Are MCU heroes static characters? Or do they just need more time?

[pr0xyt0xin]

I've been thinking a lot about this since AoU. Are MCU characters static characters (have no real personal growth/arc) or are they dynamic they just havent finished their arcs due to the series-spanning/unending nature of their stories?

For instance, we all complained that Tony reverted from IM to IM2, and that even in Avengers and IM3 he was haunted by his own failures/*****ebaggery and "had a lot of apologies to make." He continues to make mistakes in AoU (and lets be honest, probably Civil War). So will he ever change?

Same with Captain America. The man is literally incapable of not trying to sacrifice himself for the innocent. Will he ever grow and find attachment to something other than justice and liberty?

Similar questions can be asked about Hulk/BW/Thor. What does everyone think?

 

[Victarion]

Tony's PTSD in IM3 felt like a natural progression from TA.

 

[metaphysician]

. . .why, exactly, would anyone *want* Cap to suddenly stop being noble and heroic? That's not "the character is static", that is "completely missing the point of the character". Similarly for a lot of the complaints mentioned: the characters aren't static, they just aren't abandoning their core concept.

 

[InJustice]

Tony's PTSD in IM3 felt like a natural progression from TA.

And yet, it was completely shrugged off in IM3 as well as later movies.

 

[Random490]

And yet, it was completely shrugged off in IM3 as well as later movies.

It wasn't completely shrugged off, he learned to confront it in the movie and can be assumed he followed through during and after the end. The whole thing with the surgery was representative of him coming to terms with it and over coming it. I saw no reversion between IM1 and IM2. IM1 was on Tony facing the grim reality of his business and what legacy he wants to leave the world. IM2 was about him confront his overindulgence lifestyle which was heightened not only by him facing an inevitable death, but with side effect fromt he toxin in his body.

Just because a character isn't a completely different person doesn't mean there's no development. Cap in the Winter Soldier was about him finding a place in the modern world that's change, whole thing about him dating is a part of that. At the end he's in place where he feels comfortable. But just because your comfortable doesn't mean you want it, AoU shows him quite at peace with the Avengers and at the end he states he's not looking to settle down, not because he feels out of place, but just his current mindset just isn't on that. Which can lead room for future development.

The Marvel Universe had been great with character development and each films provides new and interest challenges that test their characters. Whether that development is a major theme or a subplot it's still there and they continue to evolve with each film.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

. . .why, exactly, would anyone *want* Cap to suddenly stop being noble and heroic? That's not "the character is static", that is "completely missing the point of the character". Similarly for a lot of the complaints mentioned: the characters aren't static, they just aren't abandoning their core concept.

So i made this post under a time constraint. But what I meant was, Captain America can have two endings as a character. Either he dies. Or he lives and he's able to be happy with his wife/child and an ordinary life.

Similar to Batman, he often seems incapable of giving this up his duty.

Never have I said I "want" Cap to be dynamic. He actually makes a lot of sense as a static character. "Planting himself life a tree by the river of truth..." and all that. But the difference between static and dynamic characters has always been an efficient method for analysis.

To have a movie (or in this case an entire series of movies) where the main character doesnt change is generally not a well-structured method of story-telling. I'm just trying to start a conversation about it.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

If we look at the MCU as one giant movie instead of 20 different ones, it might be just that these characters havent been given enough time to see their complete arcs. So eventually we might see:

Tony arms dealer > Tony Iron Man > Tony more radical protector > Tony alcoholic > Tony at peace with being incapable of protecting the entire world

OR if he's static, we might just see Tony continue to make the mistakes that cost people their freedoms and (in some cases) their lives because he is incapable of change.

I postulate that the major players in the MCU are static. And that this is almost what makes them different from heroes in other stories.

Tony Stark will always, always be the same futurist industrialist who can't do enough to save the world from annihilation.

Steve Rogers will always, always be the same self-sacrificing soldier who would rather continue fighting than find an end to the fight.

Banner will never accept the Hulk. He will always be the same scientist afraid of his own power.

Romanoff will never accept herself either. She will never see her flirtation through to fruition. If she does choose a dude, he will be completely wrong for her and never be able to commit.

Thor... well Thor is Thor. And to be honest (at least since Thor 1) he hasnt been given enough characterization to analyze. But he will probably always believe there is good in his brother and that his father can do no wrong.

 

[OcStat]

Tony arms dealer > Tony Iron Man > Tony more radical protector > Tony alcoholic > Tony at peace with being incapable of protecting the entire world

OR if he's static, we might just see Tony continue to make the mistakes that cost people their freedoms and (in some cases) their lives because he is incapable of change.

This is almost exactly the development Tony has gone through in the movie universe.

He starts off as an arms dealer, becomes Iron Man, becomes a more radical protector in IM3/AoU, realizes he can't do it all by himself and leaves the Avengers in Cap's hands.

So this:

I postulate that the major players in the MCU are static. And that this is almost what makes them different from heroes in other stories.

Tony Stark will always, always be the same futurist industrialist who can't do enough to save the world from annihilation.

...makes no sense to me. He will always be a futurist, he will always be trying to do more than he humanly can, because that is part of the CORE of his character. That doesn't mean he won't develop, as you basically confirmed his development with that hypothetical example.

Steve Rogers will always, always be the same self-sacrificing soldier who would rather continue fighting than find an end to the fight.

Banner will never accept the Hulk. He will always be the same scientist afraid of his own power.

Romanoff will never accept herself either. She will never see her flirtation through to fruition. If she does choose a dude, he will be completely wrong for her and never be able to commit.

Thor... well Thor is Thor. And to be honest (at least since Thor 1) he hasnt been given enough characterization to analyze. But he will probably always believe there is good in his brother and that his father can do no wrong.

It's the nature of the medium these characters were introduced in. The drama comes from putting these established personalities in situations that challenge the character's beliefs. Captain America is the soldier who will never give up the fight, but as we see in Winter Soldier, what happens when he doesn't know who he is really fighting for?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

idk. You say it makes no sense to you, but yet we all watch him make the same (or similar) mistakes again and again.

Once again, people seem to get offended by the prospect of me calling these characters static. As if that's a problem.

 

[SuperFerret]

You're sort of portraying it as a problem. It's not. There's nothing wrong with static characters if the characters are good ones.

Also, most superheroes go through their major character development during their origin stories.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I'm not portraying it as a problem. Whatsoever.

I said that generally speaking good stories are told with the assistance of dynamic characters. But the sheer fact that I'm here asking the question should be enough to realize that I find these stories great in spite of that fact.

 

[SuperFerret]

It comes off as "static = bad", but that could just be colored by the way that static characters are usually considered among the artistic community.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

That I'd agree with. Most critics would say static = bad. Or rather, "Static is not the normal formula."

But to me, any time i see a new method, something that breaks up the monotony of story telling norms. I think it's great.

We might all keep expecting Tony to change, but maybe we shouldnt. I mean, nothing he's shown us since IM would imply that. IM1, he changes for the better but IM2 he reverts. Avengers he finally becomes a real hero but in IM3 he puts everyone he loves in danger. He changes again, with the clean slate protocol, but in Avengers 2 he reverts again. In AoU he makes a huge mistake in creating Ultron, but rather than learning from that mistake he does it again with Vision.

And maybe that's honestly the most interesting way to approach the character. And I'm serious about that.

Tony will continue trying to control things he cant control in Civil War. And he will finally clash with his antithesis. The most unapologetically static character in Marvel comics: Captain America.

Then we have to ask the question... Will either of them change after that?

 

[InJustice]

It wasn't completely shrugged off, he learned to confront it in the movie and can be assumed he followed through during and after the end. The whole thing with the surgery was representative of him coming to terms with it and over coming it. I saw no reversion between IM1 and IM2. IM1 was on Tony facing the grim reality of his business and what legacy he wants to leave the world. IM2 was about him confront his overindulgence lifestyle which was heightened not only by him facing an inevitable death, but with side effect fromt he toxin in his body.

Just because a character isn't a completely different person doesn't mean there's no development. Cap in the Winter Soldier was about him finding a place in the modern world that's change, whole thing about him dating is a part of that. At the end he's in place where he feels comfortable. But just because your comfortable doesn't mean you want it, AoU shows him quite at peace with the Avengers and at the end he states he's not looking to settle down, not because he feels out of place, but just his current mindset just isn't on that. Which can lead room for future development.

The Marvel Universe had been great with character development and each films provides new and interest challenges that test their characters. Whether that development is a major theme or a subplot it's still there and they continue to evolve with each film.

The surgery isn’t exactly a good example, which only speaks to the realization that the arc reactor doesn’t define him, he defines himself. The issue of the PTSD plot point is still there. He didn’t exactly learn to confront it, the plot pretty much ignored it in favour of exploring avenues with the Mandarin and the Extremis. In fact, the movie showed that he had a negative reaction after the Battle of New York, and the plot just throws him into a situation with the Mandarin (first bombing in his house), and from here on out, the plot pretty much “forgot” about the PTSD plot point. Not once was Stark ever challenged to overcome his PTSD, and came into combat with the mindset and physicality as if he was completely healthy, when earlier on, we clearly see him suffering mentally. Not to mention, when Tony devoted himself to Pepper and promised her that he won’t be consumed by technology, he’s completely consumed when it came to the Ultron project.

I understand that not a completely different person =/= no character development. But there should be an expectation of at least some character change from IM2, Avengers, to Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron. Implicitly, one should expect Tony Stark to be a more responsible and ethical tech creator, and someone who has grown from PTSD. Yet, it’s the complete opposite. We see that Tony Stark reverts to the same old irresponsible character habits that was said to have been changed. That being said, Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron to me are examples of how not to do character development, it’s incredibly sloppy, unbelievable, incredibly convenient and fails to take the entire continuity into account.

Static characters are fine, and truth be told, I actually would be completely fine with Tony being a static character, but when you try to develop them into something, you should at least own up and fully develop them, not go the half-assed way lest you end with a crappy attempt at a developed static character that will forever leave a bad taste in your mouth.

 

[Infinight888]

Personally, I'd like Tony to remain a completely self-destructive character. He keeps trying to do things that he believes are right, but he does them recklessly and they create more problems than they solve.

Steve, I would argue, is undergoing a major character arc. Yes, he's always going to be that guy that fights for what he believes is right. That's who his character is, and who he has always been. He's never going to be willing to hang up his suit and SHIELD and live a normal life. But what is changing is what he's fighting for. In First Avenger, he was essentially a government stooge. In Winter Soldier, he had to fight the people he thought were the good guys. Now, Civil War is coming and he'll be forced to make more tough choices, and decide what he's fighting for. Given that those choices will lead him to turning against the government, I think we'll see a very different Captain America by the end of the movie.

 

[MbJ]

I'm less worried about Tony and moreso about some of the smaller characters. A lot of the members of the New Avengers in particular I think could be developed/handled a little better in future movies (for instance Rhodey is on his fifth movie and we still don't know much about him other than "In the military" and "Best friends with Tony").

It's not as much a problem for the A-listers since they get focus but the others could use a little more focus now and again.

 

[Oscorp]

I'm 50/50 about this. Some people here have already explained well how it's more about keeping the core of the characters rather than a case of being static. There have been some growth to the characters throughout the films.

However, I also agree that it's not all done well. I agree with whoever said that the PTSD was handled sloppy at the end of IM3. However, it remained pretty relevant to me in AoU as for why he became so determined to create a "suit of armor around the world". I think that was well done to be honest. But yeah, sometimes I wish there could be a little bit more to them. Especially Thor, who Marvel hasn't really developed at all I feel.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think Tony has actually been growing, maybe not so much between IM1 and 2, where he just kinda dealt with some Daddy/Authority issues, which allowed him to be able to join an Avengers, but in IM3 expanding his idea of what Iron Man is, which allowed him to create Ultron in AoU, and will allow him to go governmental in Civil War. If they handle that right, Tony's gotten quite an epic arc. Now, his personality is the same, yes, but his values most certainly aren't from movie to movie.

Steve, as mentioned, is incredibly static, as he kind of should be. His values have remained the same. If anything, his personality has changed. He's gone from a hopeful idealistic bully-fighter to... the man who can't stop fighting, who can't stand to go home. There's a moment in Cap 2 where BW is devastated by betrayal, but Cap is smiling "At least I know who I'm fighting." That's not how Cap felt in Avengers, or The First Avenger. So his personality, sarcasm, wit are all changing and growing. He's less hopeful now.

Thor has changed both, dramatically. I think it's been poorly handled, especially in The Dark World, but his whole relationship with his people is gone, and you'd barely recognize the "another" guy with the guy laid back at the party. "It's simple, you are all not worthy." He's mellowed out, similar to how Tony has. He's almost a different guy every movie, which is why he is so physically static.

Banner is actually pretty static. He's on the same exactly stuff at the end of AoU as he is at the beginning of TIH, or, if you like, The Hulk (2003). Hulk has grown more verbal and articulate, perhaps, but Banner is the same guy. Hawkeye's the same guy he was in his cameo in Thor, perhaps we didn't know everything about him, but he's definitely the same guy. Widow's grown by leaps and bounds, and I think that's pretty clear.

Already Scarlet Witch has an arc, as does Pietro, honestly. Falcon is static. War Machine is pretty static. Fury had a moment of character development in Cap 2 that was really cool.

I think someone hit it on the head is that people need a waypoint, why they are attached to these characters. People like Tony's personality, so that will never change. People like Cap for his values, so that won't change. People like Thor because he's just so Thor, so he will always look like Thor. Batman will always be scary. Superman will always be noble. Wolverine will always be angry. Spider-Man will always be fun. The Doctor will always be brilliant. Captain Kirk will always be brazen. Tomb Raider will always be sexy. Call of Duty will always have guns. There may be short stints where this changes, but they always revert because, essentially, the market demands it.

 

[OcStat]

Good post compadre!

 

[Oscorp]

I think Tony has actually been growing, maybe not so much between IM1 and 2, where he just kinda dealt with some Daddy/Authority issues, which allowed him to be able to join an Avengers, but in IM3 expanding his idea of what Iron Man is, which allowed him to create Ultron in AoU, and will allow him to go governmental in Civil War. If they handle that right, Tony's gotten quite an epic arc. Now, his personality is the same, yes, but his values most certainly aren't from movie to movie.

Steve, as mentioned, is incredibly static, as he kind of should be. His values have remained the same. If anything, his personality has changed. He's gone from a hopeful idealistic bully-fighter to... the man who can't stop fighting, who can't stand to go home. There's a moment in Cap 2 where BW is devastated by betrayal, but Cap is smiling "At least I know who I'm fighting." That's not how Cap felt in Avengers, or The First Avenger. So his personality, sarcasm, wit are all changing and growing. He's less hopeful now.

Thor has changed both, dramatically. I think it's been poorly handled, especially in The Dark World, but his whole relationship with his people is gone, and you'd barely recognize the "another" guy with the guy laid back at the party. "It's simple, you are all not worthy." He's mellowed out, similar to how Tony has. He's almost a different guy every movie, which is why he is so physically static.

Banner is actually pretty static. He's on the same exactly stuff at the end of AoU as he is at the beginning of TIH, or, if you like, The Hulk (2003). Hulk has grown more verbal and articulate, perhaps, but Banner is the same guy. Hawkeye's the same guy he was in his cameo in Thor, perhaps we didn't know everything about him, but he's definitely the same guy. Widow's grown by leaps and bounds, and I think that's pretty clear.

Already Scarlet Witch has an arc, as does Pietro, honestly. Falcon is static. War Machine is pretty static. Fury had a moment of character development in Cap 2 that was really cool.

I think someone hit it on the head is that people need a waypoint, why they are attached to these characters. People like Tony's personality, so that will never change. People like Cap for his values, so that won't change. People like Thor because he's just so Thor, so he will always look like Thor. Batman will always be scary. Superman will always be noble. Wolverine will always be angry. Spider-Man will always be fun. The Doctor will always be brilliant. Captain Kirk will always be brazen. Tomb Raider will always be sexy. Call of Duty will always have guns. There may be short stints where this changes, but they always revert because, essentially, the market demands it.

This analyzis and this whole post is excellent! It made me, who's already a big fan of Marvel, open my eyes even more to how these characters have been developed! I'd gladly put a link to this post in my sig, if I may?

 

[Tony Stark]

Cap has actually had the biggest arc of any of the characters over the course of his movies, but had the least arc in TFA. The whole point of TFA is that he's the same person before and after the accident.

In Avengers he's trying to find his place in the world. He knows what he's good at but feels uncomfortable. It's unfortunate they cut the scene of him sketching Stark Tower, because it added alot of depth to his character.

In TWS it's about him struggling with what he thinks he is meant to do, but unsure, because the world has changed so much. That's what made his and Sam's friendship so powerful. Sam understands what he is struggling with because he sees it all the time from combat veterans trying to return to normal life.

In Age of Ultron it's about him embracing what he was meant to do. He knows he was built to serve, and anything else "died in the ice".

Tony's arc mostly takes place during the first film. He and Thor by far have the biggest character changes. Both have shown a willingness to usurp authority to do what they believe is right. The arc in IM3 is him coming to the understanding that being Iron Man doesn't mean being controlled by Iron Man. To me it makes perfect sense the steps between IM3 and AoU.

Tony's character can be summed up when Cap asks him, "are you the guy to lay down on a wire to let the other guy crawl over" to which he says, "I think I would just cut the wire."

To Tony there is always a logical alternative. I assume that's where this is going in Civil War. It was presented in AoU, Wanda gave him an image that she knew would consume him. Yes Tony created Ultron, but he was pushed into it by what Wanda showed him. To Tony people like Wanda present as much or more of a threat to humanity that what he created, so it would be logical he would want them documented.

 

[Oscorp]

Ah, this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pov4qMSfg9w

I didn't know about that one. Great scene, it's unfortunate it wasn't in the final cut. Stan Lee's cameo is so great haha!

 

[TeeKay]

Cap has actually had the biggest arc of any of the characters over the course of his movies, but had the least arc in TFA. The whole point of TFA is that he's the same person before and after the accident.

In Avengers he's trying to find his place in the world. He knows what he's good at but feels uncomfortable. It's unfortunate they cut the scene of him sketching Stark Tower, because it added alot of depth to his character.

In TWS it's about him struggling with what he thinks he is meant to do, but unsure, because the world has changed so much. That's what made his and Sam's friendship so powerful. Sam understands what he is struggling with because he sees it all the time from combat veterans trying to return to normal life.

In Age of Ultron it's about him embracing what he was meant to do. He knows he was built to serve, and anything else "died in the ice".

Tony's arc mostly takes place during the first film. He and Thor by far have the biggest character changes. Both have shown a willingness to usurp authority to do what they believe is right. The arc in IM3 is him coming to the understanding that being Iron Man doesn't mean being controlled by Iron Man. To me it makes perfect sense the steps between IM3 and AoU.

Tony's character can be summed up when Cap asks him, "are you the guy to lay down on a wire to let the other guy crawl over" to which he says, "I think I would just cut the wire."

To Tony there is always a logical alternative. I assume that's where this is going in Civil War. It was presented in AoU, Wanda gave him an image that she knew would consume him. Yes Tony created Ultron, but he was pushed into it by what Wanda showed him. To Tony people like Wanda present as much or more of a threat to humanity that what he created, so it would be logical he would want them documented.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

See! Thanks everyone for finally getting past the "DONT YOU DARE CALL MY CHARACTERS STATIC" mentality.

I'd like to once again reiterate that the reason for any lack of dynamic arcs in these characters is probably largely intentional and due to the unending/prolonged nature of the universe. Take a character from another popular modern story that isn't adapted from a comic book. Luke/Anakin Skywalker, Aragorn, Neo, Simba, Woody/Buzz Lightyear, etc. IMO, these characters have extremely defined arcs almost to the point of being shoved down your throat in some cases. Why? Because they are stories told over the couse of 1.5 hours or in some (much rarer) cases three 2 hour installments.

I think the human interest in entertainment is evolving. People's lives don't take place over the course of 2 hours. Even the major events in one's life can't be told as 2 hour stories. So many people are migrating to TV for this very reason. People want to see the long-term ramifications of a character's actions and how they affect the surrounding characters that person cares for. Rick Grimes, Tyrion Lannister, Frank Underwood, James Bond?

And yes now we have the MCU and even Fox's X-Men universe, which allows for our favorite characters to change over long periods of time and multiple major events. Problem is, we have to wait sometimes 2 years in between seeing how they've grown and changed. So while it's possible that Tony Stark may finally learn to let go of his obsession with single-handedly saving the planet from extra-terrestrial destruction, there's no way we could know for certain for another half-decade.

 

[AgentGojiraRgr]

Ugh, I'll take the last post on the page then.
________________________________________

Anyway, this is a problem you run into when you're limited to having a character appear for around 2 hours every 1-3 years, while on TV you get them for an hour every week with a new season every year.
Characters on TV get more character development.