Your Marvel-Only Controversial Opinions (2020...)

[Tony Stark]

My opinion is that Tony Stark and Matt Murdock are the 2 most complex and compelling characters in Marvel.

[Tony Stark]

The Illuminati were right to shoot the Hulk into space.

Agreed. If Miek didn’t blow that ship up. The Hulk would be at peace surrounded by family.

[macjr33]

Mine would be that Bendis' run on Daredevil is better than Miller's original run. With that said Born Again is still the single greatest Daredevil story overall. Perhaps another somewhat related and controversial opinion is that I think Born Again is Frank Miller's best work and that includes Batman: Year One. In fairness, that may also be that I find Matt to be a much more compelling character than Batman.

[macjr33]

My opinion is that Tony Stark and Matt Murdock are the 2 most complex and compelling characters in Marvel.

From my perspective, I wouldn't say that is controversial at all. I would agree, especially regarding Matt.

[PCN24454]

It feels weird how most of the superheroes were just based in NYC as though it were the only place in the world. Naturally, this has started to die down, though I think they're starting to overuse San Francisco.

[Will Evans]

It feels weird how most of the superheroes were just based in NYC as though it were the only place in the world. Naturally, this has started to die down, though I think they're starting to overuse San Francisco.

They really need to spread them out more.

[Maniacal]

I appreciate they’re using Jersey more. But there IS something inspiring, mysterious, exciting, imposing about Manhattan, Brooklyn etc. Walking around the city, you feel like “something” is about to happen. The only city that feels close to that for me is Chicago.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

In hindsight, the X-Men as we know them come off race-reductionist and are no longer a good metaphor for marginalized groups. Most people that belong to a marginalized group don't live in a mansion or have access to a safe space and community the way the X-Men do. They also don't take into account class differences among mutants or humans, but instead paint a simplistic and immaterialist view of the world that can be boiled down to "humans oppress mutants". I think the X-Men work fine in the context of a genocide or in a world where minorities lack basic legal rights, but the metaphor starts to break down once you get to more subtle and less obvious forms of racism. Miles Morales and Kamala Khan are much better metaphors for marginalized groups in 2020, and not just because they are not white (their experiences are far closer to that of real-life minorities). Even MLK Jr. eventually moved on to addressing classism after the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

616/Ultimate Miles Morales is a stronger character than when he started out, but is still a token character. "Honeymoon Tokening" are the words that come to mind when I think of Miles. Marvel is so excited he exists that they have yet to pay attention to his core character traits (or lack of), similar to a first boyfriend or girlfriend. The Miles from Into the Spider-Verse is so far the only version of Miles with a clear vision. Marvel would be wise to import that version into 616 similar to how they imported aspects of Downey's Iron Man into 616.

Norman Osborn is evil and sane. If he is insane or has a split-personality, there is no reason for him to be Peter's archenemy. Archenemies aren't archenemies just because they're powerful, they're archenemies because they have thematic ties to their heroes. A Norman with a split-personality has more in common with The Lizard than he does with Peter Parker.

MCU Hawkeye is a boring letdown. It was a mistake to base the MCU version of Hawkeye on the Ultimate version while the Ultimate version was just on its way out the door. Meanwhile, 616 Hawkeye was just taking off and continues to be popular. It is possibly the best example of the MCU playing safe and having it backfire with a long-term character.

Scarlett Johannson's Black Widow was a bit bland, and not all of Marvel's poor treatment of the character can be attributed to sexism. Black Widow was never as solid of a choice for main female lead as Janet or Carol would have been. The actress might be up there with Downey/Evans/Hemsworth in fame and status, but the character itself was always closer to Hawkeye than the Big Three. No equal treatment of Black Widow to the Big Three this past decade? No surprise.

I won't go in-depth into MCU Spider-Man because it is a frequent topic already. What I will add is that the biggest problems with MCU Spider-Man aren't adaptation things, per se (i.e. Michelle Jones). The biggest problems are the ageist and classist undertones, the romanticization of youth dependence on the rich, and the white-washing of Miles Morales.

[Agent Z]

In hindsight, the X-Men as we know them come off race-reductionist and are no longer a good metaphor for marginalized groups. Most people that belong to a marginalized group don't live in a mansion or have access to a safe space and community the way the X-Men do. They also don't take into account class differences among mutants or humans, but instead paint a simplistic and immaterialist view of the world that can be boiled down to "humans oppress mutants". I think the X-Men work fine in the context of a genocide or in a world where minorities lack basic legal rights, but the metaphor starts to break down once you get to more subtle and less obvious forms of racism. Miles Morales and Kamala Khan are much better metaphors for marginalized groups in 2020, and not just because they are not white (their experiences are far closer to that of real-life minorities). Even MLK Jr. eventually moved on to addressing classism after the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

Norman Osborn is evil and sane. If he is insane or has a split-personality, there is no reason for him to be Peter's archenemy. Archenemies aren't archenemies just because they're powerful, they're archenemies because they have thematic ties to their heroes. A Norman with a split-personality has more in common with The Lizard than he does with Peter Parker.

These two I agree with.

Scarlett Johannson's Black Widow was a bit bland, and not all of Marvel's poor treatment of the character can be attributed to sexism. Black Widow was never as solid of a choice for main female lead as Janet or Carol would have been. The actress might be up there with Downey/Evans/Hemsworth in fame and status, but the character itself was always closer to Hawkeye than the Big Three. No equal treatment of Black Widow to the Big Three this past decade? No surprise.

Black Widow has a much better track record in over history than Carol or Jan has. I don't see why they'd be treated any better than Natasha given their overall histories, especially in the Avengers comics. Carol's push as the answer to DC's Wonder Woman is only recently proving a success and Jan has never really escaped the shadow of being Hank Pym's ex-wife while other adaptations have them happily married.

I won't go in-depth into MCU Spider-Man because it is a frequent topic already. What I will add is that the biggest problems with MCU Spider-Man aren't adaptation things, per se (i.e. Michelle Jones). The biggest problems are the ageist and classist undertones, the romanticization of youth dependence on the rich, and the white-washing of Miles Morales.

Ageism?

[Will Evans]

I’d like to see a Dr Strange run where Stephen is incapacitated in some way. And Clea has to be the Sorceress Supreme for a while.

[PCN24454]

It's annoying how it seems like the people that want Peter to grow up are also the same ones that are terrified of him passing the age of 30. What good is him aging if if he isn't allowed to change?

Blaming "he can't be teenager anymore" feels like scapegoating.

[Will Evans]

I honestly thought he was 29 going on 30, back in the clone saga, when Ben replaces him, and Peter/Mj moved to Seattle.

[PinnyPed]

Ok Here's my controversial opinion. I actually like Jane Foster - not as Thor - I hated that, though I don't mind her as Valkyrie. I just want her to become Thor's love interest again.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Black Widow has a much better track record in over history than Carol or Jan has. I don't see why they'd be treated any better than Natasha given their overall histories, especially in the Avengers comics. Carol's push as the answer to DC's Wonder Woman is only recently proving a success and Jan has never really escaped the shadow of being Hank Pym's ex-wife while other adaptations have them happily married.

Historically, Janet and Carol had longer and more significant ties to the Avengers. Janet has been portrayed as the heart of the Team since the Lee/Kirby era, while Carol has been a powerhouse since her Ms. Marvel days even if she only recently started getting marketed as Marvel's Wonder Woman. Black Widow on the other hand didn't become an ongoing Avenger until the 1980s, and probably wouldn't have been in the top 10 most recognizable Avengers until Millar made her a founding member of the Ultimates.

The problem with Black Widow as "one of the Main Five" is that she is too grounded of a character to be on the same mythic level as Cap, Iron Man, Thor, or Hulk. She is conceptually closer to Mockingbird or Black Canary from DC than she is to someone who can fill that void. A lot of Black Widow's female-lead status in the MCU boils down 1) Marvel playing it safe and 2) her being in the right place at the right time. Jan was off-limits due to Edgar Wright while Carol still had a lot of unknown variables at the time preventing her from being adapted, like how to reinvent her origin without Mar-Vell.

Ageism?

The explanation given by the Russos and other figures of the MCU on why this Spider-Man has blind loyalty to Iron Man and the Avengers is simply that he is a kid. Given that Spider-Man was the first independent teen superhero and that he was meant to challenge ageist notions about teens, this is the equivalent of sexism in Wonder Woman.

[TheCape]

The explanation given by the Russos and other figures of the MCU on why this Spider-Man has blind loyalty to Iron Man and the Avengers is simply that he is a kid. Given that Spider-Man was the first independent teen superhero and that he was meant to challenge ageist notions about teens, this is the equivalent of sexism in Wonder Woman

This is pretty much my main issue with MCU Spider-Man. And to clarify, i don't think that his movies are bad and i think that Holland is clearly putting a lot of effort into his wich i appreciate and i completly understand why people like him, but that particular change had made impossible for me to enjoy it as much as the other.