[ SECRET POST #3183 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3183 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 047 secrets from Secret Submission Post #455.
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)]

Yeah but…I just don't like how they take what's likely an incredibly personal and interesting aspect of Natasha and just use it to make a point about reassuring Bruce.

It's not really built upon, you know, the way it would be if Natasha's issues had been the focus of her character arc in that film/the romance?

It just seems like so often when a female character gets involved with a dude…the story makes it about her *tending* to him -- it becomes about him and his issues. And I would have liked to see it be about Natasha and her issues and demons rather than bringing them up basically to comfort Bruce.

[diet_poison]

I don't know, I actually thought that interaction was really cathartic to her. To me it didn't read as "just for Bruce". But I guess we have our different interpretations.

[(Anonymous)]

I think your interpretaton comes from a place of reading each character like a fully realised person, and AYRT's interpretation comes from a place of reading women characters like checklists of things that are fine and things that are wrong terrible for the purposes of testing if they're good enough characters or if the writers are bad people who feminists should throw stones at - and the pass grade on this test is 100%

[(Anonymous)]

Wow…you sound incredibly defensive and bitter that I just happen to wish that Natasha's AoU plot line had been more Natasha-focused instead of revolving around Bruce's issues.

Heck, I don't even mind that Bruce's issues were addressed but why can't Natasha's problems be at the forefront. Why can't we have Bruce being shown to help her deal with losing her covers, for instance?

Just a thought...

[diet_poison]

I don't think that's a fair assessment in this particular case.

[(Anonymous)]

IA with you anon, and you put your finger on something that bothered me about AoU... Natasha's character arc wasn't independent, it was used to prop up Bruce's character arc.

Sigh. :/

[(Anonymous)]

Well what about Thor who had no character arch at all? What about Pietro who's character arch was used to prop up Wanda's character arch (and jesus, at least Widow was developed as a character before being smushed in with someone elses story)?

Honestly, Bruce, Natasha, Wanda, Pietro, Jarvis and fucking HAWKEYE of all people, were the only characters that had a human, personal, story arch in the entire film.