|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 13, 2023 22:08:04 GMT
Well I wasn't really including henchmen in my assessment. Henchmen, by virtue of them having minimal development AND having to report to someone higher up, very rarely get to be depicted as a truly despicable character. For example Kurse (played by a POC) was part of plan to wreck the 9 realms, yet in the end the main person responsible for that was Malekith. In your example the Asian guy who manipulated She-Hulk might have been a douchebag, but he was still following plans set by Todd Phelps (a white guy). Black Widow beat up a number of other widows, but in the end they were all being controlled by Dreykov. Ironman beat up a bunch of middle-eastern henchmen, but in the end none of them were developed enough for us to truly know or care about them. In the end the point I'm trying to make is this: When an MCU villain is specifically developed to be hated on by the audience, without any scapegoats or excuses, almost always it will be a white man. POC and especially female villains are almost always developed in a way to garner a bit more sympathy and empathy from audiences. I'm not saying whether or not this is due to a political agenda. I'm simply pointing out an observation. The She-Hulk thing was a bad example either way, because they're all douchebags. I wasn't really sure what to do with such a vague descriptor. It's a fair observation, but it speaks more to what those characters represent. Stane, Hammer, Pierce, even Kingpin; these characters represent the establishment in some way, either corporate, criminal, or political. It makes sense for them to be played by white men the same way it made sense for the Imperials to all be British in Star Wars. So while there are societal/cultural factors at play, it's more of a historical context; how we traditionally view power or greed or even structure. It was never specifically suggesting, "All British men are awful," any more than Jeff Bridges as Stane is a statement that "All white men are evil." And I know you know all of this, because your perspective is balanced and well thought out. But I think there's a specific type of person (present on these boards) that needs to hear it nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 13, 2023 22:21:03 GMT
I’m Team Marvel, but my first love will always be:
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jan 14, 2023 0:07:28 GMT
Off the top of my head... Chukwudi Iwuji - High Evolutionary - GotG vol 3 Tony Leung Chiu-wai - Xu Wenwu - Shang Chi Tenoch Huerta - Namor - Black Panther 2 Michael B Jordan - Killmonger - Black Panther 1 Hannah John-Kamen - Ghost - Antman 2 Djimon Hounsou - Korath the Pursuer - Gotg vol 1, Captain Marvel Dennis Carnegie - Kurse - Thor 2 Bokeem Woodbine - Shocker - Spiderman Homecoming Not to mention a bunch in Marvel TV shows Killmonger’s death was shown to be sad. It was the west which corrupted him. Many of the ones you listed were shown to have sympathetic motives. And? Sympathetic motives/situations doesn't make one less villainous. Jaquan Phoenix's Joker had sympathetic motives/origins doesn't make his Joker less villainous than Heath's or Nickerson's. People being evil for evil sake is the most lack luster, boring, (usually) one dimensional type of villain, imho.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jan 14, 2023 3:31:38 GMT
Killmonger’s death was shown to be sad. It was the west which corrupted him. Many of the ones you listed were shown to have sympathetic motives. And? Sympathetic motives/situations doesn't make one less villainous. Jaquan Phoenix's Joker had sympathetic motives/origins doesn't make his Joker less villainous than Heath's or Nickerson's. People being evil for evil sake is the most lack luster, boring, (usually) one dimensional type of villain, imho. I certainly am aware that they’re all characters, be they heroes or villains (or should be, I’ve never accused Marvel of having profound characterisation). But I think that race does dictate how evil a villain is in the MCU and how they are dealt with. The worst example is the biracial refugee in FatWS. She was only a murderous terrorist (oops!) who Captain Falcon treated as if she was a teen busted for shoplifting. It’s interesting that you mention Ledger’s Joker. His Joker’s motives or background are undetermined but his character is still fascinating. And yet he would fit into the moustache-twirling category.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jan 14, 2023 3:43:57 GMT
And? Sympathetic motives/situations doesn't make one less villainous. Jaquan Phoenix's Joker had sympathetic motives/origins doesn't make his Joker less villainous than Heath's or Nickerson's. People being evil for evil sake is the most lack luster, boring, (usually) one dimensional type of villain, imho. I certainly am aware that they’re all characters, be they heroes or villains (or should be, I’ve never accused Marvel of having profound characterisation). But I think that race does dictate how evil a villain is in the MCU and how they are dealt with. The worst example is the biracial refugee in FatWS. She was only a murderous terrorist (oops!) who Captain Falcon treated as if she was a teen busted for shoplifting. It’s interesting that you mention Ledger’s Joker. His Joker’s motives or background are undetermined but his character is still fascinating. And yet he would fit into the moustache-twirling category. I think they do it to all their main villians. (Henchmen aside). Hell even Thanos was sympathetic and even got his own movie as a villain Infinity War was basically his movie his journey. As for Heath's Joker he might be the exception to the rule for Evil for Evils sake villain but it doesn't really have to do with how his Joker was written on the page. I believe he's fascinating because Ledger elevated it. Put most any other actor in that role with same script and joker would be one note forgettable character.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 14, 2023 13:34:47 GMT
And? Sympathetic motives/situations doesn't make one less villainous. Jaquan Phoenix's Joker had sympathetic motives/origins doesn't make his Joker less villainous than Heath's or Nickerson's. People being evil for evil sake is the most lack luster, boring, (usually) one dimensional type of villain, imho. I certainly am aware that they’re all characters, be they heroes or villains (or should be, I’ve never accused Marvel of having profound characterisation). But I think that race does dictate how evil a villain is in the MCU and how they are dealt with. The worst example is the biracial refugee in FatWS. She was only a murderous terrorist (oops!) who Captain Falcon treated as if she was a teen busted for shoplifting. It’s interesting that you mention Ledger’s Joker. His Joker’s motives or background are undetermined but his character is still fascinating. And yet he would fit into the moustache-twirling category. How is Karli any worse than how the white Magneto attempted full-on genocide twice and yet both times the story ignored that and he was forgiven for it?
Luke Skywalker was also a "Murderous Terrorist" by that logic.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jan 14, 2023 14:02:46 GMT
I certainly am aware that they’re all characters, be they heroes or villains (or should be, I’ve never accused Marvel of having profound characterisation). But I think that race does dictate how evil a villain is in the MCU and how they are dealt with. The worst example is the biracial refugee in FatWS. She was only a murderous terrorist (oops!) who Captain Falcon treated as if she was a teen busted for shoplifting. It’s interesting that you mention Ledger’s Joker. His Joker’s motives or background are undetermined but his character is still fascinating. And yet he would fit into the moustache-twirling category. How is Karli any worse than how the white Magneto attempted full-on genocide twice and yet both times the story ignored that and he was forgiven for it?
Luke Skywalker was also a "Murderous Terrorist" by that logic.
Did Luke kill innocents for political gain?
|
|
moviemeisters
Sophomore
"Cinema is not a slice of life, but a piece of cake."
@moviemeisters
Posts: 190
Likes: 99
|
Post by moviemeisters on Jan 14, 2023 15:50:12 GMT
Geekvolution is probably the best for me. He knows a lot about comics, but doesn’t act like a fanboy (when something is bad in a CBM, he calls it out).
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 14, 2023 15:52:19 GMT
How is Karli any worse than how the white Magneto attempted full-on genocide twice and yet both times the story ignored that and he was forgiven for it?
Luke Skywalker was also a "Murderous Terrorist" by that logic.
Did Luke kill innocents for political gain? He blew up any civilian technicians and laborers on the Death Star (and any prisoners they may have had on there too) to advance the Rebel cause, so yes.
The Flag Smashers started their operation in the name of survival, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 14, 2023 17:18:48 GMT
Did Luke kill innocents for political gain? He blew up any civilian technicians and laborers on the Death Star (and any prisoners they may have had on there too) to advance the Rebel cause, so yes.
The Flag Smashers started their operation in the name of survival, after all.
Technically, Skywalker was recruited into an already established rebellion against a government who was willing to destroy entire planets on a whim. And whatever people Luke killed were already helping to destroy another planet. Karli started a rebellion against a government who kicked people out of homes because the actual owners came back. And the people Karli killed were people helping give food and resources to others in need. There's a massive, massive difference between these two characters. Luke killed to stop a government from killing billions. Karli killed because the government took away her free housing.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 15, 2023 0:32:48 GMT
He blew up any civilian technicians and laborers on the Death Star (and any prisoners they may have had on there too) to advance the Rebel cause, so yes.
The Flag Smashers started their operation in the name of survival, after all.
Technically, Skywalker was recruited into an already established rebellion against a government who was willing to destroy entire planets on a whim. And whatever people Luke killed were already helping to destroy another planet. Karli started a rebellion against a government who kicked people out of homes because the actual owners came back. And the people Karli killed were people helping give food and resources to others in need. There's a massive, massive difference between these two characters. Luke killed to stop a government from killing billions. Karli killed because the government took away her free housing. Actually, the GRC threw her people in camps and left them to die because they didn't want to bother trying to settle them properly although they had the means to do so. They took away everything those people earned over the 5 years instead of trying to help both the returned and those who survived the Snap.
Nothing they had was free, it was all earned. And they got nothing for their 5 years of trouble except being abandoned to die while the Returned got pampered.
So they stole the food and resources the GRC had but refused to use to help the people dying in the camps.
I don't know where this "They want Free Stuff" lie came from. If they didn't steal stuff they were denied, they'd just be dead.
It doesn't change that there were technicians and laborers doing work on the Death Star who had no choice but to work for the Empire who died because of Luke. Oh course, no one ever calls the Rebels "terrorists" because thanks to decades of propaganda we've been conditioned to think "Terrorist" means "Pure Evil".
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 15, 2023 0:41:12 GMT
Technically, Skywalker was recruited into an already established rebellion against a government who was willing to destroy entire planets on a whim. And whatever people Luke killed were already helping to destroy another planet. Karli started a rebellion against a government who kicked people out of homes because the actual owners came back. And the people Karli killed were people helping give food and resources to others in need. There's a massive, massive difference between these two characters. Luke killed to stop a government from killing billions. Karli killed because the government took away her free housing. Actually, the GRC threw her people in camps and left them to die because they didn't want to bother trying to settle them properly. They took away everything those people earned over the 5 years instead of trying to help both the returned and those who survived the Snape. Nothing they had was free, it was all earned. And they got nothing for their 5 years of trouble except being abandoned to die while the Returned got pampered.
So they stole the food and resources the GRC had but refused to use to help the people dying in the camps.
I don't know where this "They want Free Stuff" lie came from. If they didn't steal stuff they were denied, they'd just be dead.
It doesn't change that there were technicians and laborers doing work on the Death Star who had no choice but to work for the Empire who died because of Luke.
I'd like a proper quote please on where it's confirmed in the show that the GRC intentionally left people to die. Because I certainly don't recall that. What the GRC did was relocate people in camps because they had nowhere else to put them. Far better than just leaving them out in the streets yes? And if resources were difficult to distribute during that time, well what did you expect? The population just doubled overnight. The main problem with Karli is that she was attacking a government that already had its hands full trying to deal with an impossible situation. The government was not doing anything evil or even immoral. She was just pissed off that her people were getting the raw end of an impossible situation. And what did she do to retaliate? Kill civilians who were in the middle of distributing much needed resources. Luke on the other hand attacked the Death Star so they could stop it from killing more planets. If he did kill civilians in the death star (and there's no proof that there were any) they were still in the middle of trying to kill another planet. Just drop the comparison already. It's a ridiculous analogy. Magneto is a better comparison to Luke. Karli is one of the pettiest and most unreasonable villains in the MCU. Almost as unreasonable as Todd Phelps.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 15, 2023 1:04:25 GMT
Actually, the GRC threw her people in camps and left them to die because they didn't want to bother trying to settle them properly. They took away everything those people earned over the 5 years instead of trying to help both the returned and those who survived the Snape. Nothing they had was free, it was all earned. And they got nothing for their 5 years of trouble except being abandoned to die while the Returned got pampered.
So they stole the food and resources the GRC had but refused to use to help the people dying in the camps.
I don't know where this "They want Free Stuff" lie came from. If they didn't steal stuff they were denied, they'd just be dead.
It doesn't change that there were technicians and laborers doing work on the Death Star who had no choice but to work for the Empire who died because of Luke.
I'd like a proper quote please on where it's confirmed in the show that the GRC intentionally left people to die. Because I certainly don't recall that. What the GRC did was relocate people in camps because they had nowhere else to put them. Far better than just leaving them out in the streets yes? And if resources were difficult to distribute during that time, well what did you expect? The population just doubled overnight. The main problem with Karli is that she was attacking a government that already had its hands full trying to deal with an impossible situation. The government was not doing anything evil or even immoral. She was just pissed off that her people were getting the raw end of an impossible situation. And what did she do to retaliate? Kill civilians who were in the middle of distributing much needed resources. Luke on the other hand attacked the Death Star so they could stop it from killing more planets. If he did kill civilians in the death star (and there's no proof that there were any) they were still in the middle of trying to kill another planet. Just drop the comparison already. It's a ridiculous analogy. Magneto is a better comparison to Luke. Karli is one of the pettiest and most unreasonable villains in the MCU. Almost as unreasonable as Todd Phelps. The GRC could have built new housing for the people, but they left them in camps where we're told they didn't get food or medicine until the Flag Smashers started getting them those supplies. That's why there was a viral outbreak that killed that lady whose Funeral Karli went to. They tell us that the GRC abandoned them and gave them nothing.
Resources weren't hard to distribute. If they had pamper all the returned they could help those who stayed as well. The Senator at the GRC says they can't house them all, but he never explains why they can't.
It wasn't an impossible situation, the GRC people never explained why they couldn't just build new homes. They were hardly hurting for money or resources, the show stated they weren't.
She killed Guards who were helping the GRC hoard resources that the GRC wasn't even using, this was clearly stated. They were complicit in the deaths in the camps by hoarding that stuff.
Karli attacked them to save her people from death camps, she's comparable to Magneto too. But because she's called a "terrorist" and killed people complicit in the deaths of innocent people, that makes her "pure evil".
Luke killed innocent people, no matter how noble the cause was. Yet no one brings this up, nor does he ever feel bad about it. There had to be Civilian Techs and Laborers working on the Death Star. Folks who didn't like the Empire but had to work there against their wills.
You want petty and unreasonable, look at Riddler from "The Batman" or Arthur Fleck.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jan 15, 2023 8:57:42 GMT
I remember when Clerks brought that Death Star discussion up. Good to see that the debate hasn't died out after all these years.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jan 15, 2023 11:39:43 GMT
I remember when Clerks brought that Death Star discussion up. Good to see that the debate hasn't died out after all these years. "A roofer listens to this" pounds fist on heart "not to his wallet" - Blue Collar Guy - Clerks
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jan 15, 2023 13:29:00 GMT
Those immigrants in F&TWS weren’t just getting kicked out of homes (which they obviously should be), they were getting deported, right? And so they should be. It was extraordinary circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 18, 2023 4:00:41 GMT
Children will eventually learn about those in the LGBTQ+ community when they mature and start junior high school, but at four and younger most will have no idea what the sequence from Blue's Clues is trying to get across and their parents probably don't want to have this conversation till they're older. Maybe the focus of programming for preschoolers should be reading, writing, and memorization instead? They're going to see same-sex couples when they go out and walk around anywhere, seeing how folks aren't scared to hide themselves anymore. Being told "sometimes men like other men and ladies like other ladies" isn't going to destroy their minds. The child under the age of four isn't very likely to see a same-sex couple making out in public or expressing their love for each other in a way that will give the impression that they aren't any more than good friends. A child under the age of four isn't very likely to grasp the concept of being bisexual, pansexual, or transgender, questions like "I have friends who are boys and friends who are girls, does that make me bisexual or pansexual?" and "I like to wear boy clothes, am I transgender?" are not going to topics their parents are likely to want to explain thoroughly at that point in their lives, which is why it is preferred that such subjects be taught in all their complexity at an older age.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 18, 2023 4:04:26 GMT
Not very likely if the filmmakers kept the same screenplays. Ripley isn't asking to take command in Alien, one by one her crewmates get eliminated by the Xenomorph and she is forced to survive, and she does but at a cost (as its sequel Aliens illustrates). In The Terminator, Sarah Connor hooks up with Kyle Reese, a violent stranger from the future, and has to be rescued constantly till the end of the film, in the sequel she is a mentally unstable woman who wasn't the best parent and had to admit her faults. As Skaathar points out, no way would such a character be seen as an SJW's dream character. But the point remains that she disagrees with Dallas (an SJW thing), she doesn't trust Ash (an SJW thing) and ends up the defacto boss when the straight white male lead dies (an SJW thing).
And as you stated, Sarah is little more than a horror film Final Girl character in the first Terminator. There's a reason her T2 self is brought up more than her T1 self, it's because her T1 self isn't much of anything.
Her disagreeing with Dallas isn't a discussion relating to social justice, neither is her distrust of Ash, and neither is her becoming the boss of the operation after her superior dies. I brought up Sarah Connor's characterization in Terminator 2, and you chose to highlight her characterization in the original - which, you argue, would be seen as a social justice warrior figure, but as others including myself have highlighted, she wouldn't unless you adjust the screenplay.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 18, 2023 4:06:12 GMT
I feel it is a reasonable question to ask, since you don't see an issue with what people consider to be woke in entertainment - what would and what wouldn't be progressivism taken to an extreme length for you in media? What part of "I'm not going to give you examples" did you not understand?
You are the one who thinks this is an issue in popular culture. I do not. I think it is nonsense made up by insecure right wingers or outright racists/misogynists.
If something is bothering you in the world of superhero movies and TV shows, why won't you articulate what exactly it is with specific examples?
I did use a segment from the recent revival of Blue's Clues from the Nickelodeon network as an example of woke, although I will admit it doesn't count as superhero media.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 18, 2023 13:52:28 GMT
They're going to see same-sex couples when they go out and walk around anywhere, seeing how folks aren't scared to hide themselves anymore. Being told "sometimes men like other men and ladies like other ladies" isn't going to destroy their minds. The child under the age of four isn't very likely to see a same-sex couple making out in public or expressing their love for each other in a way that will give the impression that they aren't any more than good friends. A child under the age of four isn't very likely to grasp the concept of being bisexual, pansexual, or transgender, questions like "I have friends who are boys and friends who are girls, does that make me bisexual or pansexual?" and "I like to wear boy clothes, am I transgender?" are not going to topics their parents are likely to want to explain thoroughly at that point in their lives, which is why it is preferred that such subjects be taught in all their complexity at an older age. A child under 4 isn't very likely to see a heterosexual couple making out in public or expressing love either in a way that they'd perfectly understand.
Modern parents should be willing to talk to their kid about questions they have, even if the answer is "When you're young you're not sure what you want to do, just have fun and when you're older maybe you'll know more."
It's not going to destroy their minds.
|
|