![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kirke_novak posting in ![[community profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyWe still don't know who the enemy is (my money on Skrulls), I don't believe it's Loki
I already ship Natasha/Loki
Steve has a gun, all is right with the world
Don't like how they just attached Hulk at the end - is he in the film for just 3 seconds?
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 05:47 am (UTC)No it doesn't! It's a small change to 616, and in Ults she was powered first and they joined the team together.
It's totally feasible to intro a character efficiently and expand them (and power them up) later.
In terms of having more than one female special ops agent on the roster in don't mean that in gender terms
"It's because she's female, not because of her gender" seriously, are you - are you even reading your own words. Your theory that a movie audience will become lost and confused faced with two female characters who beat things up is complete garbage.
There is no reason, storytelling wise, that Jan should not have been set up in Thor and had a significant role in The Avengers. All your bullshit about doing her justice is just that - bullshit. Cram in more white men, but no women! That wouldn't be doing them justice.
And this idea it's somehow worse to put women in solely to increase the number of women. NO IT'S NOT. As long as they put as much effort into making her a good, integrated character as they do the dudes, it is FINE to add more women because they have hardly any women. You are a guy. You have the luxury of seeing lots and lots of male superheroes, leading teams and headlining their own movies. Don't fucking tell me that a movie studio catering to women by adding a woman to their line-up is somehow worse than not bothering.
Your idea more people care about Clint than Jan is also... seriously, back this up somehow. Evidence, produce it.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 11:25 am (UTC)Its not worse to put more women on. Stop trying to tell me I'm saying that. I'm not. I'm not a fucking sexist. If I was I never would be able to stay around on this site and be an active commenter. If you read the conversation with hymn right above here, in this same chain, I am equally worried about this happening to both Clint and Natasha, especially to Clint. The position theyre in is essentially supporting characters, and thats an extremely dangerous place for a character. I would much rather them (Jan, Nat, and Clint) all appear in other movies with more screen time and more time for them to develop as individuals and not be in the Avengers than I would them be thrown in here half assed. The only reason I think Hawkeye and Natasha would work better in here is because their concepts are easier for a new audience to grasp in a Universe where mutants don't exist yet and neither Pym nor Jan have ever appeared.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 12:16 pm (UTC)AND THAT MAKES IT A GENDER ISSUE. Oh my god, you have got to be trolling, you cannot possibly be saying, again and again "because she's a girl but it's not a gender issue" without seeing it.
Why don't you go show me a period in avengers history where there were two members of the same gender on the same roster with the same powers and they stayed together on that roster for a substantial amount of time.
Current New Avengers line-up has two female flying bricks. Current Secret Avengers line-up has, um, two non-powered female SHIELD agents... and two non-powered male costumed superheroes who do hand-to-hand and throwing weapons.
Hawkeye plus another archer just as good as him muddies them both up and takes attention away from each character.
Unless she's a girl, according to your logic? Because... idk, magic?
Its not worse to put more women on. Stop trying to tell me I'm saying that.
Read your own words! "she becomes worse than an actual throwaway character. She becomes a character who is solely there to put another woman on the team." OH NO THE HORROR. NOT PEOPLE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO FIT MORE WOMEN INTO THEIR MOVIES! That's appalling, right? EXCEPT NOT.
The position theyre in is essentially supporting characters, and thats an extremely dangerous place for a character.
This is bull. Seriously. If you're ~equally worried~ about both Jan and Hawkeye, there's no reason Jan shouldn't have been introduced instead of Hawkeye. Your concerns apply equally to both, so why not get another woman on screen?
(Also, movies need supporting characters, that's the way it is, and if they prove popular they may be spun off into their own movie, as happened in Wolverine Origins, and arguably X-Men First Class. Supporting character in the Avengers would be better for Jan than mouldering in development hell in the hope of being... a supporting character in Ant-Man.)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 02:22 pm (UTC)It is not a gender issue if it applies to both men and women equally. If Tony, Cap, Thor, Clint, and banner were women, but Nat and Jan were both men it would still apply in the exact same way. It's done for a reason. A man and a woman having the same traits are still easier to distinguish from each other than two people of the same sex being identical are. I couldn't tell you why. I am not a psychanalyst. But that's the way things are, and you see it everywhere if you actuallylook for it.
In the comics, Sharon does very little compared to nat. She is beasically an administrator who does some field work, while Nat is actually in the field doing things. At least thats how it was when I last checked at the end of the Mars thing and beginning of the Secret Empire. Same with Jewel and Ms. Marvel. Ever notice how rarely those two are seen on panel fighting together? Each gets the spotlight when the other isn't there. That can work in comic books. in a movie, not so much, not unless you want one of them to neglected and half-characterized.
And two unpowered men who throw things in the secret avengers? Who would that be, Moon Knight and Cap? Because the genetically perfect super soldier and schizophrenic avatar of a lost god don't really have that much in common.
When you put another woman on the team just to have another woman there, what does that make her? That's just trying to fill a quota. When you have a legitimate reason to add her, that's fine. We have nat as a shield agent already who knows how to do her thing. it means nothing and does no good if you just put her there because "Oh no, not enough women." I know that sounds really sexist. I know that makes it sound as if I dont want any more women on the team because one is enough. Thats not what i mean. What I mean is that is has to be done with purpose, or it serves no purpose.
And in the same vein, guess who would be perfectly happy if Hawkeye wasn't in this movie. Me. The reason why I argue he's a better fit right now is because his concept is easier to grasp. The Wasp and her powers, be they science or mutant, requires explanation in the Movieverse. And more than i feel like they could fit into the movie smoothly, especially since they don't even own the X Men licensing. "Guy who's good with a bow" is a much, much easier concept for people to wrap their heads around.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 02:40 pm (UTC)Cap and Moon Knight? You said same gender, same powers, same roster. The fact they're completely different characters despite that and no one has difficulty telling them apart proves my point, thanks. Ditto Sharon and Natasha - same skills, doing different things with them, no one gets confused. As for Carol and Jessica, I really don't think artist is carefully separating them because he thinks his audience is too stupid to tell the difference. (In fact, that would be counterproductive. If they're never in the same panel, the poor stupid reader will think they're the same woman from panel to panel!)
When you put another woman on the team just to have another woman on there what does that make her?
It makes her still an improvement over another white guy. A 'token woman' can also be Janet van Dyne, Jean Grey, Storm, or Susan Storm, all the 'token women' (and token POC) on their teams who have become much-loved characters. Token characters can grow into real, three-dimensional characters integrated into the plot in the hands of a competent writer. A character who was never included can't grow into anything.
For about the ninth time, Jan doesn't need to be introduced powered. You keep using that reason you just... made up.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 05:47 pm (UTC)I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the number of women inserted onto the team. I would prefer them placed in with purpose or meaning after having been fleshed out to keep the characters stable and safe, while you would understandably be happier just having a larger percentage of the team be female and trust that they will come out okay as a character without more time to develop. Those are both opinions, and I don't think we're going to change those, so I'm just going to respectfully disagree now, and leave it at that.
But Cap and Moon Knight aren't similar. One is genetically perfect, stronger and faster than any other human should be and calculating on an inhuman level in combat situations. The other is a normal guy who can fight pretty well except under a full moon, where he gets better. Pretty different to me, even taking away the concepts or any background at all. Its not an image thing, its a character thing. I'm not worried about people literally not being able to tell who is who, I'm worried that when they look back, neither will leave an adequate impression because they are so similar. I still stand by my point that its just the way things are because people work that way, but if you disagree, fine. I do see where youre coming from.
I just want to close in saying, I sincerely, sincerely apologize if I came off as discriminatory in any way. I'm not. I don't think I could handle this blog if I was. If I came off that way, then I apologize. AT the same time, I realize that you're an intelligent person and I could follow nearly all of the logic you used, and we just disagree. Whether or not you could follow all of mine would probably come down to my fault. I've always had a problem getting my thoughts down on paper, and I apologize for that as well.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 06:37 pm (UTC)Characters can be developed in tight spaces. As I said, movies need supporting characters; Jan is just going to be Pym's (you've made it explicitly clear you will not accept Jan without Pym Being First!) so I think she would be better off being pushed as an Avengers supporting character.
Cap and Moon Knight have, functionally the same skillset. Cap is not faster and stronger and more quick thinking than any human should be, he is explicitly peak human levels at all these things. Moon Knight is also highly skilled in the physical arena; he's certainly not wildly outmatched by Cap. From a narrative point of view, they're unpowered guys who are really good in a fight and at throwing stuff. You're just trying to create a difference so you can justify your frankly ridiculous assertion that you can't have two people with the same powers of the same gender on the same roster. Seriously, it's horseshit. Leave it alone.
I'm also interested that you've valiantly argued the individuality of Cap and Moon Knight while cheerfully allowing those two chicks are virtually identical, sure, whatever. Blonde, black-costumed, masked ex-fighter pilot Colonel with Kree powers and brunette white-costumed private investigator journalist powered by chemical spill and married with kid? Sure, you'll acknowledge they're practically the same, lol! Look, the artist thinks so too, he's not putting them in the same panel!
Which brings me to my final point, that a person can be sexist without meaning to. They can believe sexist things (like 'two girls would be confusing') without realising they're sexist. They can passionately defend their sexist opinions as correct and even progressive (adding a woman just to have a woman is worse than NO women! Better to wait for the days when they give female superheroes PROPER treatment!). It's not enough to be passively well-meaning; we have all been raised in the patriarchy, and internalised many of its beliefs as 'normal'. (For instance! When presented with a group that is equal numbers of men and women, most people will believe it to be female-dominated. Fascinating.) To not be sexist, those beliefs have to be found and rooted out; but some of them are 'normal' at such a bonedeep level it can be very difficult.
I think you've been behaving in a sexist fashion, arguing in defence of discriminatory policies, and expressing sexist opinions. You can, of course, ignore my opinion; after all, you *know* you're not a sexist, right?
no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-12 06:56 pm (UTC)It's funny! Your last comment, you realised I was an intelligent person and could follow almost all of my logic! But now I've dared call your behaviour sexist, suddenly you realise I'm ignorant and setting back the cause of feminism.
You're hilarious, in the depressing black comedy way.
Mod Note
Date: 2011-10-12 07:09 pm (UTC)Mod Warning
Date: 2011-10-13 05:36 pm (UTC)Also because
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-10-13 07:15 pm (UTC)Either way, I apologize.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-10-13 07:38 pm (UTC)And if you'll allow me a personal asides *takes mod hat off*
Token characters are bad. But lack of representation is worse.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-10-13 07:57 pm (UTC)And I would disagree. A token character with no character is nothing but a token to pay the toll.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-10-13 09:47 pm (UTC)Then you would have chosen no Jean Grey, no Susan Storm, no Janet van Dyne, and no Storm. And we would be immeasurably poorer.