#and by mid i mean there's no evil ambition in many of these villains | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lonelywretchjervistetch · 2 years ago

Text

My DC Cinematic Universe: Superman (Part VI)

Chapter Six: Powerless Power

There are few villains better known than Alexander Joseph "Lex" Luthor. The archenemy of Superman, Luthor was meant to be the brains to oppose Superman's brawn. But this was never truly meant to be, as Superman himself kept changing to become more than just raw brawn. So, over time, Luthor also had to change. Because of this, we've seen a lot of version of Lex Luthor, From mad scientist and maniacal supervillain, to vindictive businessman with lofty ambitions. Luthor's been the leader of the Legion of Doom and Injustice League, as well as a member of the Justice League and a member of the "SuperFamily". His history is extremely complicated.

But even then, there are a few things that have always stayed the same with Luthor. His lack of hair, his incredible mind, his love of Kryptonite usage, and most important of all...his absolute hatred and jealousy of Superman. Sometimes this hatred is disguised in xenophobia, and sometimes it's a lot more personal, based on a shared past. Most of the time, though, it's raw jealousy of the Man of Steel and the power he wields. But, again, why? I mean, I'm jealous of Superman as well, but that doesn't mean I'm Lex Luthor, right?

Luthor has 82 years of comic book history to parse through, and that would take...a while. So for most of this post, I want to talk about how I see Lex, how others have seen Lex, and why Lex absolutely is not the main antagonist of this film. Surprising? We'll get there.

Lex Luthor: Mad Scientist

Lex Luthor was first introduced to the comics in Action Comics #23, in April of 1940. At the time, he was introduced as simply Luthor, and has a brilliant scientist and inventor with a hatred for Superman. He would steal devices from the government, hang out in flying cities and abandoned temples for his lairs, and would basically do anything he could to get money or take over the world. But every time, he kept getting stopped by fuggin' Superman. And at the time...y'know, whatever. Dude's an ass, but he doesn't hate Superman specifically. And, in early appearances, he has hair! But once World War II came, two things happened. One, his hair went away, forever. And two, with the birth of Silver Age, came Luthor's hatred for Superman.

Originally, fun fact, his hair was lost in an experiment that he blamed Superboy for, causing his permanent baldness and hatred for Superman. Which, yeah, is stupid, but this is the '50s and '60s at this point; comics were silly, and I'm here for that. During this time period, he became responsible for creating Bizarro as a clone of Superman, leading the Legion of Doom and Injustice Gang, stealing 40 cakes (which is as many as four tens, and is terrible), and entering an ill-advised team-up with alien computerized being Brainiac. That partnership would be revisited in the comics and adaptation many times over the years. And then...Crisis. Once Crisis on Infinite Earths happens, everything about Lex changes. While Lex kept the baldness, the insane intellect, and the hatred of Superman, he lost the mad scientist schtick, and gained a Fortune 500 company.

Lex Luthor: Businessman

Starting in the mid-80s, Lex Luthor is the leader of LexCorp, an is an evil executive with a FUCKTON of money. Based in part of Donald Trump and the Devil (NOT FUCKING KIDDING), this Luthor is a pure intellect, and used said intellect to be rich as FUCK. He clawed his way up from the dirt, from nothing, and became one of the richest men in the world, as well as one of the most prominent men in Metropolis. And this is at the root of his jealousy for Superman.

Put yourself in Lex's shoes here. You were raised in Suicide Slums, some of the worst parts of Metropolis. Parents were abusive, the environment was poor, and you were locked in a position that would've prevented you from moving out of your position. But you, with an insane amount of hard work and dedication, as well as some desperation and extremely high intelligence, claw your way from th very bottom and scale to the highest heights. You are as tall as a human being can be, inside of the tallest building in Metropolis which YOU BUILT with your hard-earned money...

AND THEN SOME STUPID IDIOT FROM ANOTHER FUCKING PLANET COMES HERE WITH POWERS THAT SHOULD BE RIGHTFULLY YOURS? The ever-loving FUCK did THIS asshole do to deserve that power? It should be MINE! LEX FUCKING LUTHOR IS THE REAL SUPERMAN!!!

That is how you would feel in Lex's position, and that's mostly how Lex feels. But that's sort of the obvious take; there's more to it than that. Because Superman is a hero. By all rights, he is a heroic figure, but also uses his powers responsibly. Lex, on the other hand, is not heroic. He's not good, he wouldn't do good things with that power. He would use that power to wrest control of the world, no matter the costs. And Lex is smart, he knows that. He knows exactly what he would do with that power. And maybe he'd try to justify his actions, but he definitely wouldn't do good things with it. And again, he knows that.

He KNOWS that. And he doesn't care. HE STILL WANTS IT.

Lex Luthor: The Man Who Has Everything

No matter how you slice it, Lex Luthor is an intellectual giant. The only thing that holds him back is his arrogance, and even that doesn't really hold him back. Luthor's hunger for power makes him one of the most dangerous men on the planet, and he uses xenophobia and hatred to project these desires onto Superman. Superman can't be bought, and Lex can't be Superman. But he;ll be damned if he doesn't try.

The real goal of Lex Luthor is this: to look down on everybody. Sounds satirical, but it really means that Lex doesn't want to acknowledge that anyone is above him in any way. And so, he's richer than the rest, and he's smarter than the rest. And if he CAN'T become for powerful than someone on his own, then that somebody's gotta go. To me (and for my version of Lex), Lex's hatred for Superman is partially jealousy, but mostly greed and ambition.

Lex Luthor is the man who has everything...and it isn't enough.

But if that's the case, why isn't Lex the villain of my movie? Easy answer: he's too smart for that shit. Yeah, maniacal laughter, ostentatious plots that lead to you as the perpetrator, a masterful crime with obvious fingerprints? Come on. Amateur hour. What does he look like, the Joker? No, no, no, Luthor is a behind-the-scenes villain. He'll fund villainy to get ahead in the world, but he won't be even a little obvious about it. Fact of the matter is, he should be Superman's worst enemy because Superman can't actually prove that Luthor is the villain. Clark Kent could be able to help uncover evidence, but it'd be extremely hard. Luthor should look squeaky clean to everybody, including Superman.

That doesn't mean, however, that Luthor won't be in the first film, or that he won't have something to do with the villains of the picture. In any case, he won't be the person who funds them directly. But indirectly? Absolutely. I will talk about those villains, I promise. But before I do that, I do want to go through some interpretations of Luthor. By now, you may have picked up on what I think makes the perfect Lex. In summary, those qualities are:

An unmatched intellect, above almost anybody else in this time, as well as the ability and propensity to invent scientific wonders

Money. So much goddamn money, and the power that comes from it.

Arrogance, and knowledge that only he can direct the world towards a proper path.

Hatred for anyone whom he perceives to be more powerful than him, in any way.

Power, and a hunger for more power.

And with that...

Lex Luthor: Adaptations

I'm not sure anybody's had as much fun as Gene Hackman had when playing Lex Luthor in the Reeves Superman films. And honestly, I have a lot of fun watching him. Taking a lot from the Golden Age version of the character, Luthor is a diabolical money-hungry supervillain with the arrogance to combat Superman's strength. He also uses Lex's favorite tool: Kryptonite. And he uses it pretty well, setting up a decent trap for Superman, while also being responsible for the temporary death of Lois Lane (in the first film). He also sides with General Zod and the Kryptonians, and creates the infamous Nuclear Man to take out Superman once and for all. Never works, but he always gives it the old college try.

More importantly, this Luthor is campy, but in a way that fits. Being arrogant, Lex shouldn't really care how he acts for people. However, I'd say that Lex has a public face, as well as a more diabolical private face and demeanor that people usually don't see. Like I said, Hackman has a really fun time with this role, and I really enjoy watching him. Not exactly my preferred version of the character, though.

Kevin Spacey takes over for Hackman in Superman Returns, and does a pretty OK job with it. Doesn't seem to take as much delight in being evil as Hackman did, but he definitely still enjoys himself. I honestly really enjoy this version of the character, and he takes the usage of Kryptonite to a much greater degree than any other version I've seen. He's in second place of the cinematic Luthors, that's for sure. And in dead fucking last...

Guuuuuuuuh, FUCK this version of Lex. Jesse Eisenberg's turn in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (STILL a dumb-ass name) is a very bad attempt to make a quirky, "millennial" version of Lex with a poorly-formed xenophobic motive to take out Superman. And the result is so bad, I blame it for helping destroy the DCU 5 years later. Eisenberg's Luthor, understand, is basically a take on the Gene Hackman Luthor...AGAIN. But in entirely the wrong universe and setting.

Is this Luthor threatening? No. He does threatening things, and he makes threats, but I'm never actually intimidated by him. Every time I see that stupid hair, all I can think of is "You want a Jolly Rancher?" or "Granny's peach tea." It's just silly. And maybe more importantly, he's not a smart man, he's just a homicidal maniac. Yeah, he manipulated both Superman and Batman into fighting each other; and yeah, he blows up a courtroom to frame Superman somehow; and yeah, he creates Doomsday (God, this is a shit movie), but none of these things logically should work. They rely only on the characters themselves being mind-numbingly stupid. And y'know, given that one of them is a DETECTIVE, I feel like that only worked because of bad writing. And, of course, it's obvious that it's Lex. That's why this is far more of a Hackman Luthor than anything else. Just doesn't work. Also, Eisenberg's acting is NOT good, for the record.

And yeah, I do like the Justice League after-credits scene with Luthor, hinting at the formation of the Injustice League. But that's a different story, and it's only a minute-long scene.

OK, before I get into my favorite Luthor, I wanted to highlight Jon Cryer in Supergirl and the Arrowverse shows. Because honestly, he plays a very interesting version of the character, and I would call him good! He plays off the xenophobic indignance and jealousy very well, and when he finally faces off against Superman in the crossover episodes, he's definitely effective. Cryer's Luthor really does seem like a megalomaniacal genius plotting against the Kryptonians at every waking moment of his life. I like it! And also, it's the first version I've ever seen with a beard, which is actually very interesting for some reason.

Where I struggle a bit with Cryer is that, while he's definitely a threat, he also looks like you could knock him over with a napkin. And it's true, I haven't seen all of his appearances, but he's definitely not physically threatening in any way. But you might be wondering why that's important. Well, let me point you to my favorite version of Lex Luthor. And this really shouldn't be a surprise.

Clancy Brown's decade-long take on the character in the DCAU is a marvel. Starting as a business man in Superman: The Animated Series, this Lex absolutely is a threat on first glance. Afraid of no one and superior to everyone, he goes toe-to-toe with Superman with no restraint, and constantly. Now, I mean that in terms of attitude, not physically, but he's also a powerhouse. See, Lex's arrogance, to me, should also extend to his appearance. If he really thinks he's better than everyone else, he should show it mentally and physically. In fact, in the comics, most versions of the character at least work out, with some versions doing a lot MORE than that.

But yes, this version of Lex begins as a well-built and threatening genius businessman. That all changes with Justice League. Despite mostly escaping the grasp of the law previously, this Luthor is allowed to dip into the true supervillain roots of the character, complete with Kryptonite-powered armor, supervillain organizations, and a life-threatening cancer caused by his constant exposure to a radioactive mineral! God, I love this version of Luthor so much.

And then, THEN, Justice League Unlimited comes along, and Lex is allowed to play BOTH roles. And this is where he hits his stride. Regaining his wealth and running for President throughout the series, he partners up with Brainiac in mind and body, then flees justice and joins the Legion of Doom. Eventually, he takes over and uses their resources to bring back Brainiac, only to kick off the events of the series finale. Lex Luthor in the DCAU is a versatile, plotting, intimidating bastard in the best possible ways, and I love him. There has not been a better version of this character.

...Oh, shit.

Michael Rosenbaum as Lex Luthor...Jesus Christ, how do I even start this? Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor is an insanely complicated character, who we as an audience watch skillfully descend into abject evil over the course of several seasons. He goes from being Clark's best friend to his bitterest enemy, taking his loved ones away from him, and plotting against him in every possible way. He goes from being a victim of his father's manipulations and machinations, to...well, spoilers for how that story ends, but it's bad. Lex Luthor makes you believe he can be good...even though you know that he'll become one of the biggest villains the world has ever seen.

I'm sure that if you looked, you'd see a fuckton of essays written about this version of Luthor on here, because it genuinely is very good. The only thing holding it back, I think, is the realistic nature of the CW shows. This Luthor is definitely more of a businessman, whose genius lies in his acumen and strategy more than the sciences. In fact, this version of Luthor is not a scientist, hiring others to do those jobs for him and punishing them when they fail. He's a brutal mastermind, but a somewhat incomplete version of the character. He's also not quite allowed the came pomp and circumstance that other versions are allowed, never really becoming a supervillain. And I think that's something Lex should be allowed to do. Still, this is an excellent version of the character, and one of the few that you'll actually find yourself caring about.

And with all of that said...what is my version of Luthor? Yeah, let's get to that before I start talking about the other good versions of the character, like this one.

My Lex Luthor

When the film starts, it's apparent that Luthor is a force in Metropolis, as he should be. His central facility, LexCorp, looms over the skyline from the distance, and you should never truly escape its shadow. LexCorp should be all over the city, but this should still be a pretty peaceful city. That's because Lex's influence shouldn't be felt near any form of criminality. In fact, Lex himself won't even be seen in this film until close to the very end. Superman will never think of him as a villain, or see his seedy connections. There are maybe some investigations focusing on Luthor, but nobody's really onto him. Part of that is because he's subtle, and part of it is because he sends a representative, Mercy Graves, to investigate and control any dialogue against him. To pursue legal action, of course. Of course.

Anyway, Luthor is always around the periphery in the first movie. But by the time we get to the theoretical third movie, he'll be going toe-to-toe with Superman, in person. That's right, I'm proposing a trilogy, and Luthor is the central villain throughout and at the end. See, while he's in his ivory tower, he is indeed hating Superman, and the power that he holds over him. And Luthor has only one thing to say in regards to those with power: surpass them or remove them. But first, he has to observe the limits to this power, as well as any weaknesses that there may be. And his strategy begins with stress-testing this "Superman", and making him a little more necessary than he was previously.

Through multiple connections, and without a paper trail, he steals the unpublished blueprints for a powerful prototype weapon from an unknown engineer (John Henry Irons) working for a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary (Amertek), and manages to get these designs smuggled to a local gang leader (White Rabbit, AKA Angora Lapin) in the less-policed areas of Metropolis. The result of this act is perhaps the first fight we see in this theoretical movie, as Superman stops a conflict between this gang and another. And yes, I just threw in some Steel Easter eggs in there, but that';'s a story for a different occasion, obviously.

However, this even has a surprising consequence. See, these weapons almost have enough firepower to hurt even Superman, but the ordinance isn't quite enough to really hurt him. Still, the potential for these weapons is noticed by the true villains of the movie: Intergang. And promise I'll get more into Intergang in the next chapter, but for now, let's get back to why this matters to Lex. See, Intergang's also got some connections. And those connections are able to supply them with upgrades and new weapons, as well as one MAJOR new weapon. Again, more on that later. But the major thing these guys bring into this universe is Kryptonite. Had to come from somewhere.

And that, of course, gets the attention of one Lex Luthor.

When Intergang's head soldier goes head-to-head with Superman, he seriously hurts him. However, the damage he takes in the fight will require some upgrades, which will be supplied by Intergang's benefactors. After the final fight, Luthor will have observed the effects of Kryptonite on Superman, and will probably have some ideas of what to do with it. In some of the last scenes of the film, we'll see the recovered sample of Kryptonite secretly make its way into Luthor's hands, marking his first actual appearance in the film.

So, while Luthor does indeed have a connection to the villains, his main goal doesn't crystallize (pun intended) until these final moments. We learn about Lex and get a hint into his plans. And what are his plans? Simple: use Kryptonite to find new ways to take out Superman. Oh...and to make some friends along the way. And he takes that Kryptonite to Infinity Labs, a subsidiary of LexCorp and a direct competitor to S.T.A.R. Labs. There, they'll experiment with the Kryptonite. In the process, they'll find that its unique radioactive and chemical signature can be used to harm Superman...and for other purposes. In fact, Lex Luthor will use this to make his own group of superhumans, whom he'll call Infinity, Inc. But we'll get to this version of the Superman Revenge Squad in the next movie (and in a couple of chapters).

But for now, for this movie, Lex is a behind-the-scenes villain. When the second movie starts, Lex will be put front-and-center, as will his opinions of Superman. I'll admit that putting Lex in the second movie was a smart move on Snyder's part, even though the rest of the movie is a fucking garbage fire. But I digress. Next time, we'll FINALLY look at the villains of this film, which includes the dangerous Intergang, and their own private soldier: Metallo.

And they're gonna FUCK up Superman.

Index: Superman

Part I: Why I Love Superman

Part II: On Lois Lane

Part III: The Kents

Part IV: The 'Rents

Part V: The...Frendts?

Part VI: Lex Luthor

Part VII: The Real Villains

Part VIII: Superman's Rogues Gallery

Part IX: The Story - Act One

Part X: The Story (Acts Two and Three)

Part XI: The Story - Climax

Part XII: Epilogue (Part One)

Part XIII: Epilogue (Part Two)

23 notes · View notes

max-vandenburg-is-life · 3 years ago

Text

Long Loki rant incoming

Ok first things first I've always liked Loki a lot as a character but I don't consider myself a really really big fan mainly because I haven't read the comics. So all this rant is gonna be only about mcu loki and loki in the mcu has been written differently depending on the movie so yeah. And on that note let's go!!!!

So today I'm gonna talk about what I liked and what I didn't like about the Loki show. This is obviously just my opinion, you can disagree with me! I'd love to hear your opinions!

First I wanna talk about is the writing of Loki's character. So previously it has been established in the mcu that Loki doesn't do bad things just because he's a bad guy or because he wants power above everything else, but because after all the manipulation and lying he went through as a child, the abuse, always been seen as less than those around him and being taught to hate himself for who he was (a Jotun). He wants validation and being treated the same as the others, he doesn't really care about ruling or being king. His actions are a result of his trauma. So the show painting him as "He's a bad guy!! He's evil he can't help it it's in his nature!! He just wants to be king!!!" felt off to me since it completely goes against all the previous canon. Apart from that, I feel the show also erased other aspects of him that had always been essential to his character, such as him being very smart and always having a plan, and his powers (he BARELY used his powers throughout the season and he's supposed to be the best sorcerer in the nine realms. Please). So yeah there's that. I didn't absolutely despise his character in the show or anything like that, he generally seemed more happy and chill and that was good, I just felt some aspects of the character seemed inconsistent.

Apart from Loki, something I loved about the show were all the new characters that we were introduced to. Sylvie was absolutely fantastic, she had a well written tragic backstory, she had a goal and she had layers. She was a really well written character. Also she was just really cool overall, she had a cool personality and seeing her use her powers was very fun. (Sylvie your hand in marriage) (I guess I can talk about the "betrayal" now. So yeah not gonna lie I don't think it was that bad. She had a goal she had been pursuing her whole life and she obviously prioritized that before a guy who she met a few days ago. She did hurt him of course but still it's easy to understand her decision.) Mobius was also really cool, in the first episode I didn't like him much but I started liking him a lot later on. He's just a good guy, he wants to help people. (HE ONLY WANTED A JETSKI MARVEL). And I liked his story a lot, he was forced into working for the tva because his memories were erased and he was told what he was doing the right thing when killing all those people, but once he finds out all of it was false he immediately starts going against it and trying to help as many people as he can. Ravonna was also a good character (I keep saying all of them are good characters lol they're well written ok). Like okay she was a little bit evil but I liked her. I really liked her ambition and her confidence. I would have loved to know more about her life at the tva, because it seemed like because of her position she knew some things that most didn't. Hunter B15 was also really good, loved her character development. Casey only appeared in the first two eps but for some reason I liked him a lot idk why. Casey my beloved. Kang was mind-blowing good, he absolutely carried the episode. He was so fun to watch and a very interesting character. This is how you do villains Marvel. And then all the Loki variants were amazing. Classic Loki was great, he was more mature and wiser than the Loki we're used to watching and I felt really sad about his whole situation (aka trying and failing to find his brother because he missed him, getting pruned and then dying). Kid loki was a BLAST, I really liked the little funky dude and I would love to know more about his life. Boastful Loki didn't appear for long but I liked him a lot, he looked like a really funny guy I wish he had had more screen time. And then there was the Lokigator which was also great. President Loki was also cool (meaning he had the coolest outfit), but we didn't see much of him. I think that's a big problem with the show, because they made it seem like it was gonna be more about the other Loki variants and their timelines (that's what it seemed to me from the trailers) but then we barely got that. Sad shit.

Now let's talk about the writing of the show in general. The writers definitely went off with the philosophical conversations, I enjoyed them greatly (Loki's and Mobius' talk in the second ep and Loki's and Sylvie's talk in the third ep were amazing). Something I didn't like at all about the show (this is probably my biggest complaint) is that the writing of the show throughout the episodes didn't seem consistent, like each episode seemed to be a different genre, and that made the whole story feel weird. What I'm trying to say is: the first episode was about Loki learning more about his life and reflecting on why he does the things he does. There was more to the episode but it was mainly that. It was a very emotional episode. The second episode looked like a cop show, they investigated a crime scene in the beginning, they did some detectiving, they had a great breakthrough and found out were the villain was hiding in the end. The third episode was an action episode. It gave me the vibes of mid season episode that isn't too relevant to the plot in which the characters go on some short mission. The fourth episode I can't exactly categorize it I think it was kinda like episode 1 but with some more action. The fifth episode was also a mix, they had a lot of reflecting on Loki's character like in the first episode and then also some action. And the last episode was mostly just exposition and a tiny bit of action at the end, very philosophical and stuff. It also felt like in the first two episodes they were indicating that the show was gonna be about free will and good and evil but that kind of disappeared for a big part of the show. I'm trying so hard to explain myself well, I hope what I say makes sense. Now my opinion on the episodes, my favourites were definitely ep 1, 3 and 5 (haha odd numbers go brrrr). The pilot was absolutely amazing, and I loved the direction the show seemed to be taking (YES MARVEL explore his trauma mmmm that's some good shit right there). It was really emotional but like in a good way. The third episode was great. I think it balanced really well the action and the dialogue, seeing Loki and Sylvie going on their shenanigans, using their powers and fighting was really fun, and then the train talk scene was absolutely amazing (bi loki yay! Gonna talk about this later). The fifth episode was great mostly because seeing all the other Loki variants and how they contrasted between each other was fantastic and I loved it. I really hope we see more of the variants in the next season. The other eps, the second and fourth were okay, the one I think was the worst one was the last one. Damn that episode. It was a very slow episode. Thank god the guy who plays Kang was really good because otherwise the episode would have been impossible to watch. There was so much exposure but it felt like we already knew most of it? They talked about how multiple timelines existing was bad because chaos and stuff, and they talked about the war in which the different timelines battled each other. Ok we already knew this. I feel like the only important thing to take from that whole talk was that Kang's variants are very powerful and dangerous and they were introducing the villain to the mcu. The whole episode felt like instead of giving closure to the characters or ending some storylines, the main thing it was doing was introducing the concept of the multiverse for the next marvel movies.

Something that surprised me a lot about the show is how important it is for the mcu storyline. Like in the first episode they talked about how the tva (and of course Kang) was much more powerful than the Infinity Stones, when basically all previous marvel movies were about them and about their power. And then Kang was revealed to have created a sacred timeline, he controls absolutely everything that happens. All of this is so important and for some reason I didn't think the show was gonna be like this. Not that I'm complaining, this is great. And I feel like a lot of people are not realising how big it is? Like I don't see much talking about how this is literally the greatest power in the universe.

Damn this is getting long sorry.

I suppose I'll have to talk about it because it has been this big thing. I'm talking about the loki x sylvie pairing. I didn't like it too much, it felt a lot like the writers went "he's a guy she's a girl so they have to fall in love", like I felt they had a very different dynamic and when they said that I was mostly surprised and confused. Because they were variants of each other their romance felt weird to me, and the fact that they made a character genderfluid and then made a woman and a man version fall in love also rubbed me the wrong way (I'll talk about the genderfluidity later). I did like the mobius x loki pairing more, but still I don't think they should have got any romance this season, I feel like there has to be a lot more progress in that relationship before any romance. I generally feel like Loki should first start getting some friends and then later on we can start with romance. But yeah this is just my opinion. And all the drama and discourse there has been over this???? Some of you guys look ridiculous not gonna lie.

Ok now let's talk about representation. I'm not poc myself so I don't feel like I'm in the position to say if something was good or bad, so I'm not gonna talk about poc rep. The show did a good job with female characters, many of the main characters were women and they were very well-written, not sexualized and cast appropriately for their age (I can't believe I'm praising this, this should be the bare minimum. Why is media in general so bad. Like please just.) About the bi rep now. I'm sure that the writers or directors of the show had to fight really hard with marvel so that they could make loki canon bi, so yeah cheers to that guys good job. Obviously it's not enough, and I really hope his bisexuality is explored more later. But yeah we finally have a queer character in the mcu this is big. Now about the genderfluid rep. OOF. I have a lot to say about this. It was bad. Really bad. I don't know if they just don't know what genderfluid means but that's what it looks like after watching the show. Not only were all of the variants cis, but they also went on to say that Loki as a woman was a weird and uncommon thing. Oh my god. And what angers me the most is the fact that Marvel used the so called genderfluid confirmation to their benefit. They exploited so much that little piece of paper that said his sex (not even gender) was fluid. I saw SO MANY articles praising marvel for making him canon genderfluid, and then it was absolutely shit. Absolutely shit. Out of everything in the show this is definitely what I hate the most.

Gotta calm down now. The soundtrack of the show was amazing, the actual songs they used were perfect and then the music they composed for the show was just *chef's kiss* (i have no idea how they're called but the song that plays during the title sequence WHAT A BANGER and the one that plays when loki and mobius are looking at the whole tva from the balcony in the first ep WHAT A BANGER). The aesthetic of the show was also great, the colours were really pretty (Lamentis bi colours my beloved) and I think it had some really cool shots. The acting was great, I'm gonna highlight Kang because I thought he was amazing. The costumes and that stuff were also really cool, I really liked seeing all the different versions of outfits they gave to the Loki variants (if anyone is interested I made another post reviewing all the variants' outfits) and Kang's funky costume was great too. The design of the places and that stuff (I have no idea how to call these lol I'm trying so hard but I don't know any of the technical words) was great: Lamentis was really beautiful, the void was also very cool and the tva was really well designed.

Ok y'all I think this is it. I'm so sorry this is much longer than I expected and if anyone actually reads all of it i love you and PLEASE tell me your thoughts (if anyone wanna chat about the show with me privately send me a message!!! I love talking with y'all). A little final note, English is not my first language, nor my second, so yeah sorry if I can't explain myself well. Bye!!!!

#i feel like this is super long and boring so if anyone actually reads all of it thanks #these are basically all my thoughts i really had to let them out #overall I'll say it was a pretty good show if we forget Loki's weird characterisation and the terrible genderfluid rep #i realized a few days ago that i can actually say whatever i want #like i can say my opinion i can say what i think and then people can disagree with me! and it's no big deal #I'm allowed to have opinions on things as well as everyone else #I'm working on some stuff #anyways that's all #please tell me what y'all think #I'd love to talk about the show!#loki spoilers #loki show #loki series #sylvie #mobius #kang the conqueror #he who remains #classic loki #kid loki #lokigator #gator loki #boastful loki #bisexual representation #genderfluid representation #ravonna renslayer #hunter b 15 #marvel #marvel show #loki #an original post no way

21 notes · View notes

hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger · 5 years ago

Text

Superior Spider-Man #17-19, 23, 27-32 and Superior Team-Up #5, #7 Thoughts...Sorta

Because of the 2099 event coming up I have ambitions (and lord knows if I will succeed) of re-reading the 2099 centric stories published in the 2010s, chiefly Peter David’s Spider-Man 2099 solo-books. I never actually finished reading that stuff nor did I finish writing posts for each issue/arc but I’m willing to try again.

It’s been so long though and now the stuff has been collected I thought it’d be best to not simply pick up where I left off but both refresh my memory and be more of a completionist about it.

Hence I decided to skim the Superior issues featuring Miguel O’Hara and to a lesser extent Alchemax with a mind towards the scenes featuring both. This is both to save me time (no pun intended) and because you know...fuck Superior.

As such this is far from comprehensive and I’m likely missing information but for the sake of completion I’m making these posts.

So first of all I’m not going to overly critique the inherent concept of Superior, Otto’s characterization, or anyone else’s characterization (sans 2099 relevant characters); especially as they relate to the Superior concept. It’s shit. I’ve said that endlessly before. If you are chomping at the bit to hear specifics regarding these issues then all I shall say is Slott writes Otto as cartoonish with Saturday Morning style villain dialogue whilst Yost in Team-Up, just like virtually EVERY writer sans Slott to handle the character, did better.

NO ONE hearing Otto talk as Spider-Man should be fooled into thinking he’s the real Spider-Man because he doesn’t sound anything like he did before he changed his outfit, started using more violent methods, employed supervillains as part of his Superior Six, had 4 metal arms come out of his back and had a hold gang of henchmen at his beck and call. But in spite of that at least Yost’s dialogue was more nuanced. Whilst it sounds like something Otto would say it also sounds like the Peter Parker Spider-Man merely skewed. He’s more condescending, egotistical and bluntly insulting than Peter ever was but he also doesn’t sound like a middle aged man from a 1960s comic book.

This brings us to the dialogue in general in fact. As a fan of the MC2 universe and older comics I ENJOY older style dialogue...in MC2 stories or older comics. The MC2 universe was it’s own off to the side sandbox that was deliberately trying to evoke the Silver Age, but it could break from that when appropriate. And older comics were just written by the standards of the time. Slott though his dialogue was written if anything in a more antiquated style than what the MC2 usually went for. Seriously all he’d need is to throw in some old fashioned words and social attitudes and it’d be ripped from the 1960s.

In a mainstream, main universe set title the dialogue style should be reflective of the times, whilst obviously avoiding the bad stuff regarding modern dialogue. One of my frustrations with many modern comics is that characters will speak outloud because modern standards dictate that thought balloons for anyone who isn’t the lead character of the story are bad for some asinine reason. On that front I do give Slott credit as he avoids this. He has no problem giving any character he wants internal thoughts and even still makes the lead, Otto, stand out as he has thought captions not thought balloons like everyone else. It’s just literally the word choices he makes that’s the problem. It’s inorganic even by comic book standards and is overly exposition laden. This is where editorial boxes or the recap pages could help out by getting that exposition out of the way. But instead we need to explain a story from over 20 issues earlier twice across 2 issues or alternatively just take it on faith the reader remembers the stories.

It doesn’t help that he inconsistently will use the third person narrator once in a blue moon.

The dialogue also impacts upon the characterization because frankly Miguel and Tyler Stone are...off...

In fact a lot of the characters besides Otto feel rather bland and samey because they are just actors in the plot that is being told and nothing more. Miguel is distinct for little reason beyond his use of future slang. Now I’ve only read the first trade of Spider-Man 2099 so maybe some of these terms pop up later but if Slott invented ‘bithead’ and ‘jammit’ it’s cause for cringe. The larger issue though is that Miguel’s status quo is set up by Slott but not his you know...personality. Okay in fairness he gets across Miguel has a little bit more edge to him than the regular Spider-Man and is not as prone to the same kind of humour in battle. But the latter is likely less Slott getting the character and more him just writing him pretty generically. The sarcasm, the arrogance, the sardonic aspect of Miguel is totally absent.

This is a problem if you were a 2099 fan showing up to see your fav or if this was intended as set up for a spin-off which it absolutely was. I mean shouldn’t set up for a spin-off character give you an impression of their personality. Shouldn’t you want to follow the character as opposed to the admittedly interesting situation the character is in?

But that’s Slott all over. He’s awful on characters 99% of the time but he’s good on concepts 50% of the time. The initial 2099 arc is a great microcosm of this.

Miguel wants to avert Alchemax’s evil influence in the future but we are merely TOLD that it is evil but see little evidence to corroborate that. He is willing to destroy himself, his grandfather and his family lineage to do that but then he has a change of heart. The set up for that change of heart is briefly presented and we smash cut to after it has already happened, we see none of the internal gears turning to demonstrate his mind changing, not even a quick panel of his eyes narrowing or his brow furrowing.

O the flipside (again no pun intended) though I genuinely adore the idea that Liz Allan and Norman Osborn in effect founded Alchemax and the involvement of Tiberius Stone and the conundrum of Miguel needing to protect him. In fact Tiberius comes off as one of the more interesting characters in this. I liked how he deduced his own relevance to the future and was just a sleazy asshole.

Another thing compromising the introduction of Miguel is his presentation.

The arc is rather bewildering because it introduces functionally an alternate version of the original Spider-Man 2099 but also takes it on faith you already know about Spider-Man 2099 in the first place.

Which frankly wasn’t a reasonable presumption.

Like okay sure people know OF Spider-Man 2099 because if you are a comic book or Spider-Man fan long enough your pick up there was a future version of him sooner or later, it’s just plain osmosis. And he’d been featured in two video games in the then recent past.

But not everyone plays video games, watches Let’s Plays, or would have read comics from 20 years ago, especially considering the 2099 stories haven’t even been collected in trade yet. Hell the last time A version of Spidey 2099 appeared it was in 2009 and was a distinctly different version altogether.

So Miguel’s reintroduction should’ve been handled differently, the first shot of him in action should have been the Stegman splash page not him preparing to leap off into action, we should’ve seen his supervision in action instead of just being told about it, we should’ve had his other abilities demonstrated to us. I mean I know what they are and how they work for the most part but how would someone who’s a new/unfamiliar fan have a clue?

Perhaps the worst example of this is the fact that Slott’s stories, both in the initial 2099 arc and later, reference Miguel and Peter meeting before. There is no further exposition, there is no editorial caption referring to when this occurred (in the initial arc anyway), you are just supposed to accept this has happened before. That is until Superior #32 but more on that in a moment.

But even for new readers this is bewildering. Newer fans might in their head’s wonder if this is referencing the Edge of Time or the Shattered Dimensions video games, which it definitely isn’t because those are clearly not canon to Peter Parker. Older fans like myself might immediately jump to the Spider-Man Meets Spider-Man 2099 one shot from the mid 1990s. But that’s never explicitly referred to until Superior #32 which was published not just after Superior wrapped up but in fact after Miguel’s solo-book had been launched!

More confusingly IIRC the one shot factors into the original 2099 series so it shouldn’t apply to this alternate version of Miguel and indeed the marvel.wiki lists the one shot as featuring the original Miguel NOT the one starring in these stories. Much like Spider-Girl #10 Slott decided to canonize something he had no business canonizing.

Anyway one final little criticism I have of these stories in terms of writing is that Miguel helped create Spider Slayers using future technology (why would you fuck up the timeline like that??????) and he was able to deduce Otto wasn’t the true Spider-Man. How the fuck can a guy from the future who met Peter Parker ONCE and very briefly tell Superior Spidey is an imposter but Aunt May, Kaine and Mary Jane can’t?

Because contrivance thy name is Slott.

Let’s briefly discuss Superior Team up and Superior #32.

Miguel’s involvement is essentially meaningless in the former and he’s absent from the latter but credit where credit is due Slott did give us a fun little jaunt through the 2099 future...which is not the setting of Miguel O’Hara’s solo book so you know...that was kind of pointless beyond setting up Spider-Worst (not my joke but it’s appropriate). I have little else to say on the issue beyond that seeing more murdered Spider-Heroes sickens me.

Finally let’s talk art.

These books were drawn by Ryan Stegman (Superior #17-19), Marco Checchetto (Superior Team-Up), Humberto Ramos (Superior #23) and Giuseppe Camuncoli (Superior #27.NOW, #28-31).

Ramos is Ramos which is to say anatomically offensive though seeing him briefly draw Miguel wasn’t too bad. Camuncoli was better but I’ve never liked his style. True he got better but still not great.

Stegman meanwhile I think was good. Now this is 2013 Stegman. His RYV, Venom and Absolute Carnage work runs rings around his work back then and before that. It’s very stylized but it’s still good. In fact the stylized look of it works for the concept behind the series. Characters look darker, edgier, in a way uglier and somewhat caricatured which fits in a series about a villain. His double page spread for Miguel though looks awesome, one of the all time great images of the character.

Checchetto meanwhile was the stand out. His work just look gorgeous to look at but it was still evoking a darker aesthetic it fit the idea of a book about a villain very, very well.

Not much to say about these issues. I am debating if I’m going to make a similar multi-issue post when I skim through the Miguel parts of Spider-Verse since I never posted about them back when it was happening, but we will see.

So I recommend reading these?

No. No I do not. I recommend flipping to the pages of Miguel in costume and looking at the art but that’s it.

#Spider-Man 2099 #2099 Thoughts #Miguel O'Hara #Peter Parker #otto octavius #Dan Slott #superior spider-man #Doc Ock #doctor octopus #Ryan Stegman #Chris Yost #Spider-Verse #marco checchetto #Giuseppe Camuncoli #Marvel 2099

11 notes · View notes

msawesomegeek · 6 years ago

Text

Thor Ragnarok Movie review.

So I have been skipping Marvel for a while, because I just thought it was a little too much. But I have watched the first Marvel movie since Homecoming. Just as much as I loved and praised Homecoming, do I hate and despise Thor Ragnarok.

So there are a few major issues that I have with this movie, hence I hate it. It was not too bad, like the movie itself was enjoyable to some extent.

The characters were inconsistent, like Hulk doesn't recognise him, now he does even though nothing has changed. Loki and Thor seem to not be able to figure out whether they like or hate each other. Hella was the worst, because she was a big villain, with a big army, and seemingly no motive. I would have understood this story if it had been: Thor doesnt wanna be king. Hella comes and does, but shows how much greed and jealousy she has after her father. Thor goes on journey and accepts his place on the throne. But it was not like that it was Thor fights monster, Odin dies, Hella wants power, Thor wants his home back, defeats Hella, tada. I really would have loved some more motivation for Hella to be evil other than: high ambitions and wants to rule the world. It is just bad writing.

There are also so many plot holes and places where I literally thought of better solutions to their problems.

I thought the dialogue was funny and it was kind of cool, but it felt so out of place in a Thor movie. Thor is supposed to be a big Viking with a temper, and instead we got blonde Ironman with a hammer.

I honestly hoped that there was a mood change mid-way through the movie. It did not seem like they knew what tone they were going for, which is very unusual for a Marvel movie. The first 10 minutes were funny and I thought: okay so we are getting a guardians of the galaxy kind of movie. But the witty fun, clashed with the seriousness and dark themes of Hella. It felt like I was watching two movies thrown into a blender to get together but not really.

I honestly thought during the first 10 minutes, whether or not Marvel intentionally had made a parodi of themselves?

I have huge problem with the story, it does have some cool elements, but it has a lot of holes, and they had much better source material to work from. I would have gladly cut everything from Thor coming back to asgard the first time to Odin dying. I would much rather have watched what actually starts ragnarok, Balder (their little brother and god of light), whom Loki tricks Høder into shooting him with the one plant that can kill him. Then yes Hella rises, but Odin fights the fenriswolf, and Thor has to fight the midgardworm. Both tales I know, both much more interesting than: gladiator fighting in space.

I wished that Marvel in general with Thor, would draw more from the actual mythology, there are amazing stories to tell from there. Also ones that are lighthearted and funny.

(This is turning into an essay, but I am pissed okay?) There is one more thing that I seriously loathe about this movie. These comics are based of Norse mythology, not only does it stray so far from the myths it is barely recognisable. But norse mythology was viking beliefs in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. In ALL the Thor films, not one single role is played by a scandinavian actor. That is some fucking bullshit. That is seriously cultural appropriation, I know we are predominately white, but we still have a history and culture that we love. I grew up with these characters and these stories, so to have them not only be americanised, but not having one single character being played by someone from scandinavia, that is seriously a stab in the heart. Because it means so much to us, when an artist gets to be in movies and TV, so fuck you Marvel, hire some scandinavians, it is not that hard!

That aside, I did also just hate the movie. I will applaud them for having cool effects though.

I give this movie a 0 out of 10

Until next time.

- Geek out.

#thor #thor movie #thor mcu #thor marvel #thor film #thor ragnarok #thor the movie #thor the dark world #mcu #marvel #chris hemsworth #tom hiddleston #loki

10 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years ago

Text

James Bond Movies Ranked From Worst to Best

https://ift.tt/2Y4vnBu

When Ian Fleming first created the character of 007, he settled on calling him James Bond because it was the “dullest name I’ve ever heard.” How ironic that nearly 70 years after that decision, and almost 60 years since the first James Bond movie, Dr. No (1962), that moniker is still associated around the world with thrilling action and exotic danger.

Beginning with the first Bond film from producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, and which starred Sean Connery as the international man of mystery, 007 has burrowed into the global zeitgeist. And he’s never left. There have been 24 canonical Bond films produced by either Broccoli and Saltzman, or their successors Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, and six actors who’ve donned the tuxedo during that run. Over the years, the debate has been endless over who is the Best Bond, and which is the best Bond movie. Well, we’re here to settle that latter argument once and for all. The entire Den of Geek staff, as well as our readers, have been asked to pick their favorite 007 adventures, and to rank which are the best. Below is the definitive list.

*Editor’s Note: We have chosen to only rank films in the official series and that were produced by Eon Productions. For that reason, unconnected Bond films like Never Say Never Again (1983) and Casino Royale (1967) were not included.

24. Die Another Day (2002)

Like his two most famous predecessors, Sean Connery and Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan ended his four-film run as James Bond on a particularly low note. In fact, Die Another Day (which was also the 20th film in the official series) has ended up on many lists, including this one, at the very bottom. It is certainly the nadir of the Brosnan era, although whether it fulfills the same role for the entire series is debatable. I might even argue films like Quantum of Solace and A View to a Kill could say “hold my beer” to that dubious honor.

Die Another Day starts off promisingly enough, with Bond captured and tortured in North Korea for 14 months, leading M to decommission him on fears that he may be compromised. But a potentially intriguing thriller involving North Korean double agents and the smuggling of conflict diamonds devolves into a ludicrous romp about an ice palace, giant lasers redirecting sunlight, an invisible car that’s indestructible, and a fight aboard an airplane literally coming apart in mid-air. Throw in one of the series’ worst theme songs (courtesy of Madonna), uninspired performances from a tired Brosnan and Halle Berry, and you ultimately find yourself wishing that the movie itself would die—not another day, but right now. – Don Kaye

23. Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

What is it with Bond and diamonds? This is one of two 007 escapades involving the world’s hardest substance (the other is Die Another Day) and based on that, the series should stick to gold. Diamonds Are Forever marked the return of Sean Connery after a one-film absence from the series, but it’s clear from the start that the doughy-looking star is just phoning in his performance (from which, to be fair, he donated his salary to charity).

Directed by Bond mainstay Guy Hamilton, Diamonds goes for a jauntier, campier tone after the grim ending of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, with Bond tracking a diamond-smuggling operation that ultimately leads him to arch-nemesis Blofeld (whose murder of Bond’s wife in the previous movie is inexplicably never addressed, not even once). The movie is just entertaining enough that you can keep it on in the background while doing something else, but its dreary ending on an oil rig, dated homophobia (Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint, anyone?), and by-the-numbers vibe make this one a real cubic zirconia. – DK

22. Quantum of Solace (2008)

Quantum of Solace’s biggest crime is that it’s just so dull. From the desert backdrops that were used for the final act to the sterile environments where middling Bond villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) executes his convoluted evil plan, there isn’t really anything interesting to look at in Marc Forster’s first and only 007 film. It’s no surprise, then, that this was the first stumble of the Daniel Craig era—in fact, our readers voted it in dead last place!

Movies

Should the Next James Bond Care About Continuity After Daniel Craig?

By Don Kaye

Movies

007: Ranking the 24 James Bond Villains From Best to Worst

By David Crow

It probably didn’t help that Quantum is one of the few direct sequels in the franchise, meaning that Forster had to contend with the storytelling baggage of the much better Casino Royale. At least you can say Quantum of Solace is the movie that truly established the Craig era’s continuity, with a SPECTRE-like secret organization working against MI6 at every turn, and Bond enduring the heartache of a very bad break up with Vesper Lynd in the last movie. So for a rebound, he and the rebellious Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) go to Bolivia. Their mission: stop a coup d’état that could give Quantum a major foothold in South America. What proceeds…isn’t all that fun. – John Saavedra

21. Octopussy (1983)

A clearly aging Roger Moore’s sixth outing as 007 (and second to last) follows the template of its predecessor, 1981’s For Your Eyes Only, with a renewed focus on geopolitical adventure and less reliance on gadgets, effects, and winking humor (although the jokes, when they do come, are more sophomoric and out of place than ever). But whereas Eyes served as a nice palate cleanser for the series, with a straightforward plot and a few offbeat touches, Octopussy is kind of a mess.

While its title is taken from an Ian Fleming short story, the mostly original Octopussy finds 007 drawn into a scheme involving Fabergé eggs, an exiled Afghan smuggler, a rogue Soviet general, and a cult of beautiful women who also run a circus, all tied to a plan to detonate a nuclear warhead on a U.S. airbase in West Germany. As you can tell from that sentence, the story is needlessly, hopelessly complicated, with an endless series of betrayals and switchbacks, the villains don’t make much of an impression either. Nor does Maud Adams in the title role as the leader of the cult; she’s meant to be a newer kind of Bond Girl, but remains ill-defined—as does much of this plodding, uninteresting entry. – DK

20. A View to a Kill (1985)

Roger Moore’s final outing as James Bond went out much like his tenure: strange, inconsistent, but maybe entertaining in a kitschy sort of way. To be sure, A View to a Kill is another one of the franchise’s low points, with Moore being particularly long in the tooth at the age of 58. He more often resembles his leading ladies’ lecherous uncle than he does a tall dark stranger. The overall film likewise suffers from a desperate, out of touch quality. Did anyone really think putting Moore (or his stuntman) on a snowboard while Beach Boys music played would bring in the kids?

Nonetheless, as bad as the movie is, there are bemusing charms, chief among them being the film’s pair of villains, ‘80s yuppie Max Zorin (Christopher Walken) and his henchwoman May Day (Grace Jones). There’s some unconvincing plot tidbits that reveal Walken’s secretly a Russian test tube baby, but that bizarre performance has no nationality. And the jarring contrast of Jones and Moore in bed—where she is totally the dominant—is one for the ages. Throw in a banger Bond song by Duran Duran and some nice character work by Patrick Macnee as Moore’s sidekick who should’ve been in the movie more, and you still have a guilty pleasure. Pity that Barbara Bach declined to cameo, as it might’ve made this a more fitting sendoff for the Moore era. – David Crow

19. Spectre (2015)

After saving the ship from capsizing with Skyfall, director Sam Mendes decided to sink it himself with the extremely convoluted, potentially era-breaking Spectre, a very busy movie that cares more about connecting the Daniel Craig movies into one “cohesive” timeline than its own largely generic spy adventure. Mendes’ attempt to present Ernst Stavro Blofeld as the big bad behind everything from Casino Royale to Skyfall largely falls flat, even if Christoph Waltz puts in a solid performance as the iconic villain. But how much of this is the director and writers’ fault, and how much of it is due to the Broccolis experimenting with the idea of a Bond cinematic universe remains unclear.

Movies

Daniel Craig Doesn’t Think a Woman Should Be James Bond

By David Crow

Movies

Casino Royale and GoldenEye Director on What’s Next for James Bond

By Don Kaye

Either way, it’s all just kind of boring. Even the budding romance between Bond and Madeleine Swann (a cunning Léa Seydoux) doesn’t really work. You can hardly believe Bond has decided to finally leave all this MI6 business behind him for love. And Blofeld’s childhood connection to the Bond family is ludicrous, too. The movie’s plot is ambitious, and completely fails at those ambitions. You’ll need patience for this one, especially if you enjoyed the more standalone Craig offerings, which this movie actively tries to break at every turn. – JS

18. Moonraker (1979)

When The Spy Who Loved Me was released two years before Moonraker, it cemented the actor’s popularity in the role (a first since Sean Connery left the franchise), and established a campy, convivial atmosphere. Looking at that movie’s box office receipts, the now solo Bond producer Cubby Broccoli went “more of this, but also Star Wars.” The result is perhaps the most spectacular misfire in 007’s oeuvre.

With a ridiculous and borderline nonsensical plot contrived solely to create a reason for Moore’s 007 to be sent to space in the third act and participate in laser fights, Moonraker is bombastic and bloated where Spy was amusing and quick-witted. The movie haplessly pinballs between inconsistent tones and styles, like sight gag of returning henchman Jaws (Richard Kiel) doing a double take before going over a waterfall as if he’s he’s Yosemite Sam, and the scene where villain Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale) feeds Bond’s latest one night stand to Rottweilers in a particularly brutal chase sequence.

Still, Moore is always affable, and for that matter so is Jaws in the film’s dynamic opening fight scene where the two duel while falling out of a plane. Plus, someone had to invent the trope of a desperate franchise film going into orbit. – DC

17. The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Roger Moore and Christopher Lee. James Bond versus Dracula. On paper this should’ve been one of the best 007 films. And for a fleeting moment, as the two performers finally have their duel and Bond stands at 10 paces from Lee’s Scaramanga, it is. Sadly that showdown only takes up a handful of minutes in this otherwise muddled affair.

Still early in Moore’s tenure as Bond, The Man with the Golden Gun finds the actor not yet locked into his interpretation of the role. At times the script even seems to be written for Sean Connery, with Bond displaying a coldness and physicality that seems unnatural to Moore. Otherwise, the movie’s awkward attempts to imitate Bruce Lee films and some rather cruel dumb blonde jokes at Britt Ekland’s expense have aged incredibly poorly. But hey, it paved the way for Hervé Villechaize to be on Fantasy Island. So there’s that. – DC

16. You Only Live Twice (1967)

Sean Connery’s fifth outing as 007 was also his last… until, of course, he made a brief return four years later in Diamonds Are Forever (and again in 1983’s non-canon Never Say Never Again). Unfortunately, the original James Bond doesn’t go out on a high note with this one: Despite its beautiful Japanese locales and the long-awaited face-to-face introduction of supervillain Blofeld (Donald Pleasance), You Only Live Twice (directed by Lewis Gilbert) reaches for epic status but already shows how the Bond franchise was running out of gas after just five years.

Following the bigger adventures and gadgets of Goldfinger and Thunderball, this one aims for the stars, literally, as Bond tries to find out who is snatching American and Soviet spacecraft out of orbit. That leads him to Blofeld and the latter’s massive lair hidden in a volcano, tropes that would be parodied for decades to come.

But You Only Live Twice—the first of many Bond entries to almost completely throw away any connection to the Fleming novel of the same name—has a perfunctory, going-through-the-motions feel and an especially racist, sexist tinge to the proceedings in Japan (even for the 1960s) that bog the movie down. Although it was a box office success, it’s clear that the franchise needed a change. – DK

15. The World Is Not Enough (1999)

The World Is Not Enough is one of the more underrated film in the 007 canon. Yes, it has problems—most notably Denise Richards’ disastrous miscasting as a nuclear scientist, as well as a climactic showdown in a submarine that falls flat. However, here’s the first film on this list that works more often than it doesn’t, and which has some of the best scenes in any Bond film. Most of them involve the film’s true villain, Elektra King (Sophie Marceau).

For the first and only time in a Bond movie, a woman is the big bad. More impressively, she’s able to fool Bond and the audience of her villainy. In this way, the franchise riffs on Bond’s past, including the loss of his wife, to sharp effect. Pierce Brosnan also may never have been better in the role than when he brings his usual levels of extreme suaveness, as well as a steely sadness. All of which culminates with Bond shooting Elektra in cold blood. The action clearly took a little more of his soul, which even M appears to lament.

Movies

The November Man and Pierce Brosnan’s Anti-James Bond Roles

By David Crow

Movies

Can No Time to Die Break the Final James Bond Movie Curse?

By David Crow

Oh yes, this is also the first Bond movie to make Judi Dench’s M a main character. In some ways, her relationship with Brosnan’s 007 is more complex than the mother-son dynamic she cultivated with Daniel Craig, and things never got weirder than her witnessing Bond and Elektra’s passion play. Lastly, the Garbage song and opening sequence are aces. – DC

14. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Pierce Brosnan’s second go in the role of Bond sees the performer both more relaxed and in command of 007’s legacy. The film is typical Eon shenanigans where a supervillain tricks world leaders into a World War III standoff—the UK and China, this time—and it’s sprinkled with similarly boilerplate action sequences. Yet Tomorrow Never Dies has aged pretty darn well since the movie’s main megalomaniac (Jonathan Pryce hamming it up to high heaven) is a blatant caricature of Rupert Murdoch. A Bond movie where 007 takes a media mogul who is triggering an international crisis to juice his cable news network’s ratings, and then feeds this guy to a buzzsaw? So satisfying.

The movie also introduced us to Michelle Yeoh as Wai Lin, who’s still among the most capable “Bond Girls” and really is 007’s equal. She might even be his superior given Yeoh’s natural martial arts talents. (It’s a real shame they didn’t let her or other Hong Kong talent choreograph the fight scenes, however.) The sequence where Bond and Lin fight for control of a motorcycle during a chase, or where Brosnan and Desmond Llewelyn snark during a particularly good Q walk-in, makes this an enjoyable if middling Bond flick. – DC

13. License to Kill (1989)

Timothy Dalton’s second and final outing as a darker, more serious Bond was met with a polarized response from both critics and fans, and remains a dark horse entry in the series. Originally titled Licence Revoked—until the studio learned that typically dumb American test audiences didn’t know what the word “revoked” meant—the movie does indeed find Bond with his licence to kill suspended by M. So he goes instead on a personal mission to avenge the savage mutilation of friend Felix Leiter (David Hedison) and the murder of Leiter’s new wife by a sadistic drug lord (Robert Davi).

It’s nice to see Leiter again (with Hedison encoring in the role after first appearing in Live and Let Die 16 years earlier), and it’s also refreshing to give Bond a more personal motivation this time out. Davi is an effective villain, good old Q (Desmond Llewelyn) gets to spend a lot more time in the field, and the climactic truck chase (staged by director John Glen, still the record-holder with five Bond films on his resume) is one of the series’ best action sequences. Sadly this darker, more violent Bond couldn’t compete with the likes of Batman and Indiana Jones at the box office in 1989, making Licence to Kill the lowest-grossing entry in the series to date—and consigning the Dalton era to the MI6 archives. – DK

12. Thunderball (1965)

When you adjust for inflation, Thunderball gives Skyfall a run for its money as the highest-grossing Bond film ever. It certainly sold the most tickets, coming out at the midpoint of the 1960s and zenith of Bondmania’s global conquest. It’s in that context which allows Thunderball to also be most enjoyable. This is the one which reimagined SPECTRE as a boardroom of baddies sitting in chairs designed to literally fire insubordinate employees; the first film where Bond and the villain swap thinly veiled insults over cards and then the spy steals the fiend’s girl right in front of him; the one where an eyepatch wearing bloke keeps pet sharks in a swimming pool. Bond even uses his jetpack!

That said, other elements have aged far less gracefully. Thunderball is probably the most sexist and misogynistic Bond movie ever produced, which has brought it under fire from even No Time to Die’s director. It’s a problematic film, but even among its dated gender politics, it should be noted henchwoman Fiona Volpe (Luciana Paluzzi) is the first woman in the series to be able to roll her eyes at Bond’s charms and mock his ego, and leading Bond Girl Domino (Claudine Auger) is still one of the series’ best: She uses Bond as much as a disposable toy as he does her. She is also the only woman in the series who kills the villain and saves 007’s bacon. It’s such a good finale it almost makes up for all those dull underwater scuba fights. – DC

11. The Living Daylights (1987)

To this day, some Bond fans would argue that Timothy Dalton didn’t get a fair shake as 007. After just two movies in the late ‘80s, he was down and out, losing his license to kill much earlier than his two major predecessors. But Dalton’s grittier, much darker Bond always faced an uphill battle of building off Roger Moore’s 12-year legacy as the superspy.

All that said, The Living Daylights is a very solid outing for Mr. Bond (and director John Glen’s fourth of five Bond films). 007 once again faces off with his archenemies at the KGB—one of the final 007 films to deal with the Cold War—and in a globetrotting adventure that takes him all over eastern Europe, Morocco, and Afghanistan. And he’s accompanied by Maryam d’Abo’s memorable Kara Milovy, a professional cellist who moonlights as a KGB sniper (sort of). Together, this entertaining duo partake in one of the greatest chase sequences in Bond movie history involving a cello case, a lot of snow, and plenty of bullets. Worth a watch for this scene alone. – JS

10. For Your Eyes Only (1981)

When you think of Roger Moore’s run of Bond films, you likely recall the high camp of cars that turn into submarines and laser guns in space. Which is why, for a while, Moore and Broccoli’s back-to-basics approach in For Your Eyes Only went somewhat overlooked. This decidedly scaled down adventure is the closest Bond came to a real Cold War thriller since From Russia With Love, and the setup is refreshingly simple too: Moore’s Bond is after a missing MacGuffin that the Soviets also want. Both parties then play spy games with local criminal syndicates in scenic Greece and the breathtaking Italian Alps.

Movies

For Your Eyes Only Was Not Supposed to Star Roger Moore

By Don Kaye

Movies

Tenet Is Christopher Nolan’s Unofficial James Bond Movie

By David Crow

The appeal of the movie is how low-key everyone plays it. There are few gadgets, no end-of-the-world stakes, and nothing which looks twee. Even the finale feels like it’s taken out of The Guns of Navarone instead of Return of the Jedi. In fact, the climactic infiltration of a Greek monastery on a high cliff is still a dazzling set-piece, and the resolution of detente between Bond and his KGB counterparts is remarkably graceful. Also Carole Bouquet as Melina, a Greek woman who’s out to avenge the death of her parents while maintaining her perfect flowing black hair, gives the movie just enough dramatic heft to standout in Moore’s run. – DC

9. Live and Let Die (1973)

Roger Moore is no saint in his first Bond outing. This is apparent from the low-key introduction where he’s more interested in hiding a delicate indiscretion with the delightful Miss Caruso (Madeline Smith) than taking an assignment from chief spy M (Bernard Lee). Later Jane Seymour’s spiritual advisor warns, “I know who you are, what you are, and why you have come,” as she peruses the tarot, oblivious to her own sad fate. Bond stacks the deck and seduces the mysticism out of her, robbing the bewitching Bond Girl of her virginity, which gives her the power of precognition. The less venial sins come from cultural appropriation.

This is as mixed a gris gris bag as any you might find at an Oh Cult Voodoo Shop, but it also makes Live and Let Die one of the most memorable of any Bond installments. It’s got snake bite rituals staged by high priest Baron Samedi (Geoffrey Holder), strongarm henchmen fortified with steel, and an archvillain so formidable, he is known throughout the world as Mr. Big (Yaphet Kotto). His plan is to flood cities with free heroin so everyone will get hooked. But the most infectious hooks come from the soundtrack.

The title sequence is by far the best of any James Bond film: sensual, tropical, and brimming with danger. The theme song was written by Paul and Linda McCartney, performed by Wings, and nominated for an Oscar. The score was written by The Beatles’ producer George Martin, and was the first which was not orchestrated by John Barry. B.J. Arnau torches the title song at a nightclub and the end credits. The Olympia Brass Band leads the funeral march, while its trumpeter breaks formation to knife an officially designated onlooker. The many deaths in Live and Let Die are all very creatively executed, but the most fun parts of the film are the simplest of the gadgets. The coffin with the false bottom, the revolving booth at Fillet of Soul, and the magnetic watch. Moore is a fish out of water even before MI6 comes to Harlem. He drops patented 007 double entendre rejoinders without Sean Connery’s knowing wink but gets to play hopscotch with alligators. He would go on to be more comfortable with the part, although not as much fun. – Tony Sokol

8. Dr. No (1962)

The first James Bond movie is still one of the very best of the series. It introduced Sean Connery as the classic version of the British secret agent, and while he got more comfortable in the role in his next several outings, one could argue that he was never better than he is here—suave, brutal, slightly haunted, arrogant, and unrelenting. Almost all the Bond trademarks are established: the humor, the dynamic with boss M (Bernard Lee), the easy sexuality, the incredibly beautiful Bond Girl (Ursula Andress), and the introduction of a self-satisfied, equally arrogant supervillain (Joseph Wiseman in the title role, which would never pass muster today).

The story sends Bond to Jamaica to investigate the death of a fellow agent, only for him to come up against Dr. No. The latter is shooting down American rockets at the behest of SPECTRE, a global criminal organization intent on destabilizing the world and its fragile Cold War balance of power. Largely faithful to Fleming’s novel (which was actually the fifth in his series), Dr. No is almost understated compared to later Bond outings but introduced a hero and a franchise for the ages. – DK

7. Skyfall (2012)

What a home run of a Bond flick. Eschewing the Quantum nonsense from the previous two films, Skyfall hits much closer to home for Bond, Judi Dench’s M (her last time in the role), and the rest of MI6. When a new villain with ties to M threatens the existence of the very agency he swore to protect, an older, more-troubled-than-usual Bond comes out of self-imposed exile to make things right. The result is one of the very best third acts in Bond history, thanks to the wonderful direction of Sam Mendes, who righted the ship for Craig after Marc Forster crashed it into a reef.

Craig puts in a much more complex performance as a Bond who’s been out of the game too long, and Naomie Harris is a very welcome addition as a much more badass Moneypenny (not behind a desk!), but it’s Javier Bardem as cyber-terrorist Raoul Silva who steals this movie. Undoubtedly the best villain of the Craig era, Silva is someone you might even sympathize with (a little) once he reveals his long-buried connection to M. And we learn some huge things about Bond’s past along the way too. This is for sure the one to watch after Casino Royale. – JS

6. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)

When Sean Connery left the Bond series after 1967’s disappointing You Only Live Twice, it was unclear whether the series could continue with a new face in the role. Not only did the producers come up with a surprising new Bond out of left field in George Lazenby, but he made his debut in what has rightly been reappraised as one of the best films—if not the best—in the entire series. Remarkably faithful to the novel on which it’s based, directed with flair by Peter R. Hunt (a longtime Bond editor making his one and only directorial outing), and portraying Bond in a light we’ve never seen, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is a classic.

Movies

How Sean Connery’s Singing Voice Helped Him Land James Bond

By David Crow

Games

From Russia With Love’s Game Adaptation Let Sean Connery Be James Bond One Last Time

By Matthew Byrd

While it’s hard to shake off the image of Connery, Lazenby does a much more admirable job that was acknowledged at the time in his sole appearance as 007. He’s less suave, rougher around the edges, and capable of fear and vulnerability, the latter made apparent first in his marriage proposal to romantic foil Tracy di Vicenzo (an excellent Diana Rigg) and then again in the film’s shocking, unforgettable ending. Telly Savalas is the best iteration of Blofeld to date while Hunt stages some of the franchise’s most visceral and exciting action scenes. It’s a damn shame Lazenby bowed out after this. The series might have taken an entirely different course had he stayed. – DK

5. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Roger Moore has his fans and detractors, but it’s impossible to not be smitten with The Spy Who Loved Me. It’s the peak of the outlandish “save the world” Bond movies, and it comes together like a finely strained dessert cocktail. Of course its secret is that despite being about Bond fighting another megalomaniac over some nuclear subs, TSWLM is as much a romantic comedy romp as it is an action flick. Think Ninotchka, but with submarine-cars.

Pivoting on an unlikely romance between British agent 007 and Soviet Maj. Anya Amasova (Barbara Bach), the film follows the pair as they meet cute (she sics men on Bond beneath the Pyramids of Giza), continues as they squabble over a microfilm MacGuffin, and finally sees them get together due to undeniable chemistry. They even have the third act breakup because of a little thing like realizing Bond killed her fiancé in the pre-title sequence. But when that sequence includes the greatest Bond stunt of all-time, with Rick Sylvester skiing off a a real glacier and then surviving by unfurling a Union Jack parachute, such things can be forgiven. After all, nobody does it better.

… And yes, that Carly Simon song is also the best Bond tune. – DC

4. GoldenEye (1995)

“GoldenEye saved James Bond.” This bit of conventional wisdom might be hyperbole, but it’s not far off from the truth either. In 1995, 007 was in a precarious place. The Cold War was over, rosy optimists were declaring “the end of history” in our time, and Bond hadn’t been in a movie since 1989. Worse, the last two films he did appear in were met with a mixed reception by the general public. Pierce Brosnan finally slipped into the tuxedo at a moment where many were opining if Bond was simply obsolete? “A sexist, misogynist dinosaur,” as his new M, Dame Judi Dench, might say.

The film proved all the naysayers wrong. But better than that, Brosnan and director Martin Campbell injected some vital life back in the franchise’s bloodstream. Like several other films near the top of this list, GoldenEye didn’t so much reinvent the formula as refine it with modern style and a fresh perspective. As much a template-setter for a picture perfect 007 adventure in the ‘90s as Goldfinger was to the ‘60s, this film offers a terrific villain in Sean Bean’s 006—Bond’s evil doppelgänger played by a man who could’ve been Bond—a wonderful henchwoman who is also a great Bond Girl via Famke Janssen’s Xenia Onatopp, and the most memorable method of murder this side of Oddjob’s hat. Even the M and Q scenes were crackling, especially because of the introduction of the aforementioned Dench.

Like a finely tailored suit, all the pieces come together for an even more appealing whole. Brosnan wears it well with a slightly wearier and more haunted Bond than we’d previously seen, but one who can still crack a smile while telling double entendres over martinis. When coupled with some of the best set-pieces in the franchise—from a high wire jump off a Swiss dam to Bond driving a tank through the streets of St. Petersberg—we’re left with one of the best action movies of its decade. – DC

3. Casino Royale (2006)

It’s hard to imagine the Bond franchise still thriving today without the commercial and narrative success of 2006’s Casino Royale. As the first hard reboot of the franchise, and the first in Daniel Craig’s tenure as Bond, Casino Royale took viewers back to the relative beginning of James’ career when he was still earning his license to kill and when those kills still meant something. The film replaced camp with understated performance, swagger with sentiment, and fantastical fight scenes with visceral action.

Much of the film’s success is down to the stellar casting. There’s Craig, of course, who imbues Bond with a world-weariness and bitterness that we don’t see nearly as much in the other interpretations. But there’s also Mads Mikkelsen in his English-speaking breakout role as blood-crying villain Le Chiffre, and Jeffrey Wright and Tobias Menzies in memorable supporting roles. Most integral to the film’s success, however, is Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd, who is not only one of the franchise’s best “Bond Girls,” but one of the franchise’s best characters.

On paper Vesper is a classic femme fatale. In execution, she is a complex person in an impossible situation who ultimately outsmarts Bond, even if she doesn’t wholly want to. Because of Vesper, Casino Royale is one of the few Bond films in which James loses—beating Le Chiffre and his boss Mr. White, but losing Vesper, and losing a major piece of his humanity in the process. Until the end, Vesper’s life is autonomous from Bond’s, even after they fall in love, demonstrating an agency rarely given to Bond Girls.

In some ways, it’s ironic that it was a returning Bond director who would properly bring Bond into the 21st century. Martin Campbell had previously directed 1995’s GoldenEye. This was not only Campbell’s second time directing a Bond film; it was also his second time directing a Bond film that was tasked with reinventing the franchise under a new leading man. While GoldenEye successfully did this, Casino Royale did it better. Casino Royale launched Bond into a new pop culture era in a vital way, making Bond relevant not only to longtime Bond fans but to a much broader modern audience. It is not only one of the best Bond films ever; it is one of our best modern action films. – Kayti Burt

2. From Russia With Love (1963)

Following the success of Dr. No, the Bond film series officially got underway with From Russia With Love, one of the rare 007 outings to feature continuity with the previous film while also expanding upon the template established in its predecessor. As with several of the early films, this one was faithful to the Fleming book which it was based on, as SPECTRE, seeking revenge against Bond for the death of Dr. No, creates an elaborate trap for the British agent involving a defector and several assassins.

From Russia With Love is in many ways a definitive Bond adventure, with the film standing right on the edge between Fleming’s grittier books and the more elaborate direction that the cinematic version took. Connery is even more confident and relaxed in the role, while the villains—Lotte Lenya as the vile Rosa Klebb and a young Robert Shaw as the frightening killing machine Red Grant—are two of the series’ best.

The film also introduces Q and his array of gadgets for the first time, makes the first mention of Blofeld, and establishes the pre-credits sequence that is still a part of the Bond template to this date. Whether it’s the all-time best of the series is open for debate, but it certainly has the best fight scene in the franchise between Bond and Shaw’s Red Grant, and the film itself remains right there at the top—with love. – DK

1. Goldfinger (1964)

My favorite scene in Goldfinger is not the one where Gert Fröbe’s titular villain has Bond tied to a table with a laser inching nearer—although who doesn’t love the way Fröbe’s voice rises as he says “No, Mr. Bond I expect you to die”? Nor is it the infamous moment where Bond discovers Shirley Eaton drowned in gold paint. It’s not even the laddish way Sean Connery’s lip curls as he whispers “Pussy” to Honor Blackman.

All of those things are iconic and helped give solid shape to what was previously a fluid definition for Bond and his film series. But for me, the moment where Bond and the franchise became cemented is on a golf course. It’s there that 007 and Auric Goldfinger have made a wager worth one brick of Nazi gold over who wins the next nine holes. Goldfinger of course is a cheat, and has his strongman Oddjob (Harold Sakata) sneak a ball on the green after the boss loses the real thing. But rather than call him on it or beat him despite the crooked handicap, Connery’s Bond just smirks and decides to play a trick on Mr. Goldfinger: He’ll be as dishonest and change balls out again, setting the big guy up to lose his money and his pride—even as both men are keenly aware that they despise each other, and one woman they’ve both romanced in their own broken way has died because of their little games.

It summarizes everything folks love, or love to hate, about Bond: He’s arrogant, reckless, cozy with his enemies, indifferent about his lovers, and just having the goddamn time of his life at every given moment. As per usual, Connery delivers it all with a wolfish grin and internalized chuckle, as if only he’s aware of his inherent superiority.

It’s all laid out in the best Bond movie ever made: The Shirley Bassey theme song that set the standard for every Bond opening titles sequence forever after; the tricked out Aston Martin with an ejector seat; and the wild supervillain plot about irradiating the gold bullion at Fort Knox. Goldfinger sets a perfect table for a perfect Bond movie. And it was on a golf course where Connery’s Bond began to run it. Sixty years on, he’s still winning. – DC

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post James Bond Movies Ranked From Worst to Best appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3zO8jnm

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

0 notes

sulietsexual · 7 years ago

Note

Its been a while since I asked you meta related things so I just had a random idea - top 5 characters which you just dont understand, top 5 ch which are well writen but you cant connect or like, top 5 ch storylines you would like to alter, top 5 traits of your disliked chracters that you like, top 5 traits of your loved characters you dislike, top 5 ways your disliked characters contributed to the main storyline that youre fine with. For males and females separately so theres room for thought :)

Top 5 Characters I Don’t Understand

Male

Wesley Wyndam Pryce - okay, so this is only from mid-Season 3 onward, but I cannot fathom Wesley’s actions in stealing Connor, consulting with Holtz and doubting/not believing in Angel to the point where he didn’t realise that Angel would do everything in his power to protect Connor. Then his self-righteous attitude post-kidnap is appalling, the fact that he acts like the wronged party and refuses to acknowledge his own wrongdoings and never apologises for his actions all drive me crazy. Just can’t.

Luke Danes, I mean, buddy, pull it together. You say you want Lorelai, yet never make a move and then bitch about her boyfriends and act like a jerk. You say you’re “all in” and then you run at the first sign of trouble and make Lorelai feel like she did something wrong. You tell Lorelai you want her to be honest with you and then you hide your daughter from her for two freakin’ months. You say you want to spend your life with her, yet you shut her out of it. Like, wtf??

Fitzgerald Thomas Grant III, omg, why is he such an abusive asshole? Why does he treat every woman he’s with like crap? Why does he treat Mellie as if she’s insignificant and stupid? Why does he act entitled to everyone’s time and affections? Why does he continually try to give up the most powerful position in America? Why doesn’t he have any ambition? Why does he resent anyone who does??? I don’t understand.

John Winchester. Dude’s always going on about how he “did the best that he could”. Nope. The best he could would have been to raise his boys in a stable freakin’ environment, not push adult responsibility onto his eldest, not treat his youngest like an outcast/freak for wanting a better life and actually being an adult and being there for his boys. How does he justify the way he treated his sons? Don’t get it.

Finn Collins. Dude, you cheat on your girlfriend, neglect to tell the girl you’re cheating with that you even have a girlfriend, don’t tell your girlfriend you cheated on her and expect both girls to still want you? Plus the whole massacring eighteen unarmed people and then ignoring their bodies as the girl you want walks in horrified and look at her as if she’ll love you for your actions? Yikes.

Female

Lorelai Gilmore, she constantly puts her mother down for her privilege and sense of entitlement, yet displays the exact same behaviour. She rejected Chris, then bitches about how he “wasn’t ready”. She thinks all her behaviour is cute but it’s actually really annoying. And she honestly seems to believe that her parents were the absolute worst parents in the world, when it reality they were really good to her and always try to be a part of her life. Pull it together, woman!

Octavia Blake, why does she blame her brother for everything? Why is her solution always violence? Why does she proudly cannibalize people? Why does she think she knows more about a culture she’s been a part of for two seconds than the people actually raised in said culture?

Nancy Wheeler. Why does she want Jonathan so badly? Why does she screw over Steve? What makes her neglect her brother and run off with the guy she just banged? Why doesn’t she think through the consequences of her actions? Why did she offer her brother zero comfort when his friend “died”? What made her think it was okay to chase down Jonathan while he was picking out a coffin for his brother’s funeral to talk about Barb? Girl drives me bonkers.

Joey Potter, so many of her actions make no sense. She pines after Dawson for years and then breaks up with him for literally no reason. She blames him for telling her the truth about her father, after repeatedly saying they need to be honest with one another. She can’t decide between two guys for years. She constantly rejects Pacey yet picks him in the end. She believes she’s entitled to be a bitch to people just because she’s had a tough life.

Aria Montgomery, if your creepy-ass relationship really so important to you that you would lie to your friends and family, threaten your parents, risk your partner going to jail, threaten to walk out on your family and basically cease to exist outside of your boyfriend? Yikes.

Going to put the rest under the cut, otherwise we’re going to end up with a post a mile long.

Top 5 Characters Who Are Well-writen But I Can’t Connect To or Like

Male

John Locke, a great-written character who drives me up the wall with his over-zealousness and delusions of grandeur.

Spike, he really does have a great character arc and characterisation but his over-exposure and the fandom’s adulation of him drive me crazy, plus I hate how his narrative overtakes Buffy’s.

Jack Shepherd, such a great arc, such an amazing journey but his douchey behaviour and the way he treats certain characters means I just can’t like him.

Perry Cox, I find him amusing and do occasionally like him but his lack of self-awareness and overall mean attitude and sexism bugs me.

Dean Winchester, so well-written with a great arc but also abusive, violent, self-righteous, sexist and overall annoying as hell.

Female

Regina Mills, her redemption arc is sloppy but her characterisation was always strong and she’s a fantastic villain, which is why I love to hate her.

Robin Scherbatsky, very well-written with a great arc (until the finale) but I just cannot like her, probably due to her arrogance and meanness.

Rachel Green, now, I don’t hate Rachel or anything but she’s one of my least-favourite Friends characters and I’ve never been able to connect with her.

Katniss Everdeen, a great-written character whose personality I find very hard to reconcile and who I just cannot connect with.

Kate Austin, great arc, great characterisation, full of traits I can’t stand and makes choices that make me want to throttle her.

Top 5 Characters Storylines I Would Like To Alter

Male

Neal Cassidy, he was done so dirty by that damn show!

August Booth, another one screwed over by OUAT and there was so much left to explore with his character!

Dean Forrester, I really hate how much Gilmore Girls dumbled down and assassinated his character.

Boyd Langton, Dollhouse’s weird out-of-nowhere reveal that he was the bad guy completely changed his character and he didn’t deserve that.

Jake Ballard, he deserves better than being second-choice for Olivia Pope.

Female

Laurel Lance, who deserved the fucking world and got nothing, I would change so much about her storyline and eventual fate.

Mellie Grant who, like Laurel, deserved so much and got shit.

Emma Swan, who was character assassinated in order to box her into a toxic ship which decimated everything about her.

Juliet Burke, who should have lived and had a happy life and finally made it off that damn Island!

Effy Stonem, who deserved better than to be sandwiched between two guys who treated her like a prize and blamed her for their rivalry, not to mention the shitty “friends” who used her as their scapegoat.

Top 5 Traits Of My Disliked Characters That I Like (I’m not going to pick my absolute most disliked characters for this, but just 5 characters I dislike in general. Also, probably can’t come up with five for each, so I’ll go with as many as I can list).

Male

Going with Wesley again - love his intelligence, his surprising confidence when he allows himself to show it, his thirst for knowledge and his goofiness.

Spike - I like his bravado, his confidence and his loyalty.

Dean Winchester - similarly to Spike, his bravado, his loyalty and his confidence, as well as his humour and love of fun.

Luke Danes - I like that he’s good at the big gestures, I like his snark and his homebody nature.

Jess Mariano - I like intelligence, his snark and the fact that he sorts himself out later on in life.

Female

Anya Jenkins - love her work ethic and the fact that she handles money well and knows how to budget, save and invest.

Betty Cooper - she’s got gumption, I’ll give her that and she is intelligent and hardworking.

Felicity Smoak - like Betty, she’s intelligent and has gumption.

Cassie from the Animorphs series - she’s compassionate and does try to understand people, which I like.She also has a lot of empathy.

Alison DiLaurentis - she is ruthless and strategic and highly intelligent, all of which I admire, even if her actions are truly sociopathic.

Top 5 Traits Of My Loved Characters I Dislike (again, this may not reach five but I’ll do my best)

Male

Angel - his tendency to make decisions for others, his jealousy, the way he can completely cut off those he cares about.

James Ford - the way he lets his self-hatred affect others, his self-centredness, the way he can be deliberately cruel at times.

August Booth - he lies way too much, his self-hatred, his selfishness.

Neal Cassidy ………….. nope, I love Neal too much, can’t think of any traits I dislike.

Charles Gunn - the way he diminishes himself for others.

Female

Prue Halliwell - that damn pride, her self-righteousness, her judgmental streak.

Juliet Burke ……………. nope, as with Neal, love her way too much to dislike anything about her.

Lana Lang - her Mary Sue traits (this lies more on the writing of her character than her), her tendency to project her own feelings onto others.

Lilah Morgan - well, she’s an evil bitch, but you’re supposed to hate her for that, so I more hate her actions than her herself, such as when she gives Cordy the visions which almost kill her or when she sends people to drill into Lorn’s head.

Jo March - her lack of propriety at times, her judgemental streak, her refusal to adhere to convention (at times)

Top 5 Ways My Disliked Characters Contributed To The Main Storyline That I’m Fine With (I am running out of steam and not sure if I can come up with 5 males and 5 females, so gonna combine them for this last one and again might not make it to Top 5)

Alison DiLaurentis - I like her as a villain, her murder kicks off the whole series which worked well, and I liked that she works as a foil for all the girls, in particular Hanna and Mona.

Spike - love him as a villain in Season 2, love that he works as a foil for Angel in AtS Season 5, liked him stirring things up in Lovers Walk in Season 3.

Regina Mills - love her as a villain, love her as the Curse Caster, liked her dynamic with Emma, liked her as a foil for Snow and Emma.

……. I actually might be out, as usually when I hate a character it’s because of the way in which they negatively impact the storyline.

Whew, I’m knackered. Hope you enjoy my answers, even if they’re not 100% what you asked for!

#psychoticdelena #answered

5 notes · View notes

tumblunni · 7 years ago

Text

okay HOLY SHIT

I just remembered that show Gargoyles that I loved as a kid, and I decided to rewatch it, and its SOMEHOW EVEN BETTER THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS?? Like holy fuck?? It has one of the best introductions to any show ever! Did I just never see the first episode as a kid, or did all the implications fly over my head when I watched it??

Okay so.. like.. I knew the PREMISE but I didnt expect it all happened in the least expected way! The friggin theme tune tells us that blablabla ancient magical guardian creatures fell under some sort of curse and now they’re revived in modern times, such and such, there you go a one sentence plot. BUT HOW IT HAPPENED HOW it happened oh GOD And like the show starts with a whole hour long flashback to the gargoyles back in olden times?? like thats a really bold move! usually in kids shows theyre like ‘you MUST establish the status quo/episode formula right away’. here we literally only saw two minutes of modern times america. TWO MINUTES! some person we dont know finds some mysterious monster. now lets throw that all away and spend a whole glorious hour establishing how much of an upstanding man that damn monster is, and how the universe treats him like shit. like weirdly enough it raises hype for the modern day episode formula even as it shows none of it?? it makes the audience think ‘WAIT WTF THEYRE NOT EVIL, OH NO WE ALREADY KNOW THE MODERN POLICE IS GONNA ATTACK THEM’ :< And then also we get ANOTHER HOUR AND A HALF of establishing the modern day status quo too?? theyre labelled on dvds and stuff as the first five episodes, but really this was just one big 2 and half hour movie premiere! i wish i could have seen it in its original form back when it first aired, i just remember that it was really hard to catch reruns of the multi part stuff cos toon disney had a lot of airing issues

anyway WHY IS THIS THE MOST AMAZING THING EVER?

okay

OKAY OKAY

Here’s our premise! We start off in some ambiguously set medieval kingdom where everyone dresses like a mashup of vikings and englishmen yet have scottish accents ok seriously thats kinda distracting And we’re introduced to this small castle kingdom that’s protected by mysterious guardian creatures of amazing character design. Like seriously i wish they didnt focus so much on this ‘all the main gargoyles have to look more human’ thing, the comic relief teenagers trio was my favourite and also THE COOL GRANDPA EYEPATCH GARGOYLE ok ok im getting offtopic So in this universe gargoyles are a sentient species of winged noble warrior doods, who just happen to have a problem of turning to stone in sunlight. And they protect these humans but the humans are all assholes who’re like WAH BUT THEY LOOK LIKE CHRISTIAN DEMONS THEY MUST BE EVIL even as theyre like.. mid-being-saved. Absolute dumbasses. And seriously YOU BUILT YOUR CITY ON THE GARGOYLES’S LAND! You should count yourself lucky their leader is Niceman Mc Patience who agreed to a peace treaty instead of kicking your ass. Seriously Goliath you kinda comprimised too much! It really fuckin sucks!! The gargoyles are like.. employed by the humans for no form of pay?? They get literally nothing out of it! Except less room to live in their own home, and constant degredation.

Okay so THE HUMAN CHARACTERS AND THEIR CONSTANT DEGREDATION

We’re introduced to the princess and royal vizier dude when the kindly knight captain is like ‘hey you should say thank you to the gargoyles, not me’, and she’s like HOW DARE YOU LET THE BEASTS INSIDE THE HOUSE! Like seriouslt the gargoyles arent even allowed to be seen by humans?? Theyre supposed to protect them every damn day but also should never speak and never have any form of rights as sentient beings. WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR DAMAGE, MEDIEVAL DOODS?? So yeah here’s our brief summary of the everyone here: * Fucking asshole princess who acts like you let your dog shit on the floor if you give a friggin sentient being and king of another civilization the basic courtesy of being allowed to STAND INSIDE THE HOUSE * Cliche evil vizier lookin dood who doesnt really have much personality shown yet except being a sycophant to her anti gargoyle shit, and like.. from his character design you totally expect he’s gonna be evil. *shrug* * Niceman mc guardman who treats Goliath like a friend and is being all activist for gargoyle rights amoung the court. But also he’s really low ranking apparantly, and doesnt have any power to affect change. It seems that he’s been treated like shit by these royals for a long time... * One innocent nice kiddo who wants to hug the gargoyles for saving him, but his jerkass mum is all OMG HOW DARE YOU TOUCH HIM HEY EVERYONE YOU SAW THEY TOTALLY ATTACKED US RIGHT Like seriously he just fuckin tries to start a conversation with the younger gargoyles, and is all ‘youre my hero!’ and they have a nice talk that establishes a load of worldbuilding like how gargoyle culture doesnt have any form of names and Goliath only has one cos the humans gave it to him. Screw you, worldbuilding interruption predjudice mom!

Okay so now we have our premise, and we see some mysterious guy in a hood sneaking out of the castle to ally with some raiders who wanna overthrow the country and steal all its riches. Also a minor scene of the teen and kid gargoyle group being sent to their room for 'causing trouble’ even though seriously the humans started it >_> So like.. we all know where this is going, right? Its a pretty big omen when you give us a contrived circumstance for the children to be the only ones who can be safe from this impending catastrophe... And the voice was very gruff and deep so its probably not the princess doing this shit, plus duh she already has all the power so why would she need to stage a coup? Really, the question now is just what vizier man’s motives are for wanting to betray her!

... EXCEPT

This is where the story gets fuckin great, and also where My Soul Is Pained

hey guess who was really the traitor? its.... nice guard man! fffffuck its sooo creepy when the princess is running for help and she’s like HEY THANK GOD YOURE HERE and then he has this big slasher smile and reveals his plan T_T And like.. he’s still.. not really evil?? Nobody here is evil, except the personalityless plot device raider guys who just exist to set up this circumstance. The princess is an ungrateful predjudiced asshole, but she’s beloved by her human subjects and i mean., she never actually does anything evil, she’s just rude and nasty. And the vizier was a complete red herring and actually all his mysterious shit was just him hiding a crush on the princess, so he breaks down when he thinks she’s dead :( And then guard guy also wasnt lying about caring about the gargoyles. he tried to get them to leave so that only the humans would die, but then like.. his ambition overtook that one shred of loyalty he had to his friends. He thought he could get through all this without having to kill them, but when the raider guy insists upon it he ends up agreeing rather than lose his chance at stealing the throne. And then its really slimy how he’s all ‘BUT I DIDNT INTEND THIS ORIGINALLY, ITS ALL RAIDER GUY’S FAULT’ after goliath shows up and cries over the corpses of his family, like seriously what the fuck dude dont try and weasel out of consequences for your actions. But still it feels like he was once a genuinely good guy who just gave in to his selfishness and abandoned his morals?? And i mean its super justified for him to be angry at how he was treated by the princess, and to want to affect change in this society. WE WERE ALL ROOTING FOR YOU!! Seriously its so fuckin surprisingly deep to have some guy who’s a fakeout hero in the first damn episode. And some guy who’s a villain just because he stooped to any means necessary to carry out his once-heroic ambitions. Instead of changing society for the sake of the people, he’s sacrificing all the people just to gain the throne, and forgetting why he ever wanted it! SERIOUSLY HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO BE EVEN WORSE THAN ASSHOLE PRINCESS

so yeah then the plot just goes in SO MANY UNEXPECTED DIRECTIONS to get to the same expected conclusion! Instead of just being cursed by the bad guys, the gargoyles were betrayed by the one closest to them, while those bad guys all died innefectually offscreen. And the curse wasnt even an evil act! It happens because of a REALLY COMPLEX GREY MORALITY SITUATION, where the princess and vizier were gonna be sold off for cash, but then because the gargoyles tried to save them the guard guy decided to just execute them instead. So after their triumphant rescue of all the villagers, they find the vizier man sobbing over his dead love, and then he tells them its THEIR FAULT IT HAPPENED. And he doesnt want to live without her, so he makes a really stupid reckless decision and decides to attack the last few living gargoyles. And like RIGHT AFTER he casts the spell on them, he finds out the princess is still alive and its all oh Fuck What The Fuck Have I Done So vizier man tries to undo the curse, but his book of spells got damaged in the fight and (OF COURSE) coincidentally the page about curse lifting is gone. Cue fuckin Everyone Crying. SO FEW EVIL PEOPLE IN THIS STORY SO MANY EVIL ACTS DONE BY THOSE WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE THE HERO like even the vizier and princess realize they were wrong about their anti gargoyle bigotry after they have to see the consequences of it here but its just WAY TOO LATE FOR THAT

and then yo the EVEN MORE UNEXPECTED AND SAD BIT cos our protagonist gargoyle was the only one who didnt get cursed thats unexpected and he basically COMMITS SUICIDE TO BE WITH HIS FAMILY THATS KINDA MORE UNEXPECTED Well its more like a g-rated suicide metaphor?? Everyone thinks the curse will never be broken, so he curses himself too cos he cant live without them. And its really depressing cos even though we know they all eventually get uncursed, so many others just straight up died and also theyll never see their human friends again and also the castle is all destroyed so the fate of the kingdom is really ambiguous too?? we just know that the now-redeemed princess and vizier are gonna do anything they can to protect their citizens and atone for what happened. and they take the last few gargoyle eggs that werent destroyed, and promise to raise them with all of the love and respect they nevr gave poor goliath... and seriously they never say whose children those eggs were but he’s like the only person left who could have given them a proper gargoyle childhood. So like its morally grey that goliath is choosing death together with the people he knows, rather than living and trying to ressurect his dying civilization. i absolutely wouldnt blame him for it though, its not like suicide is an active choice, he wasnt exactly in his right mind at the time! But its just REALLY NICE AND COMPLEX! And raises a lot of questions about what will happen to these new gargoyles who’re raised by humans, how different would they be if goliath and co met them someday? i really hope thats actually a plot thats gonna happen, i cant rememebr ANYTHING about this show lol...

so yeah theres all the FUCKIN COMPLEX DARK MORAL AMBIGUITY IN ANCIENT ENGLANDSCOTLANDGERMANYKINDA and it is AMAZING and it absolutely baffles me how they ahve such great plots when other parts of the writing are kinda awful standard disney cliches?? like seriously they wasted so much screentime on Comic Relief: A Fat Guy Exists. Seriously he just.. exists. They show these really slow and overanimated scenes of him just.. eating things. not even exaggerated or comedic. he ate one pie, lets all make fun of him for twenty minutes but man, no show in the 90s was perfect, lol! this is still pretty damn great! AND VERY EMOTIONAL

oh oh oh and i didnt mention THE OTHER CRYING BIT cos the guard guy gets a cliche disney villain death, the whole accidentally falling off a cliff due to his own actions, so the protagonist isnt morally responsible for killing a man but then what makes it a really unique scene is that THATS NOT THE MORAL STANCE THE SHOW TAKES goliath WANTED to kill that damn man or, at the very least, give him some sort of punishment for what he’d done goliath has a fucking huge despair moment over the fact this villain man died and he wasnt the one who did it “you took everything from me, even my chance at revenge” cue ugly sobbing as this buff ass demon man screams at the heavens and cradles the stone dust that was once his damn wife what the fuck show why are you doing this to me

ITS REALLY GOOD

#blunni thoughts

7 notes · View notes