All About Pepper: some thoughts
May. 5th, 2016 01:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakMore Civil War triggered thoughts, this time about someone who isn't in it (with a good reason), Pepper Potts. Because the explanation for her absence reminded me of a couple of things, and made some thoughts about Pepper and her characterisation in the movies versus fanon come together.
So, Pepper, when she shows up in fanfiction, or is talked about tends to be described with the default label often used for female characters in male heavy narrative, "awesome woman being awesome". "Awesome" usually being equated with social concerns as well as with general competence. I remember some stories exploring how the Extremis experience was for her after Iron Man 3 (which was what I was looking for to read at the time), but I don't think I've come across exploring something which the current Tony/Pepper breakup and the reason Tony gives for it when Steve asks (that he went back to superheroeing post IM3 and realised he couldn't give it up) reminded me of, which is a, to me, hugely important for Pepper's characterisation exchange between Pepper and Tony in Iron Man I. It comes when Pepper, upon realising Tony is set on a new crimefighting career, says she's leaving. Then we get this, somewhat paraphrasing because I don't have time to look up the exact wording:
Tony: All these years as an arms dealer you stood by me, and this is where you draw the line? Now that I'm trying to make up for the destruction?
Pepper: You're going to kill yourself. And I can't watch that.
What I'm trying to get at here: Pepper signed on for a job with Stark Industries when its primarily source of income was manufacturing and selling arms, and worked so well for it that even villainous Obediah Stane, not a sentimental guy, regrets the prospec t of killing her once she figures out the truth about him. If Tony was "The Merchant of Death", as the press called him, she surely was Death's Accountant. Throughout all existing movies, there is no indication this bothered her in the slightest. She goes from extremely competent personal assistant to extremely competent CEO, and after Tony stops the arms production line, it's her idea to put clean energy at the centre of SI instead (at least that's how I interpret the dialogue references in Avengers). This makes sense consisting Tony's recent inventions (or improvements on Howard's and Vanko's inventions, if you want to get technical) re: arc reactor. But if Tony hadn't had his epiphany in Afghanistan, Stark Industries had continued as it was and Tony had still made Pepper CEO, would Pepper have changed the focus that way, once she had the power? Maybe, but movie canon has given us no reason to assume that.
Don't get me wrong: I don't mean Pepper doesn't have her own ideas or standards. On the contrary. And I don't think she misses the arms trade. But there's no indication anywhere she sees "saving the world" (however you define that) as a worthwhile cause or wouldn't be equally as satisfied being the competent CEO of a company that, say, manufactures bubblegum. What the Extremis experience seems to have left her with was a very clear idea of what she doesn't want for her own life. As for Tony's life: an argument can be made that the early classification of superheroing as an expression of Tony's self destructive streak doesn't really change in Pepper's mind. And you can see where she's coming from: in IM2, being Iron Man is literally poisoning him and he knows it and does it anyway, in Avengers, he nearly ended up dead by nuke in space in order to save the day, in IM3, he gives a top terrorist (he thinks) his home address issuing a challenge and nearly gets them all blown up as a result. And then he creates (well, co-creates, but it was his idea) an AI whose idea of saving the world is to kill every human on it.
Still, Pepper able to live with and support Tony Stark, Profiteer Of Death, but not with Tony Stark, Self Destructive Superhero, says something interesting that I don't believe has been explored yet, or really faced yet. (Though I recall at least one great ensemble story by Lettered, "Let's do the time warp again", in which Pepper says to Bruce something along the lines of how she doesn't care about the world: she cares about Tony.) Possibly because it's not how much of fandom's idea of how a strong female character should be (if she's not a supervillain) goes. (Incidentally, yes, of course there are a lot of good reasons not to have a romantic relationship with Tony Stark, or to end one, without even touching on whether he's currently busy saving or destroying the world, but if Tony isn't misrepresenting things to Steve, and the way the scene plays doesn't make it look that way, those weren't the ones for Pepper (at least temporarily) breaking up with him.)
Pepper is far more socially competent than Tony; she pays attention to people, whether or not they're interesting to her, and takes care not to alienate them (unless they're Christine Everhart). (She'd never been such a good P.A. otherwise.) And she doesn't have either a god or a guilt complex. But I think an argument can be made that she doesn't really care about people, either, let alone issues; she cares about a few individuals, and that's it. Heretical thought: the closest female character we've seen to MCU Pepper Potts is Wilson Fisk's beloved Vanessa in Daredevil, i.e. a villain. (In a way Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones, too, but here their attitudes towards exes is a key difference. I don't think Pepper would ever fight a nasty divorce battle about money.)
Usually prioritizing a man above a cause/ethics is seen as a sign of weakness in a female character (but not in a male one, though whether or not Steve does that in Civil War is the type of thing fandom fights over for the rest of time), which is possibly why Fanon Pepper rarely is written that way. But the underlying assumption to this idea of weakness is that the female character in question gives up her own standards/ideals in favour of her love for a man, or for the man's ideas. And this specifically isn't the case with Pepper and Tony. A I said: Pepper was fine with the arms manufacturing and trading. It's Tony turning the destructiveness against himself that she can't stand, nor does she see possible saved lives of strangers as a justification for this. And when it becomes clear that he won't be able to stay away from this behavior for more than short breaks, she draws the consequence and gets out, at least for now.
Cooly competent business woman Pepper who doesn't really care whether she's making her living in the weapons or the energy industry isn't a character as sympathetic as Pepper being nice to Bruce or rolling her eyes together with Natasha at the guys' posturing, or the generic Awesome Lady Being Awesome that shows up now and then, but it's a side of the character I would be interested in reading about.
On another note, here is a Rolling Stone profile of Chris Evans, in which Steve's actor has this to say about the central conflict of Civil War:
" It's a nice role reversal," says Evans. "You have a company man like Steve who always believed in the hierarchy of the military, but in the last couple of movies has seen the people he was loyal to misuse their power. Whereas Tony, who's always danced to the beat of his own drum, is feeling guilt for the collateral damage they've left. But that's why I like this movie: There's no clear villain in terms of right and wrong. And the truth is, I actually think Tony is right. To see Steve prioritize himself over what other people need is selfish. That's what makes it interesting."
So, Pepper, when she shows up in fanfiction, or is talked about tends to be described with the default label often used for female characters in male heavy narrative, "awesome woman being awesome". "Awesome" usually being equated with social concerns as well as with general competence. I remember some stories exploring how the Extremis experience was for her after Iron Man 3 (which was what I was looking for to read at the time), but I don't think I've come across exploring something which the current Tony/Pepper breakup and the reason Tony gives for it when Steve asks (that he went back to superheroeing post IM3 and realised he couldn't give it up) reminded me of, which is a, to me, hugely important for Pepper's characterisation exchange between Pepper and Tony in Iron Man I. It comes when Pepper, upon realising Tony is set on a new crimefighting career, says she's leaving. Then we get this, somewhat paraphrasing because I don't have time to look up the exact wording:
Tony: All these years as an arms dealer you stood by me, and this is where you draw the line? Now that I'm trying to make up for the destruction?
Pepper: You're going to kill yourself. And I can't watch that.
What I'm trying to get at here: Pepper signed on for a job with Stark Industries when its primarily source of income was manufacturing and selling arms, and worked so well for it that even villainous Obediah Stane, not a sentimental guy, regrets the prospec t of killing her once she figures out the truth about him. If Tony was "The Merchant of Death", as the press called him, she surely was Death's Accountant. Throughout all existing movies, there is no indication this bothered her in the slightest. She goes from extremely competent personal assistant to extremely competent CEO, and after Tony stops the arms production line, it's her idea to put clean energy at the centre of SI instead (at least that's how I interpret the dialogue references in Avengers). This makes sense consisting Tony's recent inventions (or improvements on Howard's and Vanko's inventions, if you want to get technical) re: arc reactor. But if Tony hadn't had his epiphany in Afghanistan, Stark Industries had continued as it was and Tony had still made Pepper CEO, would Pepper have changed the focus that way, once she had the power? Maybe, but movie canon has given us no reason to assume that.
Don't get me wrong: I don't mean Pepper doesn't have her own ideas or standards. On the contrary. And I don't think she misses the arms trade. But there's no indication anywhere she sees "saving the world" (however you define that) as a worthwhile cause or wouldn't be equally as satisfied being the competent CEO of a company that, say, manufactures bubblegum. What the Extremis experience seems to have left her with was a very clear idea of what she doesn't want for her own life. As for Tony's life: an argument can be made that the early classification of superheroing as an expression of Tony's self destructive streak doesn't really change in Pepper's mind. And you can see where she's coming from: in IM2, being Iron Man is literally poisoning him and he knows it and does it anyway, in Avengers, he nearly ended up dead by nuke in space in order to save the day, in IM3, he gives a top terrorist (he thinks) his home address issuing a challenge and nearly gets them all blown up as a result. And then he creates (well, co-creates, but it was his idea) an AI whose idea of saving the world is to kill every human on it.
Still, Pepper able to live with and support Tony Stark, Profiteer Of Death, but not with Tony Stark, Self Destructive Superhero, says something interesting that I don't believe has been explored yet, or really faced yet. (Though I recall at least one great ensemble story by Lettered, "Let's do the time warp again", in which Pepper says to Bruce something along the lines of how she doesn't care about the world: she cares about Tony.) Possibly because it's not how much of fandom's idea of how a strong female character should be (if she's not a supervillain) goes. (Incidentally, yes, of course there are a lot of good reasons not to have a romantic relationship with Tony Stark, or to end one, without even touching on whether he's currently busy saving or destroying the world, but if Tony isn't misrepresenting things to Steve, and the way the scene plays doesn't make it look that way, those weren't the ones for Pepper (at least temporarily) breaking up with him.)
Pepper is far more socially competent than Tony; she pays attention to people, whether or not they're interesting to her, and takes care not to alienate them (unless they're Christine Everhart). (She'd never been such a good P.A. otherwise.) And she doesn't have either a god or a guilt complex. But I think an argument can be made that she doesn't really care about people, either, let alone issues; she cares about a few individuals, and that's it. Heretical thought: the closest female character we've seen to MCU Pepper Potts is Wilson Fisk's beloved Vanessa in Daredevil, i.e. a villain. (In a way Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones, too, but here their attitudes towards exes is a key difference. I don't think Pepper would ever fight a nasty divorce battle about money.)
Usually prioritizing a man above a cause/ethics is seen as a sign of weakness in a female character (but not in a male one, though whether or not Steve does that in Civil War is the type of thing fandom fights over for the rest of time), which is possibly why Fanon Pepper rarely is written that way. But the underlying assumption to this idea of weakness is that the female character in question gives up her own standards/ideals in favour of her love for a man, or for the man's ideas. And this specifically isn't the case with Pepper and Tony. A I said: Pepper was fine with the arms manufacturing and trading. It's Tony turning the destructiveness against himself that she can't stand, nor does she see possible saved lives of strangers as a justification for this. And when it becomes clear that he won't be able to stay away from this behavior for more than short breaks, she draws the consequence and gets out, at least for now.
Cooly competent business woman Pepper who doesn't really care whether she's making her living in the weapons or the energy industry isn't a character as sympathetic as Pepper being nice to Bruce or rolling her eyes together with Natasha at the guys' posturing, or the generic Awesome Lady Being Awesome that shows up now and then, but it's a side of the character I would be interested in reading about.
On another note, here is a Rolling Stone profile of Chris Evans, in which Steve's actor has this to say about the central conflict of Civil War:
" It's a nice role reversal," says Evans. "You have a company man like Steve who always believed in the hierarchy of the military, but in the last couple of movies has seen the people he was loyal to misuse their power. Whereas Tony, who's always danced to the beat of his own drum, is feeling guilt for the collateral damage they've left. But that's why I like this movie: There's no clear villain in terms of right and wrong. And the truth is, I actually think Tony is right. To see Steve prioritize himself over what other people need is selfish. That's what makes it interesting."
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 12:36 pm (UTC)I remember an exercise we did in the student orientation for new physics students. First there was a section where we were asked who would be comfortable to work in weapons development, in the context of talking about ethics in science in for research etc. and very few were okay with making weapons. Some time later there was a discussion about interesting current developments in physics, talking about what we'd find interesting, what projects there were in theoretical and applied research, and whether we could consider going in that direction (without that being linked to the ethics discussion earlier initially). They were all cool projects, and students could imagine being happy to work on any number of them. And then after that the projects were reframed in presentation and 100% were for military use.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 01:34 pm (UTC)Now of course "no more in the arms manufacturing" doesn't turn out to be true exactly, since the Iron Man suits are weapons, the War Machine suit of course, and he did some of the technology for the later SHIELD hellcarriers according to Nick Fury early in Winter Soldier. And of course Ultron, even had Ultron worked as intended, would have been a weapon - the ultimate weapon, going right back to the atom bomb and the idea that if only you have a powerful enough weapon, future wars can be prevented. Otoh he doesn't profit from any of these save the SHIELD stuff (can't imagine Tony gave these to Fury for free), whereas pre-epiphany weapons were his biggest source of income.
To get back to the point of my post, while this makes a difference to Tony, there's no indication in makes one to Pepper. There's a certain pragmatic amorality in it which at a guess is essential for being successful in the business without becoming a neurotic wreck or a gloating psychopath, but it's an aspect of her which (imo as always) fandom tends to overlook.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 02:45 pm (UTC)The reaction to that dilemma for most seemed to be some variation of the position that the knowledge generation wasn't to blame, but that the moral responsibilities were at some later point with some person that then uses the knowledge in amoral ways.
And I actually think that displacement of responsibility still works similarly for outright weapons manufacturer and people like Pepper who work for them, without making them amoral. She is integral to make and sell weapons, but she doesn't intentionally sell them to terrorists and doesn't make the decision to use the weapons, that decision lies with the military and the elected officials controlling it (at least if it wasn't subverted by Hydra), whom she expects to (hopefully) make the right moral choices. Clearly she isn't a pacifist who thinks it would be wrong under any circumstances to use weapons for war, but that is not amoral as such.
I think the reason why Tony makes such a hard turn wrt weapons is his giant ego, which won't allow him to displace responsibility as being just one person in a complex system, but thinks of himself as central, essential and able to control outcomes on his own.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 03:42 pm (UTC)There was a lot of discussion about Pepper in IM3 not wanting to be in a relationship with Tony when his PTSD meltdowns were putting her at risk, and some of the... well mostly the Steve/Tony shippers, were ragging on her for being a coward and unsupportive for backing away from him over that, so a lot of defensiveness comes in there. There was a pretty strong, It's right and good for a woman to say no to a guy who brings his killer robots to bed stance that followed in response.
There is an Awesome Women tendency, certainly, but a lot of it that I've seen has been more, "Fuck you, she's awesome!" in response to people ragging on her for, well, being a big meanie to poor little Tony.
I've certainly seen people who were not happy about her attitude towards Christine Everheart.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 04:23 pm (UTC)Oh, excellent point!
re: Pepper critized by part of fandom in IM3, I thought that was ridiculous. BTW, I also thought the movie was entirely on her side for this one.) And that's not even mentioning the whole "here is my address, come and get me!" stunt.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 04:40 pm (UTC)Though I briefly tuned in for AoU fandom, and... same entrenched arguments, different day? I think I'm one of about three people in fandom who actually mostly liked that movie, so I tuned out pretty fast.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 05:18 pm (UTC)AoU: same here. I disliked some elements, but I enjoyed most of it.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 04:36 pm (UTC)Yes, that was the wrong word. Hardcore pragmatic, maybe?
I think the reason why Tony makes such a hard turn wrt weapons is his giant ego, which won't allow him to displace responsibility as being just one person in a complex system, but thinks of himself as central, essential and able to control outcomes on his own.
That, and also Yinsen basically telling him "be someone worth sacrificing my life for". (And that Yinsen does die for him is a big shock.) Which, this being Tony, doesn't result in him, say, building up an aid organisation (though later movies always mention charity work he also supports) or something like that, or taking a political interest in the war in Afghanistan, he has to become a superhero. Which I think you can make a reasonably good case may be the result of Howard canonically not shutting up about Captain America during Tony's childhood. Someone good, someone worth admiring = Steve Rogers, superhero. Ergo Iron Man.
...which is just guaranteed to get incredibly messed up once Steve Rogers turns out to be alive and is around to interact with, naturally.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 02:42 pm (UTC)Usually prioritizing a man above a cause/ethics is seen as a sign of weakness in a female character (but not in a male one, though whether or not Steve does that in Civil War is the type of thing fandom fights over for the rest of time)
People fight over that? Have they seen the movie? (Or watched the press tour, where at least the Team Cap side emphasized the point Evans makes in the interview you linked above, namely that Steve puts his own interests above others for basically the first time in this movie.
It's basically why I think the disagreement Tony and Steve have over the Accords is ultimately not very relevant for the story, because even if Steve had signed the Accords, he likely would have reacted the same way when it came to Bucky. Naturally, without the Accords, things wouldn't have escalated this much, but the question whether Tony or Steve is "right" ultimately seems sort of academic? I think they need supervision, but that someone like Ross should not have it, because he doesn't accept the Avengers as persons and would likely abuse his power over them. That's not too far away from either Tony's or Steve's point.)
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 03:53 pm (UTC)It depends on Gwynneth Paltrow, I suspect. RDJ definitely is lobbying for it. (He was the reason she was in Avengers, according to Joss Whedon.) Probably not in Infinity War, because of the already gigantic cast, but I could see her easily showing up for a cameo in Spiderman: Homecoming. Peter Parker being Peter Parker, he's guaranteed to have romantic woes as well as other problems, and Tony and Pepper getting back together (or not) could serve as a counterpoint to Peter and either MJ or Gwen (depending on which girl they'll pair him up with. I don't mean in the sense of a true subplot, I mean in the sense of Peter confiding and asking for girl advice (well, if you have a well known playboy for a newly acquired mentor, why not?), and then Tony saying something along the lines of "you're asking the wrong guy" (if he and Pepper are still on the outs) or Pepper could walk in while Tony gives a Tony-esque quippy and tasteless advice, if they play it like comedy, Something like that.
I think they need supervision, but that someone like Ross should not have it, because he doesn't accept the Avengers as persons and would likely abuse his power over them. That's not too far away from either Tony's or Steve's point.)
Very true, though the practical thing would be to ensure that whoever gets to be on that international board supposedly in charge of supervision isn't a Ross (or Ross himself), which would necessitate lobbying various governments. Methinks having an international company could be helpful in that regard. :) (Less seriously, since Wolfram & Hart have a cameo in Age of Ultron (in Thor's vision, he sees among others three people wearing masks of the Wolf, the Ram and the Hart), it means the MCU and the Buffyverse are the same, which means I can nominate Rupert Giles for a seat on that international board. He has the ideal work experience! (And a healthy distrust of how corrupt organisations can get due to his own experiences, which maybe reassures Steve.)
Re: Bucky, the thing is, even if the Accords didn't exist at this point Bucky would still be an internationally wanted man after supposedly bombing a UN meeting in Vienna. It's an interesting point as to which nation would have claim on him. (Definitely not Germany, but we've been through that.) And the US in rl has set precedent for simply executing internationally wanted terrorists instead of taking them prisoner, so there's that. Now Steve in any scenario would obviously want to ensure Bucky's survival, but the non action movie friendly way to do that would be to ensure he gets tried in Austria. Which doesn't have the death penalty. (I don't know whether the Austrians also have a law preventing extradition to a country with the death penalty; as far as I recall Germany does.) And then get Bucky a lawyer, and an independent psych evaluation.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 04:55 pm (UTC)AFAIK there is an EU-wide US extradition treaty of some sort from a few years back that demands that the suspect can't be sentenced to death if he was extradited from an EU country.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 05:09 pm (UTC)Building up an International Supervision Board: they could turn this into another series. The West Wing, with Superheroes. Although would Giles really enjoy this, I wonder? Seems like an awful lot of paperwork.
Bucky being a wanted man: wouldn't he be that, anyway, due to being a Hydra assassin? He'd probably have to prove the whole brainwashing/POW for 70 years thing one way or the other. And it might explain why the US would have a vested interest in either killing or extraditing him. A trial would have the problem in T'Challa likely succeeding in killing him before it even starts, no matter where it happens. So Steve would again be forced to use illegal means in order to ensure his survival. (Although if it ever comes to a trial, Charlie Cox seems to be very eager to show up in the movies - this seems like an ideal crossover point.)
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 05:34 pm (UTC)Me too! God knows, Pepper could use a female friend, too. And Aunt May might find having one who already had a close look at living with a superhero useful. (Also useful: tips in how to deal with hostile press. Given that J. Jonah Jameson will soon publish his anti Spiderman articles, if he isn't already.)
Matt Murdock representing Bucky is less than assuring re: Bucky's fate after season 2 of Daredevil, where Matt made an utter mess of defending Frank Castle. (Mostly by not showing up for much of the trial and then completely ruining the cross examination.) If I were Steve, I'd hire Jeri Hogarth's firm instead, which now has Foggy in it. Also: Carrie-Ann Moss cameo!
It occurs to me Zemo might be willing to make a deal, because he could testify to the effect Bucky is indeed conditioned and unable to exert free will if triggered.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 06:36 pm (UTC)Hmm, Foggy would also be less likely to bleed on the trial folders. Besides, he and Bucky could bond over being into redheads. And a Carrie-Ann Moss cameo is always welcome! (Perhaps my one reason for checking out the Immortal Ironfist, whenever that show arrives.)
This would be a very astute move for Zemo, though given that Martin Freeman's character is apparently originally from Black Panther, I kind of expect him to "accidentally" end up in a Wakandan prison (instead of wherever EU prisoners go in the MCU).
no subject
Date: 2016-05-06 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 03:16 pm (UTC)Though I wonder what it means that Pepper wasn't dating Tony until he was a superhero. She was his Girl Friday for ten years or so before, but they didn't start dating until IM1. After which they were on again/off again.
Though of course she still cared about him before, and the dating could have started for I Thought You Were Dead related reasons.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 03:33 pm (UTC)She seems pretty interested in living a high life, and not so much in from whence the funds for that.
Yes, though I would add that she's very interested in working for the high life, i.e. not simply having the money (or getting presents), but earning it. One reason why she's furious with Tony through a lot of IM2 is that she actually cares for the company and he's slacking (due to impending death, but she doesn't know that) in favor of pranks and superheroics.
She likes being a businesswoman, she's good at it, but I don't think the nature of the business matters too much for her, unless it directly impacts someone she cares about (i.e. when finding out Obadiah is dealing with Tony's kidnappers).
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 03:52 pm (UTC)She's also very into nice clothes and shoes, past what she needs for presentation for her job, and was the one who was doing the art collecting in both movies, even if that was "for Tony" (who clearly didn't care).
I'm not completely convinced that Pepper thinks the nature of the original business was wrong though. I don't know if she'd put a lot of thought into it, but she could just be fine with it too. However, the narrative wants us to think it's wrong (and I personally agree, but I'm rather to the left of... everyone in the US arms business, probably), Tony does too, so I suppose that's the narratively approved option. The IM movies weren't exactly strong on people who thought differently than Our Hero having a valid outlook.
Though it just occurred to me that RHODEY is never seen as being in the wrong either, and he's actually in the military, and certainly didn't have trouble with Tony making weapons for him. He was Tony's liaison back in the day, and expresses very similar doubts about Tony's new career.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 04:16 pm (UTC)Why "though"? I argued that she doesn't think that at all.
re: Rhodey, not only didn't he have trouble with Tony manufacturing weapons, he seems to have felt Tony was letting the side down when Tony stopped in IM1. Which brings me to:
The IM movies weren't exactly strong on people who thought differently than Our Hero having a valid outlook.
Well, there are some, in addition to Tony being meant to be in the wrong as an active arms dealer at the very start of the movie. I would say the narrative is with Rhodey in his "you don't respect me or yourself" speech re: Tony's behavior at the Vegas event, it's again with Rhodey in IM2 re: Tony's behavior there, and Nick Fury comes across as speaking with authorial voice re: Howard (my reason for believing we're supposed to take Nick's impression of Howard over Tony's is that the movie immediately validates Nick's by letting Tony find that old movie with a post mortem message to himself and figure out that his fat, her had hidden a discovery for him in the Stark Exhibition model); later, Nick's acid assessment on Tony Stark as opposed to Iron Man at the end of the movie (or rather Natasha's assessment as recited by Nick) is also meant to be dead-on.
Now I grant you, the villains in all three IM movies are shown as being in the wrong, and one of the many reasons why IM2 is the weakest of the lot is that the comitee investigating Tony at the start is written as unsympathetic straw men (complete with one senator who later turns out to be Hydra), but critique of Tony's behavior coming from non-villains is usually always validated.
Anyway, going back to Rhodey, he also gets the last but one word in Civil War (other than Steve's voice over letter and of course the post credit scenes), so one can argue that the MCU likes to use him in a "not always our hero's pov, but valid" manner.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 04:33 pm (UTC)I guess I'm just not sure, on reflection, why Pepper being fine with being Death's PA and not fine with Tony's self-obsessed superhero endeavours (or at least with Tony apparently trying to kill himself with them) makes Pepper morally ambiguous or even amoral. She may not have considered it, but she just as easily could have thought about it and decided it was fine, as Rhodey did (one assumes, since he's in the actual military).
I would say that Nick's assessment and Rhodey's general annoyance with Tony are meant to be correct in the facts, but sort of against the spirit of the movies and often written off in something of a boys will be boys tone. Natasha thinks Tony's too unstable and self-centred to be an Avenger, and rolls her eyes at him overriding the comms with rock music, but Nick goes out of his way to put him on the team, and Tony gets the big hero moment at the end of Avengers, proving his isn't as selfish as Steve thinks. Tony is not always meant to change, and the idea that he should is there but often written of as a joke that he knows what people think, but doesn't care.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 05:11 pm (UTC)None of which means he isn't still self centred. Or still prone to ignore good advice. But he's become more aware of other people and their needs, and that's at least partly to all the interaction with and criticism by the other characters.
guess I'm just not sure, on reflection, why Pepper being fine with being Death's PA and not fine with Tony's self-obsessed superhero endeavours (or at least with Tony apparently trying to kill himself with them) makes Pepper morally ambiguous or even amoral
See above, and the other comment, re: amoral being the wrong word, I admit. More hardcore pragmatic. But I think there is a certain moral ambiguity. Rhodey as part of the army of course believes in the use of weapons (and hence also in the justification of creating them, as long as they're supplied to the military). (BTW, beyond Rhodey staying in the army through the IM movies - I wonder whether he's still in the army as an Avenger, i.e. between AoU and CW? There's no sign to the contrary, at least, but you'd think that would be an additional argument for the Sokovian Accords demanding countries to use, because if an active member of the US army is part of this outfit, it's hard not to classify the Avengers as irregular US military?). So it makes character sense that when Tony in IM1 quites arms manufacturing, Rhodey first tries to talk him out of it.
But Pepper doesn't do that. Now this could be because Tony is her boss (and he's not Rhodey's), but she isn't shy about giving him her opinion on other matters she disagrees with. Which leaves me with the impression that Pepper doesn't really have an opinion on the arms trade per se, not because she hasn't thought about it - Pepper is a smart woman, and the reporter scene early in IM1 where Christine Everhard throws that "merchant of death" phrase at Tony certainly can't have been the first time, so I bet Pepper who is often with him on such occasions heard that a lot - but because whether or not the company she works for manufactures weapons or, I don't know, tractor parts isn't something that is important to her. Whereas Tony in her eyes practising self destruction via superheroing is. (I don't think the self obsessed part matters, because he was that as an arms dealer, too.)
no subject
Date: 2016-05-05 07:39 pm (UTC)I think pragmatic is a better word. But I do still wonder if the fact that Pepper has no problem with the arms industry is because she thinks it's fine. We don't get any word on this either way (which in itself probably supports your theory), but in the US, making weapons is often... less charged than non-Americans think of it as being. For Pepper, it could well be a more or less ethical proposition, and even one of service.
It's been a while, but I think one of her main problems with Tony's new vocation is that it brings violence into her life. The first thing that happens pretty much is that Stane tries to kill her, and she's almost in an Arc Reactor explosion. Then next movie, Tony gets in a fight at the race track, pretty near her, then she pairs up with Natasha and flinches back when Natasha starts hitting people. The line at the end of IM3, played for laughs but still, is, "Oh my god... that was really violent." And she leaves Tony, or goes on break, when his suit attacks her. I do wonder how much of it is not wanting Tony to get hurt, and how much is her worries about her personal safety.
Which is a more interesting to have a women who is completely fine with making and selling weapons, and strongly adverse to people using them near her.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-08 02:25 pm (UTC)