[ SECRET POST #5678 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5678 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #813.
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

[kallanda_lee]

I disagree, narratively speaking. This made more sense for Tony's arc - starting from the battle of New York, where he already was willing to sacrifice himself. But then gets les hot-headed, grows a conscience of sorts, starts a family...yet is still willing to sacrifice now he has more to lose.
I also feel that the MCU just low-key chose Iron Man as their "main protagonist" and phase one was essentially mainly his story.

I've complained in the past about that, and him overshadowing other characters, but the ending actually made me sad for him again - which, I think is good writing.

Though, this is the MCU - I'm sure some version of him will pop up somewhere.

I'm less thrilled about how they wrapped Steve up, but switching them would not have made sense to me.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure I agree, tbh.
I mean Steve literally did sacrifice his life in his first movie, so it's not like he wouldn't/couldn't do it again. He's also known as the first avenger, so it would be a nice reflection from his start to his end, as well as a signal of the beginning of a new era.

If it wasn't meant to be an ensemble film then I would agree that Tony would make more sense to die as he's the main creators pet- but since this is Avengers, not an Iron Man film, there is no reason for the plot to revolve solely on Tony yet again having to learn from the mistakes he seems driven to keep making. It's supposed to be a group dynamic so even though he is the one to cause all of the death/mayhem/whatever, it doesn't rest on him alone to solve it.

Steve goes back in his timeline because he never expected to survive crashing his plane into the arctic, his character essentially dies either way so his end is effectively equivalent to a dry fart. There's no purpose or reason to it. They just threw it in there to get rid of him.
Tony plays a major role in modern society, holds high influence, was born into it- there's no reason why he shouldn't just keep on doing what he always does. His sacrifice, to me, comes off more as a guilty/cowardly way to end his arc. He doesn't learn anything, he doesn't consider who he's leaving behind, he just dies to get his hero's ending... all because the filmmakers liked him best.

It could have been anyone but him tbh. But Steve makes the most sense imo because he doesn't have the most attachments to the modern world, he already did his time, and because (aside from Black Widow) he's the only one who can pull off the grand sacrifice trope and be altruistic despite that.

[(Anonymous)]

Tony hate is strong with fs, as always.

Steve could have tied the control stick and jumped from the plane. The bomber plane responded to manual control and corrected its course to New Yourk only when Steve let go of the stick. He also could have smashed the electric parts insode. That was the dumpest sacrifice ever.

[(Anonymous)]

Hello, Steve-hating troll.

[kallanda_lee]

See, I'm seeing the same things, but interpreting them differently. I think for Steve that would just meant a rehash of his original arc. He is essentially always willing to sacrifice himself - he already did, and came back from the dead. To have him do it again is...zero character development, just showing what we already know.

Tony went from being a hotshot from not caring much about anything, who'd take risks because he likes being the hero, while not really thinking about it much. Then along the way, he is faced with the consequences of his actions (Ultron, the mother of that boy who was killed, Rhodey being paralyzed) and genuinely starts to care for people (like Peter Parker) and eventually does choose to settle down with Pepper...and THEN he makes the sacrifice, which is then more meaningful, in my opinion. Steve dying, after losing Peggy and Bucky, would just be bordering on euthanizing himself.

I think the idea behing Steve's ending is legit (I.e. the eternal hero learning to put his weapon down), but I think the way it was executed was...poor. I think no way Steve could just stand by while Peggy was running SHIELD and Bucky was in cryo somewhere. So I'd have favored a way to do that with Steve in the current timeline somehow.

Basically, I feel this had more dramatic tension than the reverse would have had.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT, but I kind of agree with this? Tony's ending was a realistic (if depressing) cap to his character arc and also completely in character. Steve's ending, while not completely out of sync with his character arc, opens about 30 different plot holes and also feels wildly out of character for the reasons you stated. (Not only that, but it just seems like the kind of thing that's going to turn out to have destabilized the structural foundations of the multiverse and lead to another Event and a whole bunch of retcons.)

[(Anonymous)]

This is the only good comment in the entire thread that actually takes into consideration the nature of the franchise and where they were obviously taking it. Everyone else is hopped up on some weird character hate or else still bitter about an ending that happened a wholeass pandemic ago.

[(Anonymous)]

You really are posting from a pocket universe, aren't you.