Avengers (Spoilers)

[Lost Soal]

By which time they lose all the origin rights which includes Clark, the costume and the "S" Symbol. Hard to put Superman in a film when you don't own the look everyone is familiar with

[Bakustra]

Having seen this just a few days ago, one thing that really stood out for me is how they made Loki so obviously gay and something of a predatory rapist. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, representation, but on the other hand, it's still subtext (though only barely so) and really, having the only gay-coded character being effectively a rapist doesn't sit too well with me.

As a whole, I feel that it takes Truffaut's observation on filmic representations of fascism and runs with it, mocking The Dark Knight along the way. In the process, it succeeds in making an overtly fascist movie and undermines the subtleties of Iron Man and Captain America (I haven't seen Thor or Hulk) too, but it had a bunch of explosions and whatnot. I wish that there was more courage on the part of filmmakers to recognize the potential for toxicity in their storylines and rectify it, but this is Joss Whedon we're talking about here, so that is probably wishful thinking. All I can hope for with regards to superhero movies in this day and age is that some enterprising soul makes a Scrap-Iron Man fantrailer or something.

[Ahriman238]

Having seen this just a few days ago, one thing that really stood out for me is how they made Loki so obviously gay and something of a predatory rapist. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, representation, but on the other hand, it's still subtext (though only barely so) and really, having the only gay-coded character being effectively a rapist doesn't sit too well with me.

As a whole, I feel that it takes Truffaut's observation on filmic representations of fascism and runs with it, mocking The Dark Knight along the way. In the process, it succeeds in making an overtly fascist movie and undermines the subtleties of Iron Man and Captain America (I haven't seen Thor or Hulk) too, but it had a bunch of explosions and whatnot. I wish that there was more courage on the part of filmmakers to recognize the potential for toxicity in their storylines and rectify it, but this is Joss Whedon we're talking about here, so that is probably wishful thinking. All I can hope for with regards to superhero movies in this day and age is that some enterprising soul makes a Scrap-Iron Man fantrailer or something.

Cynical much?

Yeah, there was apparently a fair bit of outrage over the joke where Thor goes "Whatever else he's done Loki is my brother!" "He killed like, eighty guys a few days back." "... He was adopted."

I don't really see where Loki is either gay or a rapist, unless you're referring to his prolific use of mind control. Which should probably be prefaced with something to make that clear e.g. mind-rape. Am I missing some subtext to the story or something?

[Bakustra]

His glowstick-spear is obviously phallic. Like, they make jokes about it being a cock in the movie. So his mind-control involves him sticking what is basically his dick into somebody. He only targets men with this, and seems contemptuous of the only woman he interacts with. His victims view it in terms of a violation once the effect wears off. The only person he can't fuck wears protection- a sort of chastity belt, in fact (chastity reactor?). It's a rape of the mind, and the connotations of his dick-scepter make Loki very obviously gay-coded. Like, the only way he could be queerer is if they tracked him down to Fire Island or West Hollywood instead of Stuttgart. Or if he started making out with Hawkeye or German Scientist Fellow.

This also presents a corrosive view of his sexuality- his penis is literally a corrupting influence on people. Just having it present in the same room messes with their minds.

As for cynicism- they had a line where they explain that SHIELD looks through every cameraphone and webcam in the entire world. This is probably a deliberate poke at The Dark Knight, but then we have Phase 2, which the movie's internal logic endorses, we have the actual conflict be between those who want to rule the world through mass-produced superweapons and the one guy who wants to have it be ruled by superhuman individuals... we have what is basically a fascist film. This is a shame, because superheroes are nowhere near inherently fascist or even reactionary.

[gigabytelord]

Having seen this just a few days ago, one thing that really stood out for me is how they made Loki so obviously gay and something of a predatory rapist. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, representation, but on the other hand, it's still subtext (though only barely so) and really, having the only gay-coded character being effectively a rapist doesn't sit too well with me.

As a whole, I feel that it takes Truffaut's observation on filmic representations of fascism and runs with it, mocking The Dark Knight along the way. In the process, it succeeds in making an overtly fascist movie and undermines the subtleties of Iron Man and Captain America (I haven't seen Thor or Hulk) too, but it had a bunch of explosions and whatnot. I wish that there was more courage on the part of filmmakers to recognize the potential for toxicity in their storylines and rectify it, but this is Joss Whedon we're talking about here, so that is probably wishful thinking. All I can hope for with regards to superhero movies in this day and age is that some enterprising soul makes a Scrap-Iron Man fantrailer or something.

How is he obviously gay? He's the god of lying, trickery, and deceit, there's nothing gay about him, megalomaniacal maybe and very misguided with a dash of schadenfreude but not gay.
I'm confused are you upset that they made him seem gay to you or that you believe they did so in critical manner?

Also what is with people reading so much subtext into super hero movies, sounds like a lot grasping for straws and conspiracy theory BS., also how is it in any way fascist? <--- genuine question.

[Bakustra]

It's fascistic because the central conflict of the movie is not about whether the Earth will be saved from the Chitauri or Loki- these are already foregone conclusions that the movie takes pains to show us by having every one of the Avengers triumph over Loki and every one able to slaughter Chitauri. Even the Chitauri dragon-creatures are taken down by the simple expedient of pointing the Hulk at them. Instead, the conflict is over whether the "council" or Fury will rule the world and dictate its course. The council wants a world dominated through mass-produced weapons of war- Phase 2. Fury wants a world dominated by superhumans. Both of these are authoritarian worlds, but the second is actually fascist because fascism, as "radicalism of the center" relied on subverting democracy rather than replacing it- the will of the people could only be effectively interpreted by the superhuman leader. Fury is a conniving bastard who spies on the entire world, but in the end he's proven right and we must trust him.

This is bad because Captain America and the Iron Man movies do not go down the path of fascism even though their heroes are actually fairly prone to it in concept alone, and it's bad in and of itself.

Also, Coulson's death becomes hilarious once you realize that he's the nerd/audience stand-in. He's cool with all the heroes, except his favorite, Captain America. He collects memorabilia. He gets a cool scene and then a drawn-out dramatic death. Nobody cares about any of the other people Loki has killed, and instead it's Coulson who motivates Cap and Iron Man. This scene is pointless without this understanding of Coulson as the nerd avatar, because Cap and Iron Man had their bonding moment just minutes earlier with the engine scene and they are the only two present. Needless to say, I'm delighted with Joss Whedon declaring that comic nerds exist primarily to be exploited by the comic book companies.

[Ahriman238]

Bakustra, I think you're reading way too much into the staff, or a Norse God not being really feminist.

I can see both sides of the phase 2 argument. Fury is right, after two alien invasions that resulted in substantial death and property damage, Earth absolutely needs the means to defend itself. On the other hand, I can really see the heroes, even those who might normally approve of such measures, being hacked off about being kept in the dark.

I don't see the argument at all as being whether power should be in the hands of a privileged elite. But I do see a clear moral difference between giving every SHIELD agent a cool super-gun like Coulson's and forming the Avengers. It actually continues themes from Iron Man and Captain America rather nicely. Cap, and Tony, and Thor, and even Hawk and the Widow are all moral agents, they have the ability to argue with their handlers, to say "No. This is wrong. This I will not do." They are thinking, feeling people, surprisingly moral for some of their histories. Thus their power will only ever be used for ill purposes when some kind of deception or mind control is involved.

A gun, by rather sharp contrast, works for whoever is holding it. There is no "you must be this --- emotionally conflicted over killing to pull this trigger" sign. And it seems SHIELD had gone some distance past super-guns and on to WMDs that make nukes look like Roman Candles. Who wants that sort of power in the hands of the people who decided to nuke Manhattan?

Yeah the Avengers are unpredictable to an extent, but only in as much as they're willing to tell Fury and his bosses to go piss up a flagpole and do the right thing regardless.

[Bakustra]

Look, they outright acknowledge that the glowstick is a penile substitute and his brainwashing is treated as a mental rape and he goes above and beyond "not being feminist" when he calls Black Widow a quim. This is not exactly a subtle approach here. This ain't Dashiell Hammit using "gunsel" ambiguously.

Who appoints the Avengers? Who holds them accountable? Fury does. Fury, who is accountable to none but another group of unaccountable types, who he breaks free from anyways. Fury and the movie insist that we ought to revere the Avengers because of how cool they are. This is fascistic. Compare Superman. A properly-done Superman work will not insist that you ought to do anything, and Superman will explicitly disavow temporal power. Avengers doesn't- and given that Iron Man 1 & 2 and Captain America show similar ways of averting fascism when you have a superheroic character (though arguably Iron Man doesn't go far enough), Avengers is thus a disappointment.

EDIT: Also, within the movie's framework, Phase 2 is A-OK. There's nothing wrong with it, really. Otherwise, Coulson wouldn't have managed to humiliate Loki with a Phase 2 weapon (and really, getting thrashed by the team mascot/fanboy is humiliating beyond reckoning).

[gigabytelord]

It's fascistic because the central conflict of the movie is not about whether the Earth will be saved from the Chitauri or Loki- these are already foregone conclusions that the movie takes pains to show us by having every one of the Avengers triumph over Loki and every one able to slaughter Chitauri. Even the Chitauri dragon-creatures are taken down by the simple expedient of pointing the Hulk at them. Instead, the conflict is over whether the "council" or Fury will rule the world and dictate its course. The council wants a world dominated through mass-produced weapons of war- Phase 2. Fury wants a world dominated by superhumans. Both of these are authoritarian worlds, but the second is actually fascist because fascism, as "radicalism of the center" relied on subverting democracy rather than replacing it- the will of the people could only be effectively interpreted by the superhuman leader. Fury is a conniving bastard who spies on the entire world, but in the end he's proven right and we must trust him.

This is bad because Captain America and the Iron Man movies do not go down the path of fascism even though their heroes are actually fairly prone to it in concept alone, and it's bad in and of itself.

Also, Coulson's death becomes hilarious once you realize that he's the nerd/audience stand-in. He's cool with all the heroes, except his favorite, Captain America. He collects memorabilia. He gets a cool scene and then a drawn-out dramatic death. Nobody cares about any of the other people Loki has killed, and instead it's Coulson who motivates Cap and Iron Man. This scene is pointless without this understanding of Coulson as the nerd avatar, because Cap and Iron Man had their bonding moment just minutes earlier with the engine scene and they are the only two present. Needless to say, I'm delighted with Joss Whedon declaring that comic nerds exist primarily to be exploited by the comic book companies.

Wow, I respect your opinion sir or madam but I wholeheartedly disagree, if any thing I saw the mass produced WMDs as a cold war era reference, in fact Fury plainly stated that the first encounter with Thor, forced S.H.I.E.L.D. to realize that there are beings or forces in the universe that poses extreme power, and Fury decided (in a very human like fashion) that the best course of action was to ensure that even if earths destruction was guaranteed that who ever was attacking would also be destroyed, this is the very definition of M.A.D.

[Bakustra]

They can easily be both! Movies are flexible enough for multiple interpretations! I'm running this from the communist and queer ends of things. A more racial or feminist analysis will have different things to say, as would a conservative or liberal perspective.

[Ahriman238]

Look, they outright acknowledge that the glowstick is a penile substitute and his brainwashing is treated as a mental rape and he goes above and beyond "not being feminist" when he calls Black Widow a quim. This is not exactly a subtle approach here. This ain't Dashiell Hammit using "gunsel" ambiguously.

Of course the brainwashing is traumatic, it's brainwashing! I don't interpret that as Loki literally having gay sex with their brains. The scepter is a stick, worse a telescoping stick. The movie just said what the audience was already thinking. Once again, a misogynist Viking!!?! Who's ever heard of such a thing? Thor wasn't exactly politically correct in his own film, though he at least acknowledged Sif and learned manners around Jane. Sort of.

Who appoints the Avengers? Who holds them accountable? Fury does. Fury, who is accountable to none but another group of unaccountable types, who he breaks free from anyways. Fury and the movie insist that we ought to revere the Avengers because of how cool they are. This is fascistic. Compare Superman. A properly-done Superman work will not insist that you ought to do anything, and Superman will explicitly disavow temporal power. Avengers doesn't- and given that Iron Man 1 & 2 and Captain America show similar ways of averting fascism when you have a superheroic character (though arguably Iron Man doesn't go far enough), Avengers is thus a disappointment.

And? But? So? Therefore?

The Avengers are not government or elected officials. Though it's never mentioned one way or another, I rather doubt they're even getting paid to do this. At no point do the Avengers try to rule over people, demand obeisance, or claim the least bit of political or temporal (a word I take in this context to mean 'divine') power, though all of these acts are done in this move. By the villain. Because that's what comic villains do, try to take over the world. The closest you might argue is Cap giving instructions to that police officer, but that would be silly, he's an experienced tactician and there is nothing wrong with him helping organize things in the middle of a crisis.

What happens after the Avengers save the day? They all move on with their lives, hardly the act of fascists dominating the lives of the little people.

EDIT: Also, within the movie's framework, Phase 2 is A-OK. There's nothing wrong with it, really. Otherwise, Coulson wouldn't have managed to humiliate Loki with a Phase 2 weapon (and really, getting thrashed by the team mascot/fanboy is humiliating beyond reckoning).

Except for the part with building obscenely powerful WMDs using a black box technology that no one really understands and might go off when they contact nitrogen or during the new moon or something?

[Lord Revan]

Bakustra you seem to forget that Loki was raised an Asgardian (yes I know he's biologically a Jotun but still) not 20th century american, so his values and morals might be a "bit" out of date and tbh I don't remember Loki showing any more comtempt to women specifically, as for not brainwashing women it could just be he never a chance to try it seeing as he was never within reach of woman but refused to use the scepter on them.

PS. by a "bit" I mean closer to early middle-ages scandinavia then modern USA

[Bakustra]

Bakustra you seem to forget that Loki was raised an Asgardian (yes I know he's biologically a Jotun but still) not 20th century american, so his values and morals might be a "bit" out of date and tbh I don't remember Loki showing any more comtempt to women specifically, as for not brainwashing women it could just be he never a chance to try it seeing as he was never within reach of woman but refused to use the scepter on them.

PS. by a "bit" I mean closer to early middle-ages scandinavia then modern USA

You seem to have forgotten the distinction between fiction and reality. Fiction is a construct, and reality is not. Avengers is a work of fiction. It is a construction. It is an artifact, a deliberate construction. If an element is in the construct, it must have a reason for being there.

[Stofsk]

Look, they outright acknowledge that the glowstick is a penile substitute and his brainwashing is treated as a mental rape and he goes above and beyond "not being feminist" when he calls Black Widow a quim. This is not exactly a subtle approach here. This ain't Dashiell Hammit using "gunsel" ambiguously.

Of course the brainwashing is traumatic, it's brainwashing! I don't interpret that as Loki literally having gay sex with their brains. The scepter is a stick, worse a telescoping stick. The movie just said what the audience was already thinking. Once again, a misogynist Viking!!?! Who's ever heard of such a thing? Thor wasn't exactly politically correct in his own film, though he at least acknowledged Sif and learned manners around Jane. Sort of.

You're taking the film (and bakustra's analysis of it) too literally. This is more in line with metaphors and subtle indicators than anything overt. Of course Loki is not having gay sex with anyone he's mind controlling. But he's represented in a specific way and everything he does in the film was deliberately chosen by the actor, director, screenwriters, and everyone else involved in the production. His brainwashing stick didn't have to be a phallic object, it could have been done any number of ways (look at the way Professor X brainwashes people in the X-men films). The film-makers chose a scepter, which worked by jabbing it into people. But the biggest sign is probably Loki calling Black Widow a quim. I didn't actually know the meaning of this slang before Bakustra mentioned it above and I googled it. Yeah, that's pretty much the biggest 'subtle' clue about the character.

[Simon_Jester]

Bakustra, I think you're reading way too much into the staff, or a Norse God not being really feminist.

I can see both sides of the phase 2 argument. Fury is right, after two alien invasions that resulted in substantial death and property damage, Earth absolutely needs the means to defend itself.

No, no, you see. The author is dead, there is no author, there is no in-story logic, you're missing the point.

The real point, the real reason fiction exists, is to make critics look clever. And the way the critic looks clever is to use the critical equivalent of a stock footage montage: Condemn the story as homophobic, because if you look hard enough you can find enough 'evidence' that anyone is gay.

Seriously, guys, you're wasting your time. You can't argue with a deconstructionist, you just look, nod, chortle when they say funny things, and get on with your life.

Who appoints the Avengers? Who holds them accountable? Fury does. Fury, who is accountable to none but another group of unaccountable types, who he breaks free from anyways. Fury and the movie insist that we ought to revere the Avengers because of how cool they are. This is fascistic.

And rule by shadowy oligarchs armed with superweapons and troops equipped by a monopoly on super-science personal weapons isn't. Riiight.

See, I always thought of fascism as a kind of dark-populist tyranny, where the few justify their rule by their power to command the affections of the many. But that's the historian's version, not the lit-crit version.

EDIT: Also, within the movie's framework, Phase 2 is A-OK. There's nothing wrong with it, really. Otherwise, Coulson wouldn't have managed to humiliate Loki with a Phase 2 weapon.

This is the funniest thing you've said in weeks.

But the biggest sign is probably Loki calling Black Widow a quim. I didn't actually know the meaning of this slang before Bakustra mentioned it above and I googled it. Yeah, that's pretty much the biggest 'subtle' clue about the character.

He's sure misogynistic. I don't think I buy the assumption that every character presented as misogynist is also being presented as gay. Whedon's been bringing in misogynist characters since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and a lot of them aren't gay.

I'm pretty sure "misogynist" is Whedon-code for "this character is an irredeemable asshole." Not so much "and this character is gay but we're not actually going to say it explicitly."

[Ryan Thunder]

If an element is in the construct, it must have a reason for being there.

This is why you fail.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I'm just curious how the word "quim" has become associated with "this guy is gay" and not "this guy is an asshole". If he used the c-word, would that make him gay?

I did get a very strong "eurotrash" vibe from him, though. I guess that makes the Avengers the Tea Party or something.

[FaxModem1]

What do you mean, Fax? Why would WB and DC need to 'react' to Avengers at all? Their efforts for a Justice League movie have been documented, but remain in development hell until they can get a good superman movie done.

Well, aside from their Green Lantern movie, and Man of Steel coming out next year, they don't have any other movie plans. You would think something would be in pre-production at least. Instead, it seems they've just thrown in the towel.

[Ford Prefect]

This is why you fail.

You cannot be serious.

[Stofsk]

I'm just curious how the word "quim" has become associated with "this guy is gay" and not "this guy is an asshole".

It's not by itself, but in conjunction with other stuff.

If an element is in the construct, it must have a reason for being there.

This is why you fail.

One more spammy one-liner post Ryan, and I will split you the fuck out of this thread.

[Sarevok]

If an element is in the construct, it must have a reason for being there.

This is why you fail.

Ryan is absolutely correct. Not everything in a comic book movie has deep subtext and meaning. it's a movie where the incredible hulk and norse god thor team up to beat up space aliens. This is not a work of Tolkien or even original Star Wars where the creators put a great deal of thought in every minor detail.

[Ford Prefect]

Ryan is absolutely correct. Not everything in a comic book movie has deep subtext and meaning. it's a movie where the incredible hulk and norse god thor team up to beat up space aliens. This is not a work of Tolkien or even original Star Wars where the creators put a great deal of thought in every minor detail.

So what you're saying is that all this gay rape subtext just emerged from the work by ... coincidence?

[Sarevok]

Ryan is absolutely correct. Not everything in a comic book movie has deep subtext and meaning. it's a movie where the incredible hulk and norse god thor team up to beat up space aliens. This is not a work of Tolkien or even original Star Wars where the creators put a great deal of thought in every minor detail.

So what you're saying is that all this gay rape subtext just emerged from the work by ... coincidence?

Are you saying the writers put it in there intentionally ? I don't think they were as clever or thought as much as you give them credit for. A lot of things in a lot of movies come off as homosexual when viewed in hindsight, unintentional gay subtexts are pretty much one of the most common tropes ever in fiction.

[evilsoup]

You know, not all meaning is intentional. I'm pretty sure, for example, that Silence of the Lambs wasn't deliberately made to be transphobic, but it still was. Likewise, I'm pretty sure Loki wasn't supposed to be gay, but I can see how people would read that into the film. Artists don't create in a vacuum, and looking at this stuff can allow us to get some insight into contemporary culture.

Now, I think the 'phallic weapon' thing is reaching a bit as pretty much every weapon can be called phallic (but then, it did extend just before the combat scenes, hmm..). As for Loki only dealing with women, I think that's more down to there being what - two female characters in the film (Black Widow and the SHIELD agent)? Three if we count Pepper, but then she had no impact on the plot. This film fails the Bechdel test pretty thoroughly, so I''d say its more down to the inherent sexism in the superhero genre (being essentially male power-fantasy).

[CaptainChewbacca]

It emerged from the fevered mind of someone trying to see something that's not there. Nobody working on the script ever looked up and said 'Hey, how about we make his staff phallic and turn all the mind control into a rape metaphor?!'

Sometimes a scepter is just a scepter.

When Bruce Banner grabbed the scepter in the lab, was he getting a metaphorical erection? Or was he about to metaphorically rape people?

Grow up. This is like that homoerotic deconstructionist nonsense from X-Men 2. 'Ooh.. ice-man blew on a coke bottle for wolverine to cool it off, oral sex!'

Loki isn't gay, he's euro.