![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/1pQay6b:
salamanderinspace:
millicentthecat:
millicentthecat:
Listen. Kylo Ren is just Steve Rogers framed as a tragedy instead of a hero.
*drops mic*
*picks mic up*
What happens if you take a little boy and tell him that, in order to be worth anything, he has to do more and be better. What if you instill in him a sense of competition so that he becomes dissatisfied with his role and his abilities?
What happens when you emphasize STRENGTH as the most important masculine quality? What happens when someone promises him strength?
Maybe he chooses to destroy the person he was in order to become something stronger. Maybe he undertakes a life of extreme violence.
Maybe he kills people, lots of people, because there’s a war, and that’s what a warrior does.
Maybe he kills to prove his strength.
Maybe he kills because he likes it.
Maybe he kills because he’s a self-righteous prick.
Maybe he kills to defend his values.
Maybe there’s a struggle on a bridge and he loses someone (but they’re not really lost).
Maybe he’s too young, and the world is all good guys versus bad guys, and he can’t tell that there might be a middle ground. Or maybe he’s older and he’s so desperate, he’s willing to stand next to people he, deep down, suspects might be morally questionable.
Maybe there’s One Special One he won’t or can’t kill. Because it’s too hard, because they’re too strong, or because he’d rather bring them over to his side.
The similarities found in the character mechanic serve to emphasize the differences in the moral universe. You have a two-sided conflict versus a (heretofore) one-sided conflict. One-sided = heroism, two-sided = tragedy.
ok now *drops mic*
I am mostly reblogging myself to comment about Civil War and how completely and utterly ape shit everyone is going over the fact that Marvel is finally giving us a two-sided conflict (other than the Thor movies, which inspired their own moral panic…)
I kind of wonder how much the MCU is responsible for this whole thing. They constantly remind the audience that our governments are corrupt, that our institutions hold no authority and can’t be trusted, and then they encourage, in each individual, a sense that we are all individually responsible for determining what is right and just, who is good or evil, and for policing and containing that evil so that we can be safe…and then…they introduce the word “vigilante” into the conversation? Ten years after the word “hero?”
How hard did they build this thing up just to yank away the veil? How deep would the rivers run with blood if anyone were to allege that Steve Rogers was a tragedy all along?
I suppose you can’t blame Marvel for moral panic. But dear me aren’t they good at it. *fans self*
salamanderinspace:
millicentthecat:
millicentthecat:
Listen. Kylo Ren is just Steve Rogers framed as a tragedy instead of a hero.
*drops mic*
*picks mic up*
What happens if you take a little boy and tell him that, in order to be worth anything, he has to do more and be better. What if you instill in him a sense of competition so that he becomes dissatisfied with his role and his abilities?
What happens when you emphasize STRENGTH as the most important masculine quality? What happens when someone promises him strength?
Maybe he chooses to destroy the person he was in order to become something stronger. Maybe he undertakes a life of extreme violence.
Maybe he kills people, lots of people, because there’s a war, and that’s what a warrior does.
Maybe he kills to prove his strength.
Maybe he kills because he likes it.
Maybe he kills because he’s a self-righteous prick.
Maybe he kills to defend his values.
Maybe there’s a struggle on a bridge and he loses someone (but they’re not really lost).
Maybe he’s too young, and the world is all good guys versus bad guys, and he can’t tell that there might be a middle ground. Or maybe he’s older and he’s so desperate, he’s willing to stand next to people he, deep down, suspects might be morally questionable.
Maybe there’s One Special One he won’t or can’t kill. Because it’s too hard, because they’re too strong, or because he’d rather bring them over to his side.
The similarities found in the character mechanic serve to emphasize the differences in the moral universe. You have a two-sided conflict versus a (heretofore) one-sided conflict. One-sided = heroism, two-sided = tragedy.
ok now *drops mic*
I am mostly reblogging myself to comment about Civil War and how completely and utterly ape shit everyone is going over the fact that Marvel is finally giving us a two-sided conflict (other than the Thor movies, which inspired their own moral panic…)
I kind of wonder how much the MCU is responsible for this whole thing. They constantly remind the audience that our governments are corrupt, that our institutions hold no authority and can’t be trusted, and then they encourage, in each individual, a sense that we are all individually responsible for determining what is right and just, who is good or evil, and for policing and containing that evil so that we can be safe…and then…they introduce the word “vigilante” into the conversation? Ten years after the word “hero?”
How hard did they build this thing up just to yank away the veil? How deep would the rivers run with blood if anyone were to allege that Steve Rogers was a tragedy all along?
I suppose you can’t blame Marvel for moral panic. But dear me aren’t they good at it. *fans self*
