Avengers Great Debate Part 3 [Various comments on Part 2]

Comment 1 from Aikatsu-Ojisan

GROOT and the Big Boss

This is Riku Onda (colleague of Aikatsu-Ojisan).
Thank you for your continued support.

I was blown away by the homo-erotic impressions and the terrifying literary genius of the SS. I'll concede the Naoki Prize to you. (Admin: If anyone actually wants to read it, let me know in the comments. No one would, right?)

I take my hat off to your analysis of Stark.
The way you take things I felt vaguely and prove them one by one based on facts is almost beautiful. You feel like a sociologist.

God's eye view! That's a great phrase.
I think it's hard to be convinced by this movie if you look at it from a God's eye view, but if you consider the feelings of each character, it's (to use a cheap expression) incredibly well-made.
Rather than Stark's mentality being like tofu, I think Cap's mentality is just too strong. There's a trend that says hero stories should naturally have iron-clad mentalities, so that's that.
When I said I was going to watch the MCU, Chirakawa said, 'It depicts them not as perfect beings, but as individual humans with weaknesses,' and it feels like that has just blossomed now. No, I still think Cap is a perfect superhuman (or maybe he's just an idiot...). It's well-balanced that his physical body is on the weaker side.

In terms of team division, it might be more accurate to say that Cap's team wasn't a group with shared beliefs, but rather that Cap's leadership was truly 'Captain-like'.

＞A Place Further than the Universe
I'm happy to see you're watching this, as it's another masterpiece...
To be frank, you can rest assured that there are no duds among the anime I recommend.

Comment 1 from Chirakawa

Mr. Onda,

Thank you for the Naoki Prize.
I'm happy, even though I honestly thought it was hard to read.

In the spirit of striking while the iron is hot,
I'll take the liberty of sending some superfluous comments on the following.

Conflict with Pepper? (This wasn't talked about much, so I can't say for sure)

This is a sensitive issue, so they probably intentionally glossed over it. As Tony said himself, the cause of their separation is likely his disregard for the promise made in Iron Man 3 (i.e., to abandon the Iron Man suits and prioritize their personal happiness).

What this shows is that Tony is a man who, while wavering, pushes forward with his great cause (what he should do as someone who has the means), even at the cost of his relationship with Pepper, his only true confidant. I called his mentality 'tofu,' but this is truly a heroic act. Furthermore, this naturally overlaps with what his father, Howard, was doing.

In addition, this self-sacrificial aspect is something Tony and Cap share. However, Cap was like Urashima Taro when he woke up; his comrades and acquaintances
had died one after another, and even the woman he loved passed away from old age shortly after their brief reunion, so one could say he had no choice but to pursue the great cause.

It's a tragic story, but in the midst of it all, his best friend Bucky appeared in the present world just as he was. If Bucky himself isn't at fault, it's perfectly reasonable to run headlong into things, saying you have to protect him at all costs. It's quite harsh to call this egoism.

(Of course, one could also consider the theory that Cap is just a homo♂ as he appears, and was acting out of a self-righteous lust to ravage Bucky cruelly. Let's push this theory given the circumstances.)

Looking back, in that sense, one might say that Tony was acting with a stronger will, martyring himself for the great cause, than Cap was.

Comment 2 from Aikatsu-Ojisan

Important Person

This is Ryo Asai (the rugged-looking guy).

Iron Man is still hot.

>What we can understand from this is that Tony is a man who, while wavering, pushes forward to carry out a great cause (what he should do as someone who has the means), even at the cost of his relationship with Pepper, his only confidant.

→I see, I am impressed that there is such an interpretation. However, at the same time, I feel that it might be a somewhat favorable view of Tony. I am ashamed that I cannot argue this with specific scenes as evidence, but one could also interpret it as him using the justification of a 'great cause' to look away from the fact that he is afraid to face Pepper.
This is because I cannot feel his sincerity personally, but I also feel that this might be underestimating Tony as a man, so I think it is most convincing to me to think of it as a complex state of mind where a sense of mission and fear are inextricably mixed.
I should say for the record that it's not that I dislike him. In fact, I even feel a sense of endearment toward him. I'm not gay. I'm not gay.

>It can also be said that he had no choice but to push forward with the great cause.

→I completely agree with this, and I think one of the big differences between Mr. Stark and Cap is whether or not they have shackles. Cap has so little to lose that he can rush down the path he believes in without hesitation. This is likely a strength for him.

That was the case, but,

>In the midst of that, only his best friend Bucky...

→I think this is exactly where there is room for debate. Chirakawa's writing is...

The lonely Cap had no choice but to pursue the great cause. However, he encountered his only best friend, and wanted to protect him at any cost.

I read it as an interpretation that connects the two with a contrast, meaning he had the intention to protect Bucky even if it meant bending the great cause somewhat, and that is his ego (though that's a harsh word) (sorry if I'm wrong).

In my interpretation, the great cause and saving Bucky are separate issues, and I think it just so happened that they did not end up contradicting each other. It's not a conjunction, but
parallelism.

To put it extremely, I even think the outline of the story (excluding the ending) wouldn't have changed even if Bucky hadn't appeared. Of course, if he hadn't appeared,
the Cap team wouldn't have been chased, so the conflict in the middle of the story wouldn't have happened, but once they parted ways, that situation would have happened sooner or later (I'll say it again, I think falling under the UN umbrella was a bad move, at least for Cap. This will be mentioned later*).

If there is a watershed moment, it is only the part at the end where 'Tony did not forgive Bucky' and 'Cap prioritized Bucky.' That said, regarding the latter half, since nothing would be solved even if Tony got his revenge (killed Bucky), this is natural, so to speak. On the other hand, regarding the first half, since he had tried to forgive him once, it is hard to think that the final fight was due to anything other than personal grudge, and this can be considered the decisive factor in the conflict. It is harsh to call this ego, though that is not Chirakawa's word.
In other words, I think it was actually Stark who was greatly influenced by Bucky. This is a bit off-topic, but even if it had been someone like Wanda who was the enemy, I don't think Cap's actions would have changed. I suspect the script is implicitly criticizing Stark, who was obsessed with hatred and lost sight of the great cause, by having Hōnen Shōnin (Black Cat) say 'hatred produces nothing' and forgive Bucky. As mentioned above, it's not a story to be blamed, though.

*Regarding the threat to the universe in Ultron, I had completely failed to consider it (I only noticed it after seeing Chirakawa's analysis). Indeed, Stark's keen insight should be appreciated, and I understood well that it was a lonely battle, and I also understood well that the current Avengers have their limits. On the other hand, it is also reasonable that the muscle-headed group, who are not gods, dismissed it as unrealistic...
In short, is it a lack of communication? (a cheap conclusion). I don't think a clear solution has emerged yet (in other words, a state where both Stark and Cap have a point), so this is something to look forward to in future developments.

With the above, my unchanging opinion is that Cap did not prioritize Bucky over the great cause, and so far, it has not become a shackle that shakes his principles of action. That said, it is also true that I had misjudged Stark's convictions, so I am glad that my understanding has deepened. Let's call it a shared pain of conviction (?).

I have acted as if I were arguing against Chirakawa, who knows everything, but I have absolutely no desire to have a Civil War, so please understand that point.

In the end, this is just a rehash of my first comment, and I feel like I've failed to write down many of the ephemeral thoughts that came to mind while writing... I really do need a drinking session.

Chirakawa's comment 2

Mr. Asai

W-wow, this level of passion... it's so unexpected that I'm delighted.
Strike while the iron is hot, as they say (lol)

>What we can understand from this is that Tony is a man who, while wavering, pushes forward to carry out his great cause (what he must do as one who has the means), even at the cost of his relationship with Pepper, his only true confidant.

⇒Certainly, if you only look at this text, Tony looks almost like a saint, so let me add a supplement.
I wrote at length, but the conclusion is the same as that rugged old man's convincing interpretation (=Tony is in a complex state of mind where a sense of mission and fear are inextricably linked).

First, as a premise, I don't think Tony harbors insincere feelings when facing Pepper. He has a bit of a charming playboy side, though. In the Iron Man series, he has protected Pepper to the point of risking his own life, and in the third film, he showed his resolve to respond to her feelings in the most dramatic way possible. After doing all that, it's
unthinkable, even considering the dramatic direction, that they would settle into such a delicate relationship.

So why have they reached a situation where they are keeping their distance? It must be because Tony is Iron Man and
feels a strong sense of mission as an Avenger, and he simply cannot abandon that.

Here is the supplement. Now, if you ask if he is a hero to the core, I don't think so. In his case, there is a tendency to try to fulfill his mission for his own sake. Fulfilling his mission will end up saving himself. This is because his mission (=stopping alien invasions and ensuring no one dies) is closely linked to dispelling his own fears and anxieties and escaping from his heavy responsibilities.

In other words, you could rephrase it as him trying to fulfill his mission in order to escape his heavy responsibilities.
The reason is, after all, that Tony is weak. Because he is weak and cannot bear it all, he mass-produced suits in Iron Man 3, developed Ultron in Avengers 2, tried to conform to organizations and manuals in Civil War, and so on—I think he can only think in terms of increasing his crutches. Since the starting point is "I am weak and cannot bear it," the solutions also tend toward reinforcing that. In the first place, Iron
Man is just a weak, middle-aged man wearing a shell to fight.

As an aside, Cap is different. I don't mean to say Cap has no anxiety or fear, but he is a being filled with strength and confidence. He is a genuine super soldier in body and mind. Plus, he has nothing to lose. That is why he believes in himself more than anyone else, and believes that is how he should be. Since he cannot trust the organization itself, he believes he should operate only with things he can trust, including himself, and as a result, he did not cross paths with Tony in Civil War.

>It's not that Cap prioritized Bucky over his great cause, and so far it hasn't become a shackle that shakes his principles of action.

I agree that protecting Bucky itself does not contradict Cap's great cause at all. The point I wanted to make is the "at any cost" part.
I really think Cap's reckless, headlong rush clearly neglected his own great cause, and that it wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Bucky.
The reason is just this one point below.

After Cap picked up Bucky, who had broken through the siege from his house arrest, he should have consulted with Tony's side. In a situation where they were exposed to the critical eyes of the public and the Avengers were on the verge of collapse, what does it mean to break through the blockade by half-destroying the airport while harboring the Winter Soldier, who was being treated as a war criminal without a word?

In order to carry out Cap's great cause, he should have needed strong unity, as he himself said in Avengers 2 that "we'll lose together," but this is an act that clearly contradicts that.
(Of course, the atmosphere was such that Tony and the others wouldn't listen, so the fault doesn't lie solely with Cap.)

>The part where "Tony does not forgive Bucky" and "Cap prioritized Bucky" at the end

This point should certainly be discussed separately from the argument above. Furthermore, it is also the event that determined the split of the Avengers. Tony was certainly emotional here. It was an event that happened just as he was trying to reconcile with
Cap, whom he didn't get along with very well in the first place, and his emotions must have exploded. Well, he was shown a vivid video that would put LiveLeak to shame, with his parents' heads being blown off, and the perpetrator of the video was right in front of him. It's unreasonable to ask him to stay calm. I have to say, that nameless Sokovian soldier (forgot his name, Zemo?) who understood Tony's personality so well and paved the way for that to happen is truly impressive.

>To the all-knowing Chirakawa

I speak as if I know everything, but I've only seen it once in real-time and once about a year ago, so please tell me if I have any misconceptions about the development.

Anyway, let's have a drink.
A screening party would be fine too.

That's all, please support me if you'd like.