It wouldn't surprise me if Spellman is a Tony fanboy. It honestly feels like Marvel's been working really hard to retcon a lot of the stuff particularly from CACW and even CAWS (never forget he was the one who designed the helicarriers for Project Insight) to make Tony look good or to revamp his image. It would make sense why Bucky and Wanda are being treated so horribly by the writers lately and it makes me really worried over what they're gonna do to Sam. Or any of the other remaining members of Team Cap for that matter. Now that I think about it, a lot of what followed CACW has been trying to retcon or change audience's perspectives on it. I wonder if maybe they weren't expecting for so many fans to actually side with Steve and panicked and that's why it seems like a lot of those characters are being punished or written sloppily:
-Steve becomes VERY OOC and ditches his new family for a woman he kissed once and a time where most of his new friends would have been treated like dirt
-Bucky is given ableist writing, victim blamed, and turned into an antagonistic figure towards Sam and the Wakandans
-Wanda is forced to kill and watch the person shes loves most die, go through her grief alone, is going to "go mad" and be the main villain of DS2
-Sam is already being sidelined for Peggy and wasn't allowed to have proper agency in his own show
-Clint...has honestly had his character fucked up since AOU, but was turned into a homicidal one note character in Endgame
-Natasha is fucking dead
-Sharon has been retconned into a villain
-The only one left of the main Team Cap that hasn't been screwed over by the writers recently has been Scott. Makes me worried for what's gonna be in store for him in Ant Man 3
I do feel by and large most of the creators at Marvel sided with Tony for CACW — heck, even CEvans said if it was up to him he’d side with Tony “for sure” on the Accords. The Accords was never made clear in the movies. When you talk about accountability and frame it with Wanda bringing down a building on one side and then “Bucky” bringing down another on the other side, of course the audience is going to agree that they need accountability. Steve’s words are also not as clearly or firmly worded as Tony’s on the issues because, hey, Tony got more lines. I remember my initial impression when I watched it the first time (especially with all the noise and explosions going on) was that Tony was pro-Accords, and Steve anti-accords = anti-regulation = anti-accountability. Which actually wasn’t true. Steve was just given a few short frames to say they needed to retain accountability in their own hands. He never had the opportunity to point out all the flaws in Tony’s argument, which comes to fruition in the end - the Avengers being imprisoned without proper trial or hearing. Did Tony come back to get them after he realised he was wrong about Bucky and therefore wrong about them? No. He found out about his parents and decided to continue to punish the rest of the Avengers for it.
The more I think about it, the more CACW was IM4. Steve and Bucky were plot devices to develop Tony’s story of dealing with his mummy issues. Steve himself had very little development. He simply replayed what his beliefs were in CATWS. Bucky, likewise, wasn’t developed as much as displayed for plot effect.
Do I think there is a concerted and conscious effort to make Team Cap into villains? I don’t think it’s necessarily conscious, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I think these people clearly favour Tony and identify with him much better than they do Steve, Sam, or Bucky. They don’t really want to get into the heads of these characters, so they create a shell of characteristics and put them through the motions; as opposed to developing their character and delving through their emotions. Hence post CACW Team Cap all seemed shallow and superficial, because none of the writers wanted to get into their heads about what their motivations are and where their faith lay, because that might mean coming to terms with the idea that Tony was in the wrong.
I feel a lot of Team IM fans still believe (and even Team Cap fans) that Steve was driven entirely by the selfish need to protect Bucky, which personally I don’t agree with. I think Steve also had noble, non-personal reasons to protest what Tony proposed in the Accords. But it’s this “selfishness”, which Team IM fans see as Steve’s hypocrisy/fallacy, that he needs to pay for — and he does it by ending his arc with an even more selfish choice, by cutting off the two people who anchored him.
Wanda and Nat got fairly empathetic treatment in their respective series/movie. It’s just when they end up in dudebro’s hands that things go pear-shaped.
Scott is more periphery in terms of the conflict against Tony and he was never Tony’s “friend” as Steve allegedly was. There wasn’t that personal element as there was with Steve/Bucky/Sam, so I’m a little more hopeful for him. If they do turn out to ruin him then I guess your conjecture is right - they really do be out punishing Team Cap.
66 notes · View notes
Of all the parallels we've seen so far, I think this one best demonstrates the difference between John Walker and Steve Rogers.
Steve easily could have killed Tony at the end of Civil War. In fact, Tony seemed to expect it; he raised his hands to protect his head from what he probably thought was the inevitable.
But Steve wasn't like that. Even in the midst of pure rage, he could never kill someone unnecessarily- good moral standards were at the core of every decision he made, regardless of his own emotional state.
John Walker is different. When he gets angry, morality is not his priority because ultimately he isn't a man of the people, he's a man who centres his own desires, no matter the cost. He doesn't stop to question himself because his ego won't let him.
Where Steve Rogers was measured, John Walker is impulsive. Where Steve Rogers looked out for everyone's best interests, John Walker looks out for his own.
Where Steve Rogers showed self-restraint, John Walker takes the kill strike.
14K notes · View notes