Alternative Character Interpretation / Marvel Cinematic Universe

"We're mad scientists. We're monsters, buddy. We’ve gotta own it."

— Tony Stark to Bruce Banner, Avengers: Age of Ultron

Alternative Character Interpretation in Marvel Cinematic Universe.

---

Films with their own pages

• Avengers: Infinity War

---

General

• Thanos, of all people, as an Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain. Seven movies since his debut (appearing in three of them), he has collected exactly zero Infinity Stones, and in fact even has one fewer Stone than he started with (as Loki's staff had the Mind Stone). Comics Alliance has called him "the Trix rabbit of supervillains.". Another is he's The Chessmaster playing the Long Game. He may not have the Infinity Stones, but he knows where most of them are (as well as figuring out the location to the Infinity Gauntlet). In the stinger of Age of Ultron, Thanos appears tired of relying on others to bring him the Stones, and resolves to retrieve them personally.
• After the sceptre was retconned to contain an Infinity Stone (assuming that wasn't the plan all along), some fans speculate that the Stones have some level of sentience, similar to the One Ring. If we take it that the Mind Stone is both a sentient alien computer and capable of influencing people both directly and passively (its use as the sceptre — both on Barton and during the argument when Banner picks it up without noticing — and by proxy through Wanda's visions), it follows that the Mind Stone itself may have been manipulating the events that lead to the creation of both Ultron and Vision all along, presumably for the purpose of becoming corporeal. This would be similar to the original Infinity Trilogy from the comics where the Gems all have a level of sentience and a desire to be with the others.
  • Seems to have been confirmed as of Avengers: Infinity War as it's revealed that the Tesseract, aka the Space Stone, sent Red Skull to the location of the Soul Stone with full knowledge of how to obtain it and knowing that he would never be capable of the necessary sacrifice. This was punishment for Red Skull abusing the Tesseract's power.
  • Following the above, how much of Loki's actions in the first movie was really his doing, and how much of it was potentially him being controlled or influenced by the Mind Stone? Loki (2021) suggests it was entirely his own doing.

Films

• In Thor, Loki has inspired a lot of this discussion because the film leads the audience to potentially doubt everything he says since he's such an effective Manipulative Bastard: Did he always hate Thor or was it a simple grudge from Sibling Rivalry that grew to Cain and Abel levels only after he found out he was a Frost Giant? And does he really still consider himself a son of Odin, or was he just saying that as another manipulation?
  • And it could go either way. As notoriously having a "silver tongue" he could be manipulating both the characters in the film and the audience. On the other hand, however, he genuinely comes across as a "Well Done, Son" Guy Unfavorite who wants nothing more than to move out from under the shadow of his older brother and receive some recognition for what he has done. The more popular opinion is that he is a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, and this is the more likely possibility. If one just considers how much it would break a person to have always been The Unfavorite all his life and then discover that he is in fact one of the creatures he was raised to hate and that is the reason why he was The Unfavorite, then it is not shocking what Loki did. He set up a situation where he would have saved his father from an assassination attempt, an event that his father could not ignore. He attempted to destroy the creatures (which he was one of) that were threatening war upon his land in the hopes that it would finally make him Thor's equal. But his attempt failed, as did his attempt to explain to his father why he had done such a thing. And... it's also more popular because girls do love their Draco in Leather Pants.
  • One could also argue whether his fall at the end of Thor was a suicide attempt or an escape route to plan more evil deeds. Depending upon the character interpretation, whether Loki is a Manipulative Bastard or a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, Odin's telling him that what he did would not make him proud could either have been the final straw that drove him to suicide or that drove him to full out, irredeemable evil.
  • Speaking of which, did Laufey really abandon Loki? Or did he leave him near the Casket for safekeeping and spend the last millennia thinking Odin murdered his infant son?
    • If Loki really was left near the Casket (which is doubtful doubt) then putting a baby you want to protect next to your most powerful weapon that the other forces are probably going to go looking for is a terrible' plan and in no way going to ensure that he'd stay safe. Besides, if Loki wasn't abandoned then why wasn't he being watched over by a civilian or something? We didn't hear anything about Odin slaughtering Loki's guards and then just happening to find an "abandoned" baby. Although Odin would probably realize that part of the story makes him look less sympathetic.
    • In a scripted, but unfilmed scene Laufey admits that he believed Loki to be dead, and had no intentions of keeping him.
    LAUFEY: Ah, the bastard son. I thought Odin had killed you. That's what I would have done. He's as weak as you are.
  • Thor: The Dark World throws even more wrenches into the mix, especially regarding Loki's death scene. Did he really mean it when he apologised to Thor, or was it just a ploy to gain Thor's sympathy after his 'death?' Or did he not mean it but said it anyway because he does care about his brother somewhat? It doesn't help that the audience doesn't know whether he actually faked his death, or actually died and it didn't take, which would massively change the meaning and motivations of his words.
  • Everything said in the final scene between Thor and Odin once it is revealed that Odin is actually Loki in disguise.
• Avengers: Age of Ultron:
  • Throughout the movie, it's rather explicitly hypothesized (and even somewhat confirmed by his fear-dream) that Cap sees fighting a perpetual war as the only way to keep going, believing a normal life with love and family as too late for him. As such, his anger at finding out Tony was building Ultron is significantly built on how wrong it turned out but maybe also seeing Tony's motive (releasing his friends from the burden of Earth's only defense) as Tony taking his one reason to live away from him and making him obsolete. That might also be a way of making Captain America: Civil War less morally one-sided than the original comic indicated. It also throws some of Cap's previous actions into question. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, just when Cap is thinking about getting out of the military life, he not only declares war on HYDRA, but he destroys S.H.I.E.L.D. in the process and creates a real necessity for the Avengers. All in all, is Steve Rogers a true hero whose virtue and goodness compel him to always help those in need, or is he simply a (borderline) Blood Knight who needs to feel validated by fighting whenever possible and hiding behind a smokescreen of morality (or perhaps some combination of the two)?
    • Alternatively, is it that he simply wants to keep fighting with the Avengers because he has nothing else tying him to the modern world, not because of any particular desire for combat? Given that Steve Rogers lost pretty much everything after waking up from the ice, maybe he feels that there's nothing left but Captain America and the mission. Particularly because only about six months, at most, passed between his defrosting and being called on as an Avenger, meaning that he didn't really have much of a chance to get out into the world and make new connections. The finale of Endgame, where he goes back to live with Peggy, may lend credence to this idea.
  • A retroactive one for Cap courtesy of Avengers: Endgame. The famous moment of Cap causing Mjolnir to budge (provoking an Oh, Crap! look from Thor)... followed by Cap grunting loudly and giving up—an indication that Cap's only sort of worthy... or is he just faking not being able to lift it, in the name of "good fun"? At the 2015 SDCC, Joss Whedon was asked; “How is Steve Rogers not worthy?” Whedon responded teasingly, “Is he not? Are we sure? Did he fail? Or did he stop?” So it's likely that when Steve budged it, he realized he could lift it if he chose, but chose not to so as to ruin what was supposed to be a fun party game. Endgame outright confirms that he's worthy, and later in separate instances, the Russos and Kevin Feige confirmed that he was always worthy of it; he just didn't pick it up fully here because being the Nice Guy he is, he was being polite to Thor. On the other hand, Endgame screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely disagree and believe that Cap was not yet worthy in this scene, due to him concealing the involvement of HYDRA - and Bucky - in the death of Tony's parents, and it's not until after he comes clean in Civil War that the worthiness kicked in. There's also the possibility that "worthiness" includes self-confidence, and that he didn't see himself as being Worthy until a moment of crisis in Endgame.
  • Same scene, but let's look at it from Thor's point of view... at the time this movie came out, his expression when Steve budges Mjolnir the tiniest bit certainly looks like an "Oh, Crap!" reaction, but watching the scene after the events of Endgame, where Steve is able to lift Mjolnir with the greatest of ease, and Thor's reaction is one of unabashed glee ("I knew it!"), one has to wonder if his reaction during the party in Age of Ultron isn't worry, but puzzlement; "Really? I thought for sure he would be able to lift it..."
  • Another for Cap... is it really, as Ultron says, that he's man who can't live without a war to fight? Or is it that he's afraid when everyone else thinks the wars are over, they really aren't, and he's the Only Sane Man who realizes it? The dream Wanda gives him can lean towards this, with it very obviously being a postwar celebration, but spilled wine, camera flashes, and such making it feel like combat. His response to Tony's "suit of armor around the world" can also fall into this: if you believe you've literally built the peace, how likely are you to see that the war just shifted battlefields, it didn't stop?
  • Ultron himself. The movie makes it unclear (at least initially) if he actually plans to destroy the human race, and fakes an interest in ruling them, or if the destruction of the human race is simply the inevitable result of him ruling them. The former assumes he's inherently evil, the latter assumes he's effectively a child who will kill humans in a tantrum the moment he finds them unworthy.
  • Is the fact that Vision's good nature is proved by lifting Mjolnir, or is he just inadvertently taking advantage of a Marvel Universe loophole (created by a writing mistake that stuck) that all robots can do that?^note In Thor, Stan Lee's cameo failed to move the hammer with a pickup truck, so it's clearly not just that he's a machine. Or just the fact that he was literally just born and is a complete innocent? Especially highlighted in the film when Tony and Steve begin ribbing Thor about it. The writers of Captain America: Civil War lean towards the latter interpretation, noting that the Vision of that film may no longer be able to lift the hammer.
  • This trope is key to Ultron and Scarlet Witch's plans for the Avengers: rubbing everyone's noses in the worst possible version of themselves. Is Black Widow an inhuman monster? Can Cap live without a war to fight? Will Thor's bravado get his people killed? Is the Hulk as mindlessly violent as Banner fears?
  • Quicksilver's death. A fearless, Heroic Sacrifice where he proved himself a true hero and Avenger? A Stupid Sacrifice that he should have been able to easily avoid with his powers? Or a complete accident where he thought he would get out unscathed? Or maybe some combination?
  • While Tony’s objective in creating Ultron goes horribly wrong, how justified was he in making the attempt? It’s clear Tony thinks the Earth and the Avengers are completely unprepared for what’s out there and as Avengers: Infinity War shows, he’s completely right. Steve and Thor’s main gripe seems to be that he didn’t bother to ask permission before building the project, but Tony mentions he doesn’t have the time to debate with the team (none of whom are experts with AI) before he loses the chance. Tony has already built several AI programs with no issues (JARVIS, FRIDAY, KAREN in Spider-Man’s suit in Spider-Man: Homecoming) and when he does the exact same thing again with Vision, it goes perfectly. The variable that makes Ultron go bad (coming spontaneously aware with no one but JARVIS around and then learning about mankind from the Internet) isn’t really something either Tony or Bruce could have expected. It’s also unclear exactly how much of Tony’s actions are derived from Wanda’s mental manipulations. At the same time, Bruce Banner is skeptical and has doubts about the entire project, and raises ethical questions about Tony's tunnel focus on the big picture at the exclusion of threats nearer to home since The World Is Always Doomed. In any case, none of Tony's tech and AI, neither Vision, his Iron Man armor, or other things, was even close enough to stop Thanos by itself, and Tony owes his survival to Doctor Strange making a deal with Thanos, plus his actions via Ultron and the consequences in Civil War divide the Avengers rather than keeping them together to oppose Thanos as a single unit. The whole fact that Tony later built a drone system that acts suspiciously like Project Insight also raises lots of questions as to whether he learned from his mistakes with Ultron or not.
  • A lot of fans seemed to think Bruce and Natasha's relationship in this movie amounted to Strangled by the Red String, but looking at the scenes, it's more like a flirtation that could become something more. They're not madly in love, and don't even go on a proper date. Besides some flirting here and there, the only romantic gesture between them is a kiss that happens right before a battle they know they might not not live through. Plus, even in the first movie, they had a couple personal if not romantic moments, and given they've spent some time working together as of this film, it's not all that unusual they'd develop an interest in each other.
  • How much did Tony actually associate with Klaue prior to becoming Iron Man? He downplays his association to Klaue to the other Avengers by making it sound like a casual acquaintance and that he never sold him anything. However, Klaue’s recollection of Ultron’s line (“Make your friends rich and your enemies rich and wait to see which is which”) being something that Tony would say implies that Klaue had an ongoing association with him large to recognize a common saying of his. Never mind that the content of the line seems to imply Stark probably did in fact do business with Klaue. Is Tony telling the truth to his teammates or is he lying to cover up morally dubious past deeds he’d rather not let them know?
• Captain America: Civil War:
  • Because of the story's government versus anti-government plot, people were already politicizing the story and thus the characters since it was announced. Following Cap's actions in The Winter Soldier (in which he entirely shut down a government agency when half of it proved corrupt and the other half inept to stop it), MCU Cap has already been branded a hardcore libertarian icon.
  • The initial trailers implied that Tony was fighting against Cap simply over different approaches to heroism, while the film shows that they really come to blows over Bucky. Regardless, it's disputed whether their conflict was also fueled by whatever grudges the two have had since the first Avengers flick.
  • A lot of the parts revolving around Bucky have this trope in-universe as well as out. Steve believes Bucky is an innocent victim while others see him as dangerous due to his brainwashing, which can be activated by anyone who knows the proper trigger phrase.
  • Sebastian Stan has suggested that Bucky is lying when he says he remembers killing Tony's parents, because he would rather tell Tony what he wants to hear in order to make his death as quick as possible. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, though, established that Bucky wasn't lying.
  • Iron Man's morality can certainly be called into question.
    • Is Tony supporting the Accords for good reasons, or is it out of remorse over the Sokovia incident and his confrontation with Miriam Sharpe made him overly fearful and guilty?
    • Tony's ties to Spider-Man. Is Tony trying to help an Ascended Fanboy make a difference in the world with his powers, or is he simply trying to exploit the abilities of a Naïve Newcomer for the sole purpose of advancing his own goals? Furthermore, the fact that Peter Parker is a minor being brought into the conflict and that Spider-Man: Homecoming reveals that Tony didn't explain what was going on, only claiming that Cap had "gone crazy" (at least, that's how Peter interpreted it), also raise a completely different set of questions about Tony's moral compass. Additionally, given that Clint and Scott are fathers, and Steve and Sam are Nice Guys, they would all hold back against a kid where they wouldn't against an adult (Steve in particular is clearly holding back when they fight). If that was part of Tony's calculations, it would be a clever and very ruthless strategic move.
  • Is Vision keeping Wanda company because he genuinely cares about her, or is he just following Tony's orders to make sure she stays put? A flashback in the eighth episode of WandaVision where Vision provides emotional support to Wanda between Age of Ultron and Civil War hints towards the possibility of the former. And is Tony trying to keep Wanda in the Avengers headquarters because it's for her own good, considering that he's risked his reputation, business, and fortune to keep a visaless and stateless^note as revealed by The Falcon and the Winter Soldier foreign national who had accidentally killed eleven people safe from various governments? Or is it because he's scared of her and her powers given the rampage Hulk went on when he last encountered her? The fact that neither Vision or Tony are doing anything to help a clearly distressed Wanda in captivity towards the end of the film muddies this even more^note Although it's unclear what they were in a position to do, though the fact that Vision and Wanda do become lovers between this movie and Infinity War mitigates things a little bit for Vision.
  • Is Helmut Zemo an Anti-Villain whose actions are somewhat justified and even tragic? Or is he a Manipulative Bastard who wants to see the Avengers' destruction, and gladly crosses the Moral Event Horizon in order to ensure it? This incarnation of him doesn't seem to care about HYDRA, saying that they deserved to be taken down. All he cares about is avenging the deaths of his family who perished during the Battle of Sokovia, for which the Avengers are partly responsible, and when finally accomplishing that, clearly has no plans to do anything else and prepares to commit suicide. Further complicating this is the fact that T'Challa/Black Panther is Pro-Reg not because of any moral stance, but simply because he wanted a chance to kill Bucky - and actually admits that he is similar to Zemo; he would have killed an innocent man out of misplaced vengeance if circumstances had been otherwise. Zemo even admits to T'Challa that he feels sorry about causing his father's death during the bombing in Vienna.
  • Is Black Widow betraying Iron Man's team and letting Steve and Bucky escape because she honestly thinks Steve is in the right while Tony is mostly motivated by his own ego and flawed logic? Or is her allegiance biased herself because she's always had a closer relationship with Steve than Tony, considering what they had gone through together in Captain America: The Winter Soldier? Natasha's also established in the beginning of the film that she supports Tony's decision to sign the Sokovia Accords but she also tries her hardest to convince Steve to change his mind without being too antagonistic, so the reason she lets him go at the airport might be because she really doesn't want to bring him in. And finally, at the ending of the film, she goes into hiding and carries out the events of her solo movie when the government agents come to arrest her, but leaves her other compatriots behind to be imprisoned in The Raft until Steve breaks them out. Is this the sign of the "doing whatever it takes to survive, even by playing both sides" mindset that Tony accuses her of, or because she genuinely cannot find a way to break them out on her own, considering the nature of the prison itself? Or was her decision because she knows all too well what the Winter Soldier really is (since Natasha was similarly used as a tool and living weapon by nasty people), so she is actually more or less neutral in the whole conflict and willing to see that both sides have very good reasons for their actions? Hawkeye probably did something similar for her way back when, and saved her from possible execution or a life sentence in jail. So is she acting out of loyalty to both Steve and Clint, and out of sympathy for Bucky, while still agreeing with Tony's point that there needs to be safeguards against people like her?
  • Is Steve really fighting the Accords because he genuinely thinks that they are wrong? Or is he fighting against them for more personal reasons that he can't, or won't, admit to himself?
  • Is Steve using Sharon as a Replacement Goldfish for Peggy? His interest in her does seem to increase once he finds out Sharon's parentage, and as his dedication to Bucky throughout shows, Steve tries to hold on to whatever he can from the past. Steve's characterization in Avengers: Endgame adds a lot of evidence to this interpretation. Even seven years after Peggy's death, he's still deeply in love with her, to the point that he'd rather return to the past just to be with her. In addition, a deleted scene from Endgame would have featured Steve living with Sharon after the Snap in what's supposed to be an unhappy relationship.
  • Did Steve leave his shield behind because he agreed with Tony's claims that he didn't deserve it or as a bitter "are you happy now?" gesture? The Russos claim that it's the latter.
  • Considering that in Black Panther (2018), T'Challa let Killmonger die on his own terms (albeit after offering Erik medical treatment), is his decision to not only spare Zemo but prevent him from killing himself more proof that he's gotten over his desire for vengeance, or an act of Cruel Mercy?
  • To what extent is Steve's status as The Paragon an Informed Attribute in this movie? Is his motivation for not signing the Accords—that he can't stand by when he has the power to stop something—a moral imperative stemming from his WWII roots, or is it a run-of-the-mill American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" mentality that ignores the collateral damage the Avengers have created and the possibility that other countries might prefer to look for less destructive solutions to problems that the Avengers have historically dealt with violently? Is his decision to pull Bucky out of the anonymous life he was trying to live, only to throw him into the middle of an intra-Avengers feud, because he really thinks that's what's best for Bucky, or is it just because he wants Bucky to be his best friend again? Is Steve's desire to keep Bucky from facing accountability for anything he did as the Winter Soldier based on a broad belief that people aren't culpable for things they do while they're brainwashed or because he doesn't want his friend to go to prison? To what extent is he disregarding the safety of others by keeping Bucky out in the world and off the radar when he can still be activated by anyone who knows the trigger words? And does the fact that real-world brainwashing exists and people are usually held accountable for the things they do while brainwashed cast Steve's actions in a worse light? Did he leave the rest of his team at the airport to get arrested because that was the only way to beat Zemo to the other Winter Soldiers or was he just using them as cannon fodder to slow down Tony's team so they wouldn't get to Bucky? Did he lie to Tony because he really thought it would be better for Tony if he didn't know the truth, because he was worried that Tony would flip out and go nuclear on Bucky if he even thought the latter might be involved in his parents' death, or to spare himself from thinking about the real-world consequences of Bucky's actions and to protect Bucky (this one is lampshaded in-universe)?
  • Tony claims he has no idea Team Cap would end up in the Raft. Was he just saying this? Or did he genuinely not realize it? If the latter, is it because he thought the government would let him keep custody of them, or is it because he didn't consider the consequences of the fight at all?
• Black Panther (2018)
  • Does Killmonger actually care about helping oppressed minorities, or is he just using their plight as an excuse to take revenge on a world he feels has wronged him personally? Support for the latter comes near the end of the film when he admits that he doesn't care so long as the world share his pain. Despite his entire mission statement about using Wakandan technology to improve the world, and T'Challa offering him a chance to repent, he kills himself rather than swallow his pride for the sake of actually helping people. It's also pointed out his burning of the source of the Black Panther's powers was a tactic to destabilize Wakanda itself, bringing into question if he actually even wanted to create a new world superpower or if he instead wanted to ravage the world and destroy Wakanda. However, if Killmonger really cares more about venting his rage, was he always motivated by selfish revenge or did he start out with genuinely selfless intentions only to give up because of his anger and despair?
    • A fairly popular third theory (and a Fan Wank for the implausibility of his plan) is that his goal was never to conquer anyone or even cause all that much damage overseas, but rather to give the countries of the world a valid casus belli to destroy Wakanda specifically. It's pointed out his burning of the source of the Black Panther's powers was a tactic to destabilize Wakanda itself (he reacts quite negatively to the idea of there being any king after his own reign ends), bringing into question if he actually even wanted to create a new world superpower or if he instead wanted to ravage the world and destroy Wakanda.
  • Killmonger killing his girlfriend - was that just an example of how without morals he is? Or, considering she never asks him to save her, was it mutually agreed between them in the event that someone used her as a hostage?
  • T'Chaka's motivation for abandoning Killmonger in Oakland after killing N'Jobu is subject to this. While he claims it was to uphold the truth about Wakanda, is it possible that it was also out of fear of the political turmoil that could result if N'Jobu's actions and his response were revealed to the other Wakandans? Did he fear that the boy would challenge T'Challa for the throne later? Did he not want to have the boy around and constantly be reminded that he had to kill his brother, or did he consider the boy to be unworthy of living in Wakanda because he had an American mother? Or was it a combination of any of these?
  • Did N'Jobu come to empathize with America's black community on his own? Or was it primarily due to his love for Erik's mother?
  • Is Everett Ross's Reasonable Authority Figure personality differing from his Obstructive Bureaucrat appearance in Captain America: Civil War a case of Depending on the Writer? Or did the events of that film along with his role in the mess the Sokovia Accords created cause him to undergo some Character Development?
  • Was W'Kabi's decision to commit a Face–Heel Turn and side with Killmonger motivated by T'Challa's supposed betrayal? Or was W'Kabi fueled by his expressed desire for Wakanda to wage war against other countries, which T'Challa had no interest in pursuing? Or was his motivation somewhere in between? Deleted scenes indicate the former.
  • The actions that the Border Tribe take at the climax of the movie where they willingly follow W'Kabi's orders to oppose T'Challa even though it violates Wakanda's rituals especially in light of the following movie where they've returned to serving under the Black Panther. Were they a group of black shirts eager for the opportunity to conquer or was it a case of My Master, Right or Wrong where they are loyal to W'Kabi rather than to whoever is king? In the following movie, Okoye notes that the surviving combatants have reintegrated with the rest of the Wakandan forces with the cause of their Heel–Face Turn left up to the audience to decipher.
  • Is the ancestral plane real or is it merely an intense hallucination caused by ingesting the heart-shaped herb? Also, when Erik meets his father again in the spirit realm, is he talking to N'Jobu's actual spirit or is he talking to his consciousness manifested as his father?
  • Wakanda itself. A paradise just trying to defend itself? Or a nation of self-righteous xenophobes willing to let the rest of the world suffer? Even ignoring Killmonger's point about how Wakanda could've alleviate the suffering of Africans using their tech and resources, keep in mind that at the time that this film takes place, there had been three alien invasions of the planet.

Shows

• Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: While no one will argue that Ward is not a villain, the agents exhibit behavior that can make them designated heroes, and it can also be argued that the sole reason they care about the Inhumans at all is because of Daisy/Skye.
  • The Designated Hero actions of Coulson in the first season are elaborated on in this blog post which straddles this trope and Ron the Death Eater.