[ SECRET POST #4640 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4640 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #664.
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)]

I agree with this generally, but I don't think I agree with it that much about Avengers specifically. The thing is, IMO Bruce was great in Avengers. Maybe the best he's ever been, thb. And Nat was really good in Avengers (much better than she was in IM2). And Thor was- well- he was a bit whatever, but IMO he was still way better than he had been in his own movie. I thought Fury was good, and Coulson was really good. And Tony was pretty on par with how he's always written. I suppose Loki's characterization is a matter for debate, and I'm not into the Thor side of the franchise enough to have any strong opinions when it comes to how Loki "should" be written, but he was certainly an engaging part of the movie.

So really, the only character that I agree was undermined in Avengers is Steve. And I like Steve, but I'm not a stan. So him being less than his best isn't that big of a deal to me. Plus, I liked him anyway. I just liked him slightly less.

[(Anonymous)]

I liked some of Natasha's writing, but I really disliked the way she was framed and shot in several places, and for me that's a big part characterization. (And even her writing was a mixed bag.) Thor was definitely off-note to me. "He's adopted" was the quip that bothered me the most, because Thor's entire movie is built around the shakespearian tragedy of the brothers against each other, and it feels completely hollow and cheap to me that he could be funny and dismissive about that so fast. Steve, as people have noted, gets kind of 2D treatment, and Hawkeye is just, you know, there. Fury gets some great meme lines but I think it's Samuel L Jackson's sheer presence and charisma that sells the character, not the writing.

The take on Bruce is definitely interesting and one I enjoy a lot, but Whedon didn't have to match any other characterization for him since they were deliberately jettisoning a lot of the unloved Norton!Hulk. So Tony is the only time he really does justice to a previously established characterization IMO.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that Nat was sometimes shot in a sexy way. It just doesn't really bother me, because the writing was so intent on going against that and making her competent and active.

I disagree about Thor, but mainly because imo his movie was deeply mediocre and boring, so I really don't care how faithfully anything from it got carried over. I'm glad Loki got carried over, because Tom Hiddleston is charismatic af and the character is fun, but that's about it.

And I disagree about Fury. I mean, he gets that bit where he actively chooses to emotionally manipulate the Avengers using Coulson's death, which feels like the more interesting and decisive bit of characterization we'd gotten from him at that point. (Admittedly, I could see someone arguing it was bad characterization. I would disagree, I thought it was great. But it is an argument one could make.)

But anyway, it's not like I expect to change your opinion on any of this, nor do I feel the need to. I can see where you're coming from with a lot of it, even if I disagree or just feel differently.