#the show is trying to force a narrative where loki is the bad guy when he really wasn't except when understandably and for a few years | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

musclesandhammering · 3 years

Text

Every Single Issue I Have With S*lki (It’s Not Just The Selfcest)

Here goes. I threatened to post this a few days ago and never did, but I just saw a s*lki stan Twitter account claim that Loki caring about Sylvie more than the whole multiverse was a Good And Romantic thing and it pushed me over the fucking edge, so now you all have to read this. I’ve divided it into categories cause there’s just THAT much.

OOC Bullshit

• First and foremost, no amount of mental gymnastics you do will ever make me believe that this specific Loki- the one that just invaded New York, that just came off a year of Thanos Torture, that just got done being influenced by the sceptre, that was literally in the middle of a crisis already, and then on top of that went through all the trauma of Ep 1- would even be worried about a romantic relationship. That would be the furthest thing from his mind. Go back and watch how he acted in Avengers- you think that guy would abandon his previous mission to become a snivelling simp for a girl he’d just met 3 days prior? Yeah, there’s no universe in which that makes sense.

• “It’s very in character for Loki to fall in love with himself lololol-“ NO, it’s literally not. Out of all the characters in the mcu, I don’t think I can think of anyone that genuinely hates themselves more than Loki. He even referred to all his other male variants as “monsters” and said meeting them was “a nightmare” in this series. He’s got so much self-loathing, plus the fact that he genuinely thinks himself to be an evil backstabbing scourge- so there’s no evidence at all suggesting that he would ever develop a fondness for, or even be inclined to trust, another version of himself, after only knowing them for 3 days.

• Building on that, the whole concept of Loki falling in love with a version of himself just feeds into the annoying ass misconception that he’s a narcissist. No matter which way you stack it, he’s not. If you’re referring to NPD, he doesn’t fit the criteria, and if you’re saying “narcissist” just as a slang term meaning “selfish and arrogant”, that still doesn’t accurately describe him. But when creators like Waldron and Herron do things like having him fall in love with himself, it makes it so much easier for casual viewers to think that he is.

Shitty LGBT Rep

• It’s kinda sus that Loki’s are allegedly genderfluid and yet the only female-presenting variant we see (and apparently the only female-presenting variant there is, cause the male Loki’s all seemed unfamiliar with the concept) is treated as some kind of mind-bogglingly special paradox. Also very sus that, out of all the Loki variants, the one our Loki falls in love with just so happens to be the only female one. What a coincidence.

• The fact that the creators of the show went around bragging about Loki’s bisexuality and Marvel purposefully (lbr) allowed stories about Loki possibly having a male love interest to circulate, specifically enticing queer viewers to watch the show (you know, the definition of queerbaiting), and then instead of having a male love interest (Loki was the first queer main character, so it was the perfect opportunity) they gave us *gestures to this dumpster fire* this… it’s just a middle finger to LGBT fans. The fact that they would rather have this relationship with all its myriad of problems than have a gay relationship is just……. Very telling.

• While him being with a woman obviously doesn’t refute his bisexuality, the fact that they showed/talked about him being interested in 3 different women (flight attendant, Sylvie, Sif) and never even hinted at him being attracted to a man, definitely makes it seem like they were trying to cover up his bisexuality to smooth things over with the more homophobic viewers. You know? It’s like “I know you’re pissed that we sorta confirmed Loki as bi, so we promise we’ll never mention it again! Or even hint at it! As a matter of fact, we’ll give him lots of female lovies and make him seem as straight as possible! That’ll take your mind off of that horrible crumb of queer rep, right? Please please please keep giving us your money!!!”

• Aside from all the other issues, at its core, the biggest reason why I think I’m so irritated with s*lki is that it took one of the most interesting, complex, and diverse characters in cinema atm and squished him into a tired ass unnecessary heteronormative subplot…. Like literally every. single. other. protagonist. ever. Loki is such a unique character, and it’s so so so incredibly disappointing that they stuck him into that same boring cookie cutter romance that happens to every other character in every other movie I’ve ever seen. It’s a disservice, and it’s honestly just not compelling or entertaining at all.

Thematic Issues Galore

• His arc didn’t need a romance. With anyone. It was unnecessary and it didn’t make sense plot-wise. In fact, one of the reasons he was my fav prior to this was because he was the only big-name mcu character whose story wasn’t muddied-up by a romance that didn’t need to be there. So much for that.

• He wasn’t emotionally ready for a romantic relationship with anyone. Hell, just a genuine friendship would’ve been pushing it for him at this point. He was in such a bad state that any relationship he got into would’ve been toxic and unhealthy for both him and the other person, and it doesn’t make sense why the writers would want to put him in one when there were so many cons and essentially no pros (other than “Uwu aren’t they cute together”).

• Sylvie’s character in general was unnecessary and Loki’s character was robbed just by her being there. The whole show became about her post-Ep 2. They spent most of the time giving her backstory, building her up, telling us how awesome she is, trying to convince us to like her, etc when what they really needed to be doing was building Loki up- cause I gotta say, if I had to describe TVA!Loki in a few words, they would be Flat, Boring, and Weak.

• The romance overtakes the plot. They spend time portraying their supposed connection that could’ve been spent adding depth and complexity to literally any of the characters. They make the big Nexus Event them giving each other googly eyes on Lamentis when it could’ve been so many other way more profound things that speak to the fundamental nature of Loki’s. They have the climax of the finale be “oh no she betrayed him to kill He Who Remains” when it could’ve been something way more compelling (Loki having a moral crisis over whether or not to kill HWR, Loki contemplating the state of the multiverse and weighing the pros and cons of freedom vs order, Loki looking into some What If situations and getting emotional about what could’ve been regarding his family, Loki realising the gravity of HWR’s offer and finally coming to terms with how important he is to the universal cycle, etc etc). The entire plot suffered in favour of a romance that half of us didn’t even want.

• It essentially reduced all of Loki’s potential character growth down to “He did it for his crush.” He seemed to at least have some motivations of his own in Ep 1-2 (feeble as they were) but after Sylvie showed up in Ep 3, literally every action he took was just him being a simp for her. Why did he lie in the interrogation? To try to protect Sylvie. Why did he fight the minutemen and Timekeepers? To survive kinda, but mostly cause it was important to Sylvie. Why did he get pruned? Cause he got distracted trying to confess his crush to Sylvie. Why did he try to get out of The Void? Cause he thought Sylvie needed him. Why did he stay in The Void? Cause Sylvie was staying. Why did he try to enchant Alioth? Cause Sylvie told him to. Why did the multiverse get cracked open, leading to an infinite number of Kangs waging war on all of existence? Cause Loki didn’t wanna hurt Sylvie in their fight at the Citadel and then get distracted by her kissing him. It’s uninteresting and honestly pretty embarrassing.

• Throughout their “relationship arc” the writers do their absolute damndest to convince us that we should like Sylvie more than Loki. And you know what? It’s the most hypocritical shit I’ve ever seen. They preach and preach about how Sylvie’s life has been so difficult/we should feel bad for her/she had it so bad/poor poor sylvie/she had it SO much worse than pampered prince Loki…. But then they never even touch on any of Loki’s trauma of hardships (the ones that have been ignored for literally 3 movies now). They frame Sylvie as a good person and a Freedom Fighter after she spent literal decades/centuries mass-murdering brainwashed TVA agents and showing exactly zero remorse for it….. but then they make it their mission to constantly remind us that Loki is a terrible person and constantly put him in situations where he’s forced to acknowledge his wrongdoings/show remorse/admit to how “evil” he is for being a mass murderer for like 2 years. They show him on-screen having a wider range of powers than her, and perpetuate his whole shtick of being a “master manipulator” or whatever….. But then they make Sylvie “the brawn” more competent, intelligent, and physically capable than him. Tell me how it’s a good thing for a ship to be so narratively biased toward one character.

Missed Opportunities

• If they absolutely had to have a romance subplot, then they could’ve paired Loki with one of the characters that have already been established OR one of the characters that were a big part of the whole TVA storyline anyway. It would’ve been so interesting if they’d revealed that Loki had a history with some of the players from previous films (Sif and Fandral both come to mind). It also would’ve been really interesting if they’d given Loki a love interest that actually had some allegiance to the TVA as a whole (Mobius maybe, but not necessarily. It also could’ve been Renslayer or B-15). Hell, imo it would’ve been cool if they’d followed through with that “See you again someday” line that he said to the flight attendant in Ep 1. ALL of these characters have way more chemistry with him than Sylvie, and they were also already relevant to the plot without wasting half the show to give background info on them.

• If they absolutely had to have a hetero-presenting love story involving an enchantress-type figure, then there’s a whole Enchantress (Amora) that was actually Loki’s love interest in the comics. Plus, fans have been screaming for Amora to appear in the mcu for years. Plus, Tom literally pitched an Amora/Loki storyline way back in 2012-13. Also, Lorelei (another enchantress) is also one of Loki’s love interests in the comics, and she already exists in the mcu (she was on Agents of SHIELD). There were several different established characters for them to choose from. Creating a whole knew amalgamation of a character and going with the “she’s a Loki variant” storyline was just completely unnecessary and made no sense.

• They completely robbed us of a Chaos Twins dynamic. Had they handled Sylvie better and not forced her and Loki to smooch, the two of them could’ve had a really really complex and interesting sibling relationship. Loki could’ve stepped into Thor’s shoes and sort of used that new role to gain some self importance, and Sylvie could’ve finally had somebody to look out for her/teach her magic/be there for her. It would’ve been very aesthetically pleasing, the vibes would’ve been out of this world, it would’ve been way more profound than this bs, and frankly it would’ve been much more entertaining to watch.

• Loki’s relationship (read: obsession) with Sylvie completely overshadows all Loki’s other relationships in the show. Loki and Mobius were literally the focal point of the series in Ep 1-2, but after Sylvie showed up in Ep 3, they barely had any interactions with each other, and Mobius pretty much faded to the background entirely. Loki had the beginnings of a pretty interesting antagonistic relationship with Renslayer (with her wanting him pruned, then arguing with Mobius that he couldn’t be trusted), but after Sylvie showed up the dynamic shifted to focus on the history between her and Ravonna. Loki and B-15 started off very badly and openly disliked each other throughout Ep 1-2, and then in the end of Ep 2, Loki showed a little bit of concern for her when she was possessed, hinting that they might be inching toward a reconciliation- especially considering how obvious it was that Loki was gonna uncover the TVA’s sins eventually. There was so much potential for him to be the one to give her her memories back and convince her to change sides, but no, of course that honor went to Sylvie. In fact, after Sylvie showed up, Loki and B-15 never even spoke to each other again.

Various S*lki Fails

• If they were trying to convince us that this affection was mutual, they completely failed. There’s nothing I’ve seen that even hints at Sylvie feeling the same way about Loki that he does about her. At most, I’d say she has a slight endearment to him. She finds him likeable and she’s grudgingly fond of him, but she definitely isn’t in love with the guy. Maybe she thinks he’s cute and hopes that he gets out of this mess alright, but her mission obviously comes before him- whereas, it’s been confirmed multiple times that Loki cares about her above anything else. She doesn’t trust him, she looks at him like he’s an incompetent fool half the time, she shows little to no reaction during most of his confession moments, and she kissed him as a means to distract him so that she could get him out of her way. Look, all I’m saying is, when you get into a relationship where one of you is way more invested than the other, it never ends well.

• This goes without saying for a lot of us, but the selfcest is just straight up odd and cringey. If you’re cool with that sort of thing, fine! People can ship what they want! But don’t pretend it’s not at least a little bit uncomfortable. Yes, I know they’re not technically siblings so it’s not technically incest, and they’re also not technically the exact same person, but they’re similar enough that it makes things weird. And yes I know selfcest can’t happen in real life, so there’s no way to judge it morally, but neither can most of the other stuff that happens in these shows/movies (the Snap, Loki destroying jotunheim, superhero with powers being held accountable, mind control) and yet we still find ways to judge their morality, because they all mirror real-world events. (The snap= genocide; Loki destroying Jotunheim= bombing other countries; superhero accountability= weapons accountability; mind control= grooming and coercion). And lbr the closest real-world mirror to two versions of the same person (who may or may not share DNA, family, backgrounds, physical and emotion characteristics) being romantically involved with one another is incest. And you can be ok with that if you want- that’s your prerogative- but don’t get pissy just cause a lot of us are squicked out by it.

• The whole mirror metaphor (learning self love via each other) thing just fell completely flat. First of all, having Loki learn to love himself by looking at someone who mirrors him did not, in any way shape or form, require them to be romantically involved. But they were. Of course. Secondly, the creators have contradicted themselves so many times on whether Loki and Sylvie are the same or not, that it doesn’t even really register to the viewer that the mirroring thing was what they were going for. Finally, Loki and Sylvie are shown to have so little in common- and to have only the most bare minimum of similarities personality-wise- that it doesn’t even make sense that Loki would “learn to love himself through loving her”. Like? They’re nothing alike. So how would he make the connection that he himself is actually pretty cool, based on her alone? There’s virtually nothing in her that reflects him.

• I know the objective of the entire show was to convince us of how awesome and unique Sylvie is, but honestly her relationship with Loki just did the opposite. A hallmark of a Mary Sue is having her constantly upstage the male lead, and then having him instantly fall madly in love with her anyway. And that’s.. exactly what happened here. Everything they’re doing to try to force her character to be more stan-able is really just forcing her to look more like their self-insert OC. Which is exactly what she is. It would’ve been so much more satisfying if she didn’t have to try so hard to look cool, if they didn’t have to try so hard to make her backstory tear-inducing, if they didn’t have to turn our protagonist into a snivelling simp just to prove how incredible she supposedly is. Very much #GirlBoss energy and we all know how performative and cheap that is.

• The entire thing was too rushed, there was too little build-up, and it was nowhere near believable. As stated above, it’s ridiculously unlikely that Loki would canonically even be interested in Sylvie, and this show did nothing to explain why he was. He just suddenly was. There was nothing they showed us as viewers that would justify a guy as closed-off and preoccupied as Loki falling head-over-heels for a girl he just met. Their was no explanation, no big revelation, no reasoning, it just… kinda happened. And I’m also severely skeptical of any love story that has the characters go in this deep after only 3 45-minute episodes of exposition.

I’m sure there’s other stuff, so if anyone thinks of anything, let me know and I’ll be more than happy to add it. Tagging @janetsnakehole02 @raifenlf @natures-marvel and @brightredsunset800 for expressing interest. This is all your faults.

#antisylki #loki meta #kinda #loki series critical #loki series negativity #anti loki x sylvie #anti loki series #anti sylvie #frosty bby #loki deserved better #I don’t even like TVA!Loki tho so I guess it doesn’t matter with him lmao #tva loki #loki laufeyson

920 notes · View notes

iamnmbr3 · 3 years

Note

love how much mental gymnastics you guys have to do to make out that mobius is a bad person. he is literally the only one who believes in loki from what we've seen and is putting his job on the line to help him. as someone who has adored loki since 2012, he has committed a lot of hideous crimes, his anger was only influenced by the sceptre (he was not mind controlled), and he was literally about to assault mobius. should mobius have just let loki hit him?? you guys are mental lmao

1) “You guys”?? Last time I checked I was one person. Are you under the impression that I am a colony of super-intelligent bees stacked on top of each other under a trench coat? Well. I suppose since I’m a stranger and you know nothing about me, technically that could be (bee?) true.

2) Given your behavior I can certainly see why you aren't able to understand why what Mobius is doing is wrong since you seem unable to behave in a moral, ethical, and kind manner and seem to feel compelled to be cruel and to try to control others. Perhaps you should consider a career with the TVA.

3) Seriously though. Regardless of whether my interpretations are correct or not, this isn’t an appropriate ask to send. You need to learn to cope with strangers on the internet having different opinions from you on a range of subjects. I’m not attacking anyone who has different opinions from me because that would be stupid and also not nice. This is a fictional tv show. It’s not even that serious. Why would you think it’s ok to send harassing messages filled with insults to a stranger because they posted something online about a fictional character that you disagree with? I really hope you wouldn’t do that in real life. It’s abominable behavior. If you truly find yourself unable to control your anger over insignificant things like someone having a different opinion from you about a character in a comic book movie, I do suggest you see a professional.

4) I don’t really have to do much mental gymnastics at all. From his first appearance in the first trailer Mobius has mocked and humiliated and denigrated Loki. He’s also made a lot of incorrect and insulting statements about him - that he likes to talk (not true, from his first appearance he is defined by his silence), that he likes to lie (also not true. his deceptions work because they are unexpected) and that he frequently stabs people in the back. He doesn’t believe in Loki. He believes that Loki can be useful to him. We have seen no evidence of Mobius showing sympathy or empathy towards Loki, advocating for his rights, having any issue with him being ensalved or hurt, or caring that he ws just recently tortued by Thanos. He also has no compunctions about shocking him or hurting him. Mobius is Loki’s captor and just because he doesn’t want him to be killed doesn’t make him his friend.

5) What should Mobius have done? Gee. I dunno. Maybe not be complicit in an organization that routinely murders people and is currently enslaving Loki. Loki is a prisoner who is being held against his will under threat of death and forced to labor without compensation. He has every right to fight back. Also he’s not lunging at Mobius. It looks like he’s trying to leave.

6) If Mobius is intended to be an antagonist then he’s a brilliant one and as of the latest trailer that seems to be more the intent, given the sinister framing and music. I hope they continue to go in that direction because that makes for a much more interesting narrative. As the protagonist Loki should have threatening antagonists to deal with

7) Where did I say Loki has never done anything wrong? I like him because he is a grey character. Also why do you single out my liking for Loki? I like Thor too because I also find him an interesting character. Thor has killed way more people than Loki and yet you don’t assume that I am ignoring that. Actually a lot of the Avengers have done sketch things, but only Loki seems to provoke people to swarm into others’ inboxes going ‘but you know he did bad things right??” Also Loki's whole motivation in Thor 2011 was to prevent a war and STOP violence, despite the fact that he comes from a warrior society where warfare is considered glorious. He is raised in a society that has genocidally hateful attitudes towards the Jotnar. Loki is actually much more reserved in his opinions (unlike Thor who openly talks about wanting to wipe them out, and receives no correction, indicating this is an acceptable attitude in Asgardian society). Only once Loki becomes consumed with hurt and self-hatred after he learns his own origins and has a suicidal mental breakdown does he try to destroy Jotunheim. Thor meanwhile murders dozen of Jotnar over an insult (something that is considered totally cceptable in his society). So why do you single out Loki? Loki then is captured, tortued, mind controlled and indoctrinated by Thanos and forced to attack New York. And that’s really it on the horrible crime front. Pretty mild by his society’s strandards. This is not to say he’s done nothing wrong, but it’s kind of weird of you to single him out when so many other characters in the MCU are also grey. And again. Why do you need to come into my inbox about it???

8) Ultimately these are fictional characters and I can enjoy them and interpret them however I want. To me Mobius is very clearly evil and part of an evil organization. I also prefer him that way because I find him much more narratively interesting as a clearly framed antagonist and villain. So I certainly hope that's the intent. That’s my prerogative. Similarly if Loki were irreeemdably evil and I just wanted to woobify him and engage in the fandom that way and excuse his every bad act that would be ok too. I can have fun however I want. It’s not healthy or appropriate for you to come in my inbox and try to police that.

#I feel like 'shocking someone and enslaving them are bad and not nice' is a pretty straight forward take....#asks #this is wild. I wasn't even criticizing the show. I was criticizing a character in the show...who as of the recent trailer was definitely #being somewhat villain coded. we don't if he will be a villain or not in the actual show- I hope he is tho.#like what?#you're harassing me because I found the scene that's framed in a way that clearly shows the writers want us to feel sorry for the protagonis #t to be very effective in making me feel just that #what???

95 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 3 years

Text

MCU Loki: Is character development what we see in episode 1 or not?

I’ve discovered there’s a debate if what happened to Loki in episode 1 can constitute character development or not so I felt like sharing my two cents about it.

So, character development.

Character development IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE refers to the changes a character undergoes over the course of a story as a result of their experiences (positive or negative) and actions (successful or unsuccessful). Change can be positive or negative as the character can improve himself but also can sink into an abyss of depravity. It’s worth to remark changes is not necessarily always triggered by something they did, it can very well be something that happened to them that caused them to change… but the point of character development, IN THIS CASE, is that there has to be a change in the character. He can’t remain the same.

So… I’ll pick Tony Stark because his situation in “Iron Man” presented plenty of parallelisms with Loki in “Loki” and not just because some like to consider Tony too a narcissist.

So, same as how Loki was taken captive by the TVA, Tony Stark too was taken captive by the Ten Rings. For three months. There Tony is forced to see how the weapons he produced were used by terrorists to kill other Americans and who called him “the most famous mass murderer in the history of America” and were honoured to have him in their hideout. They originally were meant to kill him but since they realized he could be of some use to them, they’re willing to keep him alive because they want his help, not to search a Tony Variant but to produce more weapons. Tony though, understands once they have finished using him, they would dispose of him. Tony also has the major problem of being told to have only a week of life due to the wounds he suffered.

In this part of the story Tony is just a victim, he doesn’t really get to do something, negative things are merely poured onto him.

It parallels what happens to Loki for most of episode 1.

He’s beaten, taken captive, informed he’ll be killed, his execution is postponed because they decided he could be of use, he’s told he’s a murderer, a liberator of eyeballs who wasn't born to be king but to cause pain and suffering and death, all so that others can achieve their best versions of themselves. He’s also told he caused his mother’s death. And, all right, Mobius won’t immediately tell him what he wants him for, but it’s pretty clear he wants him for something.

So, back to Tony, when we have his character growth? When he reacts to all that was poured on him and react not just by fighting back in a typical Tony style (using his brain to create something that would allow him to fight the Ten Rings and escape) but also by changing things. Once he’s back home Tony announces he won’t produce anymore weapons.

The man who said...

Tony: Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both? With that in mind, I humbly present the crown jewel of Stark Industries' Freedom Line. It's the first missile system to incorporate our proprietary repulsor technology. They say the best weapon is one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it. That's how America does it. And it's worked out pretty well so far.

...becomes the man who say...

Tony: I never got to say goodbye to Dad. I never got to say goodbye to my father. There are questions that I would have asked him. I would have asked him how he felt about what this company did. If he was conflicted, if he ever had doubts. Or maybe he was every inch the man we all remember from the newsreels. I saw young Americans killed by the very weapons I created to defend them and protect them. And I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero accountability. I had my eyes opened. I came to realize that I have more to offer this world than just making things that blow up. And that is why, effective immediately, I am shutting down the weapons manufacturing division of Stark International until such a time as I can decide what the future of the company will be.

This evolution makes sense. It feels believable. Why is that?

Let’s go back to Tony Stark.

Tony stark didn’t mean to be ‘the most famous mass murderer in the history of America’, he was sure his work was protecting people, he didn’t realize it was used by the bad guys, likely because he just accepted his legacy of son of Howard Stark and didn’t bother to think at it any further.

When he discovers things aren’t how he assumed, after a moment of discomfort in which Yinsen had to motivate him...

Yinsen: I'm sure they're looking for you, Stark. But they will never find you in these mountains. Look, what you just saw, that is your legacy, Stark. Your life's work, in the hands of those murderers. Is that how you want to go out? Is this the last act of defiance of the great Tony Stark? Or are you going to do something about it? Tony: Why should I do anything? They're going to kill me, you, either way. And if they don't, I'll probably be dead in a week. Yinsen: Well, then, this is a very important week for you, isn't it?

...he started fighting to change them. It fits with Tony’s personality, it makes narrative sense, it’s well presented, it’s believable on a psychological standpoint (yes, a person like Tony Stark would do this) and from an empathic standpoint (yes, if I were in Tony Stark’s place I would do the same).

When Tony gives his speech in which he shows he has changed, he surprises the people who have no idea what he went through, but not the viewers. For the viewers his reaction is perfectly believable.

So why, for a part of the fandom, what happens to Loki doesn’t feel equally believable since his experience parallels Tony? Why part of the fandom feels there was no character growth at all?

Well, I can’t answer for everyone, everyone probably has his own reasons but merely by keeping up the comparison with what happened to Tony Stark we see how the thing doesn’t work the same.

A premise here, I know there will be people tempted to think Mobius is the stand in for Yinsen because Mobius is likable and, ultimately, he’ll become Loki’s friend.

He’s not.

Yinsen was held captive by the Ten Rings, his life in danger same as Tony. There’s a moment in which they even threaten him and Tony has to stand in to save Yinsen’s life.

Mobius, as far as Mobius and Loki know, is not another prisoner of the TVA, he’s there willingly. Yes, he’s operating under the false belief he has been created by the TVA but he’s not aware of it. In that moment, as far as Mobius is involved, he’s a willing operative of the TVA, someone in with authority, in control of Loki’s life...

Mobius: Mmm... Luckily, he believes in himself enough for the both of us. And, hey, if it doesn't work, I'll delete him myself. He's really arrogant.

...and the TVA is his purpose, his life and he believes it to be real.

Mobius: It's exactly the same thing. Because if you think too hard about where any of us came from, who we truly are, it sounds kinda ridiculous. Existence is chaos. Nothing makes any sense, so we try to make some sense of it. And I'm just lucky that the chaos I emerged into gave me all this... My own glorious purpose. Cause the TVA is my life. And it's real because I believe it's real.

He doesn’t feel threatened by the TVA, coerced. He’s doing what he does because he believes he’s playing the good guy.

Mobius: All that time, I really believed we were the good guys.

So no, Mobius here is not the equivalent of Yinsen, he’s the equivalent of Abu Bakaar, the guy who tells Tony he’s ‘the most famous mass murderer in the history of America’ and wants to persuade him to cooperate with the Ten Rings, in the same way Mobius wants to persuade Loki to cooperate with the TVA. Keep this in mind because it’s relevant and easy to forger since we know how things will develop in other episodes.

And okay, now let’s go back on track.

Let’s talk of the motives that caused the change in Tony Stark.

Tony is shown by Abu Bakaar something he previously wasn’t aware of, how his weapons are used to kill Americans, that, by building them, he became an accomplice in killing Americans, which was something he didn’t want, hence the change.

Loki is shown… the events of “The Avengers” which he was aware of and which, of course, doesn’t impress him much…

Loki: No. And I remember. I was there. Anything else?

…as the show didn’t play the card of the sceptre influencing him as they say in the official web. Mobius doesn’t tell Loki ‘you did this but you weren’t in control of yourself, you were manipulated by the sceptre’ no, Mobius tells him ‘you did this’ and Loki’s answer is basically ‘yeah, I know, so? Why should I care?’

So Mobius moves to the events of “Thor: The Dark World” and, more specifically, to how Loki ‘caused’ Frigga’s death.

This is something that, in theory, can work as equivalent of Tony Stark being told his weapons are used by the Ten Rings to kill Americans. Loki clearly didn’t want any harm to befall on Frigga, whom he loved dearly. We know that in “Thor: The Dark World” he sufferd a lot for her death, blamed himself and changed (or better, in the authors’ original intentions, he mostly reversed back to how he was before “Thor” but this is a topic for another meta).

For who doesn’t remember the movie in “Thor: The Dark World” after Frigga’s death Loki:

- agreed to help Thor

- brought him and Jane to Svartalfheim

- put up a show for Malekith according to Thor’s plan without betraying Thor

- protected Jane TWICE, the last time risking his own life to save hers

- stopped the Kurse from killing Thor by stabbing and killing him and, in the original plan for the movie, he was also meant to die doing so. Even if you go by the ending the movie ultimately had, Loki has protected a human, cooperated with saving the universe from the Dark Elves and saved his brother’s life instead than letting Thor get killed.

It’s quite a change from how he was in “The Avengers”.

Then great, we’ve something that could push him to change, right?

Wrong.

For start because what Mobius says had happen to Frigga in truth hadn’t happened yet and wouldn’t have happened to THIS LOKI as he wasn’t carried back on Asgard because he escaped with the Tesseract. THIS LOKI has escaped and so wouldn’t end up captive on Asgard, wouldn’t be jailed and wouldn’t be there when the Kurse would intrude in Asgard’s prisons so there’s no way he can do something that would lead to Frigga’s death. Problem solved.

We continue with the fact that Mobius can’t prove to Loki this would have happened had Loki been carried on Asgard. Let’s forget how the version of what happened he gave to Loki is wrong and misleading. Even if he’d been absolutely truthful, what he does is to show Loki a video... but how can he prove this is the future that was meant to happen and not a lie he’s telling him in order to manipulate him? Tony saw his own weapons being in the hands of the Ten Rings, one of them exploded in front of him, wounding him, he disassembled some of the others, he’s sure the Ten Rings has them. But how can Loki be sure what Mobius is telling him is true and not just an illusion? A lie?

But whatever, the series tries hard to sell us through Loki’s reaction that he believed Mobius’ words about this being true because he totally loses his cool at that scene. So, okay Loki believes so will this change him the way it changed him in “Thor: The Dark World”?

Nope.

Tony changes because he does something to actively prevent Americans from being killed by his weapons, he shuts down their production and he involves himself personally in the fight against terrorists with a weapon only he controls, the Iron Man suit.

What does Loki do to prevent Frigga’s death?

Nothing.

His attempt at escaping might have been made more urgent by this piece of info but was something Loki had tried to do from when he’s been taken to the TVA… and in the following episodes Frigga’s fate will be completely forgotten, as if Loki has stopped worrying about it entirely. When talking with Sylvie about Frigga in episode 3 he doesn’t use it as a motive to explain why he wants to gain control of the TVA, to change his mother’s fate… nor it’s something that inspire him to fight the TVA, because that role belongs to Sylvie and Sylvie only. When he’ll try to persuade the other Loki Variants to help him, again he won’t mention Frigga, just Sylvie. Frigga won’t get mentioned not even when Loki will reach The Citadel at the End of Time and Miss Minute will try to tempt him. She’ll offer him glorious power and Sylvie, nor her nor Loki will try to bargain for his mother’s life instead. No, from episode 2 onward what Loki learnt in episode 1 goes forgotten, so let’s focus solely on episode 1.

Some believe Loki in episode 1 changed because he admitted he didn’t like to hurt people, that he’s a villain and helped to cooperate with Mobius.

Mobius: Loki? Nowhere left to run. Loki: I can't go back, can I? Back to my timeline. I don't enjoy hurting people. I... I don't enjoy it. I do it because I have to, because I've had to. Mobius: Okay, explain that to me. Loki: Because it's part of the illusion. It's the cruel, elaborate trick conjured by the weak to inspire fear. Mobius: A desperate play for control. You do know yourself. Loki: A villain. Mobius: That's not how I see it. You try to use that? Loki: Oh, several times. Even an Infinity Stone is useless here. The TVA is formidable. Mobius: That's been my experience. Listen, I can't offer you salvation, but maybe I can offer you something better. A fugitive Variant's been killing our Minutemen. Loki: And you need the God of Mischief to help you stop him? Mobius: That's right. Loki: Why me? Mobius: The Variant we're hunting is... you.

Only… this doesn’t really work.

Why?

Loki has tried escaping and has been forced to realize he can’t, that’s why he cooperates, that’s why he gives Mobius an answer to what he asked for...

Mobius: Do you enjoy hurting people? Making them feel small? Making them feel afraid?

... why he agrees with his accusations...

Loki: I know what I am. Mobius: A murderer? Loki: A liberator. Mobius: Of eyeballs, maybe.

...and ultimately accepts to work for the TVA.

This parallels Tony refusing to build armies for the Ten Rings, being tortured and, ultimately agreeing to build weapon for them, at least verbally. And let’s remember if it wasn’t for Yinsen’s words Tony might have given up. It’s Yinsen who encouraged him to fight back.

So this doesn’t constitute Loki changing, just accepting he’s powerless against the TVA and must play along with them. Playing along with someone isn’t something new for Loki, the episode even lampshades it.

Mobius: Well, let's start with a little cooperation. Loki: Not my forte. Mobius: Really? Even when you're wooing someone powerful you intend to betray? Come on.

So no, him being forced to accept the TVA is powerful and therefore deciding to cooperate with them is not a change. This series sets it as a normal Loki behaviour… as well as the fact it’ll immediately turn out he intends to betray them.

Loki: Very nice. I mean, it is adorable that you think you could possibly manipulate me. I'm ten steps ahead of you. I've been playing a game of my own all along. Mobius: What, charm your way in front of the Time-Keepers, hustle them, and seize control of the TVA? Am I getting warm? A double cross by history's most reliable liar.

And what for? Power, glorious power.

Loki: I'm going to overthrow the Time-Keepers. And, uh, cards on the table, I could use a qualified lieutenant.

Loki: Oh, yeah? What about you? Your years-in-the-making plan was to tear the place down, create the ultimate power vacuum, and then just walk away. I'd never have done that.

Nothing of what happened on this episode changed what the “Loki” series claimed to be Loki’s character prior to the “Loki” series. At the end of it he’s cooperating with someone more powerful than him so that he could betray him and take the power from him, which is how this series claimed all the Lokis (except Sylvie) were.

There’s no change.

There could have been, what happened in episode 1 could have worked for Loki in the same way it worked for Tony Stark but it didn’t. The authors even stated that his friendship with Mobius started in episode 2, not in episode 1, likely when Loki believed Mobius was sticking out his neck for him and offering him his sympathy.

Loki: Okay. Why are you in there sticking your neck out for me? Mobius: I'll give you two options, and you can believe whichever one you want. A, because I see a scared little boy, shivering in the cold. And you kinda feel bad for that ice runt. Or B, I just wanna catch this guy, and I'll tell you whatever I need to tell you. Loki: I don't need your sympathy.

So we’ve a problem.

The authors rambled more often than not on how much episode 1 changed Loki, how what they called ‘Mobius’ therapy session’ was good for him… but failed to show it in a way that would make sense with the settings set by the series.

If the series states Loki is one who, prior to arriving to the TVA, was used to cooperate when intended on wooing someone powerful he intends to betray and ends with him being willing to cooperate with the TVA after discovering it’s powerful so that he can betray it later, we go exactly back to the starting point. There’s no change, not in this episode.

His words about not enjoying to hurt people but it being merely a play feel like a forced admission of a truth he couldn’t possibly not know and his admission of being a villain isn’t followed by any genuine attempt at changing something in himself. He just acknowledged the role the TVA wanted on him… because he’s trying to woo them so that he could betray them later on.

If we want to stretch things A LOT we might assume seeing Frigga’s death worked for him in the way being told Odin died worked for Thor in “Thor”. It made him more determinate to protect the person he loved, a.k.a. Sylvie… but it stands up poorly, in part because Loki completely forget Frigga, and how she’s going to die in the TVA approved timeline, in part because, although the Loki and Sylvie love story has cute moments that make you wish you could root for them, in truth that too is poorly constructed, with Loki falling for Sylvie for hazy reasons in less than 12 hours (according to the series because she doesn’t want glorious power, according to the authors because she’s a female variant of himself), in part because… well, it doesn’t really feel consequential, it feels more like it’s me forcing such reading because I’ve heard over and over that what happened in episode 1 is supposed to matter, it’s supposed to have changed Loki somehow and so I’m grasping at straws to fit it in the story when it’s actually just forgotten.

So, the real problem is that the series doesn’t bother showing us Loki changing as a direct consequence of what happened in episode 1 in a way that’s relevant and directly consequential.

Sure, it made many happy to have Loki confirm out loud what many in the fandom already figured out, how he doesn’t enjoy hurting people, that it’s all a play.

Sure, it seems self reflection to have him admit he was a villain.

Sure, since many were deluded into thinking the people at the TVA were on the good side, it might feel like an improvement to see Loki agree to side with them.

Sure, the episode, with its parallelisms to what happened with Tony Stark, made us hope it would lead Loki to ultimately do like him.

But when all is said and done, if you look at the scenes in contest and then watch the following episodes, none of this goes anywhere and it couldn’t go anywhere.

We know originally episode 1 was planned to be very different and end just the same, with Loki accepting to cooperate with the TVA. This means the only things that were relevant in the plot that had to be in episode 1 for the series to work were Loki being captured by the TVA, being forced to acknowledge its power and accepting to work with it.

The so called and overly incensed ‘Mobius therapy session’ wasn’t something so fundamental to the plot the story NEEDED it to work and, ultimately, the story forgot it, to focus on Sylvie and on how SHE was the one who changed Loki (as well as Mobius, albeit Mobius changed him in a smaller measure) turning what happened in episode 1 into some sort of ‘Eastern egg’ for who needed to have his mind refreshed on what happened in the other movies in which Loki starred, albeit as the scenes are decontextualized, if you don’t remember well the movies, you’ll end up drawing the wrong conclusion.

It’s sad because Tom Hiddleston’s performance as he watched those scenes was great, possibly the best in the whole series, I mean I heard plenty of people who totally felt for Loki, me as well, because his pain was so raw, so palpable, and this episode just had this BEYOND HUGE amount of potential to turn Loki into another Iron Man… so it’s so very sad to see that in the end it was all dissipated like a soap bubble, never used so that Mobius and Sylvie could be the ones to cause the change in Loki. Which yes, it’s understandable as the story wanted to give them more relevance but feels like a complete waste of an otherwise good opportunity to have Loki decide for himself, due to what he had learnt, a different course in his life.

But whatever, that’s it. Sad, a waste, but that’s the story they decided to tell us, so it comes to no surprise some weren’t sold there was character development here, while they were willing to buy it in “Iron Man”. The story just didn’t build up on what happened in episode 1; it used it like a filler.

Of course though, people can have other reasons than the ones I’ve listed not to see character development. I can’t speak for everyone who didn’t see it… but I’ll say the ones I listed still could work for many.

Lastly, it’s worth to remark this doesn’t mean episode 1 isn’t enjoyable... it is. Hiddleston’s performance is so damn awesome I’ll never get tired to remark it, Wilson does great and this episode brims with potential. But the sad thing is that it remains unfulfilled, episode 1 just doesn’t deliver what he seems to promise, a change in Loki.

#mcu loki #mcu iron man #loki laufeyson #loki odinson #frigga #mobius m mobius #sylvie #tony stark #ho yinsen #abu bakaar #9 worlds study

10 notes · View notes

kitkatopinions · 3 years

Note

Is it bad that i want ironwood to be alive in the show and travel with the ace ops and have a redemption? I know most of his fans are happy that he is dead so they cant ruin him anymore but still, his ending is so wrong to me like they redeemed cordo, emerald, FUCKING HAZEL, but not james? I was pulled back into rwby because of james and the atlas arc. v6 last episodes pissed me off so much i didnt even watched the finale to this day but then i saw scenes of james and winter and the ace ops in v7... and now i just want him to swim up from the ruins and be the amazing character he was before v8. His death is so fucking sad to me even with how much they ruined the character... he deserved a redemption arc the most (and better writers, sorry the ask got so long but james ironwood gives me so much feels)

You know, I am right there with you, anon. Here's the thing about James. We didn't see an on screen death and the writers kept his semblance completely unmentioned in volumes seven and eight, but made it public. Yes, Miles Luna said 'rest in pieces' (the total douche) when talking about him in a cameo, but tbh, Miles Luna is sloppy and unprofessional, he could straight up say whatever to try and make the next 'twist' in RWBY surprising.

In fact SPOILER ALERT. I don't remember who, but after Avengers Infinity War when Loki died, people in the project 'confirmed' that Loki was good and truly dead this time, and of course no one believed them and of course no one was surprised to see some version of Loki escape alive in End Game. They had a better ability to twist a not-quite lie out there, due to multiple universes and time travel or whatever (idk the details, I stopped paying attention after I watched and hated Thor Ragnarok.) But still, it stands that if you want to make a character death believable in today's day and age when 'character death' is taken back so regularly and sometimes multiple times per character, writers should A. show the death/show a body (which they didn't do for Ironwood or Watts,) and B. Not leave any character threads hanging.

With Ironwood, they didn't delve into enough emotional responses to things (like Oscar/Oz getting shot off a cliff, or Qrow ever confronting him,) which leaves his story feeling like it lacks a solution and like there's still a lot to be resolved there already. But confirming his semblance outside of the show proper, which seems to act as a form of at least partial mind control, is obviously one giant thread too. Of course, this is MKEK, so the likelihood that they were foolish enough to give Ironwood a semblance that forced his actions at least in part and then not address it, kill him off, and expect everyone to just be happy with that on top of the lack of emotional depth they bothered to give other characters in regards to his 'fall' is high. However, that doesn't make James feel dead, he still doesn't feel like a dead character to me, yet, even if I know a lot of the reasons for that feeling stem from bad writing.

But on top of his semblance being a very big thread that was left untouched, his semblance also would be a very easy out if the writers did want to bring him back or if they wanted to bring him back and redeem him. His semblance could help him survive Atlas and Mantle falling, and it could easily be explained as having pushed him into his acts of villainy. It would still feel like a big ol' retcon (especially with how hard they tried to convince everyone he's pure evil,) but for once, I would like a retcon that actually goes my way in this show. XD

On top of that, you're absolutely right that in the show where Hazel can get 'death equals redemptioned' and tell life lessons to Oscar, Ironwood could be able to be redeemed even without the semblance. In the show where Hazel can beat a child while victim blaming the already-a-victim-of-abuse guy in the kid's head for *checks notes* training young women to be able to fight the soulless monsters who will devour anyone (four to six year old child or not,) and then get redeemed within 24 hours of that... yeah, Ironwood could be able to be redeemed. Emerald can murder Penny, try to kill everyone else at Haven, try to murder Penny again in Atlas, and then join the friend group enough that everyone good naturedly ribs her, including Penny who giggles over Emerald saying 'switched sides' despite the fact that Emerald never once apologized for literally murdering her in cold blood. So yeah, I don't think it'd be off brand of the show to have the 'does bad for good reasons' guy get redeemed even if they did make him express regret that he hadn't tortured children. Clearly, the standard isn't 'if they apologize they're worthy of redemption,' and the standard isn't 'if they only always had good intentions they're worthy of redemption' or 'only kids who are villains can get redeemed,' or even 'so long as they haven't tortured or tried to kill children they're worthy of redemption.'

However, here's where things get a little tricky. Because the standard in RWBY seems to have much more to do with what was done personally against the main group that made them mad or sad, rather than actual moral standings, harm done to the world, intentions, etc. I've talked about that idea in another post, that the show (whether intentionally or otherwise) is treating going against Ruby and her team as worse than actual criminal acts. Emerald's actions are easily brushed aside without her ever admitting she was wrong or trying to apologize, but Ozpin's act of not explicitly trusting Team RWBY with dire secrets months after knowing them is so unquestioningly bad that he has to give an in-depth and very serious apology while explicitly saying he was in the wrong, which the mains then begrudgingly and seriously accept (even though they were laughing with Emerald mere seconds before.) Which isn't to say that I don't think Ozpin had anything to apologize for, just that the framing of Ozpin's dialogue and reception versus Emerald's is ridiculous. Therefore Ironwood being redeemed after wishing he could torture, shooting a child off a high place, and threatening to destroy a town... In the narrative of the show, that can be brushed aside fairly easily. But both the show and the FNDM at large have constructed a narrative where going against the mains is what's treated as hard to come back from and worthy of all the ire and disgust in the world - unless the character comes crawling back, bowing to Ruby's whims in every plan, and regretting ever doubting Ruby's amazing simple soul and the protagonist approved goals she's decided on.

If the price of Ironwood coming back and being redeemed is him kissing up to Ruby and joining the gang of people who just pat her on the back and assure her she doesn't ever need to change or listen to others... I might kindly ask MKEK to keep him dead. Ironwood belongs to his fans now as far as I'm concerned.

They can bring James back, and they even have an easy way to redeem him in their back pocket. But I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, and with the way they've been writing their show, I'd just as soon let James rest.

#rwde #anti rwby #pro james ironwood #pro ironwood #ironwood defense #good ironwood #pro general ironwood #pro IW #IW antis please leave me alone #rwby hate #anti mkek #anti fndm #rwby bashing

25 notes · View notes

smokeybrand · 3 years

Text

Breaking the Rules

So the Snyder Cut finally dropped. Four hours of Snyderisms like slow-mo, dumb kinetic camera work, and relentless edge. Now, I'm a card-carrying Marvel shill. Been real transparent about it for years. Marvel is my sh*t and Spider-Man is my favorite superhero. That said, i do like DC. I always give them a fair shake. Hell, my favorite capeflick is The Dark Knight. I even like Watchmen and that was a slog to get through. I’ve seen every film in the DCEU and they have left me wanting. A lot of DC heads write off my opinion because of my Marvel bias but let’s be serious; The DCEU is inferior to the MCU in almost every way. As it is, the DCEU needs to be better. It needs better storytellers. It needs a better plan. It needs a Feige. Snyder is not that dude and i don’t think Wan is either. I think WB and ATT have to figure out a way to coalesce this sh*t because it’s all wonky, especially now that we have this Snyder Cut. I’ve already reviewed a Justice League before so all of the observations i made about performances in that, stand. This is more what i think this version does better and worse.

The Better

This opening is much better and makes more sense. That Super Death Wail as the principal genesis of Steppenwolf’s conflict, the thing that wakes that first Motherbox, makes way more sense that whatever the f*ck Whedon did.

This thing definitely looks so much more gorgeous that that first run. Zack Snyder can’t plot a story to save his life but this motherf*cker can compose a shot, for real. Snyder is an idea man, a cat that just wants to make cool looking sh*t, but this ain’t the medium for that. You can have all the beautiful shots in the world but if they are tied together by a shoestring of a narrative, then it’s just polished sh*t, you know?

The extended Aquaman intro was outstanding. Whedon didn’t let this scene breath and, seeing it as it was intended, that was a mistake. Seeing this version of Justice League kind of makes Josstice League in it’s entirety, a mistake. It’s weird that this was cut because it’s so good and shows so much more of Arthur.

Jeremy Iron’s Alfred continues to be my second favorite Alfred after Michael Caine. Sorry, Michael Gough...

Wonder Woman’s first scene in this, the one with the terrorists, is ridiculous. This one scene is a perfect example of the difference between the two versions of this film. Snyder’s is better, if way more brutal than it needed to be. Still, i love the warrior version of Diana so I'm good with this.

Speaking of Amazons, Snyder, apparently, put them in more clothes this time around? I couldn’t really see for sure because of the color correction but it didn’t seem like they weren’t rocking those iron bikinis like in the Whedon cut. I think Joss Whedon might be a bit more problematic than we think. Between the half naked chicks, the way he kept sexualizing Diana, the fact that there are no people of color in his version or the way he shortchanged the entirety of Cyborg’s plot... Breh.

Steppenwolf is SO much more menacing in this version of the movie. Dude feels like a force, like a proper threat an not just some stop-gap for something better. Ol’ Wolfie was a decent antagonist for an initial run at an Avengers-esque team up for the DCEU. Definitely more Loki this time around and less Ultron like the first time.

Also, the Parademons look much more dope. The first time, they looked like fodder. This time, they actual felt like a force, like a horde.

Hey, we got an Atom sighting!

Not a ton of Iris West but enough to wet my appetite. Anytime i get to see Kiersey Clemons in stuff, I'm happy. Having it tied to an outstanding sequence demonstrating Flash’s powers was just icing on the cake. Seriously, Snyder did a great job visualizing Barry’s abilities. That scene where he saved everyone from the debris and then the subtle reversing of time; All of it was dope to see.

Are those Starros that Steppenwolf is using to “interrogate” the cats with Motherbox stink on them? They look like little mechanical Starros. I hope they’re Starros.

Lots of Cyborg stuff. Like, intricate Cyborg stuff. The sh*t Whedon cut of Vic was instrumental to the coherency of this story and dude was just like, “Nah.” It’s no wonder that version of the movie doesn’t make any f*cking sense.

Hey, we got a Spectre sighting! Nice.

The explanation for the Motherboxes and their mcguffin-ness goes a long way to soothing the whole “resurrecting Superman” thing. Snyder basically tells the audience they’re magic boxes that can do anything because of magic-technology. It’s a little ridiculous considering what Motherboxes actually do in the comics but whatever. It makes sense in this universe i guess.

All of the action scenes are better. All of them. Snyder is nothing if not a cat that can actualize a dope punch-out. Dude can’t get out of his own way when telling a story but if you need a fight scene, Snyder is definitely your guy.

Speaking of, that climax was WAY better. It carried far more weight and there were times when the heroes felt like they could lose. There’s an unrelenting tension that grips you hard and doesn’t let up until it finally does. I appreciated this way more than the first one, even if it’s dumb edgy for no reason.

The Worst

Zack still doesn’t understand these characters, man. It’s very apparent to me that a lot of this is just window dressing for kind of a Zack Snyder fan fic version of DC and that’s fine i guess? Sh*t’s not my cup of tea but a great many people seem to like it. Dude’s writing can definitely be tighter and he can skew a little more toward the heart of these characters but i mean, it’s called Zack Snyder’s Justice league for a reason.

The Snyderisms, man, they are all over this thing. Look, i just don’t like how Zack makes movies. Too much style, not enough substance, or rather, not enough focus. He has a ton of great ideas but gets too bogged down in how sh*t looks, or tumbles down his rabbit hole of concept but never expresses any of them clearly enough. Outside of 300 or Dawn of the Dead, this film is probably the most focused I've ever seen Snyder and it’s still kind of all over the place yet, never where it needs to be.

So many plot holes, man. Less than before, but so many threads left untied.

This thing didn’t need to be four hours long. Not even close. There were several shots that i thought could have been cut. Like, that three hour version which got the standing ovation was probably the best version of Justice League and we’ll never see it. This version is definitely better than the theatrical run but f*ck is it long. You really feel that sh*t, too.

Cyborg still looks gross to look at. You’d think they’d try and make his weird, angular, body look a bit better upon the redo but nope. This what we get i guess.

Also, why the f*ck the Atlanteans sound British? Why they make Amber Heard do that accent? She can’t do that accent, man. You’re actually asking a chick who’s professionally pretty to act and she can’t act. She’s just pretty. That actually brings up an interesting question; Is Aquaman canon to this universe because Mera in that doesn’t have an accent and her Pops is still alive. This one has an accent and her parents are dead. Or maybe the accent makes it easier to recast Heard later with a British actress? Maybe the Mother of Dragons really is about to be the Queen of the Seas?

Why is this Knightmare sequence in here? Sure, it was awesome to see, pure fan service, but this is the blue balls of blue balls because we don’t have a movie to follow this one. This is it. This is all the Justice League we’re getting. There is no part two or whatever. Why even hint at something more?

The Verdict

There’s a lot to like about this version of Justice League. It is, hands down, better than Josstice League in almost every way. Sh*t is a better film, man, and should have been what we got to begin with. WB did Snyder a disservice by letting him go and then letting Whedon butcher his movie. I don’t like Snyder’s take on DC. I think it’s try-hard, edgelord, nonsense but it is it’s own thing and i commend him for that. Dude has a vision and I'll never take away from from a creative’s inspiration. That said, this thing was a slog to get through. It’s definitely better than what we got before but it’s still not that great and it’s way too long. Three hours is more than enough to tell this story if you make prudent cuts. Still, I’m glad it exists and, if you’re a fan of this world, a fan of Snyder’s work, you’ll love it. For me, as a cat who has no skin in this game, I'm not all that impressed. Per usual, Snyder has too many ideas and that leaves the plot unfocused and meandering at times. In a genre that is predicated on storytelling, you can’t be a bad storyteller like that and just gloss over it with spectacle. That’s disingenuous. At the end of the day, it was entertaining. It was pretty to see. It was a Snyder film.

1 note · View note

pass-the-bechdel · 4 years

Text

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

Yes, once.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Nine (25.71% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-six.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Film Quality:

For a movie which is pretty much wall-to-wall fight scenes...I love it. I always start out going ‘maybe I overrate this movie, maybe it’s not as good as I remember’, but by the end, I’m right back in there.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Wanda apologises to Natasha for lying. It’s a close call.

Female characters:

Pepper Potts.

F.R.I.D.A.Y

Gamora.

Mantis.

Wanda Maximoff.

Natasha Romanoff.

Okoye.

Nebula.

Shuri.

Male characters:

Ebony Maw.

Thanos.

Thor.

Loki.

Heimdall.

Bruce Banner.

Stephen Strange.

Wong.

Tony Stark.

Peter Parker.

Ned.

Peter Quill.

Rocket.

Drax.

Groot.

Vision.

Steve Rogers.

Sam Wilson.

The Collector.

Thaddeus Ross.

James Rhodes.

T’Challa.

Bucky Barnes.

Eitri.

Red Skull.

M’Baku.

OTHER NOTES:

Heimdall had proven himself too much of an MVP in previous films to be allowed to live in this one. Bastards.

Heimdall and Loki, both dead before the opening titles. That’s how you know this movie means business, it’s not faking at high stakes.

I also am from space and have come here to steal a necklace from a wizard.

“Mr Stark, it smells like a new car in here!”

“All words are made up.”

Not gonna lie, when I saw this at the cinema and I realised that Captain America had arrived? My heart LEAPT. It was intense.

Depressed Thor is a great touch - after all previous films with Thor had him so bland, and then Ragnarok made him funny but essentially glossed over any of the difficult emotions it was dredging up, I’m glad to finally get something real and meaty from the character. If characters go through all manner of Hell and don’t show any signs of labouring under that weight, you’re doing character development wrong.

Nice callback with Red Skull.

The sacrifice of Gamora on Vormir is a really well-balanced piece; it was asking a lot, to make the emotion of it land despite how little of Thanos we’ve seen before, and without genuine emotion at it’s core it’s just the killing off of a female character for shock value. I feel like they got the pitch just right (most thanks to the music).

As much as I enjoy Thor and Rocket’s bantering, the side-quest for Stormbreaker feels like an unnecessary and over-the-top distraction in an already stuffed-full film. Easily the weakest part of the plot.

The fact that Quill fucks everything up with defeating Thanos on Titan because he can’t keep himself under control for two seconds certainly does not endear him to me in the slightest. Like ok, you’re upset, but if you can’t stop yourself from getting violent that’s on you, that makes you a dangerous person with serious issues, that’s not normal and it’s not ok. Also, literally half of all life in the universe was at stake. So there’s that.

Listen, I’m very susceptible to heroism (and that’s why superhero movies work for me), so every time someone comes to someone else’s rescue, I have feelings.

I had convinced myself that somehow, Thanos wouldn’t succeed with his whole plan in this movie, that he would get all the stones but that he would like, go to a special place or something before enacting his plan, so that the good guys would have a chance to regroup and race to stop him before it was too late, all that jazz. So (even though Thanos had already snapped at that point), when Bucky Barnes disintegrated before our very eyes, I was SHOCKED. That got me like a smack in the face.

Considering I’ve never really been a fan of Tom Holland’s Spider-man, it’s a credit to his work that Peter’s death scene is so effective. That’s acting.

So, what makes this movie work despite being so heavy with bombastic action? The short answer is: it’s because the good guys lose. I’ve made no secret of being a fan of the ‘hour darkest before the dawn’ in storytelling, so this is playing to the sweet spot for me there, but it’s not as simple as just making everything miserable and hopeless. In this case, specifically, the lead-up to that ultimate failure is key; it’s gotta still feel like a superhero extravaganza, even as it takes an increasingly dark turn. The action works because it’s part of what we signed up for (the best camouflage for subversions of the traditional model), and it works because it’s all carrying the story forward - the Infinity War is comprised of multiple battles, and because of the way the pieces of the narrative are separated, the characters don’t know how any of the other battles are turning out; everyone is just trying to fight what’s in front of them and defend the stone in their midst, they don’t have the option to sit around doom-and-glooming and restrategising as news of each defeat comes in. Rather than dragging us wholesale from Point A to B to C in ever-escalating stakes and complications, the writers have had the good sense to spread things out and let things fall apart for our heroes (and the universe) in multiple smaller pieces until they reach a cumulative critical mass. Consequently, instead of feeling as though we’re sitting there watching things go from bad to worse, the audience forms this false sense of security in the action; it’s a superhero movie, after all. We expect them to work it all out in the end, to build toward a moment of apparent hopelessness (a darkest hour before the dawn), and then to rally triumphantly for the big win. As such, we perceive small victories (i.e. the defeat of Thanos’ various ‘children’, the creation of Stormbreaker, the way things draw out in the battle on Titan) as if they are more significant, as if they are signs leading us to that big win; without those small, expected victories, the ultimate failure would not hit as hard, because after two and a half hours of watching the good guys get wrecked without a chance, what surprise would there be in the snap?

Of course, plenty of viewers knew about the snap already or expected an ultimate failure of some sort based on the fact that we pretty much all knew that this was the first half of our grand Avengers finale (my mother, who is not a superhero movie fan, did not know what she was getting into and was...very shocked), so it’s important that the film still works to engage us on a character level so that the good guys losing in the end can hit like a ton of bricks even if you knew it was coming (and even though you no doubt expected to get the big win eventually, once Endgame came out). After all the fighting and the bantering, all the usual stuff we expect to see our heroes go through in the course of an average adventure, having them then watch their beloved friends/allies/whatever literally disintegrate before their eyes in a quiet, drawn out scene of devastation is a magnificent piece of cinema, communicating the shock not only of the event itself, but of the complete disruption to the superhero status quo. It’s not just that good guys don’t lose like this, it’s that they don’t lose with a whimper instead of a a bang. It’s not only that the cost of failure has never been this high; it’s also that they have never been forced to watch it play out with such inevitability; they have never before been rendered so powerless. If the entire film had the tone of the last ten minutes, it wouldn’t work so well, it’d just be a drudge and the audience would be desensitised by the end. By the same token, if the rest of the film had not planted the seeds of the finale so thoroughly in all its smaller losses and smokescreen victories, the ending would not be so horrifically fitting.

Neither, of course, would the ending be so affecting, if we were not as attached to the characters as we are. We have many, many films worth of history with most of them, or at least one solid encounter in which to become attached, and even in a movie chock-full of more characters than any other before, everyone gets a chance to show their personality and remind us why we care if they live or die. I’m not going to argue for this being an incredible character piece (nor is it pretending to be one), but it plays its very large hand very well, putting emphasis where it needs to be without overloading or unbalancing the story. As I noted above, I was particularly impressed with the way Thanos was handled, considering our exposure to him previously was very minimal and it was left up the this film to build his ethos as well as his relationships with his ‘children’ almost from scratch, creating complexity and simplicity without falling into the trap of trying to make the villain sympathetic; Thanos isn’t necessarily relatable (nor does he need to be), but he is understandable in that we’ve all probably encountered at least one person who holds the same limited worldview and is somehow convinced that they could ‘fix’ everything, given the power. Thanos isn’t actually aiming for universal domination in the traditional sense, and it makes him more disturbing and more realistic as a villain, because his evil is not nebulous or purely self-serving; he is a true believer, and his delusions have an all-too-familiar ring about them, so as we watch him lumber and pontificate around the story, we get a clearly-drawn image of someone possessed of such basic and humble flaws that he is - again, without being treated as sympathetic - quite significantly humanised, despite all of the non-human elements that make up both his character, and his situation. Even as it planet-hops and draws upon cosmic magic, the narrative is grounded by a centrepiece of plain, ungodly fallibility.

Now, I recognise that in all of this praise for the way this film was executed, there isn't really anything to be said for it regarding the purpose of this blog; on the female representation front, it's not really doing anything (the fact that it juuust manages to pass the Bechdel and juuust over a quarter of its cast is female does not win it brownie points; its better than not having either of those things, but that's not a genuine achievement). The two female characters who were more prominently positioned in this movie are Gamora and Wanda; Gamora largely in context of her relationship with Thanos, and Wanda as Vision’s significant other and the means of his destruction. Notably, both women’s arcs are accessories to the arcs of male characters, which is not what we’re aiming for in good representation, though it does not exclude the possibility of quality content; Gamora’s role may have a lot to do with Thanos (not least, after he kills her), but it is still distinctly her own story, rich with emotion and coming to a surprising and depressing end which I felt struck the right chords to be compelling rather than an enraging disposal of one of the few female characters around (more on this after Endgame). Wanda’s presence leaves less of an impression, in terms of screen time, plot complication, and audience engagement, but all things considered I don’t think that was a terrible choice; Wanda and Vision’s relationship had been a somewhat sparse subplot in previous films and the chemistry was not strong, so I don’t think it would have been to the film’s benefit to try and expand on that relationship further than they did. As it was, there was enough there to sell the emotion, and nothing extraneous, and as much as I enjoy this movie, I wish I could say better things for its female representation than that. It is stuffed-full, and definitely not perfect, and space could have been made to pump up some of the other female characters’ roles more (the Earthbound characters get the least attention in the movie, and since basically all my faves are there it is a testament to how well this movie works for me that I enjoy it so much anyway, but a little more attention there would not have gone astray, especially since that’s where most of the female cast is). That said...I still really enjoy it, man. As far as popcorn action goes, this is top shelf.

#Marvel Cinematic Universe #Avengers: Infinity War #female representation #Bechdel Test #MCU

4 notes · View notes

kob131 · 4 years

Text

https://rwdestuffs.tumblr.com/post/625369121618640896/done-dirty-gods

I’d like to make the point that the light god, the dude who killed Oz repeatedly and abused Salem to the point that she became the villainous being that we know today, is somehow on the “Heroes Wiki.”

You know, not like she demanded special treatment, tried going behind his back and tried to destroy him and his brother all because she demanded that the cycle of death not apply to who she wants.

Because I guess abusers are heroes now.

Says the creator of the ‘Savivor Mom Raven’ series.

Oh, and also, I HAD TO USE GODDAMN SOUTH PARK AS PART OF MY OPENER!

Incorrectly might I add as both the Light and Dark gods are not portrayed as directly opposing each other. So you’re mad you ‘had’ to use a show’s meme...incorrectly.

Let’s get this out of the way for any of idiots out there: Salem was NOT responsible for Humanity 1.0′s death. She may have provoked these two asshats, but she wasn’t the one who

1: Loaded the gun.

2: Aimed the gun.

3: Fired the gun.

By the same logic, people say Yang murdered Adam. How does that go with you again?

What did Salem do?- She just stood up to them and, inadvertently, gave them a target.

She directly lied to the first iteration of humanity after being punished for lying to the gods and being directly told she shouldn’t have done that all over demanding her husband be brought back to life even though God knows how many people die and aren’t brought back by the gods despite having just as much reason to want them back as Salem.

As far as I’m concerned, these gods were the villains of the story, and what I wouldn’t give to see Yang punch one of them in the face.

Probably because it’s a penis vs. vagina for you.

When making these “Godly” characters, it’s okay to give them flaws. In fact, that’s what makes the Greek Gods, Norse Gods, Japanese Gods, and Egyptian Gods so interesting. They have flaws, weaknesses, and more relatable personality aspects that makes it seem like we could have the guy responsible for the ocean’s tides as our next door neighbor, or the adorable little dog across the street as the one responsible for the sun coming up… and beating up a fish in a giant mech suit. Goddamn, I want to play Okami again.

I got off-topic. The point is, is that it’s okay for these Gods to give flawed advice… Provided that they gave advice at all.

See, Light God was insensitive to Salem’s plight, and in all likelihood, used the same rhetoric that her father used to lock her up in that tower as an excuse to just brush her off.

Salem: (falling to her knees) Please... Please, bring him back to me.

God of Light: I understand your pain, but you demand of me that which I cannot make so. Life and death are part of a delicate balance.

Such terrible rhetoric.

BTW, funny how you mention the Greek Gods. You want to know what the role of most Greek Gods are in their home myths?

Living Embodiments of Punishing Pride.

Helena Of Troy’s mother, Narcassist and Echo, Odysseus, Arachne, Midas-

Most of the targets of the gods were people who dared to act arrogant and like they were better/deserved more with the Gods smiting them for their fatal sin. Even the Gods themselves weren’t exempt from this, as many of them fell prey to their own pride and arrogance with the few (mostly) unscathed Gods being that way because they were significantly less prideful. Fuck, the Greek Gods came to be because Chronos was so cocky he could just eat his kids that it never occurred to him that his wife Rhea would trick him.

In fact, an always noteworthy story I remember was the tale of Orpheus and Euradyice, where a man traveled to the Underworld using his musical talents and demanded to have his wife brought back to life. It ALMOST didn’t work but he was just able to convince Hades on the condition that he not turn back on his way home. Spoiler Alert, he did out of a lack of faith in Hades, his wife WAS following him but he lost her because of it.

I bring this up because the Greek Gods were the INSPIRATION for the Brothers and I’d bet dollars to donuts that Orpheus’ tale was the inspiration for Salem and Ozma. You try to act like you know something about these things but completely ignore that hubris, the thing that fucked Salem over, was a running theme in the source of her backstory.

So when Salem goes to Dark God, and he does fulfill her request, it’s honestly like Salem is now picking a side. Except, it turns out that Dark God actually has to answer to the Light God.

God of Light: I know we have our differences, but I have not come here with the aim to control you. The same, however, cannot said for her. This woman came to you only after I denied her pleas – pleas that would have disrupted the balance that you and I created. Together.

The younger brother ponders this revelation.

God of Darkness: Then it seems I owe you an apology. Allow me to correct my mistake.

No he doesn’t. But nice cut context.

Does the relationship between the gods seem… manipulative to anyone? Like… The Light God (Fuck it, let’s call him “Lumin” for now, I’m not typing out that whole thing) is abusive to his brother?

Considering what I quoted above- Nope.

Acording to… I think it was Qrow, possibly in a WOR, the Dark God (Let’s call him “Ebon” because that’s a badass name, and I’m honestly not in the mood for “Light = Good, Dark = Evil” to be the underlying theme here) made his creations first. then Lumin was all “I can make something too!” and made humans to one-up his brother.

RWBY Volume 4 Episode 8 “A Much Needed Talk”

Qrow: They were two brothers. The older sibling, the God of Light, found joy in creating forces of life. Meanwhile, the younger brother, the God of Darkness, spent his time creating forces of destruction. As you can imagine, they both had pretty different ideas about how things should go. The older one would spend his days creating water, plants, wildlife. And at night, his brother would wake to see all the things that the elder had made and become disgusted. To counteract his brother's creations, the God of Darkness brought drought, fire, famine, all he could do to rid Remnant of life. Life always returned. So one night, the younger brother went and made something - something that shared his innate desire to destroy anything and everything.

Ruby: The creatures of Grimm.

Qrow: You guessed it. The older brother finally had enough. Knowing that their feud couldn't last like this forever, he proposed that they make one final creation... together, something that they could both be proud of, their masterpiece. The younger brother agreed. This last great creation would be given the power to both create and destroy. It would be given the gift of knowledge, so that it could learn about itself and the world around it. And most importantly, it would be given the power to choose, to have free will to take everything it had learned and decide which path to follow - the path of light or the path of darkness. And that is how Humanity came to be.

You misrepresent the show AND got it backwards. The God of Light created things first, then The God of Darkness and Humanity was a joint project.

Why should we consider you at all reliable, especially given how easy it would be to research this?

Like… Does that at all seem healthy to you?

No in fact, The God of Darkness is kind of a jackass. But nice job portraying your delusions as the exact opposite dumbass.

But regardless of that relationship, Lumin basically acted like that one abusive parent who destroys all of the child’s toys just because they went to the other parent to do something that the first parent was callous in denying them to do. Sorry if that brought up any bad memories for people.

More like they took the toy away when the child tricked the other parent into buying it even though the first said no.

Not to mention the relics. Outside of their purpose to resummon the gods, they don’t really do much. But these are literal artifacts left behind by said gods.

Plus, Lumin give Oz an impossible task of uniting humanity. It’s like he wants Oz to fail because he just wants an excuse to wipe them all out again.

How is it impossible when Humanity was united BEFORE SALEM?

Lumin treats humankind as an “experiment gone wrong” as if he’s just playing with peoples’ lives for his own amusement. If anything, Ebon is more sympathetic because he actually listens to their problems and wants to help them out.

Yeah-

The God of Darkness created the Grimm that make Remnant such a horrible place to live and was the one that killed all of humanity.

God of Darkness: My own gift to them... used against me.

The God of Light looks away in disappointment as the God of Darkness squeezes the sphere within his hand, creating a massive shockwave that envelops the world, smiting everything and everyone in its path. Humanity has been turned to dust, only Salem remains due to her immortality.

How is he more sympathetic?

Meanwhile Lumin is all “Sucks that your man died. Now get out.” at best.

We get it- You’re delusional.

Let’s take a look at another set of flawed gods in the form of The Norse Pantheon. Namely, Odin, Loki, and Thor. In myth, these guys were all given tasks that were basically impossible. Thor was tasked with drinking the ocean, and failed. Odin wrestled with time, and was brought down. And Loki lost an eating contest to fire. These flaws and weaknesses in regards to their hubris are part of them.

Meanwhile, Apollo lost a love to Eros because he said that he couldn’t shoot as well as him but I guess you’d assume Eros was the bad guy.

I mentioned this briefly in my “Done dirty: Oz” post, but Oz was basically brought back to cause conflict. Because… I guess Lumin was bored?

Or you know- a second chance to have the gifts of the Brothers again.

But the narrative wants people to see that Lumin and Ebon are “All good. All caring. And all knowing.”

Which is a load of bullshit. The narrative tries to paint Salem as some unsympathetic witch who couldn’t let go. When…

1: The woman was abused and locked in a tower until Oz came to rescue her.

2: She was willing to fight God to get him back. If anything, that shows true love. If you want my opinion, if you’re not willing to deck a deity in the nose for your loved one, then you don’t care about them (Take that, Abraham. Willing to sacrificing your own son just because your God told you to. Bet you wouldn’t see that from Amaterasu).

1. Doesn’t matter. There have to be people living just as bad if not WORSE than Salem and lost loved ones- it’s literally the rules EVERYONE has to abide by.

2. No, she tried to fight two gods because she was pissy. She never tried to fight them until AFTER lying to the God of Darkness and lead people to their deaths. All in the name of a legendary HERO, someone who WOULDN’T want to be brought back after all this death.

What I’m saying is that these gods are detached. Which would be an interesting aspect if the narrative had bothered to show that as being a bad thing.

So were the Greek Gods. Not the point of either one.

Then again, this is all being told by Jinn, a creation of the Gods (Namely Lumin). So maybe there’s some bias in there where they’re trying to make Salem out to be irredeemable while the gods are the undisputed good guys- and holy SHIT!- Jinn’s in on the gaslighting.

i mean… I still want everyone to eventually realize that Salem was gaslighted into being the villain of the story. because that sounds way better than the “Abused woman lashes out and becomes evil” angle that they seem to be going at.

Yeah and Adam was branded. Guess that means you think Adam was in right to chop off Yang’s arm then.

Funny thing there- You literally can’t redeem Adam OR Salem and keep the other evil without looking hypocritical because they committed the SAME FUCKING SINS.

But given the writers’ ability to handle racism (or lack thereof), I don’t exactly have a lot of confidence in this.

Way to reference the plotline with the walking counter example in it.

Then again, the did call her Salem…

… But also again, they did write the WF plot as that horrible mess…

But they also looked into a lot of fairy tale aspects for their characters…

While you didn’t do a lick of research or else you’d know the shit about the Greek Gods.

Then again, you couldn’t even be bothered to confirm the shit about the Brothers even as you openly say ‘I don’t remember this clearly.’ So what really should I expect?

4 notes · View notes

worstloki · 3 years

Note

Okay, this is gettin’ real screwed up here.

I watch a lot of TV. Probably too much. And I’ve seen characters beaten to their knees before, sometimes even with collars. And yeah, there’s usually someone standing over them, and it’s been a woman sometimes. The kind of scene we got in episode 5 of Loki is not new ground.

But here’s the thing. In EVERY OTHER SCENE I can remember like this, the person kneeling is the hero. They’ve been brought down, fully humbled before the sneering villain, and in a few minutes something will happen to get them back on their feet again. It’s usually a tense moment, a “what if they break?” that makes you want the hero to win. You aren’t rooting for, or even liking in some cases, the person standing. You’re cheering for the person on their knees.

This doesn’t seem to be the case with the Loki show. Yes, the viewers may be rooting for Loki, but there’s no hatred for Sif there. She’s not proved herself to be a cold, heartless villain, ruthlessly pounding the hero until all he can do is kneel at her feet.

Except…she did kind of do that. But it isn’t treated as something bad. It’s treated more as something Loki deserved, in my opinion. The show wants us to feel like he deserved to get repeatedly beaten up and told horrible things, just for cutting off a lock of Sif’s hair. I’ll grant, it’s peanuts compared to what happened to him in the mythology. But it’s still bad. Especially since they had him acknowledge it, repeat her cruel words back. They’re playing it off as if Loki is still the villain by himself, and is only good because of other people- Mobius, mostly, but Sif is part of that.

That’s not the way Loki’s character is. In the comics particularly, his biggest arcs are always about reinventing the labels given to him, changing “villain” into something good, something he can use, and doing it by himself. Yes, there’s outside influence, but ultimately Loki is the one who decided to change.

The show is not letting him do that. The show is portraying him as a stubborn jackass who refuses to change until other people show him the light- either with psychological torture presented as therapy, or with beating him up a bunch of times until he gives in. The show and its characters are forcing Loki to become good- they aren’t showing him doing it by himself. He is not becoming one of the good guys, he’s being essentially enslaved by them, and the show is passing it off as somehow all that good influence finally rubbed off on Loki’s cold, villainous heart. That’s why him betraying Mobius was shown as so bad even though Loki barely knew him and had been psychologically tortured by him- Mobius is written as a character who can choose to be good, and Loki is written as a character who must be forced to be good.

And something about an entire show revolving around an independent character being treated as a villain, literally enslaved by the “good guys” (back when the show still wanted us to think the TVA weren’t shady as all hell), beaten to his knees with a collar around his neck until he accepts that he deserves to be alone because he isn’t “good” like everybody else…that doesn’t go down right for me.

The TVA being presented in not just a neutral but often reliable light is something I thought would change once Loki literally called out their propaganda and Sylvie called them fascists, but, for some reason the authoritarian genocidalists are not being presented as a bad thing and it irks me too.

It's especially weird because of the way what Loki claims to have wanted by making choices for people and what Mobius claims the TVA do ARE THE EXACT SAME THINGS, except Loki, until the show, hadn't done that of his own volition and was being tortured during the invasion and is treated terribly for something he didn't even succeed in doing, while the TVA successfully erase events on a mass scale but are presented as having a higher (or at best, - equal) moral ground.

The exact same thing was done in Ragnarok where Loki's "turning point" from a tricksy villainous scoundrel happened because Thor left him frying on the ground and gave him a pep talk filled with lies and general slander about how he could be better - and people see that as good because Thor is framed as a hero, and it's because instead of accepting Loki is a complex character they take what the narrative tells at face value and that is that Loki fights the protagonist(s) so he's bad.

I personally don't like the narrative pushing a character that is canonically an abuse victim and attempted suicide and was tortured right after as someone who needs fixing because he's lusting for power and needs it to gain a sense of control during a retcon which is occurring for the sake of calling him a complete bad guy who needs to change (probably because no actual original character development could be thought of?) after he was just confirmed as queer and colloquially (i assume) called a narcissist because of twisted love.

That he deserves to be alone was presented neutrally as a joke even as he was repeatedly getting beaten to the ground, and then both people he could call friends were removed from his immediate vicinity right after.

Loki isn't being presented as a character that has done a huge mix of good and bad in the movies, he's being presented as an oft incompetent idiot that deserves what he gets because he shouldn't have run away from captors, or he cut Sif's hair, or he killed his mother, or he dared to think he had any importance or could do something good, because the truth is he's an evil lying scourge.

"But maybe," Mobius says, "Maybe he wants to mix it up. Sometimes you get tired of playing the same part. Is that possible? He can change?" And everyone's already forgotten that moments before the mission Mobius said to Loki's face that the TVA has pruned a lot of Loki variants because he's so nice! look! he has hope in him when no one else does! It's also easy to forget the "and hey, if it doesn't work, I'll delete him myself," right after because the guy was smiling through it and the scene is followed by Loki really badly trying to explain the logic of being a trickster who everyone knows is a trickster.

A lot of people payed more attention in Ragnarok than to the other Thor movies so it's not a new retcon and people seem fine with the extremely strange take that 'loki is bad but he can do good sometimes,' because the character is more animated and acts foolish and that's generally more fun for comedy, which is fair for people to prefer imo, people find different things entertaining.

But I do solidly hope the show doesn't go that way though and takes a side with Loki on the narrative stance eventually because I've seen a lot of people who just. miss that the TVA's concept is bad. And those who think they're "reforming" Loki. As if the guy needs anything but a break at this point lmao he only got away from Thanos like 2 days ago please just let him rest for a bit he's a fail villain and it's cringe to have your supposed 1st open queer character get beaten to a pulp by Sif and then put wack sexualizing shots for it too :/

it's like the show itself is trying to sell the angle of "Loki is a villain" and I'm a clown who is still wanting that to be intentional because if it is? It could be amazing and playing with how different parties are framed would be s p e c t a cu l ar and could encourage people to reassess the hero coding in other movies including ones Loki was previously in - but we're reaching the last two episodes and I don't feel like that'll happen.

I feel like even if Loki does reach the end of the show as a transformed person it'll be done leaving the audience with "perhaps you're not so bad after all, Loki," and then also give credit to Mobius or Sylvie or whoever else was involved, simply because as even of yet Loki hasn't taken on a lead role in the show. I'd argue he hasn't really contributed anything worthwhile to plot either. As you've said, he's being shown as someone who needs to change but isn't really motivated to. Aw man they better not make romantic love the reason he wants to change.

#no because they're framing things that are humiliating or demeaning as *casual*#I don't even care if they wanted fanservice in the show did it have to be THAT type???#of course it did they don't take the character seriously or consider what they're doing with him despite his legitimate grievances #in a show where Loki's had literally no influence on the main plot but delaying it for the entirety of the Lamentis episode #if i was worse this is where i'd theorize about how Loki isn't a typical 'strong' hero and threatens the fragile masculine ideals of some #like........marvel the F*CK kind of message is this meant to send after Thanos throwing Gamora off a cliff was 'love' and Odin was 'strong'#they've made Loki be embarrassingly bad in fights too and what's up with that?????#''no look he's powerful see he just reversed time on an entire building on his own!!! now watch 2 guards hold him back <3''#bro 2 guards aren't enough if loki wants to escape what movies were you watching bro #you want me to believe this is the guy that went toe to toe with thor and tie-lost because he had tears blurring his vision????#nice try mcu im onto you your writing sucks #the Loki show #loki spoilers #loki show spoilers #im still reeling from Sylvie's backstory of BITING AND RUNNING and that she left the door to the TVA open for so long accidentally??????#im enjoying the show but i'm not going to say it's a good show or even that I see Loki as in-character #he CAN CANONICALLY TELEPORT WHY THE FR*CK WERE THEY SITTING AND WATCHING LAMENTIS BLOW UP #he BROKE the tempad - their ONLY WAY OFF THE PLANET - which was stored in a POCKET DIMENSION - by falling TOO HARD ?????#EXCUSE ME????#put some effort into the story you're trying to sell marvel #the logic with the timelines???? makes NO SENSE??????#the TVA either has no clue what they're doing or the multiverse literally already exists and the sacred timeline continues to be lies #i want to strange Marvel #the entire thing is so entertaining though so im definitely enjoying #ThisPostIsLongerThanMyLifeSpan #TPILTMLS

411 notes · View notes

kittyprincessofcats · 5 years

Text

I know I’m about to open a can of worms here, but... Can someone explain to me how the mind of a Loki-hater works? I just don’t understand? I mean, if someone just doesn’t like him or doesn’t care... fine, whatever, we all find different characters appealing. But what I don’t understand is the people who genuinely call him “a priviledged white murderboy” or compare him to characters like Kylo Ren (who is a priviledged white murderboy, just to be clear on that).

How can someone watch Thor 1, The Avengers, and Thor TDW and somehow come to the conclusion that Loki is a priviledged, sheltered, rich kid who never had problems and kills people for the lulz. HOW? Did they watch the movies with both eyes and ears closed? Did they only watch The Avengers and skip through half of Thor 1? Is it the misogyny (most of Loki’s fans are women so obviously they must only like him for his looks, “dumb fangirls” etc.)? Seriously, how do you watch these movies and miss out on:

- Odin being a dictator and colonizer who kidnapped Loki from his home country as a baby, changed his appearance with a spell to make him “pass” as Asgardian, stripped him of his birth culture and even raised him to consider his birth country evil

- Loki being neglected and not taken seriously his whole life, having his “feminine” interests mocked in Asgard’s partiachic society, constantly being made fun of by Thor’s friends, his own brother - who he adores more than anything - putting him down all the time, his father never acknowleding him

- Loki (who never wanted the throne in the first place) having to suddenly run a kingdom when his brother gets himself banished and his father falls into the Odinsleep, having to suddenly manage a war he didn’t start, dealing with Thor’s friends commiting treason, dealing with the revelation of his heritage and the feeling that he has to prove himself to Odin now. (Okay, to be fair, I think Frigga handing him control and telling him to make his father proud was a deleted scene, so the actual movie might make it look like he took the throne and planned all of this, but he didn’t. Think about it for one second: There’s no way he could have predicted the Odinsleep or Thor’s banishment. He looks shocked when both happen.)

- Loki trying to destroy his birth realm in a desperate attempt to prove that he’s “not like them”, Loki being so desperate that he commits suicide when Odin doesn’t approve.

- No one in Asgard (except for Frigga) mourning Loki at all. Loki asking Thor “Did you mourn?” in The Avengers, because he knows they didn’t and he’s right.

- Loki being tortured by Thanos and forced to attack New York. How is that something people miss? Did everyone take their bathroom break during that scene where The Other threatens Loki? Did they conveniently ignore the after-credits scene?

- Odin telling Loki “Your birthright was to die” and acting like Loki should be grateful Odin didn’t murder him as a baby. Just in case you forgot: This was their first interaction after Loki’s suicide attempt. Odin found out his son - whom he drove to try and commit suicide - was alive, and the first thing Odin did was telling him he should have died and that he would have executed him for his crimes if it wasn’t for Frigga.

- Just to put this into perspective: When Thor started a war and killed hundreds of Frost Giants, Odin banished him to Earth without his powers for three days. When Loki tried to commit suicide, got tortured and attacked Earth and killed people because Thanos forced him to, Odin wanted to execute him, only agreed not to because of Frigga, then locked Loki up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and didn’t allow Frigga to see him.

- Loki wasn’t even allowed to go to his mother’s funeral. Thor never even asks him why he attacked Earth, only visits Loki when he needs his help, refuses to comfort him about Frigga’s death and promises to lock Loki up again if he does help him. And people are blaming Loki for not telling Thor he was alive? Would you have told the man who promised to lock you up for the rest of eternity that you’re alive? I kinda doubt it.

- And even after all of that, Loki was merciful enough to only banish Odin to a care-home on Earth instead of killing him. (Friendly reminder that Kylo Ren murdered his father while his father was offering him a second chance. Odin never offered Loki any chances, straight-up wanted to kill him, and Loki still showed mercy. But sure, tell me more about how your comparison is totally appropriate.)

How do people watch ALL OF THAT, and somehow not end up at least admitting that Loki was treated unfairly? How do people watch these movies and say that he’s selfish when all he’s ever been doing is sacrificing himself for his family over and over again and getting nothing in return? HOW??? Someone explain this to me, because it blows my mind.

And sidenote - the whole “straight white murderboy” thing is such complete BS it makes me want to slam my head against my desk. 1) Loki’s not straight. He’s canonically bi/pan in the comics and queercoded in all of this movies. 2) Not even the “boy” part is true - Loki is genderfluid. 3) The “white” part is what really blows my mind when people use it as a reason to hate this character. Because first of all Loki’s entire story is about being a different race than the rest of his family and being treated like shit because of it. (Yes, I realize it’s “fantasy blue people racism”, not real-world racism, but it’s still an aspect of the character that - in the fantasy context - makes him the opposite of priviledged.) And secondly... all of the Avengers in A1 are also white? 5/6 of them are straight white guys? So who are we supposed to root for, according to these Loki-haters? In Star Wars, there’s POC heroes who get ignored by the fandom and I understand the frustration of everyone loving the white villain instead - but in the first(!) Avengers everyone is white? So who does tumblr think is a more deserving fave here??? I just don’t understand this logic even in theory??

(Seriously, someone explain this to me? Is is because of the Hitler comparison in The Avengers? Because that honestly should be blamed on Joss Whedon being a shitty writer who can’t get a ‘character is evil’ message accross differently. Narratively, this comparison doesn’t fit at all. Or is it because people took the ‘Loki keeps betraying Thor’ line from Ragnarok and took it seriously instead of judging the movies by what actually happened? I tried to read posts where people explain why they hate Loki, and whenever they list all the “horrible things he’s done” half of them are things that never even happened? Like... “repeatedly betrayed his brother who trusts him” - NOT TRUE, “tried to commit genocide on earth” - NO HE DIDN’T??, “killed more people than anyone else” - FACTUALLY WRONG, “always fakes his death” - HE LITERALLY NEVER DID, “betrayed Asgard” - BITCH WHEN?, “only did one selfless thing in his life” - which one of them are you talking about, just wondering?, “freed Hela” - are we just making shit up at this point? he didn’t even know about Hela!, “caused Odin’s death” - why is anyone acting like that’s a bad thing and Odin didn’t deserve to die?, “facist dictator” - again: WHERE? Do any of you stupid Americans even know what facism is? Stop throwing around big words if you don’t know how to use them.)

Or is it just that people don’t actually know the movies, see a villain who has huge female fanbase and come to the “obvious” conclusion that it must be because those women are stupid and “like making excuses for bad boys”? Do people take Tom Hiddelston more seriously when he talks about Loki’s motivations and says he’s just misunderstood and not evil? Because this time it’s a man saying it?

#Loki #MCU #Loki Meta #Thor movies #Loki's resistance #Loki Friggason #long post #this just honestly baffles me #I get that not eveyone spent the same amount of time reading Loki-meta but... this is some really obvious stuff?

33 notes · View notes

musclesandhammering · 3 years

Text

Loki (2021) Positivity from an Anti

Ok so all of my mutuals know I’m extremely anti-Loki (2021), anti-sylki, and anti-sylvie. But at a certain point, even we antis get tired of all the negativity. So! Here’s some Loki series commentary in the opposite direction! This is a list of all the things about the show that I loved :)

Also adding a disclaimer that all of this is just my opinion and some of my fellow antis (or even people who liked the show) might disagree, and that’s fine! I’ve been planning this post for awhile. I always say in my other posts that I don’t entirely hate the show and I wanted to be a little more specific about what I think are its good aspects. Feel free to leave your thoughts!

• Mobius is a gem (Owen Wilson owns my whole heart) and his relationship with Loki is so so great. He’s not one-dimensional at all, he has conflicted loyalty and is morally complex, and he has the tragic backstory- which makes him a perfect choice for eventually becoming Loki’s first genuine friend.

• The casting was really really great. Lots of women and people of color. Most of the female actresses (as well as the males) are over 30, which isn’t very common and is fantastic!

• Superb acting all around. I can’t think of a single scene where the actors under or oversold it.

• Beautiful set design, incredible cgi, and gorgeous cinematography overall. It looked more like a movie than a tv show, which is really good.

• Kang being the big bad was a huge plus for me. Johnathan Majors was perfect in the role, his vibes were immaculate, and I was honestly pretty worried that the man behind the curtain would end up being another Loki variant, which imo would’ve been boring and predictable and counter-productive, so it was a big relief when that didn’t happen.

• I like that it sets up a bunch of future marvel movies, rather than being contained to its own little world. It gives it more importance and (hopefully) will encourage writers to not just toss Loki’s character aside in future projects.

• All the Loki variants were delightful. All of them except Sylvie. Kid Loki has my heart. Boastful Loki is a fashion icon. Alligator Loki is a savage. President Loki is the superior variant. Classic Loki became my fav character in less than half an episode.

• It showed some more variety in Loki’s magic. A lot of his powers we’ve seen before, but it feels like they were portrayed a bit more blatantly in the show. The energy blasts, the telekinesis, the teleportation… Outstanding.

• It also implied that Loki has the potential to be waaaay more powerful than he knows he is right now, which? Yes.

• Some of the quotes- and the themes behind them- are just profound as hell. Such as:

“I think we’re stronger than we realise.”

“It’s never too late to change.”

“You can be whoever you wanna be, even someone good.”

“We’re Lokis. We survive. It’s what we do.”

“Loki, God of Outcasts.”

“The universe wants to break free, that’s why it manifests chaos.”

• Technically Loki was Marvel’s first canon lgbt (bi) character, which is a win. His genderfluidity is also technically canon, even if it wasn’t really acknowledged on-screen.

• There were a lot of throwback references to Thor 1, Avengers, and Thor The Dark World. Which I loved.

• Sylvie’s so pretty. Her hair and makeup and costume were all perfect.

• Big fan of Loki finally getting Laevateinn.

• Sufficiently slutty imagery, courtesy of a female director (Loki in a collar, kneeling to Sif, President Loki looking down into the bunker, the hair flips)

• The music was Excellent Wonderful and Superb.

• I love that Loki being a good singer is now canon.

• I love that Asgardians having their own language is now canon (even if it’s basically just Icelandic).

• I also love that they disproved all of those “Loki was a shy nerdy wallflower pre-canon” theories in Episode 3. The drinking/eating/singing scene was fun, if a bit wacky.

• There’s a million different reasons why Loki does what he does, especially in regards to the New York attack (I’m literally writing a huge meta on them), but somehow I never considered that Loki being desperate for control was one of them. It makes a lot of sense, and I always love getting new insights into his motivations.

• I love that Loki finally outright acknowledged that he doesn’t enjoy hurting people. We Been Knew™️ but it’s still nice to hear it out loud from his own mouth.

• The TVA outfit wasn’t as hideous as some people make it out to be. It could’ve been A Look, even. You know, if he’d just accessorised a little better. And kept the jacket on. And not gotten sweaty. And not gotten dirty. And maybe had at least one other costume change… But it had potential, though!!

• Even though I despise the Obvious One, I did actually like some of the other romance crumbs they tossed us (sifki, Loki x the flight attendant).

• The whole DB Cooper thing was iconic idc idc.

• Loki’s hyper sort of overly excited puppy attitude in episode 2 was actually pretty refreshing and funny (for awhile). And now I can headcanon him as adhd, yeehaw.

• “We’re all villains here.” That quote was iconic, my favourite one in the show. And the entire theme that it summarised was really great as well. When you think about it, every single main character in this series has been the villain at one point or another. I mean, I know all marvel characters do bad things etc, but none of the Heroes are ever narratively categorised as Bad. This show did just that with all of them, though. . Loki was framed as the psychopath that attacked New York. Sylvie was framed as the murderous fugitive. The TVA/Ravonna/Mobius were framed as the murderous fascists. Kang was framed as the crazy totalitarian. It’s made clear that all the Loki variants were the villains of their stories.

However, every single main character in the series is also framed as the Hero at a certain point. Loki is framed as the main protagonist who throws a wrench in the TVA’s dastardly plans. Sylvie is framed as the persevering freedom fighter who wants to take down the fascists. The TVA/Mobius/Ravonna are framed as the ones who maintain order for the greater good. Kang is framed as the weird but ultimately benevolent wise man who’s just trying to prevent something worse from happening. The Loki variants are framed as generous allies who befriend the main character and help him on his journey.

Everyone in this equation is openly acknowledged by the narrative to be morally corrupt, but not entirely morally bankrupt. There are no Straightforward Hero Figures (like the Avengers) in this entire scenario at all, and that makes for a super interesting dynamic that marvel has never done before. So yes: “We’re all villains here.” But also: “No one bad is ever truly bad, and no one good is ever truly good.” I loved that.

• Even if it wasn’t really enough imo, I still treasure the crumbs we got of Loki being competent and capable (him putting the collar on B-15, him figuring out Sylvie’s hiding place, him teaching himself to enchant on the fly while fighting a giant cloud beast of eldritch proportions).

• I love that B-15 was the one who stepped in and saved the day in Episode 4, when we all thought it was gonna be Mobius. What a queen.

• Marvel usually has a bit of a problem with creating compelling and memorable side characters. But aside from Sylvie, I genuinely got attached to every single character in this show. Like Casey, C-20? I was seriously emotionally invested in them and they were only in like 2 episodes. Wtf.

• Introducing the TVA storyline in the Loki series specifically was a really good move. I’m not saying they executed it well, just that it had a ton of potential. A lot of people have wondered why marvel even thought to put those two (the TVA and Loki) together, when they had literally nothing to do with each other, nothing in common, and essentially no connection at all. But when you think about it, it’s a really interesting twist on both of those stories. Forcing the embodiment of destructive chaos and the pillar of rigid order to interact could make for some seriously entertaining and compelling television. And as far as meshing these two completely unrelated entities together goes, I thought they did it pretty well- at least just the bare bones of the story (loki being arrested by the TVA and being one of their most common variants).

So that’s it! If you guys (fellow antis) wanna add stuff you liked, feel free. If anyone wants to discuss (or debate) my list, feel free to do that too!

#loki series 2021 #loki laufeyson #anti sylvie #loki meta #loki odinson #loki #loki series

34 notes · View notes

sergeant-angels-trashcan · 5 years

Text

anyway i finally saw endgame and surprisingly??? i did not hate it to the very primal core of my being???

but also i had like....the LOWEST standards for it, so that might be it more than how good the movie actually was.

really i just feel very “what a bizzare fanvid i just watched”

Onward!

The Good:

the whole Steve-in-the-Elevator scene. My little stuckate shipper heart was just like FUCK THEM UP BOO.

“that is America’s ass”

uh....

rocket!

and nebula! god i adore nebula more and more every day

and Valkyrie was soooo good and I’m glad Meiks and Korg were there

also Rescue fucking finally

and the whole a-force visual towards the end there, i appreciated that

also Carol’s lesbian haircut

STEVE BEING FUCKING WORTHY OF THE HAMMER FUCK YES

Sam getting the shield!

everyone coming out of their magical glowing portals

fucking. QUEEN BRUNNHILDE sorry KING BRUNNHILDE

find her a wife ffs

but also

fuck this movie

so like...it was REALLY slow for the first hour. at least. i was getting bored actually

Tony’s daughter was adorable and I love dad!tony but it’s also in line with Marvel giving men families to give them More Pain and I’m over that

also are you trying to tell me he wouldn’t have named her some derivative of peter? or carol, or nebula, since they’re the reason he is alive? i call bullshit

“marvel’s first openly gay character” you know what fuck you marvel

that woman in the support meeting might be kate in a future fic i’m just saying

for as much time as they spend tooling around this new universe they really didn’t give us much information--who is in charge? how are you getting electricity?

all i wanted was for gamora or nebula to kill thanos and i was denied this catharsis. fuck you. you can let an abuser kill the woman he abused but not vice versa? fuck. you.

who was that random boy kid at tony’s funeral?

bold of the russos to assume peggy wouldn’t notice someone staring at her

how is nebula not dead? she killed a past version of herself so????

holy plot holes batman

because...the soul stone...YOU are supposed to sacrifice what is most important to YOU so...how does Natasha killing herself fulfill that requirement? Clint did not sacrifice her. This implies that Natasha loves herself the most and that means she would have gotten the stone...i’m so confused about this

how did no one notice nebula’s hands were wrong? you’ve known her for five goddamn years gang. yeah i get she covered it up but rhodey saw it get mcfried while getting the stone....this seems like something rhodey would notice. because. he’s fucking rhodey.

i get why like...narratively tony ~had~ to die but also...what’s wrong with fucking retirement? why couldn’t he pass the mantle of iron man on? like in? the comics? was that kid supposed to be iron lad i mean for realz

and I get that Steve got to have his happy ending with his one true love and that’s so great, but idk fam...i didn’t like it. and i think i don’t like it because it places this huge focus on Never Moving On and I guess some people probably do have their one true love and they never love another, but i think there’s real value in stories where people find love again, where people go through trauma and can still be happy even after going through loss. this is viscerally important to me

also i firmly believe that peggy is married to angie

does this mean steve knew sharon? since she knew peggy really well? and she kisses him? does steve just hide every time she comes over? it wasn’t creepy in civil war but it’s sure creepy now

although peggy explaining to everyone that her husband doesn't look ANYTHING like steve rogers is sort of hilarious. how did they even explain this.

no it’s getting worse because peggy has Alzheimer's supposedly well no fucking wonder she was confused with young!steve showing up and presumably her old husband steve showing up as well like. what.

i mean. i’m glad steve got his happy ending

but i also feel like this was really insulting to bucky. Steve went back and never went out to find bucky? to stop him being tortured? the guy who is your best friend? you didn’t even say mcfucking goodbye? marvel was that “no homo” about their relationship in this movie???

chris and seb’s chemistry is just so strong they had to keep their shared dialogue to three lines?

i understand steve staying in the past. i get why they did it. i hate HOW they did it

wheremst the fuck is loki you fuckos

also all of Peter’s peers are 5 years older than he is

what on earth do the people who were dusted think of all the fucking ptsd all their loved ones have or the fact that THEY MISSED FIVE YEARS

was cassie living in that house all by herself?

also you know what it was really irritating when tony was blaming steve for not being around while completely ignoring any culpability he had in making it so that steve could not actually be around. and steve apparently made like the rest of us and blocked the events of civil war from his mind so he didn’t remember his valid fears

y’all fucked up your own timelines so bad like? sitwell is wandering around thinking cap is hydra, loki never spent time in asgard jail, or did the stones get replaced before those things happened? like immediately before? and if not i’m going to have to assume that loki went on the lam and then called noh to pick him up in earth airspace and noh becomes his unwitting getaway driver and eventually the ya get involved in interstellar crime shenanigans.

the fact that vision didn’t come back sort of implies that everyone who was killed before the snap didn’t come back, so that still leaves a shitton of asgardians dead, loki, and ???? who knows about gamora. right?

in conclusion, it was...okay. it had some really good moments but was mostly just “???????” for me. like, i’m not even mad. i’m going to erase it from my memory immediately except for Steve dating Kate in the five years and when Bucky comes back she’s just like “hey! I think we have the same boyfriend!” and they share custody of Steve until steve gets called in to consult on a mission and asks bucky to go on his date with kate and that’s how they become a triad

#endgame #avengers endgame #endgame spoilers #also i'm willing to consider kate getting dusted and tony naming his daughter after her #im like...very unimpressed

17 notes · View notes

cloudybookash-blog · 5 years

Text

Just finished the first season of She-Ra and I only have a small amount of complaints that I think fall more into my personal opinion on characterizations and story lines than anything else.

Love that the princesses that are there from the beginning are cute, gay and happy. Love that for them.

Love the diversity. Glimmer is body divergent but it never addressed as something inherently bad, or as a flaw - homegirl just look like that. Beau (Bo?) being part of the princesses because he is, and all his little background mannerisms where he’s seen cleaning and keeping things neat.

Scorpia’s entire personality is the greatest, she’s such a realistic character who belongs to a family that gave their allegiance and power source to the horde willingly and she prides herself in her role by taking care of her troops and running a tight ship whilst also being one of the bad guys because well, she was never welcome with any of the other princesses. Her story is so believable and truly underrated. Plus, she’s just very nice.

The other princesses having such a wide array of personalities (albeit without many complexities, I’ll admit) is refreshing.

I’m a fan of the art-style, love all the pretty colors (and kind of reminds me of Steven Universe, ngl). Each setting has its own beautiful color palette, which is always helpful in identifying new places and remembering them when there are about 10.

My only problems really came in three (maybe four) people.

1. Adora. If anything I would’ve thought she’d make the perfect villain. First in everything, the favorite, constantly better than her peers with the emotional range of a teaspoon. Yes, yes, she’s fantastic with her new friends but we’ve seen better characters. She’s given multiple occasions to coerce her old crew into joining the rebellion but she never takes them, and when she does it’s done without heart, like I questioned her integrity a couple of times she just didn’t seem all that willing to help her old friends.

Yes, with Bow (apparently that’s how his name is spelled) and Glimmer she’s loyal and caring, thoughtful even. But none of that loyalty and thoughtfulness is present in her previous relationships. Upon finding out that the Horde is evil and that she more than likely was kidnapped as a young child (insinuating that almost EVERY horde soldier was stolen from their families) she doesn’t, not once, speak to her entire old crew and show them what she knows in a way that isn’t overtly condescending.

There’s a moment where I think Catra is going to join Adora, but even then, Adora is only bargaining, and asking Catra to join her because Catra is literally about to kill her. And EVEN THEN she barely tried, rather than apologising for not being aware enough when they were kids to stand up for Catra in a way that would’ve mattered to her, she just goes on about how Catra doesn’t have to do this. This forces Catra to give up her grounds has someone who’s been wronged because the wrong-does refuses to admit fault.

Like I said, my problems are probably all to do with personal preferences of characters. People probably view this as a unique flaw never really had in an MC before. Except, it’s pretty common in male MC’s in high fantasy’s. And I not only read a lot of those, but also hate them specifically because the characters have minimal self awareness and almost 0% integrity anytime they’re genuinely confronted with their flaws.

2. Catra. Listen, she would’ve been a GREAT She-Ra. You can’t deny it. She’s always coming in second best, she can never get ahead, she’s not only hated but has been actively tortured because of her ties to Adora. She’s been told the only reason she’s kept around is because Adora seems to like her. She’s literally alive because some six year old wanted a pet. She would be the first one to have zero (0) reasons to stay with the horde.

Her entire life has been spent in the shadow and to be able to be She-Ra, with enough support could bring her the confidence in her person she so sorely needs. We’ve seen she’s a great leader, although as a villain in a serial she’s obviously going to be beaten time and time again but she does actually have good plans and she has a flare for the dramatic.

This isn’t Loki-style fanning over a ‘morally-grey’ character this is sadness at the fact people may interpret her character as, ‘people who are ambitious are evil, people who don’t conform to society, or aren’t very charming socially are evil’. Rather than we (the audience) should try being a little more aware of the people around us and how our actions can deeply effect them.

Catra’s personality and in the end her resolve is formed by the actions of Shadow Weaver, Adora, and her team. They bully, ostracize and abuse her (some, unknowingly of course) but that’ s the point. Her ‘evilness’ is brought on by years of people not being self-aware enough to understand the damage they were causing. She’s a great sympathetic villain, I don’t think I’ve ever even felt sympathy for a fictional ‘bad guy’ before so don’t get me wrong she’s fine in her role. I just, personally, would’ve enjoyed seeing her at the forefront of the rebellion rather than Adora.

With a personality that would’ve been open to an underdog scenario, and her persistent attitude (especially if this was fueled by people supporting and relying on her) she could’ve been a great She-Ra.

3. Entrapta. Again this is solely the whole how she’s going to perceived thing, ‘geeks and freaks are weird and societal outcasts are evil.’ It keeps up this narrative of only certain types of people are allowed to be good, there’s a check list of traits you have to have that are unrelated to your ideologies that decide which side you fight for.

Entrapta, like Catra, is treated like an outcast and always (in sinisterly subtle ways that are usually used as comedic relief) made to feel bad for who she is. She’s curious on top of everything else but the lesson we get about her story ark is curiosity killed the rebellion. It’s like saying ‘don’t be too curious’, otherwise you’ll end up with no morals and will be easily manipulated into joining the ‘evil people’.

When, again, the meaning should be that we REALLY need to put more effort into making those in our society who are different know and understand that they’re important. No, this doesn’t mean baby school shooter, incel type people or people who legitimately go out of their way to hurt others for no reason. But, we shouldn’t treat neuro-divergent people with such hostilities (subtle or otherwise) because then WE create the monster. Just as with Catra, Entrapta was created through the actions of her peers towards her person.

I can’t blame either of these villains for choosing the dark side, who wasn't to be good when the people on the good side don’t want you to be, well, YOU.

4. Decidedly, four things that bug me. Bow and Glimmers (already mentioned Adora’s part in this) and extendedly the other Princesses’ treatment of those in the horde they meet. One specific scene got me MAD. Bow is imprisoned and one of Adora’s ex-crew mates begins betraying his own just because Bow is the first person to actual listen and all this kid wants is to have friends, real friends that would do anything for one another and this poor kid is TRYING. Bow’s reaction was abysmal to say the least. At first, he cracks a joke that he doesn’t really have a choice as he’s imprisoned, we get it, funny ha-ha. But, he genuinely appears to believe that the only reason he’s listening is because he’s imprisoned, that he (who gave Adora her chance before even really getting to know her) wouldn’t give the exact same to this kid actively risking his life to relay information about Glimmer.

Bow’s the puppy-love character whose flaw is (supposed to be) that he loves/trusts too easy. So why is he suddenly not listening to this kid just trying to have a friend who is actively helping Bow and is (possibly) the sole reason they find Glimmer in the end. Without his help there wouldn’t have been enough time to hack into the horde’s tech again to search for her. But, Bow doesn’t say anything when his rescue arrives AND THROWS THIS KID OFF A CLIFF MID-SENTENCE. I don’t know, that felt so wildly out of character.

Glimmer I understand more, she’s hotheaded and originally was VERY against Adora. It took a lot of life threatening situations for her to finally begin trusting Adora. Still, upon getting to know Adora, learning how horribly she was raised, the trauma it’s left her with, Glimmer (not for one seconds) questions whether they should MAYBE check on other horde members, no one should be kidnapped and raised in such an environment only to die for a regime that’s been lying to them. Yet, that’s exactly what happened.

Don’t get me wrong, these are four things that I pretty much understand have more to do with my preferences with characters and story-lines than anything else and like I said, the list (though detailed because I love being negative) is small in comparison to list of things that I like so far about the show.

Just wanted to get that out there.

Also, does the Voltron fandom follow She-Ra because this ECHOES Voltron vibes and I honestly don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t also vehemently back this show (other than the straights that watch Voltron are too busy getting off on gay men to care or give any ground to a just as diverse, funny, cast that just so happens to have gender flipped the story.)

8 notes · View notes

simonjadis · 5 years

Note

Your post on subversion was intriguing. My friend and I were similarly wondering if fans take "fanon" too seriously as it warps their perception of "canon." As in the direction taken, be it by different writers or the same one, goes someplace fans just don't like. What makes it "bad writing" or "fans who just didn't like what they got" exactly? It can feel so... mixed up honestly.

refers to this post [X]

Thank you!!!

I think that fanon has so many definitions that it can be difficult to discuss without being specific

a not-particularly-safe-for-weenies example is Transformers fandom has a particular way of describing cybertronian genitals, in terms of their form, function, and terminology, that is widely (though not universally) used in fic, despite not being part of the established lore

that’s what happens when fanon is created to be lore-conforming but to address something that is not (or cannot be) directly discussed within the media itself

sometimes, fanon is about taking a hammer and fixing canon because it’s broken

for example, though it’s frankly the least of her problems when it comes to worldbuilding, JK Rowling can’t do math. it’s never clear how many students attend Hogwarts, but her overly simplified small number of magical schools throughout the world really shows that she just … didn’t crunch the numbers

I could go on about how to figure out proportions of mutants/wizards/vampires etc, but the issue here is that fans basically have to ignore this new lore because it’s absurd. that doesn’t mean that there’s a newly established fanon for HP international schools, but one day, there might be

sometimes, fanon takes a very different turn, when fans far and wide commonly accept what’s called “woobification“ of a character

Snape, Loki, Kylo Ren, Damon Salvatore. these are all fine characters to like if you so choose (I’m obsessed with Sheev Palpatine; I get it), but sometimes people will try to justify that fondness by pretending that the character is someone wildly divorced from their actual morality

I don’t want to talk about any given character, and inconsistent writing can also be a factor, and also not all of the characters I just listed are on equal moral footing by any means. but sometimes the fanon version of a character is unrecognizable because they’re a much better person than their canon counterpart

fandom expectations can be extremely difficult to manage and even to predict. if fans come up with their own ideas about how a story should end or what sort of dynamic a pair of characters have, that can come into conflict with what ends up happening in the story

unfortunately, there’s no single, hard-and-fast rule for what makes a good story vs what makes a bad one

in my previous post (linked to at the top of this post), I talked about how telling a good story is like setting up a marble ramp or a series of dominoes, where all of the pieces should be in place to get you to the ending you desire. if you have to flick over a second domino or pick up the marble and deposit it somewhere else – that is, force characters to do something that neither personality (marble) nor circumstances (ramp/obstacles/etc) support – then you’ve made a mistake. audiences will usually notice

sometimes, fanon ideas of who a character is can influence fans, which lead them to do the pikachu-surprise-meme when a canon portrayal remains consistent. but sometimes, there are other factors, such as a likeable actor. Alan Rickman was a good guy, but Severus Snape was not

this may seem like a tangent, and perhaps it is, but sometimes authors and other storytellers try to impose their own, incorrect, moral view of the world in their stories.

Jolkien Rolkien Rolkien Tolkien himself used Gandalf to tell the Frodo (and the reader) that it would be morally wrong to simply execute Gollum rather than kill him in self-defense or battle. this pays off later when Gollum’s avarice destroys the One Ring and saves Middle Earth (spoilers!). this only works out this way because JRRT, who is catholic, told that story, not because it’s always the case that the person whose life you spared will accidentally save the day later.

another great example is JKR declaring that Snape is a hero. I won’t get into her odd treatment of Slytherin, and this may fall under the I Will Fix Canon With Hammer type of fanon, but I think that we all know that she bent over backwards to vilify Slytherins just as she did with fat people (except the ones who were just foolish)

nothing that JKR says can make Snape a good person unless she tells us that the dialogue that he spoke and the actions described on the pages were just … lies she told us for some reason. writers can control the very laws of reality of their worlds, but right and wrong are what they are

anyway, I absolutely agree that what fans want to see can come into conflict with what the storyteller gives them, and that it can create an unfair backlash

by that same notion, sometimes storytellers will dismiss fan concerns over bad writing (inconsistent characterization, rushed storylines, etc) and blame “fan entitlement.” that’s a real thing, but it’s the people who rage angrily and lead review-bombing campaigns – not the people who hate seeing their favorite characters murdered by the writers (and sometimes, by other characters) because it was poor writing

I love-love-love Mass Effect Andromeda, but I know that some fans of the series did not. that does not make them bad fans. sending hate to a developer or to people who enjoyed it would make them a bad fan

bad fan behavior comes from actual behavior, not what they think about a piece of media

and as for telling the difference between bad writing and fans disappointed by a solid narrative? I mean, my marble example shows one part of what I think defines good vs bad writing. mostly, we just have to figure out for ourselves if a choice made us sad or if it was actually bad

#writing #fanon #storytelling #I hope that this is helpful anon sorry that it's so long #anon ask #anon #ask

5 notes · View notes

avelera · 5 years

Text

Maggie’s Captain Marvel Review:

I’m gonna put this under the cut to avoid spoilers!

...

Pros: So first off, there’s nothing not to enjoy about this film. As Marvel origin stories go, it’s one of the stronger entries. Definitely better than Dr. Strange or even First Avenger. It’s got fun, heart, strong performances, and a likable main character. It made me very excited for a second film with Carol because now that we’ve got her rather convoluted backstory out of the way, I’m ready for the angst train and some serious plot to happen. I think a second Carol movie has a strong potential to be the Winter Soldier to this film’s First Avenger if they just increase the story quality in a similar way, and they’ve got a strong team in place to pull that off.

Cons: I should preface by saying, the “cons” are all things my writer brain picked out and are criticisms of the structure of the story and not of my enjoyment. The movie was enjoyable, my time was not wasted.

My main critique is that the story lacked a central theme by lacking a central emotional conflict for Carol to overcome, a lesson for her to learn, which in general is what delivers us our theme or main thread of the story and left it feeling rather scattered between the three acts. However, given that the last time Marvel tried to give a lead female character an emotional “Dark Night of the Soul” moment it was in AoU with Nat “lamenting” how not being able to have children makes her feel like a monster *ENDLESS SIGH*... I’m ok that Carol avoided any hamfisted or failed attempt at giving her something to break down over emotionally in the final act, in favor of just making a fun action movie.

The thing is, I spent a lot of the film squinting at the screen because my writer brain was in overdrive trying to figure out WTF was going on. The first third of the movie felt like a video game tutorial to me, trying to info dump on me all the various new alien races I needed to keep track of, Carol’s powers, Carol’s squad, etc etc, and how this had anything to do with Earth or the Marvel franchise to date.

The second third of the movie seemed to introduce the theme of, “Trust No One” and managed to imbue a sense of paranoia into the narrative between the Skrull and the eventual reveal that the Kree, and Carol’s squad, as the actual bad guys. Part of me almost wished the “Trust No One” theme had been there a bit more strongly throughout because it was a good centralizing theme for the conflict.

But then the last third of the movie was pretty much just a triumphant romp. The theme became, “Carol is Awesome!” We learn she was a badass pilot, she has badass friends, she’s a badass who saves the day! The humor becomes more consistent. While it was peppered throughout the film, it goes full Guardians of the Galaxy with the period 90s girl power music. She defeats all the bombs easily and scares off Ronan with a glare, then one-shots the closest individual she had to an emotional bad guy or dark mirror, then rolls off to save the day for the refugee Skrull because yeah we love adorable refugees in theory but we don’t want them in our country, right, USA? We just want them to somehow go off and find their own magical country somewhere else.

With Captain Marvel, I struggled with figuring out what the story was about. Not about in the literal sense, but the “about” of your story is what makes it bigger than watching someone punch bad guys for a couple hours. Perhaps the fact that I’m a woman and therefore “learning” that a woman can be a badass isn’t something I notice means I missed out on the lesson the story was trying to impart.

But stories generally have an XYZ. “This is a story about X (character) who goes on a physical journey of Y (the main conflict) in which they learn Z (the overarching lesson of the tale).” In Thor 1 we meet Thor, a space prince (X) who must become worthy of his hereditary weapon and throne (Y) in order to overcome his own flaws of selfishness and immaturity (Z). Iron Man has a similar emotional theme of learning personal responsibility, as does GotG, and even Captain America 1 which takes, like Carol, someone who is pretty heroic from the beginning and then has him learn the full extent of the sacrifices he must make to save the world. These moments come together and coalesce in the “Dark Night of the Soul” moment, a character’s lowest point reveals what they needed to learn all along as they suffer a fate worse than death for a portion of the narrative to show us what they most feared to lose.

Generally speaking in a plot formula the Dark Night of the Soul happens right before the Climax in the third act. It’s the moment where the protagonist is brought to their lowest point emotionally and learn the lesson they’re supposed to learn in this story, which prepares them to throw everything into the final battle. In Thor 1, for example, it’s the moment where Thor can’t lift Mjolnir. He has a literal Dark Night of the Soul in the middle of the night, sitting in the rain. He’s taken captive and Loki delivers him terrible news about how he’s not welcome back home. This forces Thor into confrontation with his own past failures and shallowness. It reforges him into a better person, one worthy of triumphing in the end.

As far as I could tell, the only thing Carol “overcomes” emotionally is her memory loss, but it’s not a terribly dark emotional moment because the memory loss was outside her control and inflicted on her, defeating it is uncomplicated as a result. The only lesson she learns is that she had a physical inhibitor preventing her from being a badass. It’s not a personal failure based on any kind of choice she made. She doesn’t really learn any kind of personal lesson or lesson that’s super relevant to her emotional state. In part because we never got a strong sense of her connection to the Kree such that losing her trust in them is a big crisis moment for her. Even the other woman on her team doesn’t seem terribly bothered that Carol switched sides.

In the end, it’s kind of the same plotline as She-Ra, but at least in the new She-Ra reboot we get a stronger sense of conflict from Adora about learning her old life with the bad guys was a lie and that she was being manipulated to fight for the bad guys. She-Ra actually has a more intense “Dark Night of the Soul” conflict over leaving her friends and old life behind because she decides to fight for the good guys in the war instead than Carol Danvers did with almost the same plotline, even though She-Ra is aimed at small children.

My theory is, the reason Marvel chose to avoid a dark night of the soul moment is the same reason they avoided a romance. They didn’t want the headline of the film to be “Carol cries in the third act because she’s a woman!” when even Steve Rogers cried in the third act of his film, as did Thor, and Tony Stark, because the Dark Night of the Soul is when the hero cries at their lowest point. By trying to avoid any moment where Carol could be broken down by her emotional plotline, they neutered her narrative of emotional impact and a lesson that she learned which would tie the story together and make it about something. Which, hey, I understand because if you do it wrong you’ve just undermined your first female hero (though even Wonder Woman had her dark night of the soul in the third act when she saw the bombed out French village she’d just saved, so it is possible to show tears from a female hero in a way that enhances the story instead of weakening the character).

But honestly, I’ll take it. There’s plenty of action movies where the male protagonist doesn’t have a significant emotional lesson he learns, where the theme is flimsy at best, and it’s really about punching bad guys to a bopping soundtrack, and we just call those fun action movies. Which is what Carol got and that’s totally fine. It was a fun action movie!

#captain marvel

13 notes · View notes