[ SECRET POST #2022 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2022 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 088 secrets from Secret Submission Post #289.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[luxshine]

This I don't get. WHY would anyone want Movie!Tony to get a transplant personality where suddenly he totes agrees with the government? Civil War made no sense in 616 and would make even less sense on the MCU.

It is not a Tony/Steve break up story! Where do people get *that* idea?!

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not really all that into the comics, but in the interest of spirited debate I'm going to take this opportunity to discuss some of the reasonings I've seen tossed about, quite possibly playing devil's advocate during.

Comic fans are gearing up for Civil War because it's the latest Big Deal in the fandom. It's caused enough wank, angst, and disbelief that, despite the opinions of people when they were reading it, PEOPLE ARE STILL DISCUSSING IT! People hear about it, get morbidly curious, think 'it can't be all *that* bad', AND THEN THEY BUY IT! Having such a memorable storyline just sitting there worries people because this way they don't have to try and come up with something new. The fact that it made no sense makes it worse, because people don't think they can rely on the idea of 'an IC Tony would never do that!' because he already did. In canon.

As for calling it a divorce, well...

Many people are of the opinion that Steve/Tony is subtextually canon. Many more just aknowledge that they wish it was. And, if you just describe it as 'there was some outside pressure, and person a started keeping important secrets. Then person b found out, and they started fighting. Really fighting. All of their friends had to pick sides and everything. There was no neutral ground, and everyone got hurt by it' it sounds EXACTLY like a bad breakup. So for people whose headcanons have them as married in all but name for the last ten comic book years, it's a divorce.

Plus, someone probably just described the arc as 'when Steve and Tony got divorced' and it stuck because it was apt. The feelings of betrayal, the arguments, the gathering of the troops, all of it. I think it's likely it was used dismissively first, then latched on to as the perfect descriptor.

As for it not being a break-up arc, I disagree. Regardless of the physical nature of their relationship, they are still best friends. They think very highly of each other, miss each other, and love being around the other. They try to support each other, they protect each other, the list really just goes on and on. That being said, I'm going to say it's canonical that they love each other. Not that they're IN LOVE or anything of that distinction, but they love each other. Civil War is yet another break up in their long, on-again, off-again relationship. It's probably the worst one, but that's besides the point. The point is that they had a very strong and important (to them) relationship that got absolutely wrecked. And that, be it married couple, lovers, or friends, is a break up.

(My personal opinion? MCU Tony would never side with the government like that, it's too soon to see what anyone else would do, and there aren't enough characters to have a Civil War. A gang war maybe, but so far we have six Avengers, the Fantastic Four, the X-men, and an announced Ant-Man movie. Including Wasp, we're looking at maybe two dozen non-villain metahumans. And I find descriptions of the Civil War as a Steve/Tony divorce almost painful. This was an arc that was hard on everyone and raised some interesting and important issues, regardless of the characterizations of the main players. I think it could make for some interesting character studies, world building, or debate if only people would stop either dismissing it or looking at it through tunnel-vision slash goggles.)

[(Anonymous)]

Regardless of the physical nature of their relationship, they are still best friends.

I thought Rhodey was Tony's best friend and Sam Wilson was Steve's.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

There's canon to support Steve and Sam being best friends, Steve and Tony, or Tony and Rhodey, depending on who's writing it and what time it's set in.

[luxshine]

I'm starting to assume that I missed a ton of Avengers comics where this supposed "Best friend" thing started. YEs, Tony and Steve are good friends, no one denies that. But the Best Friend place, the one that goes to hell and back for you and that you would die for... that's Rhodey for Tony and Sam for Steve.

[(Anonymous)]

Tony said Steve was his best friend in one of the comic books. I forgot which one.

[(Anonymous)]

But the Best Friend place, the one that goes to hell and back for you and that you would die for... that's Rhodey for Tony and Sam for Steve.

Yeah, I think you must've missed a ton of them. Tony's died for Steve. Stopped his heart in Execute Program, breathed in deadly spores in Red Zone. He didn't think he'd make it out of either alive, and was explicitly in no personal danger both times until he took it on to save Steve. But honestly, they're superheroes. They'll die and go to hell and back to save a passer-by. That's why they're heroes.

Rhodey and Sam were originally designed to be, and very frequently act as, Tony and Steve's supporting cast. So when Tony and Steve are in their own books, their closest friends tend to be Rhodey and Sam. When they're in a team book together, Tony and Steve tend to be each others' closest friends. And different writers tend to write their favourite friendships/characters.

[brooms]

but so far we have six Avengers, the Fantastic Four, the X-men, and an announced Ant-Man movie.

the cinematic rights to the the x-men and the fantastic four (and daredevil) are owned by fox. marvel can't use them. or spider-man (belongs to sony/columbia).

it's odd that there are still people entrenched in avengers fandom who don't know this.

[luxshine]

The other day I had an argument with a guy who swore up and down that Hank Mccoy or Peter can join the Avengers for Avengers 2 because 'it makes sense' despite the fact that the studios are different... so, no, it does't surprise me.

[intrigueing]

....now you've just made me want to see Hank McCoy on the team. So bouncy and happy and all-around sunshiny even when terrible crap is happening to him.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah. I knew about Spider-Man, but not the others. That's why I didn't bring that up above. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention to what studios produce the movies I like. Or the actors, usually. I can (and have) said, halfway through a movie, "Oh, that guy looks familiar. Where have I seen him before?" And had my family/friends say, "Uh, that's (A-lister), and he's been in this, this, this, this, and this. And we own all of them. And you've seen all of them."

Okay, so our new Civil War cast is an in hiding Nick Fury, CA, and Thor vs. IM and Maria Hill, with the other three falling wherever the writers put them *rolls eyes*. If you thought the idea was bad before...

People's insistence that they're all one big, happy, cinematic universe makes me roll my eyes. They're kinda fun to poke at, though

[hllangel]

There's also the fact that it's canon that in an alternate universe, "Natasha" Stark marrying Steve prevented the civil war.

(Another reason why we probably won't get Civil War in MCU is the licensing. Marvel owns the Avengers MCU, but X-men and Spider Man are both owned by other studios. So it would take a lot of negotiating and probably a long time to actually merge all the marvel cinematic universes.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I'm not sure people who think this will happen in the foreseeable future actually... read Civil War. There were tons of characters wrapped up in that Katamari of out-of-character douchebaggery and Marvel can't even use some of the most pivotal ones.

[terabient]

Katamari of out-of-character douchebaggery

A+ description, anon!

[intrigueing]

Ugh, this, exactly. Even if you for some mysterious reason think that comics!Tony was in-character during Civil War (the idea makes me become torn between laughing, waving 40 years of comic books that contradict that idea around like an angry old geezer, and banging my head against the wall, but whatever), in the comics, it was more of a moral issue and a case of character consistency. In the movieverse, not only is the moral issue and character consistency an even bigger problem seeing as MCU!Tony's characterization is very, very, consistent, limited, and easy to see in its entirety (it is summed up in about eight hours of screentime — there aren't dozens of different writers with different takes on the character writing stories spanning decades), but half the fun and memetic-ness of MCU!Tony is that he is the most disrespectful thumb-nosing authority-rebelling rebel who ever rebelled against authority. Turning him into someone who agrees with the government would require EVERYTHING people like about his character to be completely wiped out and replaced with something 180 degrees opposite to everything that has defined his character for three entire movies.

Plus, Civil War was UGLY. You came out of it feeling like someone had just taken a series of bigger and bigger shits on you for every page of the story. And while some people might find that to be an interesting serial story arc (beats me why, but whatever, different strokes), it would not work in a 2.5 hour big-budget mainstream blockbuster movie. Ever. Period.

[anonymouslyyours]

Thank you. I don't recognize Civil War Tony as Tony because he's OOC. Just because it's canon doesn't mean it fits with his previous characterization. Someone just wanted to play "what if we switch Capt. America and Ironman's POVs?" and it turned into a whole confusing, needlessly heartbreaking mess.

[luxshine]

The worst part is that Cap wouldn't have agreed with the Registration Act either! He didn't the first time it came up.

And that's not going into the fact that Civil War gave us One More Day.

[anonymouslyyours]

Oh, I agree with you about Cap I just meant that it seemed like someone wanted to play with Cap being the rebel and Tony being the government's golden boy and just failed all over the place with it.

[intrigueing]

No one would have agreed with Registration because most superheroes aren't idiots. It's been proven at least once a year since 1961 that if you want to make absolutely sure that your sensitive information ends up in the hands of Doctor Doom or Skrulls or Kree or the Masters of Evil or an evil corporate executive, hand it straight to the keepers of the top-secret files of the U.S. Government.

I have have lost count of how many times I've re-read my copy of Fantastic Four #336 for Reed Richards' epic issue-long character filibuster in front of the U.S. Senate about how Registration is a dumb idea and the government should feel dumb for thinking of it. While Sharon Ventura and the rest of the Fantastic Four casually beat up supervillains in the hallway behind him.

....

Dude, when exactly did comics stop being fun? Seriously, who wouldn't rather see Steve and Tony bickering over the best way to defeat a megalomaniacal tuxedo-wearing anthropomorphic dinosaur driving a tank armed with lasers down Park Avenue rather than beating each other up over ugly psuedo-political dystopian bullcrap that all ends up in broken Space Whale Aesops anyway?

[wauwy]

Dude, when exactly did comics stop being fun?

I think the Bush years in our own world had a great deal to do with this, tbh.

[wauwy]

YOU'D BETTER NOT GO INTO THAT FACT

UGH

UGH

DROWNING MY TEARS IN MY SWEET PERFECT ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN AND KEEPING THE DENIAL WALLS IN PLACE UNTIL THEY FIX THAT FUCKING SHIT

[insanenoodlyguy]

I saw it as his additive perosnality reasserting itself. Without alcohol, he became a control freak. But instead of control of self, he began trying to control everybody.

Mind you, that doesn't solve a lot of the story's crap, but I can see that part.

[anonymouslyyours]

That's an interesting theory and it gave me some pause but I just can't reconcile Tony with supporting the Registration Act. Or with wanting to control everyone with supporting the government controlling everyone. Though it's been a while since I read any of that and it might be cool to go back with a different perspective.

[intrigueing]

I don't see it at all. He had been dealing with his alcoholism for a long time before that and his struggle with his addiction was a redemptive and empowering aspect of his character. This is a interesting theory, but it's what would happen to a VILLAIN. Someone without Tony's moral fiber or strength of character.

[intrigueing]

Agreed. I can't even try to analyze his character if I take both his prior characterization and his Civil War-era characterization into account. There are other characters that have been horribly derailed, but whom I could still grit my teeth and analyze wholesale. Like Reed Richards — even though Civil War was infuriating wall-banging character derailment that insulted the readers' intelligence for him too, he still comes out the other side as a coherent character — he's just a disturbingly different character from who the decades of earlier comics insisted he was. But nothing makes sense if I try to analyze Tony, because every one of his characteristics was blatantly contradicted later on without any explanation, and then contradicted all over in the middle of everything, and then contradicted in a completely different way all over again after Civil War, so that the only explanation for it all becomes "a case of DID plus advanced insanity" or something.

Honestly, the Skrullified characters got the easiest way out by a wide margin out of everyone involved, and "lol they were Skrulls!" really ought to have been the explanation for everyone's behavior, cop-out though it was, because it's exactly what it felt like.