The super hero genre is an individualist power fantasy. It’s about giving power to individuals, whereas in real life power rests in groups and systems. That includes the power to effect social change.
It’s an escapist response to living in an impossibly complicated world where we want to do good, but we feel powerless and unable to.
The story of a character organizing a series of protests wouldn’t really benefit from that character having super powers. Using super powers (physical force) to push political beliefs is terrorism.
So the constraints of the genre mean that social messages have to exist alongside the A-plot power struggle. And they frequently do.
Black Panther is about abandoning isolationism and using a government’s power and wealth to help people.
The Avengers have an unmissable theme of not supporting the military-industrial complex. Same with Iron Man.
Common Marvel villains include fascists, bigots, businessmen, and corrupt law enforcement, in addition to the madmen and evil gods.
I’ve seen this point made a few times, and it just reeks of someone backfilling a reason to hate something popular without actually spending a moment to, you know, watch that thing.
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Physical force in this case means violence. Unless you expect them to only use their powers to do things like save kittens from trees, but I don’t think that addresses the original point.
Yep, it’s also worth noting that the Avengers organisation is infiltrated, and the actual superheroes end up fighting against the organisation they started.
Spider Man in particular is often at odds with the authorities.
It can still end up as a conservative power fantasy. Kevin Sorbo invaded Space Iraq to stop space weapons of mass destruction while being hated by the government he tried to build.
Your points only go skin deep and are surface level details of these films. These superhero stories are ultimately about maintaining the status quo. They never use their super special awesome powers to bring about meaningful or real change that would benefit their societies and never address the underlying issues that drive the “bad guys” to do “bad guy stuff”.
So you judge the movies without seeing them and you respond to my comment without reading it?
They never use their super special awesome powers to bring about meaningful or real change that would benefit their societies
This is what my comment was about. You can’t make social change with super powers. Super powers are a tool of physical force. I’m sure someone could write a great story about a super hero leading a violent and justified revolution, but you can’t possibly expect that to be a hallmark of the genre.
and never address the underlying issues that drive the “bad guys” to do “bad guy stuff”.
That’s categorically false.
First of all, most of the villains don’t have sympathetic goals. You want them to address the underlying issue with Red Skull trying to spread fascism? Do you have a problem with them maintaining the status quo against Loki trying to conquer the Earth?
Second of all, they do address it when applicable.
Both Black Panther movies are about reconciling the antagonist’s viewpoints.
In Age of Ultron, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver believe that the Avengers are a tool of western imperialism. When the Avengers are willing to sacrifice themselves to save Sokovia, Scarlet Witch joins the team.
Helmut Zemo has a similar perspective. They never reconcile that, but he succeeds in destroying the Avengers. The moral ambiguity is part of the point.
They are constantly addressing the things you’re bringing up. Like I honestly don’t think you paid attention to any of these movies, because you seem to have missed some very obvious themes running through the entire MCU.
Tony Stark’s whole character arc in the first movie is about reforming his life to make the world a better place. He stops the homicidal villain with his Iron Man armor, and then he effects actual change as a civilian, because that’s how actual change works.
Did you miss Falcon and the Winter Soldier, where Captain America gives a big speech saying exactly what you are saying, that they need to do more to address the problems that created the villains? Or the entire arc of that character, where he realizes he’s worthy of taking up the mantle not because of any super special awesome powers, but because of his desire to use the platform to improve society?
This is what my comment was about. You can’t make social change with super powers. Super powers are a tool of physical force. I’m sure someone could write a great story about a super hero leading a violent and justified revolution, but you can’t possibly expect that to be a hallmark of the genre.
One of the marvel movies has a line about how Stark Industries is now the world leader in clean energy thanks to his arc reactor, that would have a massive societal impact and upend existing power structures, but it’d also make for a pretty boring film.
While there would be some people who’d watch RDJ sit in meetings for 2 hours making agreements, it wouldn’t be the same amount that’d watch him put on the suit and punch people into orbit.
Edit: Actually, on the other hand in Secret Invasion
spoiler
the US president has the UK prime minster assassinated on live television
And even in universe they seem to have glossed over that.
So you judge the movies without seeing them and you respond to my comment without reading it?
I’ve seen them and I’ve read your comment. 🤷
First of all, most of the villains don’t have sympathetic goals.
Um… they are literally more often than not complex villains designed to be sympathetic to the audience, doing things “the wrong way” for reasons that the audience can relate to. Sure, you can cherry pick the one of few that are just evil because, like red skull. How about killmonger, thanos, the green goblin, doc oc, gorr the god butcher, magneto, ra’s al ghul. Even the example you provide, Loki, is one of these sympathetic villains.
Tony Stark’s whole character arc in the first movie is about reforming his life to make the world a better place.
In all of the Iron Man movies it plays out as a cover for his ego issues and trying to prove to Pepper Potts that his ego feeding is worth all the trouble he has caused in their relationship, it isn’t until End Game when he sacrifices himself that he completes the arc and acts with selfless motivation.
Did you miss Falcon and the Winter Soldier, where Captain America gives a big speech saying exactly what you are saying, that they need to do more to address the problems that created the villains?
Great that this theme was featured once in an unpopular one season show that only on Disney+ … totally applies to all the movies and changes their underlying themes
And then… like… after his big speech… did he do it? 🤔
Um… they are literally more often than not complex villains designed to be sympathetic to the audience, doing things “the wrong way” for reasons that the audience can relate to.
I agree they do a good job of making the villains sympathetic, but their goals aren’t. We can appreciate the complexity of Loki’s relationships with Thor and Odin, but that doesn’t qualify for your criticism of wanting the heroes to “address the underlying issue”.
Same goes for Thanos. His righteousness is what motivates him, but that doesn’t make him any less insane. There’s no reasoning with the Mad Titan (except in that one What If…? episode).
it isn’t until End Game when he sacrifices himself that he completes the arc and acts with selfless motivation.
He literally does the same thing at the end of Avengers. And in the meantime he redirects all the wealth of his giant corporation away from making weapons and towards things that benefit the world, like clean energy.
And then… like… after his big speech… did he do it?
Did he… personally supercede the governments of the world and force them to change their policy on refugees? Dude. He is a man in a wingsuit. He doesn’t have that ability.
That’s why this whole argument is bunk. The complaint boils down to: “Why didn’t these characters drop everything they’re doing and start a violent revolution instead of dealing with the problems that are right in front of them?”
That complaint has no merit, because it can be applied to almost every film ever. Why didn’t Andy Dufresne start a riot and force prison reform? Why didn’t Simba implement a social welfare program for the hyenas who helped murder his father? Why are all these high school students going to high school instead of starting a revolution?
These are silly questions when you apply them to other movies. They’re even sillier when you apply them to MCU movies, which overall do a pretty decent job of addressing societal ills alongside the escapism.
😂 my man, I literally pointed out a trope of superhero films… this is like if I pointed out how cartooN physics is different than real life, “ACHTUALLY CARTOONS DO A PRETTY DECENT JOB BECAUSE THINGS STILL FALL DOWN”… 🤦
You are fooling yourself about Marvel movies doing a decent job of addressing societies ills, though. They’re literally marketed to the widest audience and lowest common denominator possible, but I guess what one considers a “decent job” is pretty subjective. That’s fine though, they’re cashgrab mass market movies, no one expects anything more.
And it just doesn’t seem like you know or understand what a sympathetic villain is… it doesn’t mean they are “right” or not actually a villain… 🤦
That complaint has no merit, because it can be applied to almost every film ever. Why didn’t Andy Dufresne start a riot and force prison reform? Why didn’t Simba implement a social welfare program for the hyenas who helped murder his father? Why are all these high school students going to high school instead of starting a revolution?
Um… what?? Andy Dufresne didn’t have super special awesome magic powers…? Lmao. And the Simba question is honestly a good one. Why didn’t he? He’s literally their ruler with that authority.
How would Sam Wilson change international law? That’s what they’d need to do to address the root cause that created the Flag Smashers. For that particular challenge, he’s not much more powerful than Andy Dufresne. The one thing he does have is a platform, which he uses, which is something you said never happens.
And it just doesn’t seem like you know or understand what a sympathetic villain is… it doesn’t mean they are “right” or not actually a villain…
And you seem to be missing the part where I’m differentiating between the villain being sympathetic and their cause being sympathetic. The former (which you brought up) isn’t relevant to your original point, where the underlying issue needs to be addressed. It doesn’t matter how sympathetic Thanos is. The underlying issue is that he’s a mass-murdering madman, so how is it a valid complaint to say that the heroes never address the underlying issues?
Suppose you took Thanos at face value and say the underlying cause is the concept of limited resources. What would that story look like, anyway? The Avengers alter reality to address the very concept of limited resources, creating a utopia across the entire universe? That sounds a little inaccessible.
I think what you’re missing about the super hero genre is that their powers are generally limited in scope. They can’t just reshape the world (except in that one What If…? episode called “What If Kahouri Reshaped the World?”). They struggle just like everyone else, and then sometimes through great effort they can save the day. That’s what makes the stories good.
Anyway, I realized as I was writing the Simba thing that it actually was a good point, so I prepared an answer.
The actual reason is that in the Lion King universe, “the Circle of Life” isn’t a complex series of interconnected, self-regulating systems like it is in real life. In-universe, it’s the dogma of an environmentalist death cult that holds together a fragile ecosystem. Any animal that doesn’t adhere to the death cult’s strictures is exiled from their society, like the hyenas.
And like, the environmentalism is fine, but forcing the zebras, antelopes, and wildebeests to actively participate in a system where their role is to be eaten makes it a death cult.
The system is explored in the sequel series Lion Guard, where Simba’s son goes around the Pride Lands using his super powerful Roar to maintain the status quo. Like if an alligator tries to eat too many of the wrong animal, the Lion Guard shows up and exiles them. Conversely, when a hyena agrees to adhere to the Circle of Life, she’s welcome in the Pride Lands. So it’s really a religious/cultural disagreement. Hyenas can’t be allowed in unless they’re willing to assimilate.
There’s a disturbing conservative metaphor there, although the rest of it smells like a planned economy. Very authoritarian either way, but then again it’s not called Lion President.
I dunno, I feel like I would get a lot of joy from watching shareholders beg for their lives, as some god-like being casually rips through them. Ever seen Dogma?
The super hero genre is an individualist power fantasy. It’s about giving power to individuals, whereas in real life power rests in groups and systems. That includes the power to effect social change.
It’s an escapist response to living in an impossibly complicated world where we want to do good, but we feel powerless and unable to.
The story of a character organizing a series of protests wouldn’t really benefit from that character having super powers. Using super powers (physical force) to push political beliefs is terrorism.
So the constraints of the genre mean that social messages have to exist alongside the A-plot power struggle. And they frequently do.
Black Panther is about abandoning isolationism and using a government’s power and wealth to help people.
The Avengers have an unmissable theme of not supporting the military-industrial complex. Same with Iron Man.
Common Marvel villains include fascists, bigots, businessmen, and corrupt law enforcement, in addition to the madmen and evil gods.
I’ve seen this point made a few times, and it just reeks of someone backfilling a reason to hate something popular without actually spending a moment to, you know, watch that thing.
You were going strong but this is just inaccurate unless you want to define all use of force, regardless of justification, as terrorism.
Physical force in this case means violence. Unless you expect them to only use their powers to do things like save kittens from trees, but I don’t think that addresses the original point.
So how is that inaccurate?
Yep, it’s also worth noting that the Avengers organisation is infiltrated, and the actual superheroes end up fighting against the organisation they started.
Spider Man in particular is often at odds with the authorities.
And that’s not even mentioning the new season of Daredevil, which could not under any circumstances be described as “pro-cop”.
It can still end up as a conservative power fantasy. Kevin Sorbo invaded Space Iraq to stop space weapons of mass destruction while being hated by the government he tried to build.
What super hero film was that?
It was Andromeda, a TV show.
In real life, power lies in the hands of the Mafia.
“I’m a Virgo” touches on some of that, including having a character with a power related to rousing speeches who organizes community action.
Your points only go skin deep and are surface level details of these films. These superhero stories are ultimately about maintaining the status quo. They never use their super special awesome powers to bring about meaningful or real change that would benefit their societies and never address the underlying issues that drive the “bad guys” to do “bad guy stuff”.
So you judge the movies without seeing them and you respond to my comment without reading it?
This is what my comment was about. You can’t make social change with super powers. Super powers are a tool of physical force. I’m sure someone could write a great story about a super hero leading a violent and justified revolution, but you can’t possibly expect that to be a hallmark of the genre.
That’s categorically false.
First of all, most of the villains don’t have sympathetic goals. You want them to address the underlying issue with Red Skull trying to spread fascism? Do you have a problem with them maintaining the status quo against Loki trying to conquer the Earth?
Second of all, they do address it when applicable.
Both Black Panther movies are about reconciling the antagonist’s viewpoints.
In Age of Ultron, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver believe that the Avengers are a tool of western imperialism. When the Avengers are willing to sacrifice themselves to save Sokovia, Scarlet Witch joins the team.
Helmut Zemo has a similar perspective. They never reconcile that, but he succeeds in destroying the Avengers. The moral ambiguity is part of the point.
They are constantly addressing the things you’re bringing up. Like I honestly don’t think you paid attention to any of these movies, because you seem to have missed some very obvious themes running through the entire MCU.
Tony Stark’s whole character arc in the first movie is about reforming his life to make the world a better place. He stops the homicidal villain with his Iron Man armor, and then he effects actual change as a civilian, because that’s how actual change works.
Did you miss Falcon and the Winter Soldier, where Captain America gives a big speech saying exactly what you are saying, that they need to do more to address the problems that created the villains? Or the entire arc of that character, where he realizes he’s worthy of taking up the mantle not because of any super special awesome powers, but because of his desire to use the platform to improve society?
One of the marvel movies has a line about how Stark Industries is now the world leader in clean energy thanks to his arc reactor, that would have a massive societal impact and upend existing power structures, but it’d also make for a pretty boring film.
While there would be some people who’d watch RDJ sit in meetings for 2 hours making agreements, it wouldn’t be the same amount that’d watch him put on the suit and punch people into orbit.
Edit: Actually, on the other hand in Secret Invasion
spoiler
the US president has the UK prime minster assassinated on live television
And even in universe they seem to have glossed over that.
The problem is… We’re handing over our sovereignty to them !!!
Lmao wow what a cool-headed response.
I’ve seen them and I’ve read your comment. 🤷
Um… they are literally more often than not complex villains designed to be sympathetic to the audience, doing things “the wrong way” for reasons that the audience can relate to. Sure, you can cherry pick the one of few that are just evil because, like red skull. How about killmonger, thanos, the green goblin, doc oc, gorr the god butcher, magneto, ra’s al ghul. Even the example you provide, Loki, is one of these sympathetic villains.
In all of the Iron Man movies it plays out as a cover for his ego issues and trying to prove to Pepper Potts that his ego feeding is worth all the trouble he has caused in their relationship, it isn’t until End Game when he sacrifices himself that he completes the arc and acts with selfless motivation.
Great that this theme was featured once in an unpopular one season show that only on Disney+ … totally applies to all the movies and changes their underlying themes
And then… like… after his big speech… did he do it? 🤔
I agree they do a good job of making the villains sympathetic, but their goals aren’t. We can appreciate the complexity of Loki’s relationships with Thor and Odin, but that doesn’t qualify for your criticism of wanting the heroes to “address the underlying issue”.
Same goes for Thanos. His righteousness is what motivates him, but that doesn’t make him any less insane. There’s no reasoning with the Mad Titan (except in that one What If…? episode).
He literally does the same thing at the end of Avengers. And in the meantime he redirects all the wealth of his giant corporation away from making weapons and towards things that benefit the world, like clean energy.
Did he… personally supercede the governments of the world and force them to change their policy on refugees? Dude. He is a man in a wingsuit. He doesn’t have that ability.
That’s why this whole argument is bunk. The complaint boils down to: “Why didn’t these characters drop everything they’re doing and start a violent revolution instead of dealing with the problems that are right in front of them?”
That complaint has no merit, because it can be applied to almost every film ever. Why didn’t Andy Dufresne start a riot and force prison reform? Why didn’t Simba implement a social welfare program for the hyenas who helped murder his father? Why are all these high school students going to high school instead of starting a revolution?
These are silly questions when you apply them to other movies. They’re even sillier when you apply them to MCU movies, which overall do a pretty decent job of addressing societal ills alongside the escapism.
😂 my man, I literally pointed out a trope of superhero films… this is like if I pointed out how cartooN physics is different than real life, “ACHTUALLY CARTOONS DO A PRETTY DECENT JOB BECAUSE THINGS STILL FALL DOWN”… 🤦
You are fooling yourself about Marvel movies doing a decent job of addressing societies ills, though. They’re literally marketed to the widest audience and lowest common denominator possible, but I guess what one considers a “decent job” is pretty subjective. That’s fine though, they’re cashgrab mass market movies, no one expects anything more.
And it just doesn’t seem like you know or understand what a sympathetic villain is… it doesn’t mean they are “right” or not actually a villain… 🤦
Um… what?? Andy Dufresne didn’t have super special awesome magic powers…? Lmao. And the Simba question is honestly a good one. Why didn’t he? He’s literally their ruler with that authority.
How would Sam Wilson change international law? That’s what they’d need to do to address the root cause that created the Flag Smashers. For that particular challenge, he’s not much more powerful than Andy Dufresne. The one thing he does have is a platform, which he uses, which is something you said never happens.
And you seem to be missing the part where I’m differentiating between the villain being sympathetic and their cause being sympathetic. The former (which you brought up) isn’t relevant to your original point, where the underlying issue needs to be addressed. It doesn’t matter how sympathetic Thanos is. The underlying issue is that he’s a mass-murdering madman, so how is it a valid complaint to say that the heroes never address the underlying issues?
Suppose you took Thanos at face value and say the underlying cause is the concept of limited resources. What would that story look like, anyway? The Avengers alter reality to address the very concept of limited resources, creating a utopia across the entire universe? That sounds a little inaccessible.
I think what you’re missing about the super hero genre is that their powers are generally limited in scope. They can’t just reshape the world (except in that one What If…? episode called “What If Kahouri Reshaped the World?”). They struggle just like everyone else, and then sometimes through great effort they can save the day. That’s what makes the stories good.
Anyway, I realized as I was writing the Simba thing that it actually was a good point, so I prepared an answer.
The actual reason is that in the Lion King universe, “the Circle of Life” isn’t a complex series of interconnected, self-regulating systems like it is in real life. In-universe, it’s the dogma of an environmentalist death cult that holds together a fragile ecosystem. Any animal that doesn’t adhere to the death cult’s strictures is exiled from their society, like the hyenas.
And like, the environmentalism is fine, but forcing the zebras, antelopes, and wildebeests to actively participate in a system where their role is to be eaten makes it a death cult.
The system is explored in the sequel series Lion Guard, where Simba’s son goes around the Pride Lands using his super powerful Roar to maintain the status quo. Like if an alligator tries to eat too many of the wrong animal, the Lion Guard shows up and exiles them. Conversely, when a hyena agrees to adhere to the Circle of Life, she’s welcome in the Pride Lands. So it’s really a religious/cultural disagreement. Hyenas can’t be allowed in unless they’re willing to assimilate.
There’s a disturbing conservative metaphor there, although the rest of it smells like a planned economy. Very authoritarian either way, but then again it’s not called Lion President.
lmao
You are not paying attention to this discussion in the slightest
If you say so
There’s a TV trope for that: Reed Richards is Useless
It has a list of reasons mostly narrative and marketing driven, so if the source material doesn’t allow it then the films wouldn’t either.
That would make for a pretty boring movie, I think.
Avengers: Senate hearings on UBI
Justice League: “Superman says implement UBI or he’ll heat-vision you where you stand.”
(I know Supe would never, but maybe Congress wouldn’t!)
Injustice Supe will.
Reminds me of all the space politics nonsense in the star wars prequels.
I dunno, I feel like I would get a lot of joy from watching shareholders beg for their lives, as some god-like being casually rips through them. Ever seen Dogma?
You may enjoy the films of Neil Breen!