annoyed me in Far From Home is that apparently Tony can order a hit on anyone on the planet at a moment's notice. And yet the whole Captain America Winter Soldier was about stopping this level of power.
Corporate executives are known for cognitive dissonance I think...
@@andresacosta4832 You mean corporate execution? /j
govmint bad, billionaire gud
i never even clocked that. so odd.
I think the main difference is that one was assigned an 'algorithm' that would target literally anyone that might possibly commit a crime regardless of circumstances or the fact that they might not, and Tony's was meant to pick a specific person.
Both are incredibly messed up, but I think 'basically a sniper strapped to a drone' is morally a good bit better than systematic murder.
The interesting thing is that both Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are wrong in Civil War. Tony, for his belief in escalating infringement on civil liberties in the name of protection against potential threats (having not learnt the real lesson from Age of Ultron) and Steve, for his insistence on the inherent 'righteousness' of the Avengers and their freedom from accountability.
That's also insinuating that they could also be right as well.
However I'd argue that Captain America was truly in the right in the end.
Since the Secret Avegners fought in the infinity war and in Endgame.
However it was how Ironman treated Spiderman in his movie is what got me onto team Cap
For me the greatest insult of the civil war was how personal it got. Socovia accords could give governments power over superhero and thus putting them in dangerous position but lack of any control would create dangerous vigilantes. Instead of finding the golden mean they decided to fight because Bucky this or Bucky that, blah blah blah
They acted like kids in high-school
But without the drama the movie would end up with boring old people talking not with exciting fight
bengolious I don’t think Captain America is so much against the idea of accountability as much as he is against conscripting he and his fellow weapons of mass destruction into the hands of world governments, which he had learned the past month were half made up out of actual Nazis.
I don’t think Captain America would be against putting some checks and balances on his own capabilities and what he can be considered accountable for. His whole deal is sacrifice. He is the man would would dive on a grenade, to “lay down on a wire, and let he other guy crawl over [him]”. He’d do whatever he needs to do to save people’s lives.
He just knows a thing or two about how dangerous it is to have a corrupt system decide who is and isn’t the bad guy.
The irony is Tony never truly believed in the Sokovia Accords, it was just coping mechanism to combat the guilt he felt for having a hand in the creation of Ultron. While veering away unneeded bad publicity and government pressure for a time being by signing on. Evident when Tony deemed it necessary to break agreement of the SA near climax of CW.
The thing is that having oversight and accountibility is the right thing that should and would happen if heroes really existed.
It's bad for the writers though because you hamstring your narrative universe if heroes can't act alone and their heroism doesn't come from their own character and moral compass.
So every time films and comics deal with this issue they have to tip the scale to get the answer the writers want to have. Which is fine for the story but undermines the political allegorical aspects and the realism that is the main point of pursuing this theme in the first place.
Hi everyone, im from Argentina and due to my english limitations, all I can contribute to the discussion is a quote from the argentinian comic-book writer, Hector German Oesterheld: "The only valid hero is the collective one"
Gonzalo ojalá
hell ya dude! this indian thanks you for your contribution
Nunca he oído de el o sus cómics y después de leer tu comentario lo busqué en el internet y... wow. Su historia es muy impactante y quiero leer El Eternauta AHORA. No encuentro mucha información y miré que hay dos versiones. Cuál recomiendes, el original o la segunda versión de 1969?
Oesterheld and his family were 'dissapeared' by our dictatorship after that comic. His work should be better known by the world.
@@LordoftheStrings109 the original absolutely
Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily lead to authoritarianism. The problem with Tony's take on utilitarianism (and why I would strongly disagree with his exact stances being applied in our world) is he was overconfident in his own abilities. He sought to consolidate his own power because he only trusted himself. This seems to be the source of most of the problems he caused.
Tony was full of trust issues. I suspect he didn't even trust himself. Never mind that people would do the right thing if push comes to shove.
No. Tony Stark causes most of hia own troubles, becausr he's a deeply fkawed human being, on a fundamental level.
It's everyone elses fault, for not realizing rhis fact, abd treating the man like a moral saint.
Which is kind of the point. I wouldn't say that the MCU truly buys into the notion of extraordinary people, because all those special people are frankly a mess and prone to making huge mistakes - just that their mistakes have even worse consequences.
Nobody can equal Tony Stark. Not even Tony Stark himself.
@@swanpride But it does. Necessarily. This is the inherent problem with superhero comics. It relies on the main characters being superhuman moral agents.
Which is the reason why a lot of stories about exploring the notion, and the answer is always the same: That even heroes are flawed people, and you can't trust that anyone will always do the right thing. Other than perhaps Steve Rogers. And even he can be compromised.
The superhumans are a feature of Superhero stories (duh), but that doesn't necessarily translate into the message of those stories being that this is a good thing. Like, at all.
Spiderman Far From Home constantly told us that tony is a hero while showing us that he absolutely is not. He stole a man's work, took credit for it, and then fired him. He created a portable Project Insight and then gave it to a teenager without any instructions on how to use it, only a note to remind us of his huge ego. No one in mcu canon has called this out and I have no doubt in my mind that they ever will.
BuckyBarnesAndNoble inchresting how the villains in both homecoming and ffh are working class ppl who were exploited by the govt/their boss and want justice for that but are framed as evil murderers 🤔
stargirl3212 The people in ffh aren’t working class, but your point still stands
stargirl3212 I dunno. Toomes and his crew were, IMO, written as very sympathetic characters. I mean, yeah, they were thieves, but they weren’t psychopathic criminals like Mysterio and his crew, and their beef with Stark was written as a justifiable one.
@stargirl3212
Beck wasn’t really working class and was framed as a murderer because he actually was. Tony screwed him but ended up being right about his instability, in hindsight.
Toomes and his crew were working class guys who got screwed, but I’d say they’re extremely obviously portrayed as very sympathetic. Far more than Beck, who was going to murder a bunch of people to trick everyone into thinking he was the next Iron Man.
stargirl3212 Vulture was working class, Beck was not
This is why I love Watchmen so much. It is a direct criticism of the Great Man theory. The main villian in Watchmen is not some outside threat that the superhero team has to stop, but is instead one of the "heroes" himself, who takes this theory to it's logical extreme, deciding that he gets to murder millions of innocent people in an attempt to save more because he's been given this position of authority as a superhero. It's easy to say Captain America has everyone's best interests in mind because of his ideals, but what happens when you replace him with the Comedian, who's a sadistic fascist. It's easy to say Superman's powers make him the perfect sentinel against major threats, but what happens when you replace him with Dr. Manhattan, a being who has grown to such god-like power, that he now sees humanity and more specifically human life as an irrelevant concept. It's also important to note that the writer of the graphic novel, Alan Moore, is an anarchist, so it makes sense that he would be sceptical of a small group of powerful individuals having ultimate authority over these kinds of decisions.
What's your opinion of One Punch Man (another subversion of the super hero archetype)?
@@Stop_Gooning I've heard a lot of good things about One Punch, but I haven't had the chance to watch it yet.
I wish he would talk about one punch man
@@eartianwerewolf I don't know if you're referring to me or Jack, but if it's me, then 1: I'm a she and 2: I already replied and said that I haven't seen it.
Yeah Watchmen! There is so much in Watchmen that still works and provokes questions. I like that the comic doesn't really paints Adrian as a good or a bad guy. He is a narcissistic mass murderer with a god complex, but he goes and ends The Cold War, there are no other alternative solutions presented in the story. Even his reaction to Dr Manhattans final line can be interperated in many ways. Is he worried that he has committed these horrible crimes for nothing, or of a selfish doubt over his perceived perfection?
One Punch Man kind of has an interesting moral question of why people do good. I mean we have most heroes who are heroes out of a desire for fame and fortune, Mumen Rider wants to save people and Saitama just does it for fun. But the manga doesn't really go anywere with the whole question of intention vs result as I remember.
"Tony's way of thinking is the reason everyone has to take their shoes off at the airport - but he's not taking his shoes off"
Perfect mirror image of Thanos, he sees himself as the only person in the universe who can be trusted, the only one with "the will to act".
So sad we didn't get a third mcu spider-man movie, couldn't wait to see peter buts the knee caps of the Stark Industry Workers as soon as they tried to unionize.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I'm still laughing though
might still happen!
Um
Well well well-
Well there it goes, doctor strange is the new Tony. That way everything is magic and nothing matters anymore because they could just wipe collateral damage out am I right
"tony's opposition to the use of his devastating weapons is never about their use in the first place, but because the bad guys got them" dude yess that stood out to me the first time i watched it-- my mom (who watched it with me) kept talking about all the "antiwar themes" and I was like wHERE
Also, is it weird that I agreed with and enjoyed most of the analysis in this video, but still consider Tony Stark one of my favorite MCU characters? Like I definitely don't agree with him in terms of the broader ideology he represents, but I still really like his personality and growth in relation to other characters. Guilty pleasure, I guess
@@awesomellama8141 I think he's likeable because the writers do such a good job at illustrating the WHY behind his at times very selfish and egocentric actions, even if we don't agree with them.
Yeah… no. Tony doesn’t let anyone get ahold of stark weapons, not even shield. He’s firmly against war because of his experience in the cave. It’s not that hard to follow. Tony Stark was raise an an asshole rich kid, but then he was slapped in the face with the reality of his fortune. It doesn’t matter that it was the ten rings, it matters that he had to live through the consequences of his actions for the first time. We even see in the second movie that he’s opposed to giving the US military weapons, because he’s anti war in general
@@cantthinkofaname5046 he's not anti-war. He's anti-other people who aren't him going to war
@@derek96720 well obviously, he’s a superhero, what else would he do
I was shocked that Peter kept Edith at the end of the movie. I was certain he was going to get rid of or at least lock her away because that sort of power is completely unacceptable for anybody to hold.
I would have had Peter throw Edith into the Hudson
@@andresacosta4832 You have no idea how confusing this comment was to me a year later when I completely forgot who Edith was and just got it in my notifications.
I think most versions of Peter would've done what you said instead
I'm super charmed by the idea of a hero who confronts a villain and says "let's look at the underlying root causes of your frustration and see if we can solve those together..." thus addressing fundamental problems and not the symptoms. Black Panther is like that and so is Squirrel Girl?
I like Tony Stark strictly as a character in a piece of fiction, as a vehicle for a particular kind of drama in fiction. He's entertaining as a storylover/writer the way a difficult mathematical equation can be entertaining to solve on paper for math nerds.
If I met him in real life, though, I'd immediately send him to the guillotine.
Agreed. He’s a fun character to watch and stuff but I’d never want to be him, or even look up to someone like him
Lol bullshit, if you tried in real life you'd get mollywhopped! The dude wears a WMD like it was business casual
@@Stop_Gooning they could be cheeky and slip him some poison no big deal
(one of) the most difficult things in my life is reconciling my dislike of billionaires and my admiration for tony as a character
In real life, billionaires aren't going to put their own life on the line for everyone else. So while certain technology in Iron Man could exist, extremely wealthy people like this simply doesn't exist. If Tony Stark was real, he wouldn't be Iron Man, but just another Elon Musk.
Still sticking to my fan theory. That when Doc Strange met Tony in Infinity War he thought "Jesus christ this nutcase moron's gonna get us all killed"
So of the MANY timelines in which they defeat Thanos he picked the one where both Thanos and Tony die. Look at his face when they ask how many they win and he says "....................One"
That's dumb. There is clearly only one timeline.
If this is in some way confirmed and Marvel actually has it in them to openly question whether Tony is an almost inherently and perpetually problematic figure in the world of the MCU would be fucking amazing
@@supermutantsam1160
Tony Stark was right with several things.
@Ike Okere Doc literally said there's like 14 million of em tho
@@supermutantsam1160
One timeline that they win.
I think I disagree with part of your thesis; Thanos, the logical conclusion of Tony’s utilitarian ethical system (who believes that one half of the universe’s life must be sacrificed to guarantee the survival of the other), is stopped in a battle with no civilian casualties, not by the latter’s encroachment upon civil liberties (which has led to countless failures e.g. Ultron, Mysterio etc.), but by the combined forces of the MCU, and ultimately by his own self-sacrifice. In other words, I think Thanos is a dark reflection of Tony’s pure utilitarianism, which he himself defeats.
Thanks anyway - it's always great to see an analysis of this sort of mass-appeal consumerist media because of how it reflects on the values of the system that produced it (be those values good or bad)
Damn
I made a similar point much later
Although, you would have to define civilian, since many of the fighters are brainwashed
Though not my reading, this is a fascinating one! Thanks for your comment.
This assumes Thanos was actually trying for some kind of utilitarism, rather than a phsycological "take that" against ideoloical opponents from this past.
Still, it would go along Well with the theme of Tony Stark conquering his inner deamons.
You have a point. COMBINED FORCES. Aliens, Gods, and people from all over the world (though mostly the US) come together to stop Thanos. At what point do you have enough "great men" in a story that it stops qualifying as a story about "the actions of individuals"? When does it become about a "movement" instead?
This part at 36:33 is what makes Boseman's recent passing hit me even harder; of all the characters in the MCU, he offered something truly different, and the way Boseman portrayed that thoughtful introspection and empathy is now lost forever. I know they can re-cast him, but it won't be the same.
"There's nothing fun about a de-escalated threat."
Except for the Ant-Man movies
I enjoyed the first one. And the first few minutes of the second one.
The ant man movies weren't fun for me ☹️
It may have been five years since you posted the comment, but I get the joke.
i keep thinking about that one quote by either jenny or dan that basically goes: "the government can't be trusted and what we really need is a group of specialized people with massive power and weapons and no oversight to keep us safe"
So..... a Mafia?
@@Stop_Gooning No, not a mafia. Just another government. What's a government if not "a group of specialized people with massive power and weapons and no oversight", after all?
@@Merione in a way, doesn't Cap sort of reject that idea still? He doesn't believe in establishments. In the end, all he really believes in is choosing to act when something has to be done. That's not Authoritarian. That's just a citizen standing up for what's right.
@@Nomad-1993 The problem with your argument is that there's no real consensus on "what's right". If it's Cap, then sure, he's a good person. But if it's someone else, then how can we be sure that their beliefs about what's right aren't selfish or authoritarian? Do we just have to trust them to do the right thing?
@@Merione yes I see your point. And I don't necessarily mean to say he knows what's exactly what's right. What I mean is to him, it's like the good samaritan law but on steroids. He's supposed to be more of a reactionary good , not a police officer.
speaking as a lesbian, it’s harder to tell a tony stan that you don’t like tony stark than it is to come out as gay
speaking as a bisexual, firmly agree
People do it all the time.
Gonzalo i’m sorry you’re a narcissist and a bootlicker i guess?
They make tony a part of their personality so if you dislike tony ur practically admitting 2 disliking them
@@VinchVideos *yikes*
I find it important to reflect over the fact that while Iron Man can shed his suit and be only Tony Stark, Steve Rogers can't step out of his powers. I feel it informs their opposing viewpoints a lot.
But what are the political implications of the Credible Hulk dabbing?
i am not certain, but i have a feeling the consequences will to be horrifying and long-lasting
@brandon roberts this is me about everything, so you have my 100% support
That the MCU is a terrible place where people are dabbing into 2023
It means the world isn't going to end with a roar, or a whimper, but an especially obnoxious "DURRR" sound.
cringe culture is dead and we’re dragging it’s mutated body
It is really weird how convoluted the Marvel themes are in general and I'm glad you got into it.
good idea for an electric jet
Will the full version of that be releasing anywhere?
@@Arionid the full version doesn't exist, i just made what you hear
@@Patricia_Taxxon Aw, a 1 min extended version would be so awesome though.
I know there's a full version. Release the Taxxon cut.
This whole analysis is why I think Black Panther is undoubtedly their best film. It's the only one in which the sympathy we feel for the villain, who has been victimized by institutional problems, materializes into genuine change for the protagonist *and* the will to enact the needed changes.
How about Star Lord?
Ego: "If you kill me, you'll be just like everybody else!"
Peter: "What's so wrong with that?"
Rejecting the Divine Parentage trope so often idealized in these comics.
T'Challa was sorta similar. "All of you are wrong" to his father.
My comment has nothing to do with if your parents are good or bad, but the idea that YOU are special because of your parents. Like Luke Skywalker being special because of Vader, and Rey because of Palpatine, or any random fantasy main character with hidden ancestry. It is a refreshing egalitarian idea that shit like that doesn´t matter.
So, you would rather prefer being like everyone else? A grey mass? A nobody?
@@dqarqeer8603 Yes, I do. Everyone should aspire for something higher/bigger than their surrounding. Trying to assimilate oneself into the surrounding means rejecting one’s individuality.
@@dqarqeer8603 I shall inform you when I’ll require your opinion. Enjoy your averageness.
30:44 I think this kind of puts the thumb on the erasure of Uncle Ben (and the downplaying of Aunt May) for the sake of playing up Peter's idolisation of Tony bugs me.
Even though he's one of the superheroes, in the comics, Peter's ideals come from the everyday commonfolk around him (which Ben and May are huge representations of) and he's often unknowingly kept in check by them.
In the MCU, that world is kind of replaced by Tony and his tech (and Happy). I find that to be a massive loss for Peter's story and what he could contribute to the MCU.
(I think I basically said the same thing on the FFH video but oh well)
i am sick of the spiderman franchise, so i don't genuinely even give a shit anymore, but i am still mad about how much they have sidelined Aunt May
what's it to ya!? ...but Into the Spiderverse was still amazing
@@PancakemonsterFO4 I JUST watched it with my sisters a couple of days ago when I was visiting. I was truly worried that my being so done with spiderman was going to marr my enjoyment of something so special. My fears were unwarranted. I enjoyed myself so thoroughly.
I have not seen anything that good, made with so much care, in quite a while. Miles' story wasn't Peter's. He was a very different character. And a very well-developed one at that. I haven't read the comics but I care so much about him now. Lovliest boy in New York. Also, I am a big fan of all kinds of visual art, so I wanted to full-on weep at how creative and LOUD the film was. I am still recovering from its much welcomed assault of colours.
The scene where Prowler is chasing Miles down, and he hops on his bike - we first see three panels worth of the engine firing up and then they all fade out, only for the the bike to blow smoke that curls up and fills the entire screen as it speeds away...... UGH. I am not forgetting that anytime soon.
While I want Peter's family to play a bigger role, I don't think Peter idolizes Stark in the MCU.
The only times he really invested is calling him "Mr. Stark" (he's a teenager and he's an adult, makes sense they aren't formal) and when he said "I just wanted to be like you" on the bridge.
Otherwise, we don't actually see him fanboy over Stark as much as Fanboy over being an Avenger. If anything, the scenes with Tony shows Tony being the one with an actual investment in Peter's character.
Peter repeatedly disobeys Stark and argues with him on principles when he can. I'd argue that shows a subtle influence of his different upbringing that we can likely attribute to Ben.
The tech I will agree he seems invested in, but I break that down into the fact that realistically the homemade suit is as far as a kid with his household income could go, and the fact that Tony
creates stuff for all the Avengers. the last Act of Homecoming shows nonetheless that his heroism isn't dependent on that.
I feel his gravitation towards Tony comes less from emulation. Rather, from the fact that he had to lay low for months as Spiderman prior to Civil War and couldn't tell anyone about it, and that Tony making him an Avenger would make his life easier.
So I argue that their relationship is best described as this- Tony values peter as a person, and in return Peter trusts Tony.
They got inspired by the Back To The Future trilogy
Jack Saint dissing on the biggest victim of Power Creep: Shonen Anime.
One Punch Man has no power creep
Shoutout to DBZ for inventing ever stronger villains even when there was a good point to end the story.
@@cutecommie ^ Yee!
@@cutecommie idk dragonball tends to have very separate narrative plot lines that neither interconnected with each other, it just one separate story to the next like jojo in a sense
Jojo's has complexity creep instead of power creep. Stands don't get *stronger* per say, just more situational and wierd
I wonder how much money the military spends on movies/commercials/propaganda.
More than you can imagine. It influences non-American audiences, too.
our fucking tax money
@@Hotshotter3000 like you wouldn't believe, propaganda.
I can't remember the last time I've seen any kind of recruitment ad from any branch of military. And I do watch ads. Really, the only places I see the military are news media and movies.
With films, most of the time studios agree to film within the military's guidelines in exchange for access to military resources for props/settings, so probably not a huge amount of money on films
I think the Tony vs Steve debate is very interesting to me as a non American, because they are both very US central in their values. I wouldn't want either of them to tramble into my own country's business without invitation 🤷♀️
i mean i figured you knew tony stark was a pro-facist war criminal but its still nice to hear you say it
The idea of the Marvel Cinematic Universe being "about" something is such a foreign concept because it deliberately appeals to the kinds of people who hate the idea of any fiction ever being "about" anything.
I'm going to start quoting this, thanks
I moreso thought of the MCU as a sort of “turn of your brain” franchise, where it’s just superhuman people getting to punch the cgi bad guys for fun
this is why the spider verse films are so goddamn refreshing
@@frownyclowny6955which is why I'm scared of the Xmen especially after how they failed to handle social themes.
Thats the appearance but even the most mindless nothing has ideology behind them. For example, clearly Tony Stark being the greatest hero is pro-capitalism and pro-USA, it's not like its the leader of the CPC or the president of Russia going out to punch bad people but a billionarie "genius"
The last part hits different with the death of Chadwick Boseman. I hope they can still have a character to take up those ideals.
His sister could be the new Black Pantha
I think this accidentally summarizes why I love the GotG movie line so much. There is bare if ever only one character accomplishing something. It's them working together that enables them to succeed in the first place.
And let's have a think about the people in that team:
Peter Quill, though the son of Ego in this version, is hardly amazingly empowered by Avengers standards nor does he embody some ideological bulwark of Might makes Right like Steve Rogers and Tony Stark do. He's flawed and without his friends and adopted family he'd be dead, or worse, would have been his own greates villain.
Rocket, an abuse victim lashing out constantly and driving people away from him, only through the combined realization that he needs help to heal from both himself and his friends results in that process starting.
Groot, a wholesome boi with little to no direction other than the one his friends provide. Through being part of a team is the only way for him to affect any change, else he'd just wander about, wholesomely. (It's also no coincidence that the kindest character is the one who starts out as a duo with Rocket.)
Gamora, similar to Rocket, really, only that she's less impulsive and carries way more regret for her own actions. And again, without her team she probably would not be able to do, well, anything. At best she might enable Nebula to come around and then they both croak because Thanos really does not forgive.
Drax... Well, let's just say that if he were to continue on his quest alone he'd die trying and in absolute despair and anguish, plain and simple.
And then there's the whole thing of the Guardians making allies along the way, even if some are temporary or tentative.
It's only together that they are strong.
So yeah, Power of Friendship and the Collective.
Oh my gosh. It suddenly makes sense.
Tony's hypocrisy isn't bad writing. It's his ACTUAL IDEOLOGY!
I think I hate him now more than ever.
Thank you.
To be fair, Stan Lee wanted Tony to be a "Villain" of 1960s imagery motivated to achieve good. His authoritarian tendencies being only carried over into other storylines.
Simply put, RDJ is probably the cleanest Tony could get while being at a certain degree of accuracy.
@@thatguycalledphil6808 Huh, that actually makes a lot of sense.
Still hate the character, though. -_-
@@ericsheldahl5158 I can't blame you to be honest. Prior to the MCU, he was kinda "eh" compared to Cap on character reception.
With Iron Man, Stan Lee wanted to see if they could make an unlikable character popular. However, he didn't make a villain.
Actual Stan Lee quote:
"I think I gave myself a dare. It was the height of the Cold War. The readers, the young readers, if there was one thing they hated, it was war, it was the military. So I got a hero who represented that to the hundredth degree. He was a weapons manufacturer, he was providing weapons for the Army, he was rich, he was an industrialist. I thought it would be fun to take the kind of character that nobody would like, none of our readers would like, and shove him down their throats and make them like him ... And he became very popular."
@@Theraot yeah, that was it.
After watching this video I'm convinced that the marvel cinematic universe is about two steps away from being the same world as depicted in "Starship Troopers" but without the tongue in cheek irony.
actually, steve has nothing to say when tony rants about the armor around the wolrd because rdj impovised that scene and went off script
The Great Men and Chosen One Archetype may be my biggest problem with Steven Universe, with made fighting a political genocidal war machine into a family quabble, also that the masses are basically pets to protect rather than be allies.
That and the decision on how to handle the situation falls to either giant leader woman #1 or her son, and wanting to end a literally genocidal conflict non peacefully ends up getting you imprisoned.
That was about when I dropped the show. Hear it's gotten better though.
Yes! My exact grievance with that show.
Also, there is the tiny, little detail how the Marvel movies made Steve Roger the official U. S. banner, always giving excuses for his U. S. exepcionalism mentality, when the Steve Rogers of the comics always very quick to condemn the U. S. for the misdeeds of his own government, hell, he become a war criminal and never, ever, ever, suffer the consequences, he rewarded for it, by lifting Thor hammer and having a happy ending.
Why I agree Comic Cap was more openly critical, I wouldn't say MCU Steve wasn't. He was critical in WS when he questioned Nick Fury on his "secrets", clearly from a moral perspectives. He likewise distanced himself from Government deeds by Ultron, as with the Avengers under the Sokovvia Accords he was concerned over countries' "Agendas". I don't think he excluded the US.
I blame it more on film presentation, which you nailed on the head in your other comment on US accountability. The "symbol" for the US, Ross, is only shallowly analyzed which sucks when more stuff with him and Bruce would show how warped the US military becomes with their ambitions in the name of having a technological advantage. He is really sidestepped.
Fury, who was portrayed often as villianous in the Ultimate Universe, is portrayed more as a necessary evil. I can jive with that, but with the wasted potential of Ross as a character for Steve to clash with Fury likewise suffers.
@@thatguycalledphil6808 But in Winter Soldiers they blame all the U. S. misdeeds into Hydra, not in the governmental officials that were in charge of the technology, is always the other in the Marvel movies, there is never accountability for anything, if you behave bad, you get a reward, if you actually critic the status quo you are drop down.
@@TheKeyser94 "But in Winter Soldiers they blame all the U. S. misdeeds into Hydra,"
I don't disagree, I even saw you other comment talking about that and mentioned that on "accountability".
"not in the governmental officials that were in charge of the technology, is always the other in the Marvel movies, there is never accountability for anything,"
Hence why I went on about Ross in the MCU. Despite being a someone directly responsible for Bruce and his Daughter's miserable lives, he still gets perks.
I even mention how Fury could work in a more accountable way, but that inherently doesn't work with how it is written.
"if you behave bad, you get a reward, if you actually critic the status quo you are drop down."
I'm not sure how this worked for Cap, seeing how he worked against the principles even when it was with Fury.
In this case, in regards to undeserved awares, the issue seems to Fury as he was the one who actually had the blame shifted away from.
In that case he lost much of his power, only recovered recently in FFH, yet is still portrayed as problematic.
*E.* ven
*D.* ead
*I.* 'm
*T.* errorizing
*H.* umanity
(can't take credit for this)
3 facts about the MCU:
1- Tony is the biggest villain in the MCU
2-Nat should've survived even if it meant killing off Hawkeye
3- Captain America's ass is 100% edible
@@KookiesNolly everyone's butt is edible bud
@@KookiesNolly
How is Tony the biggest villain? It's clearly Thanos.
@@Humorless_Wokescold
Really? I mean Tony has caused problems before, but those problems have been solved, usually with the help of Tony Stark. Thanos literally killed half of life in the universe, a event so damaging, that the ramifications of the event may probably last forever.
@@IkeOkerekeNews ok, but excluding Thanos... Tony is problematic. I think I speak for the congregation of those commenting here when I say that. Forgive me, if I am being presumptuous. 🤗
Amazing coincidence that I'd just finished watching Renegade Cut's vid on Independence Day and American exceptionalism right before watching the premiere of this. This is an almost perfect companion piece considering the parts with Tony.
You're spot on with how the great man theory is endemic in superhero fiction and arguably an integral part. After all, their exceptionality is what makes them interesting enough to be "heroes".
This^^^ is basically why I've stopped loving superheroes the way I used to when I was a kid.
@@ericsheldahl5158 I would still recommend MHA though in that regard. And things like Spiderverse. They get around the Great Man problem by emphasizing it not being "the hero" but being heroic.
@@petermann673 Yeah, I still enjoy My Hero Academia and Spider-Verse, but I have different sets of issues with those... Like the way MHA's author draws underage girls, and treatment of all its female characters across the board. Or Spider-Verse's overt celebration of product and over-the-top fan identity reinforcement. They're still good stories, well-told, and I like them, but they're not without fault.
@@ericsheldahl5158 Hey man, that's a reasonable critique and I appreciate that.
What is your opinion on One Punch Man?
I would argue that the MCU doesn't actually come down on Tony's side, for two reasons:
1. His ideology taken to the extreme is Thanos, and they make him the villain.
2. They didn't need any of the measures Tony was taking in the end.
But I agree otherwise
but it's just like when tony defeats his rogue AI with another AI. the MCU repeatedly shows fighting fire with fire but this time its better fire so you win. Depicting Tony Stark OG defeating Tony Stark Thanos Edition is just the conclusion to a long history of bad Stark decisions being miraculously validated - ie supported by the writers
@@ishopeatsea But there isn't really a fire Tony started in Infinity War or Endgame. Thanos isn't Tony's creation he's just a reflection of his ideology over the course of the last few movies taken to the extreme, and that's what Tony dies to stop.
@@jovan1198 Tony doesn't need to make fire though. He IS fire. If Thanos is a reflection of Tony than in the end it's still Tony defeating another power with his own exceptional Tony power. It would be more meaningful if it did not end in Tony being the one to defeat Thanos.
Something Tony created beating Tony and Tony beating bigger purple Tony is really only a marginal difference. We still end up with Authoritarian Protecter Man beating the Bad Inevitable Threat, or at least I think that's what the whole point of this was ifI'm following correctly.
@@shupasopni but even by that logic, Tony still creates the bad inevitable threat that he must later fight against. It's a self defeating ideology.
And it’s really not clear how Tony COULD have stopped Thanos. Like, would more suits have stopped his massive spaceships??
I wish we would get more of Boseman's Black Panther. It's incredibly sad that he died so young
I feel like there's a version of Endgame where instead of immediately killing Thanos, he's forced to see how horribly his plan was which leads to him realizing he can't unilaterally enforce his bad ideas for the sake of saving the world considering they always turn out terrible (hi, Tony) and then joins the fight at the end to defeat his past self. Bonus points for that since it would have shades of the original Infinity Gauntlet and Infinity War storylines.
Scarlet Witch: You took everything from me
Thanos: I don't even know who you are
Scarlet Witch: You will
Scarlet Witch: "Uses her telepathic abilities which she is canonically stated to have in-universe to force Thanos to see the perspective of everyone he harmed in his crusade"
Or she could just throw some big rocks at him...... that's cool too
@@samaelmalkira9420 Wouldn't work with their version of Thanos. He supposedly endured the greatest pain at the fullest intensity when murdering his own daughter (it's bullshit, the whole Thanos as father figure is, but it's still the vision validated by the movie since he gets the soul stone) so that would not affect his outlook unless you'd change a loooot more of those movies.
@@Arkayjiya
That scene is so fucking dumb. It's the dumb low-point of the movie. Because he has the Reality Stone, which means he can do whatever he likes.
The way I expected the scene to go was he would kill her, then NOT get the Soul Stone because he's a monster and doesn't actually love her. Then he'd go ape-shit, kill Red Skull and use the Reality Stone to break the rules and get it anyway. It would make sense because the wider meta of Thanos in the movie is that he breaks the conventional rules of the Marvel formula. They shoulda won, but didn't.
Thanos using violence and breaking the rules because he's too dumb to think of something else is like the entire backbone of his character.
@@samaelmalkira9420 Wow... that's _such_ a good rewrite of the scene! (Both of them, actually!) But it (the latter) wouldn't have been sympathetic enough to Thanos for the writers. 😕
@@AstraIVagabond
I know right. Which is why Infinity War is the stupidest MCU movie. Because Thanos is essentially a giant, purple dumbass with no redeeming qualities. The movie has to be dragged down to his level for him to be made sympathetic.
Remember the really interesting argument about violence vs. imagination that Mordo and Strange had? Where the fuck was that? Instead Strange just says "Moida is baad" and punches him.
It's also probably why they left out the part from the comics where Thanos is the one who blows up Titan because they told him to fuck off. They never confirm it in the movie buuuuut.......
Star Lord: What the hell happened to this planet? It's six degrees off it's axis
~~~~~~~~~~
Doc Strange: So what happened here?
Thanos: Ran outta food lol. I told them I did
Doc Strange: The planet was knocked off it's axis by..............resource depletion?
Thanos:...................yea
You played that James Brown dance from Iron Man 2 for much longer than necessary.
And for that I thank you
ah finally, a video that perfectly encapsulates why i’ve been such a big fan of steve and detractor of tony
And the ass
@@andrewcoyle_the3rd sfghdjfshhlkjkdjh
@@andrewcoyle_the3rd I don't care for Tony's character, but RDJ has a great ass. Chris's ain't that great, actually.
The new Cap tho...... * thirst for Sam Wilson intensifies *
Even if Tony got to do all he wanted in the "suit of armor" statement, it would have changed nothing, it wouldn't have stopped Thanos.
I don't think the MCU actually lands on Tony's side; Thanos, like you said, is the logical conclusion of Tony's obsession with perpetual war. Tony's way didn't work.
The Infinity War-Endgame thematic arc was kind of a comparison between Thanos's "The strongest choices require the strongest wills" and the Avengers' eventual "Whatever it takes". The latter is essentially "Whatever it takes, but I'm only making bets on my own life", while Thanos's version was deciding over everyone else's life.
In fact, they explicitly call back to that Age of Ultron scene to make the thesis that Tony's way (creating a suit of armor around the world) doesn't work, but Steve's way (fighting him together when he comes) does work. The word "Endgame" is IN THE TITLE of the movie, I don't know why more people aren't paying attention to this.
I thought this was very clear; there's a reason why Thanos won on that first movie.
For the record, I do wish they had taken the time to fight Thanos with an argument as to why his actions were wrong, as opposed to just fighting him.
That would have been nice but IDK if such a thing would fit in Marvel's Comedy/Action formula...
Thanos was resolute and unmoving in his beliefs, like a certain murderous religious fanatics.
But Steve's philosophy ultimately led to failure during Infinity War all the same, just as Tony's did in Age of Ultron. Isn't that why Tony brought back up the "suit of armor around the world" solution in the first place? Not necessarily trying to debate, but that's what I seem to remember.
Clay3613 oh and you’ve met them yourself? You literally have no basis to say such a thing, but go ahead, continue demonizing your fellow man. There’s no telling what evils this world will see with your thinking.
@@downpark402 So you think ISIS is good?
On the subject of power creep, I want to make a note that it is talked about a whole hell of a lot in the Anime circles. As it is so common that it is a fresh of breath air when a show subverts it and doesn't have characters getting exponentially more and more powerful. I suppose this is due to the majority of anime being adaptations of manga, which falls into the same pitfalls as comics.
Personally I am more of a fan of series that have a much more erratic scaling, JJBA for example has main villains with insane powers but each villain isn't better than the previous. Diavolo vs Dio would be a fight that would be hard to even parse, the ability to stop time and the ability to skip it, it turns into a duel in front of the O.K. Corral whoever acts first would be the victor.
11:50 Tony’s 2 beliefs post war on terror
14:40 Rival: I don’t like bullies.
22:44 Answer: Whatever it takes
29:00 The Great Man
32:30 Who should hold power
One thing you could have mentioned in this video is Mysterio, a character that tries to take advantage of the strong man ideology that the Marvel universe has perpetuated throughout its run by pretending to be the strong man people could place their trust in to vanquish evil, one that Mysterio creates himself to cause damage.
6:01 "I AM MODOT!" - He'd fight the Missouri Department of Transportation??
well he did say modok
Keaton Missouri is abbreviated MO
Look the missouri stretch of I-70 really needs a hero to help clean it up
It’s incredibly hard for any fantastical piece of fiction to promote many people over great man theory as novels are meant to be from the PoV of individuals and as a story, it is unstatafying if the conflict wasn’t solved by the protagonists.
It’s not just MCU, basically all fiction really. But I’d be happy to be pointed to counter examples
Really? You never read Crime and Punishment by Dostoievski, that book is the subversion of the Great Man theory.
Keyser94 I’ll look it up. What is it about? Does it have fantasy/sci-fi elements?
@@ryanratchford2530 No, is more about suspense and drama, mostly suspense, is a very old book, the entire premise is based on the deconstruction of The Grand Man theory, Dostoievski live it in the fresh when he nearly was executed by the Tzar, only to find that was a mockery, the Tzar had forgiven their lives in the last minute, showing that their lives means nothing to him.
Lord of the Rings
Power Creep is hardly restricted to tcgs, comic books and the MCU. The escalation of stakes is a broader issue in film, fantasy, and TV, though I do agree it feels especially noticeable in the MCU where it seems like every new film somehow manages to be a global or universal threat.
So, personal take, I didn't see Tony's "I just wanted to build a suit of armor around the world", line as the movie saying Tony was right; he was clearly at least not ALL right based off his failure in Age of Ultron. I saw it more as characterizing; as you said, Tony made great progress with paranoia in Iron Man 3, but with this new failure, he felt like his old paranoia was justified. After all, as that piece of wisdom goes: paranoid people are not unnerved when their paranoia is confirmed, they feel validated. That's just my 2 cents, though.
24:04 - That's actually _such_ a strong parallel. I feel a bit like you didn't do it justice by dismissing it as a cutaway pun! It's such a stark counterpart (so many inadvertent puns this comment... I'm so proud) to the ideological term ('Eternal War') and it's literally the title of the movie in which (in conjunction with Endgame) the entire saga famously culminates.
I'm a fan of the MCU - but this was a good look at it from a (more) critical thematic perspective. It's an angle I haven't not considered at all - and I don't necessarily agree with all your points - but thanks for making me think about it in more detail. Looking forward to your future work too!
I can only speak for myself, but the reason why I watch the MCU are the themes in it. I like it to have some fun while also being left with something to think about.
Naturally every franchise has its own overriding theme - Legacy for Ironman, Worthiness for Thor, The individual vs the system for Captain America, Fatherhood for Ant-man, Family for the GOTG aso - but I think they are all united under the big banner of "what makes a hero a hero and how does someone wield his power responsible - and should it be wielded at all". Some movies do better with those themes than others, but they are usually interesting to watch.
So, I have thought about your essay and to be honest, I find it extremely reductive. I will explain by picking one example: Age of Ultron. It is REALLY simplifying the story to say "Tony does the same thing twice". On a broader scope: If scientist would stop doing something just because it failed the first time around, there would be never any invention at all. Being a scientist is ALL about trying again and again until you get it right.
So, what is the difference between Ultron and Vision? Simply, how they came to be. Ultron was created by Tony in an attempt to "stop a war before it even started", and he did it on his own, with no help whatsoever. Vision is the product of ALL the main avenger - He is made of vibranium like caps shield, out of Jarvis, which is Tony's most precious creation, Bruce is the one who gives him life and Thor is providing energy from his hammer. He is created in reaction the existence of Ultron, to deal with a threat which is already there. While Ultron is all about forcing the world in a specific direction. Vision is all about accepting that at the end of the day, the world will not be around for forever, accepting the limits of human life (which is also a huge theme in Doctor Strange, btw).
And once you consider Ultron, it also shows how utterly wrong you are about where the MCU falls in the conflict between Steve and Tony. It never takes a side, not even in Endgame. Because at the end of the day, Tony isn't able to plan for everything, It always comes down to personal choices, to the sacrifice a singular human is ready to make in the protection of others. While Steve was always accepting that he might have to leap on another bomb down the line, Tony was always all about avoiding this leap - only to having to do it after all in the end. Everything Tony did to "prepare" for Thanos ended up utterly useless, twice. In the end, he was defeated by personal choices.
Lol what would you say was the theme of Thor 2: the Dark World?
@Nathan Witus "Troubled Production". There is a reason why it is my second to last favourite of the MCU movies (my least fav is The Incredible Hulk).
@Julian Francisco Oh, I understood the point. I happen to disagree with it, though, but that is not my problem with the essay. My problem is the same I have with most video essays about the MCU: Since the MCU is so vast, it is pretty easy to pick every moment which fits into the thesis one wants to argue while dismissing everything which doesn't fit. I went for the Age of Ultron argument because it was easier to pick something, which is actually mentioned in the essay to show that even by the pretty low standard of "I don't tell you how to interpret this, I just throw out information and leave it to you to make your conclusion", the moments which are picked and how they are presented are carefully curated to push the viewer to a specific conclusion - hence it is actually an extremely subjective essay, it just tries to be cute by pretending that it isn't.
Here are some moments of the MCU which go right against the notion that there will always be the bigger conflict which can only be solved with more violence. Above all the ending of Doctor Strange which is NOT about the hero amassing more power than the villain, but about the hero staging what is the superhero version of a peaceful protest designed to stop the invader until he is ready to "bargain".
You know, in a way Tony ensured that Thanos could get the infinity stones in the first place because he decided to take the fight to him instead of turning the ship around and hiding the time stone at the safest place possible. So no, the movies aren't saying that Tony is right. They allow the audience to examine the problem and come to their own conclusion. That is exactly what I love so much about them, that they don't pontify, they show.
@@Humorless_Wokescold "Tony's philosophy is the one consistently vindicated by the films."
Steve outright told Tony that "Whenever someone tries to stop a war before it starts, innocent people die."
Afterwards, Fury talks to Tony eventually beating the truth out of him that Tony attacked rash because he was haunted by the sensation and experience of not doing everything he could and not dying with them.
When he creates Vision, that wasn't saying he was right to create Ultron. Vision was the result of multiple Avengers cooperating and Tony not being motivated by fear, but by actually analyzing the situation in the current.
"Tony is right to be afraid of what's coming, he is right to over prepare, and Steve is wrong for thinking personal freedoms are in anyway important."
Steve outright said in Endgame that the "suit around the world" didn't work to Tony's face. He was silent when Tony pointed out that they didn't "fall together", the failed separated and where still alive.
That scene didn't vindicate Stark. If anything obvious was shown was that they failed because they didn't work together.
"The heroes won because they literally moved through time to deny him the opportunity to amass the power to threaten them. That is 100% inline with Tony's paranoid thinking."
No, that was not the plan. The plan was to get the Stones and return them to fix what was done, not to stop past Thanos.
Tony was against it because of the low odds but agreed once he perfected the science and took the risk. So it wasn't in line with Tony's thinking, since it wasn't even his plan.
I've never watched any of these films but I can't NOT fanboy Jack Saint
Ok
"Over 5 hours of movies spent on Thanos trying to justify his misguided views about saving civilization, with not one scene actually breaking down why what he says is wrong" (35:38). THANK YOU! Thank you so much for pointing out this glaring flaw. This was my biggest problem with Infinity War and Endgame: By letting Thanos make his case and never refuting it, they are passively promoting Thanos' eugenecist ideology.
The closest that the movies came to actually calling Thanos' ideas _wrong_ were two scenes:
1. In Infinity War, Gamora yells "You don't know that!" at Thanos
2. In Endgame, Thanos himself says that he was wrong because as long as some people survive, they will remember what they lost
That's it. A four-word desperate resort to unpredictability, and the villain himself musing that the only problem with his genocidal plan was that it did not have enough genocide. Ugh.
I do wish you dwelled a bit longer on how Iron Man 1 criticized the military-industrial complex by showing Obadiah dealing weapons to the terrorists under the table, but you were totally right to point out that the film ultimately had a black-and-white, good-military-versus-evil-terrorists ideology.
Does it have to be said that any solution involving the genocide of half the universe is the wrong solution?
@@kokofan50 Judging by the follower count of r/ThanosDidNothingWrong and by the resurgence of racist eugenics ideology from the alt-right? Yes, it does.
Is this video the first of a twenty year arc that I'll have to pretend to still be emotionally invested in even after it's lost its charm and appeal?
If you don't like something, why do you have to pretend?
I don't understand. Are you making a joke about something?
@@IkeOkerekeNews Because it can be less exhausting than dealing with people who know you used to care and don't understand why you no longer do so, not to mention people who assume everyone cares and feel personally affronted by your indifference.
Wow so deep bro. All of that emotional investment from sheeple is fake and plastic because popular
@@blarg2429
I mean this is the internet. The most anonymous place on the planet.
Personally, when I watched Civil War (yesterday), I read that story as a battle between Captain America's belief in the Avengers right to act unilaterally without oversight or explanation and Tony's decision that they should have to voluntarily sign up to be overseen (which is admittedly only a result of his own guilt and not because he actually believes it).
I did think that in this movie they both essentially swapped positions though, out of absolutely nowhere
Yea it's weirdly out of character for both of them. Judging from their solo movies one would think they would have the opposite stance.
Tony’s Utilitarianism reminds me a lot of a recent law we got in the UK. I believe it’s the Emergency Powers Act (2016). It gives insane surveillance powers to the Government, if it feels there’s a threat to national security (like with terrorism). It’s a terrible law. The Police KNEW about the Manchester Arena terrorist beforehand; who’d even been reported many times; and yet the attack was still carried out.
Also, Cap’s retirement in Endgame, whilst being a bit of a bummer, serves to remind us of his individual autonomy. He can always object, even if it was a tad dramatic, and Bucky still remained young...
That upset you about Roger retirement? Not that he escaped the law, and reward for his U. S. exepcionalism? I can act with total impunity, without any accountability whatsoever, and have a happy ending because international laws doesn't applied to me.
It's pretty interesting how Thanos himself is a twisted version of the Great Man, he wants to be remembered much like Tony. Yet the MCU just goes "Thanos is the great man, so to stop him you need another great man"
Great video and I'm glad you mentioned that T'challa is basically the Anti-thesis on these ideals based on how he deals with Zemo and Killmonger. It makes me excited for Black Panther 2 and if they further explore this.
One of my favorite videos from you. Watched it as someone who enjoys Marvel movies for their flair while consistently making fun of them
i am glad you can make fun of them. i, on the other hand, am constantly frustrated by them not being better cos i am too emotionally invested at this point
you put into words every problem i have with the MCU and specifically tony, steve and the story formula of the movies themselves, you made it make logical sense without dumbing down anything and i am SO GLAD YOU DID THANK YOU I LOVE THIS SO MUCH
These in-depth videos are one of the best parts of TH-cam, I swear. I've always been very against Tony but I thought it was because he is a narcissistic and prepotent person but there was more underneath. I have close to no knowledge about the war on terror since I'm not America and I was quite young when that happened but the way you expressed the whole shebang made me realize how much I hate Tony's ideology lol
Now every time someone gives me shit for being Team Cap, I'll send them this video lol
I quite liked the video... and agree with most of them... except when you said Marvel chooses Tony's side. As I see that scene was just Tony choosing to blame others for Peter's "death". He lashes out at Steve... but I never saw this as the movie saying that is what we should've done. In the end what saved the day was not Tony's ideology, but Steve's. Yes... Tony was the one who snapped his fingers, but that was only possible because every person in that battle was there, and had a role, fighting for freedom.
While the MCU in fact implies that Tony’s presence and actions are actually highly responsible for a lot of the shit that goes down
the fact remains that they cater to him at every turn
After Creating Ultron tony should have been arrested or put on trial in the world court
instead it’s business as usual and tony can do whatever he wants regardless of any consequences cause he’s just too damn rich and big to fail or be held accountable
even the Accords are him himself signing them because He feels like he needs too, rather than any governing body forcing him to under penalty of law, execution or imprisonment
so again tony cannot be accountable to anything but himself cause he’s the rich playboy whose the darling of the fans and universe.
Tony's utilitarianism frequently is shown to be the correct course; however, I wonder if this is not the nature of the genre. After-all, violent utilitarianism is the over-riding philosophy of nearly every Western and Action film. I would suggest that Guardians of the Galaxy offers a variation to the Great Man theme. Instead of a Great Man defeating an Evil Great Man, what we are presented is more Community or Group defeating an Evil Great Man. In this sense, it is a variation to Great Men of History theme.
On the "hypocrisy" of Steve in Civil War: I disagree with this assertion, seeing as how the subjects are sapient, feeling individuals who may or may not have done anything wrong, but would still have their rights infringed upon regardless. If it comes down to what they could do, there are already laws in place for that.
Tony just wanted more power. For a good cause, but his solutions unerringly, irrevocably always led to him getting more, and everyone else getting less.
Verager Not to mention that Steve “I literally jumped on a grenade that one time” Rogers probably doesn’t have a problem with doing away with his own accountability if it meant saving lives.
He just didn’t want to be conscripted to people and organizations that showed themselves to him to be secretly half-full of actual Nazis.
@@theoneandonlymichaelmccormick the issue is that that still leaves Steve and the others as separate from any kind of accountability especially if he views every government and or the UN and etc as untrustworthy
so there’s technically no body he will and or would consider signing under
therefore rendering the whole issue moot
the issue still leaves Steve ironically holding himself and his crew to their own standards with no oversight or accountability and the fact that no one can make them do so cause they have a lot of super powered people behind them essentially making themselves the law unto themselves
and i find that very convenient.
Tony is a hypocrite but rogers just conveniently allows himself to be set up as his own private army/commander
The Avengers make an unapproved military operation on soil of foreign country and when civilians die his defence is that it was necesarry? Who gave him the power to decide that? He is 100% hypocritical for thinking he is the only one who can decide what is necesarry action. He would be taking away the right to decide from ordinary people who don't want his destructuve interventions in their country.
Was really salty that they didn't address the flaws of Thanos's ideology at all; glad you mentioned that
Will there be a cameo from Zizek??
Spoiler: they trick him into saying his name backwards an he returns to his home dimension.
Okay, I'm less than a minute in, but that damn Dr. Strange costume is *amazing.*
How is that opening electric jet thing such a BOP.
I always thought the soldiers in the first Iron Man were being portrayed as simple and ultimately good people acting under the thumb of politicians and economic pressures. i guess me silly, too
While that may describe a good chunk of the military (especially impressionable high schoolers targeted by recruiters with the promise of college, healthcare, and whatnot), a[n in]decent sum of military servicemen are the kinds of people who would be attracted by the War on Terror and occupying the Middle East. The documentary The Kill Team (2013; not to be confused with the 2019 fictionalized version by the same director) sheds some light on this. To quote one of the soldiers involved in the murders of Afghan civilians in regards to the media's 'few bad apples' narrative, "We're just the ones that got caught." I'd also recommend seeing what Iraq Veterans Against the War activist Vincent Emanuele has to say about it (/watch?v=SeywFJ8sXoY).
Of course, it is ultimately the result of politicians and economic pressures (as Vulture says in Homecoming, "We fight their wars"), but those factors only give a space to those who would abuse that power and lack of accountability.
That was intentional so that tony could have his mia culpa moment realizing that the good old American patriot boys were killed by his weapons
but imagine if they weren’t soldiers written to be sympathetic and instead were black water mercenaries or more realistically given the fact that tony is one of the private military industrial complex that the pentagon and army blow like trained hookers
they were CIA black ops
does anyone think we’d have the same feeling seeing them blown away?
"It's from the issues that come with this attitude that Tony finds a real ideological opponent"
*ad for domino's pizza*
This analyses was inevitable
Like gravity
Hey, thanks for making this video! This really concisely sums up a lot of why the MCU's conflicts frustrate me, and helps me put it into words.
"An alien ship coming to earth in the heap of the Cold War"... Damn, if only someone made a comic about that!
Enders game.
One of us is remembering the ending of Far From Home wrong. Because when I saw Spider-Man take the drone army back from the villain, he destroyed it. He didn't turn into another Tony, he went down the other path
I also want to say: Killmonger was completely cheated by the whole 'great man' idea. He entered the ritual combat, won the ritual combat (which is how T'chala and his family came to power), said he was going to use his power to enforce his moral code on the world, and is portrayed as the villain of the story. Last time I checked, that's what Iron Man does, that's what S.H.I.E.L.D. does, but when Killmonger does it to help black people instead of large corporations or extrajudicial government bodies, he's the bad guy. But, hey, they did build a new B-ball court in his old neighborhood, so I guess racism is solved forever!
Yes... BUT Killmonger is a psychopath who derives pleasure from killing. His plan to "help" black people was to give them weapons so they could enact violence against the systems that oppressed them. He could have used the wealth of technology Wakanda has to offer to elevate them out of their current situations. His goal wasn't to end suffering or end poverty, but to flip the status quo so that the oppressed become the oppressors. THAT'S why he was the "bad guy"
@@Stop_Gooning Is revolution in general a bad thing? The whole point of this video seems to be that the Marvel superheroes ultimately fall on the side of preserving the status quo (with some improvements) - because the present system must be preserved in order for Disney to continue making movies. Corporate ideology is put into the mouths of our literal heroes.
So we return to my first question: Are all revolutions inherently wrong because they disrupt present power structures? I'm unsure of whether revolution is good; it's certainly produced some terrible results. But are we then to believe that monarchic feudalism with large, global empires is the morally correct system - because disrupting it caused damage to the ruling class? Also, you suggest that a black power revolution would automatically result in anti-white tyranny, and I think that's a jump of the gun. White people are afraid of giving others power because they fear they will be treated like minorities have been treated in history.....but I'm not sure it logically follows. It sounds like "I will give you $1, but I can't let you hold the wallet because I'm afraid you won't give me $1."
I believe that black power empowers all of us (am white, if that's relevant)
@@exquisitecorpse4917 You forget how Black Panther adds commentary on HOW he learned to over power, by learning from the U.S military. Meaning that US destablization was wrong and his based on that training would result in the same destruction. Everett Ross in the movie explicitly explained it.
You conflate general "Black power" with his "Black Power". He explicitly advocated for arming masses of people under his rule to take over. Basically a world wide Junta. He wanted to reverse the position of power, not simply eliminate it.
Look up how many African dictators had a background in Colonial western military education.
@@exquisitecorpse4917
Name a revolution that actually improved the lives of those under the "status quo"
Never happened, it was just new aristocracy taking the place of the old
the reason killmonger was bad was cause he wanted to do Imperalism But This Time Its Us [black men (not black people btw but specifically men)]... additionally the way he took power was very similar to the us playbook for destabilizing govts. like he literally marked himself for how many kills he had as a *us soldier* so it wasnt the same as violence for a revolution
That's why I liked Worm's exploration of this issues in superhero stories.
'Morality is contingent upon survival. Do anything necessary to survive. Your descendents can hate you later.'
Is what some fans come up as the message of the story.
“Do morals matter, if our alternative is a grim and hopeless end?” Is an actual quote. It's up to the reader wheter the protagonists decisions were justified or not.
I feel blessed that I was 18 when the first Iron Man came out; if I was 13, I totally would have had a Loki phase. Great analysis as usual!!!
In the comics, there were much more nuance. Civil war storyline was about equality and government over reach by registering all super humans. Tont Stark had a very specific political beliefs which Captain America was against. In the movies, they didnt wanna go there so they created a stupid friend loyalty with Captain America.
thank you, that was awesome stuff.
And, yes, ICE does need to be abolished
And let everyone into the country illegally? Is that how countries work now? Are they just hunks of land?
@@spenser9908 Your name is very apt. Asking for asylum isn't a crime and you can't be put in prison for over staying a visa either.
Get a life, troll.
@@SEAL341 The second you're overstaying a visa, you're here illegally. Don't break the law if you don't want to be detained or deported. Where's the confusion?
@@spenser9908 Those people in those concentration camps haven't broken any law and yet are being treated terribly. All they've asked for is asylum. The confusion is in your reactionary mind. Fuckoff.
@@SEAL341 Obama did the exact same thing. Overstaying a visa is illegal. How are they being treated terribly anyway?
You don't just get asylum for free just because you're too lazy to go through the process of gaining citizenship, you sap. Jesus. You're bending over for these people lol.
Well, okay. But hear me out, the reason I, myself personally did not question Tony Stark's snap at the end of ENDGAME is that it speaks to his characters sacrifice after Steve told him he'd never been one to make a sacrifice. It wasn't because he was a hero and snapped. It wouldn't have made sense for any other avenger. It had to be Tony because of his story arc. It makes the most sense.
I mostly take issue with the snap itself because he's defeating Thanos-the ultimate conclusion of his own extreme ideology-on Thanos' terms, which is by eradicating the "other" he sees as a threat (ending countless lives in an instant, even if on a smaller scale; it's still pretty massive). He's one of the most brilliant minds around, with the power of a god at his fingertips (or on his knuckles), and the most creative solution he can come up with is essentially "kill 'em all and let God sort it out." It's not a question of whether or not Thanos deserved to die-though I will wager that past-Thanos wasn't yet guilty of the crime he was being punished for, which goes against Steve's insistence that "the punishment is supposed to come after the crime"; though he likely would've followed his future self's path, it still contradicts the ethics of the comic Iron Man, who went into a second "Civil War" with Captain Marvel over the ethics of punishing people for future crimes even though they had a precognitive who could foresee them-but the fact that he's being dealt the same hand he would've dealt others. Even aside from him, though, as mentioned in the video, it was firmly established that there were those within his ranks who were simply brainwashed children, stolen from their families and drafted into his "Infinity War" against their will, so I don't think they deserved to die in a flash. I just think a team of the world's most powerful geniuses could've come up with a better solution after all the time they spent planning for that moment.
That’s not even true since in the first Avenger Movie has Tony sacrifice himself to take the nuke to the alien mothership
and it’s only because of thor that his heart was restarted/he lived
DAmn breadtube is active today I love it
Must be the heat. It makes the dough rise quickly.
Vulture: Protracted People's War
Uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Vulturism!
I'm more of the opinion that the MCU's overarching theme is the consequences of dismissing others' mental health. The entire MCU relies on Tony Stark not getting help for his mental health problems - even Far From Home, post-mortem - Mysterio is even SPECIFICALLY ANGRY that Tony used his technology to make a mental health aide... and, of course, named it BARF. Because if Tony got help, he wouldn't spiral trying to fix things on his own, and if that didn't happen, there would be no plot. Tony just wants to fix the problems he's caused, nobody helps him, he's not very good at it, creates new problems, and the cycle continues.
Saving the world and laying on the wire is all very heroic but it shouldn't be ignored that Tony Stark ultimately commits suicide. He chooses to die. Strip bare the trappings of superheroes, the story of Anthony Edwin Stark in the MCU is a spiral of increasing trauma ignored by his friends and family that ends in a suicide.
You also start to see it touched on in other characters, like Thor or Killmonger or Bucky. I hope we get to see some happier endings than we got for Tony or Erik - as Killmonger's death was also, effectively, a suicide. I have hope for Bucky, who's getting a spinoff with Sam who is an honest to God social worker, please dear God let one of the most traumatized characters get some real actual help.
I'm sure there are other themes, like those you've mentioned, but this was my major takeaway.
37:10 no. It isn't. What Stan Lee wanted when he first created the FF, When he first created Spider-Man was to move away from the propaganda fueled good guys and bad guys approach of golden age comics to a more complicated look at the word; in which, Peter Parker learning his lesson didn't just make him start justifying himself if he did something wrong, no. He never justified his his biggest mistake: his uncle's death because of irresponsibility and his failure to save his girlfriend even if he tried that time. He holds himself accountable to these situations and tries to redeem himself every single day.
What Stan Lee wanted is to reinvent the war driven ideals of Timely comics to a universe built upon the idea that doing what's right matters more than the "greater good". He didn't want a world where these "big men" couldn't be held accountable, he wanted a world where heroes could still be accountable for their actions, good or bad.
Thank you for finally being the one to finally sit down and explore what these movies are actually trying to say. Its really got me thinking, and a bit concerned, since I did grow up on these movies since I was around 7 or 8, and they have impacted my morality and views on the world. I just could never figure out what they're actually saying, at least in terms of the overall narrative.
Your analysis on Steve's own ideals...has left me in an awkward position, especially in regards to anarchism, social activism, or any ideal similar. In terms of accountability, does that mean we hold each other accountable for unjust actions? How are we different in terms of the Avengers, at least Cap's view of them, guided by our sense of right to act on things? I feel this is one of the many reasons we as leftist tend to be so...divisive in regards to certain topics and arguments. As a collective, we are still fallible. And while its much better than the vision Tony Stark seems to represent, it does make me wonder my own limitations. There are some situations I will not be able to make the decision to hold myself accountable for, or even want to. If that happens, does that make me any less right, or as we as a collective suppose to form guidelines that shift and move, but still applies? And what branch of our idealogy do we truly hold ourselves to?
No wonder I was Team Cap during that whole mess.
But again, thank you for the analysis, it shook the way I looked at these movies and now I have to take a deeper look into them to see what I've been missing.
@@coreyander286 That's very true. While my stance remains where it is, I wanted to ensure my intentions come from a right place. If my actions are in line with my intent. But you're absolutely right. It's all down to choice and risk
You: Military good, terrorists bad.
Me , an intelectual: but how can terrorists be both good and bad in a supposedly clear cut movie
Apollo I both agree and disagree with this
What a stupid thing to say.
Almost snorted my drink out of my nose when I read this. lol
I disagree with pretty much everything Tony Stark does, except the Sokovia Accords. Partly because that reverses some of his worst trends, partly because people who can single-handedly depopulate a city if they catch it off-guard should be handled with oversight less comparable to police officers and more comparable to nuclear weapons.
I just discovered your channel, and it really is quenching my thirst for well thought out and researched video essays!
Just to note, power creep has been used in reference to Shounen Manga and comics for years too.
6:10 why is it that MODOK is always embarassing, even when he's in a good cartoon
That's his real power
What the hell are you talking a out?
He is always awesone
Disagreement: Regarding Disney's portrayal of Tony's morals. TLDR: Tony is rarely portrayed as successful overall in his solo undertakings.
Don't me wrong, the commentary was great up to this point, and even following it, but I feel there should be context with Tony lashing out on Cap. Briefly put, Steve wasn't silent on Tony's utilitarianism, he was silent because Tony brought up on how they didn't "fall together" Steve said they would in Ultron. Now, given how Tony decided not to call Cap, and how he emphasized how he failed, I feel he wasn't genuinely blame Cap but was pointing out how everything went wrong in his debilitated state.
If Marvel felt his idea was right, why make the solution sole of his doing? They didn't, in fact Thanos can be argued to be his ideals unchecked. Thanos "bonded" with Tony, saying they are both cursed with knowledge. With Thanos it is perpetual inbalance and strife, with Tony it is perpetual wars to fight.
Something I pointed out, was that when Tony worked alone in the subsequent films he fails, but when receiving input from others (Pepper, Rhodey, Smulder, Fury, or Steve) he succeeds. In Endgame, he intially dismisses the Time Heist yet when reconsiders it he is blown away and puts is confidence in others. Time actually passes for them to consider how to do this, more elaborately than we see them before. This comes off as progress for Tony as a problem solver.
As for trusting him to kill Thanos' army despite the potential innocents, well, lets clarify. This applies for his interference in Afghanistan but not in the final fight, seeing as it was a fight that came to him and not one he interfered in. Likewise he had no way of knowing who was innocent or not, therefore I would argue he was just in being "thorough". The comics address some of Thanos's henchmen, but the rest are presumbly drones (that portrayal of armies in fiction I would argue can still be problematic).
As for the drones in FFH, that I will admit is very wrong, but her me out. They were likely built post Infinity War seeing how during his lashout with Steve, it's implied that he never had a "armor around the world". For the sake of simplicity, we can assume it was made when he restricted himself in the woods with Pepper. He's not overseeing the world, just looking after what he can, but the drone-satellite lingers in space unused. It's a metaphor for how in the wake of the current situation, his dream is fruitless.
As for giving EDITH to Peter, keep in mind that EDITH is much more than just the drones but a security AI system of various functions. He probably figured that it would've been given to Peter under better circumstances avoiding the issue with Brad, but the issues only follows once Fury is the one to give it to him (why did Fury even have it?).
He knew Peter, trusting him that he was "better" than he was. Peter shows a natural revulsion to the drones, and by the end of FFH he destroys them. It's might be a leap, but perhaps Tony predicted that Peter would do that but not under such disastrous means.
I miss when Thanos' ultimate goal was just to get in favor with (Ms.) Death by giving her an absurd gift... I, very early on, took my distance from cinema adaptations of super heroes, in part because i knew cinema would never portrait this kind of story, in part because of ideological bullshit I never fully extracted from my subconscious mind (bullshit which I know HQ is not exempt from). And this video helped me starting this task. For that, I thank you.
im mad this deserves more views
Really excellent video! Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Hit one of the big reasons why I just didn't enjoy Civil War: I already felt Winter Soldier was a bit too wishy-washy on some of the politics it seemed interested in delving into, but at least in that we see Cap work to dismantle unaccountable power. Then we get into Civil War and Cap's values end up looking inverted, mostly in service of getting the audience to a big set piece fight scene where the heroes all fight.
And yeah, there's ultimately something uncomfortable about the fact that the MCU good guys are depicted most often as being set apart from not only corporate interests, but both the state and the common people, as well. Say what one wants to about the tropes that undergird Superman, for example, but one of his foundational characteristics is that while he's an overpowered alien, he's very much a product of a common-man upbringing...basically the rural version of Spider-man's barely middle class Queens background.