The Avengers or What This Whole Thing Was Building To

I’ve been thinking it over. More and more, I think I should abandon this project. Now this isn’t a “I’m not getting enough comments” whine. I don’t deny that it was an influence on my decision, though. It only further serves to confirm what I suspect that this project isn’t really contributing anything. As such, I’ve decided to walk away from the project, at least for now. But I thought I’d finish off Phase One, just as a courtesy.

Well, the Snyder Cut came out. If you’re expecting me to do a frothing Snyder hate rant, hate to break it to you, but it’s not going to happen. I just found the movie to be okay. It is better than the original in that it doesn’t seem like two very different movies Frankensteined together in a desperate effort to make them work, and I like some of the creative choices. Snyder gave Cyborg an actual character arc and gave Steppenwolf a motivation beyond, “Grrr…I am a villain doing villainous things.” This is very basic storytelling work that goes a long towards improving the story. 

On the whole, though, I just kind of found the movie to be okay. There’s definitely no reason for this movie to be four hours long. Much of the first two hours could be easily excised from the movie without too much trouble, making me wonder if anyone has made a cut of the Snyder cut. 

I just find Snyder’s aesthetic/storytelling to be punishingly dull. Everything is washed in gray and again, he stubbornly refuses to allow any levity. There’s no sense of wonder. All of Snyder’s characterization can be summed up as, “I smolder with generic rage!” Snyder’s heroes save the day not so much because they are driven by a deep compassion/drive to help people, but out of obligation, a begrudging “Well the character is supposed to save people, so we have to put in a few scenes of hero saving people.” 

It feels reflective of Zack Snyder’s Objectivist views where there’s a mindset that we should be grateful that these godlike heroes deem us deserving of their aid and assistance and thus, we shouldn’t deign to question why they don’t bother to take a fight away from a dense population center or do anything to minimize civilian casualties. It’s akin to how it is with Ayn Rand’s innumerable titans of industry, where like with Nietzsche’s Ubermensch, we simply can’t ask them to abide by the ways of lesser men. Though, while my knowledge of Nietzsche is limited to that cool quote about abysses, I imagine even he would find Ayn Rand to be annoyingly simplistic.

Why am I bringing up all this stuff regarding Justice League rather than talking about the movie? Because as already stated, looking over the mess that is the DCEU only makes me more appreciative of the tight plotting of the MCU. To quote the opening quote from The Agony Booth's review of Suicide Squad, which accurately sums up the DCEU: 

The twelve hours that comprise the DCEU represent such a pathetically inept wall-to-wall pooch-screw that dunking on the franchise at this point seems almost mean, like laughing at a little kid who still insists he can eat a whole tub of ice cream even as his shirt drips with vomit and tears. 

There are numerous traps studios fall into when trying to create their own cinematic universes and the DCEU has managed to fall into all of them. 

As stated before, the MCU, before it set out, the people involved, planned. While circumstances may have forced them at times to revise the plan, the important fact is that the creative teams involved knew where the story was going. This kind of planning is probably tedious and most would rather cut to the part where they're pulling in record profits, but this planning meant that each movie feels like a natural continuation of the overall story in addition to being good stories in their own right. We don't have the massive tonal shifts of the DCEU, where only the Snyder trilogy seems like they belong together, have some kind of cohesive story going. 

And most importantly, the people involved with the MCU knew you couldn't declare the battle won even before it's been fought. They may have had visions of the big damn team-up and Thanos showing up, but they knew that if they didn't make people care about the small moments, they weren't going to stick around for the big climaxes. So yeah, when they set out with their solo films, they knew they had to put forth the effort to make these films matter as much as the big ensemble pieces. If the viewers didn't care enough about Tony Stark to follow him for one film, they wouldn't care to follow him over the course of several more. 

And as pointed out, since they were already operating without their best-known characters, they knew they were operating at a disadvantage and planned accordingly. In fact, I think this disadvantage may have been what led to the MCU's success. The disadvantage meant that they had to put forth the effort to flesh out the characters, and not just coast on recognition. As mentioned in the Iron Man review, Marvel got the funding for these films by basically wagering the rights to their entire library, meaning that if the films had completely and absolutely bombed, Marvel would have really screwed themselves over and their failure would become the kind of thing talked about in hushed tones, much like how a long series of bad decisions nearly led to them going bankrupt in the 90s.

From the looks of things, DC seems to have thrown up their hands and given up on an overarching cinematic universe, content to just work on standalones. On one hand, part of me is saddened by this, because I've seen how the MCU managed to make it work, but also because DC has made it work before, when it did the DC Animated Universe or DCAU for short. 

The DCAU is just such a work of art that you can't help but look at it, look back at the mess of the DCEU, and wonder "What could have been..." Like I said, the people involved with the DCAU knew how to tell deep, well-plotted, character-driven stories capable of being appreciated by both children and adults. I will sing the praises of the Apokolips Now! two-parter and the Cadmus arc until I die, dammit! How many so-called "adult shows" explore the nature of power and its potential for abuse as well as the Cadmus arc did? 

But on the whole, if the people involved with the DCEU don't feel they're capable of a sprawling, interconnected massive plotline, I would rather get decent standalone films rather than an incoherent mishmash of a so-called universe. It would be better to just let the various films do their own thing, have their own fun, than try to frankenstein them all together. I'll just be bitter that the success of the Snyder cut, along with the online cult of personality Zack Snyder has, means that we're going to see more of his edgelord petulant teenage angst, while the truly innovative and fun Birds of Prey is left forgotten. 

Here's a list of videos I compiled regarding the Snyder cut for those interested. For those wanting more talk about Zack Snyder and his overall oeuvre, Maggie Mae Fish did a great series about him, but I am also partial to Curio's A World Based On Spite.

Of course, while I still dislike Zack Snyder and find him to be thuddingly dull and simplistic, it's not quite as easy for me to embark on the hate rants as before. There is the massive elephant in the room as to why he left the Justice League project in the first place, the suicide of his daughter, and Jesus, there's really nothing I can say about the kind of pain he must still be going through due to that. I'm not sure I could wish that kind of tragedy on even the worst people in the world. 

And I must give credit where credit is due in that in that he has called out his own base for their toxic behavior. Calling out toxic fandom is something I am always in favor of, so props to him. 

In fact, much as it pains me to admit it, while I feel Joss Whedon better understands the concept of superheroes and why we love them, from what I can tell, Snyder's driving record is probably cleaner than his. 

It’s always a hard thing, discovering that a favorite creator is a terrible person. The decision as to whether to continue to enjoy the works of said creator, is a personal one. Only you can dictate what is a dealbreaker for you, I’m afraid. With me, I will mostly enjoy the stuff that I’ve already enjoyed, but put a kibosh on checking out any of the creator’s other works. 

Outside of the MCU, I can’t really think of any Whedon properties I’ve been that into, save for Dollhouse. Though given how sprawling and massive Whedon’s career is, that’s not likely true; I’ve probably watched more of him than I think. Still, having heard of his abuses, I don’t feel any real need to check out any of the other stuff he may have done, so I’m not likely to check out Buffy or Firefly. Life is too short, and my watch/read list is hella long as is. However good Whedon’s stuff may be, there’s probably stuff that’s equally as good or even better that wasn’t created by assholes. So why not spend my time on them and less on assholes who don’t deserve it.

Though, I freely admit that I don’t follow this standard too stringently. If the creator is dead, I have an easier time justifying consuming their materials, than if they’re still alive and hurting people. It seems like you put any kind of rule or standard in place for yourself, and you’ll all but guarantee that you’re going to break it at some point. Me, I acknowledge said creator’s failings, decide for myself whether I can still enjoy their creations, and go from there. I know that others have their own standards and while I may disagree with them, I respect their right to their opinion. I am totally of the "Don't tell people how to feel" school when it comes to this kind of criticism. 

Okay, okay, enough is enough. Let's get to the movie. 

This is the film that Phase One was building to. Nothing like this had ever been pulled off. Maybe the closest had been with the X-Men films, but those movies could more accurately be called "Wolverine: the X-Men" and the X-Men stuck with each other. You didn't see them team up with Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man to lay the smackdown on Magneto. And after so much buildup, well, they delivered. 

This is very much in Whedon's style with the one-liners and quips flying fast and furious, nearly everyone of them guaranteed to stick in your ears. Though as always, there's plenty of ad-libbing by Robert Downey, Jr. With all the ad libs Downey does and how he has so shaped the MCU with them, increasingly I'm like, "Why didn't you guys give him a screenwriter's credit in addition to everything else?" especially since he created one of the key elements of the MCU right in his first movie. 

But before I get too far into things, here's Linkara's review of the team's debut. It is fitting that just as Loki was the villain who led to everyone coming together in the debut, he also is the villain who brings everyone together in the MCU. Though with the comic, it feels like Thor mostly has this in the bag, and the other Avengers aren't really needed, which is bad form for a team-up. If you're going to have a bunch of heroes who normally work alone, come together, it better be a legitimate threat that demands all their talents. 

That was one of the things that annoyed me about Joss Whedon's version of Justice League, the feeling like Wonder Woman could have just solved all this shit on her own, were it not for the fact the film was turfing her. It is another good fix from the Snyder cut, how the villains were turned into actual threats, and it was made more obvious why the team was needed; Wonder Woman couldn't solve everything as before. 

Now I've said before that supplemental materials such as the wikia are meant to be more like spices where they add a little extra to a dish, but aren't the sole thing holding it together, and I stand by that. But in the case of this movie, there's a detail in the wiki that really should have made it to the movie. 

Basically, according to the MCU timeline, Steve Rogers has only been, ahem, thawed out for two weeks. This is a detail that should have been woven into the movies somehow, mentioned in some form of dialogue or something, because it really adds to his portrayal. If Steve seems like he's being a real butt in this movie, it becomes more understandable when you know that he's only been awake for two weeks, and is still adjusting to life in a world where everyone he knew either has one foot in the grave or is in the grave. So forgive him if he doesn't respond to Tony needling him in the most mature manner. 

In fact, while most of the time, I understand why they may have opted to cut a scene from a movie, I am at a loss as to why they cut this scene: Steve adjusting to the 21st century There is so much genuine pathos and good character-building, and it probably could have been integrated into the narrative without too much trouble. And it has a nice Stan Lee cameo as well.

It also serves to underscore one of the things that irritates me regarding the MCU, how they treat Steve’s PTSD. In fact, while I admire the MCU’s attempt to incorporate PTSD into the storyline, rather than just having them stoically go from threat to threat without feeling much of anything, with the exception of Tony, they don’t do as well when it comes to exploring the consequences of PTSD, and even with Tony, there are flaws.

Tony is the most obvious when it comes to PTSD, but the franchise kind of fails in that it only occasionally realizes that the other characters are also suffering from it. Like I said before, when it comes to Steve Rogers, there’s a repeated thread of disillusionment when it comes to his films, with Steve being continually let down or betrayed by something. It’s not so much with his first solo film, but it definitely starts with this one.

Like well, with this scene, Steve’s obviously thinking, “I got myself frozen over this stupid tesseract, and you idiots want to mess around with it.” For the record though, trying to keep track of the timeline regarding tesseract...Let's just say things get a little convoluted. I will say that in the MCU's defense, no franchise manages to bat a 1000 when it comes to continuity stuff like that. Fans can and will try to explain these flaws away, but ultimately, you enjoy the franchise in spite of stuff like that. Generally, so long as it's a good story and it isn't thuddeningly obvious, I'm willing to play along. 

Though Fury keeps talking about it as a potential source of never ending energy and once again, I’m like, “uh, Tony’s already invented it in Iron Man 2, remember?”

But there’s also this exchange that I want to single out.

Steve Rogers: When I went under, the world was at war. I wake up, they say we won. They didn't say what we lost.

Nick Fury: We've made some mistakes along the way. Some, very recently.

Because like I’ve already said, while I understand that superhero films are an inherent romanticization, I still think that leaning on some of the less easily romanticized aspects of the WWII-era (the rampant racism, sexism, etc.) really could have added to the story and fleshed out Steve Rogers a little more.

Judging by the exchange, I imagine that SHIELD has set Steve down and given him something of a crash course in post-WWII history. Obviously, it would be a very truncated course, because you try covering seventy years worth of history in the span of a few days, but I imagine Steve knows some of the broader aspects, like about 9/11 and the like.

What he also likely has learned about, is Truman dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, I’m not going to debate whether or not Truman made the right call—that’s just too big a topic to delve into for this series and would take us far too off-topic—but you have to wonder how Steve would have felt about the decision. Even if he did come to agree that Truman made the right call under the circumstances he was working under, brutally murdering people guilty only of being born in the wrong zip code has to be something that would give him pause. 

In fact when it comes to “what we lost” when talking about WWII, I should point out that one of the things the Allies took offense at the Axis Powers for doing, was their bombing of civilian targets. Yet by the end of the war, the Allied forces are also bombing civilian targets. 

Again, I’m not going to litigate WWII, but it is worth exploring how far into the morally gray the Allied Forces went, whether they made the right call (hindsight is always 20/20), and the new form of warfare that came about as a result of the conflict.

Of course, Joss Whedon falls in the trap of assuming that Steve came of age in 1950s Kansas, rather than a Depression-era Brooklyn slum, but I am jumping the gun a little. 

Sometimes I wish the MCU did little shorts before their movies ala Pixar. We can get stuff like Steve Rogers going to Disney World, Jane and Darcy takes Thor shopping and he just rocks every outfit he tries on...I know it's going to cost me so much street cred, but I'd eat that kind of fluff up with a spoon. But they could also tackle more harrowing material, like this infamous cut scene from The Avengers: The Cop and The Waitress 

There is some genuine pathos and wrenching detail to that clip, even if I understand why it was cut. Though it contains some good acting, it pulls too far from the main storyline of the team finally coming together and kicking ass. 

Anyway, I should stop talking about deleted scenes and get back into things. 

So Steve's only been defrosted for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, Tony, despite being ruled as unsuited for Fury's little initiative, well, after hijinks ensue at the beginning, he gets drafted, along with Bruce Banner, to solve the problem. 

Edward Norton has been replaced by Mark Ruffalo, who will play Bruce Banner for the rest of the franchise. Given that from what I've heard, Norton, like Terrance Howard, may be in the Crazy-Crazy camp as opposed to merely Hollywood-Crazy, it's probably a good call, replacing him. 

We would never see any more Hulk movies. It's your call whether or not that's for the best. Me, I'm not huge into the character, so I have no problem with him being merely an ensemble character, but maybe a huge fanboy could make a better case. 

Suffice to say, despite the character's shaky history, the Hulk has endured for a reason. My theory centers around the mystery of the character. Because while he can be summed up as "Giant green rage monster," at the same time, that's a bit simplistic. The Hulk is capable of thinking and planning, even if he tends to favor the "Smash them until they can't get up" strategy, which I can't say I object to. I've always been on Team Keep It Simple Stupid. The more complicated you make something, the more ways you've made it so that things could go south. 

But there's this exchange between Bruce and Tony that I've always liked:

Tony Stark: Hey, I've read all about your accident. That much gamma exposure should have killed you.

Bruce Banner: So you're saying that the Hulk... the other guy... saved my life? That's nice. It's a nice sentiment. Save it for what?

Tony Stark: I guess we'll find out.

 It's a theory I like, not so much that the Hulk is a mere rage monster, but something akin to a protector. As Tony theorizes, Bruce Banner was in danger from the gamma radiation, so the Hulk acted to protect him. And when there's the heart-breaking moment where Banner references a cut scene from The Incredible Hulk where he tried to kill himself, well, you can make a similar case: Bruce Banner was in danger from the bullet, so the Hulk acted to protect him. 

Joss Whedon has said that he intended to imply that there were different versions of the Hulk, one which is more the classic feral monster and one probably similar to my theory of him as a protector. Other adaptations have it so that Banner and Hulk have kind of worked out something of an arrangement, enabling them to better work together. With this film, things are still somewhat shaky between the two. Still, we can see some of the duality of the Hulks at work in this film, where there's the Hulk that rampages through the helicarrier contrasted with the one later seen in the Battle of New York who, while is still very much a feral character, he is a more controlled character than the one on the helicarrier. 

To keep up the reoccurring pattern of Steve being disillusioned, as if it wasn't bad enough they dredged up the tesseract despite what he put himself through regarding it, he finds out that SHIELD is planning to make weapons from it.

And I suppose I should talk about this moment. From what I heard, this is one character death that wasn't Whedon's idea, at least, that's what Whedon claims. Still, don't shed too many tears. As the existence of Agents of SHIELD demonstrates, Phil Coulson got better. And well, if you ever doubt the power of the MCU fandom, remember we brought a character back to life by collectively refusing to accept he was dead. 

Once again, I need to reiterate that no one involved expected everyone to go gaga for Coulson. He was created as a bit character to move the story along, was supposed to do his thing, then exit. And yes, I am one of the Coulson fangirls, because like I said suit-wearing government agent with a dry sense of snark whose also a huge fanboy? I'm swooning. 

Regarding the last link, kind of like how well Steve side-steps the "O-kay, this just got weird," part. But because I'm a perv, I'm going to make this a little weirder, with help from Pinterest. 

I should point out that when Steve was pulled from the ice, he was wearing his uniform, not the spiffy tee shirt and khakis. Who wants to speculate about just how obsessed Coulson is with Steve? :P

After many twists and turns, we finally get to the big battle. And once again, the mess that is the DCEU only makes me appreciate the MCU fight scenes as well. We always know who's doing what, where they are in relation to everyone/everything else.

So the Avengers are fighting in New York. Meanwhile Nick's dealing with some stuff.

Y'see the world security council has decided to nuke New York to prevent Earth from being taken over by aliens, kill eight million people to save seven billion, sort of thing. 

I know the previous clip already contained Nick's reaction, but I'm posting it just because I have to admit, I use this kind of logic when it comes to canon I don't like; I'm totally all "I recognize that canon has made its decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it." Y'all can guess about what I've elected to ignore.

I suppose we should talk about how superhero movies tend to give you a dangerously unsafe view of the authorities, but given what the real world authorities are like... 

Fun fact: the official report on the incident stated that the man "fell" and were it not for video evidence contradicting it, that's how it would go down in the record. 

Funner Fact: Only two officers shoved the guy, but not one in the crowd voiced any objections, nor did they seem all that bothered about how he's lying on the pavement, bleeding out his ears. Geez, where oh where were those fabled good cops?

Funnest Fact: despite video-taped evidence demonstrating that they had committed a crime, all the officers involved, wound up facing zero consequences for their actions. 

All right, I'm done bringing depressing reality into this. Granted this movie is set in 2012, but it's not like police brutality wasn't around then. 

Anyway, Tony yeets the nuke through the portal, Loki is captured, and thus, ends the first team-up. Knowing how things would play out in future films, lends this one a certain nostalgia. None of the conflicts that follow would have the easy, straightforward nature of this one. And I have to admit, that with the exception of the party in Age of Ultron, we don't really get much of the team hanging out, being pals, just so much angst. I'm a sucker for angst, but I'm an even bigger sucker for fluff. There, I said it. Bye-bye to whatever street cred I may have had with you people. 

Anyway, that's kind of why I like the world of fanfics so much, how it fills needs that canon cannot or will not. I can get my fanart/fanfics of The Avengers hanging out in the tower together, having movie nights and be somewhat satisfied. 

Anyway, before we hit the road, as far as I'm concerned, the pin that follows is totally canon. 

Anyway, for now, consider this project abandoned. Maybe I'll come back to it someday. Or maybe I'll try something else, see if it comes easier to me. But for now, take care of yourselves and each other. 

Captain America: The First Avenger or “The Star-Spangled Man with the Plan”

 Okay, I’m afraid there’s going to be a lot of disclaimers regarding this post. And I’m aware that I just did a disclaimer for disclaimers. You’re welcome.

Anyway, I don’t know if you’ve guessed it or if I’ve already said it, but I am on the spectrum. This means that when it comes to obsessions, I go all in. I develop the kind of obsessive fixations that it’s a miracle no fictional characters have filed restraining orders against me. Though even if this does happen, I see no drawbacks. They’ll have to appear in court to file the restraining order, so I’ll get conclusive proof that said character exists and get something with their signature on it. Of course, I’ll also have conclusive proof that this is not only the worst timeline but also the stupidest one, so now I’m conflicted. 

Point is that Captain America is one of these obsessions, so any review of his movies will probably be longer and more insanely detailed than the others. I am trying to liven up the wall of text effect with some pictures, lots and lots of them. And as always, I'll try to throw in some dick jokes. 

First up, the origin. And I’m sorry, but I have to totally put this in the main post.

This is the debut cover for Captain America. Said issue proceeds to be page after page of Nazi-punching action, Nazis getting their rear ends handed to them, Nazis being depicted as the repugnant monsters they are, all this months before the US had entered the war. 

And the Nazis had a scary amount of support in the USA; a lot people were more sympathetic to their cause than they were towards any of the other Axis Powers. The people involved with this comic faced numerous death and bomb threats. The mayor of New York assigned the NYPD to protect them, basically saying, “We got your back. Keep up the good work.”

Oh and Jack Kirby and Joe Simon? Both men were Jewish, both had friends and family in Europe who would lose their lives in the Holocaust, and when the US finally entered the war, both men enlisted and did their part in the war. 

Captain America was an intensely personal creation for Simon and Kirby, and it’s one of the reasons the infamous Hydra!Cap rubbed so many the wrong way. Because taking a character created by two Jewish men as a neverending Take That against fascism and having it turn out that he has been part of a fascist organization all along?! Did I mention this is also during a year (2016) in which fascism and Nazis are making a comeback? Yeah, have yourself a lengthy and thorough takedown of Secret Empire: Part One, Part Two, & Part Three

If you want to see a story that did everything Secret Empire did but better and managed to do so in only one issue, read What if Captain America was Revived Today? It’s part of Marvel’s What if? series and despite coming out in 1984, it’s rather eerily prescient.

It must never be forgotten that Captain America actually hates America. Bah,  how dare he wear the red, white, and blue when he clearly only has love for one of those colors?

So yeah, my Captain America love runs deep. It’s why though it pains me to admit this, but I feel that ultimately the MCU failed his character. Don’t get me wrong: they did do some great work with his character. I’ll give you a quick heads-up: there’s going to be major gushing on Captain America 2: the Winter Soldier and Captain America 3: Civil War. Sorry, but I don’t make the rules and...okay, well, I do make the rules but still #sorrynotsorry

Though I’m wondering if in much of this review, I’m going to be in violation of my rule where each movie will be discussed based on the movies that had already been released. Like I said, the viewers of the current movie couldn’t have known X would be fleshed out in Movie Y, so to be fair, we are going to approach these films based on what the average movie-goer would have seen at the time. Well I have already broken this rule before and will likely do it again in the future. It seems to be something with rules, where laying one down all but guarantees it will be broken at some point, especially when it comes to discussion/debate.

Still, I feel that the MCU ultimately messed up when it comes to Cap and over the course of this series, I will make my case for it. It’s a damn shame, especially since they did do great things with the character, but they got scared and tanked everything.

And for the record, my unhappiness isn’t just because my ship didn’t become canon. I don’t deny that I am hardcore Bucky/Steve shipper, but I wasn’t really expecting my ship to become canon. I figured the people involved would be too wussy, but... :clamps hand over mouth:

Let’s just say I have fanfics to fulfill my needs and as always, I take refuge in Discontinuity. I recognize that canon has made its decision, but given that it is a stupid-ass decision, I’ve elected to ignore it. In fandom, you can reject reality and substitute your own without the negative consequences that come with trying to do this in the real world. It’s a privilege I intend to use to my advantage. Hence why I have my collection of fanfics. And I’ve also written a few of my own. There I said it. Whether I'll point you towards any of my fanfics remains to be seen. 

Anyway, I probably shouldn’t use the fact that one half of my pet pairing is named after a president* widely suspected of being Gay to bolster my ship, but I will. Sometimes I wonder what the in canon explanation is for his name. Why would anyone name their child after a president whose main accomplishments, aside from being Gay, were putting away an insanely impressive amount of alcohol and being a complete and absolute wuss at a time when the country is most in need of strong leadership? Oh well, it could be worse. He could have been named after Millard Fillmore and can you think of a single nickname for Millard Fillmore that isn’t completely embarrassing?

As the film unfolds, no doubt you’ve quickly noticed one of the ways the film breaks with comic book continuity. If The First Avenger was accurate, then Bucky would be like twelve years old. Instead, his character has been cast as being a year older than Steve. This does make it easier for me to ship them. While some comic fans can probably pull up material of them being all shippy together, my personal opinion is that Steve would have a hard time thinking of someone he knew when they were, um, statutory, in that light.

From what I’ve heard, the reason DC Comics overflows with Robins and Superboys, whereas Marvel has almost no child sidekicks, is that Stan Lee, by all accounts, hated the child sidekick trope. And since he ruled the roost for so long, he continued to cast a long shadow even after he left. 

But I also think it adds a nice dynamic to the relationship. Because as it’s shown, Bucky has spent his life saving Steve, so it’s kind of interesting when things are reversed: Steve no longer needs someone to save him, Steve is the one the girls are flirting with, that sort of thing. Plus, I get the feeling that Bucky has long waited for Steve to become famous just so he can publish a memoir called: “He Was Always a Stubborn Pain in the Ass: a memoir by Bucky Barnes.”

But I am getting ahead of myself just a little. 

As I'm rewatching the Phase One films, I find myself noticing the shaky quality with many of them. The first Iron Man movie was a solid launching point for the MCU, but then it is followed by The Incredible Hulk which was all but completely unmemorable. Iron Man 2, while fun, was mostly a retread of the previous film. Thor was a bit more of a solid film, but as said before, the Thor movies don't quite fit in the MCU as well as the other characters; they have an insular quality, where few of the events feel like they spill into the larger universe. The Thor movies are generally considered the weakest films in the MCU and it kind of shows. 

Captain America: First Avenger is a much-needed step up in quality, easily possessing the best aesthetic of the Phase One films. Good call, getting the guy who gave us The Rocketeer** to do this movie. Joe Johnston clearly knows how to do 40s pulp like few others. First Avenger is a visual delight the way none of the other Phase One films are. But I wonder if that may be part of the problem. 

First Avenger is a very much romanticized view of the WWII era, falling in line with the general romanticized view people have of that era. Here's the thing: no one was calling WWII "the good war" while it was actually being fought. During that era, peoples' thoughts were the same as in any other war: "Can we win this?" "Are our boys going to come home?" Only when Vietnam went to hell, did we start referring to WWII as "the good war," fantasizing about an era of clear, unambiguous good guys and bad guys. 

At the same time, though, I am a little conflicted. Superhero films are inherently about romanticization, the modern-day version of stories about the knight-errant. We all know reality would be much more complicated. The kind of person who would feel a need to put on a mask and beat the shit out of anyone they've deemed deserving, is much closer to the bully who would beat you up in gym class and take your lunch money than any noble do-gooders. The same is true of medieval knights where the romanticization masked a much grimmer reality. 

However, while romanticization is often painted as a bad thing, to say that there's no value in it is very simplistic. Superhero stories, just like the knight-errant tales, are a way of exploring the nature of power, what it is and how it should be used. And the general moral of these stories is "that those who have power should use it to help other people, rather than abuse it and set themselves up as despots." That's generally a good moral that more people should be taught. 

And more and more, I've come to believe that realism is overrated. We seem to live in a stunted reality, where we've lost the ability to dream of anything better. Try to suggest any advancement in the course of human rights, try to advocate for a brighter future for everyone, advocate for the government to provide services outside of fellating the rich and killing brown people, and you'll inevitably be greeted with choruses of "Be realistic." And I could go further with this, point out that the loudest voices for realism, tend to also be profoundly unrealistic in their own way, but I feel I'd be moving too far away from the subject of this post. So let's get back on track. 

Anyway, I'm not sure to what extent things should have been depicted differently in this film. Like I already said, superheroes are an inherent romanticization, but I think leaning more in on some of the less noble features of the WWII era could have really added some flavor. Whether it would have really changed the ultimate approach to the character, I'm not sure. 

And for the record, I'm not one of those people who are willing to accept any amount of insane tech, but throw fits over Steve Rogers not being racist and sexist. 

Yes, the era he grew up in, was profoundly racist/sexist. But here’s the thing: there were people back then who knew it was wrong. It’s entirely possible for someone to come of age in that era, realize bigotry is wrong, and work to combat that attitude until they die. For example, Juliette Gordon Low, the founder of the Girl Scouts of America, came of age in the Deep South and grew up on tales about the Lost Cause. As a result, she had some regressive views of Black people. But at some point, she realized her views were wrong and spent the rest of her life trying to do better. When a troop of Black Girl Scouts weren’t allowed to march in a parade, even though the White troops were, Low pitched a fit and got them in.

In fact as a general rule, while the pervasive bigotry of the past is something that needs to be taken into account when discussing it, at the same time, it cannot and should not be used as an excuse to completely exonerate people. Just because a lot of people believed that something that is wrong was right, does not, in fact, make it right. And throughout history, there were always a handful of people who swam against the tide, your John Browns or Victoria Woodhulls, to give a few names. 
It also kind of goes in line with Steve Rogers’s “I don’t like bullies. It doesn’t matter where they came from.” attitude. But I freely admit that my view of Steve Rogers is colored in part by the delightful Steve Rogers vs. the Media series  (and yes, I do love the entry titled “Bucky Barnes is a Goddamn Menace”) and Steve Rogers is Historically Accurate. 

Anyway, I have my own reasons regarding Steve's views on race and gender. But first, I should probably talk about the damn movie, before you people contemplate coming to my house and beating lengthy Morse Code messages into my skull with a tire iron. 

The movie establishes a key fact right off the back: Steve Rogers is and always will be, a rule-breaking little mothereffer. Basically, he's been trying repeatedly to enlist in the US Army by lying on his enlistment forms. This is, for those not in the know, a felony. So yeah, not too surprising that a character whose first appearance has him committing multiple felonies will proceed to continue to treat rules as more like guidelines, really.

But Steve's not having much luck and looking over his list of ailments, you kind of understand why. 

The first list is the one seen in the movie, but the second is one seen in Disney promotional materials. Thought I ought to provide both just because. 

I've heard people say that Steve Rogers's list of ailments points to him having survived a very bad Scarlet Fever episode. Me, not having a medical degree, I can't give too much information on this. I do know that treatment for Asthma back then was mostly "Pray that it stops." There were treatments, but generally ineffective ones. Those handy-dandy little steroid inhalers are a post-war invention. I have heard that Asthma was also regarded as something of a somatoform illnesses, the wheezes supposedly representing the stifled cry of the inner child crying for its mother. 

Steve Rogers is Historically Accurate has a post discussing what these ailments would have meant for Steve and the kind of treatments, such as they were, that would have been used to treat them, but I think there is a more important issue to bring to the fore: Eugenics

Yeah, this is a fun post, but I do feel it's something that should have been brought up in discussion of Steve Rogers's character. 

Because y'see, all of Steve's various ailments would have been seen as proof of his inherent inferiority. He would have grown up being called a burden on society, hearing from an early age about how his mother and the world would be better off without him in it. And Eugenics wasn't a fringe science, but one believed by just about every educated person growing up in the era, including the doctors Steve likely went to when he was sick. So yeah, the very people who are entrusted with his care, also believe he shouldn't, y'know, exist. In fact, there's ample evidence that the Nazis drew inspiration from America's campaigns against the Indians and programs related to forced sterilization of so-called undesirables. 

So if you're wondering why Steve's such a rebellious little mothereffer, it's because he knows from personal experience that the best and brightest can be horribly horribly wrong. And basically my headcanon is at some point, Steve was like, "If I can't believe what is said about me, can I believe what they say about the Blacks and Jews?" Hence his more enlightened views. 

All right, less historical discourse, more movie. 

Well, you gotta feel for Bucky Barnes. He's had to spend his life dealing with someone like Steve, saving him from fights he starts because he feels like it's up to his ninety-five pound self to save the world, and he's trying to have a nice night before getting shipped out, only for his friend to go behind his back and try to commit another felony.

Yeah, my personal headcanon is that everyone at that recruitment office basically sees Steve coming and is like, "Oh God, it's that guy," and immediately start have to arguing amongst themselves about who has to deal with that stubborn pain-in-the-ass. Because yeah, communication wasn't as instantaneous as the Internet makes it nowadays, but people did talk to each other. There was this marvelous invention called the telephone that while nowhere near as portable as a cell phone, it did make it so people could communicate over long distances.  

I know I am an obsessive weirdo who reads entire volumes out of random gestures. But I just can't help but get that vibe from the way the nurse whispers in the doctor's ear and how that guard makes a point of coming back into the room at the sound of the scale. And yes, I do believe that Steve was probably planning to futz around with the scale, because a guy willing to commit multiple felonies probably wouldn't feel too guilty about rigging the scale. In any case, Dr. Erskine had to have gotten Steve’s faked reports from somewhere. My guess is that the stations have started passing information around, warning about Steve.

Luckily though, he makes the acquaintance of Dr. Erskine who is willing to give him a chance, and it's off to boot camp he goes. And he immediately proceeds to make the acquaintance of Peggy Carter, aka another character who causes me to question my commitment to heterosexuality. Then again, between all the time I spent drooling over Jennifer Connelly in The Rocketeer and Peggy, I wonder if I just have a weakness for 40s cheesecake. Though I've also long had a weakness for British accents, so there's that added benefit.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, the above photo is totally canon. Peggy was totally going to eat that boy alive. So is the next photo...

All right, all right, I'll stop with the Peggy Carter pins and fangirling. Though, here's one more for the road: She is awesome and deserved better.

As you can imagine, boot camp for Steve goes about as well as you'd expect for a guy suffering from multiple ailments. 

Tommy Lee Jones understandably has his doubts about all this. And I know his character has a name--Colonel Chester Philips--but I refer to him as Tommy Lee Jones, because Tommy Lee Jones plays the same character in just about every one of his movies: the hard-bitten military man or the hard-bitten lawman. It's generally a good character, so you don't mind it too much. From the looks of things, Tommy Lee Jones is one of those people who was just born old. 

A few things: One, I really hope that Steve doesn't believe that the US military regularly throws live grenades at its candidates. Though I kind of figure that he is well aware that he's not likely to last long in combat, so he's like, "If I'm going to go out, I'm going to go out as the hero." Who knows how differently the MCU might have played out if someone had said to Steve, "Maybe you're the plucky young comic relief."

In all seriousness, Steve probably knows he won't last long in combat, but if in dying, he can protect at least one person, then as far as he's concerned, it's worth it. 

Though yeah, Bucky, this is why you need a backpack leash for Steve. Because first he goes behind your back and enlists in the US military and before you know it, he's volunteering to be experimented on by a German scientist for his country.

Steve comes out of Mr. Stark’s machine a big slab of roast beefcake, but long story short, a Hydra assassin kills the doctor and rather than getting a whole squad of super soldiers, they’re just left with one. And what do they decide to do with him?

I’m probably cheating, but this will be presented mostly without comment. Because there is nothing I could possibly say that would add to this.

Yeah, this movie probably gives you a questionable view of the US military. First of all, it was entirely too easy to assassinate Dr. Erskine. But the biggest problem is that you get one kickass super soldier and the only things you can think to do with him is to either keep him in a lab or have him sell war bonds? It’s stuff like this that makes me question Tommy Lee Jones’s bonafides as a military man.

The tour ends rather abruptly when Steve hears that Bucky’s unit has been captured and the army has no intention of planning a rescue. And Steve, being the sensible thinker that he is, decides that the smartest thing to do is to single-handedly plunge himself behind enemy lines armed with the tin shield he uses in his act along with a chorus girl’s helmet. Steve Rogers: Master of Well Thought-out Decisions.

It’s why in the second episode of Falcon & Winter Soldier, when Bucky said, “Steve would have a plan,” I was like, “Bitch, do you know who you’re talking about?!” Because Steve’s plans often consist of “Step One: Throw Myself Into A Fight, Literally Or Figuratively.” SOB regularly throws himself out of planes without a parachute. You, of all people, should know better.

For the record, regarding the Disney+ series,  I enjoyed WandaVision and so far, I’ve liked Falcon & Winter Soldier. But again, for the most part, the television series are off-limits, so this will be the extent of my reviews of the shows.

Well, it turns out that it is remarkably easy to creep around a German military base with an American flag on your back. So we’re also probably getting a questionable view of the German military as well. Though in my defense, that’s technically Hydra, not the German government. 

And finally our hero and villain meet.

Ah, I always found it to be one of the delightfully weird moments of the MCU, when Hugo Weaving takes off a Hugo Weaving mask to reveal Hugo Weaving wearing a mask...

Though Erskine, I kind of feel like this is something you should have brought up with Steve in your conversation. Even if it is really Schmidt’s fault for trying out something still in the beta version, this seems like important information, the fact that it might give you the body of a Greek god or it could melt your face and turn you into a nightmarish horror. Though that further calls into the question the original plan behind the super soldier serum. If the side effects run the gamut between “Oh God yes!” to “Dear God No!” why would you go through with the original plan to create whole squads of super soldiers? It just seems like too much potential for things to go horribly wrong. Granted Erskine had concluded that the serum did what it was supposed to, by enhancing what was there, so that good becomes great and bad becomes...well, the outside just matches the inside a little better.

But I suppose this is an opportunity to mention another area where this movie shines: the villain. The Red Skull is nowhere near as charismatic as Loki, but he is memorable in the way most of the other villains of Phase One aren’t; he isn’t just a man in a business suit. So he’s definitely not the villain I’ve dubbed as Zero. Feel free to keep debating who Zero is. Because Zero is completely lacking in any memorable traits and say what you will about the Red Skull, but he is memorable.

I’d give him a three. While he is much more memorable than a good chunk of Phase One and Two villains, while he does show some vestiges of his grand, operatic self, at times, the Red Skull comes across just as a jerk, rather than the over-the-top supervillain he is in the comic books.

FYI, the difference between a mere villain and a supervillain is one of grandeur and scale. Like Nigel Tufnel, supervillains go to eleven. If someone keys your car and your idea of revenge is to track down the guy who did it and key his car, you’re merely a villain. If someone keys your car and your idea of revenge is to track down the guy who did it, so you can drop a several ton piece of metal shaped like a key on his car, that’s super-villainy.

Following the rescue, well, before we get to the montage, we have to talk about this scene.

One of the beauties of the worldwide web is that I am no longer confined to ranting about things to family members; I can inflict them on complete strangers as well. So sit back as I lay out just why I hate scenes like these.

The idea behind these scenes is that the female character in question is supposed to be doing a spunky “Girl Power! Don’t-take crap-from-no-man!” bit. But the problem with these kinds of scenes is that the heroine comes across less as a BAMF girl and more as an unhinged psycho. Because let’s look at it this way. 

One, do you really think that Steve is the type of guy who would cheat on you? Two, even if he is, I’m fairly certain that he has enough sense to not do it when you’re only a few feet away from him. Steve may not be inventing things like perpetual energy, but he’s not rock-stupid. And finally, what if the shield hadn’t stopped the bullets? Then congratulations, you just killed your one super soldier all because you were in a jealous snit and couldn’t be assed to talk to him, like a normal person!

:deep breath: 

Don’t get me wrong—Agent Carter forever sealed my girlcrush on her—but I still really hate this scene. We already got some good scenes showing off what a badass she was. This, like I said, just serves to make her seem like an unhinged psycho.

Anyway, the promised montage ensues. 

And once again, I find myself debating to what extent this movie should have been, regarding the less than savory aspects of the 1940s. Because for those not in the know, the US military was segregated until 1948. There were Black soldiers and Japanese-American soldiers serving in WWII, but they were in separate units from the White soldiers. 

So yeah, a unit like the Howling Commandos wouldn’t have been a thing. Frankly, I think could have made for an interesting element if there had been some nod made about the unusual nature of this unit. I mean, two of them are fighting for a country that doesn’t see them as fully human and since one of them (Jim) is of Japanese ancestry, at the time he’s off fighting for his country, his country has imprisoned his family in concentration camps.

No doubt, there's someone out there who will be "um, actually, they weren't technically concentration camp," and well, I have a few things to say regarding that. One, if a society finds itself in a position where it has to debate whether or not something qualifies as a concentration camp, chances are pretty good that regardless of the answer, things have gone appallingly wrong. And two, it's a rule I have: if you ever say anything like, "Technically it's not," then chances are pretty good that it'll turn out to be exactly what someone says it isn't. Oh and "they're not concentration camps because the prisoners are dying from disease and neglect rather than being actively murdered," is not the sterling defense Conservatives seem to believe it is. 

Yeah, I should stop interjecting recent politics into all this. Even if I stubbornly believe that all art is political, I should still try to stay on track. 

Unfortunately, all good montages must come to an end, and arrive at a the scene that will serve to set the tone for most of the final act. 

This film is still very much a romanticization, but after train scene, it's never quite as triumphant as before. The death of Bucky just casts too much of a shadow for it to go back to before. Looking back on Steve's arc as shown in both the solo pics and the other films of the MCU, I am struck by the constant theme of disillusionment that keeps showing up. The First Avenger is relatively uncomplicated and straightforward, but in the rest of the MCU, Steve is constantly being betrayed or let down by someone or something. I would go into detail about this, but I've already violated that rule I've made and I should try not to push it further. Plus, this early on in the franchise, my analysis wouldn't make as much sense or have the same impact. 

Though the conversation Bucky and Steve have about Coney Island before they get on the train, well, I do believe that Bucky does, at times, serve as 2/3 of Steve's impulse control, but I do like how it points out that Bucky isn't a complete nursemaid like the fandom has a tendency to paint him as. My guess is Steve spent his life dealing with people either treating him like he has the plague or like he is made of spun-glass and is tetched in the head. 

Bucky was the one person who treated him like he was normal, because even though, he didn't want Steve to enlist and worried about him dying (not an unfounded fear between his "Come at me, bro!" attitude and numerous ailments), he did want Steve to have a life. So he didn't completely molly-coddle him. 

Though I've heard it pointed out in the fandom that Bucky's serial number as given in the movie, points to someone who was drafted into the war, rather than someone who enlisted of his own volition. I don't know how true this is--not sure how to check on NY serial numbers for an enlisted man vs. a drafted one--but it could be used for some dramatic weight in later materials if the people involved so choose.  Think of the character turmoil born of how Steve is so desperate to fight as to repeatedly commit felonies in an effort to do so, but meanwhile, Bucky is only going because he is being forced to and wants desperately to get out of it. Oh the dramatic fanfics that could be written!

FYI, my collection of Steve/Bucky encompasses just about all the fanfic genres: fluff, angst, high school AUs, etc. I have to admit in the past, I had been annoyed by the phenomenon of shipping in fandom, but now...like I said, I'm hardcore Steve/Bucky.  

Slightly tasteless joke: Is it just me or did everyone else wonder if Steve's inability to get drunk would play a role in Civil War? Kept wondering if something like this would play out. 

Character A: We need someone to drink Tony Stark under the table. 

Character B: That's impossible! No man's liver could handle that amount of alcohol!

Steve: *ahem*

But you know final fights have to happen and long story short, Steve crashes in Antarctica and winds up frozen for seventy years. 

This key plot element to Cap where he's "the man out of time" as he's often called, came about because for those of you unfamiliar with your comic book history, the Golden Age of Comics, which started with the release of Action Comics #1, ended with WWII. After the war, what followed was a precipitous drop in the readership of comic books, including superheroes. The Axis Powers made for great villains for the heroes to beat up, but once Germany and Japan have surrendered, bye-bye to using them as your Big Bad/Mooks. 

So a lot of heroes who had dominated the era, were swept into the dustbin of history and for a while, Cap looked like he would be one of them. His title was discontinued and for years, he didn't appear in the comics. 

Then Silver Age happens and at some point, someone involved at Marvel was like, "Let's bring him back." But you need to come up with an explanation as to where the hell he's been all this time. So they retconned it as to while he was presumed dead after a mission in the Arctic, in reality, he was just frozen in an iceberg. Storytelling-wise, from there, all you have to do is come up with some way for the characters to discover him and thaw him out and you're done. 

And it worked. Cap quickly became a major fan favorite and just about every incarnation of The Avengers has him involved in some capacity, often as the leader. He is kind of the moral center of the Marvel Universe, the one character that all the heroes, regardless of their hangups/backstories, respect, which is probably why he winds up in the position of leader so often. When dealing with clashing egos and all the headaches which come with organizing, it helps to build around the one person everyone can respect. 

The "Man Out of Time" angle also adds an interesting wrinkle to his character, putting him in a perpetual Fish Out of Water situation. The Fish Out of Water trope is, at times, overused to the point of becoming a cliché, but there's a reason it endures: like all tropes, when done right, it works. People relate to feeling alienated, where you thought you had some idea as to how the world works, only to be hit in the face with reality. Cap wakes up, only to have to face a new reality with a new history he needs to parse out, while dealing with the fact that everyone he knew best, either has one foot in the grave or is, well, in the grave. There's a shitton of dramatic potential and any writer worth their salt has the sense to plow this fertile ground silly. 

Of course, this plot element might become trickier because initially, it wasn't too unrealistic for there to still be some of his former WWII buddies around, but as decades have piled up...it's not like Steve can't still be the "Man Out of Time" but some of the best aspects of this story element comes from when he interacts with people he knew back then, talks to Peggy Carter after she has had seventy years to move on and create a new life without him becoming a senior citizen with a completely different history, whereas for him, she is still the hot twentysomething agent he fought alongside. 

There's no denying that the Internet is, at times, a dark and scary place. Gene Roddenberry believed that better technology would lead to better communication and thus, soothe over longstanding religious/ethnic hatreds, but unfortunately, he didn't realize that all the worst people would have just as much access to the tech as the good people. But more often than not, I am grateful for this amazing place for stuff like the picture below. 

Because god knows where else would I get this kind of analysis. I suppose I could dig up textbooks about 40s fashion and learn on my own all the inconsistencies with the woman's wardrobe, but it would take longer and probably be nowhere near as succinct. 

And I have no problem accepting this as canon, the idea that Nick was testing Steve, rather than it turning out that his costuming department really sucks. 

And that's The First Avenger. I hope I didn't get too didactic or boring with all the history lectures. Next on the slate marks the end of Phase One, the movie that all these intro films were building towards: The Avengers.

Credit Scene is just a promo for the upcoming Avengers film. 

Stan Lee Cameo: he's in the audience, waiting to see Captain America.

None of the deleted scenes really added anything. The commentary was mostly talk about how they made the props and sets, which may be interesting to some, but I prefer hearing more about the storytelling, why they made the decisions they did.

*When it comes to the debate, I’m on Team Buchanan Is Gay As Fuck. I believe that there is enough convincing circumstantial evidence pointing to it. Yeah, I know there’s no absolute solid proof, but short of inventing time travel, there really isn’t any way of getting absolute solid proof. Even if we did get solid proof, like filmed him and William Rufus King (the two men lived together for ten years and King is also widely suspected to have been Gay) getting it on, there would still be people who will try to dismiss said evidence, given how desperately people seem to want to rewrite LGBT people out of history. I can just picture them going, “Yeah, they’re just wrestling, just doing some totally manly heterosexual naked wrestling.” 

Because it can get kind of ridiculous how people will try to write LGBT people out of history. I cannot track down the article, but I remember it talking about letters James I wrote to another man. The article gave the usual “the close friendship between the two men” line, even though the same article admits that James I referred to this man as his husband and built a secret passageway so he could visit him more often. That’s something completely heterosexual best bros do, refer to each other as their spouse and go to the trouble of building secret passageways to see each other. 

Especially since if this article was referring to George Villiers, James I was pretty damn shameless about it, giving him just about every royal title he could, and regularly showed up to court functions with him on his arm. I wonder how the fundies would feel if they knew that the guy behind their favorite translation of the Bible was likely Gay or Bisexual. And of course, it couldn’t be possible that the translators had grievances against King James and some of that worked its way into their work.

tl;dr LGBT people have always been a part of history and didn’t spring into being with the passage of Roe v. Wade.

**There are movies that are just a pure joy to watch, that just serve to remind you why you love movies. The Rocketeer is one of them. There’s something so beautiful and charming about how warm-hearted and idealistic the film is, its complete sincerity a refreshing break from the ironic detachment that so many of our entertainment trafficks in. It is “Rah, rah, hooray for the USA!” and is unabashedly patriotic, but it does so in a way that isn’t jingoistic hateful towards anyone. Well, okay it is hateful towards Nazis, but it used to be that was considered a good thing.

Again, which is more depressing: the way “torture is wrong” was transformed into a radical statement or the way “Nazis are bad” was transformed into a radical statement?

I realize that not everyone has the same headcanons I do and generally, I try to respect other’s opinions, but as far as I’m concerned, you’re not allowed to make Cap a fascist or an antivaxxer. The fascist part has already been explained, but as for the antivaxxer thing, the mothereffer has likely had most of the illnesses vaccines can prevent. These aren’t abstract horrors to him. He’s had them and may have lost classmates to them. 

And in the unlikely event that any antivaxxers are reading this, as one of those Autistic people you hate and fear so much, I have this to say: Get bent. To live in a society, you have to pay your dues and vaccines are one of your dues. If you’re not willing to pay said dues, you can go off-grid, live in a cave and eat roots and berries, while the rest of us enjoy the perks of being a part of a society. 

Thor or “Thunderstruck!”

 All right, now we’re up for another intro film, this one featuring the God of Thunder and starring the first of the three Chrises who appears in the MCU (Hemsworth, if you’re wondering). 

Your call as to why the casting agent of the MCU has such a thing for guys named Chris. Yes, I do believe that DC snatched up Chris Pine just to keep Marvel from having the full set. Marvel is so thoroughly smoking them in the cinematic universe department that DC has resorted to lashing out in petty ways. 

Though let us be grateful to this brave soul who finally resolved the Four Chris debate in a satisfying fashion. 

Though since Chris Hemsworth is both the largest Chris and the largest Hemsworth, obviously the

question remains: why doesn't he simply eat the other Chrises/Hemsworths?

Anyway, the Thor movies have a reputation as being the weak links of the MCU. Granted, The Incredible Hulk is the weakest MCU film, but that goes without saying. Generally, I agree with these criticisms of the Thor films. 

The chief weakness of Thor films is that there’s a rather insular quality to these movies. With the other Marvel films, the effects of what happens in the solo films more easily spill over into the other films which make up the MCU. But the Thor films seem to be relatively isolated from the rest of the franchise. Don’t get me wrong: some of what happens spills over into the main throughline, but not a lot. This movie’s sequel, Thor: The Dark World, could almost be completely incised from the franchise without too much impact on the main overall plot. 

I’ve already said that movie trilogies, especially ones related to superheroes, are like an expanded version of the three-act structure. Looking at the MCU overall, the structure with its phases and all, it’s like an even more expanded out version of this structure, with Phase One serving as the beginning, Phase Two as the middle, and Phase Three as the end. Black Widow, assuming it ever gets released, is supposed to be the first film of what is to be called Phase Four. I’m assuming that Phase Four will serve as the beginning in another three-act structure with subsequent phases serving as the middle and end.

It’s rather hard to ascertain what to call the plot of Phase Four onward. I guess it’s like a sequel to the previous phases, thus making Phase Four on, a three-act sequel to the original massive trilogy of plots, and assuming they follow the pattern, Phase Seven will launch the ending act to the other prior groupings of phases.

So what we have with this cinematic universe, is almost like boxes within boxes. You have the MCU as a whole, then the timeline gets broken down into the phases, which are further broken down into the individual films, which have their own individual three-act structures. 

Whew...this can be something of a headache when you think about it. The MCU is its own unique storytelling format that I’m not sure what to label it as. It’s not a frame story ala Canterbury Tales because the stories build on each other, rather than existing in their own separate little spheres. Series is the closest  term, but while there are plenty of ones where each installment builds on or leads to another or various characters from different titles team up, I can’t really think of ones where each group of books is an act in a bigger overarching plotline. Even the Star Wars movies*, the prequels, the originals, and the sequels, while you have some degree of the trilogies building on each other, still don’t have a bigger plotline which puts the three trilogies together.

Luckily, though, the MCU made another smart decision when it came to their cinematic universe that too many others have failed to do: it planned. Each phase was carefully laid out, so the people involved with the franchise knew what the franchise was building to and could plot the films accordingly, serving to provide an overall cohesive story/message. Obviously, real world events have forced the creative team involved to revise the plan, something bound to happen when doing storytelling on so massive a scale, and there are some plot holes, something only a few writers can manage to bat 1000 on, but for the most part, like I said, the overall story remains cohesive.

This problem of planning is one of the things that has hamstrung the MCU’s rival, the DC Expanded Universe, or DCEU for short. They’ve tried various Author’s Saving Throws to limited success at best. None of the films feel like they really belong together, because they’re so widely out of tone with each other. As much as it pains me to admit it, Batman v. Superman and that one movie do feel like they belong together, which is thanks in part to Zack Snyder’s aesthetic and use of storytelling tropes. Both movies still suck and are terrible, but you can see how they go together.

Justice League which is supposed to serve as the culmination film, is basically a Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder film frankensteined together in a desperate attempt to have them make sense (spoiler alert: it doesn’t). All the other films, regardless of their quality, seem disconnected from each other, off in their own reality from the others, resulting in a degree of incoherence if you try to mush them together. Aquaman is a good example of this incoherence. There’s the general throughline of  “Aquaman has to learn that with great power comes great responsibility,” which is admittedly a cliched plotline, but can still be effective if used right. But the existence of Justice League causes it to not make any sense. Given that Aquaman had previously been shown stepping up to face down an alien invasion, it doesn’t seem to make sense for him to undergo a plotline where he has to learn that he can’t just lie around and do fuck-all with his powers.

From what I can tell, the DCEU seems to have thrown up their hands, given up on doing an overarching movie universe, and settled for making stand-alones, which is fine by me. I would rather get a bunch of decent stand-alones than an incoherent mess of a cinematic universe.

I know, I know, you’re all like, “Shut up and talk about the actual movie,” but looking back on the MCU has given me new insight into the overarching structure and when I started talking about it, things spiraled from there, something that happens to me a lot.

Anyway, here’s our titular character’s origin story. Yeah, they’ve strayed more than just a little from the original setup. Some of the changes are for the best. Given that his main tactic is throwing the damn thing, the whole “Thor loses his strength when separated from the hammer” weakness is pretty damn stupid. It does make the dick jokes even more obvious, but the nature of the character already makes the dick jokes obvious enough on their own. I mean, his weapon is a hammer, which he has named. Obvious dick jokes are obvious.

Anyway our boy, Thor, is having his coronation, but unfortunately, well, you know how it is, you try to have some kind of shindig, only for frost giants to crash it. Asgard’s magic robot, which is called the Destroyer, but we’re going to call it Gort, because it amuses me, dispatches them, but Thor wants blood.

So he, Loki, Sif, and the Warriors Three decide to single-handedly invade Jotunheim, the realm of the frost giants. They have Heimdall open the rainbow bridge, thus marking the first instance in which Heimdall commits treason against Asgard. Heimdall would go on to commit treason against Asgard in every one of the Thor movies, but my headcanon is that since he’s basically the only competent member of the Asgardian government, everyone’s pretty much agreed to just let him do whatever he wants.

Not surprising the genius strategy of  “Invade another realm with a couple of your friends, thus upsetting a thousand plus year-old truce” does not go well. Odin has to save their rear ends. And he comes in on his eight-legged horse which as someone who knows something about the Norse mythos, makes me snigger like the dirty-minded pervert that I am. Suffice to say, I often wonder which aspects of the Norse mythology are canon in the Marvel verse. 

Because according to the original mythos, MPreg** is very much canon where Loki’s concerned. And I probably shouldn’t have said that seeing as Tom Hiddleston’s fanbase is already insane, but let’s be real: my not saying it wouldn’t have stopped them. Because Tom Hiddleston’s fanbase is large and insane, and I hope to God that the actor has the sense not to ever Google his own name.

[TANGENT] In fact, while I have nothing really for or against Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hiddleston, I remain nothing but fascinated by the size and fervor of their fanbases. The insane level of passion they inspire, despite neither actor being what would be considered conventionally handsome. Hell, one of them has a name so stereotypically British-sounding that he might as well be named Nigel Crumpeteater.

I’ve long wondered if there was a way of resolving which actor’s fanbase is more insane. I want to give it to Benedict Cumberbatch because his fanbase willingly refers to themselves as “the cumber-bitches” but that feels unfair to Tom Hiddleston’s fans; what are you supposed to do with a name like Hiddleston?

Because I am that kind of person, I envision it all being resolved with a Naruto-style battle. With Benedict Cumberbatch, I’ve always gotten Gaara vibes, so that’s how I envision his fighting style, only rather than having a swirling shield of sand to protect him, he has one made of fangirls who instinctively leap in front of him to protect him. And yes, that does mean he has an attack called Fangirl Coffin, where he crushes his victims under the weight of countless fangirls, which probably ranks up there in terms of stupid or gruesome or gruesomely stupid ways to go. 

But I can’t get a handle on Tom Hiddleston’s parallel. I suppose the abilities demonstrated by his most famous role, might put him as Naruto, facing down Cumberbatch with an army of shadow fangirls, but Tom Hiddleston is most definitely not a hyperactive knucklehead who does his best thinking when he’s getting hammered like a stake into the ground. Their personalities don’t line up, but I have no idea which Naruto character to use. Kakashi? Sasuke?

If you can think of which Naruto character to use, feel free to tell me. Though try to keep in mind that  I refuse to acknowledge any canon past the Sasuke Retrieval Arc.

But take heart: no matter how the fight goes, it’ll all end in yaoi. Because I’m a long-winded pervert, that’s why. [/TANGENT]

All right, all right, back to the movie.

Anyway, Odin is like “Oh you are so banished!” and punts Thor to our realm, Midgard, where Natalie Portman hits him with her car and her assistant tazes him. Then he winds up in a mental hospital where he is given a shot right in the bread basket. So all in all, it’s been a rough evening for Thor.

But it’s not all bad. Natalie Portman decides that she needs his help when it comes to her research on something called the Einstein-Rosen bridge. And I thought that this was a classic case of the movie using scientific-sounding gobbledygook, but I Googled it and it turns out to actually be a thing discussed among astrophysicists. Don’t quiz me on any of this—I just skimmed a Wikipedia article. I guess they wanted to use some more scientific-sounding jargon than “wormhole.”

The rationale behind Natalie Portman’s character, Jane Foster, wanting to get his help, is so thin as to practically be able to read a newspaper through it, but honestly I can’t judge someone for wanting an excuse to spend more time with Chris Hemsworth. How did she manage to get herself to put a shirt on him instead of claiming that all her shirts had been snatched up underpants gnomes and forever outlawed?

Fun fact: Chris Hemsworth is contractually forbidden from spending any movie shirtless from beginning to end. Because that movie would win ALL THE OSCARS! and the Academy feels they should give all the other movies a fair chance.

Chris Hemsworth is high on my list of “People Who Make Me Want to Renew My Commitment to Heterosexuality,” whereas Natalie Portman ranks high enough on my “People Who Cause Me to Question My Commitment to Heterosexuality” list as to ascend to my Same Sex Top Five. So having them play characters who eventually become romantically involved with each other...I wonder if this is equivalent to putting a humidifier and a dehumidifier side by side and letting them battle them out.

While Thor is going through his Fish Out Of Water bit on Earth, well, Loki is having some issues.

As already stated, until recently, Loki was the only interesting villain in the MCU; hence why he ranks as a Five on the One-to-Five MCU villain scale. And it’s not hard to see why. Loki is charismatic as fuck and has a style and flair that his a sharp contrast to most of the villains in the early phases of the MCU, which are generally old White men in suits.

And there is a genuine sense of tragedy with him. Odin will repeatedly claim that he loves both of his sons equally, but the action and dialogue that plays out, demonstrates that Loki is more of a political hostage than his child, planning to put Thor on the throne in Asgard and Loki on the throne in Jotunheim and control the frost giants by proxy. 

Because the word choices Loki uses in the linked scene, the way he says “what I am” rather than “who I am,” going onto describe himself as “the monster parents tell their children about at night,” clearly indicates that he was raised to hate and fear the frost giants all the while actually being one, which is pretty effed up.

And with his heir banished to Earth and his other child undergoing a massive identity crisis, and Asgard on the precipice of another war, clearly the thing for Odin to do is go into the Odinsleep, which is basically a healing coma. Further proof as to why Odin’s a dick.

In fact, looking back over the MCU, I wonder if in terms of dickish dads, if Odin isn’t in the lead. Then again, since Harold Barton and Brian Banner are never mentioned nor do they appear in the films (but them being abusive assholes is one of the constants to the core identities), the contest comes down to Howard Stark vs. Odin vs. Hank Pym. And looking over everything, I think I have to give the contest to Odin. 

While all this is going on, apparently Thor’s hammer has attracted a lot of attention with everyone, including Stan Lee, trying to get it. Frankly, I gotta scratch my head a little. Yeah, I know this is a small town in the middle of nowhere, but still. SHIELD immediately shows up and puts the place on lockdown.

Naturally, Thor wants his hammer back. And yes, I did snigger a little when typing that. I'll try to control myself from here on out. 

So he decides to bust in and get it. 

A few observations: SHIELD would probably have an easier time stopping him if they used the guns they were actually carrying. Then again, I'm not part of some super-secret government organization, so clearly my words must be taken with a grain of salt. 

Though I have wondered if this wasn't on the orders of Nick Fury, if maybe he's like, "Wait, I wanna see what this guy does." I don't know why he'd do this, but hey.

Though apparently, Hawkeye didn't get the memo, because he decides to, y'know, try to take out the guy rampaging through the base. And I thought about it, but decided to link to a review of Hawkeye's first appearance for this entry, rather than the team-up, seeing as it's his first appearance in the MCU. 

Again, another character who got his start trying to kill Tony Stark. Tony, at some point, you need to look in the mirror and ask if the problem isn't you. 

Anyway, Thor fails. He is further disheartened when Loki visits him and lies by telling him that Odin is dead. 

Surprise, surprise, the trickster god is, well, up to tricks. Turns out he helped the frost giants to bust into Asgard and makes a deal with Laufey, the king of the frost giants, to let him into Asgard so he can kill Odin. And to cover his tracks, he sends Gort to go kill Thor. 

As many have pointed out, Thor’s reform, where he goes from arrogant dumbass to Boisterously Brawling Dumbass, seems to happen in the span of a weekend. I don’t doubt that getting a shot down there and the ethereal beauty of Natalie Portman can change a person, but really that quickly? Probably makes more sense than Naruto where to redeem someone, you need only to beat them within an inch of their life.

You can guess how this goes.

Have to admit I still laugh at the part where it seems like Loki is going to listen to Thor’s little speech only to go, “DENIED!”

Thor gets his hammer back, beats Gort, and goes to deal with Loki.

But before we get to that, I just wanted to post this picture and talk a little.

I love it, because I am a Phil Coulson fangirl and you can practically see his thought processes here.

Coulson is all, “Yeah, I know I’m supposed to be intimidated by you, seeing as you have at least 50 lbs and nearly half a foot in height on me, and you’re all magic and shit, but I’ve dealt with Nick Fury before he’s had his first cup of coffee, so let’s cut through the BS.”

Like I said, it remains fascinating how a character created to serve as a bit part, then make his exit, touched enough of a nerve that it forced the people involved with the movies to keep bringing him back, until he eventually got a TV show and ascended to the comic book canon. For those not in the know, if a character in a superhero adaptation created for another medium (radio, TV, movies, dirty limericks, etc.) joins the comic books, it’s a real sign of their popularity. 

Harley Quinn is another example of this phenomenon. She was created for Batman: the Animated Series*** and originally, she was intended to be a bit character, appear as the Joker’s moll in an episode, but she touched a nerve, so she kept coming back and eventually joined the comic book canon.

Anyway, back to the movie.

Well, Loki, who suffers from Chronic Backstabbing Disorder, betrays his biological father and I have to say when I first saw the movie, I was a bit confused. It seemed a perfect opportunity for Loki. He could let Laufey kill Odin, walk in on him, kill Laufey, then produce a bunch of crocodile tears about, “Oh, if only I had arrived here sooner,” which would make for an only slightly convoluted revenge scheme. And don’t tell me Loki wouldn’t be able to produce some crocodile tears: he’s the trickster god; I’m fairly certain it’s part of the job description.

Instead, Loki has another scheme entirely. Basically his plan is to expand the Bifrost into Jotunheim, which would tear the realm to pieces and kill off the frost giants. In other words, basically this whole convoluted scheme is a desperate effort to win Daddy’s affections. He gets Thor out of the equation, so he can set himself up as the sole heir, then to further cement his status, he sets it up so he can save Odin’s life and destroy his long-standing enemies. And since Loki is a frost giant, he is basically genociding his own people. 

Eventually, Thor is forced to use his hammer to smash the Bifrost to bits, but in doing so, he’s made it so he can never return to earth and be with Jane, because the Bifrost is the only way of traveling between Asgard and Earth. At least it is until this sacrifice is immediately undone in the big team-up film.

And I suppose I’m leaping ahead and I apologize for it, but it is another weakness of the Thor movies. Most of the other character films manage to, for the most part, have tight plotting, You can see how the trajectory of one leads to the other and there’s a sense of a strong infrastructure holding the whole thing up. But in addition to the insular qualities of the films, sometimes it feels like those involved didn’t really know where they were going and why. Yeah, this movie builds to the big team-up and that’s good, but Thor 1 doesn’t feel like it flows into Thor 2. I talked about how Iron Man 2 was a big batch of missed opportunities, but it does feel like a natural extension of its predecessor.

I’ll have you know that I do watch the deleted scenes for the films. I haven’t mentioned them thus far, because for the most part, it makes sense that they were cut. Either they were part of a scene that was already long enough, are redundant, or out of tone with the rest of the film. Maybe they have some mildly amusing moments, but they really don’t add a lot. 

And that is true of most of the ones for this movie. But this is also the rare occasion where I was like, “Why weren’t these scenes left in there?” The trouble is I can’t really delve into them too much without breaking (not just bending) the rule I have for this project about leaping ahead. I know I probably will break this rule—I already have—but I feel I should put forth the effort to try to follow the parameters I set for myself. Don’t want to use up all my material regarding a film, before I’ve even made it to the film.

Anyway, the scenes in question: Scene One, Scene Two, Scene Three. I’m sure some of you will figure out the common pattern of these scenes. I have to say, while it wouldn’t completely solve all the problems of Thor: the Dark World, (the movie is too big a hot mess for that to work), it would help address some of them.

I’ve already mentioned the Stan Lee cameo, so here’s the post-credit scene. Unlike most of the other post- credit scenes, which were mostly teasers for heroes who were going to show up, this one has a bit of plot in it, as Loki gets moving on his next scheme. Though that bit about unlimited power, uh, need I remind you that Tony Stark, in the previous film, basically invented that? It seems like something that should be touched on more. As said before, I’m not asking for detailed explanations as to how it all works, but it’d be nice to get a line or two about the effects said tech has had on the world. I’m a firm believer in the Turkey City Lexicon idea called “the edges of the ideas” which is basically “don’t write so much about how technology X works; instead, show how it effects the people of the world where it exists.” 

So put in a line or two about how whole cities are now lit up thanks to the element Tony synthesized. If you really wanted to go into depth, you could explore what it would mean regarding all the military quagmires in the Middle East, now that we have a source of perpetual energy, but that may be too much for a popcorn flick franchise to take on. So I’ll somewhat let the people involved off the hook.

And that’s it for now. Feel free to leave your comments and suggestions and continue to debate the identity of Zero at the end of all this.

*Don’t get me going on Star Wars, because I could go all night if I have to. Suffice to say, I loved the original trilogy, hate the prequels, loved Force Awakens and Last Jedi, but hated Rise of Skywalker. I’m not going to go any further with my comments, because otherwise this aside will be longer than the actual review. Because I’m that obsessive.

**I understand most fanfic tropes even if I’m not that into them, but I cannot get behind MPreg. It seems only a further reinforcement of gender roles, that you can’t just have two guys in love without forcing one of them into the part of the “woman,” having them display all the most regressive, stereotypical femme traits as possible. Just have your characters adopt or use a surrogate or something. Exception granted if one of the guys is a trans man.

*** The biggest advice I have for the people involved with the DCEU: get the guys involved with the DCAU (the DC Animated Universe) to do your movies. They proved you can pull it off: tell deep, thought-provoking stories that appeal to both kids and adults (the Cadmus arc remains a masterpiece) and have the heroes be interesting and actually heroic, actually experience some real emotional pain outside the “I smolder with generic rage!” variety. For those wanting to peruse the DCAU in all its majesty, don’t be too intimidated by the massive amount of canon. While it is a joy to see the entirety of it (DCAU at its worst is loads better than most series at their best), just start wherever you see fit. You like Superman? Go with him. 

Avoid the episodes Critters, Superman’s Pal, and the early episodes where Batman gets his ass saved by annoying kids, and enjoy the ride. I also want to urge more people to see the sadly underrated Green Lantern: the Animated Series.  The computer animation isn’t as good as the traditional kind, but the storytelling is amazing, almost as though the people involved with the show looked at the shitty movie and were like, “How ‘bout we show you how this is done?”