#so the way Bruce is framing this mentally is super ironic

[strawbrrydior]

Vance hopper headcanons

—

Vance has autism, really good at masking it but sometimes he gets overwhelmed and that’s where the big scary Vance hopper image comes from. He doesn’t like loud noises or flashing lights and he likes playing pinball because he can hit buttons and tap his fingers for hours on end without losing any desire to play.

His dad is an abusive dickhole that his mother really had to fight to leave but when he was 12 she started dating griffins dad and they moved into their house. Griffin was 10 at the time and they’re really close, griffin has adhd so they bonded over learning to accept what they are after spending so much time being scrutinized for it.

Pinball and Micheal myers are his 2 biggest hyper fixations. Something about Micheal myers has him going “he’s so me.” Everytime he sees him (something about the big scary misunderstood man story) he has his mask and a movie poster framed on his wall. He also has a mini cheap pinball machine griffin won him at an arcade once (he felt bad Vance couldn’t come because of all the lights and sounds) it’s really crappy but when he’s sick at home or smt he plays with it

He’s actually a pretty active reader, he steals from Bruce’s library on a weekly basis. They have their own mini book club whenever Bruce reads something and likes it hell shove the book into Vance’s hands and tell him to check it out and he always does.

He’s a really good story teller so long as it’s written down, he does a good job at summarizing stories and explaining them when he’s writing. He also really likes poetry but he’s to embarrassed to admit it

He’s really fond of finney but his instinct when he sees him is to be fondly mean. He’ll shove him but he’s always gentle about it and he’ll always glare at him but never actually say anything mean. Finneys gotten used to it and he doesn’t mind because he knows if someone else were to try him Vance would start barking

At school he’s really closed off and quiet, the only thing people notice about him is the way his face rests all bitchy and he taps his pencil against the table. His grades are pretty good but he still gets help from finney and Bruce for math and science respectively

Him and Robin work out a lot, also play fight which always freaks the other boys out but they get back up and laugh. Robin boxes and sometimes Vance goes to the gym with him because he feels more comfortable being there if robins there too. Robin brings his radio and they’ll listen to music they like and share it with the other (Vance will bring his new Iron Maiden tape and play it for them and at random points robin’ll go “oh this one’s good.” And he mentally cheers.)

He and Billy bonded over enjoying silence. (And Depeche Mode ironically enough.) Billy always waves at him when he’s delivering and Vance gives him that cool guy nod but really he appreciates being noticed and often leaves snacks in his mailbox for him (he says it’s his mom though liar!!) they sit next to eachother in history and Billy will whisper to him tiny translations on what they’re doing so he can understand it (Billy really likes history he’s super into old Hollywood conspiracy’s for some reason.)

His favorite movies are Halloween, rocky horror picture show, the stepford wives and clockwork orange. (He and Bruce share a love of the stepford wives but he doesn’t understand rocky horror and the other two scare him. Robin loves Halloween but the rest aren’t his style, finney likes stepford wives and rocky horror he saw both of those at the drive in with him, Billy likes the stepford wives book better and griffin solely likes action movies )

Vance would say if anyone asked that he’s the original og ONLY REAL FAN of paranoid by Black Sabbath and he would call people posers. He also bases his personality and vibe on dazed and confused - Led Zeppelin (he’ll lie and say he hates the movie when that comes out but he’s a liar and a fraud.)

He’s to scared to spend his money and lets it pile up. One day he pulls open a draw and exposes a stash of cash to which Bruce says “holy shit what the fuck.” And then convinces him to buy himself something nice and not make a big dent. He’s not used to being able to treat himself and Bruce helps him learn to do that occasionally (it’s usually him buying snacks for everyone even though Bruce keeps saying that’s not what he meant.)

The choker he wears his mom made him it was originally a bracelet she crocheted when he was a baby, she kept adding inches to it as his birthdays passed but on his 15 he told her she should leave it as it was and her wear it like a choker. He only takes it off to shower and sleep (and he wouldn’t do that if his mom hadn’t yelled at him about sleeping in it before)

He wears half his band shirts with the sleeves cut off and low down his ribcage but always has on something on top so no one ever noticed until he took his jacket off one day and griffin made the presence of his side very loud (“where’s the rest of your fucking shirt Vance?? Are you going through something-“ “no shut up just shut up it’s a STYLE!”)

He’s got 2 stick and pokes both on his forearm, they’re super sloppy but he really likes them. One’s a star and the others a really rough flower (Bruce drew it on the corner of one of his books and he was like yeah that’s it that’s the one)

If u play dream on around him he will hit the high note and then not make a single sound for the rest of the night

Really likes Billy’s dog, Roxy. He’ll pull up to his house and say “bring Roxy.” Pet her and then leave it’s a ritual now. If he passes the house he’s petting the dog. He’s more of a cat person though, Bruce has a black and white cat named sumi, whenever he’s over reading books in Bruce’s fathers office he’s holding her and petting her in a spinny chair like an evil villain

Sometimes In class he draws stick figure doodles of the boys in his notebook, they make him smile

On his more timid days where he’s easily explosive he tends to do his worst, if he’s overstimulated and you bump into him or shove him or say something he’ll lose it. He’s been trying not to do it but it’s hard because everything bubbles over into anger for him

He and griffins rooms are right across from eachother and 9/10 times HES sitting in griffins bed, he just likes his company.

Anytime he’s at finneys house Gwen asks to braid his hair and he always says yes and she’ll go on and on about how nice and silky his hair is but it’s only like that because Bruce made it his mission one year to get him on a routine and fix his curls. He was successful.

He’s good friends with Gwen and Amy and Donna, sometimes he’ll sit at their lunch table if Billy isn’t there (history is his lunch period) and scare off all the bullies, he always looks really small beside them because he feels safer being himself there. They tell him freshmen drama and he eats it up

Vance, very loudly: that’s the girl you told me-

Gwen, slapping a hand over his mouth: shut the fuck up??

[whetstonefires]

fictober prompt #11:  “But I will never forget!”

“You win,” said the child.

“I win?”

“Yes. But I will never forget! My parents. Where I came from.”

“That’s fine?” He was aware he sounded less like the Dark Knight than the easily bewildered Lord Wayne, but he couldn’t seem to stop. Even if it wasn’t really easy to bewilder him, it could still happen, and it had. “It’s good, actually. I wouldn’t want you to.”

“Oh, right.” Dik Grayson folded his arms. “Because they’re why you want me.”

He winced a little. He hadn’t meant to give the impression by talking about the loss they had in common that if the young tumbler recovered from his grief he would lose interest in him. He hoped the edge of his temper would ease a bit, as time passed. His had, if only slightly, but then his parents’ killer never had been caught. He was hoping Zucco’s upcoming public trial would help. “That’s not exactly…”

“What they taught me. That’s what makes me valuable.”

“I would…say I value you for your own unique talents….”

“Stop it, I’m not stupid.” The child acrobat’s head dropped. Defeat and defiance mingled in every line of him. “I know what you did.”

Bruce was stumped. “And what did I do?”

The young face flashed up again, furious and covered in tears; he was weeping, but his voice didn’t catch at all. “You wanted me, so you got them out of the way!”

It felt surprisingly like being stabbed. “What?”

“Don’t think you’re the first one to try it! Everyone says, what a pretty little bird, I wish he were mine, and then some of the lords and ladies try to buy me. And some of you don’t like to hear no. You’re just the first one to pull it off.”

“It was Zucco. We proved it was Zucco.”

“Yeah.” The tears of fury were slowing, stemmed to bitterness. “Once I calmed down, I thought—that’s awfully convenient, isn’t it. It’s not like the circus sees that much coin, and we’re only here a few weeks at a time. It’s weird that a thief-king with that much pull would bother to set up such a fancy murder just to threaten old man Haley.”

“You…heard him confess, I’ve got him locked in the Tower of Justice awaiting trial right now—”

“Convenient!” The child repeated. “He’s out of your way and silenced as soon as he’s dead.”

“…We’ve abolished execution as a punishment in Gotham.”

Blink. Finally thrown off his stride. “Oh. Well, still! If you did it through an intermediary he won’t be able to point to you.”

“Dik. Dik Grayson, listen to me. I only wanted to help you. And punish a crime committed in my city. Those were my only motives.”

“Yeah? So why am I still here? Why not let me go with the rest of the Circus?”

Bruce took a bracing breath. At least he was getting to the root of the misunderstanding. “Legally, I couldn’t. None of them were your blood relatives, nor did they produce written proofs that your parents had willed you to their care.

“I wouldn’t normally enforce those rules on non-citizens unless someone was being hurt, but for Zucco to see justice you must give evidence at the trial, and once you are entered into the record as an unattached infant, protocol dictates that you must be found a legally responsible guardian. If I allow you to disappear, the case comes under suspicion for bad practice and possible conspiracy and may be overturned in the lower court on review, as your testimony will not be available but Zucco’s influence in the lower city will.”

This was rather more politics than he had intended to explain to an eight-year-old, but apparently if you didn’t tell children what was going on they cooked up elaborate paranoid fantasies.

…he’d been the same way, come to think of it. “I told you you would have to stay here in the city,” he reminded Dik, “if you wanted to see him brought to justice.”

The flea of a boy was goggling up at him. His eyes really were enormous. “I thought that was a bargain!”

“What?” Egad. Of course he had. Bruce pinched the top of his nose. “It wasn’t. Just a necessity.”

“So…if I go kill him now, you won’t need to try him. So then can I go?”

“If you go and kill him now I’ll have to put you in the Tower.” Bruce tried to keep his tone even. He managed not to pinch his nose again. He wasn’t really getting a headache, he just felt like he should be. “But…I don’t think you’re the kind who could kill a chained man in cold blood, Dik.”

The boy sighed. “No, you’re right. I couldn’t.”

They both stared at the paving stones between them. Thank goodness the child had chosen to do this in a private courtyard, where they shouldn’t have been overheard.

“So you’ll let me go?”

Bruce let out a long breath. “If you don’t mind the Zucco case falling through.” A caravan could only move so fast, and they’d only left yesterday; if he loaned Grayson a fast horse tomorrow morning Alfred could be back before dinner.

It would be a wrench, to have the thief-king slip this noose. It might be years before Bruce caught him so dead to rights again. But he wasn’t a tyrant. That was important. He wasn’t going to start stealing children against their will just to keep order in his own city.

The boy grimaced, torn between two unacceptable futures.

“You don’t have to stay with me, of course,” Bruce said. He’d considered it a bribe, at the time, though one that would profit him as well; hundreds of youths would be thrilled to be taken into his household, even as stableboys. But not everyone wanted the same things in life. “I could find you another guardian, if you don’t mind working for your keep, or you can go to the orphan’s house in the lower city. I hold it to strict standards,” he added, since this again probably sounded like a threat. “It’s clean, there’s as much food as you want, and no one will be permitted to beat you. They’ll keep you until you turn sixteen or find a trade.”

“I have a trade,” the boy grumbled.

Bruce winced again. He really had made a hash. Alfred was going to rake him over hot coals. “It’s not the done thing to bind a boy out to a master tumbler, but if you find one I’ll expedite the paperwork.”

“But still in your city.” Those huge blue eyes were narrow in calculation, drying, salt tracks beneath them white. “Under your control.”

“There’s a transfer system,” Bruce said. “At the orphan asylum. You’re a likely young lad, any city would—be happy to have you.” Want you, he’d almost said. Surely he’d chewed enough boot leather for the month already.

Please stay, he did not say. The place under his ribs that had felt so surprisingly stabbed was no longer joyful at the thought of having the boy close, but if he left now all of this had been for nothing. Just a dumb-show. A puppet play.

Dik Grayson’s fists were tremble-tight. Bruce’s knuckles ached with sympathy. “Will you swear.” The autumn-blue eyes were a thousand miles deep. “That you had nothing to do with it? Swear?”

“On my parents’ graves.” His most solemn oath, but hardly enough to a child who suspected him of dishonoring their memory so. “I neither wished nor brought nor condoned nor bought harm unto your blood or house. I swear it on my city’s future, on my honor, and the name of my house. May my blood turn to water and my tongue wither to dust if I lie.”

Once, the stories said, such oaths were not taken in vain, and one who swore falsely would suffer the penalty he named. Bruce made it a policy to always act as though that were still the case, but it wasn’t, and a man’s word of honor was worth only as much as the honor of the man.

But slowly, the boy nodded. And put out his hand. Bruce raised his eyebrows, but if the circus was old-fashioned in its manners so much the better. His hand enclosed Grayson’s whole forearm, while the small callused palm pressed barely above his wrist, but that changed nothing. “I’ll stay,” said the boy. “I promise by my name.”

“You didn’t have to,” Bruce said. It was one thing to ask an oath of someone you could bind in no other way. To take one from someone under your power, even without compulsion, seemed poor form.

Dik shrugged, and disengaged. “It’s even, like this.”

Not fair, because nothing between them really could be, the gap between Bruce’s power and his too absolute. But even. Because an exchange of promises was something you made with an equal. And the circus performers weren’t Bruce’s people. They didn’t answer to him, though his laws bound them within the bounds of his domain.

“You said I’ll need to earn my bread,” the child said, hands thrust deep into scarlet pockets. “I’m eight, so I figure that means scut-work. Nobody would trust me alone with geese yet, let alone pigs. If I stay with you, would you want me to perform?”

“Would you want to?” asked Bruce. Dik shrugged. “Of course you don’t want to lose your family trade,” Bruce allowed. “But if you stayed with me I rather thought I’d take you as an apprentice.”

It seemed silly now, the starry half-formed fantasies he’d had after running the rooftops with the child at his heels, perfectly coordinated and brilliant, silent as a bird on the wing.

And, currently, gaping. “What, at lording?”

“..if you like,” Bruce shrugged. “I haven’t any other.” It would put some hearts in Gotham to rest and unsettle some that needed it, and show certain parties what you got by pressuring a Wayne, even an affable and easily influenced one. “You’d probably be rather good at it.” The gaping had, if anything, grown worse. “But I meant at my other trade, in fact.”

Incredulity retreated a little, at this, and for the first time in this whole bedeviled conversation the boy seemed to brighten. “You’re serious.”

“Only if you’re interested,” Bruce said blandly. “I think my friend Sir Dent could use a message-runner, and Lady Kyle might need someone new to look after her cats, since you’re interested in animals…”

“Oh, shut up!” Dik clapped a hand over his mouth, and Bruce surprised even himself with an outright laugh.

“No, go ahead, please. It’s an important function of every member of my household to tell me when I’m being insufferable.”

And then the boy was smiling back at him. “You’re serious,” he said, settled this time, as he affirmed his trust.

“Mm. I’ll have you a knight inside ten years.”

The child laughed. “Me, a knight! What Mam would have said.” He waved a hand grandly, the gesture a little too large for the room even with his short arms; designed to be seen from a distance. “I’ll do it, of course I will. Obviously you need someone to translate you to normal people.”

“You’ll need to learn the law if you’re going to explain it to people,” Bruce pointed out, the flat stabbed place under his ribs starting, cautiously, to grow light again.

His new apprentice nodded, grinning confidence. “Every line.”

He put his hand out again—normally Bruce would formalize such an agreement with a parent, or whoever stood in place of one, but there was nobody—Master Haley had left the city already and, as Bruce had explained, under Gotham law had had no legal standing, though Bruce would have discussed this formally with the man as a courtesy if it had occurred to him.

They clasped forearms again, the size disparity no less ridiculous than before but less important, somehow. Bruce inclined his head with all due solemnity for the sealing of a contract. He didn’t want Dik to think ever again that he did not see him as an equal.

[hero-imagines]

star-spangled | steve rogers

summary: steve rogers prided himself on being the star-spangled man, a perfect example of a hero and a mentor, but for you, he was willing to break all those rules. 

word count: 2.2k

genre: angst/fluff

a/n: sorry for going missing for a couple months, finals consumed me ! but now i’m out and since it’s summer i have some more free time to write :))

In your eyes, Steve Rogers was a different type of man. When you looked at him you saw past that star-spangled patriotic blond poster boy image, past that strong super soldier and serious leader front that he was so used to portraying—instead, you saw him simply as a man, just as Steve Rogers. He was a man with a heart of gold, someone who was selfless and willing to sacrifice everything for the safety of others. He was caring, sweet, generous even, and it was nearly impossible to find a flaw in him. This is why he made an impeccable mentor, due to his undeniable heroic nature, there was doubt in your mind that he would be able to train you to be worthy of the title of an Avenger. And at the end of the day, no matter who Captain America was or has done, he was still just Steve Rogers—your mentor and your friend. 

You could remember coming to the compound a few years ago, and back then you were a full-blown mess. Not only were your powers out of control, but physically, emotionally, and mentally you were unstable—a ticking time bomb. You were nothing but a runaway, living on the streets for a large portion of your life before they took you in, the Avengers believing in you when no one else did. They trained you, feed you, shelter you, and most importantly helped you to control the explosive power inside of you. In more ways than one, you knew that you owe them your life, a debt that perhaps could never be paid off, but you were trying everyday, struggling to prove that you were worth it. 

Yet in this process you have committed an unspeakable act, something that you could never reveal out loud. Of course, this wasn’t necessarily your choice, this being more of matter concerning your heart rather than your brain. To put it simply, without any consultation from your brain and in a rash and ill-advised decision, your heart has decided on falling in love with Steve Rogers. There were so many things wrong with something as unpredictable as love, so many things that could possibly go wrong and end up exploding back in your face. 

So you ended up suppressing this foreign emotion, pushing it down in an attempt to suffocate it, and make sure that it would stay buried for the rest of your life. Yet, things like these have an uncanny way of reappearing again, and an emotion like this would be hard to suppress for long. Love is a fickle emotion, something that came with no receipts or refunds, instead it was something that would stick with you till the end of time. Along with the truth, love always managed to escape the deepest confines of your consciousness, making itself present whether you wanted it to or not.

And even as all the odds were stacked against you—you were certain that you would find a way of dealing with this unwanted emotion.

“So who wants to bet twenty bucks that tonight is once again not the night?” Tony grinned, giving the super-soldier a hard slap on the back. Once again, Tony was throwing one of his infamous parties, celebrating another one of the Avengers’ victories—or so he claims—everyone knowing that Tony would use any and every excuse to throw a party. Currently it was a very typical party atmosphere, agents dancing in the center of the room, Bruce and Natasha conversing on the far end of the bar, Clint leaving a bit before nine o’clock to go home to Laura and the kids, and Bucky and Steve observing the party from their comfortable seats at the front of the bar. And you, well whether you knew it or not, Steve’s eyes follow you around the room—watching as you held a drink in one hand and mingled around the room making casual conversation. 

He would be lying if he said that you did not look stunning tonight. Your clothes leaving nothing up to imagination tonight, and as inappropriate as it is to say, he wanted nothing more than to ravish you tonight. Instead of acting on these animalistic behaviors, he took another sip of his drink, feeling it burn as it went down his throat and hopefully washing down his previous desires with the drink. 

"Come on, Tony, don't rush him, when the old man is ready he'll confess on his own terms," Natasha laughs, giving him a wink. Steve knew that they all meant no harm by pushing and compelling to confess his feelings, but he couldn’t but grow a bit annoyed. This wasn’t something that could be taken lightly, and it wasn’t something that would drastically change their life as much as it would his own. There was something intoxicating about you—making him want to stay away and yet get closer, all at the same time. And as you sway your hips to the song, his eyes following the movement of your body, he couldn’t but feel slightly buzzed by your presence and he drank it all in. 

It was official, you were slightly drunk and didn’t know what to do with yourself. This entire night Steve Rogers was acting completely unfair to you, strutting around here like a  fine piece of ass—completely disregarding your feelings for him. His presence aggregated you to no end  and you weren’t sure whether he was doing it on purpose or whether the super soldier could possibly be that damn oblivious. Even with the alcohol lowerig your inhibititions, you still had enough common sense not to make any rash or idiotic descisions. This was exceptionally hard, especially when there are an abundance of agents swarming around him like they are the predators and he is the prey, circling him like vultures. It wasn’t until one of those snakes leaned in and wrapped her arms around his waist as if she was about to kiss him—oh honey, was she about to get the ass-kicking of a lifetime. 

“Hey, baby, I leave for one second and you find yourself some other company?” you slurred, smiling tightly, walking over and linking arms with the blond—effectively pulling him away from the woman’s grasp. Turning your attention away from her, you attempted to refocus your attention on him, swaying slightly, Steve gripping onto your wrist a bit tighter in order to keep you steady and upright. There was this questioning look in his eye and a hint of panic, but in a flash that was gone, replaced instead by the heavy redness in his cheeks and face. Leaning over you pressed a chaste kiss on his cheek, just long for you to whisper for him to play along, before standing up again. 

“And you are?” One of the girls asked, her arms crossed tightly over her chest with a snarl on her face. 

“[Y/N], his significant other, and you are?” you practically growled, taking a step towards the woman and her posse. At that, the women deemed that it wasn’t worth it, and with one final glare they all sauntered off. Finally, you released a breath that you didn’t realize that you have been holding, and before the star-spangled man could ask too many questions you grabbed onto his wrist and dragged him out of the room and into an adjoining staircase before your hand released his in order for you to cross your arms over your chest. "What were you even doing out there?" 

His eyebrows shot up at your question, mouth agape as he attempted to process exactly what you were accusing him of. He scanned over your body, taking in your appearance it the dim lighting—the way that you looked slightly disheveled as the night wore on, His eyebrows shot up at your question, mouth agape as he attempted to process exactly what you were accusing him of. He scanned over your body, taking in your appearance in the dim lighting—the way that you looked slightly disheveled as the night wore on, or the evident flush in your cheeks due to the amount of alcohol that you consumed. Despite all these factors, he still thought you looked beautiful. 

“Me, [Y/N], what are you doing?” he protested, gesturing to the iron-like grip that you held steady on his wrist. 

Honestly you were completely out of your mind at the moment, and you were definitely sure that it was due to your intoxicated state. Yet, you were unsure whether you were drunk because of the alcohol or if you were drunk on the idea of him. He aggregvated you and you wanted nothing more than to tell him—confess to him everything that he has been doing to you ever since you both met, and tonight was just the tip of the iceberg. Instead you pulled him closer to you, your cheeks turning even more red (if that was even possible) as you wrapped your arms around his waist. It was hard to miss the way that his face flushed and his mouth sputtered, trying to formulate anything to say. 

“Kiss me,” you whispered, your voice low as your eyes flickered towards his lips. 

There was a fire that seemed to ignite in the bottom of his stomach, a burning desire to do everything that he knew he couldn’t—and even as tempting as your offer was, he couldn’t bring himself to close the gap between you both. It was not that he didn’t want to, instead as the waves of disappointment crashed upon him, he knew that it was his duty as not only your superior, but as someone who genuinely cares about you, not to take advantage of you in a state like this. 

As he began to pull away you grabbed on to him, pulling him so close to you that you could practically hear his heart hammering against your own. Once again you repeat yourself, and he could feel your hot breath against his lips—and that only seemed to make him want you more. Before he could decide anything, you pressed your lips against his feverishly, enjoying the way his hands immediately situated themselves around your frame, pulling you closer to his toned body. In this moment everything just felt right and for a second, Steve forgot that he should be thinking rationally, and after this moment, reality came crashing down on him. 

Suddenly, his lips were off of your own, your opens opening in confusion and surprise. Before you could even ask him what was wrong, he turned away from you and took three steps back, making sure that there was enough distance between the two of you before he began spewing out apologies. 

“I’m so sorry, I shouldn’t have kissed you if your drunk and god, I’ve taken advantage of you and that was never my intention, I’m so sorry—I couldn’t help myself and I know that’s no excuse and I really am sorry and—” before you finally shut him up with a shake of your head, a slight smile and giggle. 

“Steve, what the hell are you sorry for?” you asked raising an eyebrow playfully, “I mean is my kissing really that bad?” 

His eyebrows practically shot up to his hairline as he vehemently shook his head. Before he could start making excuses, you waved him off, laughing to tell him that you were joking. 

“Come on, what’s the real problem? Is it that you don’t have feelings for me? I’m really sorry if I completely read things wrong or if I overstepped my boundaries,” you apologized sheepishly, taking another step back from him. 

“No! It’s not like that at all,” he practically yelps out, moving closer to you. Visibly he looked nervous, a completely different that his strong and super-soldier self. Instead, he looks more like the Steve Rogers before the super serum, the one who was dorky, timid, and sweet—the side of him that attracted you to him in the first place. Taking a deep breath before he continued, he avoided your eyes before speaking. “It’s just that there is so much of an age gap between us. I’m over a hundred years old and you, you have your whole life ahead of you and the last thing that you need is to be tied down to an old man like me. It’s not that I don’t feel the same way as you, because doll, kissing you was the best thing that has happened to me ever since I woke up in the future. I would be nothing but a burden to you and I love you too much to let that happen—” 

You couldn’t help but feel your heart melting at his statement, never in your life has anyone ever cared this much for you and has told you that they were willing to give up everything for your happiness. Shaking your head lightly you grabbed onto his hand, gingerly pulling his frame back and closer to your body. 

“For someone so smart, you’re clearly an idiot. Steve “Captain America” Rogers, I don’t want anybody else but you.”

And while that did not necessarily quell all of his fears about beginning a relationship with you, he could swear in that moment while holding you in his arms that this was heaven—and that you were his paradise.

[ironhardpacker]

OOC.

(( Uh, so, I saw FFH a few days ago but I forgot to talk abt it on here. It’s not canon on this blog for several reasons, but the basic reason is because my MCU Tony isn’t dead. More details/info/my opinons on the movie below, big spoiler warning. I thought the movie was okay. That’s all. I don’t begrudge anyone who liked the movie, these are just my own personal opinions. )) 

Sorry, these won’t be organized thoughts.

The glasses?? Tony definitely could make something like that, but would he?? It’s SUPER irresponsible. At the point in which he makes them ( Civil War ) he’s all about being accountable and responsible for what you do/make. Dude stopped with the arms deal after the first Iron Man movie. YOU THINK HE’D MAKE GLASSES THAT COULD DRONE STRIKE JUST ANY RANDOM CITIZEN/ACCESS ANYONE’S DATA??? Super fucked up. Especially thinking about how they could ( and eventually do ) end up in the wrong hands. AKA Tony’s nightmare after the Afghanistan scene in IM1. 

Peter is still a child???? Why would Tony leave those to him when he’s still in school?!?! That’s fucking dangerous wtf. Way too much responsibility for him. 

Where was Rhodey?? Where was Bruce/Professor Hulk?? They could’ve helped out big time. Or PEPPER AS RESCUE!!

Also, where was KAREN? :( 

Everyone mad at Peter for not taking responsibility as a hero when 1) HE’S STILL A KID and 2) HIS WHOLE THING AS A CHARACTER IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AS A HERO!! He’s supposed to already be doing that thanks to the death of his Uncle Ben, which is never mentioned/referenced in the MCU besides, like, one line. We all know the line, “With great power comes great responsibility!” for a reason.

I love Tony, okay? But how come there weren’t any tributes to other heroes?? Vision, Black Widow, and Cap are all shown as being believed to be dead by the main populace, but we only see dedications and art of Iron Man. WTF. 

All the worship of Tony was kind of weird.....since there are definitely people who hate him for his past and just generally being kind of an asshole.....

Yet another villain that hates Tony Stark for a ridiculous reason. In a Spider-Man movie. C’mon, give Peter an original villain for once. 

Tony canonically treats his employees really well. And Beck obviously needed mental health treatment. Stop saying that Tony stole his work, he worked for his company.

Framing the scene where Peter undresses in front of the agent as a sexual thing when she’s clearly an adult and he’s still underage. I get that teenagers can be like that, but like...maybe have another character talk abt how fucked up that was? 

Plus the rumor of Peter secretly being a male escort. Gross.

It was never explained why Peter's spider-sense wasn't working. Originally I thought it just wasn't working with May since she isn't a threat to him...but no. Still dunno what was going on there.

Okay sorry good things now.

J Jonah Jameson cameo was great. Wished he had called Spider-Man a menace though. 

The stuff with Happy & Peter were great. 

MJ/Peter is so cute and they’re cute together. 

Ned was good as always. 

Loved the teacher dynamics, p funny. 

Acting overall was great. 

The CGI was fantastic, especially in the scenes in which Mysterio was using the tech against Peter.

[viewagain]

Joker

Much of the discourse about this film has been about If this film is dangerous and irresponsible in the current political climate.  I want to talk about the movie, so I’ll only say this much. I understand why some people might be concerned about the film, the same way I understand why, when there is a mass shooting, giving it 24/7 news coverage and talking about all the intimate details of the murderer can encourage copy cats. Art is powerful, propaganda is an amazingly effective tool. That being said, I don’t believe this film needs to be banned or condemned. It’s the whole ‘do violent video games cause real world violence?’ debate. No, they don’t. And now to actually talk about the movie!

Well, first, let’s talk about memes.

There are:

Regular Memes

Dank memes

Deepfried memes,

And so forth. Memes have become covered in twenty-three layers of irony, self-deprecation, and meta; “authenticity” is a meaningless concept.  So, when you see an image like this:

It is equally valid to assume that it is genuine or ironic. I bring this up, because of the core message of Joker: We live in a society! I won’t go too deep into the origins of this phrase, but suffice it to say, that it is a term for edgelords who want to seem super deep, by saying obvious things that aren’t that deep or insightful. And well before this film, perhaps since Heath Ledger’s Joker, the Joker character has been held up by these people as an idol.

 But the Joker shouldn’t be held up as an idol, as demonstrated by this interpretation.  Arthur Fleck is a sad, sad individual. He has a debilitating mental illness: uncontrollable laughter at times of heightened emotion, be it fear, anger, or sadness. He is physically scrawny and misshapen reminiscent of Christian Bale from the Machinist. Arthur has no social skills. He is delusional. He and his life are pathetic, and I use that word with no judgment, but as a neutral descriptor. It is tragic. He tries to be nice, but [we live in a] society, keeps him down.

The very opening sequence is him doing his job, when some teenagers beat him up, while shouting “Keep hitting him!”, “He is so weak!”, and “He can’t fight back!” This is the type of nuanced and subtle dialogue you can expect from the film, courtesy of the writer of the Hangover sequels.

Jaoquin Phoenix is the only reason I didn’t cringe at half the lines of dialogue. His performance is phenomenal. You can see through his eyes as he struggles against his own body turns against him, almost throwing up due to intense, inappropriate laughter. The sad eyes of a laughing clown. Phoenix is both over the top yet incredibly subtle, sometimes simultaneously. He barely seems to change his expression at all yet moves between all the emotions.

Two-thirds through the film when Arthur starts to make the change to becoming the Joker, embracing his laugh and rejecting the [we live in a] society 

that rejected him. “I used to think my life was a tragedy, but then I learned it was a comedy.” Like a meme, I can’t tell if it is an awful or amazing line. Once the transformation happens, Phoenix’s posture and demeanor drastically change as well, Arthur Fleck truly becomes another person.

The film is oppressive from life beating down on Arthur, to the loud, melancholy cellos, to the gloomy, yet beautifully dilapidated shots of Gotham. Joker doesn’t have many laughs, and even those come from pitch black humor – laughter of discomfort and the absurdly morbid. One scene particularly kicked me in the empathy bone

I have colored my empathy bone white

 Arthur’s dream in life is to be a stand-up comedian. He goes to an open mic, and unsurprisingly, his laughter kicks in. He fights against it but can’t do anything about it. It felt awful to watch, and I am not ashamed to admit, that I almost shed a tear. I felt a strong emotion, and that is much more than I can say for Marvel and other 99% of other comic book films. Yes, this is technically a comic book film. Not that it needed to be, Arthur Fleck could have been a wholly original character. The only comic book knowledge that enhances the experience, is knowing that Batman’s real name is Bruce Wayne.

I love me a good downer movie, but what stops this from being an amazing film is the script. There are a lot of themes addressed in the film: primarily, the poor treatment of the mentally ill in [we live in a] society, 

but also economic inequality, celebrity idolization, and the cult of fame. The film only touches upon these issues on a surface level. Depicting a concern, without anything insightful to say about it. The messages become mixed. For example, Arthur is mistreated for being mentally ill, and the film shows that is bad. But then uses a person’s dwarfism as the butt of a joke. The film says [we live in a] society 

should take care of the mentally ill. Also, Arthur goes of his medications, embraces his illness, and then is awarded with what he always wanted: a horde of people cheering for him. In this case it is a mob which is destroying the city. No shots of innocent people being assaulted, this raging mob is a good thing. And the camera frames Joker as a hero. But if we want [we live in a] society to take care of the mentally ill, medication is a vital part of that process. Joker’s final monologue is especially cringy and lacking any subtext. His thesis is essentially – [we live in a] society 

is cruel, and people should be more civil and nice. #im14andthisisdeep

 A lot of people compare Joker to Taxi Driver, which makes sense. But the plot more so resembles King of Comedy – a failed stand up comedian, idolizes a talk show host, then commits a crime against said celebrity and has a big monologue on TV like he always wanted. In King of Comedy, Robert DeNiro is the comedian, in Joker he is the talk show host. So yeah, it isn’t an original film, but not many movies are. This is a character film and Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is so amazing and enthralling that it elevates the mediocre script to a great film. And [we live in a] society should treat people with mental illness better, then there wouldn’t be as many people who see a Joker character as hero and there wouldn’t be as many mass shooters and thus this film wouldn’t be seen as problematic.

8/10

SOCIETY:  9.0 OTHER SOCIETY: 68% / 90%

[sinetheta]

Conversation: Lawrence Lek talks Sinofuturism, automation, identity, and communism

The article published below is the full version of an interview conducted by Iris Lang for Issue #4 of sinθ magazine. This was abridged in the print edition.

© 2016 Sine Theta Magazine: [available for purchase here]

Artwork by art director Elisabeth Siegel. 

The Chinese language refers to the future using back, behind, below, and to the past as forward, front, above.

Yet in the alternative realities that London-based artist Lawrence Lek creates, the two are melded together into curious and evocative simulations of seemingly familiar places — art galleries in Berlin, London locales from Dalston to the Crystal Palace, and most recently a vision of Singapore in 2065 a century after independence.

In August 2016, Lek released Sinofuturism (1839 - 2046 AD), a video essay exploring the idea of China’s contemporary technological advancement and the people behind it as components of a greater Artificial Intelligence (AI) poised not necessarily to take over the world, but simply outlive it. Taking seven cultural cliches associated with China, from copying, to studying, to labor and gambling, Lek illuminates a perspective on Chinese society so transparent it has gone unnoticed by domestic and diaspora alike — until now.

Viewed through the lens of automation and AI, stereotypes of Chinese society become self-evident vindications of a future that already exists. For Lek, Sinofuturism is not about resistance or liberation. Instead, it takes the diverse array of perceptions of China and uses them to underpin a blueprint for survival that has allowed a nation once dubbed backward to continue its plough into the illusive space of forward, front, and above.

Sine Theta recently sat down with Lek (@lawrencelek​) to talk about everything from the age of automation to media and identity. The following conversation was conducted over Skype in February of 2017.

IRIS LANG: In Sinofuturism, you talk about wholly embracing these clichés of Chinese society as a means of subverting cultural stereotypes. As someone who is Malaysian-Chinese and born in Germany, educated in the UK, how did you become aware of these stereotypes and how did they affect your perceptions of China and your own ethnic identity growing up?

LAWRENCE LEK: For me, Chinese society, because of its focus on the family, is something that assimilates into a culture in very different ways. Of course, every culture does that differently. I think what’s interesting is that –– obviously things like African diaspora or Chinese diaspora happen in many different ways –– but for example, I also do feel there’s a reason why, let’s say, a very big feature of overseas Chinese populations is Chinatowns across the world. You might have Japantowns or Koreatowns but generally Chinatown is the dominant one. And I think it’s to do with not just language barriers but also a different kind of family, clan, insular, isolated mentality that earlier generations of Chinese immigrants had, whether it’s in Southeast Asia like in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, etc. versus in the West like in the UK.

And of course, another thing that’s quite different is that the nature of Chinese immigration to America via New York or California is really different to the nature of Chinese immigration to Southeast Asia, and many of these came along at different points of history. In America, it had more to do with 19th century American history, whereas in Southeast Asia it had much more to do with British colonial expansion. My parents, for example, are Malaysian-Chinese but they moved to Singapore like many people of their generation did because it’s majority Chinese –– more opportunities and so on. Even within that specific post-colonial context, in Southeast Asia. I was born in Germany but I grew up until I was ten in Hong Kong, Bangkok, and Singapore, so I always thought about what makes me different to, you know, people who just live in Kowloon going about their life. Why am I able to have what we would now call this kind of ‘millennial’ experience? And it’s a lot to do with the growth of globalised and neoliberal society, as well as economic development of Singapore and Hong Kong, and the opening of China, all of these things. It’s all tied together.

But it’s very rare to see an artistic representation of that. For example, you have 1980s Hong Kong films, whether it’s heroic bloodshed type stuff, or martial arts films. It’s the most one-dimensional view of Chinese development. I wasn’t thinking about it consciously at the time, but there’s so many, for example, huge amounts of references to Opium War stuff in Jet Li films, which is an incredibly pro-China, nationalistic type thing, and they’re all set in Shanghai in some kind of Chinese exclusion zone such as Bruce Lee’s Fist of Fury, which was based around that kind of setting. So there’s this idea of Chinese repression, as well as Western domination from this more Chinese chauvinism point of view. This idea of Chinese nationalism is really strong today as well. But at the same time, in Singapore and Malaysia, in the kind of English-speaking, postcolonial Chinese societies, there’s not as great of a problem about it, because Southeast Asian countries have benefitted more and they never had this trauma of the Hong Kong handover, or any of this stuff to deal with. They were kind of far away enough to be independent, yet close enough to still be tied geographically to the mainland and have that relationship.

So anyway, I’ve always been super conscious about all of these different ways of framing the debate about China and Chineseness, and also because of Singapore’s idea of being a multicultural, global nation that happens to be majority Chinese, it’s often been said that it’s kind of an ideal Confucian utopia because it’s really paternalistic, really hierarchical, the government has so much power and authority — but you can’t argue with it, so the argument goes because it’s been quite prosperous. And of course there’s problems of civil liberties, but that is complex.

IL: While we’re on the topic of the Chinese empire, what relationship does Sinofuturism have to the history of the Chinese empire? I noticed with the date in the full title, Sinofuturism (1839 - 2046 AD), you began it with 1839 which is of course the First Opium War, so I was wondering what your decision making process was in choosing these dates. What does Sinofuturism have to do with the so-called ‘century of humiliation’ that China went through?

LL: So just taking those two dates, 1839 and 2046, completely ignoring the seminal events in Chinese history that may or may not have happened, looking at it through a kind of global perspective, you’re going through the Industrial Revolution, into the so-called 4th Industrial Revolution with automation and AI. This gives you a two-hundred year period that is more or less the bulk of industrialization and so-called modernity in the world, and urbanisation, changing from agricultural societies to industrial ones to post-industrial ones and so on. I think that timeline, which starts in the past but goes forward into the future, is something I’m particularly interested in. It can start with the Opium War, and it can end with this kind of film that people may or may not know it’s a reference to.

IL: The Wong Kar-wai film, right?

LL: Yeah, exactly. But with this idea of Sinofuturism –– previously, I haven’t been particularly interested in making any kind of overt statement about geopolitics or whatever. For me, it should be embedded in the work, and biographically I don’t think it should be a main point of an artist’s work to talk about themselves, unless they really want to for whatever reason, which is fine. I just particularly don’t. But for me, as you know, in the past 12 months my impressions of the UK where I’ve been living for what, 20 years now, have actually changed quite a lot, and made me realize that post-colonial countries have a strange relationship with their former ‘motherland’ or whatever. You see this with America and Britain, or Congo and Belgium, or Singapore and the UK, so it’s not so straightforward. The reason why I stayed in the UK is because I believed, and I still do, that it’s generally a liberal and quite free place. But things like the Brexit vote, which I understand for the same reasons that I don’t think the result...here’s the thing, the crazy thing is that I think if you had a similar referendum in America or in China or in Singapore, the result would pretty much be the same. They would be like, “We wanna be independent” and so on. So I think it’s a stupid thing to ask the people, because they’re easily swayed. But at the same time, I don’t think there’s anything inherently ‘bad’ about Britain, or anything inherently racist or xenophobic about it. I think fundamentally, British people do believe in a kind of fairness.

But anyway, things like this, Brexit vote, etc. –– this kind of cascade of events did make me think that actually, for me, Sinofuturism is not about a pro-China dialogue. The thing is, I had so rarely seen interesting discourse about China and futurism from anything other than a really abstract cinematic perspective. The kind of CNN perspective as well. And also, the fact that China, for some reason –– and I still wonder why this is the case –– Chinese culture and its relationship with technology or science fiction is very strange. For example, science fiction now of course is growing more, but it didn’t really have a place in Chinese cultural literature, and I feel that basically magic and fantasy take the place of science fiction in Chinese culture. You have lots of shenmo (神魔), gods and monsters kind of stories, and all the super martial arts experts who have superhuman powers but they’re not technologically enabled.

Basically, there’s no equivalent of the Marvel Comics Iron Man kind of character, who uses machines to achieve great ends. I always feel that even in Chinese movies, it’s never about machines, it’s always about loads of people really working hard to accomplish something. That has nothing to do with technology, and it really has a lot to do with work ethic and working together and all of these good moral virtues. Or like, if you want to beat that guy, you just have to train for like 5 years on a mountain or whatever, but there’s nothing technologically driven, you’re just punching the tree for 5 years and then you get really good at punching the tree. It’s kind of really dumb. The faith in technology is more to do with magic or knowledge, or supernatural things, or the knowledge of your special five-point heart exploding palm technique, that kind of thing — as opposed to actual technology.

Of course that’s changing now I feel, because there’s more interest in science and computers in Chinese society. Engineering is the thing now, and with the more technocratic society, it’s all slowly changing. But all I’m saying is, it took a long time to get to China, for whatever reason –– maybe Cultural Revolution ideas to do with science and progress, and also maybe I’m guessing in the 60s, 70s, 80s, a lot of Chinese technology was very much to do with heavy industry, and they had a lot of their knowledge in partnership with the Soviet Union and that Communist bloc, as opposed to the kind of open science idea of the West. But science and technology, and science fiction are closely linked to portrayals of science in popular media. For example in America, the space race was obviously closely allied with the intercontinental ballistic missile program, but of course it was the PR –– the space program is PR for military stuff. Or in the SU, where the space race was tied in with military development. But I think since forever, China has had way more civil war problems than anywhere else, so it tends to stay more insular.

IL: I guess you kind of answered it already, but why do you think China took so long to embrace technology and sci-fi –– do you think part of it stems from how China views technology as being associated with ‘the West’ and how so much of China’s cultural consciousness is built off of making itself different from the West?

LL: Totally, a lot of it has to do with the general refusal to learn from anything apart from a certain section of history, for example. Let me put it to you this way: I might be wrong, but in Europe at least, the Enlightenment kind of revolutions and political theory and philosophy and culture and science all happened in parallel with a destabilisation of religion as the central force in peoples’ lives. For example, if Christianity and the church still stayed the dominant force, of course science would never go anywhere.

But I think the history of Chinese insularity is very, very old, and this is very broad history –– I don’t know how accurate this is –– but it does seem there is a refusal to learn from not even just the West, but even from the Middle East and other places. I feel that because China never had religion as the guiding force of peoples’ life, they never had really doctrine-heavy “Thou shalt not xyz” because that was just Confucianism, which was tied into politics and management of society. They didn’t really have this parallel integration of church and state, like there was in, what, the whole of Europe or the Middle East. It’s much more about management and military, hard power like that, rather than the soft power of religion which is about social control in a different way.

I mean, the belief of Confucian societies is “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it”, right? So if it’s not broke, what do you need technology for? And it’s also this kind of classic thing where, from what I understand, with many of the Chinese inventions they were like “We invented the compass and all this crap”, but what did you do with it? You didn’t go anywhere, it’s just for fengshui and stuff like that, right? It’s not to cross the ocean and pillage a whole continent. I feel also the whole attitude of newness and innovation is very different –– the attitude towards the individual over the welfare of the collective, the attitude of innovation as opposed to continuation of history, all of these things are, again, cultural stereotypes, but really very strong I feel.

And even in the case of, let’s say typical Chinese stuff like the dynasties –– no matter what dynasty took over, they would all implement the same system essentially. The Manchu emperors would take on some Chinese name, they would basically conform to the historical system as opposed to establishing a really revolutionary one, which is again probably more to do with good management than innovation. And then of course, there’s the question again of whether the Western Enlightenment was good in terms of what we call social freedom and social welfare, and whether you can implement that in tribal societies like in some parts of the Middle East without huge problems. It’s not the perfect solution.

The problem is, with China, that the scale of implementation and also the levels of development. Places like Singapore or America were basically inventions that came at a very specific time in history, to some peoples’ benefit and to some peoples’ suffering. And on a personal level, I just have this feeling, and I’m sure you do as well, that sometimes reporting on China is annoying.  Even on the simplest level, in some of the news clips I use in Sinofuturism, all the time it’s just stuff like “China is making guns.” “American can’t make bullets.” There’s this phrase that this news commentator used, “China’s not just exporting metal, they’re exporting unemployment.” These kinds of ideas, which to a large extent are right and hugely accurate, but the interesting thing for me about Sinofuturism is that because China is such a huge part of the world’s industrial economy, just the shit that is made –– the desk, the pen I’m using, the computer –– it’s all part of it, so it’s not just about Chinese nationalism, it’s the furthest thing from that, it’s just about gaining a different understanding of how the world is made culturally and historically.

Because also, having grown up here [in the UK], I just assume everyone understands the same things, or the same geopolitics as I do. And of course just because I’ve grown up in a different place, all these things I’ve grown up with –– addiction to gambling, studying hard –– it’s hard to see them as something other than… what your aunt does, do you know what I mean? To see them as something that actually reveals some kind of deeper truth. People love gambling because they work really hard, and it makes complete sense, right? And psychologically speaking, the desire to have these really strict hierarchies and structures — basically, Daoism and Confucianism go hand in hand, because one is about absolute personal freedom, and the other one is about absolute obedience and subservience to a notion of control. So I find that these two contrasting things are kind of like Satanism and Christianity, they almost go hand in hand perfectly.

But anyway, in the last year with personal Brexit stuff and my reaction to that, I was kind of disappointed after talking with some people that Sinofuturism as a thing just didn’t exist. It did in bits and pieces, obviously there’s lots of articles talking –– especially in American press –– about whitewashing The Last Airbender or The Ghost in the Shell, but that’s not interesting to me, because they’ve done that with black culture for the last hundred years, and they’ll do it with Bollywood, they’ll do it with anime, whatever, who cares? That’s important from a kind of racial activism point of view, but for me, I don’t fully identify with either side so it’s just not personally true if I said I’m against xyz. I think it’s interesting to be mixed and to think about the kind of possibilities of that.

IL:  In many of your works, such as Unreal Estate, Europa Mon Amour (2016 Brexit Edition), and Shiva’s Way, you make use of multiple languages in both audio and text. What role does language play in your art?

LL: First of all, it came out just by using a lot of different collage sounds and sources. I’d extract clips from films I like, those of Wong Kar-wai and Tarkovsky, that all talk about, in very basic terms, the disembodied experience of traveling and people on a journey - e.g. in films like 2046 or Stalker. And in those languages, characters reflect on their psychological state while they’re in a different place or experiencing a different environment. For example, in Tarkovsky’s Stalker, there’s a Zone which is this other place that people go to realize their fantasies, which is quite a common trope, especially in science fiction: this idea of a wish-fulfillment fantasy that gets realized in another place. And similarly, in Wong Kar-wai’s films, the place of memory or recollection can be something as straightforward as a bedroom, or a futuristic train. It’s all about the link between memory and the future. So for me, language is used to suggest the idea of an internal monologue like the thoughts that you think to yourself, and not just dialogue that’s spoken between characters. There’s also dimensions where it’s more about the idea of what establishes a sense of place, because classically in cinema you’d have the setting, what city it’s set in, what language these things are spoken in, but I’m much more interested in the idea of disorientation and the place where you, as a viewer or player or audience or creator, are situated.

IL: What makes something a ‘place’ for you? From the way you describe it, it almost seems like using language as a way to explore one’s internal monologue can also paint that monologue as a place in itself, is that how you view it?

LL: Yeah, I mean there’s many different interpretations of the idea of ‘place’, and I think especially nowadays, the idea of ‘place’ –– let’s say, site-specificity, or any concept of a certain location that has to do with the identity of that particular place –– generally goes back to this idea of disempowering some kind of certainty in life. For example, political acts of ‘place’ had to do with nationalism, migration, immigration –– this very legal definition of borders that reinforce both the legal structure and social system of any particular country or city. There are a lot of formal borders in that kind of place, which of course we have to navigate in our daily lives. So there’s that very infrastructural notion of place. And then there’s a much more psychological and loose notion of place, where you’re sitting on the train but you’re thinking about somewhere else, which of course certain film directors do particularly well, especially when it’s about uncertainty and memory. So there’s that notion of place as well, which in cinematic or virtual world terms is much looser, because of course the audience is seeing the film, which is generally set in a different place, which may have been shot in a different place, to where it’s actually portrayed in a film studio and rendered on a computer or something like that. It’s multiple places nested in each other.

So there’s infrastructural ‘place’, then the representational space of portraying somewhere else, and also a more ‘fine art’ definition of the distinction between space and place, where space might be universal, and place that e.g. site-specific art or environmental architecture deals with more specifically –– the idea that every location on earth is different from the next one, either culturally, or topographically, or physically. I’m interested in all of these, and it’s quite a dynamic thing I guess.

IL: What kind of relationship does Sinofuturism have with this burgeoning notion of techno-orientalism, of ‘the East’ as this huge technological and financial giant that will take over the world and how that view is another way of ‘othering’ East Asia? Do you think Sinofuturism in a way perpetuates this view, or does it subvert it?

LL: I mean, I don’t know. Let’s take the statement, “Chinese people are good at maths.” Because actually, in Singapore, I was not particularly good at maths, but when I came to London, I was a freaking maths genius, right? Why is that? It is unmistakeable to say that even though technology came late to Asia, they took it up so readily. Why is that? For example, what happened in Japan on the manufacturing side because of American investment after the Second World War, and investment in Korea after the Korean War. You could say a lot of it has to do with the multinational company influence that bleeds into local education and skillsets and visas to study overseas. The problem with any stereotype is there’s a lot of truth in it. I’m a Chinese guy making video games as art, what is nerdier than that? There’s definitely a true point in that, and whether I’m subverting or perpetuating these myths is not for me to say.

What’s important for me with Sinofuturism is simply that nothing about it existed before. What I’ve seen, in Asia as well, is this increased interest in learning about culture and the humanities, as opposed to sciences and professions over the years. And that means many more art institutions — I mean you get NYU in China, Yale in Singapore. And of course the academics who are a part of these institutions, with the best possible intentions, also can teach views of Asia –– they don’t want to, but what happens is they end up reflecting back Asia, to Asians, through the eyes of someone not from Asia. And of course, that’s always been the case. I mean, even if we go back to Orientalism in the 20th century –– that became hugely unfashionable of course, but if you look at early chinoiserie stuff in Paris or whatever, there really were these people who were just interested in Asia because it was different, and of course that became this ethnic othering, exoticism kind of thing and took on negative connotations. But at the end of the day it’s like, I like listening to music from Marley for example, because it’s interesting and a human made it and I like listening to it, what’s the bloody problem with that?

So on the first level of orientalizing, it is quite simply you are interested in a different culture, nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Then on the next level, which of course Americans especially are particularly militant about, is cultural appropriation. Like, don’t make chow mein because it’s not real Chinese food for example. I cook pasta and I’m not Italian, who cares? So what? But of course it’s more to do with the exploitation of minorities who might not see the benefit of what you’re doing, which I agree with. In principle though, there’s nothing wrong with appropriating cultures, because that’s what culture is. It moves and mixes around. But again I also feel that it gets more problematic when we talk about –– let’s be kind of left wing about it and say, ethnic minorities in the arts, or black actors who’ve won Oscars, this kind of conversation. One way of framing it is: there are no Chinese artists in American museums because of racial discrimination. Then there’s another way of framing it, there are no Chinese artists in American museums because their work is shit and derivative. There’s also another way, there’s just not very many [Chinese artists]. And I do kind of feel that it’s all kind of true and valid.

But anyway, I feel that what’s been nice is that Sinofuturism, for all its problematic hypotheses or whatever, a lot of people have been interested in it from many points of view. To a Western audience, it’s interesting from a philosophical point of view. But I think to a Chinese audience it’s actually quite genuine, because everything I’m saying there is true and it also rings bells of “Why hasn’t this been said before?”, which is kind of strange. But it’s also to do with a cultural stereotype, which is passivity and [is] very hugely dominant. Not just in the context of orientalizing, where a beautiful Chinese lady is passive or whatever, but it is also slightly true in the sense of “don’t stir up trouble.” So I think in the future, there will be even more scope for artists and writers with different points of view and I think that’s only a good thing. For example, a generation older, you have people of Chinese descent, let’s say, who have done interesting stuff that has been recognized in the West. But if I were to look at that interesting shit that has been recognized in the West — it’s so fucking limited, it’s unbelievably limited.

IL: There’s like, Ang Lee, and that’s it.

LL: Exactly! The problem is, when any culture has just a few stars in any field, they tend to dominate so hugely, which is completely a double-edged sword, right? I also think the role of like, Jackie Chan, and Bruce Lee for those a little younger than my parents’ generation –– people [would] just go up to you in the street and karate chop you. I guess this is the issue with not only representation in popular media and especially in America, it’s also to do with visibility and cultural visibility. The difference with like, the African American community is because their particular employment niche for stars is basically sports and music, so they’re highly visible. It creates this crazy contrast between the perception of the multi-billionaire Kanye Wests and the Boyz n the Hood kind of thing. 

I think the difference for Asians is about visibility in the arts for doing something other than being like, a token actor in something, or something so niche. But America is a particular case of that, where I feel like I’ve never been identified as a ‘Chinese artist’, thank God probably, you know? Just as someone who makes stuff, sometimes in Chinese. But maybe it’s also to do with the generational thing, that if I was like 15 years older, I would definitely be a ‘Chinese artist,’ or an ‘artist of Chinese descent’ or whatever. Which I am but it’s never highlighted, because of course if you saw my work in those terms, it would be different. I guess it might also have to do with the more liberal culture of the UK or London. If you don’t want to identify yourself as xyz, it’s not forced on you—I imagine it would be quite different in the States, because of the notion of visibility. Visibility is about like, whitewashing of Asian stuff, or Jung Chang or Tiger Mom that kind of book. It’s so insane to me. Like are you fucking kidding that that’s the discussion, the model minority thing and all this shit, like it’s interesting but it’s nothing –– do you know what I mean?

IL: It’s very one-dimensional, like it’s all we ever talk about.

LL: Exactly. It’s kind of like –– I can even in the smallest way imagine how one-dimensional it is to be African-American, like Jesus Christ. It’s a really different situation.

IL: Why do you think this kind of discourse has a relatively smaller presence in the UK? Because if you compare the US and UK, they both market themselves as ‘multicultural’ nations with ‘diversity’ and so forth — why has this discourse around ethnic discrimination and representation risen so much in the US and not as much where you are?

LL: Well, I mean, again I think it’s super complex. But I think from my limited understanding, it seems that the history of ethnic discrimination in the USA hasn’t been solved. Far from it, especially today. But also its very foundation, basically –– you can’t really say this without sounding like a left-wing spokesperson –– but its very foundation is horrifically unfair, whether it’s for native populations or to do with slavery, which of course the UK is totally complicit in. It seems that America has always struggled with this idea of supremacy and kind of like, ethical innocence, and white guilt, and all these terms that are very specific to America. And of course, the more ethnic minorities or cultures become aware of it –– you know, classic Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment camps, Native American reservations, all of these things –– it kind of all just feels insanely unfair.

I read this quite nice description by this British political writer called Will Hudson, and he framed it quite well. He said that the core belief of America is justice, in the sense that “okay, you shoot me, and I’m gonna shoot your kid, because that’s justice” and that’s kind of exactly what gun laws are based on. So the American core values are based on justice, and retribution, right? It’s very Biblical, eye for an eye. In the British system, the belief is less about justice and more about fairness –– this is kind of what he described it as. For example, you might say that the British belief is like, “You took this away from me, but I don’t need exactly the same thing from you, but we should compromise and find some kind of solution to it.” So it’s kind of more like soft power, which on one hand is highly manipulative and lets them control colonies not just by military force. The British way of control is not by military force but by wanting the elite of a foreign country to be British. So this is exactly what happened in India, Malaysia, Singapore —  you just have English-speaking schools where the elite indigenous people go, and they grow up wanting to play golf and cricket or whatever, and then tada, you don’t even have to do anything –– it’s just the ultimate consolidating power.

Whereas the American system is like, fuckin’ throw them in jail or hang them. The difference is that the British evolved their notion of power from a force-based military, because it’s a small island, to a more manipulative but, you could say, fairer system. America just has much greater resources in comparison to do what it wants, unfortunately for some, especially nowadays. And it’s also interesting with these two things in mind, to question how China will exercise its power. Because a lot of it is to do with internal stability, which is obviously since Confucian times been the most important thing. Otherwise, literally millions of people die, so that’s fair enough.

IL: Going back to what you said earlier about this notion of passivity in Chinese culture, how do you think this notion of ‘victimhood’ as part of the modern day Chinese narrative figures in with Sinofuturism? Is Sinofuturism built off this narrative of Chinese people previously as victims?

LL: At the end of Sinofuturism, I kind of say that the thing about Sinofuturism is nothing to do with guilt or victimhood or being a manifesto. It’s to recognize that these aspects of Chinese culture are what allow this organism –– which we might call an AI or which we might call Sinofuturism –– to exist and persist and basically survive. I feel that the strongest motivation –– I’m generalizing here –– but the strongest motivation for Chinese culture/civilisation is not for it to prosper or stand out or achieve fulfillment in whatever. The main motivation is survival. It’s really as basic as that. Because I feel in places where survival is taken for granted, in tropical countries, survival is taken for granted because you’re hungry, there’s a mango, you eat it, you’re fine. I mean, I really do feel that that is a model for life. In the West, the idea of survival is taken for granted because of social safeguards, and quite sophisticated social welfare and things like that, even in America.

Whereas in China I feel it’s much more to do with survival, because life has been threatened so much more. I think that’s the main motivating factor. What’s interesting, if we think of the concept of “survival of the fittest”, is this kind of self-driven narrative. It’s survival of the fittest so you just have to kill the other monkey or whatever, and then you survive. Whereas the Chinese one it’s like, you can kind of run away and as long as you don’t stick your head out, you’ll also survive. So it’s another model. And both work, at the same time. But I think as this idea of Chinese passivity –– as people are exposed and just want to make a name for themselves, quite simply, this will definitely change. And I also feel it’s a generational thing, where it’s just part of millennial culture. Everybody wants to be an individual and be like a free-floating butterfly and that kind of thing. And there’s also [a sense of] “I want to escape from responsibility.” Every generation wants to have greater freedoms than they think their parents or grandparents had. I think that’s natural as well. And I’m not saying anything new but I think that’s also emphasized more with a kind of one-child generation, single child generation.

IL: Moving onto a different piece of your work, in Unreal Estate, you created an alternative version of the Royal Academy where its fate had fallen into the hands of a Chinese billionaire. Why specifically a Chinese billionaire, and do you envision China itself leading a ‘new world order’ in the future whether that’s technologically, economically, or politically?

LL: As a Londoner, since I’ve been here –– even in popular media, let’s say, 10-15 years ago –– there was this ‘rich foreigner’ who changed his identity. So people from the Middle East for example, rich Arabs with their ‘dirty oil money’ would come and buy whatever, and then it became like, dirty Russians. Roman Abramovich comes here and bloody buys Chelsea Football Club, and then people from the Emirates come and buy our football clubs. It’s kind of a play on that, and you see in the Evening Standard and whatever newspapers that Chinese come and buy all the penthouses in London, pushing up property prices, etc. So I thought, what’s a way to comment on that kind of social othering? But also, at the same time I thought as a relatively poor Chinese artist or person in London, there’s an element of critique to it obviously with that — the idea that everything, including art, is for sale. And at the same time, this idea of fantasy where it’s like, I would love to live there. Like, it would actually be awesome if that was your house, like wouldn’t that be crazy? 

So there’s both this complete fantasy, like what I would genuinely want, and what would also be a bit of a nightmare for London as a whole. Also in the voiceover, which was taken from Tatler magazine and actually just translated into Mandarin — the things that are being said are kind of insane from a certain perspective. Like, “be careful when you hire your servant, have a butler,” that kind of stuff. But at the same time, they’re still incredibly genuine, because it is genuinely good advice from one billionaire to another if their friend just had bought this mansion. So that’s the crazy thing –– it’s both completely surreal, and completely genuine at the same time. I kind of like that combination.

IL: Going back to Sinofuturism, what place, if any, do ethnic minorities in China have in this narrative of Chinese people?

LL: There’s one point of view, where let’s say I made a video called US-futurism or whatever, and it was all focused on 25 Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and their assistants in California churning out pristine products. Then it would be problematic because it’d be like, “what about the American car industry, or what about the ethnic minorities who pick oranges for orange juice,” stuff like that. In terms of my model for the futurism part of Sinofuturism, the culture of China is to do with what I’m more familiar with, which is the South, and in particular coastal cities. 

The crazy thing is that the kind of interface of China with the West is on the East side of China, simply because of the ports and Opium War blah blah blah, the maritime side. And it’s to do with the sides of China that have been industrialized because of this exchange, whereas to the best of my knowledge, the ethnic minorities in China have been those on the Northern borders, Mongolia, the Hui in Xinjiang, and those towards the Southwest in Guangxi and stuff like that, where they’re not just isolated geographically, but they’re also isolated industrially as well, because there is relatively little industrial –– and of course Tibet too –– because most of the industrialization, and I’m talking about the modernised industrialization as opposed to heavy industry which has kind of spread around, but the modern industrialization which is centered along the coast. I don’t know enough about how ethnic minorities in China are treated. I know they have special autonomous regions and there’s obviously a lot of problems that I’ve read to do with like, not whitewashing, but let’s say Han-washing Tibet, replacing populations. Of course that creates problems with Uyghur nationalists and stuff like that, but I don’t know enough about that to say much about it.

The Chinese situation maybe has more in common with Russia and its former Soviet countries that it likes bullying basically, and the many ethnic minorities that live within Russia as well. So the Chinese situation is more to do with how China has expanded over the centuries, kind of like Russia, taking over these places and then retreating, and then having bits of other countries inside themselves. It has more to do with the Russia thing than with America, because America is more to do with lots of people from different places or who were there first, who live in what’s now America. 

But with China it’s more: the heart of China is this and then it expanded, and that’s where all the problems lie. Whereas America has grown to be a massive thing, and now it’s distributed in a different way. For example, obviously there’s the Dakota Pipeline, but there’s reservations all over America scattered around, but in the Chinese sense they kind of basically keep the minorities in the same place. I don’t know what the legal restrictions are to their movement, but I’m sure they’re not free to move anywhere they choose. But I think it’s definitely an interesting and different problem. What do you think, do you know more about it?

IL: I know as much as you do, but I just question whether China can continue exist as all these regions it encompasses, and I’ve read about how China has brutally invaded Tibet and the southern parts of China in the course of its empire, and nobody in China that I know of really talks about that. There’s this narrative of ‘peace’ and ‘the five principles of peaceful coexistence’ or whatever and it often feels like the Chinese government tries to brush a lot of its own imperialism under the rug.

LL: No totally, and how closely that imperialism just morphed into like, communist imperialism and so on. I might be wrong, but there was a Republican revolution yet I don’t imagine that much really changed. Because maybe it can’t — for example, let’s say in the UK there was a civil war and stuff like that, but it’s more of a gradual shift of power away from one side to another, it’s not like the French Revolution where it was a huge break with the past and they just killed everyone. It was more gradual transition and not as traumatic as in China or in Russia, and also maybe the scale of paranoia in early leaders wasn’t as bad [in the UK]. But I don’t know, like, I also imagine just an economic map China is very unequal, so I guess the desire for autonomy from certain places –– like Quebec in Canada, of course they want to be autonomous, they’re wealthy. Whereas with Xinjiang, it’s like, what are they going to do? Or like Scotland right, it’s wealthy now but really?

IL: Now that you’ve mentioned communism, do you see communism as fitting into Sinofuturism in any way? Do you think it’s another indicator of Sinofuturism? Because I’ve read a lot about how communism, like true communism, is sort of the ultimate end goal of this age of automation and AI and everything.

LL: There’s a lot of accelerationism which talks about emancipation from labor, basically. From what I understand, Engels-and-Marx-style communism is based on a kind of emancipation of the proletariat, from the terrible bourgeoisie. So the next stage is like, we can think of automation as the way to liberate humanity from the drudgery of work altogether, and live with a universal basic income, happy lives of tomato farming or whatever we so choose.

The really interesting thing is, say, if you were to ask what politics Futurism subscribes to. For example, if I were to say, “communism believes in the absolute equality of every individual and the eradication of property distinctions between them, irrespective of whether someone’s an absolute genius or just the laziest whatever in the world, totally divorced from actual active input.” So let’s say the politics is based on the principle that full equality is number one. The politics of Sinofuturism, if there was one, I think is much messier because it involves the belief that technology will liberate –– actually no, it won’t liberate you from anything –– Sinofuturism isn’t about liberation, it’s simply that your life will improve, and you will survive. So I don’t think it’s incompatible with capitalism or neoliberalism or late communism. It’s more of a cultural theory on how the very patterns which allow you to survive –– literally survive and eat and travel and so on –– should be seen not just as inherited traits or genetic stereotypes, but as something you can develop or challenge, whatever that means for you.

It’s also about taking things that are very culturally inherent and completely strong, and thinking about which of them are just inherited and no longer useful, for example your appendix or whatever –– like communism, right? Like many political theories, it’s beautiful in intention and in theory, but because it has to be executed by individuals, it’s hugely flawed –– because people are not all the same, they should have equal rights but not equal rewards. For example in terms of left-wingness in the UK, I find it really problematic as well. You see all of this Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party in disarray and it’s exactly the kind of case where they might have very strong values and they go down to coal mines and they cut trees down or whatever, but their work is just like everyone else’s. The paradox of human existence is that when people work really hard, you dream of like a free life where you’re just eating strawberries, but in reality when it happens it’s difficult.

IL: When you talk about embracing cultural stereotypes, or pushing them further, do you think doing that — as opposed to counteracting them — is a more effective means of deconstructing them or kind of diminishing their power?

LL: Let’s say with any phenomenon — okay wait let’s get philosophical here. Let’s say you have a thing. The Hegelian way of dealing with anything is you have a thesis, so let’s say “Chinese love gambling,” right? And artistically I’m going to make a film about Chinese people gambling. The antithesis is this kind of hubris thing, “Chinese people love gambling because they think they’re going to win the world but actually they lose everything and then they die.” And then the synthesis, which is like the finale where “They lose these things but they realize that life is actually more than gambling”, for example. So you could deal with this cultural stereotype of gambling by tackling it head-on. The most extreme example would be, I’m going to make an Adam Curtis-style documentary about the gambling problem in China, and I’m going to be straightforward about it. You might term that the most one-dimensional embrace of that way of thinking.

Or you could think like, how can I get away from that? What’s the farthest I can get away from that? So you might make a work about like, working really hard at doing something and taking no element of chance left aside. You know the Tehching Hsieh Time Clock thing? He’s a Taiwanese performance artist who did this performance where every hour, he punched a clock. It’s an amazing performance, but that’s basically the epitome of a [Sino] person working insanely hard at doing something all the time. It’s kind of like a work that has no element of chance in it, no element of fate or gambling. On one hand, you can do the most random playful thing, let’s say not even a film about gambling, but that I got a £10,000 grant and I’m going to spend all of it at the casino. On the other hand, I’m going to do this performance piece where I am literally working so hard for one year and proving it. They’re not a million miles away from each other, if that makes sense. And I think with a lot of these cultural patterns, not even stereotypes, like gamble, work hard, they actually go perfectly together.

For example, the idea of studying and working –– they’re kind of like total opposites at the same time, right? The more you work, the better you can do your particular job. The more you study, the more you can change the nature of the job that you do. So the paradox is, you can study what you’re working –– so like, “I’m a Chinese brush painter and I’m going to study the old masters” –– and you can also work really hard at studying. So they’re all very closely related and linked together. And I think depending on your own personality, people tend to prefer following patterns in order to gain their freedom, and some people like leaving all that stuff to one side, and then reintegrating into the society. Either they burn their bridges first and then they find their own way, or they find their own freedom through particular systems, and both work.

Maybe another thing that’s interesting with this post-automation communist thing is the notion that you can’t escape because the world is changing, and the climate is changing, for the worse probably, the nature of automation and artificial intelligence is also going to totally revolutionize both human knowledge-based work and service sector work as well as mechanical work. So the question is, what are you going to do? Not in this conspiracy theory way, but in a really tangible way. Can everyone really be a creative worker and write things for a living, is that feasible? Maybe it is.

But from a cultural perspective, these things are certainly happening. From an artistic perspective what’s interesting is when these things do happen, are we just going to replicate the same kind of work, or the same kind of thinking that people have done before us? Because for our generation, we’ve learnt more and communicated more. I probably have more tertiary education than the last 6 generations of my actual family, which is insane right? But knowing this, what is possible?

Let’s say for someone who has dedicated their life to studying or being involved in arts and culture –– there’s one way of saying it, where the kind of self-doubt involved can be: “Why am I not being a dentist and being of use to society”, right? “Why don’t I have a real job?” That kind of question, which is very valid. “Is what you’re doing of use?” Then there’s another way of thinking: Of course what I’m doing is of use, because culture will only be of more importance in the years to come, and that will give us our sense of self-worth or whatever.

And then there’s also the notion that probably your great-great-great-great grandparents would think it’s quite cool if you’re like studying in the UK and you have freedom. It’s also this notion of time, which is very different and of course it’s a very traditional ancestral thing to think about –– your family but also the people who came before you. But I feel that it’s like how religion gave way to science –– when that happened, individuals and society lost a lot of psychological support networks that they used have like the promise of an afterlife and all this shit about how heaven is great.

IL: That cushion.

LL: Yeah exactly, that cushion right? In the same way I also feel that modernity and industrialisation and blah blah blah in China will also have big repercussions on those psychological safety nets that I guess Chinese culture has depended on for so long. The family in many ways provides psychological support for the individual in Chinese culture. So as that gets eroded, or changes because of smaller families and technological changes, I think there’s a different set of things that Chinese artists will respond to subconsciously. But the way in which that will turn out, nobody knows yet.

[aion-rsa]

Spider-Man: Far From Home – Who is Mysterio?

http://bit.ly/2Ddqw3E

Jake Gyllenhaal's supervillain (or is he?) is revealed in the new trailer for the Spidey sequel. Here's everything you need to know

facebook

twitter

google+

tumblr

Feature

Books

Richard Jordan

Marvel

May 6, 2019

Spider-Man

Spider-Man: Far From Home

This article comes from Den of Geek UK.

So, the latest Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer gives us a much closer look at Jake Gyllenhall’s Mysterio. And while he seems to be playing a friend to Tom Holland’s Peter Parker (“He’s like Iron Man and Thor rolled into one!” his classmates enthuse), we’re not quite sold – Mysterio’s comic-book background suggests he’ll wind up being much more of a foe.

Quentin Beck, aka Mysterio, is one of Spider-Man’s oldest and most iconic arch-enemies. He’s a Hollywood stuntman and FX technician who becomes disillusioned with the industry, and so decides to put his skills to good use as a supervillain instead. The latest trailer instead reveals Mysterio as someone from a parallel Earth, working with SHIELD to deal with weird elemental menaces. It's probably a front.

Ahead of the release of Spider-Man: Far From Home this summer, here’s everything you need to know about the sequel’s most prominent new character: from his comic-book origins and villainous pursuits to his previous flirtations with the big screen and how he could fit into this particular Spiderverse.

Mysterio and Spidey go way back

Ol’ fishbowl made his first appearance in 1964’s The Amazing Spider-Man #13 in a story called “The Menace Of Mysterio”. Much like our fleeting glimpse of Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio in the Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer, Beck introduces himself as a hero. After framing Spidey for a spate of robberies – and even convincing Peter Parker himself that he might have developed a subconscious dark side – Mysterio vows to take down the webslinger on behalf of New York City. It’s not long before he’s revealed as the real villain, though, kickstarting a long-running conflict between the two. Basically, Mysterio is not one to be trusted.

He’s got a few tricks up his sleeve

Beck might not be gifted in the superpowered sense, but that hasn’t stopped him from throwing down with Spidey and other heroes over the years. His stage combat training makes him a skilled fighter, while his background in special effects and illusions helped him to engineer an innovative (and natty looking) super-suit, concealing tech such as holographic projectors, sonar tracking and hallucinogenic chemical weapons. Oh, and he does a mean (in both senses of the word) sideline in hypnosis, too. You don’t want this guy messing with your mind...

He’s no stranger to nefarious schemes

Don’t trust Gyllenhaal’s nice-guy act in the trailers, which sees him siding with Spidey to take on the monstrous Elementals. In the comics, Mysterio has hatched more than a few evil plots – most of which involve using illusions and mental trickery to manipulate and try to kill Spider-Man. He was a founding member of supervillain team the Sinister Six, and even had a major run-in with Daredevil (in Kevin Smith’s “Guardian Devil” arc) in which he played a key role in the death of Karen Page. Don’t be surprised if Spider-Man: Far From Home’s fantastic beasts have a lot to do with Beck’s scheming.

He’s nearly been on the big screen already

If Sam Raimi had had his way (and Spider-Man 3 hadn’t spiralled into the big-budget mess that stalled his Spidey franchise), it’s likely that Mysterio would have been one of the antagonists – alongside the Vulture – in the ultimately abandoned Spider-Man 4. It’s no secret that Raimi was a big fan of the Silver Age Spidey villains – hence his sympathetic takes on the likes of Green Goblin, Doc Ock and Sandman, and his...well, the less said about Venom the better.

Illustrator Jeffrey Henderson unveiled Mysterio’s planned involvement through some beautiful early concept art, while it was heavily rumored that Raimi favourite Bruce Campbell (who had cameoed in each of the previous installments, and that concept art would seem to indicate this was indeed the case) would wear the fishbowl helmet in the film. “It would’ve been one absolutely kick-ass movie,” Henderson revealed. “We all really wanted to help Sam take Spider-Man 4 to another level so he could end the series on a high note.”

He’s a perfect fit for this Spiderverse

Thematically, Beck as a villain fits comfortably within the world of Holland’s Spidey and the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe, in which Earth-bound threats are escalating just as fast as those from outer space. Take Michael Keaton’s Vulture, the main antagonist in Spider-Man: Homecoming – a hard-working average Joe who’s fallen on hard times and adopts fantastical technology to enact revenge against a society that idolises the Avengers. It seems like Spider-Man: Far From Home could see Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio build on this concept and take it to the next level.

Spider-Man: Far From Home opens on July 2, 2019. The full schedule of upcoming Marvel movies can be found here.

from Books http://bit.ly/2Md5OUG

[aion-rsa]

Spider-Man: Far From Home – Who is Mysterio?

http://bit.ly/2Ddqw3E

Jake Gyllenhaal's supervillain (or is he?) is revealed in the new trailer for the Spidey sequel. Here's everything you need to know

facebook

twitter

google+

tumblr

Feature

Books

Richard Jordan

Marvel

Jan 16, 2019

Spider-Man

Spider-Man: Far From Home

This article comes from Den of Geek UK.

So, the Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer has arrived, finally giving us our first proper look at Jake Gyllenhall’s Mysterio. And while he seems to be playing a friend to Tom Holland’s Peter Parker (“He’s like Iron Man and Thor rolled into one!” his classmates enthuse), we’re not quite sold – Mysterio’s comic-book background suggests he’ll wind up being much more of a foe.

Quentin Beck, aka Mysterio, is one of Spider-Man’s oldest and most iconic arch-enemies. He’s a Hollywood stuntman and FX technician who becomes disillusioned with the industry, and so decides to put his skills to good use as a supervillain instead.

Ahead of the release of Spider-Man: Far From Home this summer, here’s everything you need to know about the sequel’s most prominent new character: from his comic-book origins and villainous pursuits to his previous flirtations with the big screen and how he could fit into this particular Spiderverse.

He and Spidey go way back

Ol’ fishbowl made his first appearance in 1964’s The Amazing Spider-Man #13 in a story called “The Menace Of Mysterio”. Much like our fleeting glimpse of Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio in the Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer, Beck introduces himself as a hero. After framing Spidey for a spate of robberies – and even convincing Peter Parker himself that he might have developed a subconscious dark side – Mysterio vows to take down the webslinger on behalf of New York City. It’s not long before he’s revealed as the real villain, though, kickstarting a long-running conflict between the two. Basically, Mysterio is not one to be trusted.

He’s got a few tricks up his sleeve

Beck might not be gifted in the superpowered sense, but that hasn’t stopped him from throwing down with Spidey and other heroes over the years. His stage combat training makes him a skilled fighter, while his background in special effects and illusions helped him to engineer an innovative (and natty looking) super-suit, concealing tech such as holographic projectors, sonar tracking and hallucinogenic chemical weapons. Oh, and he does a mean (in both senses of the word) sideline in hypnosis, too. You don’t want this guy messing with your mind...

He’s no stranger to nefarious schemes

Don’t trust Gyllenhaal’s nice-guy act in the trailer, which sees him siding with Spidey to take on the monstrous Elementals. In the comics, Mysterio has hatched more than a few evil plots – most of which involve using illusions and mental trickery to manipulate and try to kill Spider-Man. He was a founding member of supervillain team the Sinister Six, and even had a major run-in with Daredevil (in Kevin Smith’s “Guardian Devil” arc) in which he played a key role in the death of Karen Page. Don’t be surprised if Spider-Man: Far From Home’s fantastic beasts have a lot to do with Beck’s scheming.

He’s nearly been on the big screen already

If Sam Raimi had had his way (and Spider-Man 3 hadn’t spiralled into the big-budget mess that stalled his Spidey franchise), it’s likely that Mysterio would have been one of the antagonists – alongside the Vulture – in the ultimately abandoned Spider-Man 4. It’s no secret that Raimi was a big fan of the Silver Age Spidey villains – hence his sympathetic takes on the likes of Green Goblin, Doc Ock and Sandman, and his...well, the less said about Venom the better.

Illustrator Jeffrey Henderson unveiled Mysterio’s planned involvement through some beautiful early concept art, while it was heavily rumored that Raimi favourite Bruce Campbell (who had cameoed in each of the previous installments, and that concept art would seem to indicate this was indeed the case) would wear the fishbowl helmet in the film. “It would’ve been one absolutely kick-ass movie,” Henderson revealed. “We all really wanted to help Sam take Spider-Man 4 to another level so he could end the series on a high note.”

He’s a perfect fit for this Spiderverse

Thematically, Beck as a villain fits comfortably within the world of Holland’s Spidey and the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe, in which Earth-bound threats are escalating just as fast as those from outer space. Take Michael Keaton’s Vulture, the main antagonist in Spider-Man: Homecoming – a hard-working average Joe who’s fallen on hard times and adopts fantastical technology to enact revenge against a society that idolises the Avengers. It seems like Spider-Man: Far From Home could see Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio build on this concept and take it to the next level.

Spider-Man: Far From Home opens on July 5, 2019. The full schedule of upcoming Marvel movies can be found here.

from Books http://bit.ly/2Md5OUG