Utopia Defined: “The Blazing World” by Margaret Cavendish

 I wrote another entry for my Utopia Defined series. Click Here. Feel free to read, review, and pass it on.

Avengers: Age of Ultron or "The Facts in the Case of Mr. Joss Whedon"

Let's face it: Ultron deciding within five minutes of accessing the Internet that "ALL HUMANS MUST DIE!" is probably the most realistic moment in the MCU. 

Those of you know, by now, that I have a fervent, passionate hatred for one movie in particular. Don't worry; I'm not going to do a review of it. I've kind of sworn off reviewing that movie unless I'm offered a sizeable chunk of cash. I just don't think I could make a hate screed worth someone's time, plus, like I said, I have a harder time embarking on the Snyder hate rants as of late. So not going to do it, unless there's money involved.

On a slightly related note, here's my ko-fi. If you want to drop a few bucks in my cup, I can't say I'd object too strongly. 

Anyway, the reason I'm bringing up that one movie is, well, due to this article from The Dissolve. The article posits that Age of Ultron serves as a response to that movie. And I don't think it's a conscious effort to do a Take That against the DCEU, but the contrast between the two movies, the way they use their various tropes, is something to reflect on. 

Unlike Snyder's film, which has an aesthetic of gunmetal grey or, when looking for some variety, blue-grey, Ultron is bright and glorious in color. The biggest distinguishing trait, however, is the drive the Avengers have to try and save as many people as possible. They are up against a villain who wants to exterminate humanity, so in response, the Avengers decide that every life matters and go out of their way to rescue as many people as possible. Because that's what heroes do: give 'em a choice between A and B, and they'll try to find option C, which is All of the Above. They may not always succeed in finding option C, but they fight as hard as they can to do so. 

Which again, puts it far ahead of that movie, with its borderline sociopath of a hero barely bothering to try to take the fight away from a dense population center. Yeah, the bad guy was having none of it, but again, what distinguishes the heroes from the villains is that the heroes try to pay even just lip service to the value of human life. 

It's the same problem that Fred has talked about in the Left Behind-verse. Both the good guys and the bad guys seek to destroy the other and violently subjugate humanity at their feet; the difference between the two is that one side succeeds in destroying its enemies and subjugating humanity, whereas the other one fails. 

This is obviously bad form, because the most basic rule of writing a story with heroes and villains, be them superheroes or characters from some other genre, is that there needs to be a fundamental difference between good and evil. The bad guys place no value on human life, so the heroes double down on the idea that all lives matter. 

But while I have a certain fondness for movie, I would be remiss in my duties if I didn’t acknowledge that it holds a rather jaundiced reputation in the fandom.

Some of it is, I feel, mostly undeserved. Again, with only a few exceptions, whenever people go on and on about how modern superhero movie X is the “WORST MOVIE EVER!!!” I mostly roll my eyes. You kids are all spoiled with your directors that actually give a shit…any superhero fan older than thirty can tell you that the history of comic book adaptations is often a dark and scary one. It was a long time before Hollywood accepted the basic facts that as silly as these characters are, there’s a reason people love them, and they work best when they’re mostly played straight. 

But I have to admit that rewatching this movie now that Joss Whedon’s reputation lies in tatters* is a different experience. While he was the creative force behind the first Avengers movie for me, it’s this movie that somehow seems to line up better with the embittered toxic egomaniac depicted by former exes and colleagues. When the first Avengers came out, Whedon was collectively worshipped by geek culture and while all the scandals hadn’t broken the time this movie came out, for whatever reason, it is harder for me to divorce the art from the artist for this film. I’m not entirely sure why.

Again, the decision as to whether or not to enjoy the art of someone who is a terrible person, is a personal one, capable of only being made on an individual basis. It’s up to you whether or not Whedon’s behavior is a dealbreaker. With me, I’m likely to continue to enjoy the stuff I’ve already consumed but hold back on exploring any further. However great Buffy or Firefly may be, there’s also art just as equally good that wasn’t created by assholes, so why not spend my time on them, rather than on assholes. Whenever I hear talk about how Toxic Creator X gave us this or that, I find myself thinking about his victims. What great art did we miss out on because someone was driven out of the industry by the toxicity and abuse they received? 

We likely will never know. And I do not fault people who still cherish memories of Buffy or whatever projects they’ve enjoyed. I understand how it is. We say things like “It’s just a movie/TV show/whatever!” but that’s not entirely true. We forged identities and communities because of our love for mere entertainment, and sometimes much more. The critic Nathan Rabin has talked about how when he was fourteen, after being sent to a mental hospital, pretty much the only thing that got him through was an obsession with seeing Steven Seagal’s Marked for Death when he got out. I’m sure many of us have similar stories about art that, regardless of its actual quality, really spoke to us and was there for us in a moment we really needed it. I have mine, and I’m sure the rest have yours. Sometimes you have to take strength where you can find it, even if it’s trash.

And while I am only tangentially knowledgeable about Buffy, looking at it, I can understand why it landed the way it did with people. Compared with what was out at the time, Buffy was a revelation, having the blonde teenage girl be the lead and outwit the bad guys, exist as an actual character and not a male power fantasy. To say nothing about the show’s LGBT rep; from what I’ve heard for a lot of people, this was the first place they ever saw LGBT people represented and treated as, well, people with quirks and foibles like everyone else. Buffy walked so that the innumerable shows that came after it, could run. 

Okay, I should probably get to the movie and do less navel-gazing about art and artists.

Well, to start, I have to say that I never liked the reoccurring “LANGUAGE!” bit with Steve Rogers.  First of all, I think someone did the math and proved that Steve swears the most out of all the Avengers. It’s a trap Whedon and too many writers fall into when it comes to Steve, treating him like a farmboy from 1950s Kansas as opposed to an Irish Catholic who came of age in a Depression-era Brooklyn slum.

And I freely admit that I’m mixing canons here, but while it’s not so much in the MCU, Steve has traditionally been written as the child of Irish immigrants, so I’ve incorporated it into my personal canon that I carry across all adaptations. That’s the beauty of multiple canons, being able to pick and choose from whichever traits you like. I just really like the idea of him being a child of immigrants, having firsthand knowledge that all fearmongering about immigrants is BS, because time may march on, but the arguments of bigots remain the same. 

And yes, I do have comic panels about this, which I use as part of my “Captain America Secretly Hates America” exhibit.

The movie skips the setup and just drops us in.

Of course, this opening seems to come a bit out of nowhere. The people who watched Iron Man 3 are like, "Uh, didn't Tony destroy all his armors?" and really, the only assumption you can make is that at some point, he just rebuilt them. I guess it's a symptom of how it is with Tony, how he can't seem to walk away from superheroing, even as the costs of it mount. Though again, it does make you wonder to what extent they planned the plotline of the MCU. While they did plan, it obviously wasn’t down to the dot and tittle and with as many people involved with the planning, it makes sense that they would occasionally trip over each other. A minor example can be seen in the “LANGUAGE!” bit with Steve, but a bigger one can be seen with Tony’s retirement. 

But while they’re in the process of kicking ass and taking names, they face some unexpected issues in the form of the Maximoffs. And here we’ve got to talk about Wanda and Pietro.

First off, their origin for those interested. Those of you have already noticed the major changes to their background. Basically, at the time this movie was made, Marvel didn’t have the rights to the X-Men and therefore, they couldn’t use the concept of the mutants or anything related to the X-Men at all. So Wanda and Pietro were written as humans who volunteered for Hydra experiments and gained superpowers as a result. And given that Hydra is basically a Nazi organization whereas Wanda and Pietro have traditionally been written as being of Jewish-Romany descent…yeah, there’s no denying the problematic as fuck nature of this.

So why did they opt to introduce the characters? According to IMDB, Joss Whedon said he cast Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch because he thought their powers would be cool to use in a film: "Their powers are very visually interesting. One of the problems I had on the first one was everybody basically had punchy powers. Quicksilver's got super-speed, Scarlet Witch can weave spells, and a little telekinesis, get inside your head. That's good stuff they can do, that will help keep it fresh."

While raiding the Hydra base, Wanda uses her powers to mess with Tony’s mind. It is this moment that will proceed to drive his actions for the rest of the film. So he and Bruce create Ultron, which as you can probably guess, doesn’t end well. 

But first, we'll have ourselves a party.

And while the MCU does better with its team of heroes than the DCEU, lately my thoughts have been similar to those expressed in this pin. 

Though it's not entirely accurate: we swung by 2016 to pick up Peter Parker

Because this party is the extent we get of the Avengers hanging out and being pals. While there are some nice moments, especially the hammer scene, we don’t really get to see them being pals much, which hampers the dramatic effects as the team breaks down. I’m not sure what or how they could have solved this problem within the confines of the movies. It’s one of the perks of TV series in that the long form aspect gives a little more breathing room, allowing for more monster-of-the-week and other kinds of episodes that let the writers play around with the characters even though they don’t do much to advance the overall plot. Maybe this is one of those things that could have been helped with shorts. As always, I remain a little disappointed that the MCU doesn’t run shorts before their movies ala Pixar. 

Because again, as much as I enjoy a good, well-crafted tragedy, I’m an even bigger sucker for fluff.

But you know how it is… you’re having a nice party, everyone’s having fun, and then your teammate’s secret AI project turns evil and crashes the party.

Following a lead, the Avengers track down Ultron to South Africa and here, Wanda decides to fuck with everyone’s head.

Natasha receives a vision of her past. For those of you wondering about the ballerinas, when she was in the Red Room, they brainwashed her into believing that she was a ballet dancer for the Bolshoi Ballet. And here, I fight the urge to go into a rant about what a barrel of missed opportunities the long overdue Black Widow movie was. 

Thor, like Tony, receives a vision of a dark future.

And as for Steve’s vision? Well, his is a bit trickier to quantify. I probably could count it as one of Marvel’s desperate efforts to prove Steve’s heterosexual, something they tried repeatedly to do after Winter Soldier basically supercharged the Bucky/Steve ship. But there are signs of deeper issues.

As for Hawkeye, that one doesn’t go as well as Wanda hoped.

Long story short, everyone’s left reeling in the wake of Ultron and Wanda’s attacks. So Hawkeye takes them home to meet the fam.

The farmhouse scenes work so well, containing some of the most naturalistic moments of this movie. I love the fact that Hawkeye turns out to be a family man. So many superheroes are isolated, having only a handful of colleagues they confide in. It’s easy to see why so many superhero stories make this choice—fewer relationships mean fewer things to trip up the heroes and serve as something which might hamper their ability to kick ass and take names—but it could represent a heaping host of missed opportunities. 

An example of all this can be seen in the horror genre. It’s a simple enough plotline to just send a masked serial killer after some idiotic horny teenagers, but there’s a reason some of the best horror stories involve adult protagonists. The simple truth is that an adult protagonist is someone who has more to lose. Usually, an adult has a well-established life—a home, job, spouse, and children—thus, giving them more of a reason why they have a vested interest in the status quo and why they’d be so scared by the prospect of something shaking it up. Plus, an adult is presumed to have a couple of brain cells to rub together, so you can’t get away with them making incredibly dumb decisions the way a horny teenager might.

There are also more personal stakes for the hero in all this. As said before, motives like “save the world” can be so abstract and vague as to be hard to envision, but “save person X” or “save the world so I can see my kids grow up” is a bit more concrete and easier to get invested in.

Don’t get me wrong: personal relationships can also be used to be killed off for cheap drama (see for example Lian Harper), but often they can provide another angle from which to view the hero. One of the neat decisions Batman: the Animated Series made was to not merely have Harvey Dent be an ally of Batman, but to actually be a good friend to Bruce Wayne, which serves to make his inevitable fall even more tragic. Bruce isn’t just losing an ally in his war on crime; he’s losing a friend, the closest thing Bruce has to a normal relationship. Granted they didn’t do as much with this friendship as they could have, but it’s still a nice choice.

Meanwhile, Tony and Steve chop wood, and Bruce and Natasha talk.

And I suppose it's high time I talked about one of the key complaints regarding this movie: the characterization of Natasha.

The attempts to pair her with Bruce in this movie are widely lambasted as an incoherent mess. On some level, I agree, but the thing is, I actually find the idea of those two being together to be interesting. Don't get me wrong; it was done badly in this movie. It comes way the heck out of nowhere and once this movie's over, it's never mentioned again.

If they had actually built up the relationship, I would actually be much more onboard. I find the idea of the two as a couple fascinating. Why? Well, I personally believe that of all the Avengers, Hulk is the one Natasha fears the most. She can't outfight the Hulk, outwit him, nor do her usual "femme fatale" bit--Hulk is a creature of rage and muscle. So having her and Bruce be together presents an interesting wrinkle on the subject. 

But given how badly it was received, Marvel chose to treat the whole thing like a cat turd: bury it and never speak of it again. And because fans tend to be an obsessive bunch (fan is short for fanatic for a reason), when not given an explanation, they'll come up with their own and plug them in. The commonly accepted one is that Natasha was deliberately trying to cultivate a romantic relationship with Bruce as a means of gaining further control over the Hulk. Because the Hulk continues to represent a dangerous loose end for the various world governments. Yeah, he saved New York City, but Banner's control over it is a tenuous one at best, as seen by his rampage through South Africa.

As I've said before, the reason the character of the Hulk endures, is due in part to the mystery surrounding the character, what exactly is it. Because while he's referred to as a "big green rage monster," at the same time, that is a rather simplistic understanding. Mark Ruffalo, in the IMDB trivia section for this movie, has a really cool quote about the relationship between the Hulk and Bruce: 

"There's a very cool thing happening in the film: Hulk is as afraid of Banner, as Banner is afraid of Hulk. Both of these guys are obviously the same guy, and they have to come to peace somehow with each other, and this confrontation is building across this film." 

 You have no idea what a cool idea that sounds to me, the idea that the Hulk is just as scared of Bruce Banner as Bruce Banner is of the Hulk. The "strongest hero there is" fears someone who, genius-level intellect aside, amounts to an ordinary human. 

I personally feel that Hulk works better as an ensemble character, rather than trying to carry a movie by himself, but stuff like the attempted Bruce/Natasha relationship, makes me wonder if it would have been better to have a Hulk movie before this one that better established the relationship. 

But that's not the only issue people have with Natasha in this movie. 

Some of the reoccurring problems with her character stem in some small part from the fact that for a while, she was the only female avenger, thus, putting her into the classic trap where one character has to represent half of the human population. It's one of the reasons I adore Black Panther or Birds of Prey. By :gasp: :choke: :pearlclutch: having more than one female character, it allows the other characters to breathe a little, demonstrate actual personalities outside of being girls with girl parts. 

Natasha has also been written more, how should I say, favorable to the male gaze, which serves to further undermine her as a character. So many times, the camera focuses on her, um, talents and assets, which is probably why Natasha doesn't attract the character hate from whinyass fanboys the way, say, Captain Marvel** does.

This beautiful artist is basically parodying the poster of the first Avengers movie, which had everyone striking cool heroic poses, except for Natasha of course. Because we must stress that she's a girl with girl parts. 

As for the part where Natasha calls herself a monster, I interpreted it as referring to the red in her ledger, but other people took other interpretations. And yeah, people who can't have kids are not monsters; this is a fairly obvious statement, but I felt like I should make it just in case. 

In light of Whedon's unraveling, people are, of course, reevaluating his characters. For a while, he was labeled as a male feminist, but histories of his abuse of actresses and exes...And as this article points out,

female characters in his works are often strong because of horrific background of torture and abuse, which isn't exactly a ringing feminist endorsement. 

However, Black Widow has traditionally been written as coming from a background of brainwashing, torture, and abuse, so this isn't Whedon's fault. 

Then again, it does gall me that so many female characters have rape backstories. Male characters become heroes or villains for a wide variety of reasons, but you have any female character in a position of power, it'll invariably turn out that she was at some point, either raped or threatened with rape. Yes, this is sadly a reality for many women, but the thing is, you don't have to do that for every character. 

It was one of the strengths of Wonder Woman in that the titular character wasn't driven by angst or a horrific backstory; she was driven by an abundance of kindness. WW just loves and cares about people and thus, wants to do what she can to protect them.

Speaking of Wonder Woman, there's the matter of Joss Whedon's infamous script. Here's the full script for those interested.

Unfortunately, the Maximoff twins' alliance with Ultron hits a little snag when it turns out that he plans on wiping out humanity by using the capitol city of Sokovia as an asteroid. 

Okay, so now you know the stakes. Ultron is basically being all, "You can save this city full of innocent civilians or the world," and the Avengers respond by going, "STFU, we're doing both!" because that's what heroes do. 

That’s what sticks with me regarding the big climax: the lengths the Avengers go to, to try to save as many civilians as possible. Even before the battle really got started, they were doing whatever they can to evacuate as many people as possible. Because again, that’s what heroes do. In the face of Ultron’s plan for mass extinction, they assert the value of human life above all else. You know they can’t save everyone, but they’re going to do their damnedest to try.

And I’m breaking the rule, but it’s something I missed in future Avengers movies, how they get knocked around and smash through buildings with no real consideration or concern for ordinary civilians. Maybe they didn’t have the time to show this, but I missed stuff like the first Avengers movie where they tried to confine the fighting to one area to lessen the number of civilian casualties and their actions in this one. Even though they’re hopelessly outclassed, I also like how they had the police trying to do what they can to protect people.

It’s part of the reason that moment in Superman: the Animated Series continues to hit so powerfully. The police officers weren’t running around completely rock-stupid; they were doing what little they could to protect people. Yeah, they’re struggling because they’re ordinary cops against supervillains, but they’re still going to do what they can because every life saved, is a victory.

Then again, given what real world police are like, this may be the most unrealistic part of these adaptations.

Okay, done bringing depressing reality into this.

Despite all the buildup with Hawkeye and his family, Pietro is the one who ends up dying, rather than Hawkeye suffering a case of retirony.

Eventually, the day is saved. The people are evacuated out, the city is destroyed, and Paul Bettany has to actually show up for work rather than just collect a sackful of cash for a voiceover.

As for cut scenes, the infamous cave scene actually makes more sense in the extended version, making me wonder why the heck they cut it in the first place. Apparently the studio forced Whedon to put the cave scene to provide buildup for Ragnarök, at least that’s what he claims.

As for the mid-credit scene, Thanos is going to stop delegating and get off his ass.

And that’s Age of Ultron. Next up is Ant-Man.

*For those of you struggling with the paywall, let me lend you my 12-foot ladder.

**Don’t worry. We’ll get to the collective whinyass fit the fanboys through over this movie. Though they have it out for Brie Larson in general, to the point where the key to winning a fight with them is to go, “Hey look it’s Brie Larson!” then punching them right in the motherfucking face as soon as they turn their heads. 

Utopia Defined: Plato’s Republic

 I finally wrote another edition of Utopia Defined. This time, I tackle Plato. Feel free to read, review, and pass along. 

Next book on the agenda is Margaret Cavendish’s The Blazing World for those interested in following along.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 or "Hooked on a Feeling"

 Let’s face it. Marvel was testing us with this movie. What do I mean? Well, let me explain through a fictitious dialogue which I totally assumed happened at some point. You can cast whoever you like as Marvel One and Marvel Two, Kevin Feige or whoever seems like the most likely candidates.

Marvel One: Okay, it seems like we’ve done it—we basically have a license to print money—but I think we should test this.

Marvel Two: What do you mean?

Marvel One: You know how we’ve so far adapted characters that the general public may have had a passing knowledge of? I say, “Fuck that!” Let’s adapt characters that no one, I repeat, no one will have heard of unless they’re hardcore comics fans.

Marvel Two: Sounds promising. In addition to what you’ve mentioned so far, how about we adapt a whole team, thus making it so we have to introduce several characters at the same time in one movie.

Marvel One: Great idea! And you know how we’ve mostly toned down the really out there, comic book elements of our series? I say, “Fuck that as well!” Let’s go way out of the bounds of realism. We’ll have two of our characters be a talking space raccoon and a giant tree. Fucking shoot realism in the face, man!

Marvel Two: Ooh…sounds like fun. Hey, have you decided who will play our hero, a dashing Han Solo-esque scoundrel?

Marvel One: Is the chubby guy from Parks and Rec taking our calls?

Marvel Two: Got ‘em on the line. Out of curiosity, do you think it’d be possible to have our characters save the day via a dance-off and the power of friendship?

This movie also forced me to accept a very painful truth: I am Bill Kristol when it comes to entertainment.

Who is Bill Kristol? Bill Kristol is a Very Serious Person who has the rare gift of always being constantly wrong on every major issue. No matter what he predicts, the opposite will occur. It’s almost comforting in a way what a screwup Bill Kristol is. Other pundits occasionally stumble into Stopped Clock moments, but not Bill. You find yourself wishing that all the idiotic pundits displayed that level of consistency. As an anonymous astute commenter on the Internet put it, “You could probably [have] a reasonably successful foreign policy by just seeing what Bill Kristol is advocating and doing something else.”

Why am I the Bill Kristol of entertainment? Because I too, manage to be that consistently wrong. When I heard about Truck Nuts, I was like, “Who would want to openly advertise the disappointment in their pants? This will never catch on.” When Justin Bieber had one of his songs listed for free on iTunes, I listened and thought, “Dude looks and sounds like he’s twelve. This will never catch on.” When I heard about Dancing with the Stars, I was like, “No one’s going to want to see a bunch of D-List celebrities dance.” 

And when I heard about this movie, my feeling was that it was going to be a sleeper: do all right business but not Blockbuster-level business. Because as already stated, it was about characters no one had heard of, and it was an August release. August has long been the month where Hollywood releases its bombs or its movies they consider too quirky or weird to gain an audience. And then Guardians proceeds to be the highest-grossing movie of 2014.

So yeah, I’ve accepted that I’m the Bill Kristol of entertainment. My only objection is unlike Bill Kristol, I haven’t managed to make a comfortable living despite always being wrong, and I’m mostly wrong about frivolous stuff but right about serious stuff, whereas Kristol is wrong about very serious issues. :pauses to sob for a few minutes:

For those of you who are feeling generous, I have a Ko-Fi. If you want to drop a few bucks in my cup, I can’t say I’d object. I also have a book.

For the record, if Marvel was testing us, trying to see how dedicated the fans are, I can’t judge them too harshly. If my fandom were as large and as rabid, like hell would I be able to resist it. I imagine it’s true of all the proprietors of large fandoms, that it’s hard to resist the effort to toy with your fanbase a little.

Though this film does serve a larger purpose in the plotting of the MCU.  Until this movie, the action had been mostly confined to Earth; we knew that there were aliens, but that was the extent of what we knew of the wider Marvel-verse. This movie expands the canvas on which the Marvel universe operates. It introduces the Kree, a race of aliens, who play a reoccurring role in the Marvel universe. And probably most importantly, it introduces Thanos and further explains the infinity stones, both of which are important players in future films. 

Have to say, Thanos, why did you ditch the gold armor? You looked so much cooler in it. But I may be breaking my rule about leaping ahead, so let’s move on.

I almost want to do a compare and contrast between this movie and The Eternals. Both movies introduce a large cast of characters in one movie, but one movie succeeds at this, while the other fails. But that would be in major violation of the rule. Plus, it’s still uncertain as to what part The Eternals will play in the MCU, whether Marvel will continue to develop its characters/plotlines or just treat it like a fresh cat turd and bury it deep. I might save this idea for later.

Rewatching this film, the thing that stood out to me, was just how pretty it is. This film is as much a space opera as it is a superhero film, and space operas are almost as much about spectacle as superhero films are. But while Marvel isn't as awashed in dull, colorless, gunmetal-grey aesthetic as the DCEU, it still favors something of a muted palette, probably as an attempt to ground the films. Guardians is bright, glorious, and beautiful. 

And just as with the previous film, this is another case of Marvel deciding to take a chance on a relatively inexperienced director. If you look over James Gunn's filmography until Guardians, he had mostly done indie comedic works, which makes him an interesting choice for your blockbuster superhero space opera. 

But you want me to shut up and talk about the movie. 

The film begins with a ten-year-old Peter Quill being abducted by aliens. The second film reveals the larger, sadder story behind the abduction, but to go into further detail, would violate my rule. I have violated that rule before and will do it again, but I feel I should put forth the effort to try to follow it. Suffice to say, I do hope that the third film remembers that Peter left behind family on Earth, family that has probably spent decades wondering what happened to him. 

After this heartbreaking intro, we meet an adult Quill played by the final Chris to appear in the MCU, Chris Pratt.* 

Those of you who have watched the linked clips have already noted another thing, which makes this movie stand out, aside from its palette: the soundtrack. The collection of 70s and 80s pop songs serve several purposes, by giving this film a memorable sound lacking in other Marvel films, but it also serves as a personal touch, a reminder of the life and the family Peter left behind on Earth. 

The movie sets up its MacGuffin early on in the orb Peter steals in the opening. It also cuts to the chase when it comes to getting our heroes together. And I have to commend how well it works, how it manages to sum up the characters and their motivations within a few minutes, while being a well-choreographed fight/chase. We learn that Rocket Raccoon is cynical and views everything mostly throw the lens of money, though not too cynical as demonstrated by his friendship with Groot. Groot is fundamentally a gentle soul, though is more than capable of throwing down when needed. And Gamora is a fierce warrior who generally doesn't believe in wasting time. And all of them are damn good at thinking on their feet. 

But unfortunately for all parties, the authorities catch them, and they're packed off to the pokey. 

It's at the prison they meet Drax the destroyer, and while they're initially antagonistic towards one another, Peter manages to broker a truce via one of the biggest motivators: money. 

Basically, the mysterious orb he found at the beginning of the film is worth a whole lot of money, so if they work together and bust out of prison, the idea is that they can turn it in and collect a solid payday, before going their separate ways. 

So here's another way this film stands out: basically, all of its heroes are Han Solo from Star Wars. 

Not going to deny: my first childhood crushes were either on Han Solo or Tommy from Power Rangers. I believe in being upfront about these things. 

Of course, the Star Wars franchise has become so ingrained in the wider popular culture probably to the point where even the people on North Sentinel Island know Darth Vader is Luke's father, that we forget some of the reasons why it works so well. 

A New Hope has a sense of fun that none of the subsequent films do, mostly because George Lucas is pretty much winging it when it comes to creating a mythos. Lucas hasn't settled on what exactly the Clone Wars the Leia hologram speaks of yet, and generally, is more interested in capturing the gee-whiz wonder of the sci-fi serials he enjoyed. Don't get me wrong--I generally like most of the Star Wars films--but A New Hope has a different tone from its followers. 

Luke Skywalker is, of course, the titular heroic figure, but Han Solo attracts our attention pretty quick, because while Luke is the straightforward hero, Han is much more morally grey. After all, he had no interest in being part of a rebellion or anything like that; he took a job so he could pay off the gangster he was in debt to, only for the job to turn out to be much more complicated than he thought. So yeah, he's motivated by money and isn't too shy about admitting it. Harrison Ford's charisma and bravado serve as a large reason why Han doesn't come across as completely unlikeable.

The same is true of our protagonists in this film. Despite their more mercenary motivations, their wit and charisma make us like and root for them. Plus, money can be an easier motive for the audience to envision, far more than abstract ones like "Save the world." In fact, writing tip, when telling a story, it helps to give our heroes a more personal cause, because “saving the world” is, like I said, so big and abstract as to be hard to envision. A good example of this is The Hunger Games where initially Katniss is not interested in joining a rebellion; her primary motivations are to protect the people she cares about. She does eventually become more interested in a rebellion as the series wears on, but initially her motives are personal ones.

Naturally, what makes our heroes, well, heroes is that when it becomes apparent that larger issues are at work, they step up. 

Though Guardians has a rather nice exchange regarding the whole “saving the world” bit.

Rocket Raccoon: What did the galaxy ever do for you? Why would you want to save it?

Peter Quill: Because I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!

So the climax is Our heroes need to recover the stone of power from the villain, Ronan the Accuser, so he doesn’t use it to wipe out entire civilizations and set himself up as a god. This culminates in the day being saved via dance-off/power of friendship.

And now I suppose it’s time to talk about where the villain ranks in terms of the MCU. 

Credit where credit is due, Ronan isn’t just an old guy in a business suit. Ronan is a Kree warrior in service to Thanos and initially, he was hired to retrieve the stone on his behalf. Of course, once Ronan got his hands on an artifact of almost unfathomable power, he’s like “I could go return it or I could say, ‘Nah!’ and use my newfound powers to do some good ol’ fashioned conquering and set myself as a god in my own name,” which makes sense. The kind of amoral villain that you could hire to steal a very powerful artifact, generally isn’t the kind of person willing to share. Plus I hate Thanos** so I can’t help but respect someone willing to stab him in the back.

But I really don’t remember much about Ronan aside from his issues with eye makeup, and the WTF?! reaction he has to Peter doing a dance-off. I think I’ll give him a two on the villain scale.

And that’s Guardians of the Galaxy for you. Looking at the landscape of superhero films before and after this one, shows how truly innovative it is. Guardians walked so movies like Birds of Prey and The Suicide Squad could run.

Next on the slate is Avengers: Age of Ultron. See you until then.

*He’s also currently the least cool of the four Chrises but let’s not get into that.

**Do I have a myriad of “Thanos is full of shit” rants at the ready? You better believe I do, but I’ll save them for later.

Captain America: the Winter Soldier or “WARNING! Gush levels will be at maximum!”

Hey everybody. Sorry it took until now for the post.

I don’t know if anyone has read my “Utopia Defined” post. If you haven’t, the previous post has a link. Go check it out. If me posting on Medium.com isn’t working for you, please let me know. 

Subtitle exists because of all the MCU films, this is one of my favorites, definitely in the top three. So if I sound more enthusiastic then usual, that’s why. It’s also why this post will be hella long because again, I go all in on my obsessions. In fact, I had a hard time writing this one, because I couldn't stop thinking of things I wanted to say. At some point, I had to basically hamstring myself, be like, "Yeah, I know you want to talk about every minute of this movie, but you can't. Deal with it." 

I will also continue to document Captain America’s shameful anti-Americanism.

My two favorite fictional characters are Captain America and Samwise Gamgee. I think my standards are so high, no person stands a chance of satisfying me.

Like with Phase One, when Captain America: the First Avenger injected new life into the franchise following the mediocre Iron Man 2 and Thor, Winter Soldier does the same for Phase Two, injecting new life following mediocre Iron Man and Thor sequels. 

While each film of the MCU can be enjoyed by itself, there are certain films that serve as key films. Iron Man, having served as the cause of the Cambrian explosion of the MCU, is one of them. The Avengers, the first team up, is another one. And this film marks another turning point, forever casting a shadow over subsequent plotlines. 

Because up to this point, we had a fairly good idea as to who were the good guys and who were the bad guys when it came to the MCU. We also probably hadn’t given much thought to SHIELD beyond “oh yeah, that's the government Men in Black like organization.” This film would forever change that, prove that the definition we had, was murkier than we thought.

Though before we get into the film proper, I have one gripe: what exactly are Steve’s superpowers supposed to be? Because I thought the super-soldier serum merely put him at the peak of human condition/performance, yet several times in this movie, I’m like, “Okay does he have a Wolverine-style healing factor?” Don’t get me wrong—I’m well aware that humans are much more durable in action movies than in real life—but even by those standards, I have to protest. I generally like to have some parameters regarding a superhero's powers. 

So what’s our boy Steve Rogers been up to following the Battle of New York? Well, here’s a day in the life of Steve.

The total stranger in question is Sam Wilson aka the Falcon who makes his debut in this movie. Sam also works as a VA counselor, and I have to give him credit in that in his interactions with Steve, he seems to be the only one who recognizes that "Hey Steve's actually going through some shit." Steve is a twentysomething who survived a war and somehow wound up in the future, having to deal with the fact that everyone he knew either has one foot in the grave or is in the grave. That's some pretty heavy shit, and combined with the fact that with the exception of his intro film, Captain's story is one of constant disillusionment (i.e. Steve is constantly being betrayed by or letdown by someone), I have to give the stink-eye to just about everyone in Steve's life, because it feels like he’s received little, if any, help with this.

Then again, Tony’s PTSD is much more visible, and he doesn’t get much help with it either, just everyone hating on him for it. So the people of the MCU just generally suck when it comes to mental health. 

Though I do like his conversation with Sam where they discuss his list. 

This is the American version of his list. The MCU proceeded to create several different versions of the list depending on what country you're watching this movie in. 

Again, the "Man Out of Time" plot point has become a key part of Steve's background, and any writer worth its salt, has the sense to plow this fertile ground silly. 

I imagine Steve would probably pleased with most of the changes in the modern-era, even as he might struggle to parse out this new world. I imagine he very quickly becomes annoyed with the way people romanticize WWII. He was there; there was nothing romantic about it. And again, I will continue to say that while superhero films are inherently a romanticization, I still think that leaning on some of the more unsavory aspects of the WWII era would go a long way towards fleshing out Steve Rogers. Once you understand things like Eugenics, how Steve would have grown-up his entire life hearing about how the world would be a better place without him in it, and how it was pretty much held to be true by just about every educated person of the time and undergird Nazi ideology, you understand why he's such a rule-breaking little mothereffer. He knows from personal experience that the best and brightest can be horribly horribly wrong. 

I also use this justification as to Steve's more enlightened views on race; basically, at some point, he was like, "If I can't believe what they say about me, can I believe what they say about the Blacks and the Jews?" Hence his more enlightened views.

Though at the same time, Steve was still raised within a very toxic stew of a culture when it comes to race. And while many would like to reduce racism and make it the product of individual assholes, the trouble is that all beliefs and prejudices are interwoven into the culture. Meaning that racism is less about the individual attitudes of people and more about systems of power and control under which ordinary people seldom stand much of a chance. No matter how well-meaning a person may be, we will invariably repeat toxic messages given to us. 

So like it or not, Steve probably has his own issues to deal with regarding race. He would have grown up with the Civil War being taught about as the Lost Cause. But basically once Steve wound up in the new era, he realizes he's wrong and sets about educating himself, which is pretty much what every member of the dominant group needs to do. Steve may slip up and occasionally use the word "negro" or "colored" because those were appropriate terminology of his time, but he promptly apologizes afterwards because Steve Rogers is a lot of things, but an asshole isn't one of them. 

Okay, I suppose I should probably stop with all the headcanons and get back to the movie. I realize not everyone has my obsessive nature where I take one off-hand line, scene, or something I read and go all galaxy-brain with my headcanons. I apologize. I still have no idea how normal people consume pop culture; the idea of just sitting there and taking in what is given me and not trying to explore mysteries in my head (i.e. go "Okay, so what did he mean by X?"), writing scripts, or theorizing just seems completely alien to me. 

But Steve unfortunately can't just spend all his time hanging out with Sam, no matter how good an influence he may be. He's got work to do.

The movie makes an interesting choice in choosing to have Steve and Natasha partner up. I know as a general rule that the people who set up the MCU planned much of what would happen but given some of the continuity hiccups that show up every now and then, it obviously wasn't planned down to the dot and tittle. I often wonder how much freedom the directors have when it came to the plan. 

This film is directed by the Russo Brothers, Joe and Anthony, who would eventually go onto become some of Marvel's go-to directors, giving us Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War, and Avengers: Endgame, but at the time of this movie, Marvel was taking a chance in letting them have a turn. If you look over their IMDB resume, up to that point, the Russos had mostly done sitcom work, the most notable of their credits being the second paintball war on Community. Hardly, the first thought you'd have when you're like, "Okay, I need to get someone to direct the next big-budget installment of a major blockbuster franchise."

Anyway, back to my original point, I wonder if the Russos were the ones who made the decision to have Natasha and Steve share a close partnership, or if it was some other person's idea. Whoever it was, it's a smart move when we look at what the characters represent. 

Steve is the product of the WWII era, an era which has been much romanticized, upheld as "The Good War" and given a wholesomeness that is completely out of sorts with the reality of any war. As said before, however just the cause of WWII may be, the Allied Forces still plunged deep into a sea of grey, morality-wise. Then again, war is inherently a murky action, only appearing straightforward in hindsight. As said before, a good example of this grey morality is that at the beginning of the war, one of the things the Allied Forces took offense at the Axis Powers for doing, was their bombing of civilian targets. Yet by the end of the war, the Allied Forces are also bombing civilian targets. 

This conversation between Steve and Nick gives the briefest of touches when it comes to the moral compromises of WWII, but doesn’t go much further than that, unfortunately. 

Natasha, meanwhile, has, throughout her history, been a product of the Cold War, a conflict much murkier and much harder to romanticize. It technically never turned, well, hot, and technically the US came out on top, but we still haven't fully reckoned with the decisions made during the conflict. For good or for ill, we are still being shaped by these decisions, yet if you were to mention the words "Operation Ajax," most people would have no idea what you're talking about, even though said event forever defined the Middle East. The Conservatives have managed to mostly rebrand Vietnam as a war which we totally could have won, were it not for all those hippies harshing everyone's mellow what with their pointing out the massive civilian casualties. 

I don't know if I'm breaking my rule about leaping ahead--I probably am--but I like the fact that Natasha and Steve's friendship stays a friendship and never, at any point, turns into a romance. I want more male-female friendships that stay friendships, thank you. 

What’s interesting about this movie is how little in its earlier stages it resembles a superhero film in terms of tone. As many have pointed out, early on this film more resembles a political thriller from the 60s or 70s where you have your good guy hero uncover a massive conspiracy, forcing the hero to go on the run, and try to piece together what’s going on. The Russo Brothers have cited the 1975 thriller Three Days of the Condor as their inspiration saying that this film could almost be referred to as “Three Days of Captain America.”

For the record, as part of my preparations for this review, I did watch Three Days of the Condor. It was okay. Don’t really have much to say about it.

And however good this movie is, it does lose some of its paranoid, almost claustrophobic nature on the rewatch, once you know the big twist.

The big twist I've been tiptoeing around throughout this post? I'll let one of the characters explain it for you.

Basically, the organization Steve spent WWII grinding into the dust, never really went away and massively infiltrated the US government and possibly many other ones and has spent the past seventy years orchestrating events from the shadows. With the help of the helicarriers mentioned in the conversation between Steve and Nick, they'll soon be able to kill anyone who stands in their way, unless Our Hero stops the launch. 

The film uses Operation Paperclip to explain how and why Hydra scientists were brought over to the US to work for the government. Operation Paperclip was a very real phenomenon and is further proof as to the ambiguities of WWII and the Cold War. Because the popular meme regarding WWII posits it as a righteous crusade against the Nazis, people who used to be painted as unequivocal villains, yet after the war, the US government is colluding with Nazi scientists, so we can get the jump on the USSR, even though the Soviets had been our allies in the war.

Again, I hope no one gets the wrong idea regarding my views of WWII. I am totally on Team Nazi Punks Fuck Off! I believe in the cause of stopping fascism and spend my days eyerolling over all these centrist concern trolls who hem and haw over the appropriateness of punching Nazis. Decades of media has continually depicted Nazis as the bad guys, yet now that they’re making a comeback*, now, our discourse is filled with obsessions with a false civility. :deep breath:

What I am opposed to, is the way WWII is overly romanticized to the point where people have forgotten just how the Nazis rose into power in the first place, how Hitler’s regime functioned, how he was aided and abetted by so many of the governments which would later oppose him. 

Though I’m wondering if I’m contradicting myself when it comes to my views on romanticization. For all the hate it gets, I do feel it has some value. It’s why I started my Utopia Defined project, because I felt our political horizons had become constrained. My views are just complicated. Do I contradict myself? Well, then I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes.

Oh and like Linkara, I feel no shame in using the terms “Nazis” and “Hydra” interchangeably for most of the same reasons. While Hydra and the Nazis broke off from each other, Hydra has always been painted as a fascist organization with trappings very similar to the Nazis and beliefs very similar to those of Nazis. I, myself, am a champion hair-splitter, but even I have my limits. If they look like Nazis and sound like Nazis, call them fucking Nazis.

Hydra’s Project Insight also has eerie reverberations in our era of drone warfare. It started with George W. Bush, but Barack Obama expanded it, and there’s a scary lack of oversight to the program. Basically, the War on Terror has expanded to just about every country in the Middle East and we have no way of knowing which names are on the list and why. And since cases like Anwar al-Awlaki** prove that not even an American citizenship will protect you from drone strikes, we have to face the fact that the President of the United States can straight-up execute its own citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate. And well, as the rule of Foucault’s Boomerang states that weapons/tactics used to suppress uprisings on its enemies abroad will eventually come to be used against its own people, we can probably assume that drone warfare will eventually be used on American soil. Even though given that the police can all but execute you for whatever reason they feel like, maybe we don't need drones to do the job. 

So Cap has discovered that the organization he's working for, is full to the brim with Nazis. And if that isn't enough, it turns out that the titular Winter Soldier who has been trying to kill him, is his tortured best friend who he thought had died after falling from a speeding train into the Alps. 

 Looking back, this whole movie is about the art of misdirection. Because again, going in, we thought we had an idea as to how the Marvel Cinematic Universe worked, thought we knew who the good guys and the bad guys were, only for it to turn out to be brutally wrong, forcing us to now look at everything that had happened prior in a new light. 

Like remember how the SHIELD council wanted to nuke New York to save the Earth from an alien invasion? Well, what if Hydra had all kinds of plans to use that to push forth their agenda on an even greater skill, which would work because the death of 8 million people? Everyone would be scared and willing to go along with anything and everything. It'd be 9/11 on steroids. 

Oh and the following is totally canon: Phil Coulson saved Steve’s life by being a fanboy. 

I imagine Steve being like, “Uh, thanks?” in response to this.

And with Senator Stern being revealed to be Hydra? Well, that gives new insight into how in Iron Man 2 he wanted badly to get his hands on Tony's technology. 

Of course, the existence of this movie proves that Tony's not as great a hacker as he claims to be, but hey, maybe after eating all that shawarma, he just forgot to get around to checking any of the other stuff he'd gotten from SHIELD.

Even the subtitle of this film is kind of an exercise in misdirection. After all it, along with the promotional materials, positions the Winter Soldier as the film's Big Bad, only for it to be revealed that he's basically a tortured POW who lacks the one freedom afforded to any POW: the ability to hate the people who are horribly abusing him. The so-called Big Bad is actually entirely lacking in agency of his own, a tool used by others. 

Though when it comes to the actual villain of the film, Alexander Pierce? For those of you wondering, he's a solid one on the 1 to 5 villain scale. He's not completely lacking in any memorable qualities ala Malekith, but Pierce is kind of the embodiment of so many of the MCU's villain problems in Phase One and Two. He's basically an old man in a business suit, interesting for the organization he represents, but he could easily be replaced by another character, say, Senator Stern, without the movie being affected by it at all. 

Anyway, Steve is understandably shaken and pissed off by everything that's happened. Like I've said before, with the exception of his intro film, nearly every appearance has Cap being betrayed or letdown by somebody. This film represents the biggest of that moment and probably the most impactful on his character. And while I can't go too in depth with this without breaking my rule about skipping ahead, much of Cap's actions in Civil War really make sense in light of this movie. :clamps mouth shut so I won't lecture any further:

Those of you know that I ship Bucky and Steve, believe that their friendship clearly goes far beyond a brotherly one. I just find the idea of a relationship between the two to be fascinating. Bucky is one of the few people who knew Steve back when he was a 95 lb. asthmatic, the one person who always believed in him and thought he was worth something, even before he was shot up full of super-soldier serum. Growing up in a culture which, like I said, constantly told him the world would be better off without him in it, you better believe that having someone like Bucky on his side meant the world to Steve. 

The repeated phrase between the two of them "I'm with you til' the end of the line" has connotations that go far beyond mere brotherly love. Though to the extent that bisexuality or homosexuality was talked about back then, well, I'm afraid I only have a laymen's/surface-level understanding of it, but probably to the extent that it was talked about, it was considered a deviancy that could be fixed via a proper heterosexual marriage. Supposedly, the Brooklyn neighborhood where Steve and Bucky would have lived, had a thriving LGBT scene, but the essay where I read this, has disappeared into the ether that is the worldwide web. 

But what I keep coming back to, regarding my Steve/Bucky ship, is the lengths they go to for one another. To leap ahead briefly, Civil War forever clenched it for me because, well, when it comes to a fight, they are willing to take their own knocks; they don't enjoy getting beat up, but they can take it. However, the surest way to really get them to go into "Oh Fuck You!" mode is to go for the other one. Twitter thread with further proof to drive the point home.

I do wonder if that was one way that Erskine's serum served as a relief for Steve, not just that he no longer has his myriad of health problems, but...well, remember the story said that the serum basically fixed what was wrong with him, so the fact that his feelings for Bucky remained even afterwards, proved to him once and for all that there wasn't anything wrong with these feelings; he wasn’t broken. 

It may be one of the greatest treats for him of the new world; he and Bucky can openly be together. 

I've also heard it theorized that the MCU version of Bucky Barnes is kind of a melding of two supporting characters from the life of Steve Rogers: Bucky Barnes and Arnie Roth. For those who don't know, Arnie Roth was basically a lot like the MCU depiction of Bucky in that he was a friend of preserum Steve Rogers who regularly rescued him from bullies and always thought he was worth something, even before Steve underwent the procedure. Roth is Jewish and is later revealed to be Gay, traits which many Steve/Bucky fans have incorporated into their headcanons regarding Bucky. 

Did I mention that the comic from which this panel was taken from, came out during the height of the AIDS epidemic during the 80s? So Cap is making a radical statement here. I wonder if I should add this to my list of exhibits in my "Captain America is an America-Hating Bastard" exhibit. 

FYI, the Bernie Cap is referring to is this woman, a Jewish Bisexual artist.

Though just as I shouldn't use the fact that one of them is named after a a president widely suspected to be Gay as support for my ship, I also shouldn't use the fact that one of the actors involved has a history of playing tortured Gay Boys either. 

Oh, all right, enough slash headcanons, back to the movie. 

I suppose we should talk about this scene which has to rank as one of the most heart-breaking and disturbing in the MCU. 

The Russo Brothers summed up their planning for this scene as thus:

The shirt-removing innovation works not just from a pervy “Sebastian Stan is hot" perspective, but also because it adds another note of vulnerability to the scene. The whole scene illustrates the paradoxical nature of the Winter Soldier's role in Hydra. The thing is, he could take out all the soldiers in the room if he wanted to, but he can't, because again, he lacks the one freedom afforded to any POW. His shirtlessness serves as a visual symbol of the power disparity involved between him and the men he serves: he's half-naked while being surrounded by soldiers in head-to-toe SWAT gear. 

The scene is even more heartbreaking than the Empire Strikes Back one, because Han didn’t completely have what little sense of self he possessed, destroyed. Whereas poor Bucky…basically he doesn’t have enough context to put together the few slivers he remembers, but for the first time in a long time, there’s something there. For the first time in ages, he knows he is being lied to. So as the machine warms up, he is begging himself to hold onto this name, this face; this is important and he cannot afford to lose this.

Though the line in Pierce’s monologue where he says, “And I need you to do it one more time…” well, it doesn’t take long to make some connotations about what this means. My personal headcanon is that Hydra had decided that once the helicarriers launched, they would no longer need the Winter Soldier. Why go to the trouble of keeping him, when you can program coordinates into a computer and have them scratched off with no muss, no fuss? 

That’s why, well, if you’ve watched any of the fight scenes with the Winter Soldier in this movie and have been like, “Y’know he seems to be the opposite of a stealthy assassin,” now you know it’s basically because Hydra no longer gave a fuck.

Though Natasha said that the Winter Soldier had been linked to dozens of assassinations over the past 50 years, but Bucky wound up Hydra’s custody back in 1945, 70 years ago. So did Bucky hold out and resist for 20 damn years or are there actions Natasha doesn’t know about?

One last nitpick regarding this scene: if you watched First Avenger, you’d recall that Zola was arrested on the train very shortly after Bucky fell. But I’m willing to accept that after falling hundreds of feet from a speeding train, Bucky’s recall might not be what you’d call a 100% accurate.

So everything’s in place for the big action climax. While it is generally a satisfying one with plenty of tension, I do feel the movie isn’t as strong without the “who can I trust?” paranoia tone of earlier. Don’t get me wrong; there are still some great fight scenes, especially the final fight between Steve and Bucky. But none of them are as creative or nail-biting as the elevator fight from earlier. 

The elevator fight frequently makes the list of best MCU fight scenes, which is completely understandable. The creativity and tension, along with its use of such a small space, makes it well worth watching.

I could easily go on and on with this movie, create headcanons within headcanons until the end of time, but I’ve already made it so that no one will ever go to a movie with me, so let’s wrap this up.

The day is saved. In the wake of the helicarrier crash, all of Hydra’s files are dumped onto the web for the world to see. Regrettably, this will only receive a scant mention in future films. 

For those interested, here are the two credit scenes. Wanda and Pietro make a cameo, but I’ve decided not to link to their origin story. Let’s save that for Age of Ultron when they play a bigger part. 

Next on the roster is Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. See you until then.

*The future was supposed to be space travel, dammit, not Nazis making a comeback!

**If you want to read more about the assassination of al-Awlaki and generally all the secret wars we're fighting all over the Middle East and Africa, Jeremy Scahill's book Dirty Wars is both fascinating and terrifying. There's also a documentary based on said book for those of you who don't like reading. 

The whole think with Anwar al-Awlaki is particularly fascinating in that in the wake of 9/11, he was often profiled as an example of a moderate Muslim who decried the terrorists' actions as antithetical to Islam. What turned him radical was being repeatedly harassed by law enforcement/intelligence organizations.

Though the real sad/scary part is the death of Abdulrahaman, his son, who was killed a few weeks after his father. Whatever your issues with his dad, Abdulrahaman was a minor and was guilty of nothing more than having a terrorist recruiter for a father. 

Utopia Defined: Sir Thomas More's "Utopia"

 For those of you interested, I finally got off my rear end and wrote the first post of my Utopia Defined series on Medium.com. Feel free to read, comment, and share. 

As for MCU Obsessed, I'll try to get the next post to you before the end of the month, barring the unforeseen.

Until then, take care. 

Thor: the Dark World or “Loki: the Loki-ing”

 Well, I don’t know if anyone is reading this, but like I said, no one would take me seriously if I made another flounce, so here I am. Again, Utopia Defined will be a long time coming, due to the amount of research required.

So Thor: the Dark World (TDW) aka the hot mess of the MCU. I suppose you could make a case that its predecessor, Iron Man 3, was a hot mess, but while it was in places, there were also some genuinely compelling elements like Tony’s PTSD. Whereas TDW is just a hot mess. 

To the extent anyone remembers anything about TDW, they remember Loki. Hence my alternate title. That mothereffer effectively stole every scene he was in, put in the bank and drew interest, making sure to invest his earnings in an offshore tax shelter so the IRS can’t get their hands on it. Tom Hiddleston is just terrific, clearly having a fabulous time with this part. 

I remain disappointed that no one answered my Tom Hiddleston vs. Benedict Cumberbatch question.

Anyway, if this review is kind of skimpy, well, it’s because outside of Loki, there’s nothing really memorable about this movie. It’s not as completely unmemorable as The Incredible Hulk but that’s not much of an accomplishment.

Following his attempt to conquer Earth, Loki has been packed off to an Asgardian prison. And Odin, being the kind of guy he is, wastes no time when it comes to being a dick. Yeah, Odin, real mystery why Loki has issues, what with the whole treating him as a political hostage rather than, y’know, your child. It’s understandable why the fangirls woobify Loki so much and while I don’t judge them too harshly for it, me, I much prefer my Loki to have something of an amoral streak.

As for what Thor’s been up to, well, after the Battle of New York, he decides to meet up with Natalie Portman.

He’s a muscle-bound Demi-god and she’s an ethereally beautiful nerd. I have no idea how their relationship works; I just know that Natalie Portman causes me to question my commitment to heterosexuality whereas Chris Hemsworth causes me to want to renew my commitment to heterosexuality, making me wonder if having them play a couple, isn’t the equivalent of putting a humidifier and dehumidifier side by side and letting them battle it out.

Let us never forget that the Four Chris Debate has been effectively resolved.

Reposting image because no one read my previous Thor post, and I’m petty as heck.

But Jane has her own issues right now.

Basically, Jane Foster has some red energy inside her that makes gravity and everything else behave wonky. So Thor brings her home to Asgard.

Ah, Odin hardly wastes any time when it comes to being a dick. Like I said before, with the sheer amount of dickish dads in the Marvel-verse (Odin, Howard Stark, Hank Pym, Harold Barton, Brian Banner, occasionally Joseph Rogers), it makes me wonder if anyone ever asked Stan Lee or Jack Kirby to show on a doll what the bad man did to them. The DC-verse probably has their share of dickish dads, but it doesn’t seem quite as extensive as Marvel, where nearly every Avenger can wear a “My Dad’s a Dick!” shirt.

I wonder if this has something to do with the differing approaches Marvel and DC take to their heroes. DC has long held its heroes as aspirational figures, people to aspire towards. I’m not saying that DC Comics’ characters are completely lacking in flaws or compelling drama but that’s the approach they take.

Whereas Marvel has long gone for a more grounded approach, showing its characters as people struggling to deal not only with the great responsibilities placed on their broad shoulders, but also ordinary stuff like trying to pay the bills.

Note, I didn’t use the world “realistic” when talking about Marvel, because while defenders of Marvel will claim that their characters are more realistic, really, there’s almost nothing realistic about superheroes. Superheroes are inherently a romanticization, modern day tales of the knight-errant as Linkara puts it in one of his best speeches.

And given, as I assert in my opening “Utopia Defined” post, we live in a stunted reality, I am more in favor of romanticization. 

Still the differing approaches Marvel and DC take to their characters can be utilized in compelling ways as seen in the Kurt Busiek and George Perez JLA/Avengers crossover, where initially the Avengers are appalled by all the massive statues of JLA members, believing that they force the populace to worship them as gods. And moments like when Aquaman argues with Doctor Doom about governing a population. 

And just in case you don’t trust my word regarding said crossover, you better believe I’ll post Linkara’s review just so you can see some of it for yourself. Part One, and Part Two.

Unfortunately, the comic itself is unavailable in trade, probably due to copyright issues, so the only way you can read this fabulous work of art, is to buy used comics, which costs mucho dinero. 

On an unrelated note,  I have a Ko-Fi. If you want to drop some bucks in my cup as thanks, feel free.

Anyway, back to the movie.

But someone else is interested in the red stuff inside Natalie Portman. Meet Malekith the Accursed

And I don’t know if anyone has been participating in the debate over which Marvel villain qualifies as Zero (as in there is nothing, nothing remotely memorable about them), but for those who guessed Malekith, come on down and collect your prize, which amounts to bragging rights.

Because there is nothing remotely memorable about Malekith. He woodenly walks through this movie never demonstrating anything resembling a personality, barely displaying the stereotypical “I’m a villain and I’m having a ball” traits seen in superhero villains.

There is no sense of life behind the character, even though superhero villains are traditionally the scenery chewers, the over-the-top grandiosity a defining trait. Granted, MCU villains (with the exception of Loki) are generally boring and bland until Phase Three, but even other Phase One and Two villains demonstrate occasional signs of life, but not Malekith.

In fairness, given how charismatic Loki is, maybe there was no chance for Malekith to be livelier than cold gravy. Malekith is played by Christopher Eccleston who played the ninth incarnation of The Doctor. Being a Baby Whovian who has only seen the 13th Doctor* and a handful of other episodes and having never seen any 9th Doctor episodes, I can’t give any comments about his performance, whether his version of The Doctor demonstrates any charisma or wit. But he certainly doesn’t demonstrate any charisma or wit in TDW. 

Granted TDW is desperately underwritten and Malekith is even more so, and there’s only so much that even a good actor can do to save a bad part. Eccleston has almost nothing to work with, so I don’t hold this film against him.**

Probably no scene better illustrates the desperately underwritten nature of this movie, that this moment: The Death of Frigga

 I put this picture up for a reason; fear not, there is a method to my madness. There are a wide variety of tests regarding female characters, The Bechdel being the most famous. To this list, I want to add another one to the pile.

Thor’s Mum rule – If you’re going to kill a character who’s carried any part of the plot, take a bit to reimagine the plot as if she were the main character, and the story ends when she dies.  If it’s unsatisfying, rewrite either her plot points, or her death, to make both more meaningful.

Frigga's death is a classic "woman in the refrigerator" moment, her death serving more to cause the men in her life Man-Pain. Oh sure, the movie puts forth some effort to go "Be sad! Be sad at this moment!" but Frigga has mattered so little that there's no way her death could have any impact. The only reason it has any impact is due not to the writing, but Tom Hiddleston and Rene Russo got together and basically decided that Loki and Frigga would share a close bond.

So yeah, for those of you who haven't figured out the common pattern of the three cut scenes from the first Thor movie, the common thread is Frigga. Putting these scenes in the movie wouldn't completely alleviate all the problems with her character, but they would give her death more of an impact, especially the one where she says that Odin should have told Loki the truth. Regarding this movie, this scene with her should have gone into the final project as well. Granted, really the whole part needs to be rewritten, but I'm thinking from a more practical standpoint: what can we do with what exists, rather than try to re-direct a whole film. 

I will admit that the death scene we did get is better than the alternate version where Frigga is even more unceremoniously dispatched and Odin, once again, is a colossal dick. 

Anyway, there is really nothing left for me to talk about this movie. I know all of you are getting tired of me using the word "underwritten" when it comes to this movie, but really, it's the best way of summing it up. 

The only real lasting plot points that come to play in later movies is Loki fakes his death yet again and is now ruling Asgard, disguised as Odin. 

 Image posted because it is so damn true. The one time Odin displays any fatherly warmth is when Loki is pretending to be him. While I know that there are more likely reasons, my personal headcanon is that was how Thor eventually figures out. At some point between TDW and Ragnarok, Thor's like, "Wait a minute, my father was being much less of a dick than usual..." 

tl;dr, this movie is only worth it for Loki. I've heard some theorize that maybe this was his plan all along to wind up in prison so he could eventually worm his way onto the throne of Asgard, but I don't buy it. I just can't picture Loki coming up with a plan that would require him to get beaten as badly as he was in the Battle of New York. 

*Yes, I did become a Whovian mostly out of spite, mother. Surest way to get me onboard with a property is for whiny-ass white male fanboys to lose their shit over it. It's also the surest way to make me a fan of a character: if the fans/writers bash or excessively mistreat them. I suppose I should be disturbed by how spite drives so many of my motivations, but I don't care enough to fix it. 

**The only actors/actresses I really hold grudges against are Sean Penn, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jared Leto. Sean Penn is just the smuggest human being on this planet, so smug that even though I often agree with his politics, I still want to punch him in his stupid face. Gwyneth Paltrow, for all the Goop BS. It's a shame because Pepper Potts is one of my favorite minor characters in the MCU. 

As for Jared Leto, it should be obvious. I have long spear-headed the "Rescind Jared Leto's Oscar and Give it to Margot Robbie!" campaign. Not only did Margot Robbie have to put up with all his Joker BS, she had to pretend that she was attracted to all this BS, an acting feat that would stymie even Laurence Olivier. Margot Robbie did actual method acting: studying psychology, becoming a gymnast, and doing most of her own stunts as Harley Quinn and is the lotus rising from the muck of the first Suicide Squad movie; Leto was just a creepy-ass sex offender who would have been blackballed were it not for the fact he is a rich White man and is practically immune from consequences. :deep breath: Seriously, it should be a rule: no Oscar-winner should deliver a performance that bad.