Avengers (Spoilers)

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

Post Reply
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

An Actual Madman wrote:*snip*
Judging literary criticism by its "relevance", or indeed any academic discipline by its "relevance", is authoritarian and counterproductive.
Broomstick wrote: As it happens, I am a capitalist in real life. I don't get your dislike of money and/or profit. Money is power in this world. I like to be powerful. If I can not have a great deal of money power then I want to use my power as efficiently and effectively as possible.

In this world, a movie like The Avengers will not be made without a huge input of money, and those putting in the money expect some return. You seem to view that as an evil thing. I view it as a way to get something done.

Money is a tool. What makes it good or evil is what is done with it.
Cool, thanks for taking three paragraphs to tell me "I don't understand what communism/socialism is". As it is, I would be happy to explain why profit is bad, but I have no problems with money and I'm not sure where you're getting that I view the idea of compensation as evil. One suspects that it lies from an attempt to understand communism as filtered through the lens of bourgeoisie propaganda.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3317
Joined: 2004-10-15 08:57pm
Location: Regina Nihilists' Guild Party Headquarters

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba »

Zinegata wrote: Indeed, there's relevant literary criticism, and there's pointless criticism of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole :lol:

Moreover, a much stronger case can be made that Loki was meant to be a representation of the dangers of dictatorial rule. One of Loki's defining scenes is when he forces a crowd of Germans to kneel before him, saying that they were better off being ruled than having the freedom to think for themselves. Cue an old German guy standing up to him to say "There are always men like you".

I also like Erik Kain pointing out that Loki gets called out several times for having no conviction (by Phil), and that this is an indication that all of Loki's actions are guided y his own raging insecurities. Because he's such a troubled and insecure individual, he needs to feed his ego that he's actually better than everyone else and that he is indeed truly a God. Which is actually what a lot of dictators are like - screwed up ragingly insecure people who end up killing a lot of people.

Which is why it's such fun to see the Hulk turn him into a ragdoll and top it off with the words "Puny God". I'd like to think that actually knocked some sense back into him given how his reaction at the end of the movie; and how he was much more of a tragic villain in Thor.
See, I have disagreements with Bakky, but this is awful, because it isn't really criticism. This isn't subtext - the movie says this explicitly, that Loki is like Hitler and wants to take our freedoms but really he lacks conviction because he's just a puppydog wizardgod who didn't get enough attention or whatever. That isn't subtext, it's repeated over and over, explicitly.

The point of criticism is to look at the assumptions and contradictions behind that, and even when it's problematic. For example, I think Bak's notion of the movie presenting a dichotomy between 'Council-ruled authoritarian world' and 'Superhero-ruled authoritarian world' is wrong, because it takes the idea that superheros as elites will be an authority as axiomatic - there's nothing specific in the text to justify the idea that the superheros intend to lead, guide, direct, or otherwise rule people, and in fact they mostly part their separate ways to live on their own pursuing their own divergent interests away from any establishment and unburdened by its snares (a case for The Avengers as some kind of objectivist tale might have legs, I guess), and extradite the villain to his nation of origin to face due process, which is significantly less fascist than how most action movies would treat him. Fury's still in charge but given that the movie establishes Fury as a man who can't be trusted and manipulates our heros towards his own ends, I think that he represents more a realist take on the establishment coloured by Whedon's longtime anti-Authoritarian bias.

But even when I disagree it's ten times more interesting than 'oh the splosions' 'yah i liked the splosions' 'i liked when the guy killed the guy too' 'hey i bet in the next movie thanos because at the end thanos' 'the splosion was ten jizzatons i wager' There's nothing in principle wrong with just shooting the shit about a movie you liked, but then, there's also nothing wrong with critiquing it, and it makes a better exercise.
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

Honestly, I don't think that the heroes are themselves fascist so much as the movie presents a fascist message- when giving reasons why we should follow these guys, we get Captain America beating the shit out of some aliens as justification. To contrast, we have some pretty good reasons why we should follow Superman or Spider-man in any given presentation of them- Superman breaks off a conversation to rescue a baby from falling, Spider-man goes out of his way to do something nice for someone, and in a different movie, Captain America would be justified by being right and being heroic-in-the-moral-sense. I don't think that the fascistic tones are deliberate so much as the product of laziness and dropped plotlines.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3317
Joined: 2004-10-15 08:57pm
Location: Regina Nihilists' Guild Party Headquarters

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba »

I dunno about the movie not presenting the heroes as people we have reasons to cheer for. As we're introduced to them, Banner is trying to cure sick children. Tony Stark is pushing green energy. And I bet those punching bags were up to something.
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I dunno about the movie not presenting the heroes as people we have reasons to cheer for. As we're introduced to them, Banner is trying to cure sick children. Tony Stark is pushing green energy. And I bet those punching bags were up to something.
That's true. Banner and Stark definitely have that going for them. :)
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Alkaloid
Jedi Master
Posts: 1102
Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Alkaloid »

Is it worth pointing out that the gun Coulson shot Loki with wasn't a Phase 2 weapon? Phase 2 being an attempt to weaponise the tesseract, and all the blueprints I saw were for large missiles and warheads, and Coulsons gun being developed from the destroyer armour.

I saw phase 2 as something that would be effective and appealing because it is relatively easy and the shadowy cabal can maintain control over it as opposed to the Avengers initiative which relies on trusting that the people you are asking for help are fundamentally decent people who can wield power without abusing it. As it stands decent people are not the sort of people that will work for a shadowy cabal without asking questions, and the implied cost of Phase 2 being easy is much higher than they suspected.
Honestly, I don't think that the heroes are themselves fascist so much as the movie presents a fascist message- when giving reasons why we should follow these guys, we get Captain America beating the shit out of some aliens as justification. To contrast, we have some pretty good reasons why we should follow Superman or Spider-man in any given presentation of them- Superman breaks off a conversation to rescue a baby from falling, Spider-man goes out of his way to do something nice for someone, and in a different movie, Captain America would be justified by being right and being heroic-in-the-moral-sense. I don't think that the fascistic tones are deliberate so much as the product of laziness and dropped plotlines.
And the Avengers collectively risked death to save the lives of people they never met. The group running shield, or SHIELD itself could be construed to be fascist but the movie never presents this a being a good thing. Actions taken by individuals in the organisation are, but not the organisation itself.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28724
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Broomstick »

Bakustra wrote:As it is, I would be happy to explain why profit is bad, but I have no problems with money and I'm not sure where you're getting that I view the idea of compensation as evil.
If you don't think compensation is evil why do you think profit is bad? What's wrong with profit?

Now, profiting by, say, literally working other people to death, THAT's bad, sure, but all profit bad? Profit is what's left over once you take care of bare survival.

I don't believe that all business relationships are inherently exploitative, which you seem to. It is possible for both parties to an economic transaction to profit from the exchange
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Zinegata »

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:See, I have disagreements with Bakky, but this is awful, because it isn't really criticism. This isn't subtext - the movie says this explicitly, that Loki is like Hitler and wants to take our freedoms but really he lacks conviction because he's just a puppydog wizardgod who didn't get enough attention or whatever. That isn't subtext, it's repeated over and over, explicitly.

The point of criticism is to look at the assumptions and contradictions behind that, and even when it's problematic.
Uh, what? Is it seriously your position that all literary analysis must take the form of literary criticism? That's just stupid.

Literary analysis does in fact look at the overt themes of a piece of artwork. It is not necessarily about searching for deeper meanings, particularly when we are talking about a relatively shallow medium known as a comic book movie.

Therefore, if a story's explicit theme is "dictatorship is bad", then one can certainly make a literary analysis based on this. Pointing this out just because it's obvious doesn't make it bad literary analysis - you're in fact admitting that it is the correct analysis. There is no awfulness in simply telling the truth.

In short, you do not need to make stupid retarded shit up in order to do a literary analysis; and certainly not when you need to do a literary criticism. The fact that you have to make stupid retarded shit up in order to make tenuous criticisms is not something to be lauded ; and more often than not it's really nothing more than self-aggrandizement ("I am more awesome than all of you unwashed masses who cannot see these "deeper" meanings behind the movie" - even if the said "deeper" meanings do not actually exist). It is again nothing more than trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Simon_Jester »

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:See, I have disagreements with Bakky, but this is awful, because it isn't really criticism. This isn't subtext - the movie says this explicitly, that Loki is like Hitler and wants to take our freedoms but really he lacks conviction because he's just a puppydog wizardgod who didn't get enough attention or whatever. That isn't subtext, it's repeated over and over, explicitly.

The point of criticism is to look at the assumptions and contradictions behind that, and even when it's problematic. For example, I think Bak's notion of the movie presenting a dichotomy between 'Council-ruled authoritarian world' and 'Superhero-ruled authoritarian world' is wrong, because it takes the idea that superheros as elites will be an authority as axiomatic - there's nothing specific in the text to justify the idea that the superheros intend to lead, guide, direct, or otherwise rule people, and in fact they mostly part their separate ways to live on their own pursuing their own divergent interests away from any establishment and unburdened by its snares (a case for The Avengers as some kind of objectivist tale might have legs, I guess), and extradite the villain to his nation of origin to face due process, which is significantly less fascist than how most action movies would treat him. Fury's still in charge but given that the movie establishes Fury as a man who can't be trusted and manipulates our heros towards his own ends, I think that he represents more a realist take on the establishment coloured by Whedon's longtime anti-Authoritarian bias.

But even when I disagree it's ten times more interesting than 'oh the splosions' 'yah i liked the splosions' 'i liked when the guy killed the guy too' 'hey i bet in the next movie thanos because at the end thanos' 'the splosion was ten jizzatons i wager' There's nothing in principle wrong with just shooting the shit about a movie you liked, but then, there's also nothing wrong with critiquing it, and it makes a better exercise.
Yeah, I can see the interest in this kind of thing, and how it beats endless repetition and chewing over micro-analysis of the easter egg details thrown in to appease the fannest of fans.

But I don't get the appeal except when it's done in an honest way- when it's about looking at the work of fiction, not about tearing it apart for the sake of looking clever.

One thing we can do is look at Fury. He's in some ways ambiguous. He's authoritarian in that he's the big bold commanding officer with legions of troops and his own fortress and so on. But he's also acting as a check against the authoritarianism of the Council. The Council is about world domination- only unlike Loki, they don't have to fight for it and engage in complicated schemes, because they already have it. Nick Fury is about world protection. To do that job he does things that are morally ambiguous and raise really good questions about who he should be accountable to, and whether or not he's going way too far in his quest for security.

At the same time, he also seems to favor this idea of using... basically a group of superpowered volunteers to do the job that would otherwise be handled by the Council's enforcement arm. Is this more or less authoritarian? I think I agree with you, Amoeba, about it being less authoritarian.

So Fury sort of straddles the line between authoritarian and non-authoritarian. On the one hand, he's largely unaccountable. And he operates through force, trickery, and intimidation a lot. On the other hand, he also seeks to limit the absolute power of the people who he's supposed to be working for, and he's willing to rely on consensus-building and his faith and trust in people not directly under his power, which are not usual traits for the authoritarian.

To wax tropish for just a second, he's the Reasonable Authority Figure, maybe? :D




Although I'm not so sure about that 'objectivist' thing, since the characters are living pretty un-objectivist lives. Banner fears his own power and uses what skills he possesses almost entirely for the benefit of others. Cap is... he's basically a solid block of altruism and biceps, from head to toe. Black Widow and Hawkeye are minions in someone else's army, that's not very objectivist either.

The guys you can make a case for- there's Thor, and there's Tony Stark.

Thor is a prince, with a very toplofty sense of his own place in the world, but he also shows a caring and protective side that I don't think really fits as "objectivist." His life isn't about finding what's right for him, it's about making the transition from self-centered but heroic warrior prince to a man fit to be a king.

Something similar is true for Stark. He starts the first film living the Objectivist dream: the man so brilliant and talented that everyone wants a piece of his skills and abilities, he's universally respected and does whatever the hell he wants. And all this comes in large part from his own unfettered use of his own abilities, unrestrained by 'petty morality' or whatever.

That's where he starts the first movie. His entire character evolution over something like 7-8 hours of film has been away from that. In the first movie he had to learn to take responsibility for the moral consequences of his actions for other people. In his second movie he has to embrace that "no man is an island" thing, and learn to work with his friends and accept help from others, because otherwise his personal faults will destroy him- not an objectivist lesson.

And in Avengers what he learns to do (obviously in the end scene with the nuke, but also in the earlier scene with the turbine that kind of foreshadows this) is risk his life, to just lay it all on the line for other people and damn the consequences. Sure, he may have a plan for getting out alive, but his plan relies on other people and he's having to come to terms with the idea that all this heroing stuff he's doing may get him killed. But he keeps going back anyway.
Last edited by Simon_Jester on 2012-05-13 11:37pm, edited 1 time in total.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

Broomstick wrote:
Bakustra wrote:As it is, I would be happy to explain why profit is bad, but I have no problems with money and I'm not sure where you're getting that I view the idea of compensation as evil.
If you don't think compensation is evil why do you think profit is bad? What's wrong with profit?

Now, profiting by, say, literally working other people to death, THAT's bad, sure, but all profit bad? Profit is what's left over once you take care of bare survival.

I don't believe that all business relationships are inherently exploitative, which you seem to. It is possible for both parties to an economic transaction to profit from the exchange
Profit is inherently exploitative, provided we accept that people are paid for the work they do. Let us take a company with several employees, an owner, and the like. The company makes money through the labor of its workers. They are then compensated for this labor. So if we take the company's balance sheet, and it's profitable, then we either have value appearing from nowhere, or the workers are underpaid. Because if they are paid exactly as much as they contribute to the company's value, minus the expenses incurred to operate, then the company should have zero net profit because there is no money left over for profit. In order for profit to exist, the workers of that company must be underpaid. Since the capitalist is only rarely a laborer for an openly-traded company, this means that the wealth of capitalists (which comes from corporate profits) is generated from the exploitation of the workers, and in the long run, even a capitalist who labors in a company still exploits his or her workers in order to have more than marginal profits.

This is avoidable if we assume that labor has no relationship to value and thus employees are not paid for their labor, but this leads to other difficulties (namely, what exactly are they paid for?). That said, bubbles and speculation do allow value to appear from nowhere, but they are only possible because of the exploitation to create initial profits.

PS: You still are talking out of your ass. Please don't, as I'm starting to feel sorry for you embarrassing yourself like this.
Zinegata wrote:
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:See, I have disagreements with Bakky, but this is awful, because it isn't really criticism. This isn't subtext - the movie says this explicitly, that Loki is like Hitler and wants to take our freedoms but really he lacks conviction because he's just a puppydog wizardgod who didn't get enough attention or whatever. That isn't subtext, it's repeated over and over, explicitly.

The point of criticism is to look at the assumptions and contradictions behind that, and even when it's problematic.
Uh, what? Is it seriously your position that all literary analysis must take the form of literary criticism? That's just stupid.

Literary analysis does in fact look at the overt themes of a piece of artwork. It is not necessarily about searching for deeper meanings, particularly when we are talking about a relatively shallow medium known as a comic book movie.

Therefore, if a story's explicit theme is "dictatorship is bad", then one can certainly make a literary analysis based on this. Pointing this out just because it's obvious doesn't make it bad literary analysis - you're in fact admitting that it is the correct analysis. There is no awfulness in simply telling the truth.

In short, you do not need to make stupid retarded shit up in order to do a literary analysis; and certainly not when you need to do a literary criticism. The fact that you have to make stupid retarded shit up in order to make tenuous criticisms is not something to be lauded ; and more often than not it's really nothing more than self-aggrandizement ("I am more awesome than all of you unwashed masses who cannot see these "deeper" meanings behind the movie" - even if the said "deeper" meanings do not actually exist). It is again nothing more than trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
How exactly can you determine whether a meaning exists or not? Are there special instruments? Sartrometers, perhaps?
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Zinegata »

Alkaloid wrote:And the Avengers collectively risked death to save the lives of people they never met. The group running shield, or SHIELD itself could be construed to be fascist but the movie never presents this a being a good thing. Actions taken by individuals in the organisation are, but not the organisation itself.
The Cabal certainly did stupid and arguably fascistic things (firing the nuclear missile at New York), but in these instances the heroes of the film worked actively against them. Arguing it's pro-fascist is very much a stretch.
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by ArmorPierce »

LadyTevar wrote:Am I the only one that got the Bickering was all caused by the Spear that was in the same room? I mean, during the bickering the camera even focuses on it, and then rotates so you see the rest of the room upside down. Is there any other way to say "HEY! GUESS WHAT I'M DOING TO THEM!!"??

I think Widow and Fury go for their weapons then because Banner had picked up the Spear. He obviously had no idea he'd grabbed it up -- I wonder if the Big Guy had him grab it just so it would stop the bickering.
That's what I thought but I just watched it over and the signficance of the camera cut of the staff seems to be that it was acting as a homing becon to hawk eye and crew.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Zinegata »

Bakustra wrote:How exactly can you determine whether a meaning exists or not? Are there special instruments? Sartrometers, perhaps?
With you, it's easy - Check New Testingtan, and see if you're just doing your usual "Look at me! Look at me! I'm so smart!" skit. That's the problem with having raging insecurities like Loki - you desperately crave for an audience to prove to yourself that you're not just another "Puny God". :lol:

Seriously though, meaning is derived through analysis, and that relies on fact. And so far, you've brought up a list of pretty weak facts to support your argument. It boils down to "Loki seems gay" (which is opinion; it's in fact a pretty bigoted opinion to think that he's gay just because he has a sense of fashion) and he "Uses a pointy stick".

Which are pretty weak arguments. You're free to hold on to them as your opinions; but really they're pointless opinions which does little except to feed your own self-aggrandizement.

Meanwhile, "Loki is an insecure dictator wannabe" is pretty overtly shown in the movie. The scene in Germany where he forces everyone to kneel. Choosing to be captured so he can be seen fighting the Avengers and besting them. Telling Hulk that HE IS A GOD - and finally getting royally Hulk-slapped in the process. Which is much more interesting and relevant, particularly because Loki getting Hulk-slapped never gets old. :lol:
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

Zinegata wrote:
Bakustra wrote:How exactly can you determine whether a meaning exists or not? Are there special instruments? Sartrometers, perhaps?
With you, it's easy - Check New Testingtan, and see if you're just doing your usual "Look at me! Look at me! I'm so smart!" skit. That's the problem with having raging insecurities like Loki - you desperately crave for an audience to prove to yourself that you're not just another "Puny God". :lol:

Seriously though, meaning is derived through analysis, and that relies on fact. And so far, you've brought up a list of pretty weak facts to support your argument. It boils down to "Loki seems gay" (which is opinion; it's in fact a pretty bigoted opinion to think that he's gay just because he has a sense of fashion) and he "Uses a pointy stick".

Which are pretty weak arguments. You're free to hold on to them as your opinions; but really they're pointless opinions which does little except to feed your own self-aggrandizement.

Meanwhile, "Loki is an insecure dictator wannabe" is pretty overtly shown in the movie. The scene in Germany where he forces everyone to kneel. Choosing to be captured so he can be seen fighting the Avengers and besting them. Telling Hulk that HE IS A GOD - and finally getting royally Hulk-slapped in the process. Which is much more interesting and relevant, particularly because Loki getting Hulk-slapped never gets old. :lol:
Are you really at the point of pretending that you're the Hulk beating me up? Get some mental help, man.

You're not answering my question, which is about methodology, and you're demonstrating that you're not bothering to read my posts. Take your trolling with you and Image
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Zinegata »

Bakustra wrote:Are you really at the point of pretending that you're the Hulk beating me up? Get some mental help, man.
:lol: Awww, look at puny Bakustra trying to go "Look at me! Look at me! I'm not irrelevant!" by trying to pretend he's the only sane man again and everyone who argues with him is insane. How cute. :lol:

Cue more whining in Testingstan.
You're not answering my question, which is about methodology,
Actually, I did - by pointing out that it's derived through analysis of actual fact. The fact that you pretend that you didn't is simply "concession accepted".

Again, you're free to hold on to your opinions. But stop being a whiny asshole because your opinions boil down to you being a bigot because you think Loki is gay; despite it not being supported by actual facts in the movie itself.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Simon_Jester »

To be fair, Zinegata, I can get how there's stuff in a story that isn't totally knock-you-over-the-head obvious. And you should be able to, too. So talking about things like the message of authoritarianism in Avengers works, that makes sense because even though a lot of it isn't said out loud it's definitely there.

(Or I think it is, you can argue with me I guess).

But in general, it's a question of how tenuous the process is, how big a house you build on how small a foundation, that really makes the difference. Drawing big conclusions from tiny hints is the province of people who started out knowing ahead of time what they wanted to argue.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

Zinegata wrote:
Bakustra wrote:Are you really at the point of pretending that you're the Hulk beating me up? Get some mental help, man.
:lol: Awww, look at puny Bakustra trying to go "Look at me! Look at me! I'm not irrelevant!" by trying to pretend he's the only sane man again and everyone who argues with him is insane. How cute. :lol:

Cue more whining in Testingstan.
You're not answering my question, which is about methodology,
Actually, I did - by pointing out that it's derived through analysis of actual fact. The fact that you pretend that you didn't is simply "concession accepted".

Again, you're free to hold on to your opinions. But stop being a whiny asshole because your opinions boil down to you being a bigot because you think Loki is gay; despite it not being supported by actual facts in the movie itself.
Knowing what stereotypes are is literally bigotry. And yet I'm pretending that you're insane? Go get yourself some inpatient care, duder, and quit trolling.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Zinegata »

:lol: Yes Bakustra. "I am the only sane man! Anyone who questions my Godhood is insane!"
Bakustra wrote:Knowing what stereotypes are is literally bigotry.
Actually, I'm quite aware of the stereotypes are yet it never crossed my mind that Loki might be gay; and I would say that thinking he is gay is analyzing Loki in an extremely superficial, squeeing fan-girl / fanfic writer manner at best and it really boils down to outright bigotry at worst.

Which, on a less serious note, isn't surprising coming from you given how much you desire my hot (male) body. :lol:

Loki actually fits the stereotypes of the typical suave villain much, much more. He disarms you with his charisma, intelligence, and wit rather than overpowering you with his strength - much like Yuri Orlov in Lord of War (and he's definitely not gay).
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

Look, dude, it's really pretty terrible to start using "UR GAY" as an insult (at least, that's the closest approximation- what you're using it for is like nothing else on Earth). I'm sorry that you're too crazy to grasp this aspect of social intercourse, but those are the breaks.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Zinegata »

Bakustra wrote:Look, dude, it's really pretty terrible to start using "UR GAY" as an insult
:lol: We've been doing this "Bakustra wants my hot body" joke for like weeks now and then you're suddenly complaining about it NOW? Really? (Never mind the fact the insult points out YOUR obsessions against me; much of which would be embarassing to repeat in decent company? :lol: )

Please. This is just you being a sore loser and not wanting to accept you're nothing more than yet another irrelevant nerd.

=====

Again, point's simple: Loki ain't gay. Your perspective has to be of a bigot or a stupid squeeing fangirl to think that he's gay.

Loki is instead a suave villain, who uses charisma, intelligence, and wit to get what he wants.

Points not refuted. Concession accepted.
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Bakustra »

You're not actually disputing anything I'm saying, just exposing your delusions of grandeur, delusions of adequacy, and delusions in general. There's no point in trying to communicate with you- I'd have better luck with a spider.

EDIT: In fact, your entire argument is as follows: "If you think Loki is gay-coded, you're a bigot or a woman. In fact, the only thing possible is surface details and superficiality. Subtextuality is not allowed. Nor is depth."
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
JLTucker
BANNED
Posts: 3043
Joined: 2006-02-26 01:58am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by JLTucker »

Is it established in the film that he's a heterosexual?
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Zinegata »

:lol: Yeah right, I have delusions of grandeur. ON AN INTERNET FORUM.
Bakustra wrote:EDIT: In fact, your entire argument is as follows: "If you think Loki is gay-coded, you're a bigot or a woman.
Correction: Bigot or "Squeeing fangirl / fanfic writer". Not "woman".

But apparently to you all women are squeeing fangirls, which again demonstrates your own personal bigotry. :lol:
In fact, the only thing possible is surface details and superficiality. Subtextuality is not allowed. Nor is depth."
Actually, I never argued this. What I'm arguing (which you've sidestepped) is that analysis must be based on fact. Otherwise, it's a useless and irrelevant analysis.

In fact, I have shown an analysis that shows a deeper side to Loki's villainy - which again I cribbed off Erik Kain.

Loki is a villain who is possessed by a need to reaffirm his own self worth. Because, as Phil said, he has "no conviction". All of his actions are nothing more than his own desperate attempts to prove that he's actually a God as opposed to a loser lowlife.

That's actually not superficial. That's actually a pretty nice insight to the nature of evil, and it provides a level of continuity from Thor wherein he kills his real father in order to try and be accepted by the Asgardians. His towering ego and his grandiose schemes exists to fill the dark hole inside of himself more than anything else.

====

By contrast, the heroes of the film undergo a process of accepting and loving who they are - most notably visible with Bruce Banner accepting that the Hulk is indeed part of himself. But he's not alone, notably...

1) We have Captain America realizing he remains a hero despite now living in a different time.

2) Black Widow deciding that she has to "wipe out the red in her ledger".

3) Tony Stark - who has an ego as big as Loki - finally embracing his own heroism by making the "sacrifice play".

And I think that's why the movie is good. At its core are some very strong conflicting themes between the heroes and the villains.
RecklessPrudence
Padawan Learner
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-06-02 07:16pm
Location: Largest Island, Sol III - invasion not recommended, terrain and wildlife extremely hostile.

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by RecklessPrudence »

JLTucker wrote:Is it established in the film that he's a heterosexual?
We-ell... Sleipnir exists, as established by the Thor stand-alone movie.

Apart from that, I can't think of anything. But then again, I am bad at subtext at the best of times, and the stuff Bakustra says they're seeing... For one thing, I must have missed where they explicitly refer to Loki's sceptre as a penis. I mean, I heard "staff," "spear," "sceptre" and "stick," but not even anything as overtly phallic as "rod," so I dunno - maybe I saw a different movie to him/her? It was called The Avengers, but considering there's at least two movies titled that that are both unrelated to superheroes, so... Anyway, considering that they are all valid terms for what Loki was holding, with a little squinting, at least - what would you suggest people who are encountering it without a defined term call a long, hard cylinder with both glowy and pointy bits on the end held away from the person, disregarding that it extends and can shoot blasts of energy :P , which not all of them were aware of when they referred to it by said terms?

In all seriousness, Whatever you guys are referring to could have either been edited out of the Australian release or, probably more likely, I misheard. What specifically are you guys referring to, anyway? I'm honestly curious whether I missed the thing because I misheard it, it was edited out, or I'm simply bad at subtext and didn't see what you're seeing? People accepted Bakustra saying about the explicit phallic reference, so I'm assuming it's in the movie.
Yes, I know my username is an oxyMORON, thankyou for pointing that out, you're very clever.

MEMBER: Evil Autistic Conspiracy. Working everyday to get as many kids immunized as possible to grow our numbers.

'I don't believe in gunship diplomacy, but a couple of battleships in low orbit over my enemy's capital can't but help negotiations.'
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12211
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Avengers (Spoilers)

Post by Lord Revan »

RecklessPrudence wrote:
JLTucker wrote:Is it established in the film that he's a heterosexual?
We-ell... Sleipnir exists, as established by the Thor stand-alone movie.

Apart from that, I can't think of anything. But then again, I am bad at subtext at the best of times, and the stuff Bakustra says they're seeing... For one thing, I must have missed where they explicitly refer to Loki's sceptre as a penis. I mean, I heard "staff," "spear," "sceptre" and "stick," but not even anything as overtly phallic as "rod," so I dunno - maybe I saw a different movie to him/her? It was called The Avengers, but considering there's at least two movies titled that that are both unrelated to superheroes, so... Anyway, considering that they are all valid terms for what Loki was holding, with a little squinting, at least - what would you suggest people who are encountering it without a defined term call a long, hard cylinder with both glowy and pointy bits on the end held away from the person, disregarding that it extends and can shoot blasts of energy :P , which not all of them were aware of when they referred to it by said terms?

In all seriousness, Whatever you guys are referring to could have either been edited out of the Australian release or, probably more likely, I misheard. What specifically are you guys referring to, anyway? I'm honestly curious whether I missed the thing because I misheard it, it was edited out, or I'm simply bad at subtext and didn't see what you're seeing? People accepted Bakustra saying about the explicit phallic reference, so I'm assuming it's in the movie.
the "performance issues" joke is quite blatant phalic reference

that said Loki seemed more asexual then homosexual to me (while we know sleipnir exists we don't know if the origin is same as in norse mythology)
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
Post Reply