Ironically and not, that’s exactly what Iron Man brought Nu-Spiderman to do in the CW movie. Government is crying about control, so a war profiteer recruits, illegally extricates from the country, arms and indoctrinates a kid to collaborate in a paramilitary action to oppress the following groups represented: war veterans, the elderly, women, foreigners, scientists, disabled, performance athletes, amputees and people seeking asylum.
Geez. Considering the previous movie was about a nazi takeover of the US, seems like someone shoud have seen things coming!
They made Spiderman rich in the movies because the writers a rich and think writing about a poor beneath them.
Other assholes include: Thor who is a dumb over privlaged fratboy who causes interndimentonal wars by acting like a dumb frat boy.
Ironman who was not only a war profiter who gave one the most powerful weapons platforms in the world to some teenager without any kind of oversight whose main story arc involves him fucking over poor people
Captain marvel is a brutal space pig who uses their powers to intimidate indigenous people on whatever planet she is on. Uses a weapon that can level city blocks and her character progression is that she needs to be more emotional. Plus she was fine committing genocide on the skrulls until she found out they had women.
Wakanda is a monarchist enthnostate presented as a utopia that tortures and murders outsiders and is presented in such a way that if it was the US the movie would be labeled as propaganda. Plus using ‘colonizer’ as a slur to call the people helping them even though they were never colonized
The eternals are boring
Wonda is everything that justifies the hate of mutants. But it’s not her fault so she gets an pass. But it highlights everything stupid about the gay and minority parallel. No hates black or lbgtq people because they can think a hundred peope to death.
Almost all of these people are sone kind of aristocrat.
Black Widow spends all of her movie rescuing like 12 people while letting and entire gulag of men die in an avalanche without even flinching. Not to mention the fact that her and Hawkeye worked for the CIA and probably overthrow countless democracies.
The guardians of the galaxy employ a dangerous psychopathic racoon who thinks nothing of murder.
The least aggregous is Captain America, a living propaganda poster. Antman, one of the only poor person appearing in End Game is treated like a joke even though he should be the most dangerous one among them.
USAgent was treated like crap before he did anything wrong to the point I kind of felt bad for him
Getting rid of Zemos direct Nazi ties makes him almost a hero. And those ties are less then SHIELD’s and less then that of most countries
Also, do not forget the beef between Disney and DeSantis only started when people saw they were working together. And only do scenes involving any kind of homosexuality in such away as to edit them out for whatever dictatorship they want to impress.
Also the original MCU Quicksilver was a thousand times better then yet another quipy hero that we don’t need. Plus asshole Quicksilver is closer source material.
Edit: wtf am i getting down voted for?
I always think back to this one quote, something like
You can tell the morals of a society by the myths they tell themselves. We tell stories of heroes who save the world then quietly go back to their day job until they’re needed again
I read that and I actually think positively on it. To me, i read it as the good person doesnt stand by and do nothing, they fight evil as it crops up, even at the cost of their peaceful life they desire. Im not sure I can agree to any one type of story them we tell though. Its pretty varied.
I’m curious, what’s you’re take on that then?
Liberalism in a nutshell.
We just want an insurance policy, not for anything to change. We want to protect what we’ve built, write off the horrors of the world as isolated events like a collapsing building or asteroid impact. They stop the villains from rocking the boat, even when the villains have a morally superior position because “you have to do it the right way”
But the heroes aren’t too morally superior… They can’t make us feel bad. They do something about problems in front of them, and then go back to their job. They don’t use their power to actually address root issues, they don’t try to lead, they just defend the status quo
But, then heroes started to get more complex. Batman is a billionaire who fights crime, despite having the ability to actually fix the crime problem in Gotham, he just fights. He suffered a random act of violence as a child, and so that instilled a sense of justice. He works with the police and uses his wealth… In any way except actually changing things
Spiderman learned the hard way noblesse oblige, that his power gives him the responsibility to use it well. And he does, he saves people around him while also actively working to make the world better at his day job - inside the system. He’s basically an activist
Then you have captain America, who puts his sense of justice above the system… But he mostly works inside it, but sometimes it’s infiltrated and he fights or it’s wrong and he stands against it
But when you get to more recent heroes, they start to get dark. The system is broken, so they work outside it as best they can. They don’t have day jobs anymore. They kill sometimes. They make sacrifices, they fail. They question themselves.
People scream at them “where were you when we needed you?” And they explain the answer to that question to the readers through character development, even though there’s nothing they can say to the victims
The heroes aren’t infallible, they aren’t strong or wise enough, they constantly struggle, and they fail. This isn’t a hobby for them, they don’t go back to work. But they keep trying, especially at great personal cost
And they carry every failure with them as penance for not being good enough to have saved us when we needed them
Wow, now I understand why I hated all those movies.
there are plenty of reasons to hate those movies. this is just another.
superheroes are “benign” fascists, it’s fiction that would never work. Even in the gooest, saccharine interpretations I would be the one criticizing superman lol
I question how many comics you have read then since many of these characters were created as anti-fascist figures. Captain America, Superman, and The X-Men for example were all vocally against fascism, bigotry, racism, and more.
Captain America for instance has a history of being in opposition to his government on issues around civil rights. He has always been an icon of anti-fascism.
Of course non-media literate people and just people who only know the character from posters and t shirts see the stars and stripes and think he’s simply a “patriotic” hero.
As far as whether it would “work” in reality, well I think that is beside the point. These are about fantasy, myth making and legends. They are not supposed to be real. They explore ideas around what makes a hero with layers of fantasy and unreality that make the stories unpractical for our real world and to dismiss the idea they explore because of that misses the point of the art. But…
The moral questions that would arise if they were to exist the real world have also been handled really well by the comic book medium, books like The Watchmen, Rising Stars, V for Vendetta, Miracleman (pretty much anything by Alan Moore tbh), and more.
Comics and superheroes are modern day myth making, and the value of that shouldn’t be dismissed. Captain America, Spider-Man, The X-Men and more have inspired generations to view altruistic acts and things to be admired and aspired to. And the value of that should not be underestimated.
I agree. When the heroes are vigilantes, they’re only acting as vigilantes because either the police are corrupt, or the police are overwhelmed.
I am not a Batman fan, and love to joke that if he and the other Gotham billionaires paid a reasonable tax, Gotham wouldn’t be such a hellscape. But, the Batman theme is that the police are frequently corrupt and always overwhelmed, so a civilian needs to step up and protect the people.
Spiderman’s whole deal is “with great power comes great responsibility.” He puts his life on the line to protect people, and mostly from small-scale disasters like a run-away train.
What this comic gets absolutely wrong is that comic book heroes never try to stop someone from changing the status quo if they’re doing it peacefully. The only ones they try to stop are the ones trying to do it by force.
Also it bleeds into other media. Like the kid’s show Paw Patrol. I am obviously far too old to watch the show and while I have enjoyed watching kids stuff from time to time I just haven’t been able to spare rhe time for that one.
However based on a cursory knowledge of it and reviews from youtubers the show has some really bad ideas in the subtext.
Firstly the shows basic services in the community are fully privatized. They even have some scenes where outsiders want to call the cops or some other local service only to be reminded by locals that in that community they are done by this kid and his dogs.
Also that kid who commands paw patrol? He is like the avengers in that he lives quite apart from the community he is supposed to be serving.
This is akin to how billionaires don’t just live far away… they live REALLY far away and secluded from most people and don’t interact with them directly. This is despite the fact that they control extremely critical assets to the community, they are not just isolated from the community, they are also unaccountable to them.
So, paw patrol is a libertarian dytopia?
Pretty much.
Ironically Superman is one of the least fascy superheroes, at least when written by anyone who understands the character.
Tbh they’re just misrepresenting the argument. Most (famous) superheros aren’t fascists. They spend a lot of time punching imperialists in the face at a minimum.
What they represent is a social desire for the hero-figure, the strong-man, to fix society’s problems instead of collective and democratic action. That’s the dilemma people like Alan Moore are pointing out when they talk about how comics can enable fascism.
Fair enough, but watchmen is cool
It’s cool because it deconstructs the whole thing, down to having a quasi god as one of the heroes
And having Captain America be The Comedian, because American exceptionalism is a joke.
The Comedian was based on Peacemaker. The initial pitch was that all of the Watchmen would be DC’s (at the time) recently-acquired Charlton characters. DC nixed the idea, so Moore just tweaked them and renamed them.
Some versions do try to tell a more complex story, like The Boys and Invincible. My Hero Academia is also there as an anime
Doesn’t Invincible literally work with and for a secret government military organization?
Season 3 spoilers:
Tap for spoiler
Mark realizes Cecil is using them and nearly kills him, leaving Pentagon. There’s an epic episode showing Cecil’s past
Yeah I haven’t actually seen season three yet, but I have read all the comics and I got to tell you he keeps working with them.
Only at first, when he was naive.
then
The shadowy organization betrayed him because hes not fully has many, and invincible basically starts fighting them while still fighting the impotent bad guys.
I like One Punch Man. While he is a hero. The fact that he does it for fun and is frustrated at being so powerful makes it really stand out.
I love OPM, however I think it’s more about shonen anime stereotypes rather than western superhero stereotypes
Saitama is hilarious in the driest way possible, which is a humor that not everyone can appreciate
The pilot episode where he meets a crazed villain who loses his shit when Saitama tells him ‘I am a hero for fun’, and goes on a rant on what a stupid backstory that is… before he gets blown to bits with one single punch.
The running joke of him always losing at video games because he just does the same move again and again.
His entire relationship with Genos
Umbrella academy?
Loving invincible currently
That’s the problem with superhero stories. The story needs to begin and end with the world in a state similar to our own (for relatabilitiy and sequel potential) despite the vast power of its protagonist, so the hero must ultimately be concerned with preserving the status quo.
It’s one of the reasons why superhero movies are in decline now that all the most famous storylines have already been adapted, and why comic book sales have been going downhill ever since they started taking themselves seriously.
Also, often, the status quo they’re trying to preserve is “Earth is not being invaded by aliens”, or “this supervillain is not currently on a rampage”.
As for movies about changing the status quo, that’s really what the whole X-Men comic has been about since it came out in the 1960s. The whole theme there is “mutants aren’t accepted by society, but they want to be, so they put their lives on the line to try to prove mutants are good”. Over the years mutants have stood in for jews, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, etc.
Sometimes the X-Men are fighting off supervillains or aliens. But, often they’re fighting off an oppressive government that is trying to wipe them out. So, the status quo they’re trying to change is “the people hate mutants and the government wants to wipe them out”.
You just reminded me of one of the Life is Strange fanfics I read once. Where Max and Chloe have these time and space warping powers and just go the opposite way, they determine the status quo is fucked and needs to be rectified globally and then start doing it in an actually thoughtful sensible way. (There was some shadowy confusing adversity but I can’t recall its nature)
Sam Raimi Spider-man spent most of his time saving people from imminent harm and stopping armed robberies. He fought the CEO of a company that developed military technology who was killing people to hang onto his position of power and wealth. He then fought a mad scientist that spent the entire movie putting innocent people in danger, attacking Spider-man and ultimately risking the deaths of millions out of an obsession and the influence his technology had over him. In the third one… he turns into a bit of a dick for a while because he’s being partially controlled by an alien, and the theme for all three villains is revenge. At no point in the trilogy does he target anyone who is trying to make a political or social change, just people that are attacking him personally and/or putting innocent bystanders in harm’s way.
In the Amazing Spider-Man movies he pretty much just fights a guy who is trying to turn everyone into lizards, his own stalker who just happens to get electricity powers, and the rich brat that blames him for not giving him blood samples which he thinks will cure his disease (they won’t, but the reason for the refusal is still poorly defined).
MCU Spider-man gets recruited to fight half the avengers, which might play into this if the civil war was about a larger societal issue, but it wasn’t. As far as the movie presents it, the entire issue is about the rules governing the avengers themselves and the fate of Bucky. Arguably the Captain America side is presented more favorably, but that too would go against the point the comic is making because they are the ones resisting the status quo and sticking it to the man.
And in his actual movies, MCU spider-man fights a guy who is flooding the streets with high tech weapons just for the money, a con man that’s willing to kill innocent people to make himself look like a superhero, and all those villains from the previous continuities who is actually just trying to send home.
Maybe spider-man was a bad example. Surely the rest of the MCU must be pro-government propaganda, right?
Iron Man 1: Rich selfish asshole has a wake up call, realizes that harm he’s done by filling the world with weapons, immediately exits the arms industry and dedicates his company to developing peaceful technologies to help the world. Uses the technology he developed to intervene in conflicts where civilians are getting massacred and no one is willing to do anything about it. Defies the US military to do it. The villain is a greedy executive that tries to kill Tony to seize control of the company and continue building weapons.
Iron Man 2: Tony is continuing his policy of protecting people in war zones, in defiance of an angry US government. The government tries to steal his suit for the military, and works with a rival company to develop drone versions which Tony destroys.
Iron Man 3: Wouldn’t you know it, another company developing military tech is run by an evil guy and is killing innocent people.
Captain America: Literally fighting Nazis.
Captain America 2: Fighting the Nazis that have infiltrated the US government.
Captain America 3: Fighting to save his friend in defiance of a government that would rather kill him than bring him in peacefully.
Thor: Shakespeare in space, plus Thor learns humility.
Thor 2: Blowing up the universe is bad.
Thor 3: Thor literally helps start a revolution to overthrow a dictator.
Thor 4: The gods are assholes who should care more about people.
The Incredible Hulk: Science man good, military guy bad. Smashy smashy.
Ant Man: An ex con who went to jail for hacking a corrupt corporation gets recruited by a scientist who helps him take and an evil CEO of a corrupt corporation.
Alright, I’m not listing any more, there’s a million of these things, you get the idea.
The Falcon movie, set with a background of black oppression and empowerment, is about how General President Ross is really a good guy who loves his country and family even though he did medical experiments on and then enslaved a guy.
The villain.
Disney hasn’t actually done that bad a job at messaging so far but that’s… Pretty bad. And suspiciously timed.
Iron Man 1: Rich selfish asshole has a wake up call
More precisely, the wake-up call being: the weapons that he sold to the US military as a war profiteer have ended up in the hands of the enemies and he gets blown up with a missile that has his name on it. It was rather on point.
Captain America 2: Fighting the Nazis that have infiltrated the US government.
…my memory must be shit; I don’t remember Captain America ever fighting DOGE…
doge is a recent name for hydra.
I took this to be about MCU specifically, so I’ll skip the first two Spiderman film continuities.
Homecoming - the villain is a lower class guy who has been screwed by the fallout of the Avengers and is making money to improve his family off of it. He is somewhat sympathetic, but the moral of the story is trust in the authorities because a well meaning guy will fix the hiccup in the system, and responding to systemic issues with force is wrong. Could be argued the real villain is Tony Stark.
I did not see the remaining MCU Spidermen, but they look to focus on more otherworldly Meta-continuity forces.
Black Panther - the villain is an extremist with a point. Killmongers desire for revenge and modes go too far. He should be better, like the royal family are. Luckily Killmonger inspires the legitimate authority to make a choice to do more and be more benign. Maybe he just should have trusted in the legitimate authorities all along and stayed inside the social bounds… Which had not made change until his use of force and theft?
I have seen the Iron Men, but not recently enough to engage with.
Civil War: the authorities want something that is controversial, but it turns out they weren’t the legitimate authorities, but secret Nazis trying to bring harm to everyone. The legitimate authorities had folks best interests at heart and fix everything. Could go either way, since forming a terrorist cell to fight authority is pretty radical.
The Thanos films: Thanos’ malthusianism is presented as bad, but not actually as wrong. There have been plenty of ways at this point to show that Malthusianism isn’t accurate, (and wasn’t actually an original part of the character) but it was put in here and not debated or shown to be wrong in itself, just “bad that he did it”. Malthusian ideals are strongly linked to right wing ideologies (as well as some nutty far left ones) that have been ascendent in relatively core right wing parties in the last 20 years.
Black Panther - the villain is an extremist with a point. Killmongers desire for revenge and modes go too far. He should be better, like the royal family are. Luckily Killmonger inspires the legitimate authority to make a choice to do more and be more benign. Maybe he just should have trusted in the legitimate authorities all along and stayed inside the social bounds… Which had not made change until his use of force and theft?
That basic theme and tension is present in a lot of black American discourse, of how much to work within the rules of the system and how much to actually violate the rules of the system in order to effectuate change. You can place a lot of the black civil rights icons onto the spectrum of how to use law breaking or violence as means to protect or advance black rights.
During the abolitionist era before the Civil War, David Walker called on slaves to physically overpower and literally kill their masters, and Henry Highland Garnet advocated for violent rebellion to overturn slavery.
Post-emancipation, anti-lynching advocate Ida Wells called on black families to arm themselves, to provide the protection that the law would not. Malcolm X also advocated for self defense, and predicted violence as the inevitable consequences of continued oppression of black Americans (which some took to mean he also advocated for initiating violence to advance black rights “by any means necessary,” but I personally think those views ignore nuance and context).
Each of these controversial figures often had a more nonviolent contemporary who advocated for less violent means to win hearts and minds.
Black Panther’s writer and director, Ryan Coogler, definitely knows all of this. He’s steeped in black history, both the history itself and the history of the art and literature and discourse around those topics. Placing that conflict and tension at the center of a freaking Marvel movie, designed to be a high budget blockbuster, was basically a work of genius.
The movie itself ultimately takes the side that coexistence is a better goal than reversing the subjugation, to oppress the former oppressor. But that doesn’t really much fit within the debate of this original comic, of whether the superhero movies advocate for preserving the status quo.
I don’t mind saying, I’m writing a book, and this is one of the conversations near the end. One character says to another: “Yeah, things are better. But can any of us truly say that things wouldn’t have improved if that terrorist hadn’t threatened everyone?”
Thankfully, in the story’s case, the reply to that quote is that while explosions and deaths were far more visible, a variety of powerful people were already making broad changes - just in a slower and less risky way. Of course, that’s fiction; and is not saying those things are a guarantee in the real world.
“MILLIONS MUST DIE” is a common alt right meme, and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen references to Thanos included with it.
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.
Using super powers (physical force) to push political beliefs is terrorism.
You were going strong but this is just inaccurate unless you want to define all use of force, regardless of justification, as terrorism.
terrorism
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.
So how is that inaccurate?
Yeah. You’d think that terrorism would at least require… terror? The supervillains in superhero movies do make people feel scared (though apparently not scared enough to actually move out of NYC despite it being destroyed on a regular basis). But, the heroes don’t make them scared at all. The superheroes make them feel safer.
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?
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.
The problem is… We’re handing over our sovereignty to them !!!
Lmao wow what a cool-headed response.
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.
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!
There’s like two way it could end when a superhuman being try to change the status quo for the good, one is through the courtroom, which is slow and boring, another one is to forcefully take over the “bad” government and force the “good” on people, which we have seen in something like Injustice.
The court decisions are only worth something if the legislative made proper laws and the executive is enforcing them.
But assuming superhuman capabilities the most obvious choice imo. is to use these abilities to help lift the most discriminated out of poverty. And if then the forces of the status quo come to take it away again, then he needs to fight them directly.
In my country, the Judiciary is the biggest criminal while the legislatures belong to the mafia 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐
The court decisions are only worth something if the legislative made proper laws and the executive is enforcing them.
Yeah, but that is the only lasting change that can be done for the country, and it’s a slow and painful process.
But assuming superhuman capabilities the most obvious choice imo. is to use these abilities to help lift the most discriminated out of poverty. And if then the forces of the status quo come to take it away again, then he needs to fight them directly.
I think that’s why people love One Piece, liberating country out of their oppressor and challenging status quo is the theme.
I thought it was because rubber man funny.
This is the reality of the world 🌍!!
Metal Gear Solid 2 plays out like this. Spoilers below but it came out in 2001 so whatever
The bad guy is a former President that knew his job was just as a figurehead, nothing more. He found out the hard way that even his orders came from a cutout.
He recruited “terrorists” to take the sitting President “hostage” so they could “force him” to detonate an EMP over the east coast. The plan is to dismantle the AI actually running the government/censoring public opinion and hopefully free the country
You play as the wide eyed idealistic special forces infiltrator, trained heavily through VR and sent to “rescue” the sitting President from the “terrorist leader” and learn that everything you know is wrong and you were given orders by the AI all along
I beat that game once and this is the first time I had any idea what it was about, thanks for a solid explanation
This is tangential to the main point you are making, but:
… I also always interpreted Raiden as basically Kojima more or less openly mocking or taunting the western player base of… well, mostly white male, naive/emo/astoundingly insecure children.
I remember there being absolutely massive backlash when MGS2 came out with tons of ‘gamers’ just calling Raiden a ‘gay little effeminate f@ggot boy’ and shit like that.
… Which I found quite funny in a meta-ironic sense.
And then of course, if you…actually do play through the game… well, from Raiden’s POV, … it basically is a shonen, a coming of age arc, making mistakes, struggling, being confused… but ultimately getting his shit together just enough to … well maybe not " “save the day” ", but avert utter catastrophe…
… as well as Raiden develops maturity as a character, reveals that… he actually has a lot of extremely serious trauma in his past, and he genuienly becomes a hero as he comes to terms with, and overcomes much of it.
…
MGS2, where Hideo Kojima dared to ask: What if an action hero wasn’t an absolute badass with a gruff voice?
(took western culture almost 20 years to even come up with the phrase ‘subversion of expectations’…)
Spoilers below but it came out is 2001 so whatever
I had someone get mad at me b/c I described a plot from a book written 70 years ago. I declined to edit my post to hide the “spoilers”. I guess I am the asshole.
The most shocking revelation was that Jack didn’t have any posters in his room!
I haven’t watched those films in a while but isn’t one of spiderman’s things “fuck the police, help the poor”? I know he runs a food bank in the new games
It’s inconsistent, to put it mildly. Spider-Man is generally a working class hero and is also an impressionable kid constantly struggling under the pressure to do good. Sometimes that puts him at odds with NYPD, sometimes he comes out in favor of the Super Registration Act (he flip-flopped later)
That’s what happens when a thousand writers contrivute to one canon.
which movie is this referring to? I’ve been plugging away at the mcu movies and most of the time the enemy is the nazi spinoff faction seeking to subjugate all of humanity that embedded itself in multiple parts of the government. I only watched one of the other spider man movies and don’t remember anything about it
This reminds me of a reel on Instagram where the singer Aurora said something along the lines of “Isn’t it weird how the «villains» want to break the status quo while the «heroes» seek to restore it?” and in the comments there were ones that said “For this nonsense people become leftist” and exactly right below that another one said “For this nonsense people become right-wing”.
Tbh they only really swerved into it that hard with this Falcon movie.
You know, the movie with themes of black empowerment where they engage in relentless apologia for General President Ross turning a man he did medical experiments on into a slave.
Relentless? He ends up in jail.
The actual current President of the United States is unjustly imprisoning thousands of innocent people right now, and he will never see a moment of jail time.
Brave New World is unrealistically optimistic on the subject of Presidents paying for their crimes.
