kerravonsen | (Reply)

From:

I felt it was regret rather than guilt, because Thor has no idea why Loki is so angry with him.

Ah, I see, we're talking about different things for Thor to feel guilty about. (Or not.) I was referring to Thor realising that his behavior re: Frost Giants was indeed wrong (after his initial defiance) and feeling guilty for that. I do agree he does not feel guilty re: his relationship with Loki though regrets it going sour and tries to repair it. I also agree this is tricky to do if you don't realise how it went wrong in the first place. (Well, I think Thor does understand the part of Loki's behavior towards him that's about impressing Odin. Less so the degree to which Loki resented Thor's own behavior.) However, I would add that after three murder attempts (one in "Thor" - where, yes, Loki gives the Destroyer a kill order, two in "Avengers"), concluding that Loki is the one who has to try try reconciliation next is somewhat understandable.

And maybe I'm just over-emphasising stuff from the first Thor movie, but (a) Loki did not usurp the throne, yet Sif et al act as if he did; (b) he was the lawful king, therefore their disobedience was treason.

Now it's been years since I watched the film, but as I recall it it, the following happens: Odin, mid conversation with Loki after Loki has discovered he's a Jotun, goes into the Odinsleep. He does not appoint anyone to rule in his stead. Asgard being a monarchy, clearly someone has to, but Loki appointing himself does not make him the rightful ruler, and him lying to everyone by claiming Odin did appoint him doesn't make it so, either. Why shouldn't Frigga be regent till Odin wakes up again, for example? Also, everyone seems to be aware that this sleep state isn't forever, i.e. it's not the first time this happened with Odin, so whoever rules in his place being regarded as regent, not king would also make a difference in terms of authority. (Err, assuming Asgardian monarchy is supposed to work similar to the various historical monarchies we've had, which are all differnet from each other.) And that's leaving aside the first thing Loki does as regent - before Sif & Co. start to disobey him - is organize a Jotun invasion of Asgard. Yes, he does so with the ultimate purpose of destroying Jotunheim, but it's still the kind of behavior that breaks the implicit fealty/loyalty relationship of subjects and ruler.

Mind you, coming from a country where "absolute obedience is not a virtue, your own conscience should come first" is seen as one of of the primary lessons learned from terrible history, I'm hard pressed as seeing Sif and the Warriors Three starting to get suspicious and acting against Loki's orders as bad anyway. Especially since the movies don't position that if someone other than Loki rules, absolute obedience is good. I mean, clearly Thor coming to the conclusion that Odin's orders are wrong in "The Dark World" and acting against them is presented as the right thing. And not just because he's the main character. When Odin gives sensible orders at the start of the first movie and Thor disobeys, it's Thor who is presented as wrong. Leaving aside that Asgardians deciding to end the monarchy altogether and start to vote for their leaders would have been a better ending to wrap up the Asgardian MCU storylines for me, even in the romantisized version of monarchy loyalty to your ruler isn't a one road street. A ruler - King/Queen or regent - as the responsibility to put the welfare of the people first. Thor disqualifies himself for the position at the start of the first movie, and he comes to realize this. Loki disqualifies himself in the first movie as well, in the same movie; engineering a war and an invasion for the express purpose to impress Dad and make yourself his favourite may be psychologically understandable given Loki's issues, but it's still criminally irresponsible behavior. Thor and Loki both regard themselves as entitled to kingship at the start of the first movie; Thor comes to realize he's not, and furthermore, he wouldn't be good at it, which is a realisation that sticks beyond the first movie. He still feels responsible for Asgard and its people in a "protect them" as opposed to "rule them" fashion. With Loki, I didn't get the impression he ever sees ruling as something that entails responsibility, or considers it might not suit him (at least not till presented with Hela); it's the shiny price that proves he's best after all, and he wants it. The one time he has it without a challenge (when he's posing as Odin between Dark World and Ragnarök), he uses it for an ego fest. (A far less harmful one than engineering an invasion, it has to be said, but still, he seems to be completely disinterested in the work part of rulership and consider it all about the glory and universal approval part.)

Everyone blames Tony for Ultron, but it was not entirely his fault, it was only partially his fault.

Everyone? In post Ultron movies and tv shows, the Avengers as a team get blamed for Ultron, not Tony as an individual. Tony does bear main responsibility, I'd say, with Bruce and Wanda (for pushing Tony's paranoia telepathically) sharing responsibility. (Separately, Wanda also is responsible for helping Ultron afterwards and for letting the Hulk loose on Johannesburg.) But when Ultron and Sekovia are brought up by people , the blame goes to "the Avengers" in general.

Now, in the movie itself, in the scene where after Ultron had his debut appearance Tony has to tell everyone just how Ultron came to be, he does get blamed, but frankly, given circumstances, I don't see how else that conversation could have gone than essentially "I created the robot" - "You what?" The only other time in the movie we see the others getting incensed at him for this is after Vision's creation, and again - who wouldn't be? I don't recall Steve (or anyone else from the Avengers) bringing up Ultron to Tony in a "you are to blame for this" manner in subsequent movies. (Not even in the big Civil War argument about the Accords, where a "so you want oversight because of your deeds, why should the rest of us pay for something you did?" would have been a vicious but effective verbal sledgehammer, but neither Steve nor Sam as the two main voices against the Accords ever use it.) On the contrary. The one point where Tony's creation of Ultron and the reason for it is brought up again that I recall is by Tony, early in "Endgame", and there he is the one to blame Steve (I think the sentence includes the phrase "I told you so"). Which brings me to:

He blames Tony for destroying the unity of the Avengers?

Does he? When? Where? The only times Tony comes up when Steve is talking to other people in "Civil War" that I recall is when he and Sam are discussing their belief that Zemo will create more super soldiers and the need to stop him, and Steve says it would be pointless to tell Tony since he wouldn't believe them. Which as it turns out he's wrong about - in both senses, i.e. Tony when coming across the same evidence they did comes to the same - mistaken - conclusion re: Zemo and supersoldiers, and does act on it. But blaming Tony their current division does not come up or is even a topic. And the movie ends with Steve explicitly reaching out to Tony. Since memories can get blurry, I just googled the exact text, and it is:

Tony, I'm glad you're back at the compound. I don't like the idea of you rattling around a mansion by yourself. We all need family. The Avengers are yours. Maybe more so than mine. I've been on my own since I was 18. I never really fit in anywhere, even in the army. My faith's in people, I guess. Individuals. And I'm happy to say that, for the most part, they haven't let me down. Which is why I can't let them down either. Locks can be replaced, but maybe they shouldn't. I know I hurt you, Tony. I guess I thought by not telling you about your parents I was sparing you, but I can see now that I was really sparing myself, and I'm sorry. Hopefully one day you can understand. I wish we agreed on the Accords, I really do. I know you're doing what you believe in, and that's all any of us can do. That's all any of us should. So no matter what, I promise you, if you need us, if you need me, I'll be there.

There is no blame for Tony here, neither for the Avengers splitting up nor for following the Accords in the first place, and acceptance that he himself was in the wrong re: keeping the truth about Tony's parents from him. (BTW, this goes directly against your earlier proposition that Steve never sees when he's at fault for something.) In "Infinity War", Tony and Steve have no chance to talk, and when Steve mentions Tony to other people, he only does so in a positive manner ("Earth's best defender"); there is no line of blame for the Avengers' split there, either. When Steve and Tony do see each other again the first time, at the start of End Game, Tony is the one who blames Steve (see above) for something, not the other way around. (During their next encounters, there are other topics to talk about, and also there are the five years in between.) Now I might be forgetting something, absolutely - again, it's been years. But I can't recall any scene in which Steve blames Tony for the Avengers split. "Both of us acted to according what we believe to be right" seems to have been his final conclusion on that subject.

I haven't seen enough movies to know this -- does Wanda ever stop blaming Tony for her parents' deaths?

Tony isn't mentioned in her conversations with anyone in either "Infinity War" or "End Game". "WandaVision" has one flashback to child!Wanda and Pietro being trapped with their dead parents and a STARK lettered bomb (as recounted in "Ultron") as part of a series of flashbacks (presumably so that potential new viewers are filled in on this part of Wanda's backstory), but it's not brought up in dialogue in the present day, nor is Tony in general. So she may or she may not; we don't have canon on this either way. (Of course, in the post "Endgame" era "WandaVision" is set in, Tony is dead, and she has a great many other things to deal with; the show isn't perfect, but it does a great job of fleshing Wanda out, and it's in many ways about grief and guilt. (BTW, her and Pietro handing themselves over to Hydra for experimentation is shown in flashback as well.)