#so it's not super hard to incorporate him into the marvel universe | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tomhollandnet · 4 years

Link

Chris Pratt and Tom Holland may be known for playing a swashbuckling space outlaw and a kid bitten by a radioactive spider, respectively, but their next project has the actors teaming up for something far more fantastical: In Pixar's Onward, Pratt and Holland voice a pair of teenage brothers who embark on a grand and noble quest. They just happen to also be elves. Oh, and they're blue.

Onward is set in a suburban fantasy world where the days of yore were filled with magic, but now elves and centaurs and cyclops and sprites co-exist in a modern world not so different from our own. (Pesky unicorns aside, that is.) On his 16th birthday, Ian Lightfoot (Holland) receives a wizard's staff from his late father, along with a spell to bring Dad back to life for one day. But when the incantation doesn't go as planned -- conjuring only as far as their dad's pants -- Ian and Barley (Pratt) have 24 hours to fix it before he's gone for good.

Pixar's latest hails from director Dan Scanlon, who mastered the modern world-building on his last film, Monsters University, but says the seed of truth that became Onward was very human. "I knew I wanted to do something personal, so I started working through things in my own life and asking questions," he said during a press day at Pixar Animation Studios.

"My dad passed away when I was a year old and my brother was three. So that was a biggie. That was a big question I had. I think a lot of times movies should start off as questions, and my question was, 'Who was he? And how am I like him?' That's where the idea came from. Then we thought, wouldn't it be amazing if you had one day with that person? What would you say?" Scanlon explained. "I like to believe that Pixar stories have endured the test of time because they're based on real questions that people are asking."

Following the Q&A, Scanlon and Onward producer Kori Rae sat down with ET to discuss creating magic and why Holland and Pratt make perfect elves.

ET: The kernel of the idea that became Onward is such an important part of your life. Had you been thinking about ways you could incorporate that into your art before? Or stories you could tell about that experience, before setting out on this journey?

Dan Scanlon: Weirdly, I hadn't. I always knew it was an important part of my life, but I'd never really thought of a way that it could be a story -- which seems strange now in hindsight. But no, it was really going through the process and sitting down with Kori and talking to other filmmakers about my life that led to finding this story. And I love that we are able to tell this story in such a big way. Because it is this little, weird, intimate story, and part of the fun is juxtaposing it with this very comic, very adventurous, very broad movie. I think -- I hope -- that it takes people by surprise.

I saw a sketch you drew in 2014 of two brothers and their half dad, but they were very normal-looking brothers. Human brothers.

Scanlon: Yeah. In the very early days, those were the things we knew we wanted and we were trying to figure out, "Well, how do you bring back half a dad?" They were just regular people and had figured out some contraption or something -- I can't remember -- and to be honest, it was just kind of boring. It didn't have the fun that this had. And then we thought, "We've got magic. We should use magic more." And the idea of a modern fantasy world with creatures instead of humans just lends itself to animation so much more. A lot of the fantasy stuff [we'd seen] was very realistic character design, so the idea of doing more cartoon-y, fun-to-animate fantasy creatures was something that seemed really fun.

Do you remember where the idea of having this dad character who's only his pants came from in the first place?

Scanlon: It's funny, we should really do some thinking, because I kind of can't. You know, there are so many different ideas that lead you to something. We knew we wanted this idea of Dad being created and grown, but at some point, the idea of just stopping at the pants came up. What I love about it is for all the years I've worked here, there is always some moment in a meeting where everyone laughs and goes, "Oh, we can't do that." And then somebody else goes, "We're doing it!" and we all get excited. This is very much that moment for us. Like, "What the hell?! It's going to be pants and walking around? That's so weird!"

Kori Rae: "Let's just do it."

Once you'd decided, "Let's do it," and had to go out and pitch it, was there anyone that was like, "No, this is crazy"?

Scanlon: No. [Laughs] There probably should have been.

Rae: Not that we heard. Even in the early days, I think it was just exciting. Nobody's seen it before. So if we can do that with one another here and say, "Oh my god, I've never seen that before!" then, yeah!

Scanlon: And I think the very reason why it's weird and uncomfortable is what makes it funny. You want to meet your father, you want this idyllic situation and you get the exact opposite of that. And family is awkward and has its moments, and so there's just something I delight in in the fact that it's weird.

Dan, we saw footage of you recording scratch vocals for Ian, so clearly you had an idea of who he was and what he sounded like. What was it about Tom that captured what you wanted in Ian? And what did he bring that you didn't know you'd wanted?

Scanlon: For one, he sounds 16 and I sound 43. [Laughs] He has this funny way of fumfering and being awkward and that was very Ian. We wanted the raw nerve of a 16-year-old and Tom can do that wonderfully. And on top of that, he's a great actor who is very sincere and emotional and there's a lot of that in the movie. You just kind of root for him. I think a big part of what he added was just a little more of that vulnerability that I don't think we had as much of in the early days.

I think in his Marvel work, Tom Holland has made people cry more than anyone else in that cinematic universe.

Scanlon: Right?!

Rae: He's so good.

Do you remember the moment you landed on Chris Pratt? You see Barley now and you're like, "Yeah, that's obvious."

Scanlon: It seems so obvious, I know! It does. We looked at a lot of people, but Chris is so full of humor and energy. And Barley is wild and chaotic and charming and he gets away with it -- he gets away with being a little annoying because he's so funny, like you enjoy watching it.

Rae: And he's just got such heart. We wanted to make sure that even though Barley really bugs Ian and he doesn't want to be anything like his brother, we needed that heart in the character of Barley to come through so that you could see that they still had a bond. He's not just picking on him. That it was all well-intentioned and he's just doing things his way. And that heart that Chris has in his acting and as a human being, I think it just comes through and it was one of the big draws.

I'm sure Pratt is so excited to show this to his son.

Scanlon: He's very excited. He's been a real champion in the film from the beginning. He's been such a fan of the animation we've shown him and he's been really supportive of us. He's just a delightful guy.

Chris and Tom know each other and have worked together before -- which lends to that brotherly bond you hear in the movie -- but did they do any recording together? Or was it done separately?

Rae: We did! We were able to get them together one time. Their schedules are so insane, so getting them to record at all was a challenge. But yeah, we got them together once and it was a blast. We picked out certain scenes that we thought would really be elevated with the two of them together -- both comedic and emotional scenes -- and it was really, really fun. Chris really is big brother-ish to Tom, and it's really adorable to watch.

You've said the story took you a long time to crack, but how did you decide on Onward as a title? Was it always going to be called Onward?

Scanlon: It was a super hard movie to title. It's like Up. If you had to come up with another name for Up, it's a hard one, because it's such a unique movie. We were a little in that camp. Later in the movie, you hear Barley saying the word "onward," and it's a very Barley word because it's from the past. Some folks pointed it out to us as a potential title and we loved it because it was so positive and it feels like a journey. This is a coming-of-age movie, and it's also a movie about moving on from tragedy and tough stuff, so Onward felt perfect. It encompasses both the emotional part of it and just the big fun journey.

#onward #articles #long post

39 notes · View notes

eshithepetty · 4 years

Note

5, 7, and 21

I'll assume this is for the SU ask game! If not, please don't be shy about correcting me, I'm just a dummie ;^^

5. Has Steven Universe actually taught you lessons?

Of course!! It taught me a lot of things! Most things I learned from this show were more subconscious, so it can be hard to pinpoint how exactly it changed me, but one thing I definitely know is that it helped me in discovering and accepting myself and others! I grew up catholic, in a pretty conservative country. If I hadn't found this show, and joined the fandom and spent time interacting with people and role-playing with characters, I don't think I would have realised and accepted that I like girls so soon, or gained the understanding to research my identity (including it's aspec side) further! Pearl was an especially comforting character for me. Among other things, she was just so cool and adorable, and she was both someone I saw myself in (especially in her self image, nervousness and her love for big girls) and someone I looked up to, found endearing (I like to call her my wife sometimes for this reason). It's kind of like, 'oh, she's like me. And if someone like her can be so lovable, and find happiness, maybe I can be and do the same.' So yeah, she helped my self esteem in more ways than one, and overall, this show's general theme of diversity and acceptance and kindness shaped me a lot, as far as I remember! It's such a big part of my childhood, and it introduced me to so many new things, so I'll be forever grateful to it for that <3

7. Has the show ever gotten an intense emotional reaction out of you? (ex - crying, fear, anger)

Yup! I don't think it made me cry too much, I usually cry the most to content that's just audio, like podcasts, and mostly songs, so not too much of that physical reaction going on, but it definitely made me feel a lot of complex emotions!! From love to fear to calm to anger, it's got it all. I still remember how, before Bubbled aired, I got super freaked out about Steven getting lost in space, I was so worried about him. I spent the night frantically info dumping and rambling to my friend who knew nothing about SU (and really confused her in the process) ;^^ and SUF has done a marvellous job at making me feel all tense and horrified and sad, but also thankful, just, getting me inside Steven's headspace in general. I've gotten really protective of him, and it's just so weird sometimes, to care so much about fictional characters, to treat them like they really exist somewhere, going on road trips or learning to be better parents, but that's how this show makes me feel. It's really great ^^

21. If you are a fanfic writer, which SU character is the hardest for you to write?

Hmm... this' a tough one. I am a writer, but I haven't written too many fics. I usually stick to writing about Steven, maybe get some of the CGs and Connie in there as well, maybe a bit of Lapis and Peridot, too. I don't think I've tried writing any character beyond that. But I have a feeling I'd have a tough time writing Jasper. She's a very complicated, tho fascinating, character, and I think I'd have a difficulty with writing characters that are so emotionally repressed they don't even quite realise it. Would be a fun challenge, tho! Amethyst might be tough for me to do as well, to get her mannerisms and speech patterns right, the same with Spinel. Garnet maybe too, if only because I don't quite understand her future vision, that one's always a unique element to incorporate.

But yeah, I think that's enough of me rambling. Maybe I should try writing more, get some prompts ready. I'm a bit busy nowadays, but I do truly want to develop my creativity and writing skills more.

Thank you so much for the ask!!!

#steven universe #su #answer #ask #anon #ramble #my own post

9 notes · View notes

sebeth · 5 years

Text

Young Justice Outsiders: “Princes All”

Warning, Spoilers Ahead…

Young Justice: Princes All

I accidentally spoiled myself of a small part of the episode. Of course, it was the plot element that would fill me with rage and disgust. If you’ve read my Young Justice posts, you can guess what it was – Conner’s proposal to Megan.

I’m very puzzled why the writers insist on reuniting the pair. The creators consistently display a fine attention to detail – there is no way the writers can be oblivious the manipulative, obsessive, and abusive overtones of the relationship.

Conner’s reunion with Megan is simply a case of an abused person returning to their abuser.

Is there a big Conner/Megan fanbase? Honest question. The majority of fans preferred pairing for Conner is Tim. I’ve also seen fan works pairing Conner with Bart Allen, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, and Cassie Sandsmark. I don’t often see fanworks supporting the Conner/Megan pairing. As for Young Justice fans, I would say Wally/Artemis, Bart/Jaime and even the very brief Dick/Zatanna have bigger fanbases.

Color me optimistic but I don’t think the marriage will happen. Conner has apparently been carrying the ring around for over a month. That’s not the actions of a man certain of his decision.

I feel Conner returned to Megan simply because that’s the only non-familial love he’s known. Besides his family and super-hero friends, Conner is pretty isolated. And he’s not great in social situations. The return to Megan, as nauseating as it is, probably feels like a return to normalcy.

I don’t know, I just have a feeling something will happen to end the relationship. Megan will either revert to her mind-ripping ways – once again breaking Conner’s trust and ending the relationship – or Megan dies by the end of the season.

The prequel issues stated Psimon is back and holding a grudge. Megan has other victims – that may or may not have recovered – that will hold grudges. If you’ve read the 1980’s Teen Titans comic you know that Psimon is a vicious and vindictive man. And he’s all about the sneak attacks. If I was Megan, I’d be worried.

The creators are rather determined to ignore any consequences for Megan’s actions and to make her life “happy-happy”. I think it’s suspicious.

A hero dies in every season of Young Justice. Season 1 had Kent Nelson. The video game had Tula. Jason Todd and Ted Kord died during the time jump. Wally died in the second season. The odds of a hero not dying during season 3 aren’t great. Why promote Megan so hard in the prequel comics? And handwave away any consequences of her actions? Could it be because Megan has a target on her back?

Maybe Psimon strikes during the wedding – causing the erasure of Megan’s mind and later death? Talk about karma!

Or it could be wishful thinking on my part as I loathe the Conner/Megan pairing!

On to the episode…

We replay the ending of the final episode of the previous season.

July 4, the Watchtower

Kaldur argues with Dick: “This is no time for you to resign.”

Dick insists he’s not resigning, simply taking a leave of absence.

July 4, Markovburg, Two years later:

A young man is told of his sister’s death. Said sister is not only alive but is being experimented on: “Initiate tar protocol”.

Poor Ana’s metagene is not only activated but she is transformed into an energy-tar creature and transported to Rann.

The confused Ana-tar creature attacks members of the Justice League – Ice, Wonder Woman, Black Lightning, Superman, John Stewart, Martian Manhunter – Alanna, and Adam Strange.

Ana dies. Alana scans the creatures and realizes it is a 14 years-old earth child.

The “Young Justice Outsiders” theme is haunting and ominous. It also clearly displays Apokolips.

July 27, the Watchtower: Megan, rocking the White Martian look, praises the Alpha squad while mentioning the Gamma squad still needs training.

Steel and Black Lightning arrive at the Watchtower. The Justice League are holding a meeting to determine Black Lightning’s fate. It was his energy blast that killed poor Ana.

Surprise! Kaldur is now Aquaman and the leader of the Justice League! It would explain why Kaldur was absent from the promotional trailers and materials.

Megan is leader of Young Justice. Boo!

Bat(Kaldur), Wonder Woman, Black Lightning, Black Canary, Green Arrow, Doctor Fate, Captain Marvel, Steel, Rocket, Zatanna, Batman, Red Tornado, Plastic Man, Katana, Flash, Hardware, Batwoman, Superman, Ice, John Stewart, and the Martian Manhunter.

Hardware is from the same Milestone universe as Rocket, Icon, and Static.

Batwoman is a surprise.

Diana confirms meta-human trafficking has spread from earth to other worlds.

Batman, Green Arrow, Black Canary, and Black Lightning are very frustrated with the lack of progress in stopping the meta-human trafficking.

Lex Luthor is the United Nation’s secretary general – and is using the position to be a pain in the League’s rumps.

Batman is done: “But all that matters is the mission. If the UN is a roadblock to that mission, then we remove it by removing the League.”

Kaldur and Diana are not down with that plan.

Bruce and Oliver resign their League memberships.

Bruce’s resignation is accurate to the founding of the Outsiders in the comic books. Back in the 1980s, Bruce needed to rescue Lucius Fox from a foreign country. The Justice League’s agreement with the United Nations didn’t allow Batman or the League to enter said country. Bruce said “I quit”, formed the Outsiders, stormed the country, and rescued Lucius.

Hardware, Plastic Man, Katana, and Batwoman promptly resign. Katana and Kate aren’t a surprise – Kate is Bruce’s cousin and a Gotham gal and Katana has always been Team Batman. Plastic Man has been a strong ally of Batman since the late 1990s. Hardware is a surprise as he has no connection with Bruce or Oliver.

Dinah accuses Bruce, Oliver, and company of planning this in advance. Oliver asks Dinah to join the group, she refuses. It’s safe to say Dinah and Oliver are taking a break. Breaks are standard operating procedure for Ollie and Dinah so I’m not overly worried for the future of their relationship.

Jefferson swears he wasn’t part of Bruce and Ollie’s stunt but he came to the meeting to resign in person.

Kaldur and Diana decides to issue a statement disowning their former members’ future actions.

The Young Justice team are chilling in the waiting area. Jaime and Bart are chatting – BFFs or dating? If they are dating, will the show ever make it official? Tim and Cassie are next to each other – they were thrown together in the season finale – so, still dating? Is it serious? Steph and Cissie are hanging out – a friendship that has strong possibilities. Unfortunately, the girls never had much interaction in the comics.

Batman strolls in and announces “It’s time.” Robin and Arrowette leave with their mentors. Tim doesn’t surprise me. I’ve always felt Tim was the most loyal to Bruce out of all his Robins. Dick, Jason, and have always banged heads with Bruce. Damian, if forced to choose, would side with Dick over Bruce. Tim is Bruce’s “ride or die” Robin.

I’m surprised over Stephanie and Cissie. As I said earlier, Steph routinely goes against Bruce’s wishes. Cissie has never had much – if any – interaction with Ollie in the comics.

Bruce asks Jeff to join his group – Jeff refuses as he doesn’t trust Batman and doesn’t want to be part of Batman Incorporated.

Jeff and Bruce have a different relationship as Jeff is very “Team Batman” in the comics.

Are we going to get Batman Incorporated? With a Knight & Squire appearance?

Jeff apologizes to Static: “I’m sorry, Virgil. Maybe you can find a new mentor. One who is less damaged.”

The duo doesn’t have any type of connection in the comics but it’s a natural relationship.

The rest of Young Justice – especially Cassie and Bart – are very confused as to what is going on.

Moscow, July 28: A disguised Dick Grayson, in communication with Oracle, rescue a few meta-human trafficking victims.

So how long will the writers wait until the identity of Oracle is revealed to the viewers? And will the Joker be responsible for Barbara’s paralysis?

Dick is tracking down Bedlam, who is responsible for the tar mutation goop.

Oracle has spent time around Bart as she refers to something as “crash”.

We switch to Markovia. King Viktor and Queen Illona DeLamb-Markov are holding a press conference. Princess Tara disappeared two years ago. Brion has recently returned from studying abroad.

The royal couple speaks out in support of Quarqi refugees – fleeing the recent invasion of a Queen Bee-led Biayla - and against metahuman trafficking.

Brion asks Dr. Jace about the results of his meta-gene testing. He tested positive. Brion wants his meta-gene activated.

Dr. Jace was a supporting cast member of the Outsiders in the comic books.

Dick is in Star City. Barbara informs Dick of Bruce and company’s mass resignation. Dick insists he “can’t worry about that now.”

Babs has determined the likely location of the meta-trafficking in Markovia but insists Dick will need backup.

Dick is way ahead of her.

We discover Artemis has moved to Star City and lives with Roy Harper and Lian.

Roy is going by “Will”.

Where’s Cheshire? Did she go back to the dark side?

Where’s young Roy? I don’t remember seeing him on the Watchtower.

July 29th” Future Halo is in the Markovian castle. She lets in others who quickly murder the King and Queen.

Queen Illona’s brother kills the intruder. I’m very suspicious of Queen Illona’s brother.

Dick approaches Happy Harbor.

Hey, there’s Wolfe! Enjoying a nice nap.

Conner is worried about Superman being off planet for so long. He feels a burden to step into Superman’s shoes.

Dick arrives to recruit Conner. Conner agrees. Dick reminds Conner that it’s a non-super suit mission. As in, you can’t wear the “S” shirt.

Dick leaves to find his next recruit.

It’s both interesting – an odd- that Dick didn’t ask Megan along. Her powers – telepathy, shape-changing, invisibility, phasing – are perfect for covert mission. Conner’s abilities and personality are the exact opposite of covert. The reason can’t be that he’s afraid of leaving Young Justice without a leader – Dick states it’s a one-day mission. So why not bring Megan? Has Dick discovered her mind-wiping spree? Or her assault on Conner’s mind? Has he lost trust in Megan? I am baffled as to why Dick wouldn’t recruit Megan unless its due to personal issues.

Megan falls back to her manipulative ways: “I don’t want to be that kind of girlfriend, but…I just lost a big chunk of my team to whatever Batman’s got going. I was sort of counting on you.”

Conner’s only going to be gone for 24 hours! Stop being so clingy, needy, and manipulative.

Conner hastens to assure Megan: “You can always count on me. I can prove it.”

Cue the vomit-inducing proposal scene.

Conner, you poor, poor fool. Megan’s playing you like a puppet and you don’t even realize it. I don’t buy Megan’s “surprised” act. Megan’s a very powerful telepath – even if she wasn’t purposely reading his mind, there is no way she didn’t catch hints of Conner buying a ring.

I’m very cynical about Megan. How can we be sure she hasn’t been pushing Conner to propose? Megan is prone to living/retreating in a fantasy life – and she’s been obsessed with and molded Conner from day one.

Sure, Megan’s rocking the White Martian appearance, indicating more acceptance of herself, but her human form is still very “Hello, Megan”.

G. Gordon Godfrey is back. He wants martial law. Queen Illona’s brother claims it was a Quarci metahuman refugee who assassinated his sister and brother in-law.

The Baron states that he will serve as regent as Gregor and Brion, the royal twins, are only 17 years old. If I was the twins, I would be very worried for my safety.

Brion contacts Dr. Jace – he wants his meta-gene activated post-haste.

Metropolis: Jefferson kisses his daughters goodnight. Hi, Anissa and Jennifer!

Jeff informs Lynn that he’s giving up the costumed life.

Lynn doesn’t believe him: “I’m the sister of a Green Lantern and the ex-wife of a Black Lightning. I know how this quitting the life thing goes.”

Lynn is the sister of John Stewart? That’s a new twist.

Jeff leaves the house and immediately tells Dick “No”.

Dick persists. Jeff insists he “can’t” – his powers aren’t working.

Dick informs Jeff that he “came for the man, not the powers”.

July 30, Midnight: Dick is at the meeting spot. Artemis zetas in. Conner arrives in the sphere-ship, Jeff shows up, and the group head to Markovia.

Cute ending scene – Artemis’s dog sleeps with a Wally plush.

I enjoyed the episode minus the Megan parts. It was pure set-up but I’m very intrigued by Bruce and Oliver’s upcoming shenanigans. And you can’t go wrong with the Dick-Conner-Artemis trio.

And we have two more episodes! Exciting!

119 notes · View notes

duhragonball · 5 years

Text

Continuity

I’m still reading Star Wars comics from the original Marvel run of 1977-1986. Last night, I made it to the Return of the Jedi adaptation, so now I’ve read all the issues set between that movie and Empire Strikes Back. As I expected, these comics (#45-80) feel a lot more like authentic Star Wars stories than the pre-ESB issues (#7-38). The biggest plot hole that I noticed was that Luke still has his lightsaber throughout this period, despite losing it on Bepsin.

It occurred to me later that this wasn’t necessarily a mistake. There’s a deleted scene from ROTJ which shows Luke assembling his new lightsaber right before the mission to save Han Solo from Jabba the Hut. This strongly implies that Luke didn’t have a lightsaber of his own between Episodes V and VI. This was further supported by the ROTJ radio drama, produced in 1996, which incorporates the deleted scene into the story. There, Luke expresses frustration with how difficult it is to build a lightsaber, and then he finally realizes that he should have been using the Force to assemble the pieces. I haven’t read the novelization of the movie, but maybe it was touched on there as well.

Later sources indicated that building your own lightsaber is the final ritual for completing your Jedi training. This is shown in the 2002 Clone Wars cartoon, where Barriss Offee assembles her own saber on Ilum, under the supervision of Luminara Unduli. I’m pretty sure this scene was inspired by Darth Vader’s line in ROTJ, when he observed that Luke’s training is complete after checking out his badass green lightsaber. The implication is that building your own lightsaber is difficult enough that Luke would have to be a Jedi Knight just to pull it off.

But in the early 80′s, none of that lore existed, and it would be a simple matter for writers to assume that Luke had no trouble at all getting a spare. What I find strange is that no one bothered to explain where this spare lightsaber came from. It’s like the writers just assumed he never lost the first one, but that’s crazy.

Really, the artists on the original Star Wars comics never seemed to be able to keep track of the lightsabers to begin with. In the early comics, they paid no heed to the color schemes or hilt designs at all. Not that I would expect late 70′s artists to really worry about props from a movie that had just come out, but they kept coloring all the lightsaber blades at random, and drawing the hilts way too short and thick. Luke and Vader looked like they were holding soda cans. The art started to get more true to the movies when Tom Palmer got involved, but one thing I started to notice was how the artists would draw Luke and Vader’s lightsabers on their belts, even when they were holding them, ignited, in their hands. It was like the artists recognized the lightsaber hilts as part of the characters’ costumes, but they didn’t understand what they were. I can’t really blame them for this, since the big column of light was what really drew everyone’s attention in the theaters, and it wasn’t like they could look up hilt schematics on Wookieepedia like you can now.

Anyway, it struck me as kind of interesting how something minor like that can start off as an oversight, and then be easily corrected, or magnified into a major plot hole. It’d be pretty simple to explain Luke’s between-movie lightsaber.

Obi-Wan Kenobi had a spare tucked away somewhere, and Luke had been keeping it in storage just in case something like this happened.

Yoda had a spare, and Luke took it with him when he went to Bespin, and put it inside R2-D2′s lightsaber compartment for safe keeping.

Luke found a new lightsaber on a mission.

Luke built a new lightsaber to replace his old one, then lost that guy, requiring him to build the green one in ROTJ.

Luke found/constructed a replacement weapon, but it’s actually a knockoff “laser sword” and it doesn’t work as well as a genuine Jedi design, but it got the job done until he could do the job right.

I find it curious that no one ever bothered to tell any of those stories, though. The Expanded Universe era of Star Wars multimedia seemed determined to sew up as many continuity problems as possible. Some writer in the 2000′s did a story to establish that Jedi would swap lightsabers as a gesture of mutual respect, just to explain why Mace Windu’s action figure has a different lightsaber design than the one he has in the movies. I’m not too worried about this stuff, and I don’t think Jo Duffy or David Michelinie were too worried about this stuff when they wrote Luke carving up Stormtroopers in Star Wars #45-80, but between 1994 and 2008, there were people working for Lucasfilm who were paid to worry about this stuff. I’m genuinely surprised that no one ever got around to penning Star Wars: Luke’s Spare Lightsaber: The Lobot Chronicles: Dark Tidings.

It’s the little things like this that get lost in the shuffle, I’ve found. When you read a Star Wars novel or comic book, the major characters are always very consistently portrayed, and the story always sticks very closely to the groundwork laid down in whatever movies were around at the time. Star Wars #45-80 excelled at this. Every issue was either about the good guys searching for Han Solo, or dealing with a crisis big enough to pull them away from the search for Han Solo. I was disappointed that they didn’t spend much time at all having Luke work on his Jedi training, or trying to make sense of Darth Vader being his father, but I think Marvel knew the next movie would address that, so they knew not to wade too deep into that stream.

The stuff that gets changed the most is the minor characters. I read one issue where they basically established that Wedge Antilles never made it off the base on Hoth in ESB. He and “Nice Shot” Jansen had to take cover in the AT-AT Luke blew up, and then they lived in what was left of the base while they waited for the imperials to clear out. He was stranded there for months, and it was a pretty cool story, but I’m betting that later Star Wars writers decided to ignore this, because they wanted to use Wedge in other stories during that period.

General Tagge’s another interesting example. He was the guy on the Death Star in Episode IV, the one who warned that the Death Star was vulnerable while the Rebels had the stolen plans. Tagge’s kind of a walking continuity error to begin with, because everyone kept getting him mixed up with Admiral Motti, the guy who sassed Vader and got choked out for his lack of faith. In the Archie Goodwin run on Star Wars, Tagge was killed in the movie when the Death Star exploded, but his brothers and sister turned up as recurring villains with a grudge against the Rebels and Vader alike. Flash forward to 2015, when Disney took over Lucasfilm, and in the new continuity, Tagge survived the Death Star’s destruction because he happened to leave right before it went to Yavin IV to get blown up. This was done mainly to set him up as a rival to Darth Vader in the 2015 Darth Vader comic. I guess they figured there was no reason to invent new characters when they could just salvage some of the officers from the movie. Tagge feels more authentic than his siblings because we actually saw him on film. He’s a “real” Star Wars guy, while rest of his family are just cartoons. I think that’s the attitude anyway. Back in 1978, they were probably eager to create new characters because they had tons of world-building to do. So the 2010′s Marvel comics don’t square with the 1970′s Marvel comics at all, especially where the Tagges are concerned, but Darth Vader’s dealings with them feel pretty consistent.

The reason I bring up all of this is because I used to think that the continuity in Star Wars was never terribly complicated. When production of The Force Awakens got started, Lucasfilm announced that they were rebooting the whole Star Wars canon, declaring all the Expanded Universe content as “Legends”, which no longer counted as official continuity. The only hard canon sources from now on were the movies, the Clone Wars TV series, and anything published after that announcement. Naturally, all the post-Return-of-the-Jedi stories would be off the board, which only made sense to me, seeing as Force Awakens would contradict it. But I figured the other stories could still be made to fit together somehow, since none of them had anything to do with Rey or Kylo Ren or the First Order, or whatever.

But really, it’s been like that all along. The novels and comics would introduce some idea, and others would build on it, and then George Lucas would override it with his next project. Then the writers would have to pick up the pieces. The 2008-2013 Clone Wars TV series trampled on a lot of continuity from the 2002-2005 Clone Wars books and comics, primarily because George Lucas worked on the TV series, and he was the final word on this stuff. That announcement in 2014 pissed off a lot of Expanded Universe fans (so much that they bought a bunch of billboards to complain about it), but it was kind of inevitable. They’ll probably have to wipe the slate clean again around 2040 or so, because there’ll be enough new movies that the comics and novels won’t align with them.

I sort of half-joke about my own fanfiction getting this kind of treatment. My goal is to write stories that could fit into the established continuity, but I can only work with the continuity I know. With Dragon Ball, that was easy, until Dragon Ball Super got underway, and Akira Toriyama started writing new stuff. It was pretty easy to write my own female Super Saiyan, until DBS introduced a couple of their own, and now I have to wonder if they’ll say or do something that might contradict my own take. Likewise, this Broly movie might establish some new lore that I need to take into consideration. I can write new material to work around those things, but the stuff I’ve already written is pretty much locked in. My private joke is that in any of these new animations, a character will just stare at the screen and coldly announce that “Mike’s fanfic never happened.”

But that’s pretty much what Lucasfilm has been doing to the novel and comics writers for over forty years. “Splinter of the Mind’s Eye” would have been the official sequel to Star Wars if Empire Strikes Back hadn’t been funded. Instead, Dengar and Bossk looked at the screen and said “Alan Dean Foster’s novel never happened.” Return of the Jedi killed every Luke/Leia shipper’s hopes and dreams. “Oh, those fanfics never happened, my young friend,” Ben Kenobi said from beyond the grave. Attack of the Clones wreaked all sorts of havoc on Boba Fett’s backstory. The Force Awakens wrecked the Skywalker-Solo family tree. “Han and Leia only had one kid, and I’m gonna kick his ass!” Rey shouted asskickingly. And on it goes. I read that one writer resigned after they retconned all the stuff she had set up about Boba Fett’s home planet, but that’s the way the game is played, unfortunately.

Me, I’m just writing my stuff for fun, when it comes down to it. I like to think all the continuity can be fit together, but the reality is that there’s too many redundant pieces, so they can’t all be part of the same picture. You can either have Tagge or his brothers, but not both. You can decide to keep Ben Solo or Jan and Jeice Solo from the EU novels, but not both. Or you can do an AU, I guess. They’re all AU’s when you get down to it.

I suppose that, no matter what, I prefer my own assumption that Luke just didn’t have a lightsaber between Empire and Jedi. I’ve read too many stories about how there’s more to a Jedi than his lightsaber, and how the best Jedi never use them at all, so it makes sense to me that Luke had to make due without one, and use the loss to force him to refocus on his training. While the others searched for Han, he was doing cool Jedi homework that he should have been doing on Dagobah, and he purposely waited until he was finished before building a new lightsaber. That just makes too much sense to me, even if some other version is presented. But the other stories are still fun to read. They don’t have to be canon to be enjoyable.

7 notes · View notes

lokeanwelcomingcommittee · 7 years

Text

FAQ - Rebloggable Version

What’s a Lokean?

A Lokean is someone who honors Loki as their primary deity (or at least one of their primary deities if they have multiple) and chooses to identify as Lokean. Beyond that, there are no special requirements.

What’s the purpose of this blog? Why does it exist?

I would give you kids a dramatic backstory, but in full honesty I just thought it would be useful if new Lokeans had resources I (Mod R) didn't have when I was new to the community. Plus, there's a little bit of stigma around Lokeans, and it's good to have a space of our own, yeah?

We’re here to welcome you guys and help you with your beginner work! We’re like the Lokean Professor Oak.

How cool is the Lokean Welcoming Committee?

Moderate-to-severely cool.

You worship Loki? Isn’t Loki evil?

Nope. He’s not evil. He’s also not the God of evil. The Norse didn’t really have the same concept of absolute good and evil as we do now. Loki is far more complex than you might have realized. Most modern devotees view him as a vital agent of change.

Important note: Lokeans do not believe that everyone needs to worship Loki. Most Lokeans are polytheists, which means that respect for a wide variety of worldviews and a wide variety of gods is built into our belief system. Not a fan of Loki? That’s fine! The vast majority of us just want to do our own thing in peace.

How do I start this Lokean business?

Weeell, first of all, you need to read up on Norse myths so you know all about what you’re getting into. If watching/reading Marvel comics and movies inspired you to look into this and you haven’t done your reading yet, just know that Norse mythology is vastly different from its depiction in the Marvel comics. Lucky for you kids, we have a reading list! We recommend that you start with all that stuff. You don’t have to be an expert on Norse mythology, you just have to have the basics down. You can learn more as you go!

Once you’re done with the reading, I recommend doing some of this stuff to start off:

Find ways to incorporate Loki into your everyday life

Pray. Tell him why you think he’s awesome and why you want to worship him. Or tell him what brought you to him. Or just tell him whatever’s on your mind. Make sure to take time to listen as well. You may or may not “hear back” from him, but spending time in contemplation is important and can lead to valuable insights. If prayer and connecting with the divine are new or difficult for you, these links on communication and discernment might help.

Make offerings. Mead and ale were traditional, if you’re of age and can get them, but even water or coffee will do. And there are a bunch of other options. They don’t even have to be food. If you’re most comfortable doing a scripted formal ritual, you can find posts on how to hold a blót here, here, and here. You can also check out our offerings tag for ideas.

Set up a shrine or altar. The Norse didn’t really have altars in the sense that modern pagans do, but nonetheless, a lot of devotees find it helpful to have a designated space for worship in their home. Here’s our introductory post on altars. We also have an altar tag with lots of tips and pictures of altars to draw inspiration from.

Talk to other devotees. Connecting with other people who share your beliefs is helpful and fulfilling in a lot of ways! But be careful, since Heathen spaces also tend to have neonazis lurking around. the @valkyriesquad has a list of non-folkish bloggers. @anothersusurrus maintains a list of Norse god devotees which includes a Loki category.

Keep exploring. You’ll grow as a person over time. Your life will go through a lot of changes. Inevitably, so will your practice. Don’t be afraid to try new things, or to abandon something that just isn’t working for you anymore. This post offers some suggestions along those lines.

What does “work with” mean?

People often say “work with” instead of worship/honor/etc.! Don't know why, but I say it because it sounds more casual!

An altar? Offerings? Why? What does that do?

Everyone enjoys gifts, but gifts were reaalllyyy important to the Norse. The gods already provide us gifts by helping to keep the world running, so we, as devotees, give offerings in return to acknowledge the gods’ hard work and affirm our continuing relationship with them. And altars serve as a place to leave those offerings as well as being a visible reminder of the gods. They also give people who don’t have access to a public temple or natural area a place to worship.

See this post for a more thorough explanation about why we participate in these practices, or the rest of this FAQ for how to go about it.

How do I leave offerings?

Put them somewhere. Leave them out for as long as you want (make sure you pick it up before it spoils or something). You can leave it out for minutes, hours, or days. Whatever you feel comfortable with. It isn’t required to be super formal and ritualistic. However, if you’re more comfortable with being formal and would like to perform a blót rite, then you can find a few different heathens explaining the basics of how they do theirs here, here, and here.

When you feel like it’s the right time to get rid of the item, dispose of it in one of the following ways:

throw it away

burn it (stay safe, y’all)

bury it

eat/drink it

throw it outside (in a place where it won’t kill anything or harm creatures)

whatever else you can think of that you feel comfortable with

What sort of offerings does Loki like?

From what I’ve gathered, he likes:

cinnamon

sweet things/candy

coffee (I think I’ve heard of him liking mocha as well)

just food in general, man

cake

alcohol ("When in doubt, Mead it out.")

plants associated with him

crystals associated with him

Seriously though, pretty much anything is fine

For a list of offering ideas other than food/drink, check out this post. For some offering recipe ideas, check out our recipes tag! You might also be able to glean inspiration from our offerings and craft tags.

What if I can’t leave offerings due to (reasons)?

You don’t have to give offerings. It's your own practice, make it as you like/can. Just don’t be rude about it. (i.e. “I’m not leaving offerings because I think the Gods are beneath me” <- don’t say anything like that)

How do I set up an altar?

Take random items that you think the God/spirit the altar is for will enjoy. Arrange them in a decorative way somewhere. Bam, you’re done. You don’t have to have specific items. You don’t have to arrange things in a specific way. It’s not that particular. It’s your practice, you do what you are comfortable with.

Item suggestions for beginners:

candles

bowl/plate for offerings

incense

cloths

plants

crystals/stones

pictures/artwork/poetry

ANYTHING YOU WANT AHHH SURPRISE IT’S YOUR BIRTHDAY

If you want a more detailed post, check this one out. You could also browse our altar tag for examples of real Lokean altars.

Also, quick note: It’s spelled ‘altar’, not ‘alter.’ If you make this mistake, don't worry! It's a common error!

Where do I put my altar?

Anywhere! On a table or window sill! In a drawer! In a basket! In a box! On the floor! On a dresser! Wherever you want/Wherever you can!

Looking to be discreet? We have resources and ideas about discreet altars, pocket altars, and eshrines for ya!

What if I can’t have an altar due to (reasons)?

You don’t have to have an altar, just like you don’t have to give offerings.

How do I talk to Loki?

There’s no single correct way to pray to Loki. Some individuals and kindreds might choose to follow a particular format every time. However, there’s no kind of universal mandate on how it should work anywhere in the surviving texts, and it’s not like we have an unbroken tradition to work from the way some other religions do. Basically, as long as you’re respectful, you’re good!

If you’re still stuck, we have a prayers and poems tag with some examples.

But a lot of people who ask us this question are actually wondering how you might hear Loki communicating with you. In which case, you have a few options.

Talking directly to gods/spirits is generally referred to as "having a godphone." But you don’t need a "godphone" to communicate. Some use divination, like tarot or runes. Some people hear back in dreams or through omens. Everyone’s different!

And really, you don’t need to hear anything back at all in order to worship Loki or call yourself a Lokean. Loki can still hear you just fine. Not hearing anything back doesn’t mean that you’re a lesser person or that you’re doing it wrong.

Some more posts on communication and discernment that might be of interest:

Talking to Loki

Gods and God-Phones 101

Please Talk About Godphones

Developing the Godphone

Hearing the Gods

What Do They Want? – Hints for the Headblind

Discernment

Questions to Ask Yourself

When Godphones Ring – Discernment for Pagans

Discernment – Is it a sign?

Not Everything is a Sign

Evaluating Mystical Experiences and Messages From Beyond

Seven Spirit Rules

A Note on Discernment: Hearing Your Own Voice

Divine Communication, Ethics, and Manipulation Techniques

Your God is on the phone. He has a message for you.

Spiritual Abuse Red Flags

Polytheism While Dealing With Mental Illness

Our communication tag

All this seems overwhelming! Do I have to start doing all this stuff right away?

Internalizing a new worldview and forming new habits takes time! And the gods understand that. It’s okay if you start small and adopt new practices at your own pace.

What are some common symbols for Loki?

This post has got you covered. As you might have guessed from our blog theme, snakes and the colors red and gold are pretty popular.

I also work with gods from another pantheon, can I still honor Loki?

Please refer to this ask!

I heard some Lokeans practice magic! Will worshiping Loki grant me special powers?

It’s true that some Lokeans practice magic in a variety of different traditions. However, real witchcraft works nothing like it does in most popular movies or fictional stories. If casting the right spell or praying to the right god could grant you Hollywood-style superpowers, then society as a whole would be taking advantage of that, and our world would run very differently.

This isn’t to say you can’t practice magic if that’s something you’re interested in. Regardless of whether it actually works or not, it is a real thing that people do, and have done throughout human history. Just be aware that you’re not going to be able to recreate the stuff in Harry Potter.

Do Lokeans have to practice magic?

Nope. A lot of Lokeans don’t practice magic. Some don’t even believe magic works. Your practice is equally valid regardless.

Is (book) a good book to read?

Many books on Norse mythology generally make Loki out to be the god of evil and stuff like that.

If it says “Loki, the God of Evil and Chaos” when introducing Loki, it’s prooobably not gonna be a fantastic read. However, there are exceptions to the rule, and one of the mods will be glad to point you in the right direction should you ask!

(Here’s a list of books you should definitely avoid, though.)

I keep hearing something about "godspouses"? What's that about?

A godspouse is a person who has ritually married a deity. They can be any gender or orientation, as can the deity in question. Some godspouses function more or less like Christian nuns and treat the commitment as symbolic of their lifelong devotion. Others believe they have a romantic or sexual relationship with the deity in question.

Becoming a godspouse isn't required or expected in order to be a Lokean, nor does it make you better or more devoted than other devotees. It's simply one of many ways to define a personal relationship with Loki.

For more information on godspouses, see these resources.

What does (weird term) mean?

Just like any other community, Pagan Tumblr has developed some of its own vocabulary. Plus, Heathenry has a bunch of weird words that come from Old Norse. Here are some common things we’ve seen newbies get tripped up on:

Blót - A Heathen ritual sacrifice. Don’t worry. It’s not, like, humans or anything these days. Most people use booze or blood from a butcher shop.

Blood Brothers - Loki and Odin as a pair, referring to the pact mentioned in Lokasenna. Also affectionately known as the “two man con” or, by particularly exasperated devotees, sometimes just “Them.”

Folkish - An adjective used to describe the belief that only people of Nordic descent should be allowed to worship the Norse gods. However, historical and archaeological evidence reveals that this wasn’t true back in the Viking Age. Many folkish Heathens are white supremacists, so you should approach anyone who identifies as such with extreme caution.

Fulltrúi - The Heathen equivalent of a neo-Wiccan “patron deity”, although they don’t function in quite the same way. Basically, it’s the primary god you worship, if you choose to focus on one god. (Many don’t.) The word translates roughly to “fully trusted one.”

GLE - Grumpy Lokean Elder. His blog has some awesome, scholarly resources.

Godphone - The ability to communicate with deities without divination or physical signs. Despite the name, it doesn’t usually work like an actual phone. See this post for more info.

Godspouse - A person who has “married” a deity. Some of them function more or less like Christian nuns. Others believe they have a romantic or sexual relationship with the deity in question.

Lore - The mythology, sagas, and other various historical and pseudo-historical writings about Norse religion.

Nokean - A silly person who is against the worship of Loki. They generally don’t know what they’re talking about and are just looking for reasons to exclude people (especially minorities.) Pay them no heed.

UPG - Unverified Personal Gnosis. Knowledge you’ve gained about a deity that isn’t (and perhaps can’t be) verified by the lore. If more than one person has the same UPG, it becomes SPG, Shared Personal Gnosis. Since UPG isn’t verified, it’s important not to treat it as hard facts.

This weird thing happened to me! Is it a sign from Loki?

Only you can determine whether to treat something as a sign or not. You know the context of the situation and your own personal symbolism way better than any stranger on the internet. Odds are, you also have slightly different criteria for what counts as sufficient proof than our mods. And that's okay.

Regardless, remember that you don't actually need a sign or a "calling" in order to worship Loki. If it's something you want to try, that's justification enough. By the same token, you're allowed to say no even if a god is calling you. It's your existence, and you get to decide who or what you're devoted to.

What if my question isn’t answered here?

Our ask box is always open! Anonymous questions are welcome. We’re here to help, so don’t be shy.

#Made some (mostly minor) changes to our FAQ so here’s the new rebloggable version.#faq #basic informational #lokean #pagan

2K notes · View notes

birdwired-blog · 6 years

Text

Thor: Ragnarok and the MCU

Thor: Ragnarok might just be the best Marvel film since the Avengers. Characters they have been growing for five years have finally reached maturity and they’re let loose in this a film that understands a bold concept is better than an intricate story. In a series that has carved a near ideological stance on narrative construction, finally understood that their movies are about quirky outsiders rolling their eyes along with the audience at unbelievable circumstances. They’re goal is to create a 250 million dollar blockbuster, that still feels like it’s on your side.

Spectacle may be expensive, but it’s cheap. Any multimillion dollar franchise can give us spectacle. You can have spectacle in any flavour: fantasy, magical, sci-fi. Marvel films have always seemed to have had an edge over their competitors, but it’s not because of brand recognition (Superman or Batman would be more popular brands, after all), it’s not because they focus on characters either. Even the transformers understood the need to focus on their characters. So what is Marvel’s secret?

Marvel have learned to incorporate the fan’s understanding of their franchise through the use of metanarratives. Like a Shane Black film, The characters speak in a distinct cinema literate dialogue. Not only are they marbled with references to other films, the story structure itself is presented with an air sarcasm, so any of its perceived clichés can be dismissed as intentional or unimportant. Its shared universe is presented to us like a huge risk that Marvel is somehow weathering, despite the odds. The hard core fan understands the story is perfunctory, the characters will often acknowledge how derivative the plot or their nemesis is, usually through the intertext of another film. The moment in Avengers when Captain America acknowledges the reference to The Wizard of Oz (1939), is a funny bit, but it’s also a clear signifier that even this man out of time is playing along at being cinema literate. It’s here where Thor has always tripped up in the past.

With phase 2, Marvel entered their darkest and arguably weakest period. Thor: The dark world (2013) was grim; it lived up to its subtitle. Marvel tried to build on the world they created in 2012 by focusing on the fallout from the conflict in The Avengers: Stark’s post traumatic stress disorder in Iron man 3, Thor’s troubled relationship with Loki. This concluded with Avengers 2: age of Ultron (2015). Marvel films have always lacked a strong concept, so when they focus on their own story they start to become tiresome. By design the world and its people lack specificity, the players are already in place and it only ever relates to our own world in a general way. Many complain about the villain of the week set up in these films, but any attempt to hold a long contiguous conflict would (and did) damage the series. While it is true that today’s audiences can use the Internet to stay informed about long running film series, the reality of it is the stories don’t matter. From the moment they cast Robert Downey Jr in Iron man they established a series entangled in the real stories of its production and actors. As long as the audience have an understanding of who the actors are and what role they’re playing, they can jump into any of these films without much difficulty. The essential part of making this expanded universe work isn’t storytelling, it’s casting.

Tony Stark’s arc in the first Iron man film neatly matches Robert Downey Jr’s own career from ambitious talent, to egomaniacal self destruction, to eventual redemption. Through casting alone we already understand Tony Stark. The story we’re actually being told is Robert Downey Jr’s story, so the plot about robots and super villains are alienated. The typical role of a protagonist is to act as a bridge for the audience into a the strange world of the film. With Marvel the protagonists also act as gatekeepers; they keep us out by deliberately undermining the threats they face by quipping at them. We’re not here to take these stories seriously. The real heart is in the metanarrative: Will Robert Downey Jr clean up his act? Can this cross film continuity super team work? Can a modern audience accept the incarnation of America’s best ideals?

In 2011 Thor wasn’t a character, but a face that fitted a part. It was Natalie Portman that rolled her eyes and swooned with the audience while she admired some blonde guy’s impossible physique. The question was how could Marvel make this ridiculous character believable, Marvel’s answer was to take it all seriously. As the series got darker, it was clear that cynicism would not stick to Thor’s pre-modern origins, but where was Thor’s gusto and drinking? In the intervening years Chris Hemsworth was able to grow a Hollywood personality that matched his party-loving onscreen persona. He graduated from ‘looks the part’ to a persona we understood, and after two films he was ready to be the lead man.

Although the prologue does manage to get the plot started, all of it is overshadowed with awkward slice of life humour. Thor’s encounter with a devil-like monster is broken up with him turning in his chain to miss every other sentence; it subverts the cliché of villain capturing the hero to explain his plans with mundane humour to contrast against the absurd theatricality. The understanding is Thor is played by an actor that understands these clichés and mocking the film’s own weaknesses. After a brief encounter with their sister, Thor and Loki fall into a time bubble and straight out of the canon. Thor’s hair is cut so he appears more like his actor and he enters a battle arena to face off against the hulk. In another film this encounter would be unbearable fan service, but instead the film makes its intentions completely clear: this is a holiday where consequences and circumstance take a back seat to fun. The characters, who are enslaved into a deathmatch (a situation which in reality would be terrible), have the very best of time because they too are aware of ludicrous opportunity for spectacle. Taika Waititi, the director, plays a happy-go-lucky fellow slave. Again, this is a wink to the film literate audience members; the director is communicating directly to the audience that this is all just some silly fun. Even the character’s names are deliberately shallow; Grandmaster may as well be named Jeff Goldblum, that’s all we understand the character to be. Goldblum, known for his naturalistic, likable performances is cast as a slaver who seems more interested in giving his audience (both those in the arena and those of us in the cinema) a good show. We see the actors bulge at the seems of these characters, they seem almost embarrassed by their own grandiosity. They create specificity with a character who are otherwise broad.

We can see the inverse of this casting policy through Tessa Thompson, who is playing a former Asgardian valkyrie. Unlike the rest of the cast she is sincere and involved with the world around her. In fact, her situation within the film’s story drives her to drink. Her awareness is limited to the film’s reality, and so it falls on her to drive the plot forward. Valkyrie gets the most pronounced character arc in this film, a past failure keeps her from returning home to fight again, but it’s Thor we remember, because Hemsworth was finally able to play the fun version of Thor we were told about two films ago.

Thor: Ragnarok finally delivers on its promise; we were told that Thor was an obnoxious windbag who loved to battle, drink and make merry, but until now the films focused on responsibility and Thor’s role in a coming intergalactic war. This film is the crystallization of Marvel’s very best attributes as it actively rejects its own universe to focus on story about Thor’s capacity to entertain if we just allow him to enjoy himself.

Once our heroes escape their time bubble, we return to story like school after Christmas and work our way through one last big action sequence before destroying another villain of the week at a great cost that will be mentioned briefly in a future film. But Thor: Ragnarok has one more thing to say: with the destruction of Asgard, the Marvel cinematic universe is not a setting, or a story; it is the characters and they’ll survive, even after you’ve long given up on the story.

#thor #thor ragnarok #review

14 notes · View notes

buttonholedlife · 4 years

Text

Videograms of a Revolution: Surveillance, Self-Regulation, and Techno-Progressivism in M. Night Shyamalan’s Glass (2019) - Bright Lights Film Journal

“There are unknown forces that don’t want us to realise what we are truly capable of. They don’t want us to know the things we suspect are extraordinary about ourselves are real. I believe that if everyone sees what just a few people become when they wholly embrace their gifts, others will awaken. Belief in oneself is contagious. We give each other permission to be superheroes. We will never awaken otherwise. Whoever these people are, who don’t want us to know the truth, today they lose.” – Elijah Price in Glass

Like its predecessors Unbreakable (2000) and Split (2016), Glass (2019) offers a remarkably scaled-down approach to the superhero genre, taking people with extraordinary powers and displacing them from the fantastic context of the comic book universe into the mundane context of our own reality. Of course, in the years separating Glass from Unbreakable, the cultural position of comic books has substantially shifted from the margins to the mainstream, and director M. Night Shyamalan acknowledges the ways in which this transformation in the extra-textual status of the genre will alter the way that the viewer will perceive the final instalment of the Eastrail trilogy. Whereas Unbreakable treats comic books as a niche art form, Glass tackles a world in a world in which caped crusaders have obtained a high level of visibility in the cultural mainstream.

Unbreakable takes the superhero genre and grounds it in reality, using the tropes of the origin story and as a basis for a serious meditation on the themes of trauma, determinism, free will, and the ethics of vigilantism. It is only the film’s ostensible antagonist, the social outcast Elijah, who is familiar with the history and iconography of superheroes. He has become so engrossed in their mythology that he has come to believe the comic book genre can serve a purpose akin to primordial scripture, providing a blueprint through which the mysteries of life may be understood and a worthwhile guide to ethical behaviour. Comic books are positioned as a guide for broken characters to make sense of their place in the world and understand their role in a larger cosmic pattern. Unbreakable mostly plays out as a melancholic character study, dialing down the violent spectacle and simplistic good/evil dichotomies in order to self-reflexively explore the function of the superhero mythology in American popular culture.

In 2019, comic books are the bedrock of an industrial entertainment complex that is increasingly consuming the landscape of mainstream cinema. When Elijah explains the conventions of the superhero genre in Unbreakable, it was a way of communicating to viewers information about an art form they may not be familiar with. There is no longer any chance of the viewer being ignorant of these codes in a culture in which the annual global box office is dominated by properties from the Marvel and DC cinematic universes – the very status of Glass as the final part of a trilogy that brings together multiple characters who previously existed in self-contained features immediately recalls the drawn-out multi-movie universes of the aforementioned brands. Glass premiered just a few months before a much more hotly anticipated conclusion to a comic book series that has spanned decades: Avengers: Endgame (Russo & Russo, 2019). Comparing the two movies however, reveals the extreme degree to which Shyamalan deviates from the standardized formula of modern comic book movies. Glass plays out almost entirely within the claustrophobic space of a mental hospital ward, features only a handful of characters, and keeps the sparse action set-pieces minimalistic (the film’s centrepiece is an extended therapy sequence in a standard consultation room, and the grand finale occurs in a parking lot). The genre has become so popular, in fact, that the comic book movie commenting on the conventions of comic book movies has become a notable subgenre in itself. Yet, although there are several sequences in which Elijah performs an exegesis on his favoured art form that parallels the unfolding of the events on screen, what separates a work like Glass from the smug, adolescent meta-commentary of movies like Kick-Ass (Vaughn & Wadlow, 2010), Super (Gunn, 2010), and Deadpool (Miller, 2016) is that Shyamalan is using these observations to launch an enquiry into the ways in which pop cultural icons shape ideology and reinforce cultural values. Glass is organized around a tension between the ability of popular fiction to function as an agent of social control and the capacity of culture to pave the way to emancipation. The double logic of cultural icons is tied to the dialectic Glass establishes between panoptic and synoptic surveillance.

The current ubiquity of comic book narratives is established in the very first scene of Glass, which sees two teenagers record themselves delivering a self-proclaimed “superman punch” to an unsuspecting civilian and then uploading the footage to a YouTube-style video-sharing site. Nearly two decades after the ending of Unbreakable, David Dunn manages a security supply shop in partnership with his son, Joseph, while patrolling Philadelphia’s backstreets at night. Dunn is no longer a marginal figure confined to the shadows, but a popular person in the community; images of his exploits are regularly snapped by bystanders, who share their findings with an adoring media who have granted him the nickname “The Overseer.” In the same area, Kevin Wendell Crumb – the protagonist of Split – has developed a similarly high level of press attention, though of a more disreputable kind. Operating out of a series of abandoned buildings, Crumb has spent the past few weeks abducting and murdering high school girls. Crumb has evolved into a stronger and more monstrous villain in the interim, with the majority of personalities now working harmoniously with The Beast to prevent Kevin’s true identity from resurfacing; Crumb’s alters developed as a coping mechanism to shield him from the emotional pain of his unbearable childhood abuse, but with time they have warped into a monstrous form.

Dunn carefully tracks down Crumb (dubbed “The Horde” by the media) to a nearby factory, where he finds a group of cheerleaders chained to a table. In the process of releasing the girls, Dunn is attacked by Crumb, yet the expected grand climactic fight is cut short when the pair fall out of the window and are apprehended by the police. The two men are then placed in the custody of the Raven Hill Hospital, an institution for the criminally insane that has housed Unbreakable’s Elijah for years. They soon discover that they are the subjects of an experiment being conducted by Dr. Ellie Staple, a psychiatrist who is researching a rare mental condition that causes its subjects to imagine they have superhuman abilities. Staple diagnoses Elijah, Crumb, and Dunn with the illness, and takes on the task of “curing” them by convincing them that the events they have experienced have perfectly rational, secular explanations. Crumb and Dunn resist her aggressive mind games at first, but eventually their convictions begin to disintegrate.

The construction of the Eastrail 177 trilogy has been one of the strangest and most ambitious moves of Shyamalan’s career. Split revealed itself to be a long-belated continuation of Unbreakable in its closing moments, and it essentially functions as a self-contained entity (considering both films as a complementary pair certainly enriches their meaning, but a viewer could easily watch Split with no prior knowledge of Unbreakable). Now, a mere three years later in 2019 we have Glass, a conclusion that fully fleshes out the mythology of the shared diegetic universe that unites all of the films in the series. In one of his infamous cameos, Shyamalan appears as one of Dunn’s customers in the opening act. He tells a lengthy anecdote that establishes a connection between his seemingly unimportant roles as a down-and-out drug dealer in Unbreakable and a sober building manager in Split. This moment is played for laughs, as Shyamalan sketches out a knowingly convoluted life story to conflate two characters who initially seemed to be disparate, but it also immediately sets up the importance of extra-textual temporality to the power of Glass. The time elapsed in between films is conflated with narrative time, and the weight of these years adds extreme pathos to Glass, particularly in its closing moments. A multitude of formal devices are used to connect the dots between the films, including striking visual echoes and the incorporation of unused footage from Unbreakable into the narrative fabric of Glass as flashbacks. In one of the film’s most striking sequences, a tracking shot connects newly filmed footage of Crumb’s father riding the commuter train to the opening set-piece of Unbreakable, which serves as the catalyst for the entire trilogy. Through complex digital compositing, two shots recorded twenty years apart seem to be seamlessly linked through a single camera movement, and an iconic moment of twenty-first-century cinema is reworked to feature a new set of narrative and emotional implications.

Shyamalan occupies a deeply strange place within popular culture. He is one of the few modern auteurs so popular he’s reached household-name status, yet, aside from a small but dedicated cult of die-hard fans, the promise of a new Shyamalan film tends to inspire eye rolls rather than anticipation. The breakout success of The Sixth Sense (Shyamalan, 1999) saw the young director hailed as a wunderkind – an idiosyncratic filmmaker crafting challenging and personal art within the framework of a dramatically satisfying genre feature. The exceptional commercial and critical support that surrounded Shyamalan at the start of his career quickly soured, however, as each subsequent feature marked a substantial downturn in his reputation. Unbreakable and (2002) received positive reviews, but they were tempered by a sense of weariness, punishing Shyamalan for his commitment to a set of deeply personal formal and thematic preoccupations. For most critics, Shyamalan allowed his early success to go to his head, and his inflated ego led him to squander his potential with a series of increasingly bloated and pretentious riffs on familiar themes. In this writer’s eyes, however, Shyamalan has always been a distinctive and vital voice in the landscape of American cinema, demonstrating a formal rigour, intellectual curiosity, genuine spirituality, and sociopolitical critique even in his aggressively maligned work. The unexpected popularity of the The Visit (2015) and Split marked a return of critical goodwill after years of being treated as a punchline. This resurgence, however, should not be treated as a return to form but rather an opportunity for us to re-evaluate the work of a great filmmaker whose vision has for too long been unfortunately overlooked. Shyamalan remains a master of slow-burn tension and creating horror through suggestion: Signs is an alien invasion movie that only gives us brief glimpses of shadows and reflections into its final act; The Village is a monster movie that only gets scarier after it reveals its monsters to be societal constructions; The Happening takes Shyamalan’s poetry of elision to its logical extreme, premised on the fear of an all-encompassing enemy that is immaterial and, therefore, cannot be visualized in a concrete way.

More than perhaps any other living filmmaker, Shyamalan understands the allegorical potential of traditional genre frameworks. He does not subvert the language of his storytelling models, but pays an uncommon level of care to the selective unfolding of information through clockwork-tight narratives. He has largely been disparaged for his reliance on twists, as if his films function only as sensationalistic puzzle boxes that aim only to dupe the viewer before undercutting their assumptions at the final moment. A recurring sketch on the asinine Adult Swim parody show Robot Chicken (Green & Senreich, 2006-ongoing) encapsulates this view of Shyamalan as a cheap trickster rather than an artist: in each skit, Shyamalan is portrayed like a hyper child, giddily peeling away increasingly ludicrous layers of illusion while repeatedly yelling “What a twist!” with every rug-pull. It is inarguable that the success of the majority of Shyamalan’s films relies on the effectiveness of his third-act revelations, but there is nothing unsophisticated about this approach to narrative construction. By drastically reconfiguring everything we had assumed about what we were witnessing, these late turning points invariably add new layers of emotional resonance and thematic complexity. It is also important to note that twists do not emerge out of nowhere – where a more shameless genre director would traffic in misdirection to ensure their ability to wrong-foot their audience at the final moment, Shyamalan skilfully embeds clues and motifs that signpost the direction in which his narratives are truly headed.

Shayamlan’s immaculate storytelling construction is evidenced better than ever in Glass, a late-career masterwork that may go down as his magnum opus. The aforementioned directorial cameo, in which Shyamalan appears as an inquisitive customer scoping out security cameras, hints at the significance of surveillance to the film’s thematic schema. Glass explores the nature of power in a networked information society, shaped by the proliferation of digital devices on the micro-consumer level as well as on the corporate/state level. As a result, the modern social sphere is built on a combination of both synoptic and panoptic modes of surveillance. On the one hand, these technological developments have allowed for the consolidation of centralized power, intensifying the panoptic model of authoritarian governmental oppression that continues to dominate surveillance studies. Less attention has been paid, however, to the emancipatory potential of synoptic devices, which enable the average citizen to hold the power of surveillance from below.

To explore Glass’s portrayal of this new social fabric, it is first important to establish a theoretical framework that charts the development of the panoptic paradigm as it has evolved from Bentham to Foucault to Deleuze to Mathiesen. Bentham proposed that the ideal prison would be an annular-shaped structure organized around a central watchtower (Bentham, 1791). In this model, a guard is able to use the watchtower to observe the prisoners housed in the isolated cells below him without being detected. As the inmates are unable to determine whether they are being watched or not at any given moment, they internalize the disciplinary gaze of the observer, regulating their behaviour to fall in line with the expectations of the authorities at all times. The guard, therefore, does not need to be present for his gaze to be effective, as the inmates monitor themselves. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault uses this model as a means to explain social control within industrial “discipline” societies. The prevalence of surveillance cameras in the public arena creates the illusion of an omnipresent authoritarian gaze that encourages the individual to shape his behaviour according to societal norms. In Foucault’s conception, the central eye of the tower guard is replaced by the omnipresent gaze of governmental and corporate powers, who consolidate their power through a multitude of mass surveillance mechanisms (Foucault, 1975). Ostensibly put in place to ensure public security, these devices instead serve the purpose of suppressing individual agency. This, in Foucault’s model, was the twentieth-century equivalent of the grand public displays of violence in medieval societies that were conducted openly to shock citizens into acquiescence. Technological surveillance is used to impose a similar form of oppressive control, though in a more subtle, seemingly harmless form; forcing citizens to incorporate the surveillant gaze into their own subjectivity is an act of subtle coercion that is an altogether more imperceptible and therefore more effective method of social control. Being constantly subject to the administrative practices of institutions like Ravel Hill, the subject becomes paranoid at the idea of being monitored at all times and thus a manipulatable object that can be morphed into the “ideal” citizen. As Gary Marx, writing on Foucault, explains: “to venture into the shopping mall, bank, subway, sometimes even a bathroom,” he argues, “is to perform before an unknown audience,” resulting in “the increase of the power of large organisations […] over the individual” (Marx quoted in Berko, 1992, p. 68).

In Postscript of the Societies of Control, Deleuze revisits and reworks Foucault’s model of a disciplinary society. Deleuze argues that there is a notable difference between “disciplinary societies” and “societies of control” (Deleuze, 1992, p. 5). For Delezue, the individual, closed institutions of the former have dissolved into a social materiality wherein “one is never finished with anything – the corporation, the educational system, the armed services being metastable states coexisting in one and the same modulation” (Ibid, p. 5). Deleuze’s theory extends Foucault’s panoptical paradigm, stressing the ways in which state control now takes a more open, all-encompassing form. Most scholars of surveillance culture have aligned with Deleuze, framing the proliferation of surveillant devices enabled by digital technologies as an intensification of the panoptic principle. As Poster argues, the technological advancements of the information age have given rise to a “Superpanopticon,” a vast network in which devices of control have become so deeply integrated into the fabric of everyday life that they become almost indecipherable (Poster, 1995, pp. 78-94). Cameras, website cookies, credit card scanners, computerized medical records, and so on envelop the citizen into an overwhelming structure of control from which there is no feasible escape. Every time a citizen interacts with a technology that holds surveillance power, information is gathered, interpreted, managed by a centralized group of overarching commercial and state institutions, and used to suit their own interests. More than ever, it seems impossible for the individual to operate within society without willingly plugging into the digital network – in order to gain employment, buy food, register for medical care the individual must import information that leaves a digital footprint that is then is stored and used to monitor the populace. The citizen is becoming subjected to increasingly invasive security so that the informability of their lives may be harvested to suit commercial and state interests.

At the same time, however, these devices have led to an increase in synoptic modes of surveillance, which, as Mathiesen argues, represents an enormously extensive system enabling “the many to see and contemplate the few” (Mathiesen, p. 219). This, as Boyne argues, marks a “reversal of the Panoptical polarity,” which “may have become so marked that it finally deconstructs the Panoptical metaphor altogether” (Boyne, 2000, p. 299). This transition from a panoptical to a post-panoptical model is dramatized in Glass, a film that devotes the majority of its running time to detailing the control mechanisms of the modern network society – combining elements of Foucault’s disciplinary society and Deleuze’s control society – before devoting its final act to an optimistic vision of consumer-grade recording devices dismantling the top-down power structure and deconstructing the traditional hierarchal panoptic principle.

The model of the Panopticon is clearly central to Shyamalan’s vision of power relations in Glass. Ravel Hill Mental Hospital is modelled on Bentham’s novel, comprised of a series of isolated chambers in which the inmates are subject to the gaze of Dr. Staple. The hospital is fitted with a vast array of surveillance cameras, producing images that feed into a wall of monitors in Dr. Staple’s office, thereby drawing a clear line from Bentham’s to Foucault’s conception of control. “You see this camera,” Dr. Staple tells Elijah upon his admittance to the hospital, “There are 100 more of these. Everything is being recorded.” Each cell is fitted with a high-tech device that prevents them from practicing their superpower: Crumb is enclosed by a “hypnosis light” that detects when he is preparing to transform into his more powerful alters and neutralizes the threat; Dunn is placed next to a giant water container (his kryptonite), reducing his strength; and Elijah is confined to a chair in a room heavily monitored by armed guards. In each case, however, it is uncertain whether these devices are literally suppressing the characters’ supposed abilities or whether they are neutral entities causing a placebo effect to tether them to reality.

These devices, the threat of the omnipresent gaze, and Dr. Staples’ sustained psychological tests combine to shake Crumb and Dunn’s belief in their own powers. In the gradual erasure of these characters’ self-confidence, we see Foucault’s concept of the self-disciplinary gaze at work. Dr. Staple immediately delineates a clear-cut distinction between “bad” behaviour (the exercising of her subject’s exceptional abilities) and “positive” behaviour (acknowledging that these abilities are an illusion and hence refusing to practice them). As their self-confidence crumbles in the face of Dr. Staple’s coercion, these characters begin to regulate their own action in accordance with her notion of the “ideal” citizen. This ideal citizen, in the sanitized neo-liberal hellscape of Glass, is a passive, circumscribed centrist blind to their own capabilities and hence rendered non-threatening to prevailing systems of power. Dr. Staple, it is eventually revealed, is not an independent researcher but a member of a nefarious militant group devoted to the systemic neutralization of potential dissidents – and thus an embodied representation of an omnipresent social force. As a result of their enclosure within a system of extreme discipline, Dunn and Crumb find themselves succumbing to the ideology behind Dr. Staple’s research.

This ideology is in line with Philipp Mirowski’s theory of “everyday neoliberalism,” a term for the dominant system of values in developed society that circumscribe everyday behaviour by setting clear boundaries in the way citizens may think, conduct their behaviour, and orientate themselves politically. If we are living within an era embedded in the belief that Western liberal democracy and consumer capitalism are the uncontested ideal form of government – a mentality Fukuyama famously termed The End of History (Fukuyama, 1992) – then everyday neoliberalism is the existential norm. As Wendy Brown writes: “Neoliberalism generates a condition of politics absent democratic institutions that would support a democratic public and all that such a public represents at its best: informed passion, respectful deliberation, aspirational sovereignty, sharp containment of powers that would overrule or undermine it” (Brown, 2015, p. 39).

Key to the maintenance of the neoliberal order, then, is the sedation of the populace; the consolidation of neoliberal values has been reliant on the maintenance of the illusion that there is no alternative to capitalism. In order to pacify citizens into submission, then, “certain kinds of social relations, certain ways of living, certain subjectivities” (The New Way of the World) must be generated to diffuse the chance of subversion or revolution. There are key echoes of Brown’s diagnoses in Dr. Staple’s description of her organization’s purpose: “They got it wrong in the comics. They talk about secret evil groups trying to stop the heroes. I don’t think we are particularly evil, and we don’t choose sides. We try to stop both of you. If there is one of you, the opposite of you appears. It escalates. We step in. There just can’t be gods amongst us. It’s not fair.”

The logic of neoliberalism thus extends beyond the political sphere and infiltrates our mentalities within our personal lives. To instil into society the belief that there is no viable alternative to consumer capitalism is to create social pressures that coerce individuals to conform – and this belief is instilled with a multitude of ideological state apparatuses including education, the legal system, and the media. The “ideal” citizen crafted through careful surveillance is achieved through encouraging those on the outskirts of society to conform to rigid social codes and norms. The perpetuation of images of repression and mediocrity has a pacifying effect, supporting a centrist neoliberal establishment under the guise of providing security. Mark Fisher succinctly outlines this resigned position in his study Capitalist Realism:

What counts as “realistic,” what seems possible at any point in the social field, is defined by a series of political determinations. An ideological position can never be really successful until it is naturalized, and it cannot be naturalized while it is still thought of as a value rather than a fact. Accordingly, neoliberalism has sought to eliminate the very category of value in the ethical sense. Over the past thirty years, capitalist realism has successfully installed a “business ontology” in which it is simply obvious that everything in society, including healthcare and education, should be run as a business.” (Fisher, 2009, p. 16)

Seen from this angle, the Shyamalan film that Glass most closely resembles is The Village; both films begin with exploring at length the complex methods of social control in which an authoritarian government exert dominance over their citizens. Structural blindness is central to both models of power: in The Village, the elders must fabricate stories of the dangers of the forest to instil fear in their citizens, which leads to them willingly giving up their rights and becoming passive agents to fulfil their elite’s own whims; in Glass, similar results are achieved on a grand scale.

Yet Glass, like The Village, points to the ways in which traditional hierarchies of control may be disrupted from the ground level through the power of technology. In both cases, the twisty plot, based on the careful withholding and unfurling of key information, is vital to the film’s portrayal of the connection between education and emancipation. The protagonists of The Village are initially presented in a state of structural blindness, having been psychologically conditioned to believe that the tight grip of their puritanical government is necessary to ensure their protection. The village elders fabricate tales about fictional monsters that lie on the outskirts of their seemingly idyllic hamlet, manufacturing a sense of collective paranoia that may be exploited to encourage the citizens under their watch to surrender their civil rights and bend to the will of their masters. The film’s final twist reveals that what we thought was a nineteenth-century township is, in fact, a modern-day settlement established by a group of reactionary neo-conservatives. These characters were each fleeing their own personal trauma and were motivated by the misguided belief a return to the simplicity of colonial America would shield them from the corruption of twenty-first-century society. The first generation were willing participants in the experiment, but the second are prisoners raised to believe the lie that the modern world doesn’t exist. When these younger citizens begin to show signs of agency, the elders react by adopting increasingly aggressive means to coerce them into sacrificing their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security. They reach emancipation, however, when they break free from the illusory truths used to imprison them and face the true reality of their situation.

After using the multitude of cameras to coerce her subjects into compliance, it is Dr. Staple’s plan to delete the recordings and remove all traces of both their abilities and her own wrongdoings. The final-act rug-pull, however, reveals that Elijah has reworked the hospital’s security cameras to stream live footage of himself, Crumb, and Dunn using their powers to a private online network, having left his mother instructions to download the video and make it available to the public. His intention is to make the public aware of the existence of those with superpowers and hence to encourage others to embrace their own extraordinary capabilities. On an allegorical level, this represents a desire to awaken a narcotized proletariat to the conditions of their own victimization and hence to radicalize them into embracing revolutionary action. What seems to be a hopeless, one-sided tale of the dehumanizing effects of mass surveillance, then, becomes a heroic vision of the ways in which progressive technology may be reclaimed to assert the agency of the social agent. A traditional, one-sided interpretation of oppressive surveillance is upended by a more critical model of the network society that combines elements of panoptic and synoptic surveillance. Glass therefore thematises the cultural shift; new paradigms of surveillance have enabled the development of a more fluid, malleable web of relations within social space. The cheapness, mobility, and ease of access of digital imaging equipment have placed them into the hands of consumers, making them available to use against the grain of traditional institutional structures, thus enabling a wider spread of information outside the dominant structures of mainstream media. Thus, as Green argues, the decentralizing of information in the networked economy is expressive of a “democratic potential”: information traditionally concealed by figures of authority may be revealed and spread to large portions of the population through, for example, the broadcast of previously unseen crimes or the release of formerly hidden documents (Green, 2010). This is a reflection on the new spaces opened by media technologies to allow for the empowerment of traditionally marginalized voices; more specifically, the democratic structure of the web has allowed for small-scale, consumer-grade surveillance images to be directly transmitted to far wider audiences than traditionally thought possible, without having to go through traditional gatekeeping channels. The voices on the periphery of culture are thus empowered by these techniques and are able to gain an equal platform with the cultural mainstream.

The film, then, can be boiled down to a clash between two titans vying to gain control over the narrative: Dr. Staple represents the panoptic model of surveillance, using her institutional influence to impose a regime of authoritarian neoliberalism under the guise of benevolence; Elijah represents the synoptic model, a seemingly vulnerable citizen who disrupts state power to achieve a newfound level of empowerment. The modes of new media are thus turned against the powers who impose them to reverse the informational flow.

Elijah is revealed to be the trilogy’s true storyteller – a recurring figure in Shyamalan’s oeuvre, a puppet-master who manipulates the direction of the narrative and moves each character toward the achievement of a grand, ethical goal. Each of the major plot points driving the Eastrail trilogy turn out to have been nodes in a grand master plan Elijah has been orchestrating to reach this end point: the train he selected to derail in order to prove Dunn’s superhuman healing powers was also carrying Kevin’s father, who perished. His absence in the family home heightened the abuse suffered by the young Kevin at the hands of his mother until he built up his multiple personalities as a coping mechanism. Elijah’s actions first foster the exceptional abilities of Crumb and Dunn, allowing them to achieve their true superheroic form, and then secondly make the existence of these exceptional capabilities known to the public, in the hope that this will encourage more citizens who hold the same potential.

Glass not only allows for the achievement of resistance within the digital sphere, it allows for resistance through digital surveillance mechanisms, as those who are open to the gaze of the centralized eye are empowered by their access to alternative informational channels. At this point, it is worth returning to Fisher: “Emancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a “natural order,’ must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be a mere contingency, just as it must make what was previously deemed to be impossible seem attainable” (Ibid, p. 17).

Glass, like The Village, ends on the cusp of radical social change, rather than showing the revolution itself. But in illustrating the populace breaking from their socially conditioned complacency, Shyamalan is positioning the future as a site of potentiality. An elating image closes the film: Elijah’s mother, Dunn’s son, and Casey (the kidnapped girl from Split who used her empathy to appeal to Crumb and was therefore spared) are seated in a train station, having just released the video evidence to a public site. One by one, the pedestrians around them become receive notifications of its existence as it goes viral, their faces lighting up. The three hold hands as Elijah’s mother says, with anticipation, “I know what this is. This is the moment we are let in on the universe.” As the tools of surveillance have been placed into the hands of everyday agents, it is possible to establish a vast and scattered power structure organized around multiples lines of control. Taking Kranzberg’s First Law that “technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral” as an axiom, Glass acknowledges the heterogeneous possibilities embedded in the contemporary model of surveillance, which Shyamalan portrays as a new digital Panopticon (Kranzberg, 1986). The latter may be employed to form effective counter-hegemonic strategies to empower the individual that these tools are designed to subjugate.

Bibliography

Bentham, J. (1791). “Outline for the Construction of a Panopticon Penitentiary House.” In A Bentham Reader. Ed. Mack, M. Pegasus, 1969.

Berko, S. (1992). Surveying the Surveilled: Video, Space and Social Change. PhD Thesis. University of Southern California.

Boyne, R. (2000). “Post-Panopticism.” Economy and Society, 29:2, pp. 285-307.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demons: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. Zone Books.

Deleuze, G. (1992). “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” October, 59, pp. 3-7.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Zero Books.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish. Trans. A. Sheridan. Penguin, 1977.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.

Green, S. (1999). “A Plague on the Panopticon: Surveillance and Power in the Global Information Economy.” Communication & Society, 2:1, pp. 26-44.

Kranzberg, M. (1986) “Technology and History: Kranzberg’s Laws.” Technology and Culture, 27:3, pp. 544-560.

Mathiesen, T. (1997). “The Viewer Society: Foucault’s ‘Panopticon’ Revisited.” Theoretical Criminology: An International Journal, 1:2, pp. 215-232.

Poster, M. (1995). “Databases as Discourse, or Electronic Interpellations.” In The Second Media Age. pp. 78-94. Polity Press.

This content was originally published here.

0 notes

thewidowstanton · 7 years

Text

Tessa Blackman, hand-to-hand and acrobalance artist, Josh & Tess, Living Room Circus

American circus artist Tessa Blackman – who is from Chicago – trained as a dancer from the age of five. She specialised in classical ballet at the University of North Carolina School of the Arts, and also did tap, jazz and contemporary. She went on train at Chicago’s Second City and has also studied holistic energy and worked with InVision, a school of psychic abilities.

In 2016 she graduated from the National Centre for Circus Arts in London with her hand-to-hand partner Joshua Frazer. As Josh & Tess, their acts are an enticing fusion of ballet and circus. They are members of Living Room Circus and appear in its show The Penguin and I from 29 June – 2 July at The Dairy at Springhill Farm, in Forest Row, Sussex. It runs again on 25 July at Jacksons Lane in London, and the duo appear in Simple Cypher’s Cypher Stories on 26 July at the same venue during its Postcards 2017 season. Tessa chats to Liz Arratoon.

The Widow Stanton: Any there any other performers in your family? Tessa Blackman: Yes. My mum, Suzanne Lek, was a prima ballerina. My great, great uncle was Nicolas Legat, who was a really famous Russian dancer. He was kind of like in the beginning of the whole Vaganova technique. Back in the day there was the Legat School of Ballet and the Royal Ballet and they were kind of rivals. So my mum went there from ten to 18. But then Legat got shut down. She worked for the London Festival Ballet and then moved to Yugoslavia and worked in a company there. She also worked at Pineapple Dance Studio and then actually first brought Pineapple to New York. My dad isn’t a performer but he loves the arts.

Is your mother Russian? No. Our familly line is Russian but she’s actually Welsh… well, it’s all mxed up because my grandparents lived in Holland but when the Nazis invaded they moved to Wales, cos we’re Jewish. My dad is from Chicago, born and bred.

Did you always want to be a dancer? Yes. When I was five my mother was teaching and I said, ‘Please can I come and take some classes with you?’. There was never pressure. She never pushed me to dance but it was kind of, ‘If you’re gonna do it, you’re gonna do it well.’ Then she pushed me pretty hard, but in a good way. It was tough at times and I danced from five years old up until 19. I went to North Carolina School of the Arts boarding school for ballet and yeah, I always wanted to be a dancer. That was my thing.

So why aren’t you a dancer? Yes, exactly. When I was 18, I had a really bad back injury; I had a herniated disc and that was the end of my ballet career. I kind of took about four years out. All the doctors wanted me to have surgery but there was something instinctual in me that told me not to do it, and I said I didn’t want it. I did holistic therapies and everything I could and essentially healed myself over time. During that time I went to art school, started painting, did a lot of energy work…

Did you do acting at Second City? Isn’t it an improv place? Yeah, they have a five-level improvisational programme and I did that for a year right after NCSA.

What made you move on to circus? Basically when I was living in Chicago and doing all these crazy things, I started getting romantically involved with a Circus du Soleil performer, who was a dancer in Dralion. [Laughs] I was like, ‘This is awesome!’. I was going to all his different shows around the States and he took me backstage one day and I got to meet all the performers. I was talking to them and was like, ‘How do you do this? This looks insane!’ They were like: “Well, you can train your muscles just like you train your muscles for dance.” They gave me this conditioning programme that I started doing on my own.

Then because I have a UK passport, I decided that I was gonna buy a one-way ticket and move to England. I did that – it worked with our relationship because he was travelling everywhere too – and I researched where I could take circus classes. I found Circus Space, which the National Centre for Circus Arts was at the time. It said, ‘Degree auditons in four weeks’. So I was like, ‘Maybe I should do this’. [Laughs] I trained for four weeks and I got in, which I still can’t believe. I couldn’t believe it happened because I had only really been physically training hard and getting back into shape since my injury probably for six months prior to the audition. I did a dance performance for my audition piece; I’d never done any circus before, I couldn’t even do a handstand. [Laughs]

This is marvellous, almost like running away with the circus… Yeah, I always describe circus to people as like one of those claw machines at fairgrounds that pick up toys. [Makes a claw hand motion] Circus just sort of picks you up and you’re like, ‘Oh, how did I get here?’. Everyone’s story is just completely different. What made you choose hand-to-hand? I was trying a bunch of disciplines and because I had no gymnastics background I had zero upper-body strength. I found aerial quite challenging. Then I started doing acrobalance and me and Josh paired up and started working together. It was really interesting, because we were similar in size and I was basing him a lot and he was basing me, and I realised that actually hand-to-hand was closer to dance than I thought and it felt really good. And we were dating, so it seems as if my romantic life takes me in the direction of my art forms [laughs]. We just dove into it together and started training and we loved it.

Your degree piece, Bound, was so distinctive and really impressive. How would you describe your style? Where we started is kind of like gender neutrality and not being confined to our genders in the way we express ourselves as artists. So we wanted to bring in a fluid movement quality and not have that be distinctly feminine and bring in a raw quality and not have that just be male; how we can both move in-between that language together and display a woman strongly and maybe display a man femininely.

Since our devised piece we’ve developing a lot with the knotted ropes – Shibari – moving more towards this raw, more aggressive style at the minute. I’m seeing that Shibari is getting more incorporated into circus now, which is really cool [see our interview with Hanna Moisala]; the whole self-suspension thing, having it be an aerial apparatus. We haven’t explored that as much but we’ve been using more the harness work.

Would you agree there has been quite a move to having women as bases? Is there a point to prove? Yeah, absolutely. I think for years we’ve been in that space as women of trying to prove a point, but for me I like to think of it, in respect to the feminist movement, that we’re not trying to be men, it’s more that we’re trying to display our strengths. The difficulty is that people are going: “Oh, you’re just trying to do the man’s job.” But it’s like, ‘No, actually these jobs are equal and we’re trying to show you that we are strong as well, that we are just as strong, we are built to do things like that, too’. It’s like: “Female bases, what’s this?” But it’s super-exciting to see and everyone loves to see it. I think it’s amazing that it’s happening.

How hard is your ‘iron-jaw’ move? [Laughs] I think that like with every circus trick, it’s an illusion to a certain extent; you have the strength but there are ways of making it safe for your body. I would say it’s probably more like a neck hang than it is genuinely from my jaw.

You might be interested in the aerialist Miss La La… but tell us about Josh and why you like working with him? A lot of reasons. We’re basically best friends. We’re not together any more in a relationship so that’s been a difficult transition but the fact is that when you work so close with someone you become best friends. We were living together for three years, we saw each other 24 hours a day so I think my relationship with him is unlike any other I’ve had with anybody. It’s probably one of the most special relationships I’ve had.

The way I kind of describe our creative process sometimes is at times I throw up on the table and then he cleans it up [laughs, a lot]. I’m kind of like, ‘Wah, wah, wah, here it is, this idea, this idea’, and he’s like: “OK, but how can we make that all work and structure it together.” It feels like a good balance.

I’ve always loved adagio and hand-to-hand with the woman in pointe shoes. You support Josh on your shoulders while on pointe. It’s stunning but what does it do to your feet… [Laughs] It requires a lot of training with my legs. The strength isn’t all coming from my ankles, it’s coming from my entire leg, so I have to keep up on my physio with my ankles and then also the strength of my inner thighs and glute muscles so that the whole leg is working to lift the body rather than just my feet.

I’ve never really understood pointe shoes. Is the inside shaped to cushion your foot? Not really. It’s a really close fit but they’re made of papier maché and have wood around the block part. You mostly wear toe pads inside. Most people use cotton or little gels, so sometimes there’s a little bit of foam at the tip of the shoe.

What have you done since graduation? I’ve mostly been working with the Living Room Circus, which is run by Elinor Harvey. She won the Deutsche Bank Business Plan Award in our year at NCCA. We did our first performance together last summer in a yurt in Forest Row in Sussex. We’re coining ourselves right now as an immersive experimental circus company. We mix circus, dance, live music and physical theatre, with an emphasis on audience interaction and involvement. We’re working on The Penguin and I, which Jason Dupree is directing.

Tell us a bit about the show… We’ve been creating a series of scenes that we can then adapt into whatever space we’re going into. For the new show we have this bespoke sofa that we can use in different ways, to balance on, to hang from. We actually got the money to make it from a Kickstarter campaign, which was great. This coming week we are performing in a dairy farm again in Forest Row. We have the scenes all laid out and we’re going to see what we can do with the space. It’s going to be really, really cool. It’s Eli’s home town and it’s kind of like our starting place.

Can you pick out a career highlight or two so far? Right off the bat, I’d say how much Josh and I have travelled so far. We’ve been to Corsica, Israel, Belgium and around the UK, and that alone is pretty awesome and exciting. Then just working with the Living Room Circus has been amazing because it feels just like a circus family. It feels like we’re a bunch of kids making a company, because we haven’t really had that much outside help. We’ve had help funding-wise but yeah, we’ve created this family together and we’re trying to make it work and see what happens.

vimeo

The Penguin and I runs from 29 June – 2 July at The Dairy, Springhill Farm, in Forest Row, Sussex and again on 25 July at Jacksons Lane in London. Josh and Tess also appear in Simple Cypher’s Cypher Stories on 26 July at the same venue during its Postcards 2017 season.

Picture credits: Tessa’s headshot, Nizaad Photography; Josh on shoulders/iron jaw, Bertil Nilsson; The Penguin, Miriam Strong

For tickets for The Penguin and I at The Dairy and at Jacksons Lane, and for Cypher Stories. click the links

Twitter: @LRCircus @jacksons_lane @SimpleCypher

Follow @TheWidowStanton on Twitter

Click the links to read our interviews with Simple Cypher’s Kieran Warner and Christopher Thomas

#tessa blackman #joshua frazer #josh and tess #interview #hand-to-hand #living room circus #acrobalance #circus artist #Elinor Harvey #shibari #simple cypher #jacksons lane #the dairy #postcards2017

9 notes · View notes

iheartfictionalboys · 7 years

Text

Iron Fist Review

So I’m a huge fan of the Netflix Marvel shows. Fan of Marvel anyways and binged Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage so I was pumped for Iron Fist. And the reaction? It’s good. Is it as good as the other three? Depends on who you ask. The critics seemed to hate it and they are arguably good reasons for this which I’ll get into. Audiences seemed to like it, and again good reasons for this too. So let’s break it down.

The Bad Stuff:

- The first four episodes are pointless. This show suffers from serious pacing problems which is evident in the fact that half of the show focuses on Danny Rand trying to prove he exists and that’s just boring. I wanna see Danny punching people and I wanna see the Iron Fist. You don’t see him do anything until like episode 5 and that’s weird.

- Some of the action is... really bad. It’s funny cuz these shows have really on point action and yet there are some scenes where it’s like “I can tell this is fake.”

- A lot of the characters, particularly in the beginning, are not likable. If I don’t like anyone until like episode 3, that’s problematic. I can say i didn’t like Danny until like the 3rd or 4th episode. But it gets way better mid way through the season if that’s anymore encouraging.

The Good Stuff:

- Casting is great. I think Finn Jones plays a great Danny Rand and makes the character his own. The rest of the actors fit their roles really well.

- There are some well done action scenes that look really cool. It’s hard to make martial arts look bad so yeah overall it looked good.

- I love the couple in this show which i will not spoil but yeah. It’s the strongest couple in the whole Marvel television universe so I thoroughly enjoyed that.

- I loved seeing all the spiritual stuff with the chi and the monks I found that really interesting.

- The second half of the season is honestly fantastic it’s on par with the other shows.

Honestly I recommend people watch this show if they haven’t. The beginning is slow and some of the action is off and yes some of the characters are just unpleasant to look at, but there is a lot of great stuff in this show and it deserves a watch. It made me super pumped for Defenders I’m excited to see how Danny fits into the dynamic. This show was a risk to make it’s very different from the others in terms of it’s incorporation of the more spiritual stuff so all in all I think they did a fine job. 7/10 i think is a fair marking. A lot of good stuff in there that honestly once you get past the slow stuff you completely forget about it but to be impartial in have to include it in the review. Check it out folks!

#iron fist #marvel #netflix #the defenders #danny rand

1 note · View note

albertcaldwellne · 6 years

Text

Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

Ah, the Avengers: the world’s favorite super hero team. If ticket sales are any indication, we love them more than the X-Men. And I suspect we’ll like them more than the Justice League. It’s been a great ride for this disparate group of heroes, and their recent blockbuster is no different.

We If you’re one of the few people who aren’t really following along, Age of Ultron is the direct sequel to 2012’s The Avengers, and the 11th overall film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe–a cohesive series of movies, tv shows, and digital shorts that tell individual parts of a larger story drawn from the pages of Marvel Comics.

“The Avengers” are a group of super heroes who, despite their differences, work together towards common purpose…usually saving the world or something like that.

Anyway, I don’t know why I’m bothering to explain the premise of the Avengers, because if by this point in time you haven’t been at least peripherally exposed to ELEVEN of the biggest blockbuster movies of all time, and you don’t know about super hero team ups, you’ve beyond my help.

If you’re not into this, I don’t know how to talk to you. We’re not friends. For the rest of you, let’s get down to brass tacks and discuss some #realness.

So. The Avengers. What an awesome group of badasses, right?

Right. But in addition to just loving them for their entertainment value and the way they inspire us to get jacked like a super hero, I believe they can teach us a few things.

In fact, I think that looking at a movie about super hero teams can teach us a lot; not just how to save the world while looking awesome in spandex (harder than it looks), and not just when it’s appropriate to break out some snappy one-liners for high level quippery (always), but some actual life lessons.

The most important of these are about teams. Not just teamwork—but the value of teams themselves.

Being part of a team—and knowing—how to be both part of a team, and successful on a team, is a fundamental skill that I think everyone needs to learn.

ONE is Better than One

The first thing you can learn from the Avengers is math: ONE is better than one. Meaning that one team is better than one person. This is very different than saying “five is better than one.”

Sure, a group of 5 individuals can probably accomplish more than just one person alone…but it is only once that group of 5 becomes ONE that you see the magic happen. When you’re part of a team–a truly cohesive unit that functions with a single purpose–you can accomplish wonders. A single team can do more in a few days than one person can do in a month, or a bunch of individuals can do in a week.

The hard part is making those 5 into ONE. Being able to do this requires that all members put their respective egos aside, and trust one another.

For the Avengers, this is sometimes hard. Captain America and Iron Man, for example, have pretty different worldview, and compromise doesn’t come easy.

youtube

But despite their disagreements, they respect and trust one another, because they can see the value each brings to the table. When things get crazy and they really need to work together, they each fall into their roles seamlessly.

If you’re going to be part of a truly successful team, you have to learn to let go of a lot of your general attitudes and preconceived notions. You just need to trust in the people around you, and earn their trust as well.

While it’s certainly difficult, actively setting aside ego is going to make you a better teammate, better employees, better boss…as well as a better parent, spouse, or friend.

The abandonment of ego is what allows you to become part of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This hasn’t always been easy for me, and it’s still a challenge.

In fact, the only thing that’s really helped me is to be constantly reminded that I don’t know everything, and I can’t do it all on my own. Trying and failing is part of it, but the larger piece of success has simply to become part of a number of teams, and focus on playing ONE specific role, rather than trying to do everything myself.

Which brings us to lesson number two…

Know Your Role (And Seek Diversity)

If you truly want to become successful, especially has part of a team, learning how to play a single role is important.

This is something I learned many years ago, back when I was 12 and playing Dungeons & Dragons in my friend’s basement. Much like the Avengers, D&D functions on the basic premise that in order to be successful, you and your group (known as an adventuring party) need to work together.

But it doesn’t stop there. It’s not enough to know how to work together; you need to work together with people who are fundamentally different than you are. In D&D, a balanced party will have characters that play different roles and bring different skills to the table. It’s important to have warriors, but you also need people who can cast spells, or hide in the shadows, or whatever else you need. Basically, a good party can deal with everything from magic to picking locks to a swarm of ocs.

This is very much like the Avengers. Every member of the team serves a different purpose. At a macro level, Iron Man is the brains; Cap is the moral center; Hulk is the muscle; Thor has the best hair (and can hammer things, I guess); Black Widow brings all sorts of espionage to the table. And they all have a role…but NO ONE Avenger is more important than the others.

oh my god this money shot

This is something we can all take to heart. And, as I touched on above, seeking these people out is one of the easiest ways to learn how to set ego aside.

Here’s an example from my own experience.

A few years back, I was contracted to handle the nutrition for UFC fighter Uriah Hall, in preparation for a fight.

Most of the time, I do everything for my clients; with Uriah, I was hired ONLY for nutrition. And that was hard, at first.

My job was only that one thing—to calculate his nutritional needs and tell him how to fill them. My boy Scot Prohaska, on the other hand, took care of the training aspect—that was his role. He designs the strength and conditioning programs. And of course Uriah has a coach for stand up, one for grappling, and so on.

Working with higher levels athletes is one of the only situations in which a trainer/coach will be part of such a large team. Anyone who says this isn’t a challenge is either a better man than I can imagine, or just lying.

At the start, it was very weird to sublimate the urge to make adjustments to a piece of the puzzle that wasn’t my responsibility. It’s limiting in some ways, and liberating in others. But most of all, it makes you think, and helps you learn.

While I was responsible for his nutrition, I promise I did not prescribe Bud Light.

I just kept telling myself, “be the nutrition guy; handle the nutrition. Don’t worry about the conditioning. Don’t think about trying to make changes to the training program.”

My job was to look those other things over and estimating the demands training and conditioning and fight practice place upon the athlete, then to address support and recovery through nutrition. My job was to incorporate every piece of information into my assessments, and recommendation, but it was NOT to make changes. At first, it was a real challenge.

Over time, it became more and more natural, and I learned a lot from the people around me—which was really the best part of the entire experience, and part of the reason I signed up, anyway.

If you’re not bound by ego, watching people do things differently is more of an honor than a burden; you just have to be open minded and trust the members of your team, even if they do things that you haven’t done. Having an understanding of the other facets helps tremendously, but at the end of the day being part of a team means just doing your job—not all the jobs.

Not only is it likely that you can’t do that job as well as someone else, but trying to do so would drive you crazy, and keep you from fulfilling your purpose. Perhaps most importantly, it would be detrimental to the team as a whole.

The lesson here is this: in life, you can’t be good at everything—but you can find people who are good at what you’re not. If you surround yourself with people who help shore up your weaknesses, you’re going to be more successful overall.

Without sounds to wishy-washy about it, I think we can all agree that learn to appreciate others for the ways they’re different from us is probably the key to world peace. Or, at least, from stopping an army of AI-driven robots from destroying us all.

Now, onto lesson number three.

Iron Sharpens Iron

If you follow any writing concerned with self-edification, you’ve almost definitely heard the expression “you’re the average of the five people you spend the most time with.” This is generally used as a warning against hanging out with people who’ll drag you down.

Personally, I have always hated that expression. Why? Because it completely minimizes personal responsibility for your development, as well as your own contribution to that of others.

Here’s the thing: yes, you are, in many ways, a product of your environment, and the people you hang out with are bound to have a huge influence on everything from your ambition to the way you speak and present yourself.

The probably with the expression is that it completely ignores the other side of the coin: if you’re the average of the five people you spend the most time with, then you’re also 1/5 of the equation for each of those people, and anyone else in your immediate orbit.

That’s why I prefer the maxim “iron sharpens iron.” It’s older by far (like, Bible old), and means that spending time with other people makes you stronger, and better…but only if they are on your level to begin with.

Tin does not sharpen iron. Nor does wood, or gold, or brass. But the thing is, iron can be used to shape and sharpen those things. Changes can still be made, things can still be built, but the relationship is one sided. The iron is doing all the work, and the softer substance is undergoing all of the change.

It is only when you have two pieces of iron—two people of similar quality—that they can REALLY engage in a mutually beneficial relationship.

The Avengers are a group for whom this is painfully true. While they’re all impressive individuals on their own, it’s only by spending time and working together that they improve—not only as a team, but also as individuals. Of course, the process of iron sharpening iron can have some…hiccups…

Cap and Thor helping each other get sharp.

But, it’s always a worthwhile process, because it helps everyone. For example, spending time with Steve Rogers has dulled Tony’s arrogance; Black Widow has helped Captain America become more world aware; Clint Barton’s continued friendship repeatedly shows Natasha Romanoff there’s more to her than the assassin she was trained to be.

And, on the more extreme side, hanging out with Tony has helped reclusive Bruce Banner come out of his shell.

Each of the Avengers helps the others get better; not only because they “see” value in one another, but because they actually have things to offer each other. While it’s tempting to think of the Avengers as being a slightly imbalanced team (the tragically human Hawkeye and Black Widow being the weak links compared to super soldiers, demi-gods, and ragemonsters), but the fact is, every single member of the team earned a spot and has something to bring to the table.

My point is, while it’s certainly true you should seek always to spend time with people who make you better and prune your social circle, you have a responsibility to the people you care about to be better, and always be getting better.

If we accept that you’re 1/5 of the personal development equation for each of these people, then in order to make them better YOU have to make sure that your iron is as hard as theirs, and vice versa.

A lot of us have the tendency to hang out with people who are a bit above us, because it makes us feel “cool”, or a bit below us, because it makes us feel “big.” But unless we’re constantly striving to become better—unless we take personal responsibility for our own development—we’re not going to get the most out of those relationships. And we certainly aren’t going to bring our best to them.

If there’s one thing you take away from this piece, let it be this: water finds its own level, and no matter how many individual drops there are, it all rises (or falls) together.

Closing Thoughts

Okay. Maybe to you, the Avengers is just a super hero movie in a long line of similar films. And on some levels, it is.

But, like anything else, I think that if you look at things with eye, there are lessons to be learned from all great adventure stories. At the very least, they can tweak your memory and get you thinking differently about things you already knew, or perhaps add a new layer to your understanding.

The Avengers, like any team, is made up of a group of deeply flawed individuals. But it shows us that under the right set of circumstances, and with the right group of people around us, just about anyone can be better, and make those around them better.

Or, if not…at least there’s a ton of sweet jokes. Love that Joss Whedon wit.

The post Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

https://ift.tt/2L6zMfx

#Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

0 notes

johnclapperne · 6 years

Text

Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

“The Avengers” are a group of super heroes who, despite their differences, work together towards common purpose…usually saving the world or something like that.

If you’re not into this, I don’t know how to talk to you. We’re not friends. For the rest of you, let’s get down to brass tacks and discuss some #realness.

So. The Avengers. What an awesome group of badasses, right?

Right. But in addition to just loving them for their entertainment value and the way they inspire us to get jacked like a super hero, I believe they can teach us a few things.

The most important of these are about teams. Not just teamwork—but the value of teams themselves.

Being part of a team—and knowing—how to be both part of a team, and successful on a team, is a fundamental skill that I think everyone needs to learn.

ONE is Better than One

The first thing you can learn from the Avengers is math: ONE is better than one. Meaning that one team is better than one person. This is very different than saying “five is better than one.”

The hard part is making those 5 into ONE. Being able to do this requires that all members put their respective egos aside, and trust one another.

For the Avengers, this is sometimes hard. Captain America and Iron Man, for example, have pretty different worldview, and compromise doesn’t come easy.

youtube

While it’s certainly difficult, actively setting aside ego is going to make you a better teammate, better employees, better boss…as well as a better parent, spouse, or friend.

The abandonment of ego is what allows you to become part of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This hasn’t always been easy for me, and it’s still a challenge.

Which brings us to lesson number two…

Know Your Role (And Seek Diversity)

If you truly want to become successful, especially has part of a team, learning how to play a single role is important.

oh my god this money shot

This is something we can all take to heart. And, as I touched on above, seeking these people out is one of the easiest ways to learn how to set ego aside.

Here’s an example from my own experience.

A few years back, I was contracted to handle the nutrition for UFC fighter Uriah Hall, in preparation for a fight.

Most of the time, I do everything for my clients; with Uriah, I was hired ONLY for nutrition. And that was hard, at first.

While I was responsible for his nutrition, I promise I did not prescribe Bud Light.

I just kept telling myself, “be the nutrition guy; handle the nutrition. Don’t worry about the conditioning. Don’t think about trying to make changes to the training program.”

Over time, it became more and more natural, and I learned a lot from the people around me—which was really the best part of the entire experience, and part of the reason I signed up, anyway.

Now, onto lesson number three.

Iron Sharpens Iron

Personally, I have always hated that expression. Why? Because it completely minimizes personal responsibility for your development, as well as your own contribution to that of others.

It is only when you have two pieces of iron—two people of similar quality—that they can REALLY engage in a mutually beneficial relationship.

Cap and Thor helping each other get sharp.

And, on the more extreme side, hanging out with Tony has helped reclusive Bruce Banner come out of his shell.

If there’s one thing you take away from this piece, let it be this: water finds its own level, and no matter how many individual drops there are, it all rises (or falls) together.

Closing Thoughts

Okay. Maybe to you, the Avengers is just a super hero movie in a long line of similar films. And on some levels, it is.

Or, if not…at least there’s a ton of sweet jokes. Love that Joss Whedon wit.

The post Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

https://ift.tt/2L6zMfx

#Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

0 notes

neilmillerne · 6 years

Text

Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

“The Avengers” are a group of super heroes who, despite their differences, work together towards common purpose…usually saving the world or something like that.

If you’re not into this, I don’t know how to talk to you. We’re not friends. For the rest of you, let’s get down to brass tacks and discuss some #realness.

So. The Avengers. What an awesome group of badasses, right?

Right. But in addition to just loving them for their entertainment value and the way they inspire us to get jacked like a super hero, I believe they can teach us a few things.

The most important of these are about teams. Not just teamwork—but the value of teams themselves.

Being part of a team—and knowing—how to be both part of a team, and successful on a team, is a fundamental skill that I think everyone needs to learn.

ONE is Better than One

The first thing you can learn from the Avengers is math: ONE is better than one. Meaning that one team is better than one person. This is very different than saying “five is better than one.”

The hard part is making those 5 into ONE. Being able to do this requires that all members put their respective egos aside, and trust one another.

For the Avengers, this is sometimes hard. Captain America and Iron Man, for example, have pretty different worldview, and compromise doesn’t come easy.

youtube

While it’s certainly difficult, actively setting aside ego is going to make you a better teammate, better employees, better boss…as well as a better parent, spouse, or friend.

The abandonment of ego is what allows you to become part of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This hasn’t always been easy for me, and it’s still a challenge.

Which brings us to lesson number two…

Know Your Role (And Seek Diversity)

If you truly want to become successful, especially has part of a team, learning how to play a single role is important.

oh my god this money shot

This is something we can all take to heart. And, as I touched on above, seeking these people out is one of the easiest ways to learn how to set ego aside.

Here’s an example from my own experience.

A few years back, I was contracted to handle the nutrition for UFC fighter Uriah Hall, in preparation for a fight.

Most of the time, I do everything for my clients; with Uriah, I was hired ONLY for nutrition. And that was hard, at first.

While I was responsible for his nutrition, I promise I did not prescribe Bud Light.

I just kept telling myself, “be the nutrition guy; handle the nutrition. Don’t worry about the conditioning. Don’t think about trying to make changes to the training program.”

Over time, it became more and more natural, and I learned a lot from the people around me—which was really the best part of the entire experience, and part of the reason I signed up, anyway.

Now, onto lesson number three.

Iron Sharpens Iron

Personally, I have always hated that expression. Why? Because it completely minimizes personal responsibility for your development, as well as your own contribution to that of others.

It is only when you have two pieces of iron—two people of similar quality—that they can REALLY engage in a mutually beneficial relationship.

Cap and Thor helping each other get sharp.

And, on the more extreme side, hanging out with Tony has helped reclusive Bruce Banner come out of his shell.

If there’s one thing you take away from this piece, let it be this: water finds its own level, and no matter how many individual drops there are, it all rises (or falls) together.

Closing Thoughts

Okay. Maybe to you, the Avengers is just a super hero movie in a long line of similar films. And on some levels, it is.

Or, if not…at least there’s a ton of sweet jokes. Love that Joss Whedon wit.

The post Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

https://ift.tt/2L6zMfx

#Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

0 notes

ruthellisneda · 6 years

Text

Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

“The Avengers” are a group of super heroes who, despite their differences, work together towards common purpose…usually saving the world or something like that.

If you’re not into this, I don’t know how to talk to you. We’re not friends. For the rest of you, let’s get down to brass tacks and discuss some #realness.

So. The Avengers. What an awesome group of badasses, right?

Right. But in addition to just loving them for their entertainment value and the way they inspire us to get jacked like a super hero, I believe they can teach us a few things.

The most important of these are about teams. Not just teamwork—but the value of teams themselves.

Being part of a team—and knowing—how to be both part of a team, and successful on a team, is a fundamental skill that I think everyone needs to learn.

ONE is Better than One

The first thing you can learn from the Avengers is math: ONE is better than one. Meaning that one team is better than one person. This is very different than saying “five is better than one.”

The hard part is making those 5 into ONE. Being able to do this requires that all members put their respective egos aside, and trust one another.

For the Avengers, this is sometimes hard. Captain America and Iron Man, for example, have pretty different worldview, and compromise doesn’t come easy.

youtube

While it’s certainly difficult, actively setting aside ego is going to make you a better teammate, better employees, better boss…as well as a better parent, spouse, or friend.

The abandonment of ego is what allows you to become part of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This hasn’t always been easy for me, and it’s still a challenge.

Which brings us to lesson number two…

Know Your Role (And Seek Diversity)

If you truly want to become successful, especially has part of a team, learning how to play a single role is important.

oh my god this money shot

This is something we can all take to heart. And, as I touched on above, seeking these people out is one of the easiest ways to learn how to set ego aside.

Here’s an example from my own experience.

A few years back, I was contracted to handle the nutrition for UFC fighter Uriah Hall, in preparation for a fight.

Most of the time, I do everything for my clients; with Uriah, I was hired ONLY for nutrition. And that was hard, at first.

While I was responsible for his nutrition, I promise I did not prescribe Bud Light.

I just kept telling myself, “be the nutrition guy; handle the nutrition. Don’t worry about the conditioning. Don’t think about trying to make changes to the training program.”

Over time, it became more and more natural, and I learned a lot from the people around me—which was really the best part of the entire experience, and part of the reason I signed up, anyway.

Now, onto lesson number three.

Iron Sharpens Iron

Personally, I have always hated that expression. Why? Because it completely minimizes personal responsibility for your development, as well as your own contribution to that of others.

It is only when you have two pieces of iron—two people of similar quality—that they can REALLY engage in a mutually beneficial relationship.

Cap and Thor helping each other get sharp.

And, on the more extreme side, hanging out with Tony has helped reclusive Bruce Banner come out of his shell.

If there’s one thing you take away from this piece, let it be this: water finds its own level, and no matter how many individual drops there are, it all rises (or falls) together.

Closing Thoughts

Okay. Maybe to you, the Avengers is just a super hero movie in a long line of similar films. And on some levels, it is.

Or, if not…at least there’s a ton of sweet jokes. Love that Joss Whedon wit.

The post Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

https://ift.tt/2L6zMfx

#Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

0 notes

joshuabradleyn · 6 years

Text

Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

“The Avengers” are a group of super heroes who, despite their differences, work together towards common purpose…usually saving the world or something like that.

If you’re not into this, I don’t know how to talk to you. We’re not friends. For the rest of you, let’s get down to brass tacks and discuss some #realness.

So. The Avengers. What an awesome group of badasses, right?

Right. But in addition to just loving them for their entertainment value and the way they inspire us to get jacked like a super hero, I believe they can teach us a few things.

The most important of these are about teams. Not just teamwork—but the value of teams themselves.

Being part of a team—and knowing—how to be both part of a team, and successful on a team, is a fundamental skill that I think everyone needs to learn.

ONE is Better than One

The first thing you can learn from the Avengers is math: ONE is better than one. Meaning that one team is better than one person. This is very different than saying “five is better than one.”

The hard part is making those 5 into ONE. Being able to do this requires that all members put their respective egos aside, and trust one another.

For the Avengers, this is sometimes hard. Captain America and Iron Man, for example, have pretty different worldview, and compromise doesn’t come easy.

youtube

While it’s certainly difficult, actively setting aside ego is going to make you a better teammate, better employees, better boss…as well as a better parent, spouse, or friend.

The abandonment of ego is what allows you to become part of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This hasn’t always been easy for me, and it’s still a challenge.

Which brings us to lesson number two…

Know Your Role (And Seek Diversity)

If you truly want to become successful, especially has part of a team, learning how to play a single role is important.

oh my god this money shot

This is something we can all take to heart. And, as I touched on above, seeking these people out is one of the easiest ways to learn how to set ego aside.

Here’s an example from my own experience.

A few years back, I was contracted to handle the nutrition for UFC fighter Uriah Hall, in preparation for a fight.

Most of the time, I do everything for my clients; with Uriah, I was hired ONLY for nutrition. And that was hard, at first.

While I was responsible for his nutrition, I promise I did not prescribe Bud Light.

I just kept telling myself, “be the nutrition guy; handle the nutrition. Don’t worry about the conditioning. Don’t think about trying to make changes to the training program.”

Over time, it became more and more natural, and I learned a lot from the people around me—which was really the best part of the entire experience, and part of the reason I signed up, anyway.

Now, onto lesson number three.

Iron Sharpens Iron

Personally, I have always hated that expression. Why? Because it completely minimizes personal responsibility for your development, as well as your own contribution to that of others.

It is only when you have two pieces of iron—two people of similar quality—that they can REALLY engage in a mutually beneficial relationship.

Cap and Thor helping each other get sharp.

And, on the more extreme side, hanging out with Tony has helped reclusive Bruce Banner come out of his shell.

If there’s one thing you take away from this piece, let it be this: water finds its own level, and no matter how many individual drops there are, it all rises (or falls) together.

Closing Thoughts

Okay. Maybe to you, the Avengers is just a super hero movie in a long line of similar films. And on some levels, it is.

Or, if not…at least there’s a ton of sweet jokes. Love that Joss Whedon wit.

The post Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

https://ift.tt/2L6zMfx

#Three Important Life Lessons From The Avengers

0 notes