#its almost laughable how point by point a genocide this has been from pretty much the very beginning when israel was “founded”

[crowpolitics]

It literally Does match the definition of a genocide under international law, and the excuse of destroying a terrorist organizing does not justify the ethnic cleansing of civilians. Fucking kill the hostages to kill bank robbers logic.

Israel has also been committing this ethnic cleansing - this genocide - since before the 7th and even long before Hamas formed. Trying to justify the horrific actions committed by israel the last century by blaming Hamas ignores the decades before Hamas formed. It's disingenuous.

The IOF has murdered several of the hostages taken on the 7th, including some that had escaped and were waving white flags with their shirts off to indicate they didnt have any bombs on them. If this had been about the hostages, they wouldnt have been bombing indiscriminately. That risks killing the very people they are claiming to be trying to rescue.

You think we dont know that Hamas doesnt care about the Palestinian people? Theyre an extremist organization born from decades of horror - they dont care about the civilians, they care about winning this conflict and retaking what was stolen, damn the consequences. But we are capable of nuanced thought here. We can condemn both Hamas And the IOF for their atrocities. We can point out the Extreme responses israel has - both to the violence conducted by Hamas and to peaceful protests conducted by Palestinian people.

This "would be over" if it werent for Hamas? This started before Hamas, and while it certainly wont end using their tactics, pretending they are the only ones at fault here is wildly delusional and an injustice to tens of thousands of innocent people.

You came onto a post calling out the horrific actions carried out by the IOF and pulled a full whataboutism, as if Hamas's existence excuses everything the IOF has done. As if calling out the genocide being committed here is somehow condoning Hamas. Thats not how the real world works. Thats how the world works under far right wing politics like MAGA.

And again. It is, under international law, very clearly a genocide. It matches both of the sub-definitions And meets the criteria of intent - israeli government officials are not quiet about that. The sooner people accept that a genocide doesn't have a death tally before it can be called one the easier it'll be to learn from them and recognize when theyre happening.

A not so friendly reminder. Rafah is under is under attack and has been since Sunday. Tell again how this isn’t a genocide? They were forced into this “safe zone”, but it’s no longer a safe zone. The Zionist have taken a page out of history’s worst playbook. Enough quit saying it’s about the hostages, it never was, because if it was they won’t be targeting and terrorizing “safe zones”.

[arbitrarygreay]

I watched all of Killjoys with @mimeparadox! - This being my third time through seasons 1 and 2, I probably enjoyed Dutch-D'avin the most I ever have, really seeing what the show was trying to convey with that relationship. That said, I still do not like the show's attempt to make them do insipid romantic fluff at the end of S4 and S5. They still work best as comrades. - There is no best season of the show. S2=S3=S4 > S1 > S5. S2 is the best the show does with its class conflicts, having discarded the Pretty People Dramz of S1. S3 is the most coherent in its character themes, everything lensed through the tragedy of Dutch and Aneela. S4 does the most payoff for all of the relationships in the show.

- Oh, poor S5. This is the first time I've rewatched it, and I did still have a good time. Basically, S5's weaknesses all have to do with it being the final season. The Prison arc is actually quite fun...so long as it has nothing to do with The Lady. In general, the show is not as good as when it remembers that they have to tie things up and finish off this alien invasion storyline. They're great at the serialized character/relationship elements, less good at the serialized plot parts. - The Prison arc shows that Lovretta could definitely be the showrunner for a classic spy competence porn show a la Nikita. - The Lady is still great as Khlyen's third failure as The Worst Dad to Murderous Teenage Daughter. The reason I love her as a garbage fave, whereas Angel's Connor is a (hah) narrative killjoy, is that The Lady's behavior does not cause the other characters to betray themselves. For the most part, The Lady incites the others to do more competence porn, whereas Connor just incited tedious interpersonal Dramz (with maybe the exception of the return of murderous Fred). - mimeparadox and I have discovered across watching multiple shows that the best character archetype is an ultra-competent slightly neurotic uptight character getting blindsided by their Feelings (bonus points if said Feelings are romantic). We have named this archetype Paris, named after Paris Gellar from Gilmore Girls. The Paris is such a powerful type, especially as a Big Bad, that Killjoys does it twice in a row, with Aneela and The Lady. - Intriguingly, I finally saw what the show was trying to do with a series-long arc for Johnny. - In S1, the seeds are planted for the fact that Johnny wants to do more than survive, he wants to have a stronger emotional anchor than just being with Dutch (he is Dutch's gravity, but the reverse isn't true). In S1, this manifests in his being intrigued by Scarback spirituality. In S2, this manifests in his becoming more invested in Westerley's class politics (with Pawter) than Dutch's more self-centered investigation of the Hullen. And in S5, he decides that being a rootless Killjoy isn't viable in the long term. He doesn't want the warrant to be all. - Of course, the execution gets muddled, because Johnny on the mission Fun Train is entirely too compelling, as are his dynamics with everyone else on the team. Note how S3 and S4 aren't mentioned above, as in those seasons, with the exception of the Hackmod Arc, Johnny is focused on Dutch's war with Aneela and The Lady. The fact that there's no issue with the character dropping his series arc for two seasons shows that this arc isn't really critical to his character at all. - And that's exactly the conclusion that the show itself comes to, with the Oneyer absence tossed aside in the end for a "one for the road" of indefinite length. - Part of this, though, is not a betrayal of the series arc because at the end of the series, Johnny is not still simply a Killjoy, for whom the warrant is all. He's a new Level Six, and so has a purpose to genuinely care about (which also happens to enable his pursuing the other missions he wants on the side, like The Factory). - I got a better sense for Dutch's series long arc, too, which was really interesting, because she is never actually a hero in her own motivation. She is basically selfishly motivated from beginning to end, but just slightly growing the circle of who she considers under her protection. Dutch's driving motivation at the beginning of the series is to flee anything that might impinge on her personal freedom. Then, she decides to fight back instead of flee, which means that she seeks having just enough power to do so. S4 is about how she balks at the responsibility that comes with it, which we discover is rooted in how she's having an identity crisis about her biological family. In S5, she comes to a more stable place in her identity and how much responsibility she's willing to take on to defend her home, but grapples with some of the remaining things impinging on her emotional freedom (the loss of the certainty of Johnny, and then cycle of Khlyen's abuse). - Which is to say, it's pretty cool that we get to have a science fiction where where the central protagonist gets to be basically a shameless charismatic hedonist. She's all but said that she's basically outsourced her morality to the rest of her team. This is a rare character complexity for any genre show protagonist, much less a lady. And it makes the writing extra impressive for setting up the plot and world so that such a protagonist gets guided into doing heroic actions entirely on following a selfish priority through the incentive gradients. - This is all really only possible because Turin is a good boss, though. If she had a RAC supervisor who played power politics with her, she'd be toast (and probably quit the RAC to fly away in a heartbeat). Of course, that Turin is a good boss is meant to illustrate how the RAC is a an outfit that takes in misfits, people who are loathe to (and already failed to) play traditional social politics as opposed to mere sportsmanship competition (thing-oriented people over person-oriented people). They have to be the kind of people who could ever believe that the Warrant is all in the first place. - Killjoys never truly grapples with its politics. I stand by my previous stance that this is a good thing, because the very core build of its protagonists prevents that. This show, ah, kind of embraces ACAB as a good thing, nothing of which to mention how Delle Seyah and Aneela becoming allies therefore results in a "yasss genocidal girlboss aristocracy slay" conclusion? ("Colonialism is good if they appoint an emotionally invested immigrant warlord as governor") - Killjoys' broader wonky politics doesn't bother me, because FUN TRAIN! DO NOT STOP THE FUN TRAIN!! Seriously, there were definitely plot holes in this show that never went away, and I did not really care because almost every given moment of the show was delightful. The lore of how Hullen/The Green worked was laughably inconsistent, and I did not really care because the lore was whatever it was at the moment to enable storylines that were really fun. In fact, joking about the inconsistency of the lore therefore became its own pleasure, because it still did not detract from my enjoyment of canon. Altered Carbon shows how the prestige version of Killjoys would have been no fun at all. Down with Prestige TV. Which isn't to say that I've changed my mind on character vs. world-building as source for plots! I remain dedicated to my apathy to Wynonna Earp, which is a show which nominally builds its world/plot to service character, but leaves me cold. What Killjoys has, in contrast, is a rock solid world-building foundation, and then we watch the fireworks of character reacting to the setting and each other, with characters themselves serving as expressions of world-building. This is why Killjoys' writing is weakest when it has to plot for the sake up wrapping up plot and character threads, instead of plot as per how character interactions with the world organically develop. The way this doesn't contradict with the above is that Killjoys firmly declares what parts of the world-building are really important, which is the setup of institutions that determines the power-dynamics between any two given characters. Plot elements that aren't about that can be wishy-washy without therefore making the characters look incompetent. (With the exception of "stick a knife in the necks of all of the Hullen already!" because that's a very tangible action anyone can do, as opposed a squishy genre detail.)

[red-stick-progressive]

A response to that racist responding repeatedly to my additions to the post on Colonial Genocide

1: “La Hispaniola, in where most if not all of the indigenous population dissapeared. I’m only agreeing partially with you, Spanish colonization was devastating, BUT that just isn’t ALL (as you dare to put, in a kinda of cospirazy-theory way): There were a lot of other factors, in were DID play a part the illnesses and the war the own indians had agaisnt others.”

(Then you talk about the Aztec, unrelated to Hispaniola)

2: “The book you provided to me has taken, unsurprisingly, the highest balance of people (8 million) it supposed to exist in the island of La Hispainola before 1492 (of course, the bigger deads, the better! gets easier to acuse of holocaust and genocide).”

(You misread Stannard, I assume in a preview or something. He mentions the population estimate considered standard by most academia for most of the history of the research of the indigenous peoples of the new world, which was the laughable 8 million in the entire western hemisphere. This is obviously an example of academia being a tool of propaganda, colonialist and yes genocidal propaganda. By diminishing the population they reduce the weight of the colonial crimes and reduce the legitimacy of contemporary peoples to the identities of their ancestors. All which benefits colonial power structures. Currently, the most conservative and still legitimate estimate of populations in Mexico before contact is 25 million. That is just in the region of Mexico. The most current and reasonable estimate for the population of Hispaniola before contact is 1.8 to 2.9 million. That many Taino people may have lived on that island when the Spanish arrived. Less than 1 generation later there were no Taino left on the island. All that survived, less than 50 thousand did so as slaves elsewhere or as refugees in other native nations.

American Holocaust by David E Stannard

https://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies/colonial-genocides-project/hispaniola

http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Cain-Stoneking-HST-499.pdf )

3: “There you have the ciphers of people other specialist gives that goes from 60.000 (how they dare!) to 8 million, and the problems actual historians have to put a real number, because, as I’ve been saying, de las Casas simply exagerated the number of deads and the ways spaniards killed indians to make his point (spaniards bad, indians good). You know, census didn’t exist that time in 1492. But of course, that’s not a problem for those who’re appealed to lie. Just put the higher, albeit surreal, cypher to make it more proper to accuse of “genocide”, call you book something as “Genocide in America” or “Holocaust”, and you’ve got it.”

(This is mostly incomprehensible. First of all, no contemporary estimates are done exclusively based on personal accounts. Most population estimates are done by testable evidence like residence numbers in archeological sites compared to a standard model for what local populations looked like. This is still a flawed system constantly producing unreasonably small estimates but even this system far dwarfs what you argue. Cuz you’re a racist who is divorced from reality so much so that you are still using decades-old estimates based on nothing but propaganda.

The second point I have to address is that holocaust is a title, and genocide is a defined term. According to Google, Genocide: “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.” There is no conceivable argument against the fact that what the Dutch, the English, the Portuguese, and the Spanish did in the new world is genocide. Every single European power has dirtied hands. They stole land, erased languages and profited from other people doing the killing even if they didn’t explicitly do so at first.

https://www.google.com/search?q=genocide+define&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS750US750&oq=genocide+define&aqs=chrome..69i57.4815j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 )

4: “how in 1492-1502 spaniards AND indigenous people were both attacked by a same illness, the supposed illness spanish were “using” to kill indians (like 8 hundreds of millions of tHroUsAnDs of hundreds), per your lasts reviews… They were so smart that you know, “used” the same illness to being killed.”

(As for the idea that the same diseases killing millions of Natives were also killing the Spanish, that is very specifically not true. The diseases that the colonizers and conquistadors brought and then weaponized were more or less experientially harmless to them in context. Things like measles and the flu or malaria and typhus. Even the common cold and chickenpox killed and spread like plagues. The things that were periodic plagues in Europe such as cholera, bubonic plague, and smallpox were instantly devastating. Describing how and why is its own post and maybe I will make that post soon but I’ll just say here that Europe was a fucking dumpster fire in terms of sanitation where most cultures in the New World were so socially organized that every early encounter with any given tribe is usually followed with the Europeans marveling at how often Natives bathe and how much soap they use. Another important factor is the fact that Europe had dozens of different livestock animals that lived in immediate proximity to people often sharing water sources to defecate into and drink from. This meant diseases leaped from chickens and pigs and cows and horses to people much more frequently in the thousands of years since domestication. Native Agriculture developed along different paths and so the numerous livestock animals throughout the western hemisphere were fewer and more sanitarily maintained than in the eastern hemisphere. The only disease spread back to Europe during the Columbian exchange was syphilis, though not a plague still terrified Europe. Important detail: it also did not nearly exterminate the entire population of the entire Old World.

The specific example in the first section of American Holocaust was the first such plague event, that made many Spaniards sick and killed thousands of Natives almost immediately. The first plague, unexpected and abrupt, the Spanish took note and it informed the numerous following invasions. It was swine flu, the kind Columbus deliberately spread ahead of himself later on in his return invasions.

As for the argument that the Spanish didn’t know that spread disease and plagues was possible or that they did so accidentally… I mean, to think this you just have to deny or ignore the insurmountable volume of personal; and first-hand accounts of people saying that’s what they were doing. The compilation of accounts and historical sources that Stannard uses often is Harvest of Violence, but Robert Cormack, it is a hard read of historians primarily from Guatemala and Mexico. As opposed to the pure Spanish propaganda you seem to subscribe to, it prioritizes our own voices and is also filled with the accounts from the colonizers themselves which need no special framing to be transparent and genocidal as they discuss leaving the plagued and dead in fields to prevent healthy harvest and piling the dead and debris in the aqueducts and canals of Tenochtitlan to starve and pollute and trap civilians. Just to be clear and definitive though, Europeans definitely knew about plague bodies spreading plague, obviously, they did not understand how or why, but they did. The Spanish had weaponized blood infected with leprosy to poison wine in Naples in 1495, and there were incidents of biological warfare all throughout the Reconquista, which pointedly ended in 1492 before Columbus left Seville.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/ : examples of Europeans using infected cadavers to poison arrows and wells and so on many times throughout history and recorded by contemporaries.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X14641744 : the Spanish blood in wine thing, as well as a long list of other biological attacks in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista : this is just a link to the Reconquista from Wikipedia in case you were unaware of the very recent and relevant Spanish relationship with ethnic cleansing and genocide.)

5: “In this article, of course, if you could read spanish,”

(I can read Spanish, and speak it. I used to be pretty fluent but now mi español es limitado y lento, pero es mejor que otras personas, ¿no?)

6: “there were indians that just went to the forest and lived there outside from the cities, and like, nobody had a problem with that. Why they didn’t dissapear? Maybe, because, you know, conquest was not a genocide?or in other words: If it can be considered a genocide, is the worst and most inneficient genocide made ever.”

(I’m going to begin with the weird racist part about living in the forest. I, honest to god, don’t know what to say to explain why that's a laughably dumb claim and fundamentally racist thing to say at all. I was shouted at by some dumb racist in a town hall for my local representative, a Republican who hates immigrants etc. One of the things the racist yelled at me was “Go back to the woods.” I don’t know, figured I’d just mention that. Also, you know, it also just didn’t work either. Natives did flee from persecution and attack, and there are many individual accounts of being hunted down by dogs and soldiers and being brutally killed for it. One of the chiefs of the Hispaniola Natives fled with the few survivors of his people to another island where he identified the wealth and valuables that the Spanish sought and threw them in a river in a desperate attempt to make the Spanish leave them alone. He was known by Hatuey, and the “ good christian” Spaniards crucified him and burned him alive.

Also, I would argue that the relative efficiency of a genocide is not super relevant when measuring its moral value. Odd metric btw.)

7: “You can accuse of spanish colonialism of sclavitude, clasism, racism (even race wasn’t a part in the idea of conquering the indians, was a religious thing) and a lot of other things, really, I’m not even doubting about that, but  “Genocide” it’s not one of them.”

(The Spanish are actually the best case for inventing the notion of race, they applied a lense that mirrors the way American white supremacists measured race and how Nazi’s determined whether someone was Jewish regardless of identity or practice. The Spanish invented “Limpieza de Sangre” during the Reconquista while expelling Jews from Spain and hunting remaining Moors. And we know that Columbus brought it to the New World during colonization.

Again just google the word genocide. https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/659/tracing-the-roots-of-discrimination/ )

8: “even in the ancient spanish colonies there still a lot of indigenous people that survived and thanks to the own spanish colonial politics, instead of being killed in the moment for being considered as “sub-humans” or put in indian reservations and being killed of drunkness or surviving by putting casinos, but it is what it seems when some anglo-american just accuse other countries of doing the same and it shows.”

(Whew boy. Where to start?

“Ancient” Spanish colonies? Ancient?

Indigenous people survived despite colonial politics.

Literally, every account dehumanizes the Natives. Every single one, even the patronizing friars and supposed benefactors who just so happened to still not do anything to help Natives.

Just gonna put this here “put in indian reservations and being killed of drunkness or surviving by putting casinos,” Jesus.

And, ding ding ding, ya fucking idiot; can’t even read. I’m not “anglo-american” I’m Lumbee/Nanticoke, an indigenous eastern woodlands Native American. The Spanish colonized the Lumbee predecessors; idiot.)

@imanopinionatedadult @givemeyourtired @roxas-has-the-stick @givemeamomentortwo @thatmidstea @padawan-thunderairborne

[eggoreviews]

MCU Villains RANKED

I finished watching all the MCU films a few days ago (I have too much time on my hands) and, as a first Marvel list, I thought I’d rank all of the main villains in terms of how cool/powerful/how generally good I think they are. Come and see where your faves have placed in this messy, ill-informed list!

This list includes all of the main villains for every film up to Infinity War (Ant-Man and the Wasp isn’t out yet so it’d be difficult to include Ghost in here) with a couple of side villains that I felt needed a spot in the list. Enjoy! (Also, possible spoilers ahead for basically any MCU film)

Disclaimer: My opinion will probably, definitely not be yours

23. Whiplash (Iron Man 2)

Oh God.

I’m pretty vocal about how much I’m really not a fan of Iron Man 2 in general, but one of its worst aspects is a totally forgettable and laughable villain. I mean, I think at some point he has a subplot about his dad or something but most of the time he’s whining about his ‘bord’ and building shitty whips with his tech rather than something useful.

22. King Laufey (Thor)

I mean, sure. I guess this guy wasn’t supposed to act as much more than suitably evil looking blue person for Thor to fight. What puts Laufey ahead of Whiplash is pure cool factor, like I wouldn’t mess with this guy. He’d freeze me or somethin’.

21. Abomination (The Incredible Hulk)

Honestly, this is probably a higher ranking for Abomination than any other list I’ve seen. My only issue with this guy is that he’s a bit eh. Despite being played by Tim Roth, a brilliant actor who appears in multiple of my favourite films, his character is just one dimensional, sweaty soldier until the end when he turns into one dimensional, sweaty green monster. Again, his minor redeeming quality comes with his raw strength (say what you like about the Hulk film, that Harlem fight at the end is well worth watching the other hour and a half), but he’s very much let down by an underdeveloped character and a completely absent motive for anything.

20. Aldrich Killian (Iron Man 3)

Okay, now we’re getting into the villains that sort have a motive at some point. Personally, I didn’t hate the whole ‘Ben Kingsley isn’t the Mandarin’ twist, so that’s not why he’s placed so low. I’ll agree that that Guy Pearce plays a decent villain here, but the film itself is so messy and full of subplots that Killian sort of gets lost in it and never really develops beyond angry rooftop guy who can set himself on fire.

19. Malekith (Thor: The Dark World)

I thought Thor 2 was pretty damn okay and not the horrendous mess people make it out to be and I’ll defend Christopher Eccleston’s Malekith just as tentatively. Malekith’s only downfall is a non-existent character beyond cool looking menacing elf dude. We know that he wants to make everything all dark again for reasons that aren’t quite clear, but that’s kind of it. Again, his slightly higher ranking is more the cool factor.

18. Darren Cross (Ant-Man)

Cool suit by the way my dude.

Corey Stoll’s Yellowjacket is a pretty by-the-numbers MCU villain. He has his moments, particularly the Mexican standoff during the presentation of his suit, but he’s a pretty okay aspect of an otherwise great film. He holds his own as a decent villain, but his backstory and motives borrow a little too heavily from Iron Man’s Obadiah Stane. And he doesn’t quite pull off the disgraced CEO as well as Jeff Bridges.

17. Ronan (Guardians of the Galaxy)

I loved Lee Pace in the Hobbit films, so the fact that Pace plays Ronan well isn’t in question. The thing about Ronan is that it seems like putting the heartless genocidal racist at the centre of a comedic superhero film about a group of misfits acts as a pretty jarring tone shift. It sort of feels like Ronan was stuffed into the wrong film here (But maybe that’s why he’s having his second round in Captain Marvel next year). Ronan isn’t exactly forgettable, but when surrounded by such rich and interesting characters, his destructive plans and endless angry monologues just sort of melt into the background.

16. The Black Order (Avengers: Infinity War)

I sort of lumped these guys all together purely because I don’t think any one of them shines out as more developed than another. They act as cool, menacing underlings to the purple fucklord that is Thanos and I’m almost kind of mad they didn’t make it to Avengers 4. As little development as there is, you can tell each one of them plays a specific role (Cull Obsidian is obviously massive brawn thing, Ebony Maw is the clever one, Proxima and Corvus enjoy stabbing things etc), which means the only thing that’s really stopping these guys from appearing higher is lack of screen time.

15. Ultron (Avengers: Age of Ultron)

Age of Ultron, like Thor 2, is often crapped on just as heavily for reasons I don’t think are hugely valid. And, like Thor 2, its villain is often the centre of the crapping. Ultron’s motives are relatively clear throughout the film and he feels central enough to be a genuine threat. I also like the plot arc that Ultron is the Avenger’s (particularly Tony and Bruce’s) fault, so that gives a whole new dynamic to his character. My only issue with Ultron is how odd his humour seems at times, as if he can’t quite decide whether he wants to be the serious villain or the funny villain. I’m all for villains showcasing both of these traits but, in Ultron’s case, he seems conflicted on which he’s trying to be.

14. Alexander Pierce (Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

Robert Redford plays the creepy Hydra dude very well and there’s something genuinely sinister about Pierce that especially comes through with his willingness to kill twenty million people. Pierce’s only downfall is that he’s a non-enhanced villain among many super-powered heroes and villains. So for all his sinister acting, Pierce just comes off as a little bit powerless. Not that this at all negates Redford’s performance or the strings Pierce pulls within SHIELD, it’s just that his lack of genuine power is something you can’t help but think about.

13. Justin Hammer (Iron Man 2)

I maintain that the only saving grace of Iron Man 2, aside from the newly cast Don Cheadle as Rhodey, is Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer. He brings genuine humour to an otherwise joyless film and acts as a worthy adversary to Tony Stark. Also, his dancing during the Stark Expo? Worth watching the film for. I’d be very happy to see him return, although it might be a little late due to the fact that Iron Man may be about to make his exit in Avengers 4. RIP Justin, maybe another time my dude.

12. Obadiah Stane (Iron Man)

Here he is, the villain that started it all. Jeff Bridges’ Iron Monger makes for a genuinely chilling, unsettling villain whose calmness is probably his most terrifying trait. At the centre of any good film, especially a Marvel film, is a good, compelling villain and Bridges manages this with ease. Unlike the two Iron Man sequels, this is an Iron Man villain who genuinely feels like he’s up to taking down Stark.

11. Kaecilius (Doctor Strange)

Kaecilius is yet another chilling villain played by the brilliant Mads Mikkelson who, much like Stane, feels like a match to the protagonist. But what put Kaecilius ahead of him for me is the fact that he believes what he’s doing is completely right; he thinks he’s granting everyone eternal life, rather than enslaving them to Dormammu (who won’t be included because of his lack of screen time/only redeeming quality being his massive face). This alongside some kickarse magical abilities just puts him up a bit more. Time for the top ten!

10. Helmut Zemo (Captain America: Civil War)

Daniel Bruhl goes full Bond villain for this one. Civil War in itself is a movie packed full of conflict at its core, so it takes a pretty memorable villain to make a mark on a film like this. Bruhl’s Helmut Zemo pulls all the strings behind the Avengers’ downfall and does so with a lot of sinister energy. But at the same time, we’re compelled to feel sorry for the fact that he lost his family in Sokovia during Age of Ultron. I think we’re probably going to see this guy making a return in future.

9. The Grandmaster (Thor: Ragnarok)

I love Jeff Goldblum. Everyone loves Jeff Goldblum. And while he plays more of a minor villain role in Ragnarok, I think he made much more of a mark and delivered a more compelling, genuinely funny performance than any other Thor villain. So it’d be pretty amazing to see him come back for a future film. Especially if Taika Waititi has something to do with it.

8. Ulysses Klaue (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Black Panther)

It’s pretty rare to see Andy Serkis in the flesh in a film rather than behind a lot of CGI and this character couldn’t have been played by anyone else. With Klaue being the second of two minor villains in this list alongside the Grandmaster, Klaue most makes his presence felt in Black Panther where he more than holds his own alongside Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger (who we’ll get to later).  Andy Serkis brings a hell of a lot of humour and genuine manic energy to this role and this is near enough his best performance. It’s just a shame that Ulysses Klaue is unlikely to return, considering the fact he was a shot multiple times during Black Panther.

7. Red Skull (Captain America: The First Avenger)

Here is a villain that more than deserves his spot in the top ten. Arguably one of the most memorable villains of Marvel’s first phase, Hugo Weaving plays the angry clever Nazi scarily well. What makes him so great is the fact that he’s the complete antithesis to Captain America, which just makes the conflict between them seem more interesting. Plus, come on, it’s Hugo Weaving. He’s in every good film ever. What a guy.

6. Ego (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2)

Kurt Russell’s Ego places this high for many reasons, mainly the fact that he doesn’t present himself as the villain until towards the end of the film and yet the film functions perfectly without a central antagonist (I love Guardians 2 a lot. This will become obvious probably). Ego even retains the parts of his character that you originally related to before he goes full bad guy and tries to cover all the planets in blue marshmallow fluff. Other than a couple of misplaced jokes (’I’m gonna go take a whiz’), Ego is a near-perfect Marvel villain.

5. Vulture (Spider-Man Homecoming)

I struggle to call this guy a villain, even though he undoubtedly is. Everything he does is out of a place of concern for his family and the only murder he commits in the whole of the film was an accident. Okay, so this doesn’t necessarily make him a good person, but what makes him any better than the Netflix Punisher? Or Deadpool? Anyway, kind of irrelevant, Michael Keaton plays his second bird super-character in the same way he plays all of his roles; amazingly. One of the main elements of Homecoming that made it such a genuinely good reboot was an interesting, relatable villain that you struggle to hate (apart from maybe when he’s pummeling Spidey into the ground at the end, that hurt my feelings).

4. Loki (Thor, The Avengers)

You can’t really call Loki a villain anymore, similarly to Bucky, M’Baku and Nebula (her especially, if she isn’t a full time guardian by the third one I’m not gonna be happy), he’s undergone a redemption arc that hasn’t negated his mischievous behaviour, but just makes sure the good parts of his character shine through a little more (that’s why I’ve only listed the two films in which I would class Loki as a villain). Tom Hiddleston plays Loki in a very sinister way, but more importantly with an overriding sense of fun. He perfectly strikes a balance between being a funny villain whilst still maintaining his sense of power.

3. Thanos (Avengers: Infinity War)

Speaking of sense of power, it crushed my heart a little to see Loki get so easily offed at the beginning of Infinity War, making Loki’s usually undeniably effective plots seem like cheap parlor tricks (to be fair, all he did was pretend he wasn’t going to stab him, but I guess if Loki’s desperate, you know everyone’s fucked at that point). Aside from all that, Thanos easily is the most terrifying character in the MCU, purely because of sheer power. Josh Brolin plays him (and Cable too) with overflowing gravitas and a threatening aura that seems to be present in everything he does. Even if he is inevitably defeated in Avengers 4, the mark he’s left on the MCU is gonna sting the survivors for some time (Sidenote: if any Guardian turns out to be permanently dead, I will officially never get over that. Yondu was bad enough).

2. Hela (Thor: Ragnarok)

Cate Blanchett as the first central female MCU villain (as well as the goddess of death) is iconic. Hela presents the same threatening, overly powerful aura that Thanos has and does every despicable act with a sense of sadistic humour. If I had the choice to bring back one villain, it would be Hela, because I very much doubt she died when Surtur squished Asgard, so her lasting mark may end up being equal to Thanos’. Or maybe she’ll turn out to be Lady Death? So many possibilites but to be honest, as long as they bring her back, I’m up for anything.

1. Killmonger (Black Panther)

Who else was it going to be? Black Panther in itself was an iconic film, not just for its cultural significance, but also for breaking the usual Marvel mold with its narrative. And at the centre of all this is Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger, who perfectly strikes the balance between someone you love to hate and hate to love. But most of all, Killmonger’s death holds the most emotion of any villain-centric moment for me, as the ever brilliant T’Challa takes him up to see Wakanda’s sunset before he dies. But overall, what puts Killmonger ahead of all the others is the fact that everything he’s doing could easily be seen as morally correct, just not in its execution. All Killmonger wanted in the end was to arm and support his oppressed brothers and sisters, which highlights the film’s political message. Among irrelevant whip-wielding Russian scientists and endless business people in metal suits, Killmonger stands out as a villain you can side with as easily as the hero and is a villain I find it the most difficult to show any dislike for. (Totally not relevant, but Michael B. Jordan plays a good character in a cool indie film called Chronicle that came out a few years ago. If you're planning on watching a film anytime this week, I highly recommend you watch it, it will blow you away)

Phew. That took a while. Thanks for reading if you made it this far and feel free to let me know your top picks for MCU villains! If I do another Marvel list, will probably be the actual films next.

Have a good day/night my dudes

[platoapproved]

okay you know what, you know what, the day has come, i woke up about 10 seconds ago and i guess i dreamt about a past life where i worked in a sodium factory because i am feeling salty and it’s time for me to talk about all the stuff i hated about wonder woman. if you’re not feeling that, please don’t click below

i get how badly people want canon bi representation but this movie was so not it. this movie wasn’t CLOSE to it.  diana was not shown having any sort of relationship with any kind of emotional depth much less equality with any other woman on themyscira. they all saw her as like, a beloved little niece, basically.  she barely interacted with anyone apart from her mother and aunt, for more than a line or two.

diana had no woman friends the whole movie

i’ve definitely seen (and not read, you better believe i scrolled on by with a scoff) people talking about the diversity of amazons on themyscira but like. giving diana a black nanny who goes running after her to show us what a mischievous scamp she is as a kid? that’s not progressive. having one of the only other black women be an unnamed warrior she fights against, whose only traits are that she’s the Silent Strong Unfeminine Bruiser Tank Lady? and we know that diana has become a true warrior when she can best The Butch One? super... just super DUPER not progressive.

having etta candy be this frumpy, fussy, ineffective suffragette whose only real function is to be exasperated by steve but also love him as a boss? and by extension make non-themysciran women look like silly side characters in the history of the world? ugh.

i saw a different post talking about how badass it was that etta noticed the spies first or something blah blah like. honestly. stop trying so hard. please stop trying to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse y’all. she was supposed to be the Funny Loyal Fat Side Character who gets a few chuckles out of the audience but has no depth whatsoever.

the entire film erases the efforts of women before and after wwi, both around combat, in government, socially, everything. like every time i think about the fact that diana doesn’t speak to another woman for 95% of the last half of the movie, and these board room dudes act like they’ve never heard of a woman ever DOING anything in their lives, i get hives and want to reread the section of the well of loneliness about women ambulance drivers in wwi. and also to have a shower.

women have ALWAYS been instrumental in their own liberation.

stop making jokes about victorian/edwardian dress being restrictive as if it’s the height of feminism. the history of women and their clothing and how it was liberating and repressive is so much more complex than a stupid joke about her tearing a dress.

like, as if there weren’t plenty of women by wwi who were dressing in “men’s” clothing, and changing the fashions as they saw fit

literally everything about dr. poison like, it’s such an UGLY portrait of so many things

making a women scientist seem Evil and unnatural

associating her disability with her desire to hurt people

making it seem like disabled women hate non-disabled women for being Pretty and Desirable, don’t act like that scene with Steve was meant to be anything other than “see, she’s really just pathetic and jealous because no man has ever wanted to kiss her, look at her”

she was nothing more than a pawn in the end. someone who was easy to manipulate because she was An Ugly Woman

stop saying the movie subverted the born sexy yesterday trope. stop it. every single one of you knows it was 100% that, and nothing but that.  diana talking with naive confidence about how she has read ye olde themysciran porn doesn’t undo that. in fact it only contributes to it because it’s setting her up as someone who knows about sex in ~theory but not ~practice

them giving the Racist Stereotype Side Characters one token line each that humanizes them does not make them fully fleshed out characters. stop talking about Drunk Loud Scottish dude as great representation of PTSD. stop applauding the line about wanting to be an actor but being the wrong color in a movie that is so. so. so white.

one line vaguely referencing white people’s horrific genocide against native americans, one that never comes back and has no repercussions on the story, is just not good enough. also, not gonna mention slavery or anything? not even a bit? ok.

also stop saying the movie subverted the male gaze, you guys saw diana’s outfit. i saw so much of gal gadot’s thighs. and i’m gay, my dudes, i was into it. i loved it. but it’s not like this movie didn’t objectify women. you know that it did. stop trying to make it not what it is.

also, stop saying the scene with steve was only ~the female gaze. i have less ground to stand on for this one because not an atom of my body has ever or will ever find anything about chris pine desirable but that scene was played in a way that would be appealing to certain men

ohhhh it’s a naive beautiful woman gazing at his penis and she’s ~never seen one before, and he just lets her look, like you know there are creep-ass dudes who were into that, and it was ultimately just one scene and he was fully modestly clothed the whole rest of the movie.

looovvveee is the only remedy against waaaaaarrrrrr someone fucking kill me.

i mean i’m a sap but “the answer was love all along” isn’t really a conclusion that flies for me in a movie dealing with a nonfictional war that happened for complicated economic political and social reasons involving nationalism and capitalist greed and all kind of shit, lots of actual people actually died, its’ not like OH NO WHY DIDN’T ONE OF THEM REMEMBER TO LOVE????

david thewlisface ares? stupid.  like using him in that flashback? not a good call.

those glasses steve got diana were so fucking LAUGHABLY not time period accurate like he just got those from warby parker a week ago it’s supposed to be 1918 or whenever the fuck at least try a goddamn little bit

diana’s costume should have been more colorful and the texture of her armor was weird and looked bad

i don’t know a whole lot about wonder woman but it’s 10000% rather go back and rewatch that two-parter from justice league where diana becomes Gal Pals with that princess who is about to marry vandal savage and has to rescue her, that was better in almost every conceivable way than this film

“maid of honor” season 2 look it up just sayin it’s on netflix

i’m really glad a lot of you found a lot of things to love and be happy about in this movie but honestly it’s exhausting seeing people on tumblr contorting themselves to talk about how it’s A Revolution, Never has there been Anything Like This About a Woman when yes, there has, and done better

love the movie if you want! i enjoyed it a lot! i saw it twice

but stop acting like part of the process of loving it is to say that it is diverse, or progressive, or any of this shit that it’s so. not. 

this article is great go read it. i don’t agree with ALL the points necessarily but damn. good and brutal.

please, like i’m begging you please. just go watch xena. shhhh. shhhh i know. the foley is cheesy the production values are really low on the first few seasons and yes it’s not like xena never fucks up on race stuff because hoooo boy. but like. xena is 7 seasons of a woman warrior kicking ass in a vaguely ancient greco-roman world, and it has 10000% more interaction BETWEEN women, and women who are campy villains not just because of disabilities, and there’s so much homoeroticism and heart and badass flipping and it’s just. it’s so good.

it will heal your heart. it will make you realize you deserve much much much much more than the crumbs that wonder woman gave you. go watch xena instead.

[trendingnewsb]

Forget heroes: The Marvel Cinematic Universe needs more supervillains

Thanos deserves more than this.

Image: marvel studios

Warning: This post contains MAJOR spoilers for the end of Avengers: Infinity War

Maybe I’m a monster, but the moment I cheered the loudest during Avengers: Infinity War was when all the superheroes disintegrated and the bad guy got his happy ending.

I’m certainly not a fan of genocide (to put it mildly), or even a Thanos groupie. But I do like compelling stories, and a villain-centric arc that refused to let the heroes win was the first time a Marvel movie has surprised me.

SEE ALSO: After ‘Infinity War,’ which ‘Avengers 4’ heroes will lead the fight?

So what’s the problem? Well, the ending leaves me itching for a Thanos prequel instead of the next Avengers or even Captain Marvel — which will undoubtedly undo this unhappy ending. And the knowledge that we’ll probably never get that prequel is why the Marvel Cinematic Universe is starting to lose me.

Every two-bit comic book fan will tell you heroes are only as great as their villains. Everyone, it seems, except for the folks at Marvel Studios.

I’m not the first to point out Marvel’s “villain problem,” or how evil characters tend to be disposable onscreen. Many had high hopes that the introduction of Thanos would fix this problem, but he’s only shined a spotlight on it. Marvel’s villain problem runs deep, requiring a total shift in the MCU franchise formula. 

But it won’t be fixed until Marvel actually admits it’s a problem. Head of studio Kevin Feige told io9 that he recognizes the issue with their villains — yet he feels pretty OK about it. “It always starts with what serves the story the most and what serves the hero the most,” he said. 

I could do with getting rid of, like, two-thirds of these characters.

Image: marvel studios

But by failing to see how villains are as integral as heroes, the MCU fundamentally misunderstands what makes a good superhero story. 

At first, the MCU got away with wasting great superheroes on forgettable villains who were plot devices disguised as characters. But Avengers: Infinity War showed how short-sighted that was. And it ain’t gonna cut it anymore.

SEE ALSO: What happens in the end credits of ‘Avengers: Infinity War’

I’m tired of paint-by-numbers movies introducing hordes of new bad guys that the hero can Hulk-smash until the next round and round and around we go, ad infinitum. Infinity War’s ending was powerful because it finally broke from that cycle … until the end credits, at which point Nick Fury reminds us it’ll be business as usual soon enough. 

What’s next for the MCU once it wraps on the biggest bad’s inevitable defeat in Avengers 4? I hope investing in villains is a top priority. From the looks of Venom, it just might be (though don’t put all your eggs in that basket).

Once the Infinity Gauntlet conflict ends, villains will be key to keeping audiences engaged in this increasingly expansive crossover machine. Here’s why, and how.

Villains need their own arcs, developed over multiple movies

The first step is to invest time and effort into establishing villains who evolve throughout the franchise. Marvel was so careful about slowly introducing and incorporating its heroes into the larger MCU. Why don’t villains get half as much thought?

I’m legitimately crying.

Image: marvel studios

This shift toward villains would set the stage for more meaningful conflicts, and allow for experimentation with the kind of stories Marvel tells. Why not bring Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan back for a prequel? Or zoom in on Thanos and Gamora’s backstory?

There’s a reason Loki was crowned “best Marvel villain” for so long. It’s because the first Thor movie was as much his origin story as Thor’s. Loki’s reappearances across the franchise made us as attached to him as we were to any Avenger. 

Then there’s Captain America: Winter Soldier and Civil War, which succeeded because the original Captain America established the foundation of Bucky’s character — and then twisted it and his relationship to Cap in a gut-wrenching way.

SEE ALSO: Jeff Goldblum picks his Avengers champion (and it’s not Thor)

And don’t forget Erik Killmonger, who captivated our hearts and minds in about 30 minutes of screen time. Black Panther started with Killmonger, as J’Bou tells his son the story of Wakanda, leading to an entire opening scene establishing Erik’s motivations.

Thanos had the best Infinity War arc, but it was still wasted

Sure, Thanos was better than, say, Ultron. 

I was really hoping Thanos would kill Tony Stark.

Image: Marvel Studios

But many comic book fans felt the movie squandered his story. Our own Adam Rosenberg wrote an explainer on the character’s comic book iteration, showing moviegoers just how many missed opportunities there were in Infinity War. Like how “the sight of a rough-skinned, misshapen Baby Thanos was too much for his mother to bear. It drove her instantly mad, and she tried to kill her newborn.” 

It’s a detail that would have given much more depth to his and Gamora’s story.

For general audiences, Thanos came across as, at first, laughable. So much so that Peter Quill feels the need to speak roast Thanos, almost as if the movie anticipated the criticism. Marvel probably did anticipate it, because despite 10 years and 19 movies of carefully fitting superheroes into the Infinity War puzzle, it’s never really been about the villain. When the time came, they were like, “Shit — no one even knows why this big dumb purple gummy bear even matters.”

SEE ALSO: Thanos isn’t as lame as the MCU has made him seem

Thanos was basically relegated to after-credits scenes for 10 years, only being more prominently featured in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 1. as a disembodied giant stone monster. 

Marvel’s run out of heroes — but there are plenty of great villains left

Marvel’s done such a good job of establishing a wide array of heroes that it’s basically run out of top tier IP for more franchises. Ant-Man should be indication enough that we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, and it only gets Hawkeye levels of mediocre from here.

You know what Marvel Studios hasn’t capitalized on? Its fantastic villain-centric comics.

We’ve already mentioned the wasted material of Thanos Rising. But in the comicverse, there’s also a whole run after Civil War where Green Goblin takes control of S.H.I.E.L.D. and assembles a “Dark Avengers,” re-appropriating our favorite hero costumes as villains: Bullseye becomes Daredevil and Venom takes over for Spider-Man. That’s just two relevant examples. 

You can get rid of all of these except Spidey and the big dude.

Image: marvel studios

Fix Marvel’s arms race for bigger, badder threats with better villains

Ever since the first Avengers, Marvel’s been chasing bigger catastrophes than the attack on New York —  but that’s the wrong way to go about it.

The result is a franchise stuck in a disaster-porn arms race. The cost of this increasingly enormous and ridiculous scale is personal stakes (and apartment buildings). Infinity War kept needing to remind us that the risk of Thanos winning was universal genocide, because we’re that desensitized to world-ending threats.

Spider-Man: Homecoming, on the other hand, is a great example of how villains can ground the whole story, introducing personal stakes on a smaller scale. Yes, that’s kinda Spidey’s thing, while the Avengers deal with universe-ending stuff. But actually, Captain America: Winter Soldier, Civil War, Black Panther, and even Logan all took similar approaches to villains and scale. 

SEE ALSO: One Doctor Strange line from ‘Infinity War’ basically sets up ‘Avengers 4’

We live in the age of the anti-hero

Just look at some of the biggest pop culture phenomenons over the past few years: Breaking Bad, Dexter, Mad Men. Or, if you want to go closer to home, Marvel’s own Jessica Jones or Deadpool.

No one is wholly good or wholly bad. That’s why we adore Game of Thrones, with its heroes who commit villainous act and its villains who have undeniable humanity. Blurring the lines between good and evil is the point of George R.R. Martin’s series, which deconstructs the common fantasy genre trope. 

I need about 100x more of this.

Image: marvel studios

Marvel movies almost always fail at making even the heroes relatable. Save for Black Panther, Marvel stories are usually irrelevant to the real world. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Superheroes inherently engage with our society’s ideals, morals, and struggle to be good. Shouldn’t Marvel reflect how difficult that question is to answer?

Which reminds me…

This sanctimonious heroic bullshit is getting old

Show of hands: How many times did you yell at the heroes of Infinity War for repeatedly losing stone after stone to Thanos because of an aggressively simple-minded and selfish moral compass?

Yes, I know Cap: “We don’t trade lives.” That’s the summary of this entire movie’s conflict. Thanos believes in sacrificing half the universe’s population for a greater good, while the Avengers think they shouldn’t have to sacrifice anything at all to save half of the universe’s population. 

SEE ALSO: The Marvel Cinematic Universe would be 1,000 times better if EVERY hero rocked facial hair

That’s not only a really narrow definition of heroism, but also astoundingly unsophisticated ethics. 

The Avengers could use some lessons from The Good Place, namely the trolley problem. Because the idea of sacrificing one to save the lives of many isn’t a rosy concept, but there’s enough ethical grounds to warrant some debate!

But no. Cap grunts, everyone agrees. Ultimately, we have their moral high horses to thank for saving Vision (not even) at the cost of half a universe full of lives. Hope that clean conscience is worth it!

Avengers’ morality is tired, outdated, and underdeveloped. Sacrifice is part of the superhero job description. Heroes do trade lives. Just ask 9/11 first responders, or other everyday people risking their lives for others. Hell, ask Groot! Or Peter Quill! Even annoyingly uncompromising heroes like Batman are willing to sacrifice reputation and love for the greater good of Gotham.

I’m only watching Avengers 4 if Vision stays dead.

Image: marvel studios

This Care Bear heroism plagues the Marvel franchise, preventing fresh, original storytelling. Black Panther was the first movie in a long time to complicate the Marvel moral ethos. We can’t just keep relying on Cap and Iron Man’s creative differences.

It’ll be increasingly hard for us to care about another two hours of dudes in tights fighting when we know the good guy wins, almost always without consequence. Infinity War dared to break that mold, and we hope Avengers 4 genuinely wrestles with the mistakes the heroes made in it. But I’ll eat my laptop if the Infinity Gauntlet story doesn’t end with most of the heroes being revived.

I’m not arguing the bad guys should take over the MCU. But the MCU needs to let bad guys do what they do best: Force us and our heroes to complicate our understanding of what it means to fight for good.

If it doesn’t, we’re just going to keep getting superhero movies where the good guys win — because that’s how the MCU business model works. And that’s not ultimately very entertaining.

WATCH: Everything you need recapped about the Marvel Cinematic Universe before ‘Avengers: Infinity War’

Read more: https://mashable.com/2018/05/01/avengers-infinity-war-villain-movies-mcu-thanos/

from Viral News HQ https://ift.tt/2wlfurM via Viral News HQ

[trendingnewsb]

Forget heroes: The Marvel Cinematic Universe needs more supervillains

Thanos deserves more than this.

Image: marvel studios

Warning: This post contains MAJOR spoilers for the end of Avengers: Infinity War

Maybe I’m a monster, but the moment I cheered the loudest during Avengers: Infinity War was when all the superheroes disintegrated and the bad guy got his happy ending.

I’m certainly not a fan of genocide (to put it mildly), or even a Thanos groupie. But I do like compelling stories, and a villain-centric arc that refused to let the heroes win was the first time a Marvel movie has surprised me.

SEE ALSO: After ‘Infinity War,’ which ‘Avengers 4’ heroes will lead the fight?

So what’s the problem? Well, the ending leaves me itching for a Thanos prequel instead of the next Avengers or even Captain Marvel — which will undoubtedly undo this unhappy ending. And the knowledge that we’ll probably never get that prequel is why the Marvel Cinematic Universe is starting to lose me.

Every two-bit comic book fan will tell you heroes are only as great as their villains. Everyone, it seems, except for the folks at Marvel Studios.

I’m not the first to point out Marvel’s “villain problem,” or how evil characters tend to be disposable onscreen. Many had high hopes that the introduction of Thanos would fix this problem, but he’s only shined a spotlight on it. Marvel’s villain problem runs deep, requiring a total shift in the MCU franchise formula. 

But it won’t be fixed until Marvel actually admits it’s a problem. Head of studio Kevin Feige told io9 that he recognizes the issue with their villains — yet he feels pretty OK about it. “It always starts with what serves the story the most and what serves the hero the most,” he said. 

I could do with getting rid of, like, two-thirds of these characters.

Image: marvel studios

But by failing to see how villains are as integral as heroes, the MCU fundamentally misunderstands what makes a good superhero story. 

At first, the MCU got away with wasting great superheroes on forgettable villains who were plot devices disguised as characters. But Avengers: Infinity War showed how short-sighted that was. And it ain’t gonna cut it anymore.

SEE ALSO: What happens in the end credits of ‘Avengers: Infinity War’

I’m tired of paint-by-numbers movies introducing hordes of new bad guys that the hero can Hulk-smash until the next round and round and around we go, ad infinitum. Infinity War’s ending was powerful because it finally broke from that cycle … until the end credits, at which point Nick Fury reminds us it’ll be business as usual soon enough. 

What’s next for the MCU once it wraps on the biggest bad’s inevitable defeat in Avengers 4? I hope investing in villains is a top priority. From the looks of Venom, it just might be (though don’t put all your eggs in that basket).

Once the Infinity Gauntlet conflict ends, villains will be key to keeping audiences engaged in this increasingly expansive crossover machine. Here’s why, and how.

Villains need their own arcs, developed over multiple movies

The first step is to invest time and effort into establishing villains who evolve throughout the franchise. Marvel was so careful about slowly introducing and incorporating its heroes into the larger MCU. Why don’t villains get half as much thought?

I’m legitimately crying.

Image: marvel studios

This shift toward villains would set the stage for more meaningful conflicts, and allow for experimentation with the kind of stories Marvel tells. Why not bring Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan back for a prequel? Or zoom in on Thanos and Gamora’s backstory?

There’s a reason Loki was crowned “best Marvel villain” for so long. It’s because the first Thor movie was as much his origin story as Thor’s. Loki’s reappearances across the franchise made us as attached to him as we were to any Avenger. 

Then there’s Captain America: Winter Soldier and Civil War, which succeeded because the original Captain America established the foundation of Bucky’s character — and then twisted it and his relationship to Cap in a gut-wrenching way.

SEE ALSO: Jeff Goldblum picks his Avengers champion (and it’s not Thor)

And don’t forget Erik Killmonger, who captivated our hearts and minds in about 30 minutes of screen time. Black Panther started with Killmonger, as J’Bou tells his son the story of Wakanda, leading to an entire opening scene establishing Erik’s motivations.

Thanos had the best Infinity War arc, but it was still wasted

Sure, Thanos was better than, say, Ultron. 

I was really hoping Thanos would kill Tony Stark.

Image: Marvel Studios

But many comic book fans felt the movie squandered his story. Our own Adam Rosenberg wrote an explainer on the character’s comic book iteration, showing moviegoers just how many missed opportunities there were in Infinity War. Like how “the sight of a rough-skinned, misshapen Baby Thanos was too much for his mother to bear. It drove her instantly mad, and she tried to kill her newborn.” 

It’s a detail that would have given much more depth to his and Gamora’s story.

For general audiences, Thanos came across as, at first, laughable. So much so that Peter Quill feels the need to speak roast Thanos, almost as if the movie anticipated the criticism. Marvel probably did anticipate it, because despite 10 years and 19 movies of carefully fitting superheroes into the Infinity War puzzle, it’s never really been about the villain. When the time came, they were like, “Shit — no one even knows why this big dumb purple gummy bear even matters.”

SEE ALSO: Thanos isn’t as lame as the MCU has made him seem

Thanos was basically relegated to after-credits scenes for 10 years, only being more prominently featured in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 1. as a disembodied giant stone monster. 

Marvel’s run out of heroes — but there are plenty of great villains left

Marvel’s done such a good job of establishing a wide array of heroes that it’s basically run out of top tier IP for more franchises. Ant-Man should be indication enough that we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, and it only gets Hawkeye levels of mediocre from here.

You know what Marvel Studios hasn’t capitalized on? Its fantastic villain-centric comics.

We’ve already mentioned the wasted material of Thanos Rising. But in the comicverse, there’s also a whole run after Civil War where Green Goblin takes control of S.H.I.E.L.D. and assembles a “Dark Avengers,” re-appropriating our favorite hero costumes as villains: Bullseye becomes Daredevil and Venom takes over for Spider-Man. That’s just two relevant examples. 

You can get rid of all of these except Spidey and the big dude.

Image: marvel studios

Fix Marvel’s arms race for bigger, badder threats with better villains

Ever since the first Avengers, Marvel’s been chasing bigger catastrophes than the attack on New York —  but that’s the wrong way to go about it.

The result is a franchise stuck in a disaster-porn arms race. The cost of this increasingly enormous and ridiculous scale is personal stakes (and apartment buildings). Infinity War kept needing to remind us that the risk of Thanos winning was universal genocide, because we’re that desensitized to world-ending threats.

Spider-Man: Homecoming, on the other hand, is a great example of how villains can ground the whole story, introducing personal stakes on a smaller scale. Yes, that’s kinda Spidey’s thing, while the Avengers deal with universe-ending stuff. But actually, Captain America: Winter Soldier, Civil War, Black Panther, and even Logan all took similar approaches to villains and scale. 

SEE ALSO: One Doctor Strange line from ‘Infinity War’ basically sets up ‘Avengers 4’

We live in the age of the anti-hero

Just look at some of the biggest pop culture phenomenons over the past few years: Breaking Bad, Dexter, Mad Men. Or, if you want to go closer to home, Marvel’s own Jessica Jones or Deadpool.

No one is wholly good or wholly bad. That’s why we adore Game of Thrones, with its heroes who commit villainous act and its villains who have undeniable humanity. Blurring the lines between good and evil is the point of George R.R. Martin’s series, which deconstructs the common fantasy genre trope. 

I need about 100x more of this.

Image: marvel studios

Marvel movies almost always fail at making even the heroes relatable. Save for Black Panther, Marvel stories are usually irrelevant to the real world. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Superheroes inherently engage with our society’s ideals, morals, and struggle to be good. Shouldn’t Marvel reflect how difficult that question is to answer?

Which reminds me…

This sanctimonious heroic bullshit is getting old

Show of hands: How many times did you yell at the heroes of Infinity War for repeatedly losing stone after stone to Thanos because of an aggressively simple-minded and selfish moral compass?

Yes, I know Cap: “We don’t trade lives.” That’s the summary of this entire movie’s conflict. Thanos believes in sacrificing half the universe’s population for a greater good, while the Avengers think they shouldn’t have to sacrifice anything at all to save half of the universe’s population. 

SEE ALSO: The Marvel Cinematic Universe would be 1,000 times better if EVERY hero rocked facial hair

That’s not only a really narrow definition of heroism, but also astoundingly unsophisticated ethics. 

The Avengers could use some lessons from The Good Place, namely the trolley problem. Because the idea of sacrificing one to save the lives of many isn’t a rosy concept, but there’s enough ethical grounds to warrant some debate!

But no. Cap grunts, everyone agrees. Ultimately, we have their moral high horses to thank for saving Vision (not even) at the cost of half a universe full of lives. Hope that clean conscience is worth it!

Avengers’ morality is tired, outdated, and underdeveloped. Sacrifice is part of the superhero job description. Heroes do trade lives. Just ask 9/11 first responders, or other everyday people risking their lives for others. Hell, ask Groot! Or Peter Quill! Even annoyingly uncompromising heroes like Batman are willing to sacrifice reputation and love for the greater good of Gotham.

I’m only watching Avengers 4 if Vision stays dead.

Image: marvel studios

This Care Bear heroism plagues the Marvel franchise, preventing fresh, original storytelling. Black Panther was the first movie in a long time to complicate the Marvel moral ethos. We can’t just keep relying on Cap and Iron Man’s creative differences.

It’ll be increasingly hard for us to care about another two hours of dudes in tights fighting when we know the good guy wins, almost always without consequence. Infinity War dared to break that mold, and we hope Avengers 4 genuinely wrestles with the mistakes the heroes made in it. But I’ll eat my laptop if the Infinity Gauntlet story doesn’t end with most of the heroes being revived.

I’m not arguing the bad guys should take over the MCU. But the MCU needs to let bad guys do what they do best: Force us and our heroes to complicate our understanding of what it means to fight for good.

If it doesn’t, we’re just going to keep getting superhero movies where the good guys win — because that’s how the MCU business model works. And that’s not ultimately very entertaining.

WATCH: Everything you need recapped about the Marvel Cinematic Universe before ‘Avengers: Infinity War’

Read more: https://mashable.com/2018/05/01/avengers-infinity-war-villain-movies-mcu-thanos/

from Viral News HQ https://ift.tt/2wlfurM via Viral News HQ