Not meant to change entirely, but I would say IM3 shows he has changed (and in non-flamboyant ways) to some degree. The guy who arrogantly dismisses a young awkward admirer in the Bern flashback at the start and even plays a cruel prank on him by telling ihm to meet on the roof isn't the same man who deals with Jerry (the camera guy with the Tony tattoo in the middle of the movie) in a not-mocking, friendly way. When he meets the mother of the first Extremis victim (the guy who blew himself up without meaning to or wanting to), he takes the time to tell her that her son wasn't a crazy terrorist but that something was done to him instead of just taking his information and leaving. And with Harley, he's not just snarking, he also gives him a useful tip of how to deal with bullies at school. All of which aren't big gestures like saving lives, but they are proof he is aware of other people and their emotions now in a way the Tony Stark of old wasn't, who wouldn't have resisted messing with Jerry via a quip (at best), wouldn't have thought of talking to the mother beyond finding out what he needed to know, etc.
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.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
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.)