Moderator removed post
His ethos is complicated. With the wrong writer he comes off a little... jackboot-y.
This current running Captain America run has him pretty spot on, IMO. Great book.
before I start looking into buying it, can you list your favorite runs? đ (I'm trying to see if we have the same taste) thanks in advance!
Sentry is not Marvel Superman . That's either Hyperion or Gladiator.
Iâm so glad X-Men â97 brought him back and did him justice
Cyclops. Anyone who describes him as a "boy-scout" or a "cop" is so off base.
I also think itâs weird that âBoy Scoutâ is so often meant to be insulting. Dude plays by the book because he knows the difference between his people living and dying is a solid plan. He always comes prepared because he knows any number of things are gonna try to screw with those plans. And he goes out of his way to help his team and his community, which is, I dunno, heroic? So lame.
The biggest demographic for comic books, and especially X-Men for much of their history has been social outcasts and kids who get bullied and made fun of at school.
Cyclops is the smart, handsome, athletic "team captain" with the hot popular girlfriend (who trades up to the hot popular blonde mean girl when he loses her). He is, on the surface, everything the average comic book reader from the mid '70s to the mid '90s would have hated in a real life person.
Tbf, I feel like Johnny Storm is even moreso everything theyâd hate but I donât see any hate for him often.
Johnny's the goofball. He's the guy who hangs out with the popular kids and is accepted by them, but is willing to joke around with the "losers" in a non-hurtful way if he happens to be around them.
Johnny is friends with Pete who is the poster child for nerds.
Don't forget dumping his wife for his teenage crush.
cyclops always gets a bad rep along with cap for being the goodie two shoes or the boy scout and i hate it
Thatâs literally what they call him in the X-men animated series: a Boy Scout.
I think it was right before he jumped without a parachute and survived by nuking the ground so hard the updraft saved him from the fall.
Isnât that by Wolverine? That donât really count
Oh ya. I forgot Wolverine is an ass.
Wolverine is allowed to slander Cyclops a little, as a treat.
I think Rogue also calls him that. Maybe not though.
Scott "I-will-commit-warcrimes-if-it-leads-to-the-survival-of-my-species" Summers
Literally it's just people who have only seen the fox xmen movies.
Iâll be honest I think this is true of basically every mid-high popularity character. Thereâs so much content itâs impossible to not generalize unless youâre a super fan of the character
I'll go with comics Thanos. The fact that most people still think that his love for Death is as complicated as his character gets, makes me wonder how many people have actually read any of comics they're basing this opinion on.
Not gonna make textwall of a comment explaining his character (Unless someone is actually willing to read that), but the fact that Infinity Gauntlet gets always brought up as an example of Thanos being blindly obssessed with Death already says something.
Like he quite literally moves on from that motive at the end of that story, and yet people tend to ignore that. Not to mention the whole debate he had with Warlock, which actually shows he was more complex of a guy than he was made out to be.
Do it, you coward.
Thanos in the comics (as long as he's written by someone who understands him as a character like Jim Starlin), was a purely conflicted nihilist who didn't believe in concept of a meaning, whlist searching for a goal to his existence. The only thing he did in fact was sure of was that Death was always gonna meet him when he dies, and that's why he chases after her affections, because she's the embodiment of that which he's looking for, along which comes the chase for power. Becoming as powerful or even more powerful would give him the capabilites to give everything a meaning, just like Death does, but yet he deep down knows it won't help him in the end. He secretly wants to lose all the power he gains every time, because he deep down knows it won't help his desire and that every time it will come down to him not finding that meaning, as becoming someone powerful enough to do simply anything you want, will result in nothing but another return to zero scenario where he doesn't get the meaning he so deeply want, which is his ultimate insecurity. but yet every new opportunity to gain that power gives him that hope that maybe this time will be different, despite very well knowing that it won't. And it's this endless chase that makes him a compelling a character imo.
TL;DR: Thanos is not a guy who is driven by simple love for a woman, but by the will fulfill his inner desires, that he deeply knows cannot do, but yet tries every time with the mindset of "Maybe this time it'll work" despite deeply down knowing it won't, because ultimately he doesn't have any goal at all. You could practically say Thanos's entire character is philosophy-focused, and not necessarily goal-focused.
Manâs should Infinity Gauntlet a therapist
Using âbutâ and âyetâ like this is clunky and awkward. One or the other works fine on its own. Regardless, Thanks for the thanos info.
Anytime anyone mischaracterises Thanos, I link this video. Thanosâ relationship with Death is a lot more complicated than just âheâs a simpâ, as is his character.
thoughts on the best thanos adaptation : https://youtu.be/ggS2v2n_Q30?si=oABCJ12JA-M0Xq8A
Captain Marvel.
I will forever have beef with that damn characterization of her in Civil War 2
As someone whose only contact with captain marvel (besides the MCU) was civil war II, what's so wrong about it? (Genuinely asking)
It's character assassination at its finest (Both Civil Wars are, to be honest) just because the writers needed a hero vs hero story and needed one side to be the bad guy.
Thankfully Kelly Thompson came along with her run after, some of the best carol.
Literally my favourite Captain Marvel run
Yep, you can even read any of the regular books Carol was in during CWII (her own book and A-Force mostly) and it's practically like reading a different character. Heck, the arc in her own book starts with her telling off Department H for being upset that she didn't arrest someone based on one of Ulysses' visions before he actually got to the point where they had to fight him.
Carol is kinda like Captain America In terms of personality, they can both be hard headed but they donât let it define them from reason even if they donât agree, Carol in that story was adamant she was right, was willing to arrest Miles and wouldnât listen to some of her closest friends not to mention Carol would never fight Thanos without backup bc sheâs not dumb.
Carol Danvers is a huge Star Wars nerd, so much so she named her flerken Chewie, sheâs a compassionate person, sheâs tactical has good sense on her shoulders and sheâs a huge and utter sci fi dork.
All things which Civil War 2 just said fuck that make her Jack booted and ignorant and uncaring of other ppls opinions bc sheâs right and knows all. Thatâs. Not. Carol!!!
Cap Marvel is my favorite as well
They really did do her dirty tbh it didn't even make sense for her to have that stance cuz it's such a one sided argument, having anyone take the side of an inaccurate prediction is bound to get hate from fans
Clint Barton.
He's either an afterthought, completely forgotten or a punchline. At best he's a glorified himbo. (Which admittedly he kinda is. Sometimes)
Clint always seems to make bad choices. Usually they're the right choice, too. In the sense that he does the right thing, usually screwing himself over at the same time. He's a better moral compass than just about anyone else I can think of.
Canonical Slut.
He really has gotten the short end of the stick in recent comics, usually I like to just use the argument that he's pretending to be dumb they showed in Secret Avengers, makes a great reason for why he's always written so poorly lately
Pym. One of the most developed founding member of the Avengers within the Avengers comics, but most seem to want to focus on his worst moment. We shouldn't ignore it, but he's so much more than that.
Agree. Alot of fans here also slam heavily into thinking his Ultimate and 616 characters are exact equivalence. And even then, I don't think a great deal realize either that "depicting" is the not the same as "condoning."
Alot of characters can still align on the "good" spectrum and have morally incorrect actions they commit or continue to commit. That just makes certain characters more interesting and allows for further conflicts.
Wanda Maximoff. Either here or elsewhere on the internet.
I remember seeing a comment of someone calling her a âconsistent villain in the comicsâ đ
I got downvoted to oblivion here for simply stating it's a terrible idea to have her in MoM "smell of rancid eggs" and being tied to hell or the devil. MoM defenses are probably most facepalming to me, it always alludes to missing the point of WandaVision, "it was fun movie", "it was scary movie", and so forth. Not a philosophical movie, not a character developing movie, it's a farce that also happens to be a rollercoaster ride.
Either way the discussions around Wanda has been getting disingenuous since WV, so it's depressing how badly she was butchered. So many of the beloved heroes in the MCU did plenty of bad things, but Wanda has mental breakdown and accidentally enslaves a town and now she is the "anti-villain, antihero, a villain".
The Darkhold is what's tied to hell/the devil, and it has corrupted her, despite her insistence otherwise. That's why she has that odor. It also leaves the door open to rehabilitate/exorcise her in the future.
Agatha didn't smell of hell before revelation, and she also had been "corrupted" but chose her own path. Wanda acts like she has free will in the movie as well. The problem is that the Darkhold corrupted her off-screen, the audience needs to see WV to fill the gap, without it Wanda is just a villain from get go with a terrible motivation since this is her first return after Endgame to non-D+ audiences essentially.
Not to mention Waldron missed entire point of WV and likely didn't bother to understand it or consult with writers, neither did Raimi.
I don't really want an explanation why she smelled like hell. I want Marvel not to waste one of the best characters in their universe on a terrible villain arc and they did.
I disagree. Wanda has always made the selfish decision before making a different one. She and Pietro joined Hydra to get back at Stark; they joined Ultron for the same reason before switching to the Avengers; she joined Cap's side in Civil War for her freedom before going on the run after; she chose NOT to destroy Vision's stone in Infinity War when he originally asked and they had time, before trying to do it at the last minute later (though it wouldn't have mattered and Thanos did have the time stone).
And finally, she may have accidentally created the hex, but she knew from episode one what was going on. By episode 3, she threatened S.W.O.R.D. with never coming back in. Later, when the townsfolk are begging her to let them out, she tries to bargain with erasing their memories for good/doing it right. She begins to tear it down, but then stops when she sees that her family will disappear with it.
It wasn't until her heart, in Vision, finally convinced her that it was the right thing to do, did she bring it down. And that was after she found out just how powerful she could eventually be, and that there was an artifact explicitly created for her to gain even more power.
And it was through that artifact that she heard the call of "her" children. So of course, she's going to make the choice to do everything in her power to get part of her family back, since that's all she's ever wanted, and it's everything the keeps being taken from her.
I HATE that they did a version of "House of M" because it IS the worst story for Wanda as a character, because you can't really come back from that. And then they doubled down with MoM. It's not like the Dark Phoenix Saga where they can say that it was a fake Jean and skirt around having her take responsibility and face consequences. We were explicitly shown that this is the Wanda we've been with the entire time, who made a mistake in a moment of grief, but perpetuated the mistake because it gave her what she wanted at the expense of other people. Then she concocted a plan to steal the children from another version of herself in order to feel complete, instead of finding a universe where those children didn't have their mother.
Wanda has always been treated as the "she's too powerful to be sane* character and it's irritating that when most other characters in the MCU received tweaks and updates to not have them fall into a 2D facsimile of a cardboard cutout, it's the first thing they do with her.
I disagree. Wanda has always made the selfish decision before making a different one. She and Pietro joined Hydra to get back at Stark; they joined Ultron for the same reason before switching to the Avengers;
Bullshit and most common misconception. You're trying to paint them both as unsympathetic and opportunistists seeking power which is utterly untrue. Sokovia was a very impoverished country, Wanda and Pietro lived on the streets, barely making by. HYDRA deceived the country to give them foothold and asked for volunteers in exchange for country to return to former glory and revenge on Stark. Wanda and Pietro volunteered for revenge and to protect their country, even Cap sympathized with their choice. Steve Rogers of all people. And the revenge part should be more than understandable, Tony Stark killed her parents indirectly, he sold weapons to the US Air Forces to bomb her country, she had every right to want justice.
she joined Cap's side in Civil War for her freedom before going on the run after;
Again bullshit. If she wanted freedom she could've ran away from the airport the moment battle was going against Team Cap's favor. She could've went her own way after being rescued by Hawkeye. No, she stayed by Steve's side and helped him and Bucky, a stranger to her, escape at the cost of her own freedom.
she chose NOT to destroy Vision's stone in Infinity War when he originally asked and they had time, before trying to do it at the last minute later
Steve also opposed Vision's request, saying he won't trade lives. Also what the fuck is wrong with that? At this point Vision is the only close family she has left, yes of course she'd want to seek alternate options to killing him, which is why they went to Wakanda, to extract the Mind Stone from Vision without him dying. Yeah, fucking shame on Wanda for wanting to save Vision over killing him.
And finally, she may have accidentally created the hex, but she knew from episode one what was going on. By episode 3, she threatened S.W.O.R.D. with never coming back in. Later, when the townsfolk are begging her to let them out, she tries to bargain with erasing their memories for good/doing it right. She begins to tear it down, but then stops when she sees that her family will disappear with it.
She was just as confused about it in episode one, unaware she was mind controlling people. Also at this point she was mentally ill, in state of psychosis as she was unable to see what's real or not. She grabbed onto the belief her family and Vision were real and alive because that's all she had left. Everyone abandoned her, left her to be with their own families or do their own thing, Wanda only had Wanda at this point of her life. So, no, she wasn't aware of what was happening, and yes she hesitated to end the family that she loved so much as she had no one else close in the world to live for.
And it was through that artifact that she heard the call of "her" children. So of course, she's going to make the choice to do everything in her power to get part of her family back, since that's all she's ever wanted, and it's everything the keeps being taken from her.
Her kids screaming for help leads to "Every Wanda has a family but me" and "dreams are gateway to variant's pov in other branch" bs? The point of WandaVision was letting go of Vision and the dream she wanted to have with him, she let go of her children in that show as well. MoM undid it.
I HATE that they did a version of "House of M" because it IS the worst story for Wanda as a character, because you can't really come back from that. And then they doubled down with MoM. It's not like the Dark Phoenix Saga where they can say that it was a fake Jean and skirt around having her take responsibility and face consequences. We were explicitly shown that this is the Wanda we've been with the entire time, who made a mistake in a moment of grief, but perpetuated the mistake because it gave her what she wanted at the expense of other people. Then she concocted a plan to steal the children from another version of herself in order to feel complete, instead of finding a universe where those children didn't have their mother.
You're blaming the character, not the writer for such a terrible story. Also in the comics Wanda came back from House of M and is much more better hero and character than she was before, not to mention how bad House of M and Disassembled were. If people forgave Loki, they can forgive Wanda or just prove to be hypocritical.
Bullshit and most common misconception. You're trying to paint them both as unsympathetic and opportunistists seeking power which is utterly untrue. Sokovia was a very impoverished country, Wanda and Pietro lived on the streets, barely making by. HYDRA deceived the country to give them foothold and asked for volunteers in exchange for country to return to former glory and revenge on Stark. Wanda and Pietro volunteered for revenge and to protect their country, even Cap sympathized with their choice. Steve Rogers of all people. And the revenge part should be more than understandable, Tony Stark killed her parents indirectly, he sold weapons to the US Air Forces to bomb her country, she had every right to want justice.
So even you admit that they joined for revenge. I never said it was unsympathetic, only that they did it. And yes, Steve does sympathize because it's similar to what he did. For me personally, I see it as the consequences of Tony's actions - the radicalization of the people his weapons were helping the government bomb. We see it in the real world with ISIS, Hamas, gangs all over, etc.
Again bullshit. If she wanted freedom she could've ran away from the airport the moment battle was going against Team Cap's favor. She could've went her own way after being rescued by Hawkeye. No, she stayed by Steve's side and helped him and Bucky, a stranger to her, escape at the cost of her own freedom.
When I say freedom, I mean freedom to be and use her abilities, just like Steve was fighting for. Or more accurately, the freedom from government and other entities that would force her to do to other countries and people what happened to her.
Steve also opposed Vision's request, saying he won't trade lives. Also what the fuck is wrong with that? At this point Vision is the only close family she has left, yes of course she'd want to seek alternate options to killing him, which is why they went to Wakanda, to extract the Mind Stone from Vision without him dying. Yeah, fucking shame on Wanda for wanting to save Vision over killing him
I said she made selfish decisions, not bad decisions. Keeping Vision, when he's the algorithm that TOLD everyone that a cataclysm was coming because he was her only family is a selfish decision. It's not wrong per se, but it is her choosing what she wants against what he wants. And this won't be the last time this comes up. And Steve was also making that same decision because Wanda's flaw is that she wants family and comfort above all else, Steve's is he can't compromise if he feels he's morally in the right, and that he has to save everyone.
She was just as confused about it in episode one, unaware she was mind controlling people. Also at this point she was mentally ill, in state of psychosis as she was unable to see what's real or not. She grabbed onto the belief her family and Vision were real and alive because that's all she had left. Everyone abandoned her, left her to be with their own families or do their own thing, Wanda only had Wanda at this point of her life. So, no, she wasn't aware of what was happening, and yes she hesitated to end the family that she loved so much as she had no one else close in the world to live for.
I don't think she was. When she tells the wife to save the husband from choking, she had the same tone as when she rewound the "beekeeper" out when she says "NO". The music stops and there's a similar voice effect. She was confused in the flashback for sure, but by the time vision is questioning her in episode 2 after Norm, she definitely knows.
Her kids screaming for help leads to "Every Wanda has a family but me" and "dreams are gateway to variant's pov in other branch" bs? The point of WandaVision was letting go of Vision and the dream she wanted to have with him, she let go of her children in that show as well. MoM undid it.
She didn't let go of her dream of a family, she let go of that specific method of obtaining it. You're right in that she's a young, powerful person who is going through the worst things a person can , all while being abandoned and forgotten by the people who were supposed to be her friends.
But she wasn't going to let it go. Because she FINALLY had the power to do something about it.
You're blaming the character, not the writer for such a terrible story. Also in the comics Wanda came back from House of M and is much more better hero and character than she was before, not to mention how bad House of M and Disassembled were. If people forgave Loki, they can forgive Wanda or just prove to be hypocritical.
Wanda as a character was untouchable for 5 years after No More Mutants. Then she was a side character in Young Avengers: Children's Crusade. After that, she had a stint in AvX, but both in universe and out of universe, she wasn't forgiven until 2021's Trial of Magneto storyline.
In the meantime, she's had some solo books (that I really enjoy) but it took a LONG time (and Elizabeth Olsen killing it)for her to be usable again
Again, I'm A HUGE Wanda fan, I've loved her since at least X-Men Evolution,if not before, but her making decisions because she's personally in pain, and then correcting that decision later is ingrained in her character.
So even you admit that they joined for revenge. I never said it was unsympathetic, only that they did it. And yes, Steve does sympathize because it's similar to what he did. For me personally, I see it as the consequences of Tony's actions - the radicalization of the people his weapons were helping the government bomb. We see it in the real world with ISIS, Hamas, gangs all over, etc.
Okay, and how is that Wanda's fault? A character making a mistake, but she ultimately made the right choice to join the Avengers to save the world she lives in, ditches her desire for revenge on Tony. Something Stark wasn't capable to do when confronted with fact Bucky killed his parents.
Selfishness is a flaw every character has, it doesn't mean it would be a cause for Wanda to turn to darker side especially when she hadn't done it before after AoU.
When I say freedom, I mean freedom to be and use her abilities, just like Steve was fighting for. Or more accurately, the freedom from government and other entities that would force her to do to other countries and people what happened to her.
Not a selfish decision. Accords are a joke.
Steve had a point during the team argument, and had a point when she tried to console her in Wanda's room.
I said she made selfish decisions, not bad decisions. Keeping Vision, when he's the algorithm that TOLD everyone that a cataclysm was coming because he was her only family is a selfish decision. It's not wrong per se, but it is her choosing what she wants against what he wants. And this won't be the last time this comes up. And Steve was also making that same decision because Wanda's flaw is that she wants family and comfort above all else, Steve's is he can't compromise if he feels he's morally in the right, and that he has to save everyone.
Depends on perspectives then. I don't consider it a selfish decision. When time came to sacrifice someone to save the world, Wanda did it willingly. Trying to save everyone without sacrifice, or to save family can be interpreted as noble.
I don't think she was. When she tells the wife to save the husband from choking, she had the same tone as when she rewound the "beekeeper" out when she says "NO". The music stops and there's a similar voice effect. She was confused in the flashback for sure, but by the time vision is questioning her in episode 2 after Norm, she definitely knows.
That's just pure speculation. She had a mental breakdown and can be hardly held accountable for something she had no idea was going on, or could perceive what she was doing. It was not an intended malice, or a rational decision, her decisions in the series were irrational and done out of desperation, not malice. She ultimately sacrificed her family and dream to save others, and returned to reality, proving she's still a selfless hero at core.
She didn't let go of her dream of a family, she let go of that specific method of obtaining it. You're right in that she's a young, powerful person who is going through the worst things a person can , all while being abandoned and forgotten by the people who were supposed to be her friends.But she wasn't going to let it go. Because she FINALLY had the power to do something about it.
If she wanted to, she'd create second Hex elsewhere, but she didn't. This wasn't a message intended by WandaVision' writers, and MoM writers didn't give a shit what was the point of the show, or what she did.
Either way you're defending her downfall that happened off-screen in MoM, that also happened in an objectively bad movie.
Wanda as a character was untouchable for 5 years after No More Mutants. Then she was a side character in Young Avengers: Children's Crusade. After that, she had a stint in AvX, but both in universe and out of universe, she wasn't forgiven until 2021's Trial of Magneto storyline.In the meantime, she's had some solo books (that I really enjoy) but it took a LONG time (and Elizabeth Olsen killing it)for her to be usable again
Again the fault is on audience reaction and the writers for making Wanda this way she was in Disassembled or HoM, not on her. Lots of heroes and villains made terrible things, but only Wanda was held to highest standard for her mistakes. Either way, it was a stupid decision to walk on the same rake again and make her a villain in the MCU when she already was one.
Okay and? Do we need to wait another 5 years until we can use Wanda again, meanwhile Loki was immediately given faux redemption right in first episode of his first season? I still don't get the point you were trying to make. If you wanted to say that Wanda's selfish or her reasoning made sense in MoM, I'll disagree regardless of the explanation why cause the movie gave a bad one.
I'm happy and all that you're also a Wanda fan, but I also as a fan am unhappy with the recent development or discourse. Wanda has often being slandered while other villains or heroes who made bad decisions were forgiven, and I frankly can't stand for it. Either way MCU adaptation of Wanda could've avoided from her walking on same rake as her comic book counterpart did, but it was done anyway. So, good fucking luck to Marvel trying to redeem her now.
Your last paragraph is my point. And I thoroughly agree. Where we disagree is whether or not MoM was a logical continuation of the Wanda vision story. I think it is, even if I dislike that they went that route, because how do you redeem 616 Wanda now?
I guess they could try and go the Loki or Clint route where they paper over it, but fortunately for them and unfortunately for her, their "mistakes" were either mostly off screen (Clint), or not treated with the gravitas they should have been (Loki); while Wanda gets cast as a horror film monster in a movie about a man who also consistently "breaks the rules" to do what he wants.
So yes, I'm upset with the direction that Wanda went and don't see how they can redeem her without a universal reset or something. But to be fair it's already been 3 years since WandaVision and 2 years since MoM, so we're halfway through her 5 year exileđ
Many examples, letâs it be Punisher.
Punisher gets it particularly bad because half the time the writers go with the shitty take in canon stories. The character assassination in crossover events like Civil War and Secret Empire are insane. Even in his own book heâs had full runs based on caricaturish misinterpretations.
Yeah, thatâs right.
Genuinely the only well written punishers i've ever seen is the game and the show
Not only, there are plenty other runs like Garth Ennisâs ones.
Frank tryna save his reputation đ đ đ đ
Yeah I'm sure there are some good comic versions out there which is why i specified that i've seen
User deleted comment
28d
Ohh i never remember writers names i do know who that is though I'm ngl I've read a bit of punisher max it's ok but it's so overly edgy even for the time he just writes with such a disdain for superheroes
Ennis is like considered one of the best writers in comic
Yeah ik who he is now just didn't remember his name and honestly super undeserved praise that dude hates everything he makes đ
Amen brother
The most shocking thing to me with the punisher is that he's a character that marvel should love because he's a character designed to stay the same in terms of characterization. Yet marvel keeps fucking him up.
I also hate with a passion Joe Garrison because marvel literally just did Frank but less interesting (not to be that guy but they didn't even make him diverse) . Punisher sense of continuity also feels really lacking. I never get the sense the writers are intrested in playing around with establish elements from prior runs. Barracuda still hasn't been brought into 616 continuity for example when he's basically acts like the punisher's (I also saw a pitch that he would work as a Luke cage arch nemesis).
And this doesn't mean the Punisher stories can't explore different directions. You can have Punisher go after Orchis or someone. I always envisioned a story where the Punisher was put into different philosophical scenarios to test his black and white morality.
In terms of cinematic supplementary material: I think both Batman and Punisher suffer from "The Directors think I'm Wolverine, problem" where they're always depicted as snarling, yelling maniacs.
Both of them in their sources are alot more stoic, calculating, cold and intellectual in their mannerisms and vocality. Their calmness doesn't serve to diminish their physicality, but to elevate it: giving them an authoritative and demanding presence that doesn't involve hammering down on the vocal chords. That's why Kevin Conroy is the defacto Batman and Christian Bale isn't.
Alot of people really like Jon Bernthal's "drill-esque" version of the character, but to me, Thomas Jane fit the best. His dialogue was formatted in quick, concise to the point sentences that gave off the implication of a seasoned tactician, but with enough drawl and fry in the delivery to sell the idea that something in him truly broke.
Anytime they call Captain America a "cop" or a "government lapdog"
Even X-Men 97 is guilty of this. One of his primary motivating factors is that he believes in the American Dream, and will fight for it till his last breath.
Also, Wanda Maximoff seems to be defined by her reality altering "No More Mutants" moment. Like they forgot there was a before and after for her character. MCU has warped people into thinking she's a villainess when that's not the case.
Wanda's "after" no more mutants wasn't really good for years afterwards. I think she was sidelined from the books for about 5 years (Young Avengers: Children's Crusade), and then languished some more after that. The X-fans out of universe and mutants in universe couldn't forgive her until the Trial of Magneto storyline in 2021! So for 16 years Wanda suffered as a character because one writer decided that having her kill the Avengers and erase mutants was a cool idea
It's not just Cap either. Because of the current political zeitgeist, Any time any character is even mildly connected to the military, they get that same criticism.
Also i hate the x men 97 adapted anything related to rogueneto that storyline was disgusting and never should've been brought up again i haven't watched it yet and I'm sure the show is great but there is no world where that storyline won't make me angry
Oddly, it'll be Professor X but in reverse. I hold him in high regard and love him based on early comics, movies, and cartoons. But...I know it has a shelf life as soon as I get far enough in the comics. I know in a decade or so I'll be begging for the time when my only qualm with his character was the one panel "I love Jean Grey" moment.
Iâm starting to get a little tired of the Charles hate in universe as itâs becoming a bit much.
Like even before fall of X, storm queens (sorry should be goddesses) all over him for all those terrible sins of insulting her. Then literally makes him fall to his knees because her red triangles are better than everyone elseâs
Oh but magneto? Sure heâs made some mistakes but he tries his best okay? Like cmon đ
Yeah, I don't want to spoil the stories for myself, but the whiffs I get seem to make him almost a complete monster which I wonder will even align with his actual built up character? I get nuance and a morale continuums, but I worry that they just decided to dial him up to 11 on the heinous actions meter merely for the shock value (which would be a shame).
The dude's been dialed to 11 since at least Deadly Genesis.
hmm, I'll assume it's a different dimension/timeline then lol
Moderator removed comment
28d
Hulk has gone missing in AoU and Thor found his doppelgänger on Sakaar. But seriously Ragnarok did Hulk badly and from then on it got worse.
That and I kind of don't like the implication that Hulk and Banner are strictly separate entities. Hulk should be his own CHARACTER with his own continuity and identity and agency, yes, but to me it's far more interesting that he's an aspect, or the Id, of elements intrinsic to Banner.
Mr. Fantastic, The Punisher, and Cyclops I feel like go through this the most
People on Reddit acting like Reed backhands sue every time she interrupts his work and she runs off to get fucked by Namor every other week to cope with it all.
Incredible sentence
Do writers count here because I feel like a lot of writers could count here.
As in a writer fucks up a character by not understanding it??
Hawkeye.
"He's just a dude with a bow and arrow"
Yet he's worthy enough to fight alongside gods...
And most of the people who say that have zero problem with Black Widow too.
It's weird cuz that logic can be applied to 90% of street level characters. Batman is a man in a bat costume, Captain America is a man on steroids, Lady Shiva deadass just has good hands, but if a guy has a bow and arrow it's a problem đ¤ˇđžââď¸
Cyclops and Wolverine suffer this from two opposite ends of the spectrum (from under-exposed to over-exposed). And people seem to think they have to choose one, and then oversimplify the otherâwhen in reality, theyâre both amazing characters.
Deadpool, bro is a pretty tragic character, humor is how he deals with trauma
Was looking for this. I love the movies, but they lack some of the sadness to it.
Iron Man
Iceman nowadays is just the gay poster boy for Marvel and it bothers me a lot more than it should. Sure itâs nice to have representation but damn itâs freaking Iceman, heâs so much more than his sexuality. Duggan wrote some great Iceman moments during Marauders vol 1 but anything else just paled in comparison.
This would irritate me even for a character I donât like. Having said that, it happens with Mary Jane a lot, and that tends to tick me off the most.
It's cause they keep trying to further shoe-horn her out of the supportive role that she has the opportunity to work brilliantly in. But rather than working her up in the aspects that she works best in, they would rather try to write her in somewhere else, under some kind of illusory implication that she's not good enough as a support for Peter and needs to doing something nobody with common sense would. And it's just frustrating.
Northstar, oddly enough.
Heâs gay and uhâŚâŚ.. mmmmmmâŚâŚ fast?
Yeah, nailed it.
Oh, and that one time they completely did Black Knight dirty in that Black Panther story.
Honestly? Everyone. In some way or another, in some place or another, people missunderstand characters all the time.
Captain America (Steve), Daredevil, Hawkeye (Clint)
Moon knight
Being crazy is a defining characteristic.
Thanos and hank pym.
mcu spiderman. people always associate him with being Iron boy jr when he grew out of that after homecoming. He wanted to get away from that in ffh.
The context of the comics is completely different from the MCU. Comic peter is one of the earliest superheroes in marvel and is practically the main character of the comic universe whereas MCU peter became spiderman years after the avengers assembled in 2012.
Also, Tony saved him in Iron man 2 no shit he's gonna idolize him.
Yeah tbh I never had an issue or understood why ppl hated on MCU spidey. It's a different adaptation, why would you want to see the same exact story again, it's cool they made the characters story adapt to the world of the mcu and attaching him to iron man worked pretty well imo
Definitely Scarlet Witch and Cyclops
I'd point to Punisher. Everyone is so very quick to dismiss him as a psychopath, mental case, or something along those lines, but he's actually a very complicated character. He has a moral code, he's 100% aware of what he's doing and the path he's chosen, and he does not deviate from it. In many regards he isn't much different than many other more accepted heroes.
Parker Robbins. Heâs more than just an asshole
Cyclopse.
Captain America and Ironman
Deadpool. Everyone thinks heâs just the dumb memes they see online. Theyâve never read the comics where he struggles with the darkness inside him & his yearning to be a hero.
My favorite Marvel character is Quicksilver.
Pym. Greatest answer here is Pym.
I blame the writers. The people that call Superman or Cyclops "boy scout", aren't wrong, given how those characters have been treated... outside of comics. Look at Wolverine. He's just a pretty boy now.
Captain America, Venom, Cyclops, Black Panther, Professor X, and Doctor Doom
The point of Symbiote Spider-man is not that him being a big, ruthless, edgelord is a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I like moments when Spider-man dials in and stops joking too, it just has to happen for a reason. There's so much fan media that addresses Spider-man in the black suit as "literally him." And while it's fun at times, it's not the POINT.
The point of any good black suit arc is not to showcase how good he is WITH the Symbiote, but WITHOUT it. It serves to reiterate and extrapolate on the character traits already intrinsic to Peter Parker's moral philosophy. He evades self-destruction by recounting that power through humility, discipline, and integrity. He overcomes his vices by not letting them control him, doing the right thing, even when it's hard. Taking the responsibility to Forfeit what could be your own power because it is too easy to weild recklessly. By doing this, not only does it strengthen our understanding of Parker metatextually, but it allows the character himself to grow into someone with a greater comprehension of how his actions may effect himself or others around him. Having to hold himself accountable for what transpired during his time in the suit, knowing that it wasn't just a rogue agent, but ASPECTS of his OWN psyche he needs to keep in check.
There are alot of things within the Spider-man ethos and lore that serve as modern myths and legends that contain lessons any man should take into his waking life. The Symbiote serves as one for addiction and substance abuse, both may feel good, but both will cause you to turn into something you aren't, before ultimately wearing you down to nothing. There's so much... external sensational wankery around anytime Peter uses a Symbiote suit. Without taking into account the greater repercussions or implications it may have. I much prefer the "Back in Black" arc that paints Peter as frustrated and cornered, with greater justifications for his actions that showcase his integrity and inherent ability as he wills criminals into taking him more seriously. We all have people we would do anything to protect and feel as if we would bring hell unto those who harmed them, "Back in Black" is a manifestation of that ethos and instinctual drive.
Hawkeye, or Captain America when he's in an X-men comic,
The Venom Symbiote. If itâs not reduced to an inherently evil entity (a boring, braindead take that has been done to death by now) that only corrupts its host, itâs mistaken for the actual âVenomâ character. The first time I saw this happen outside the comics was in the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon, but that didnât leave that big an impact on the public consciousness. The next time it happened was in the Venom movies, movies that have since imprinted on general audiences and even most fans the idea that Venom = the Venom Symbiote, and that the Symbioteâs name is actually Venom.
This is bull. The whole point of Venom as a character is the idea of two beings, a human and an alien, sharing a deep hatred for Spider-Man and working together to ruin him. Eddie and the Symbiote make up Venom. Together they are Venom. Thatâs why they use We instead of I. Their bond is a partnership, and Venom is the identity they take up whenever they go out and mess with Spidey.
To portray the Symbiote by itself as Venom, without Eddie or at least another host in the mix, and naming the Symbiote Venom, is character assassination. There is no Venom without Eddie and Symby working together. You can have your different take on a charcater, but when you change the core traits of that character to where they resemble their original self only in a superficial capacity, you have failed at portraying said character, and have made up an entirely different entity.
Venom is the bond between a Spider-Manâhating host (it doesnât necessarily have to be Eddie) and the alien that was wronged by Spidey. Their desire to use their shared hurt and anger for vengeance against the Wallcrawler. This is a core aspect of their characters. If writers donât get this right, they arenât writing Venom. Theyâre writing a black symbiote who calls itself Venom, and who has a host that also calls itself/gets to be Venom, but only sometimes.
Thatâs not the villain Venom, nor the lethal protector Venom, nor the hero Venom. Thatâs just a mischaracterized mess of squandered potential that completely misses the point and depth of the OG comics Venom.
Gambit. The resident smarmy bad boy and womanizing cheater who refuses to take no for an answer and respect Rogue's boundaries.
I've actually seen people try to argue things along the lines of the above over the years, and I have no idea where they got this idea from outside of stereotypes about his character archetype.
It got to the point where Gambit became so polarizing that he was either your favorite X-Man or you hated him with a burning passion of a thousand suns.
The core of Gambit's character is that he's cool and charismatic as Hell but he's haunted by his past sins to the point he believes he can never redeem himself no matter how many times he proves himself a hero.
Gambit is a less brooding Wolverine, but he was done dirty for years and I could never understand it.
I am so glad X-Men '97 got his character right.
Cyclops
Ghost rider people donât understand him
It's specific to this subreddit at least but for me, it's the entirety of the Ultimate Universe.
People harp on it for being edgy, but to me I moreso detest the implication that it shouldn't in any way exist on some moral level. Is it cerebral and all that thought out? No. But it's interesting enough as a sort of tarnished facsimile of the original 616 Universe.
You may not like that the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were in an incestuous relationship. Or that the Blob cannibalized Janet. Or that Hank abused his wife. Or Ultimatum. Or the fact that Hulk is weirdly horny. Or that Hawkeye is Manic. But, you're not supposed to, it's meant to reflect how people in our reality who achieve fame or prominence common to superheroes, often live dirty, morally questionable lives. It doesn't condone those things, only depicts them.
The fact that no one here shuts up about it, 20 years later, says alot more about them and their boundaries than it does the books. They sure had a hell of alot better artwork than sone of the absolute schlock nowadays. I almost prefer the edgier, more grounded takes in Ultimate than the over the top, zany, overly safe, "People with skin that isn't white are amazing :)))))))))))" forced, contrived shit we get nowadays. And I think with Ultimates rebooting and the recent falling in popularity of the MCU, that's a sentiment other people feel as well.
Captain America.