Unpopular Opinions About The MCU That Raise Good Points

The Hulk's powers are ludicrously cool, especially their exponential nature. Historically, the Hulk's degree of strength is proportional with his anger. There are more than a few comic storylines in which fighting makes him angrier, which makes him stronger, which makes his opponent escalate, which makes him even angrier, and ... well, you get the idea. He's a perpetual motion machine of brute force, with no apparent upper limit of ability.

So why does he feel like such a secondary fighter in the MCU? Well, one Reddit user makes a great point — in the wake of Endgame, one thinks of Thor before they think of Hulk when it comes to the best brawlers. It's not just that Hulk's full strength hasn't been unleashed in a while, though. Instead, it's that he hasn't gotten a major set piece since Thor: Ragnarok. Hulk needs his own "Immigrant Song" scene, his own "Cap wields Mjolnir" moment. Heck, even just a "Scarlet Witch faces Thanos" mini-sequence would be enough. Becoming Professor Hulk doesn't have to mean he's retired from being an unstoppable golem of blinding fury. In fact, it might even drive that point home a little better! Banner put his brain in "the other guy," and yet he's still capable of being absolutely overwhelmed with rage? That's how strong the Hulk's powers are! Get to it, Marvel. As it stands, the Hulk ain't feeling all that incredible.

What comes to mind when you think of Scarlet Witch's powers? Red special effects, telekinesis, illusions? This vagueness is actually pretty in line with her powers as they've historically been depicted. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby kept her abilities notoriously ill-defined to allow for creative interpretation. This was a smart storytelling move ... that also made Scarlet Witch insanely powerful. What can she do exactly? Well, she's plugged into "chaos magic," which often amounts to "potentially unlimited power, given enough time and concentration." She's created entirely new realities, erased thousands of mutants' powers, and resurrected a handful of dead people over the years. At this point, she's really more of a Scarlet Goddess than a Scarlet Witch.

Do her powers stretch this far in the MCU? There's not much reason to believe they don't, so it's not too far-fetched when you see Twitter users comparing her to the likes of Dr. Strange, Thor, and Vision. After all, we've seen her toss massive machinery through the air, immerse the Avengers in illusory realities, and shatter the Mind Stone, which, if you recall, survived literally everything else it ever came across in all of existence, from the Big Bang up until the modern day. She was a sloppier fighter in Age of Ultron, true, but that almost makes her even more impressive. If it only took a few years for her to go from novice to Thanos-thrasher, where will she be in a few more?

What do you remember about Iron Man 3? Probably just one or two things, like the Mandarin twist or the kid Tony spoils with hyper-advanced tech. It's fallen through the cracks of the MCU, as much as any Marvel movie can. It's not Iron Man 2, which was the go-to choice for the "lesser MCU entry" until Thor: The Dark World came along, and it's not Iron Man, which has the honor of having started the MCU in the first place. It's ... just there. Some dislike the Mandarin twist, some think the actual villain is forgettable, most everyone else hasn't thought about it in years.

And that's a real shame because, as this Reddit user points out, Iron Man 3 is a weird little gem. Somehow, this movie combines corporate warfare, Tony Stark's chronic panic attacks, a massive twist on a classic Marvel villain, and the destruction of nearly every Iron Man suit, and makes it look easy. We get some lo-fi antics with Tony stranded in rural Tennessee and an action-packed climax in which Pepper Potts gets to deliver the final blow, to say nothing of the genuinely affecting emotional drama between the two, which hits new heights here. It's unlike any other Marvel movie, and it's likely that no one out there loves every single thing about it. However, it's probably a whole lot better than you remember and well worth revisiting.

The Hawkeye of the MCU is many things. He's a dad, a loner, a top-tier archer, and occasionally a tattooed renegade in the Tokyo underworld. Somehow, this never quite adds up to much. This isn't to say he doesn't have his fans ... but how many people are out there buying posters of Clint Barton specifically? Do kids dress up as him in any major way? If he'd been the one to die on Vormir, would there be scores of fans on social media decrying the death of their fave? Signs point to no.

The Clint Barton of the comics, however, is a different character entirely, as a few Reddit users have pointed out. Some runs make him smarmy, some lean into his anti-authoritarian streak, and some take a uniquely low-key approach to the character. Matt Fraction and David Aja's celebrated 2012 Hawkeye series blew fans' minds by simply telling stories about what Hawkeye does on his days off. While the MCU character feels so flexible that he ends up shapeless, Hawkeye of the comics' flexibility allows his essential traits to rise to the top. Whether he's in Brooklyn, in a S.H.I.E.L.D. office, or on a speeding asteroid, he's scrappy, wry, and optimistic, if cynical. That character has never quite shown up on the big screen, though perhaps the fact that the Disney+ series is using the 2012 run's iconography is a good sign for the future.

Could anyone have predicted the waves Loki would make in the MCU? Fans fell in love with the trickster god en masse following his appearances in Thor and The Avengers. In retrospect, it's not hard to understand how this happened. Loki is a fascinating character, torn between no fewer than three opposing factions at any given time. He's a prince, an outcast, a god, a beloved brother, and an inveterate liar. Plus, he's played by Tom Hiddleston, who musters some truly Shakespearean thunder in every sly scene.

At least, that's the party line. But not everyone agrees, as this Reddit user makes a solid point. Take a second to think about Loki's actions in the MCU. He betrays Thor. He works with aliens to destroy Earth. He betrays Thor again. He hides his dad away in a nursing home and takes the throne for himself. Yes, he also fights alongside his brother to take down Hela, and he dies trying to save the Asgardians from Thanos. But that betrayal-to-heroism ratio ain't pretty. Moreover, it's easy to think of him as tragic ... but really, is he? Okay, Odin and Frigga never told him he was a Frost Giant. Okay, he's been raised in Thor's shadow. That's tough stuff. It is, however, majorly ameliorated by the fact that he always had his family's love. Loki is a lot of fun to watch, but he's also pretty darn whiny. Plus, he took advantage of Thor's love of snakes!

Should the public trust superheroes? It's a quandary Marvel characters have been tackling for decades. The MCU took a hard look at it in Captain America: Civil War, which pits Tony Stark against Steve Rogers in an ideological battle for the fate of the Avengers. Tony, scarred by Ultron's rampage, supports UN oversight of the team, while Steve is skeptical. It's a fascinating conflict and a believable one for Steve to be mired within. After all, he knows what it's like to be allied with those in power. Naturally, he's more acquainted with its downsides.

It's his movie, so it takes his side. And yeah, he's got a point. As John Boyega memorably noted, you don't want to wait for Cap to produce his permit before saving you from a burning building. But the 117 countries who signed the Sokovia Accords aren't to be dismissed, as fans who think Cap is on the wrong side of Civil War argue. What if Thor is in a forgiving mood towards Loki on the wrong day? What if Nebula is brought in as auxiliary help and bloodily demonstrates her total lack of interest in preserving bystanders' lives? Some degree of oversight isn't a bad idea. Where you come to rest on the issue is something you've got to work out for yourself, but it's a topic worth tackling regardless.