#marvel analysis

[infinite-realms-of-fanfics]

Okay rewatching tfaws and at the end John and Bucky are actually shown getting along and implied to be on better terms.

Later in the Thunderbolts John is absolutely ecstatic to see Bucky and cheers then a few minutes later Bucky mention knowing about Olivia divorcing John when he should have no knowledge of that. John also take a bullet for Bucky too and Bucky is shown to trust john enough to go into the void.

This make me think that John and Bucky actaully are on speaking terms and do chat with eachother.

So do with that what you will.

[crisshex88]

Captain America Was Never About the Shield

Today isn’t really about an episode breakdown.

If anything, this is a series breakdown.

Because I don’t just watch TV shows — I watch films, I read comics, and Marvel (the House of Ideas) has always been my first love. So what I wanted to do here is take a step back and look at the entire journey of Captain America across the MCU and the comics.

Not really starting from The First Avenger — as important as it is for introducing the character — but from a rewatch I’ve been doing recently:

The Winter Soldier → Civil War → The Falcon and the Winter Soldier → Brave New World

I had seen all of these before, but always separately, at release, without that sense of continuity. Watching them back-to-back now? It gives you a line. A direction. A full emotional and ideological arc of what Captain America really is.

And this matters to me — because Cap is one of my favorite characters ever.

In the comics, I love Secret Empire, The United States of Captain America, and especially Symbol of Truth — a storyline that digs deep into what Captain America actually represents, even revealing that the symbol itself goes far beyond just the shield. It’s bigger. Older. More complicated than we think.

But even with all that lore, what struck me the most during this rewatch is something much simpler — and much more powerful.

Ideal vs Propaganda

Captain America embodies something we talk about all the time but rarely understand:

the difference between having ideals… and performing them.

A lot of people claim to stand for something. They talk. They post. They declare.

But when it comes to actually living those ideals — even when it costs everything — they fall short.

Steve Rogers doesn’t.

He doesn’t talk much unless he has to — like that speech at the end of The Winter Soldier. But when he does speak, it’s because he’s already been acting on those beliefs the entire time.

He literally says it:

“I’ll stand by my ideals until the end. Even if I’m the only one left.”

That’s not rhetoric. That’s commitment.

And that’s why his legacy continues so naturally in Sam.

Seeing People Beyond What They Are

One of Cap’s most defining traits is his ability to see people beyond what they’ve become — especially when that “becoming” wasn’t their choice.

The clearest example is Bucky.

Yes, he’s his best friend. Yes, their bond goes back to before Steve was Captain America.

But what matters is what Steve does when he finds out Bucky is the Winter Soldier — a product of torture, brainwashing, and manipulation.

Everyone tells him the same thing:

Let him go. He’s gone. He’s not salvageable.

Steve refuses.

And what he does instead is, honestly, one of the most radical things a hero can do:

He shows mercy.

He refuses to fight him. He defends himself, but he doesn’t strike back. And when Bucky says, “My mission is to kill you,” Steve answers:

“Then finish it.”

And even after all that — after the beating, after the fall — Bucky still pulls him out of the water.

That moment alone tells you everything about what Cap stands for.

Don’t Answer Hate With Hate

This is the part that hit me personally the most.

Because what Captain America teaches isn’t just about war or heroism — it’s about how you respond when people come at you.

The easiest thing in the world is to respond with the same energy you receive.

You get mocked → you mock back. You get attacked → you attack harder.

But Cap doesn’t do that.

And honestly? I see this play out even here, on this platform.

I talk about something as simple as liking a certain ship in a TV show — nothing political, nothing serious — and I get mocked, dismissed, laughed at.

And my response?

“I’m glad you like yours. Truly.”

That’s the difference.

And that’s exactly what Cap represents — just on a much bigger scale.

Civil War: Choosing Without Hating

In Civil War, Steve makes what might be his most difficult choice: standing for freedom, even when it puts him against people he loves.

But here’s the key thing:

He never turns that into hatred.

Even when he fights Tony. Even in their most brutal confrontation. He never becomes cruel, never becomes vindictive.

And that letter at the end?

“If you need me, I’ll be there.”

That’s Captain America.

Holding your ground without losing your humanity.

Sensitivity Is Not a Label

There’s something else I think we’ve started to get wrong — especially in fandom spaces.

Steve’s emotional depth, his sensitivity, his loyalty… they’re often immediately reframed through labels.

“If he’s that sensitive, he must be—” “If he cares that deeply, then clearly—”

No.

People should be valued for what they are, what they feel, what they give — not forced into categories to make them easier to define.

Steve has deep, visceral relationships with both Bucky and Sam. That doesn’t need to be reduced to a label to be meaningful.

Sometimes connection is just… connection.

Why Sam Was the Right Choice

The transition from Steve to Sam isn’t just logical — it’s inevitable.

Steve sees Sam for who he is from the very beginning.

Not because Sam asks questions — but because he doesn’t hesitate to stand with him. He believes in him. He chooses to step into something dangerous, even when he could have stayed out of it.

That tells Steve everything he needs to know.

And in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, we see that same core in Sam:

He believes. He questions. He struggles — but in a way that comes from empathy, not cynicism.

Even when faced with Isaiah’s pain, with the reality of race and history, Sam doesn’t reject it — he tries to understand it.

And that’s what makes him worthy.

Not perfection. Not power. But perspective.

What Captain America Actually Represents

Captain America isn’t about a flag.

It’s not about a uniform. It’s not even about the shield.

It’s about a set of values that exist beyond identity:

– beyond race – beyond gender – beyond sexuality – beyond religion

It’s about seeing people for who they are — and choosing to stand for something better.

That’s why The United States of Captain America works so well.

Because it shows that “Captain America” isn’t one person.

It’s anyone who chooses to carry those ideals into their own community.

A homeless queer kid protecting others. A Native American hero. Everyday people doing what they can, where they are.

That’s the real legacy.

“There Can Be Two Captain Americas”

One of my favorite ideas from the comics is simple:

There doesn’t have to be just one Captain America.

When Steve returns, Sam offers the shield back.

And Steve says:

“Why? There can be two.”

Because Captain America isn’t a title you compete for.

It’s something you live up to.

The Bridge He Leaves Behind

Even after he’s gone, Steve remains a bridge.

Between Sam and Bucky. Between past and future. Between what was… and what could be.

That’s his real power.

Final Thought

In Symbol of Truth, Steve faces a devastating realization: what if everything — even him — was part of a larger system, a plan set in motion long before he existed?

For a moment, he breaks.

“What was the point of any of it?”

But then he chooses again.

“This is my symbol. Not theirs.”

And that’s Captain America.

Choosing what something means — even when the world tries to define it for you.

And Maybe That’s the Lesson

If we really understood Captain America — not as a character, but as an idea — maybe we’d stop trying to divide everything into sides, labels, and categories.

Maybe we’d learn to be a little more fair. A little more kind.

Because at the end of the day, it’s exactly like a line from an Italian song (Gatto Panceri - Non credo nella gente, ma in ogni uomo) I love:

“I don’t believe in people — I believe in every single person.”

[urween]

HEAR ME OUT

I love the concept of asexual Dex, but I might add a little twist in it, from personal opinion ofc.

I think that Dex has sexual encounters but as his other relationships and basic social interactions, it is not healthy. For him sex is overwhelming—too intense, too much. His need for order and clean environment is freaking out during sex, there is so much fluids, textures, smells, sensations...

But I do think that he still has some. For me, he can have two type of sexual activities: one very primal, and one impulsive. But either are chaotic.

The "primal" one is basically where I put his possible past sexual experiences. I think that he only had hookups, with different person every time, to avoid awkwardness and real social interactions as much as possible. So maybe he'll flirt with a cute waiter and then fuck with them, because it feels hot and sexy in the moment, but that's it, absolutely no romantism in this.

Then the second is impulsive. This one has a tone of emotion in it, but as always it is not healthy. For example, if you do believe in Dexmatt, I think that in this dynamic Dex could actually feel a sexual attraction to Matthew. Not because he's in love with him, but because he is obsessed with him. (Not in yandere kinky way, I'm talking about psychology here). Matthew and Dex have a special connexion through death and violence. Why I called this "category" impulsive is because I think Dex would be very passive through this process. His emotions are taking the lead, against his will.

While the "primal" can be associated with Fbi!Dex, I think the "impulsive" is 100% DDBA!Dex.

Another headcanon I'd love about Dex in sexuality, is that I think he'd be very very awkward after sex. He would need space, a deep shower, a protocol to follow. He would be sweaty, maybe even having a panic attack in some cases. Because again, it is not healthy. For the person he does it with, but also for him. Even if he might enjoyed it, it's in a certain way not very consented for him, it's a form of traumatic respond.

But !!! I do also think that he could have healthy sexual activities, but under very specific conditions he'll need to understand firstly himself—thing he struggles to do.

I think it's for all of these reasons that submissive!Dex makes A LOT of sense. He needs control over his own mind, he needs someone to guide him through it. And in contrast, dom!Dex is also a reality but during unhealthy sex (one shot, quicky, dub-con etc.) I'm not saying these kinks are unhealthy!! Just in Dex's world and life, they unfortunately are, unless it's with someone that really concider him and help him understand that sex is not supposed to be forced, or uncomfortable.

Again, it's my opinion 🫡

[noahtherian]

Weaponized Therapy: The White Wolf vs The Worst Therapist in the MCU

By Noah Zeh — Reader, Logic Defender, and White Wolf Rights Activist

---

As someone who goes to therapy myself — not a professional, but I am mentally ill which counts for something 😁

---

Thesis

Bucky Barnes’ court‑mandated therapy in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is not simply ineffective — it is a narrative case study in how mental healthcare can be weaponized against a trauma survivor. The therapist assigned to him violates foundational principles of trauma‑informed practice, prioritizing confrontation over safety, compliance over healing, and government oversight over human dignity. Her approach not only ignores Bucky’s history of coercion, torture, and psychological conditioning, but actively reinforces the very dynamics that harmed him, thus harming him more. This essay argues that the MCU’s portrayal of Bucky’s therapy is a clinical disaster: a system that pathologizes survival instincts, punishes coping mechanisms, and mistakes aggression for treatment. Bucky Barnes does not fail therapy — therapy fails him, and the consequences reveal a systemic misunderstanding of trauma, recovery, and what it means to help a man who has never been given the chance to choose his own healing.

---

I. Court‑Mandated “Healing”: The System Was Rigged Before Bucky Even Sat Down

Bucky’s therapy is not voluntary — it is a condition of his pardon (TFATWS, Episode 1).

He is explicitly told that missing sessions will result in consequences.

This is not support. This is surveillance disguised as treatment.

The therapist is not a neutral party. She is an agent of the same government that:

• hunted him (Captain America: Civil War)

• imprisoned him (Civil War)

• used him as a political pawn (TFATWS, Episode 2*)

This is not a therapeutic relationship.

This is a power imbalance so severe it borders on cruelty.

---

II. The Missing Foundation: Safety, Trust, and Stabilization (AKA Everything She Skips)

In their very first session (TFATWS, Episode 1), the therapist immediately jumps to:

• “You’re avoiding me.”

• “You’re lying.”

• “You’re isolating.”

She does not:

• build rapport

• check his emotional state

• establish safety

• ask permission to explore trauma

• offer grounding techniques

She skips the entire bottom of the therapeutic needs hierarchy and sprints to the top like she’s trying to speedrun his trauma for a medal.

Bucky is not grounded.

He is not regulated.

He is not safe.

He is not ready.

And she does not care.

---

III. “You’re a Terrible Therapist.” — “Yeah, okay, maybe, but I was a great soldier.”

This exchange occurs in TFATWS, Episode 2.

Bucky expresses a vulnerable, honest feeling — and she responds with:

• sarcasm

• defensiveness

• self‑aggrandizement

• zero curiosity

• zero empathy

She could have asked:

• “Why do you feel that way?”

• “What isn’t working for you?”

• “How can we make this space safer?”

Instead she metaphorically says:

“I don’t care how you feel. I was good at violence.”

Which is… not comforting to a man who was forced to be violent for 70 years.

---

IV. Forcing Trauma Out of Him Like It’s a Confession, Not a Wound

She demands he talk about nightmares (TFATWS, Episode 1).

He clearly does not want to.

He tries to deflect.

She pushes harder.

She forces him to read his amends list out loud (TFATWS, Episode 1), even though he is visibly distressed.

She confronts him aggressively instead of building trust.

She treats his survival instincts as misbehavior.

This is not therapy.

This is interrogation with a clipboard.

---

V. The Amends List: A Morally and Narratively Disastrous Idea

The amends list is introduced in TFATWS, Episode 1.

She frames it as a requirement for his pardon.

She also calls herself a “surrogate for society” (TFATWS, Episode 2), which is a horrifying thing to say to someone who has been used as a weapon by governments for decades.

Amends are for people who:

• made choices

• caused harm

• acted with agency

Bucky had none.

Assigning him amends is like punishing a hostage for the crimes of their captors.

---

VI. “Yeah, It’s Helping.” — Bucky Barnes and the Tragedy of Not Knowing What Healthy Looks Like

One of the most heartbreaking elements of Bucky’s therapy arc is this:

he genuinely believes the therapy is helping.

Not because it is, but because he has no frame of reference for what healthy, compassionate, trauma‑informed care looks like.

Bucky Barnes has spent:

• decades being controlled

• decades being punished for non‑compliance

• decades being told his feelings don’t matter

• decades being treated as an object, not a person

So when his therapist:

• invalidates him

• confronts him aggressively

• forces him to talk

• threatens him with legal consequences

• uses sarcasm

• shames his coping mechanisms

…Bucky interprets it as normal.

Because for him, it is.

When he says “Yeah, it’s helping” (TFATWS, Episode 2), he says it with:

• flat affect

• visible discomfort

• zero enthusiasm

Buddy it’s not helping. James, it really isn’t helping you, pal.

He says it because he thinks he’s supposed to.

Not because he’s healing.

This isn’t progress.

This is learned compliance masquerading as recovery.

And the tragedy is that the therapist doesn’t notice — or worse, doesn’t care — that Bucky’s “progress” is actually regression wrapped in politeness.

---

VII. Signs He Is Getting Worse — Not Better

Evidence from the show:

• He sleeps on the floor (TFATWS, Episode 1).

• He keeps the TV on to avoid silence (TFATWS, Episode 1).

• He dissociates during the date scene (TFATWS, Episode 1).

• He has panic responses during the Flag Smashers fight (TFATWS, Episode 2).

• He isolates completely except for Sam and Yori unless forced to socialize (TFATWS, Episode 1).

These are not signs of improvement.

These are signs of a man who is drowning.

And his therapist does not notice.

---

VII½. The Winter Soldier’s Conditioning: Canon Behavior That Shows How Deep the Wound Goes

While TFATWS doesn’t show Bucky handing a gun directly to anyone, the MCU does give us a chilling canon moment that reveals the depth of his conditioning. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, during the safehouse scene with Alexander Pierce, the Winter Soldier places a gun on the table in front of him — not as a threat, but as a gesture of obedience and vulnerability.

He doesn’t point it.

He doesn’t hold it.

He simply sets it down, silently offering the weapon to the man who controls him.

It’s not a request for trust.

It’s not a negotiation.

It’s a conditioned behavior that says:

“If you need to put me down, you can. I won’t resist.”

This moment is canon, and it is devastating.

It shows a man who has been trained to make himself easy to kill.

A man who expects punishment.

A man who believes his life is disposable.

A man who has learned that compliance is the only way to survive.

And even though TFATWS doesn’t repeat this exact gesture, the psychology behind it is everywhere:

• sleeping on the floor

• keeping the TV on

• shutting down emotionally

• obeying authority without hesitation

• his eyes going unfocused and glazed in multiple scenes

These are the modern echoes of the same conditioning that made him place that gun on the table years earlier.

The therapist never acknowledges this history.

She never recognizes the signs.

She never sees that Bucky is not resisting her — he is submitting to her authority the way he was trained to submit to Hydra.

And that is not healing.

That is survival.

---

VIII. The Therapist as a Symbol of Systemic Failure

This is not just about one therapist.

This is about:

• government control

• punitive “treatment”

• lack of trauma‑informed care

• misunderstanding of Bucky’s history

The government immediately re‑arrests Sam for violating the therapy mandate (TFATWS, Episode 2), showing how weaponized the system is.

The therapist is not a healer.

She is a narrative device representing the system that failed him.

The only person who actually helps Bucky is Sam — not because Sam is a therapist, but because Sam treats him like a human being. That’s why Bucky seems better around him. Sam is the only one who sees him and treats him like a human being for goodness sake.

---

Conclusion: Bucky Barnes Deserved Better

Bucky Barnes is a man who has never been given the chance to choose his own healing.

He deserved:

• safety

• compassion

• patience

• trauma‑informed care

• someone who saw him as a person, not a weapon

Instead, he got a therapist who reinforced every wound Hydra carved into him.

Bucky Barnes does not fail therapy.

Therapy fails him — spectacularly, systemically, and narratively.

And The White Wolf — not The Winter Soldier — deserved better. So much better.

[irons-moons]

Tony Stark: A Representation of the Working Class

I know this sounds whack, because he’s literally a billionaire, and that is important. But the Iron Man trilogy has always struck me as very anti-capitalist, and Tony’s story, actions and development mirror working class experiences, even though he is a billionaire in his context, which gives him resources and he uses his money to fund the avengers later, and that matters to his characterisation.

Being a billionaire doesn’t disqualify Tony from representing the working class if we look at Marxist literary theory (that is, the literary theory which focuses on how social class impacts a narrative). There are overt and covert aspects to any text. The idea that Tony represents working class people would be covert — it’s underlying and likely not even intentional, but it’s there. This isn’t to say that Tony Stark is a working class person, he isn’t, but he could be a representation of the working class experience.

Marxist literary theory states that capitalism reifies people, and capitalism exploits its labourers. Reification is the opposite of personification. It is when a person is viewed as a thing, a means for production, and Tony, who cannot stop building and advancing tech, is a means of production. Tony, who can’t let go of Iron Man, and considers the suit an extension of his body (a ‘high tech prosthesis’, as he calls it in Iron Man 2) is reified. And there’s no question as to whether his labour is exploited.

The Iron Man trilogy portrays capitalist ideology and the corrupt nature of billionaires in a lot of different ways, but most obviously through the character of Obadiah Stane, who is likely only a little less wealthy than Tony himself, but embodies the values of the bourgeoisie in our society far more than Tony ever has. Obadiah is selfish and corrupt, he hurts others (Tony, the stand in for the working class) to get what he wants, and while he has the resources and is given the option to make the world better, he chooses instead to make things worse to for the sake of profit. Stane has no empathy or compassion for others, and is content to attempt to murder Tony twice because he was in the way of what Obadiah wanted. This is a clear and simple reflection of the way that people in power mistreat those who have less than them, and I’m sure I don’t need to point out any of the real-life people it parallels. It is significant that Tony has spent the vast majority of his life (and indeed the entirety of his adult life) being used and exploited by this representation of the upper class, who is depicted as predatory and deceptive towards him. And it is also significant that the resolution of the story comes from the death of Obadiah (ie: the dismantling of the system he represents).

In some respects, Tony is just a reflection of what a billionaire should be like; he’s hardworking, philanthropic, intelligent, etc etc. In the same way that Steve Rogers represents what America should be, Tony is what billionaires should be, and that’s a perfectly valid take. But I want to provide evidence as to why I think he is also coded in a working class way. One of the biggest is that he’s a disabled character, and in our society, those who are disabled are usually left without a lot of financial stability due to the way that our society is rigged against them. Furthermore, Tony’s disability directly comes as a consequence of his own work, something that is common for people in blue collar jobs that do not have adequate safety regulations in their workplace. And in the second movie, this disability Tony has begins to actively kill him because he’s overworking himself by using the Iron Man Suit too much. Tony’s actions and growth come from a change in work ethics, and constant growth and adaptation in the things he builds, as well as his growing disillusionment with the systems in place.

[lavender-luminarie]

brain dump: observation of a couple funny anti tags + a little bit of my civil war thoughts and also a little bit of tfatws thoughts because i got carried away...!!

my toxic trait is that whenever i find an anti tag, before i block it, i scroll through the tag until i get the general conclusion of why people dislike the character. yeah, some antis are just jerks, but there's also people who have genuinely good/interesting points, so whenever i find a good point, i acknowledge it, but i typically end up throwing it out the window for my au. it's complicated because i love character studies but i also like pretending things are fine so i don't ruin the fandom and my personal interpretation of the characters for myself?? XD

anyways, today i wondered if there was an anti peter parker tag, because how on earth could one hate that sweetheart?

anyways. i am happy to report that there are exactly 24 posts (unless i miscounted by one or two, which is likely because i am the opposite of tony "if my math is correct, and it always is" stark) tagged as such, and that most of them are so-so reasons with no solid points against the character's actual, y'know, character. personality. whatever. you get it.

so. there were a few that were also tagged with anti tags for other characters and don't just critique peter, more like a general anti mcu post. and most of what i saw was from those who reallyyyy aren't fans of tom holland as spidey/prefer another spider-man variant and roast the other ones. but, uh, that's why we have a different universe for each spider-man-- they're not necessarily inaccurate. the comics are different from the mcu, i don't think they're intended to be the same (for example, the winter soldier's arc is very different in the comics too. more of a conditioning situation than a complete brainwashing one, which is interesting in its own way and allowed winterwidow, which is canon there, to work without iffy consent. but that's not the point either?? sorry my brain is always in 28 places at once, idek what i'm doing so take all of this with a grain of salt).

oh, and on a related note, scrolling the anti bucky tag last week made me laugh. i don't really remember everything i came across because my adhd brain forgets everything and is currently mush, but i remember seeing downright, well, i'll say silly reasons.

main reason one, by those iron man stans*: oh, but he was brainwashed! he killed tony's parents! he's a monster and he doesn't really care, TO THE CHOPPING BLOCK

that one's just funny because... lol did we watch the same movie(s)??

lemme hold your hand while i say this... you are correct, he was brainwashed... y'know, like this... (i'm looking up one dictionary definition because i'm lazy and don't wanna attempt to make a summary)

combine this with that electric chair, which was both actual memory-wiping and torture at once, and tell me again that he wasn't forced to kill tony's parents? y'all, he looked dead to the world while he did it. that wasn't bucky, that was the winter soldier.

i wouldn't be surprised if those fans never watched tfatws, where we finally get to see some more of bucky processing his past and, looking on the verge of tears, explaining to yori how his son was murdered by the winter soldier and how the winter soldier used to be him. and that's just one case. he's expressed regret as well as symptoms of ptsd before-- if he doesn't care/is unaffected by what he did because he was loyal to hydra, then why is he having nightmares about it?).

i won't keep rambling there though because whenever i start talking about bucky i can't stop. he's so interesting.

*by no means are all tony stans/team iron man fans like this. i love you guys. there's just a certain nutso type convinced he has never and cannot do anything wrong in his life, just like the nutso team cap stans who are convinced the same about steve and often hate tony. like please... dude, just watch the iron man movies. acknowledge that tony's never had it easy either. and as a final point (??? this is a mess) here, neither steve or tony are patron saints, though what they both did in civil war makes sense-- but that is another rant for another time.

imagine realizing that bucky's not at fault but that tony had a completely understandable response by being angry! wow, impossible. bad decisions were made, and yes people were killed, but at the end of the day it was worked out in one way or another, and i feel like we should be moving past that by now?? it's complicated, as we can all see, and i kindaaa have mixed feelings there, but i can elaborate if anyone wants.

main reason two: bucky's overshadowing other characters.

i mean, i guess that makes more sense??... God forbid that the fans like a character to the point of them being popular! except this one also doesn't make sense, bringing us to reason three.

main reason three: bucky's being overshadowed by other characters.

this is where i started cracking up... if we can break the fourth wall to blame steve's iffy ending in endgame on the writers, can we not do it here? (or, well, maybe not, since there's a ton of hate on endgame!steve in the anti tag. and it makes sense, so i guess that's different. i don't know).

and it completely contradicts reason two so that was just funny to me.

but! though i don't really understand why this goes in that particular anti tag rather than the mcu critical/anti mcu tag, i do agree with that point. perhaps i'm biased because bucky's one of my favorites (and current favorite, though that's subject to change because it's changed before. who knows. but tony's also very dear to me and a favorite), but one could say that tfatws was more of sam's show than bucky's. sam stans, don't come for me, please. i liked the show-- well, at surface level. i enjoy it until i start thinking harder about the characters + writing in it, and i still enjoy it... just not as much (same with thunderbolts, i have many thoughts there too). i liked sam's development as captain america, i liked the general jist of it, it was good. but back to the point, point three. there's not as much of the winter soldier's past/more of bucky's development there than i would have thought, since, y'know, the title is the falcon and the winter soldier. maybe it's just me, but i personally felt like there was less focus on bucky's character development. and those bits we did have weren't really crucial to the plot, and i think it could've worked as a solo show for sam so i gotta agree with point three. it's not necessarily a bad thing if this was sam's show, but my view here agrees with point three, so yeah, i get it. but that's not really important, i guess, and probably more of a personal opinion. so take this with a grain of salt or whatevs XD

okay one more thing. the fact that the title at the end credits of tfatws changes to "captain america and the winter soldier" rather than "captain america and the white wolf" (or any other title, i don't know) irks me because HEY, he said it himself that he's not the winter soldier anymore, and again that was something overlooked in the bigger scheme of things. but at the same time it makes sense. he saved people, that's great. he no longer associates himself with that name, that's great. but that was it, not a ton leading up to it either, unless i'm overlooking something which is also possible because i've only watched the series once. oh, and there's also that making amends issue, but lots of other people have spoken on that so i won't get into it.

anyways. anywaysss. my train of thought went off the rails, but my general conclusion of peter parker's and bucky barnes' anti tag is that some people really missed the point (the fact that we have different marvel universes and character/plot-wise). maybe we should... try to not miss the point and don't be a hater even if you got it, because then you kinda just look silly for dismissing the point XD

SO! END RANT! oh my gosh i started this as a report on the peter parker anti tag and then mentioned that the bucky tag was weird and then it lowkey turned into an essay on civil war and tfatws?? whoops.

i might actually follow up with more of my thoughts on civil war, and maybe some thoughts on the tony, sam, and steve anti tags because i've also scrolled those... if i have the time and motivation sometime later XD

...

but uh yeah, thank you for tuning in to zara's useless mcu rant-bles (rants and rambles, wow i'm so clever) 👍

nobody come for me please

[spellslinger-mcu]

Alright this page is still Very much under construction and it’ll make a lot more sense once I actually. Yknow. Provide context for this au. But I have the work eithic of a frog so here we are, ANYWAYS

I have been working on avengers 1 in this au and making some big changes to the original plot, and the new plan is for Atlas (my oc, idiot 12 year old) to attempt to get into Loki’s cell room to speak to him as no one is really telling her what’s going on, fail and get caught, and then get sent back to stark tower because shield don’t trust her to be wandering around and Tony doesn’t want her locked in a room. Besides, Loki’s in jail now, what’s the worst that could happen? :) <- evil smile

Now I was pretty attached to my original ideas, but realistically Atlas would come out the other end of it a Little Bit too traumatised for my liking/for what would make sense going forward in the plot. So sadly they will have to be shelved, maybe I’ll go over some of the scrapped plans someday.

BUT THEN THIS EVIL ASSHOLE I CALL MY FRIEND GOES “hey wouldn’t that make a fucked up parallel between Loki and Odin” AND IM GOING TO BE SICK BECAUSE HE’S RIGHT. JUST. BARE WITH ME IVE GOT A POINT TO MAKE HERE AND IT INVOLVES ANALYSING LOKI. WHERE IS MY MICROSCOPE

(fair warning this post is LONG cause I did way more Loki analysis than I planned lol)

So Loki’s behaviour in avengers 1 is largely driven by the way he’s been treated by Odin. It’s not the only reason but it is a Massive part of it!! He’s trying to take over the Earth to get the throne Odin waved in front of his face his entire life, and additionally prove a point by acting the way Odin did when he was conquering and enslaving the 9 realms. He specifically says in Thor 1 that it was never about the throne itself, it was about being Thor’s equal. There are a lot of factors as to why he turns towards wanting an Actual, Physical throne, but part of that motivation is to prove a point to Odin.

I could go on endlessly about this and there is So much more to say but I’ll keep it short and circle back to the specific point I’m making here.

The way Loki acts on earth is absolutely reminiscent of Odin’s own behaviour. While we don’t actually see what he does when taking over the 9 realms, even if you don’t take Hela’s words at face value, she turned out that way for a REASON. Her character combined with the murals Odin hid paint a strong enough picture of the man he clearly was getting his throne. I believe Loki himself says something about how he acted beforehand in Thor 1 but I may be wrong.

Loki’s behaviour mimics, if not mocks Odin’s own behaviour. Odin would have been willing to do the exact same thing to get his own throne, and no doubt did Worse than what Loki did to get it. The mcu isn’t very nuanced when it comes to this topic, as a lot of residents in the 9 realms are sorta palmed off as just different flavours of bad and evil so don’t worry about it!!! Look, Thor’s protecting poor defenceless Vanaheim again isn’t that nice? But I think it’s incredibly interesting. The reason Loki is framed as the villain here is because he’s attacking Our guys who are clearly innocent, we don’t need to prove that, and we don’t deserve to be taken over!!!

We don’t see enough of the other realms to make many concrete points in canon about the Actual morality and details of most of the realms. What we Do know is some of them definitely needed a reality check and to be knocked down a peg, because trying to take over your neighbouring planets isn’t very cash money, I’m looking at you Jotunheim. But almost all of our knowledge about the other realms comes from Odin, and by extension Asgard’s very pompous and elitist viewpoint. And the narrative actively establishes time and time again that Odin is not a trusted source.

Odin says the other realms are all either weak and need support, or are evil and bad and pose a risk. And either way, Asgard is better than all of them and doesn’t like to be affiliated closely with any of them (save for maybe trading with Vanaheim and accepting warriors from there, which are notably the realm with inhabitants MOST SIMILAR to Asgardians), instead serving better simply being apart from them and looking from a distance. The only times we see Asgardians acting on other realms (save for Thor’s behaviour for the most part because he actually stops being so elitist.) it’s because they want something, or they’re being forced to clean up a problem They caused. So Loki, while he is a good person at his core, logically would have absolutely no problem killing off earth’s residents once he’s been pushed over the edge. That is exactly the kind of behaviour Asgard’s rhetoric and beliefs push for in the hands of someone willing to do harm.

Now, the reason this relates to my au is because of the position Loki is in during this part of the story, when he arrives at Stark Tower ready for the portal to open and the fighting to start.

Odin, the leader of this conquering force, makes his way to the centre of the city (in this case, Jotunheim’s castle), and finds a child left there by his father. Loki, the leader of this conquering forces, makes his way to the center of the city (in this case, Stark Tower), and finds a child left there by her father.

Odin believes Loki was abandoned, Loki knows Atlas was sent there to be protected. Either way, an innocent child, seemingly marked for death.

And Loki, who at this point has kind of collapsed under the belief that he's an irredeemable monster: it explains why everyone has always treated him so differently and with so much distrust and animosity, that everyone could tell even when he himself didn't know, why he would never be equal to Thor, why Odin had never truly loved him- he's thrown in the towel and given up on trying to be a good person. But it doesn't replace the desire to be respected, adored, loved, etc. Between his shattered mental state and the manipulation from Thanos and the mind stone, he is now in a position where the assault on Earth seems to be a mix of multiple things. It's about getting back at mostly Odin and Thor for the way he's been treated his whole life, it's about finally 'giving in' and becoming the horrible person everyone always insisted he was, and trying to claim his own throne to try and get what he feels he's entitled to. I still don't even think a throne is something he truly wants. Yes people change their minds, but in Thor 1 even with the state he's in he directly states it was never About a throne, it was about being seen as equal to Thor. If anything it'd align more with it being what he's convinced himself/has been convinced by Thanos that he deserves, is entitled to, and will fix his problems and fill the void in his heart. That at least if he has a throne, he has Something of note, that is his, that will finally make people listen to him.

That's why I find the similarities to how Odin conquered the realms to be so interesting. Because that was just. Something Odin did, probably justified by noble means that he then covered up and buried to make sure he was now seen as stern but benevolent, instead of violent. Loki only gets to that point when he is at his absolute lowest. And even THEN, he only goes through with it with the mind stone feeding into his worst emotions and thoughts, while being actively monitored by The Other, the guy likely responsible for TORTURING HIM. So Loki, who's in this volatile and destructive state, acting out trying to get back some autonomy of his own while additionally doing so to spite Odin, comes face to face with Atlas, who's 12 at this point.

For all the people he's fought, injured or killed up to this point, they have been adults. Still innocent people, but mostly SHIELD Agents who have explicitly signed up for the danger of this line of work, or bystanders who have stood between his goals or done something to specifically piss him off. Shield and the Avengers are actively standing in his way, he needed the Gala attendee's eye, the old man actively disrespected and refused to back down to him.

They aren't GOOD reasons to be attacking people, but with everything discussed combined with Asgard's embedded attitude that Midgardians are pathetic little wimps, it makes sense how we've ended up here. Still, he doesn't Actively go around killing everyone at the gala. Yes a lot of them end up in the crowd during his speech (WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY HIM PROJECTING but. I should at least TRY to stay on topic), but even so, from the way everyone is dressed its mainly just random bystanders. Killing more people probably wouldve made a stronger point honestly. The entire reason he's there is to get the eye and get the avenger's attention. But he doesnt kill more people, because he knows he doesnt need to. They're tracking him, just showing up and making a big show will get their attention without question. Its interesting, don't you think? Even unquestionably positioned as the villain, falling off the deep end and doing whatever it takes to get what he wants, he Chooses to only kill a few people here.

Even in his fight with Steve, he doesnt Actually try to kill him and get him out of the way to make the takeover later much, much easier later on. Which, mind you, wouldnt have stopped shield from taking him into custody. They have to, they need the tesseract's location. He doesn't even try to mind control him to get another powerful ally on his side (though tbf, this is probably just since his goal isnt to flee). The scene where he tells Steve to kneel he ACTIVELY POINTS THE BLUNT END OF THE SCEPTRE TOWARDS HIM. HE FLIPS THE ANGLE OF THE BLADE SO THE BLUNT END IS AGAINST HIS HEAD. There is absolutely an element of Loki's behaviour that stems purely from just. Pride. He's stronger than anyone on Earth, he's one of the most talented magic users in the realms if not the universe, he knows this very well. But I also think writing things like this off by just saying "he didnt think they were a threat/worth the effort" or something along those lines is discrediting his intelligence. He's one of the best strategists on Asgard and is responsible for saving Thor's ass countless times. He is incredibly smart, and if he was GENUINELY committed to taking over Earth no matter what, he would've killed Steve there and then. Hell, he INTENTIONALLY waits until all of the Avengers are present before sending the full force of the Chitauri through. It seems to be played off as him being overconfident/wanting to prove even at full strength they are no match for him. But remember, it's shown in the film and made explicitly clear in the deleted scenes from avengers 1 that The Other is monitoring his behaviour the Entire time. Thanos is ALSO nearby as well, which makes sense considering he's currently risking his only infinity stone. Loki also has very little access to his magic throughout this film, and that seems like its intentional rather than an oversight. He casts very few spells, and that is almost exclusively illusions. Any actual magic blasts he uses the sceptre for. And even when he Does cast illusions, during the scene with him talking over the crowd in Germany, he only casts a handful of illusions of himself, and they flicker. I am almost 100% certain this is the ONLY time we see this happen with his spell throughout the entire mcu. Which implies that he is struggling to sustain the spell. There's a conscious decision by the director to include a clear shot with one of those illusions in frame, clearly flickering like it's an active effort and is difficult to keep it going. We KNOW this isnt normal, because in Thor 1 he summons like a dozen clones all at once to attack Thor at one point. Sure they arent up for as long, but he is CLEARLY capable of doing this without much real struggle even in the middle of a one on one fight against Thor, where he's been in combat for an extended period of time. Loki is in this incredibly difficult to pin down position, where we'll likely never know for sure just how much of this was his idea and how okay he is with it all. But there are so many details put in that Didn't need to be there, that you can't just write this off as him purely being evil. He is without a doubt in the wrong in Avengers 1, he's the villain and the main antagonist for a reason. He DOES see himself as better than everyone on this planet, he's more than prepared to kill people and tear through whoever he needs to get what he wants. He's doing all of this for selfish reasons and to make a point to the people who've wronged him. But at the same time, there's more to it if you are willing to look. And there's far, FAR too much more for it not to be intentional.

So yes, has no issue with killing people, is angry, stuck in his own head/fears/view of himself, and is clearly to some extent still at the mercy of Thanos. But now he has to decide how to deal with Atlas being present. Because there wasn't meant to be a child here. And I don't think the similarities to his own origin would escape him. He believes himself to be worse than Odin at this point, that he is irredeemable and there is no real point in trying to be good or do good. That getting himself into a better situaiton/circumstance justifies his actions. And Odin didn't even kill him when he was found.

So... what does he do?

Atlas does nothing to piss him off particularly. But she doesn't know the full picture. She knows he's killed people, that he's dangerous, that him being here Obviously means something went very wrong and she's cautious and scared of him and scared of whats happened to the avengers and to Tony in particular.

But she's also spoken to Thor about Loki. Thor who was mainly mournful and sad about the way things are turning out, and outright explained that Loki wasn't like this before now. And Atlas is 12, and stupid, and cares about people, and thinks if he could be stopped peacefully that would be good for everyone, right? And she doesn't have the frame of reference to know why that wouldn't work. She doesn't think there's no point in trying. So Atlas tries to talk to him. After all, she doesn't want anyone else to get hurt.

And Loki has to decide what part of himself he wants to believe in now. What does he even say to this? What can he say to this? He should be insulted that even a child thinks he's so pitiful. But that's just it. She's a child. She isn't doing this out of malice, or to look down on him, certainly not cause she thinks she's better than him. She just. Wants to help. Herself, her people, her family mostly. But there's a genuineness to it that even extends to him, to some extent. Despite what he's done, this child, this stranger for some reason seems to care about him.

But he can't go back now. He can't stop. And all it's doing is making him confront whatever morals he's buried because he knows deep down that this isn't right. That he's becoming the monster that lurks in his blood and he doesn't have a choice to stop it, he can't take that offer, he can't back down. He can't go back to the way things were, and he can't go back to the void. Certainly not empty handed. But Atlas unquestionably reminds him that he wants to, and that terrifies him. And it isn't exactly comforting to The Other, who can see this happening, and is probably reminding him of exactly why he can't, insisting he doesn't want to, insisting that he shut her up. Atlas shakes him in a way no one else was capable of, because she is the only one he'd even come close to listening to because he knows what kids are like, how easy their lies are to pick apart, and yet outside of Thor (who he's too caught up in bitterness and betrayal and hurt to listen to) she's the only one who's shown an ounce of care to him, concern without strings attached, in who knows how long?

So, what does he do?

Does he try and find another solution? Does he show mercy? Does he choose another option, the same way Odin did?

Or does he get rid of the heir to his enemies, and become even worse than Odin?

[yangvik]

x-men and zionism

i wanna stay this post by saying i am a lifelong marvel fan (art, not corporation of course) and that i am anti zionism. if you’d like to argue with me on why palestinians are sub-human and should all be forced out, don’t bother. this post is more questions about artistic intention and other peoples’ analyses than an analysis of my own, and questions as to whether or not the intentions of certain writing decisions stain the whole franchise. this post is directed at fellow anti-zionist comic readers. i also talk shit about the last of us towards the end, by the way.

my introduction to x media was x-men evolution, and little me took its themes as a simple, monster high esque “be nice to people who look different and be proud of yourself”. as i grew up, i was always led to believe that the x-men acted as a metaphor for the civil rights movement, with xavier representing a more “respectable” approach and magneto representing a more militant. so imagine my shock when i recently learned that chris claremont lived in a kibbutz and based his interpretation of magneto on israeli pm begin (i’ve seen claims that xavier is based on ben-gurion, but i haven’t found him saying this). he says he based magneto’s redemption on how begin went from being a terrorist to winning the nobel peace prize- which is frankly quite confusing narrative wise because begin never stopped being a zionist, while magneto eventually abandoned his ideas of mutant separation and supremacy. i found all of this so particularly surprising because to me, if we applied zionism to the x-men, it seemed as though magneto served as a metaphor for someone leaving zionism. when he hurts kitty, he realizes that he has become as violent as those he claims to hate and instead devotes himself to teaching. this seems to send an anti-zionist message, but claremont’s seeming continued support of israel greatly muddies the waters. to further complicate things, claremont wrote storm as an orphan of the suez crisis and the first to confront magneto post his epiphany. based on all the evidence above, it seems claremont condemns the hostility between the state of israel and egypt. regardless of his intention, the story comes off as being against violence in the name of isolationism, something antithetical of zionism. basically, i’m super lost.

claremont stopped being the principal x-men author in the 90’s, and this brings up my first question. has the influence of other authors altered the characters significantly enough to divorce them of their strange zionist origins? usually i can brush off all the weird shit claremont and byrne did as being claremont and byrne, since i am unfortunately very used to misogyny in comics (i was quite disgusted to read claremont saying he was inspired by gun culture to make female superheroes, considering his female characters have become some of the best in comics with the help of future writers). but i think this is more than something that can just be brushed off, as magneto’s past affects the story so deeply. has he grown past claremont’s interpretation? has he become something better than a comparison to a butcher? does this stain the whole franchise as zionist, or does the collaborative nature reduce the impact of claremont’s contribution? does the fact that it can be interpreted as anti-zionist make it okay, even if the creator meant something else? how does this affect adaptations (ie- x-men 97) as well as the continuation of 616? does the fact that other writers did not share this intent, but were inspired by claremont’s character, bring the idea forward?

i would like to go more into the story- how israel is directly criticized in the beginning of the krakoa era (despite also being the setting? magneto defends krakoa by saying it was not founded on colonization, and he says this in israel occupied territory, which reads like a liberal condemnation of zionism made by hickman), how i thought krakoa was going to be a clear criticism of ethnostates because of the problems they cause the very people they claim to represent (some authors did pull on this thread, others did not), the complicated history of genosha and how it would be hypocritical to condemn apartheid in south africa while still supporting israel- but i think that’s for another day. i’ll be honest, i’ve been pretty emotionally torn up about this for days. some x-men characters are my favorites of all time, and i often thought of the series as a political fantasy more than a reflection of real world geopolitics. i don’t want to support a series that promotes zionism in its very plot. sabra can be written out of marvel, but i don’t see how this can be erased. i can see how it can be altered; they can have magneto specifically criticize israel as an ex-settler (he does claim he will fight on behalf of all oppressed people, and i dream one day they’ll explicitly include palestine). this sort of goes back to the question as to whether the authors who came after claremont have made the story evolve past its origins.

when the last of us television series was airing, i became aware of druckmann’s gross intentions behind the second game. oddly, claremont doesn’t seem to mention palestinians or the violence against them at all, unless one were to interpret kitty as a stand in for all victims of israeli violence. again, extremely hard to tell what is being said there. the lack of glorification of violence makes it feel less repulsive than tlou, but not completely free of any potential bad messaging. i know sabra is the primary goal of the bds pressure on marvel, but i don’t think we should stop there. i think it’s important that if they’re to keep such a beloved series going that they acknowledge its past wrongs.

again, i am open to discussion with fellow anti-zionist comic readers, if anyone should even see this post. i would ask people more directly, but i don’t exactly feel comfortable going into someone’s dms and demanding they explain their political relationship to art. and for the time being, i think it’s best that people stop saying “magneto was right” so often.