[ SECRET POST #3126 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3126 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #447.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

but...Marvel didn't condone it. after that scene, Hank was portrayed as being wrong and regretful of his actions while Janet and the other Avengers were justifiably upset at what he did. your argument about marvel condoning it would work better when applied to the instances where Peter Parker and Reed Richards struck their wives (on a couple of occasions iirc) and didn't really have the actions pointed out as being abusive. they were just sort of accepted in the narrative, which is the exact opposite of what happened in the case of hank and janet

[(Anonymous)]

Allow me to rephrase this then: Marvel published it. That's what I meant by condone. We don't get heroes and villains without a story, and we don't get story without conflict, both internal and external. I don't have a problem with a story being about anybody who does bad things and then redeems themselves eventually; imo those are the best stories because otherwise you have no story. For the record, Hank was also verbally abusive to his wife and that wasn't only one scene, which was part of his issues and downfall and he paid for it.

FYI I was upset Ant-Man wasn't actually about Hank rather than Scott, because I genuinely like Hank and think he's amazing, but I also note Marvel has done things really differently between the comics and the MCU, partially because they don't have a choice (aside from the Disney/ABC thing, we have the whole Sony, no-mutants thing which is really going to affect Civil War next year not to mention the way there are only a couple of secret identities in the MCU anymore), and also because the times, they have changed and they can't pursue things the same way they did in the comics anymore, too much wouldn't be socially accepted. I'm glad Hank is in the film, but I'm sad it's not really the comics Hank, too, because he was a richer character with a lot of history.