#i'm pretty particular about how i like seeing gods depicted in fantasy. and they just nailed it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

probablyevilrpgideas · 3 years

Text

The Vasharan- cartoonish villains, made better

"Vasharans as written suck. But they co-

*drop kicks Maxwell Lord*

"SHUT THE FUCK UP"

Anyway.

So, in the 3e Book of Vile Darkness, the Vasharan were introduced as an example of an evil race of humans (well, culture. But they say race, because... *sigh* D&D), akin to how the drow are evil elves, derro are evil dwarves, and so on. And they have a compelling concept-

But it turns into a really shitty, cartoonish idea of "vile evil" really quickly. Which honestly is a constant problem with this book and what keeps me from actually loving it. There's some cool stuff in the Book of Vile Darkness, but then almost everything becomes this really weird, immature depiction of evil that you would see in, like, if Frank Miller tried to write "heinous despicable fantasy evil."

Basically, the vasharan as depicted in the book as "born out of rape, anger and pain" and "(loving) to kill and maim." It says they don't understand "concepts such as mercy, kindness, or love--not even towards each other." It says these concepts are completely alien to them they rarely think to use them as leverage with others. And then throws in some stuff about them not having typical societal taboos-- they don't have any taboos against incest or rape, no aversion to filth or gore, and "have no distaste for creatures such as insects, serpents and worms."

Which... as I write this, I'm just thinking about an internet friendly acquaintance of mine who keeps leeches as pets. And like, not to mention that people keeping snakes and insects as pets is a thing. Pet snakes are just, like, a thing. You can get them at Petsmart. Pet hissing cockroaches are unusual, but not unheard of, and even people that think keeping a six inch long "beetle that shares a name with that thing we see in kitchens and associate with filth" is weird will often see keeping mantises as pets to be unusual but innocuous.

And I'm just realizing a whole new level of this book's, like, cultural egocentrism?

Anyway, they're humans, and the book ....gets points? For not portraying them as a single specific skin tone. They live on a particular remote, isolationist plateau which, like Thymiscera in DC, has an array of skin tones among their one race. Which always confuses me with Thymiscera, but I approve even if it makes the science side of my brain say "wait, what?" I guess in the vasharans' case that tone diversity probably comes from them capturing and keeping slaves and... being what the book has already said that I don't want to repeat.

Although I do want to point out one thing in Vasharan lands that I'll just quote-

"A council of elders elected through democratic means rules Vashar--the Vasharans would never abide a despot and would all die before submitting to tyranny."

But they keep slaves.

I guess they still have cognitive dissonance.

Anyway.

So, what's the point of all this? They seem like a pretty shitty write culture, right?

Well... Ok, I'm a Satanist. You drop something about fantasy adventurers killing gods in my lap, and I'm already breathing heavy. Add in that they lack common societal taboos, and I'm nearly there.

I find something promising in the concept behind the Vasharans. I prefer to leave the whole R-thing on the table, because... there's evil, because you deal with demons and create undead, and want to kill Pelor for not doing things right, there's being a bit too willing to kill to get things done (hi, virtually all D&D adventurers!) and then there's malevolence and violation of one's person. My evil characters might shoot an NPC in the head because they're in the way and I'm having a bad day. They might torture an enemy as a way to punish someone truly reprehensible. But my evil characters respect consent. Weird line to draw, but I do.

Re-writing the Vasharans

So what do we do with the Vasharans? Oh, an aside--I don't quite have a good handle on how Vashar, Vasharan and Vasharans gets used. Generally, I see Vashar as the name of the culture, and it looks like WotC uses it as the name of their home plateau, vasharan as the word for an individual of it, and then vasharans as the plural of that. Like Germany/German/Germans. But I know I don't always get this right in my own writing. So bare with me if you get confused, because, honestly, I'm a bit confused.

So what do we do with the Vasharans?

Well, I think the whole "wanting to kill the gods" thing is the big hook you want to hold onto, but it can be done better, and it has. On a forum I post on, a fellow poster responded to my question about how to do the vasharans and evil cultures better with... a lot of stuff, but he really improved on the origin myth-

The First Man If he had a name, it was Man. He needed no other because there were no others of his kind. The gods made him to serve them and he did so without question for thirty times three-hundred years. He loved his creators. He toiled at their command. He venerated them every waking moment. He even worshiped them in his dreams. Their whims were the beginning and end of his world and he was happy, at first. Over time the First Man grew lonely. The gods had each other for companionship. The animals had companions. Even the demons in the Abyss had companions. Yet he was all alone. And so it came to pass in the First Man asked the gods to give him a companion. The Wise One heard his plea said that the gods should create a Woman in the image of the goddesses. But the other gods were filled with rage and would not hear him. "Are we not good enough for you?" they asked their Man. "Don't you love us?" "Is our infinite grace insufficient for you?" Cowed, the First Man fell to his knees and professed his love to his creators. "You are more than enough" he said. "You're are all I'll ever need." In his heart he felt sadness. He didn't understand the emotion then, for he had never felt it before, but it would grow. For thirty times three-hundred years he toiled for the gods. He venerated them. He worshipped them. But every day the sadness grew in his heart. Vasha One day, while tending the fields of ambrosia that stretched from shore-to-shore in the before-age as was his duty, the Man found a woman. By the standard of Second Men, she was ugly beyond imagining. To simply look upon the Obyrith would shatter the soul of a lesser being, but the First Man was more perfect than the imitations that came after him. Rather than being repulsed by the demon as an inferior man would be, he felt compassion. "I am Vasha," she said. "I have been overthrown by my evil slaves and cast up into the harsh light of the gods. Now I shall surely die." Her wounds were great and her poison life-blood spilled out into the ground. It withered the divine crops and created a dead-zone where nothing would ever grow again. The Man knew that she would die if he did not save her. He also knew that the gods would want her to die. Her very existence was anathema to them and she undid their works simply be being.He knew this, and he acted. For the first time in his long life he called upon the gods power to serve his will alone and her wounds were healed. The gods knew immediately. "Slay her," they commanded him. "She is evil. She will bring ruin to all of our works." He refused. They raged. "Slay her." "No." "Slay her." "No." "Slay her." "Never." The gods tried to smite the First Man, but Vasha hid him in the dark places where they cannot see. As the gods rage above them, they grew to love each other. For three years the gods unleashed their fury upon the Earth and for three years the two loved each other in their hiding place. The Wise One intervened and calmed his siblings and they returned to Heaven unsatisfied. The First Man remained in hiding for another three years and when he came out he carried three horns. " I repent! he cried. I have slain Vashar and brought her horns as tribute. Please forgive me." "See," the Wise One said to his brothers. "I told you that he'd come back." The gods accepted the demon's horns and forgave their wayward creation, but they made him suffer a terrible penance. The gods agonized him for three years and three years more before they allowed him to return to his duties. He served the gods faithfully for another thirty-three years and then disappeared. "Where did he go?" the gods asked. "Where is our Man?" "Demons are vile things," The Wise One said, "but they understand revenge. One of her kin must have unmade him in anger." The other gods saw the wisdom in his words and agreed. Then The Wise One went to stoke the Divine Fire, lest his siblings see that an Ember was missing, while the other gods went back to their bickering. Eventually the gods forgot about the Man, all but The Wise One who saw the Man

steal the Ember but was wise enough to keep his mouth shut. The City That Was The First Man used the stolen Ember to burn an layer of the Abyss. In the blink of an eye, the Divine Fire reduced infinity to ash. From that ash the First Man and his mutilated demon bride constructed the City That Was. For three-hundred times three-hundred years it was a paradise where no one suffered and all were happy. It couldn't last. The gods discovered their creation's treachery and he could not hide from them. His soul was destroyed and so was his wife. The City was returned to ash. Some of the First Children escaped the destruction and hid, Vasha taught them about the secret places where the gods cannot see. Then the gods decreed that all created things shall die in time and the First Children began to wither in their hiding places.

(--Written by Hyzmarca, the gaming den)

Personally, I prefer to make the first human ...the best term I'm aware of is intersex, but I always feel weird about using it this way, but, yeah. I prefer to say the First Human was not a man. Or a woman. They are were a "whole human." Possessing both male and female characteristics. But otherwise, I use this write up as is. It gives the First Human a reason to turn on the gods, and it gives their children, the Vashar, a reason to carry that hatred onwards.

He goes on to sketch a culture with a philosophy that.. has a slightly "Dark Buddhism" cast to it, they believe that to exist is to suffer, because the gods are dicks. But where Buddhism seeks to end suffering by ending desire, what they see as the cause of suffering, vasharans embrace suffering as a part of the condition of existence (though they still seek to end what they see as the cause of suffering). Their culture practices a huge variety of scarification rituals as a sort of... testament to this idea that existence means suffering and their willingness to embrace that. They believe that through suffering, we are made strong-

(sorry, I had to)

-and that the defining trait of their culture is to endure unjust suffering.

Being that they see suffering as... not necessarily a good thing, but a positive one, at least, they don't practice torture of their enemies, captives, criminals, etc. In fact, someone in Vasharan captivity will be giving every comfort possible, and executions are quick and clean, and as painless as possible, because they see suffering as a privilege.

The one ritual that Hyzmarca elaborated on in his posts is The Scarifice of Vasha, whereby vasharan women gain the distinctive red markings on their scalps they are known for-

(WARNING. THIS SECTION DESCRIBES RITUALISTIC MUTILATION, DONE TO CHILDREN. IT'S NOT MALEVOLENT, BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ IT, SKIP AHEAD TO THE NEXT ALL CAPS LINE)

Vasharan girls are secured into elaborate frames which hold them immobile, so that an ur priest (vasharan clerics who steal magic from the gods rather than praying for it) can peel back her scalp, and carve delicate, incredibly small passages from a series of epic poems of the vasharans into the bone. This can go for several days, during which the child is cared for to ensure she is not permanently harmed, but is left to feel the intense pain. Because suffering makes one strong. Once the inscription is complete, molten gold will be used to fill the carvings and allowed to cool and harden, then the skin is replaced, and a dark red paste which promotes highly visible scars is applied.

(YOU'RE ALL GOOD. DESCRIPTION OF RITUALISTIC SCARIFICATION IS DONE.)

Which seems very extreme, even compared to the various tribal rites of passage we see in the real world that are often used as some kind of colonial shock porn. But, mind you, in D&D, magical healing exists. Hell, magic that tracks a person's vitals and allows people to survive extreme bodily harm exists. So you can go way harder than "woven palm gloves full of bullet ants." And unlike certain real world practices that even people from the regions that practice them are trying to end (which I won't name, but will use the initialism of, FGM), this causes no lasting harm. Admittedly, Because Magic, but it's fantasy, so I think that's fair, whereas even if it were in a fantasy setting the practice I'm not going to name has "permanent lasting harm" as its entire point.

Though the Vashar hate the gods, they are not areligious, instead practicing, essentially, ancestor worship, though I imagine they would balk at the terminology (and come to think of, I would think real people who practice "ancestor worship" would also balk at the term, but I don't know). Vasharan temples are mostly store fronts, selling "ghost goods" which might be anything from symbolic representations of money, to clothes, tools, even sex toys, which are burned in temple fires to transfer a spiritual copy of the item to a vasharan's ancestor inside the Ilkanac, a soul gem which contains vasharan souls keeping them safe from the punishments of the gods. These same fires also allow vasharans to communicate with their ancestors. This communication is charged for, as the ghost goods are sold at cost.

So, that's mostly just stuff I'm sharing, rather than my particular take on Vashar. I did however add some of my own things for the Greyhawk game I'm working on and hope to be running soon (just as soon as my players get their damned characters done... I kid. I don't have an adventure ready yet, so they're good).

Being a queer satanist, I added the idea that, due to being the descendants of the first human (who was created "before the sexes were split) and demons, I decided that vasharans exhibited pretty much every configuration of sexual characteristics, from none at all to all of them, and that gender is nearly a foreign concept to them. They have no gender roles, they treat masculinity and femininity as just aesthetics, and fluidity between them is completely unremarkable. Some vasharans present a solely masculine or feminine aesthetic their whole life, while others might change at some point, or use whichever aesthetic they feel like on a given day or for a given task. And whichever aesthetic they adopt has nothing to do whatever configuration of sexual characteristics they have.

Not only that, but the Vasharan language has absolutely no gendered pronouns. They have terms, honorifics, and pronouns that denote relative statuses- dominant, submissive, subjugated, or equal, and whether the subject is divine, profane, or mortal, and whether the speaker favors, despises or has no particular feeling about the subject, but they have no gendered based pronouns.

Finally, on the subject of sex, gender and sexuality, there is no real "norm" in vasharan sexuality, or perhaps their norm is pansexuality, but only by slight plurality, and their marriages can have any number of participants (even one, though in this case it's mostly a legal artifice).

In the BoVD, it says vasharans absolutely cannot be divine spellcasters, but I don't like that, since there are so many ways to be a divine spellcaster without worshipping a god in D&D. I say they can easily be druids, rangers and shamans, and they can also be cause clerics, championing an idea rather than being devoted to a god. I also want to write up a paladin equivalent for them, but that's for later.

--------------------

D&D has a serious, ongoing problem with portraying real world cultural practices which happen to fall outside of white, christian societal norms (or even just Western norms) as somehow inherently evil, and that's basically all over Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds in 3e. In fact, BoED even goes further to indulge in some serious moral relativism by saying it's evil to use poisons and diseases, but then details special magical ones which only work on evil characters and actually basically work by literally torturing their victims for their evil, and one spell that imprisons the souls of evil targets (soul trapping is also generally considered evil in D&D, so another case of "EXCEPT WHEN WE DO IT"), and then torments the soul for a year before forcible converting their alignment to Good.

Book of Vile Darkness might have a serious problem with saying that being fat, ugly, heavily pierced or tattooed, or even just being into sadomasochism is evil, but at least it doesn't play the moral relativism of BoED.

But ultimately, I consider these books to be better as prompts, giving you some ideas to run off and do your own thing with, and some cool mechanics (like the Sacrifice rules in BoVD). I'm hard pressed to think of such a mechanic in BoED that I like as is, but I suppose there is one spell in it that I do like, if only for the imagery. Both books have their own special category of aligned spells that can be used by any spell caster of the appropriate alignment, Corrupt and Sanctified spells. Both categories require you to pay a cost to use them, which is usually some ability damage. Book of Exalted Deeds has a Sanctified spell called Exalted Fury, which has the Sacrifice cost of "you die." The effect of the spell is that you explode in a 40-foot radius burst of holy power that deals damage to evil creatures in the area (in 3e, literally any creature of evil alignment) equal to your current hp+50. I really want to play an epic level paladin with this spell at the ready some day (paladin for the d10 hit die, and it would have to be epic level because it's a 9th level spell, and a paladin would need to take the epic feat Increased Spell Capacity five times to get 9th level spells).

#Dungeons and Dragons #Book of Vile Darkness #Vasharan #Taking WotC's ideas and doing my own thing with them to make them better #CW: mention of rape #CW: mention of extreme body modification

24 notes · View notes

revchainsaw · 3 years

Text

Stargate (1994)

Welcome to the Cult Film Tent Revival my freaky fanatics, prepare yourselves to take the sacrament from across the stars, as we engage in the miraculous works of one of our most beloved Cult Saints, Saint Kurt. Coming to us from the golden age of Sci-fi Adventures, when Hollywood would dump the big bucks into a film so out of this world, we are partaking this evening of 1994's Stargate!

The Message

Every child has an Egypt phase. I remember fondly flipping through my DK Eyewitness guide to ancient Egypt with my Anubis warrior action figure from the movie stargate propped up on my desk. This wasn't even school work, Egypt inspired this young freak to learn outside of the classroom, and Stargate inspired me to look to Egypt in the first place. My father was a military man, as mentioned before, and this film irked him to some degree. He hated that the film was slightly critical of firearms, but mostly he hated that it depicted the high security military installation where he worked unrealistically. You know the high security military installation in the side of Cheyenne Mountain. yeah, that one. I don't know why my father expected a bunch of nerds from Hollywood with not security clearance to have any idea what it looked like in that hyper-secure location, but he did. I suspect after they lost him on the guns he was looking for any reason to hate Stargate, and so, impressionable as I was, I thought for years that this movie was really stupid.

Thank the Gods of Cult that I had the inspiration to give this film a second chance. I have to say, it's a little stupid, but it's not REALLY stupid. Also, Disney's Atlantis is totally just animated Stargate, and that's pretty fucked up.

Stargate is the story of how a big old nerd, whos name is NOT Milo, played by James Spader was enlisted by a bunch of military bad guy types to use his crackpot pseudoscience egyptology crap to decipher a bunch of writings that every other scientist or academic was wrong about. When he does this he succesfully creates a Stargate, a bridge between our world and another.

Our other hero is Sergeant Kurt Russell. Russell is sitting around trying to take two and not call his doctor in the morning, just generally being sad about guns because his son accidentally shot himself. Like father like son I guess. Sorry if that sounds cruel, it's just so desperately reaching for pathos and drama that it kind of enters into the realm of parody parody. I may have been raised by gun nuts, but I am very pro depicting guns as dangerous. Stargate is about as subtle as a pie in the face, or a bullet in the face. Ok, I'm done. Anyway, the military has one more mission for Kurt and he decides for some reason that means that guns are good again for killing bad guys, except for later when he decides that guns are bad again.

So Disney's Atlantis and Guile from Street Fighter enter the Stargate and discover a world where illiterate humans are kept in subjugation by a ruling class of aliens who use them to mine precious minerals and demand to be worshipped as Gods. The leader of these aliens is an immortal alien being who has possessed the body of a teen boy pop sensation and goes by the name of Ra.

James Spader is gifted a wife by the locals because it's so quirky that women are property, i guess, but it's okay because they happen to be in love, and with her help he is able to learn the truth behind this worlds condition. Ra had built the Stargate to travel between worlds and was worshipped in Ancient Egypt, however the people got wise to his BS and he had to escape. He took many humans hostage and crossed the stargate and then banned reading and writing as an attempt to quell any kind of uprising, and it's worked for a long time.

Ra is pissed at the earth boys though because he knows a nuclear weapon when he sees one. Turns out Kurt Russell brought a big ol bomb with him across the stargate as a contingency plan for any aggro aliens they may have found. Hey, they found them so I guess it wasn't too bad of an idea. Ra punishes his worshippers by having them mercilessly bombed and Spader and Russell team up with the locals to revolt. They eventually gain the upper hand and Ra attempts to flee with his Pyramid space ship but our heroes teleport the nuke onto his ship and save the day. Thus launching several Sci-Fi television series that I have never watched.

The Benediction

Best Scene: Ra Footage

The Throne Room Scene where we are first introduced to Ra and his godlike warriors is pretty excellent. It's so menacing how he surrounds himself with a force field of children, and the combination of futuristic technology with an ancient Egyptian aesthetic that this film sells itself on is on it's ultimate display in this scene. I really like the villains in this movie and I savor whenever they get to be shown off.

Best effect: Mastadge Ride

The CG on Stargate is better than in Species which sought to be it's competitor a year later, but it is still dated. It's utilized in cool enough ways and sparingly enough that even though it looks cartoony at moments it is very easy to forgive. Being Easy to forgive however, would be a pretty lackluster qualification for best effect and I'm going to have to turn this honor to the practical creature effects for the Mastadge. When we are first introduced to our alien world one the first things we see is the fuzzy maw of one of these creatures, before it takes James Spader for a very harrowing trip across the desert. These alien beasts of burden do sometimes reveal that they are mounted upon horses, but in close ups they just look so good. I love them and I want one.

Worst Scene: It's just sad OK!

Kurt Russell becomes very popular with the young men from the village of Ra's worshippers. They come to see him as some kind of hero and seek to emulate him. However, these people are very peaceful and not in any way battle hardened. A group of the young men stand up to the leaders and seek to aid the Earthlings in their revolution. They are brave but in many ways out classed by Ra's elite guards. Through the sheer force of numbers they do succeed in casting off the shackles of their oppressors but not before one of the young men we've come to care about is tragically blasted all to shit in slow mo. That scene made me cry a ton when I was a kid, and I dreaded waiting for it as an adult. It is worth noting that if you aren't 5 years old a lot of the drama in Stargate is pretty hamfisted and corny. It's a pretty excellent action movie, and a pretty goofy drama.

Coolest looking Villain: Animals as Leaders

I used to think that Ra was really stupid looking, but I was a kid and was biased towards cool warriors with animal heads, but I really have a much better appreciation for the effects and costume design of all of the godly villain crew than I used to. That said, The Anubis guy in particular still holds up. It's the dope Jackal head, the teal of the armor. It's what I picture when I picture Stargate. The Horus guys are also worth a mention with their awesome hawk jets. I couldn't pick a "Best" villain, so I went with the Coolest Looking.

Worst Aspect: Lacking Character

When I have fond thoughts of Stargate, they almost never revolve around the characters, or if they do it's in a juvenile manner. Who had cool armor, who had cool weapons, or who did the coolest thing? I have a hard time caring about these meandering people. They are inconsistent. They have no flaws that they work on or grow from. They are special because the script insists that it's so, and I don't really care if they succeed or fail at any point in the film. It's a shame because we have a good set up, and good lore. If at any point any body acted like a real person I think Stargate would be better remembered as a film than as the weird older sibling of a long running television series.

Summary

I'd like to say that Stargate succeeds at everything it's trying to do, but it doesn't. Stargate fails in the tragedy and pathos it attempts to create within it's characters; but it does succeed in almost every other way. Stargate is an engaging and exciting action movie. Stargate delivers on it's science fiction concept, and provides some fun fantasy lore to round out it's world building. Stargate is also a great looking (at most times) special effects spectacle. For all of those reasons, It is not a great film, but it is pretty darn good film.

Overall Grade: B

#Stargate #Sci-Fi #1994 #90s #Action #Adventure #aliens #egypt #space #Kurt Russell #James Spader #Grade B #B #Grade: B #(B)

11 notes · View notes

thelostnymphaeum · 4 years

Text

I'm with you 'til the end of the line.

Entry: 004

// Cinema //

Marvel Cinematic Universe

MARVEL MANIA

Superhero movies were not my thing. The only superhero movie I have watched as a kid was Spiderman. I am not into sci-fi or superhero movies albeit being a huge fan of cinema. But during this quarantine, I decided to experiment with my taste and try to indulge in a new set of genre – the Marvel Cinematic Universe. These movies were a far cry from films that are to my liking, such as “Brooklyn” and “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”. I used to find superhero movies corny or cheesy, because they were not based on real people and I fancy movies that tackle the inner spectrum of humanity. Additionally, I used to think that actors who choose to be in these movies are not “real actors” because portraying a superhero does not really seem to me as a role where you have to internalize the character. I was probably the only person in my class who did not cry when someone said “I love you, 3000” after the Endgame came out, and the only one who did not get the “Wakanda forever” reference. That changed because yester night, I finally finished the entire MCU. I came in with a viewing guide from my friends and I came out feeling like I just had a whole cultural experience.

THE AVENGERS

I like all of them. Except maybe the Captains. I don’t like Captain America. I understand that he’s supposed to be the poster boy of “superheroes” where he’s all righteous, courageous, virtuous and kind to everyone – but that does not seem realistic at all. His character just seemed predictable and bland for me. Maybe that’s why I prefer Tony Stark, he is more dimensional. He is someone who is unapologetic, makes mistakes, smart, arrogant; but his heart will always come from a good place. During battles, it’s always Tony Stark who is thinking of ways to end them (like how to diffuse Ultron at Sokovia) so I feel as if it’s him that should be leading them. Captain America only lead them because he was born in 1918 (just kidding, don’t eat me Steve Rogers stans). He also looks way too good. It’s unreal. What a knucklehead (Loki will agree with me on this). Jk. Anyways, he earned plus points from me when he returned the infinity stones successfully. As for Captain Marvel, I don’t think I need to explain why I find her insufferable.

A little piece about Spiderman. I like this reboot of Spiderman, and Tom Holland deserves all the hype he got because he worked so hard for his movies. No one can beat Tobey Maguire of course, but we are all just glad that Tom did not ruin Spiderman for us. The only thing I did not like about his reboot was that he relied too much on Mr. Stark. Tobey’s Spiderman never relied on anyone, he was just his own superhero. But for the sake of integrating him into the MCU, I guess that they have make this fun and fresh Peter Parker juvenile in order to be able to develop his character more. So I think I’ll give it a pass.

I personally like the Thor films the best. Because it was based on Norse mythology. Because of Loki. Because Anthony Hopkins is in it. I dislike the Captain Marvel movie the most.

ENDGAME THOUGHTS. We did not need Captain Marvel. Thor did not deserve to become a drunkard and a greasehead – he’s a freaking Norse God! Why was Pepper Potts at the final battle against Thanos? Thank you, Doctor Strange. Tony was genuinely and undeniably- the heart of the Avengers.

SCORSESE, COPPOLA & PEWDIEPIE

Along with its colossal popularity, the MCU movies have also acquired prominent detractors. Prior to watching the entire MCU, I would have probably agreed with Scorsese, Coppola and Felix (here is his “controversial” video on “I don’t like Marvel movies”).

“Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.” – Martin Scorsese

"Martin was kind when he said it's not cinema. He didn't say it's despicable, which I just say it is." – Francis Ford Coppola

Parts of it are true, on the basis where the entire plot lines are predictable and it’s not the kind of cinema I learned to love as well. Marvel movies usually follow the same backbone. This is a huge reason why some cinephiles don’t like them, because the mystery is gone and it’s all obvious. After watching all of them in a 3-week streak, I could pretty much sum up the Marvel movie plot line into this:

The protagonist is in a helpless or vulnerable position.

The protagonist meets someone who can help them.

The protagonist works hard to get to his pre-final form and along with it, learns to fight in the name of eradicating the bad guys.

The protagonist finds out that her/his master is not all-good.

Chaos but then they forgive and understand the master.

2-3 battle fights, the last one is usually the peak battle where we see the protagonist in final form.

I like movies that tackle more about realism. I like seeing actors play roles that depict humanity as humans. I’m not a huge fan of special effects or super powers either. When Scorsese said that they are “not cinema”, I understood it because there are no intricacies or space for a different form of expression when you’re doing mega franchise films that are meant to sell to the general public. Which brings me to another point, that MCU is largely a business profit. These movies are made by mega corporations in the film industry, and it might also hinder other smaller filmmakers from showing their films if a titanic franchise is showing on the same week as theirs. Comic book fans are enormous in numbers which is why there is such a huge following for these movies even if they use the same plot lines all throughout. Humans are slaves for nostalgia, and people like to see the characters they have read and admired during their childhood come to life. Because of that, these corporations will try to capitalize on that and make more movies for as long as they can, and in a sense, you can see that they might be doing it only for the sake of money and not of art any longer. This is what the disparagers would say; that there is very little artistic values to these films because they are made to be sold, not appreciated for its artistry.

“Many of our grandfathers thought all gangster movies were the same, often calling them “despicable”. Some of our great grandfathers thought the same of westerns, and believed the films of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, and Sergio Leone were all exactly the same. I remember a great uncle to whom I was raving about Star Wars. He responded by saying, “I saw that when it was called 2001, and, boy, was it boring!” Superheroes are simply today’s gangsters/cowboys/outer space adventurers. Some superhero films are awful, some are beautiful. Like westerns and gangster movies (and before that, just MOVIES), not everyone will be able to appreciate them, even some geniuses. And that’s okay.” – James Gunn, Guardians of the Galaxy Director

Here’s my two cents on this whole hullabaloo. Art is expressed in different ways. Just because something is popular does not mean that you should hate it or feel as if it lacks creative value. For one, I think that if the Norsemen would see the Thor films, their jaws would drop. Art in these movies is seen through the elaborate special effects and costumes. A lot of people work behind the scenes to make this kind of art form. They are not any less of an artist. The effects are wonderful, amazing and beautiful. Sure, they don’t have meandering plot lines or mysteries that are meant to make you think. But they are able to show art in a way that is along with the times, showing the capabilities of what computer generated imagery could be. It gives us the fantasy that otherwise would not be achievable in real life (for all I care, my favorite scenes are seeing Spiderman glide across the buildings of New York).

These movies are intended for children and teenagers (adults are there for the sake of nostalgia or lighthearted entertainment, I guess?). For kids, it inspires them that they can be anything they want to be. For teenagers, it might be a good footing for their moral compasses. For me, it just inspired me to get fit (hehe). My point is, these movies are made to cater to a particular type of audience, and the others are there just for the spectacle. If all the movies were Scorsese or Coppola, what would the kids watch in the theaters? Kids would not understand “Taxi Driver” nor would be a good foundation for their morals. It was a classic and it deserves the reputation it has, but after only a certain age will you be able to appreciate it, and only if you had a particular knack for appreciating films. MCU movies are made for people who just want to have a good time; you don’t have to like high-brow or art-house movies to understand it, and that’s all there is to it. It’s made for entertainment, what’s so wrong with that?

And the actors – a lot of them played the characters so well which made me realize that taking on a superhero role does not lessen your credibility as an actor. My particular favorites are Tom Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Holland, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. (bonus points for Anthony Hopkins, his range, man, his range). They were able to bring their roles to life in such a distinct way that it would be hard to never associate them as superheroes, which of course, is a double-edged sword. As a starting actor, that could be a bubble that is hard to get out of. For example, Tom Holland as Spiderman; people will always associate him as that, and how many of you has actually seen the movies he has done aside from MCU? It might be hard for him to bridge his career from being a huge franchise film protagonist into doing films to his own preference. MCU movies make the popularity and the money; indie films – not as much.

I don’t think that the existence of MCU is throwing away the spotlight from smaller filmmakers. Because back then, I simply chose not to see MCU movies because I was not interested. People will find ways to support art that they like, and just because MCU existed, it did not hinder me from looking for movies that I like. The cinema is made by individuals who like to create movies. There are different ways to express them. There are different subscribers to different genres. To each their own. But then again, I am not working in the film industry, so I can’t speak for them, I can only say what it’s like for a movie buff like me.

These are the movies that make up people’s childhood. These are characters that gives reason for people to bond together. When Tony died, the entire world felt like they lost a father. If it’s able to touch lives as much as any other film, why should we discriminate against it? Love is love, after all.

8 notes · View notes