Subtitles for this video are now available in English, French, and Japanese. If you'd like to us help out with even more language translations, it's easy over on Amara: amara.org/videos/bnhuIc588XqN/info/marvels-defenders-of-the-status-quo/
Do you think the issues you discuss have anything to do with America's tradition of anti-communism? Because I swear that whole section where you talk about a group of people with revolutionary ideas who seem like they have great ideas for promoting society, but in practise are ridiculously callous about killing innocent people, could have been written about the Bolsheviks.
@@mankytoes Agreed. The Americans' distrust for any system certainly prevented the writers from imagining the possibility of building a good system. The only system they can imagine is to let the protagonists do their thing according to their respective moral compasses. In comparison, the heroes in Japanese action anime are often a team of specialists working together under government supervision while the status quo is not always maintained. The heroes in Korean action film are often trying to change the status quo but usually ended up in a dystopian tragedy. And the heroes in Chinese action films often changes the status quo to promote China.
something that I think about a lot is how Spider-Man 2’s train scene was really one of the last and only times that we saw civilians taking an active role in helping a hero as a collective. now in most films they just exist to be either starry eyed or to die screaming
i will say it is incredibly annoying when you notice how many of the villains are on the right path but then they randomly decide to start murdering people just so we don't forget who the bag guy is.
@@seventhcyborg sounds very similar to you promoting a "negative peace, which is a lack of tensions, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice." In his time, MLK was viewed as a villain by two-thirds of the population...
That's the point. The message often times in MCU is that changing society from the status quo is and can only ever be evil and must be stopped, which is the heroic and right thing to do. Even though _restoring_ things to how they were doesn't actually help anyone and is actually saying that things are fine as they are. It's quite sad.
@@notaburneraccount I was actually talking about modern media more generally. Kingsmen, apparently that fast and furious spin off with Idris Elba, I don’t know if you’ve heard of Alex rider, but the Amazon series changed the villain’s motivation from racism to population reduction
@@SW017yeah Kingsmen and Stormbreaker actually have very similar villain plots. "I'm going to gift efelctronics to poor people... and then kill them with it"
@amiablereaper How does Kingsmen fit into this? The villain doesn't try to improve society using evil methods. Instead he starts off as outright evil and hides this by doing something aparently generous: Gifting phones to the everyone (iirc). So if anything it is thre exact opposite to a Marvel villain who has seemingly good motivations and goals but does unnecessarily horrible things to archive them or just because he can (like Killmongers sexism). Unless you think population reduction is a good thing, which it isn't. Populations ideally remain stable.
@SW017 Oh come on now dude. There _has_ to be some kind of plot. You can't just have a villain that fixes a problem and does good, and the heroes fight him for doing good. Then they wouldn't be a villain, they'd be heroes fighting. The villain has to have a warped mindset, in order to be believable as a villain, otherwise it would be frustrating as well, seeing somebody with the right ideals in every way get attacked. The trick in order to make a good villain, is to be skilled enough as writer to combine the best of two worlds. For example: let's say a villain wants to blow up the world in order to stop people from bullying him. Despite the trope being potentially oversaturated, it's still a good villain plot set up, because it shows their warped mindset is transfixed on vengeance, and not concerned with who they hurt. They become the bully they were against.
I feel like this is why many people prefer the X-Men to the Avengers. The Avengers, as cool as they are, are glorified superpowered police. The X-Men, in comparison, have no choice but to constantly call the status quo into question because their lives and existence count on it.
I always been an X-men fan since I was a little kid. Before the MCU came out, I hated the Avengers and thought they were corny. I loved reading the X-men comics, watching the shows, and movies. I found the X-men more relatable especially as someone who experienced racism since I was a kid. I related to the prejudice they experience for being mutants just like I was discriminated against for being black.
Yeah, they're activelly fighting racism and creating safe spaces for their persecuted minority. I've always felt the X-Men is the best take on superhero stories, and it's quite telling that most of the viewership claim for a version that's more similar to the Avengers.
@@carlbonara602 nah, he already knows all about this, he's the architect. If the X-Men were to be more in touch with real life social problems and challenge the status quo in any way, they had to stay as far as possible from Disney and Marvel Studios.
I mean, just look at what they did to Spider man with his working class hero roots to a billionaire stooge in the MCU - that's what they'll do to the X-Men too. Verily has a great video breaking down MCU spiderman
I remember after Infinity War, a friend of mine said "Well, Thanos has a point. Resources are distributed unfairly, people suffer, and this is a solution." I then pointed out that instead of killing half the universe (which is, besides cruel, also ineffective because a society can't run with a sudden 50% drop) he could've doubled the resources instead. With that, my friend agreed that Thanos was indeed a bad guy. But neither of us realized that it made our 'heroes' bad guys for not doubling all resources when undoing the blip.
literally yesterday we rewatched infinity war bc at least the villain won for once and i heard thanos saying that “the universe is finite, it’s resources finite. it needs correction” and i suddenly said out loud “so why didn’t you just make everything infinite instead of killing everybody” bc imo doubling would end the same way because it’s still finite, yknow?
We don't even necessarily need more resources, just resource distribution. For example, we make enough food for 10b people but thousands still die from starvation. It's an issue of hoarding and waste rather than resource scarcity
If you think about it doubling the resources could cause problems too. Because resources isn't just ores and food (both of which would need space to be stored in) it's also landspace and labor and energy all of which would need new space of their own. This basically means that Thanos would have to more of less double the size of the universe and everything in it. Thus even more problems.
This isn't MCU, but in Wonder-Woman 1984, at the climax of the movie she says: "The world is fine the way it is" to the antagonist whose whole project was to use a magical wishing stone to change the world. That movie is a really good example of what you're talking about.
I love how she says that only 20 years after segregation ended. Hell, domestic abuse was legal during her time lol. Like, you could get away with raping your wives during this time.
Very jarring when you consider part of what she learns in the first one is that humans aren't inherently good, but not inherently evil either. They have to learn from each other and improve.
@chandllerburse737 I think that's a case of marvel making the villains hypocrites or pull atrocities so you'll be on the side of the hero even though the villain has valid social justice ideas
@chandllerburse737 well im just kinda going based off the video here, but like theyll have villians who have genuine good points like the confusing peace with quiet and then compeltely distort that points and not have the heros questions their defense of the status quo if that makes sense? he didnt have a good goal, but it comes across as elaborate villianization of those who seek change . my og comment didnt really word that well and ill be honest its been years since ive watched age of ultron so i cant pull more examples, but the video explains what im trying ot get at way better. mb if i sound wordy or defendy of him, i think the you confuse peace with quiet is a great line and one that a lot of mcu villians reflect, like the flagsmashers and thanos. they just always have to do something evil. why cant the good guys do something that isnt keeping the status quo for once? why do they rarely question it? why cant they fight the systems that was causing resource distrubution issues to counter thanos weird "lets kill them all" mindset? or at least try to provide some of those resources themselves? why couldnt they fight against systems of oppression that prefer quiet over peace instead of upholding it?
@Chandller Burse I’d say the main problem with that quote is that it was so obviously inspired by Martin Luther king’s writings of “When peace becomes obnoxious” and they went and shoved it down the throat of a genocidal robot.🙄
This is a quote from Martin Luther King that resonates with that Ultron quote, and this video more generally: - - I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the [African American's] great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the [pointy hooded clansmen], but ; who constantly says who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the [African American] to wait until a "more convenient season." - -
Woah. You really pointed out something that consistently bothered me about MCU films. I frequently felt like the villains had a point and then bam, pointless murder. You put it into words, thank you.
They do the same in the musical Across the Universe In Forest Gump, the black panthers were portrayed as misogynist I think 2pac, Marley, and Lennon were targets of the state In movies and in reality
Step 1: Make the villain compelling by having them make good points Step 2: Get the audience to sympathize with the villain Step 3: Wait we need to make the heroes punch the villain Step 4: Have the villain kick a puppy, that'll get the audience to hate them! Step 5: ??? Step 6: Profit!
@@FeministCatwoman I'd argue that Korra (and the world around her) still very much learns from the villains - unlike people in the mcu. At the end of book 1, Republic city elects a non-bender as mayor; at the end of book 2, Korra decides to leave the spirit portals open and so on. The only marvel movie with a similar development that comes to mind is Black Panther, I think.
I remember thinking a few years after the first Iron Man: Tony Stark invents what appears to be an infinite nearly-free energy source - this would be a world changing event, and solve so many societal problems, with the potential to save the environment, reduce wealth inequality, and save lives in countless ways. Yet in the MCU, life for regular people appears unchanged. It's clear that Tony never plans to actually share this technology with the world, I'm guess due to some fear of it 'falling into the wrong hands', which is when I realized those movies are about punching bad guys, not actually helping improve the world.
Well, the parts to make it are probably incredibly difficult to find. You can't just whip one together out of anyth- hold on, what's that? I'm- I'm being told Tony Stark built it in a cave with a box of scraps.
"Falling into the wrong hands" also implies his hands aren't the wrong ones. He only uses this power supply to fly around in a suit of metal and for his own vanity. I'd wager his hands might be the "wrong" ones afterall.
The issue I see with him not employing these ideas is because he too would lose his status among society. For an arrogant, self centered individual like him what is life if he can’t go to Monaco on a whim?
Status quo and celebrity worship is so ingrain in MCU that we never questioned that Tony Stark basically hires literal child with some superpowers to fight his own organisation Civil war by giving him scholarship as bribe.
Well... I questioned it, lol. But then again, I've never liked Tony Stark. Argh, I can't help it: I will forever side-eye an "Asshole with Billions" character even if it's a superhero who prevents the apocalypse.
@@Newfiecat I thought I was the only one.. I never understood the hype around Iron man, sure he's cool and all but nothing really impressive compared to a batman or Superman. And his comic version its even worse 😱
There's a comic where Superman tries to solve world hunger by himself just to get ousted by politicians who dont want an alien to intervene. That story for me is the epitome of superheroing, as Superman challenges the status quo and gets defeated temporarily by it. Truly, the hidden archnemesis of all superheroes is status quo
@chandllerburse737i mean if you come with a suit that represents america to a country that was invaded by them, i don't think people will receive you well
@chandllerburse737 well i didnt read that comic so i dont know if it is a case of superman being naive at not knowing the resentment third world countries have over the US or the comic just making a racist stereotype portraying middle eastern people as inherently violent
The media is the propaganda arm of the ruling elite who have a vested interest in maintaining things exactly as they are with them firmly in charge like always. Does anyone really think those people wouldn't do everything they could to take down anyone who tried to create stories that showed anything different? Regular people might begin to think they could actually change the world or that they actually matter.
That reminds me of the manga Fire Punch, where the protagonist has healing powers and so feeds himself to his village to help them survive, and the villain is the one to attack them for doing so.
@@mikei6605 Fire punch is good but I think it's different because they don't try to portray an ideal as opposed to this. Like for the walking dead the richeous characters are the main cast whereas in fire punch no one is.
I'm reminded of a story concept I ran across about a guy who gains the power to reshape rock and concrete. At first he uses his powers to fix damage caused by fights, which makes him extremely popular. Then he started making homes for marginalized people and all the funding stopped, and got jailed when he tried to push it. He gives up trying to be "heroic", and since his jail cell is made of the same material he has power over, he walks out and starts breaking out everyone jailed near him.
Interesting! I wish writers would be more creative with what their characters can do. There's a video by Tom Scott 'So You've Learnt To Teleport' on youtube where he explains just a handful of the things you could do with just one superpower: ”So you can teleport. Congratulations. Welcome to the club, You are a superhero. But superheroes are boring: they just go and save a few lives, You can do so much better than that... ...Find something big, heavy and magnetic, get up high and drop it through a massive coil of wire. You're generating free electricity. Or better yet, if you're one of those people who can create portals in mid-air, there’s a much better thing you can do. Get your something big and heavy and magnetic, create an infinite loop. There we go. Put a coil around that, infinite free energy generation. That ought to save a few million lives. Or better yet jump to orbit, make the cost of putting something into space nothing more than your time. Or jump to Mars, with some colonists and some equipment. You could kickstart the colonisation of the solar system. Or you could do what every other superhero does, and fight crime in one city, in one country, on one planet. Superheroes have no imagination.”
While interesting, being forced to teleport in an eternal loop to generate power would be a living nightmare. It’s one thing to be able to place portals, but another thing entirely to be forced to teleport manually. And quite honestly, some powers would just be too taxing. Say you have the power to heal anyone of anything. You’d be working every second of every day and every time you took a vacation you’d be wracked with guilt for letting people die. I agree that some Marvel superheroes are small minded, but if your power is having DID with a monster (the hulk) then I’m not sure how much you can do.
My least favorite part of this trope is that even if the hero realizes "damn, the bad guy was kinda right, we do need to have a change" and they donate 20 dollars to charity or something insignificant like that
This kinda reminds me of Shaun's critique of Harry Potter, how our heroes never challenge the status quo or fight for institutional changes, to the point that some magical beings support voldemort because the ministry of magic is so against their rights.
The message here was so much more clear in "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" and "Black Panther." It's always been there, but in those two particular MCU inclusions, it was staring you dead in the face that the heroes were actively stopping social progress. And the that villians were being made to take actions deemed "too much, too fast, too far" in order to stop the audience from aligning with them.
At least Black Panther had the heroes learn from the villain. T’challa strives for change after Killmonger dies. My biggest issue with it all is the fact that we… really don’t see any changes? Like Wakanda going public should have had MASSIVE effects on the world and. Instead we get. Nothing.
@@Vivigreeny25 i mean we got countries trying to steal wakandas resources and attempting to kill them all to get them(the nato scene in wakada forever)
Also interesting how when the MCU goes full mask off in defending Imperialism and Colonialism they use black heroes as their mouth piece. In "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" they have Falcon literally play the part of the White Moderate that MLK Jr called out in this "Letter From a Birmingham Jail".
Exactly. I was 100% on the Flag Smashers' side until they blew up that building (which was completely out of character). And I still would have been happier if they'd won in the end because they actually wanted positive change. It's so obvious they accidentally made their villains too sympathetic and tried hard to walk it back.
This is what I really like about The Boys. The whole point of the show is calling out how the superheroes are the protectors of the status quo and are so much a part of the system that they ARE the system. This also reminds me of how being a “moderate” and advocating for things to stay in the middle is in actuality a conservative ideological approach. No change means oppression persists
But the thing is, the Marvel heroes have tried to change things. To varying degrees of success. Like Captain America and Black Widow shutting down SHIELD, Tony wanting to create better defenses for the planet (which Steve objected to every step of the way, admittedly), Thor choosing Earth as the place for New Asgard in hopes that they will help humanity. T'Challa opening Wakanda to the rest of the world, etc.
Not to mention that, if when they do something against the status quo, it's always misled or warped. One thing that always bothered me about Black Panther was that Wakanda's very first social center was built in.... CALIFORNIA, only the richest state of the richest nation of the world; not in - say - any other neighboring AFRICAN COUNTRY lol.
I think a unintended consequence of the villains being sympathetic and then ending that with a large act of violence is having the unintended consequence of shifting people to the perspective of violence being necessary. Yes may are detoured mostly by the narrative as is, but when cycled over and over again, that teaches those who are struggling that big violence and action are needed or else nothing in their lives will change. It’s just a thought.
@@abibi9458 however history teaches us that social change is driven through the violence of opressed classes taking over their former opressors, a class struggle if you will
@@abibi9458 but those villains are portrayed as 1.wrong, primarily due to that violence 2. almost always fail to bring about their desired social change So it's not much of a model for viewers.
This actually reminds me of a point Patrick H Willems made talking about the spider-man trilogy compared to the mcu (and specifically the peter of the mcu): the importance of showing the population that inhabits the hero's worlds outside of just the characters important to the plot. The 2000s spider-Man films made a point of showing as much as possible the city of new york and the people who inhabit it and making peter part of them, part of the common people. In comparison, MCU peter is under the tutelage of a billionaire and has access to his company and technology even after his passing and his first bad guy is one of employees of said billionaire who wanted better work conditions.
That is my problem with MCU Spider-Man too. Jon Favreau and Marvel completely ignored the fact that he’s a working class Superhero and instead made him into little orphan Annie with Tony Stark as his Daddy Warbucks. Also: If Tony Stark was a real Superhero he’d try to use his Arc Reactor tech to transition the Marvel Universe off of Fossil Fuels.
What you pointed here, kinda reminds me of Civil War. We got this register vs no register conflict, "turn Bucky to law" vs " allow him to be free" etc. but one thing missing IMO is the point of view of average Joes. For them, Bucky is known as terrorist who murdered people. Events do not take place in a vacuum, world is not spinning around Avengers only and i would like to see more of how normal people react to those world changing things.
@@Endru85x Not to mention how Tony “a responsible pro-Sokovia accords” Stark, showed his responsibility by recruiting (more like conning) a 16 year old Peter Parker to fight against hardened warriors like Steve, Sam and Clint. An enigmatic but extremely dangerous hero like Scott. A mentally unstable super powerful witch like Wanda and a most wanted TERRORIST at that time like Bucky. Imagine Obama recruiting a 16 years old to take down Bin Laden. Extremely irresponsible, isn’t it?
The closest the MCU has come to rejecting the status quo was Civil War whereby one half literally went like "Yeah let's be state-mandated super-cops, I guess." and the other half was like "Maybe let's stay as vigilantes who are above the law and don't actually carry any responsibilities."
Either way, I think that makes the heroes look bad. In the first scenario, the heroes turn into super cops, as you said. They work for the American Government and help reinforce the status quo that the government wants to keep to stay comfortable as they are. The other way is for sups to stay as vigilantes who carry no responsibilities, no matter what they do or decide not to do. That way they can opt to not engage in something as it’s not their job to do so. That could lead into them allowing suffering if they don’t feel like acting, or causing suffering themselves if they decide to fight for something that may be wrong or bad for the general public. Imo, the mcu movies don’t want to go against or question the status quo in general. The only one that feels kinda different in that way for me is The Winter Soldier, as the Captain fights a governmental institution that wants people to resign their liberties in exchange for security. Sure, security is a nice thing, but to achieve that, people have to die and anyone who starts causing waves to change the status quo will be considered a danger to society. It’s a fantastic movie, but it also fails to create a meaningful conversation about the matter because it turned out not to be a plan of the government, but a plan of a secret nazi organization that infiltrated the us. Winter soldier, as many other mcu movies before and after, just threw the conflict out of the window because the writers decided that the bad guys should be nazis in disguise.
Wouldn't really be super-cops as much as super-slaves. They'd have no say in when or where they'd be used, against who, for what reason, and how. The UN, notoriously indecisive and prone to geopolitics, would be able to send superpeople to end genocide just as easily as to facilitate one. And while some of the heroes would be able to lay down their suits or trinkets or whathaveyou and stop being heroes, others were innately superpowered and would have no choice but to submit to the state by virtue of being born.
@@alanrubio8435 “allow suffering” why do you assume that suffering shouldn’t be allowed? We all are the architects of our own suffering most of the time. And superheroes don’t owe anyone anything. There every act of grace, mercy and compassion towards the less fortunate than themselves is a gift not a right! And instead of responsibility you should have used accountability perhaps. You used a lot of words but Cap is still right with what he said to Tony in Captain America 🇺🇸 Civil War. That even Iron Man himself had no debate left in him. Steve Rogers: Tony, if someone dies on your watch you don’t give up. Tony Stark: Who said we’re giving up? Steve: We are if we’re not taking “responsibility” for our actions. This document just shifts the blame. Rhodes: Sorry Steve, that… that is dangerously arrogant. Me: No Rhodey it’s the truth! Rhodey: This is the United Nations 🇺🇳 we’re talking about. Me: A well documented trash institution that exploits 3rd world countries that they’re suppose to be helping! Rhodey: It’s not the World Security Council. It’s not SHIELD. It’s not HYDRA! Steve: No but it’s run by people with agendas and agendas change! Tony: That’s good! Tony: That’s why I’m here. Tony: When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands I shut it down and stopped manufacturing. Steve: Tony… You chose to do that. Steve: If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose! Steve: What if this panel sends us somewhere we don’t think we should go? Steve: What if there’s somewhere that we need to go and they don’t let us? Steve: We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.
@@clarkmichaels822 thank you Clark! I was just about to say the same thing to Alan. Because the way he’s talking is that he seems to think a superhero is obligated to work nonstop 24/7 to prevent the suffering of others and have no life, no dreams and goals of their own. Meaningful relationships or self agency to speak of.
I've always found funny how sometimes the villains have legitime good points and objectives, but the writters need to make you hate them and their ideas, so they'll make the villain kill people or blow an hospital for no reason at all other than to show to you that they're the bad guys
@PepeGibon exactly. Want to make a evil character, make him evil, don't give him actual reasons for someone to revolt and then stamp a "now I kill people for no related reason"
i'm reminded of the white fang in RWBY. the show isn't that great but the white fang is especially bad. They're animal people, but its supposed to be a thin alegory for the civil rights movement. however they're also one dimentional villains, because the show wanted to have those. And needless to say they did not handle this complexity well. As a result the show's message (at least the white fang parts) boils down to "MLK should have kept his mouth shut"
@@mausolus8466 I mean iirc Vulture didn't really kill anyone in the movie, he just made threats. The only guy we saw him kill was the first Shocker and that guy lowkey deserved it
This kind of thing makes it understandable why shows like The Boys catch on, the characters actively challenge the status quo and treat the idea of beings with unfathomable power as realistically as it can. Even as someone who likes these movies, this was a neat perspective and one I wouldn't have thought of before. Thank you for sharing.
They started out strong , then had way too much condemning of violence, then busted Hughie's political bubble but still just didn't go back to the _ by all means_ approach of season 1. They mellowed out.
Although season 3 did mostly roll-back potential disruptions to the status quo, they did plant the seeds for some *major* changes. Now, Homelander can execute people in public without losing support, Ryan who is just as powerful has joined him, and Edgar's adopted daughter is becoming vice president (iirc). Things are set to become very dystopian, and they have very little choice but to go all out. Also, people seem to forget this, but Soldier Boy was nearly as dangerous and unhinged as Homelander. Even if they had successfully killed him, it wouldn't have changed much.
@@PapaphobiaPictures The Boys is a rip-off of Pat Mills' Marshall Law, just with the actual politics removed. Marshall Law is a critique of hero worship propaganda, using Superheroes as allegories, The Boys is just a very cynical superhero story.
The part about the sympathetic villain crossing a line so that the audience is alienated by them is really frustrating. I never put my finger on it before, but now I'll be sure to look for this.
tbf, the 20th century, especially the 1930s when superheroes really got started, is littered with historical figures who did exactly this, they talked a good talk about truth, justice and 'reform' and then got people killed. The status quo, messy, often unfair and complicated, got ridiculed by autocrats on the extreme left and right who promised a changed world.
It would be funny to see a superhero movie where a hero asks someone who is trying to change the world, "Oh you say all that stuff, but when are you going to snap and kill a bunch of people?" And the social reformer is like "wtf, why would I do that?", and they end up just being a good person.
@@kahkah1986 true, but when the writers create this kind of media and write these villains I doubt they have realism in mind. At best, they are creating something that can comfortably be invested in and advertised, and at worst they are actively trying to push a narrative that reform and violence is 100% inexcusable and humanity has reached its peak.
@@Wastelander1337 Captain America was explicitly created by artists who were repulsed by Nazi Germany, even before the US had entered the war, though. They consciously made their baddies Nazi-type villains, i.e., villains who promise the earth but are actually committing crimes against innocent people. For obvious reasons, at the time people felt suddenly, deeply protective of the status quo, as it was threatened by Nazism and Communism (they were allies until halfway through the war, remember). Of course, hindsight gives us a more nuanced picture of the status quo, but that was where the original Marvel template came from.
After I finished watching Across the Spider-Verse and came back to this video, I feel like the "canon events" are pretty much similar to the status quo of Marvel that you described in this video. Especially with how Miguel O'Hara pretty much represents the enforcer of the status quo. Also, Hobie Brown/Spider-Punk is probably the only time I've seen a Marvel movie (well, one by Sony and not Disney) handle an anarchist character well and actually make him a HERO. And it's gorgeous.
its kind of weird tho that big companies are not even afraid of showcasing anti-capitalist sentiments. its not in their best interest at all to broadcast these ideas but anti capitalist ideas hold so little weight and power it doesnt even matter.
@@valqzx1144What's upsetting is also the news of the animators for ATSV being overworked. Even if the animation is gorgeous and wroth the effort, knowing about what happened soured me and it's hard to rewatch ATSV without thinking of how many animators had been treated poorly during the process. And the Red Scare itself is still in full effect, so any actual attempts at promoting an anti-capitalist message would be met with scorn.
Slight critique of capitalism does pop up from time to time in popular productions but often time it seems more like "ofc we are rich but we recognize that it's bad so it's not so bad" rather than genuine criticism or strive for change.
@@Elamado97 Problem is Miguel is projecting himself onto other Spideys and basically treats losing loved ones as something that HAS to happen instead of something to AVOID. Most Spideys often lose loved ones, but it's mainly because of their own lack of responsibility as opposed to the fact that the universe wanted it to happen. Miguel's very own ideology is basically "let them die since it'll build who you are" as opposed to "do the right thing, no matter what". Likewise, the whole idea of Spider-Man having to fit a certain formula kinda reminds me of how comic books would always have things revert or follow the status quo which prevents creativity (though this is a problem with just about any popular IP). The most infamous being One More Day.
i was thinking about this recently, how in both black panther movies, the oppression of colonized peoples is addressed by the villain. the ideology behind it is really is quite transparent and keeps the movies from telling truly inspiring stories imo. just imagine what wakanda could've come up with if they hadn't been distracted by fighting other marginalized people.
To be fair, its also addressed by Nakia. I haven't seen the second film yet (no spoilers please) but in the first movie, she basically makes all the same points as Killmonger but is on the side of the heroes. (Someone pointed out that this mirrors real world dynamics, like real life civil rights struggles. The women of the movement, like Martin Luther King's wife to give an example, often make important contributions but are overshadowed by the men on both sides.)
Killmonger's grievences were legitimate, but his methods were not. He wanted to create a new colonial order but with Wakanda at the top rather than European powers. His path would create the same problems he wanted to amend, only for other people instead of his own. He was no different than the people he hated.
That's my favorite thing about media criticism generally and this channel in particular. Propaganda wants you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, just accept the justifications they've made within the framing of their media.
Maybe even follow it up with a part 3 that talks about superhero shows/movies that do have heroes/villains actually changing the status quo (for the better or worse).
And that’s why Daredevil is arguably the best marvel content. Matt has been fighting for innocents in the law while buried in debt and as daredevil even before Fisk and he unites groups to not only bring down Fisk but many criminals and collectively improve life in New York in multiple ways. He is proactive in his law practice and monitoring of criminal developments, he fights for the little guy instead of protecting politicians or current economic landscape. He gives it his all every second and if he had the wealth of tony stark, the world would’ve ended up a hundred times better off
The key here is that he does not use his status as a superhero to leverage his monopoly of force in order to unduly give more weight to his own agenda. Though it could be argued that Daredevil is far from strong enough of a hero to actually be a monopoly of force. But yes, it's fine for heroes to fight for social justice. As long as they don't abuse their power to do so. It has to be separate from their superhero identity. And if they start using their powers to bypass democratic institutions to further their own goals, they're at a great risk of becoming corrupt.
And this is exactly the issue with comics. If you have superheroes who have literal reality warping powers, they could literally solve the issues of the world immediately (imagine if Wanda just replaced all fossil fuels or used her powers for an infinite renewable energy source, or us seeing the direct result of a mass produced arc reactor), making it much more difficult to write a compelling villain and thus forcing heroes to be reactionary else there wouldn't ever be a villain in the first place. Luke Cage also does this well with a really compelling story (fighting the congress woman), but bungled the finale.
@@son_guhun ? Hes basically a wanted man for the entire series (in his daredevil persona anyway). He has 0 leverage outside of just being a very good lawyer, hed be arrested if he tried to enact change as daredevil
@@kman1893 The point is he could simply defeat the cops and enact his agenda using force. Thus he would not have to go through any legal or democratic processes and his word would be law. Even if someone has good intentions, that's just bound to end up badly. As I said, Daredevil probably isn't strong enough to actually do this successfully, but someone like Superman is literally unstoppable by any human institution and thus has an effective monopoly of force. His leverage is literally that he can strip you of your freedoms instantly if you disagree with his views on morality. Even without a total monopoly, it would still be extremely questionable for Daredevil to just beat up his political opponents instead of engaging with them through legal means. Or to just destroy the headquarters of a corrupt company that his client is suing instead of facing them in the court room. That's when the hero can easily become corrupt.
The villains are very often like "You know the rich elites and the powerful people? They're kicking down on us and we aren't even trying to stop them." .. and then they just blow up a box full of puppies, because EVIL.
They never seem to go after the rich elites, either. When they blow people up out of nowhere, it's random screaming bystanders on the street instead of the people they actually claim to have beef with. Having the villains deliberately only target people in power (who the viewers aren't attached to, so not the superheroes or their families) might make them too sympathetic, or too political, or something.
The part about "the public" in the MCU reminded me of something that's always bothered me about Marvel movies and most modern superhero movies for that matter - the selfishness of the heroes and their seeming lack of interest in the general public. When you think about the classic stereotypical image of a superhero, what do you see? A muscular, heroic figure swooping in to save an innocent bystander from a flaming inferno, falling debris or a runaway train. After all, what could be more heroic than saving an innocent life? Risking your own safety to save the life of a complete stranger goes straight to the core of our notions of "heroism". In the original Superman film, Superman doesn't even punch a single bad guy, instead spending the entire time rescuing helpless citizens from danger. But how often do you see modern movie superheroes going out of their way to save strangers? They spend most of their time punching bad guys while destroying vast swathes of public property. If they're saving anyone its most likely another superhero and if it's a non-super person then it's someone they're intimately acquainted with. We might see the hero very briefly scoot a faceless crowd out of harm's way in the middle of an action scene, or they might make some one-off nice gesture as described in this video. But a whole elaborate, lengthy set-piece to save a bunch of strangers who the superhero's never met? Forget about it. In MCU films barely any meaningful time is spent with ordinary, common people. All we really see are the beautiful perfect SuperPeople, sitting in their ivory towers high above the common folk. They live among themselves in their SuperSociety completely detached from the lives of ordinary people yet dictate their justice and morals upon them. It seems that somewhere along the way we've lost sight of the general public in superhero movies. They are mostly absent, only briefly shown or mentioned in passing. But the common everyday folk are the heart and soul of superhero stories. They are what make Superheroes super. The very concept of superheroes was born from the wish that there could be a divine protector watching over us, risking life and limb to keep innocent people safe from harm. Modern movie superheroes seem to be only interested in protecting themselves.
This is the same problem with American police. They are more concerned with stopping a suspect than protecting a victim. It's about the person suspected of a crime. The victim of the crime is just not part of the picture.
The problem isn't that there are characters who want to change the status quo who are villains. The problem is that there are only villainous people trying to change the status quo in these movies.
Very true! Why can't there be a movie where the superheroes are working together for some cause that will change the world for the better and the villains are reacting to that with violence?
@@Newfiecat Which would be more aligned with reality, thinking about it, considering recent events like the destruction of power relay stations to stop a drag event
when you look closer at Tony Stark's character, he is essentially every instagram influencer and kardashian rolled into one. look at me and my rich life and how great it is. Why would he deep down want to change that? stop being rich and let others live amazing lives too? Changing the world would be hard but being a superhero on insta ... totally easy ... at least in the marvel world
@@dragonstooth4223 he tried to though? Ultron was the result. Tony tried to make a "suit of armor around the world", which ended up causing more harm it should
@@hashuvan425 also he does changes the world and comercializes his technology, we see him installing an arc reactor to power the stark tower and in that same conversation mentions that he is in works to power half of new york on that technology by next year, he builds robots to try to keep the population safe that is the iron legion, we see that he gives grants and advanced technology to universitites, hehas programs to give free university of students that show promise and give works on stark industries, he tries to improve the world with his technology and resources the movies just center on his super hero technology because its more exciting and whetever they center on his more altruistric efforts is because something goes sideways
When you put it like that "the bigger the villain, the bigger the change they are trying to implement" - that opens up a very interesting thought. What would happen if a BIG villain attempted small change? It would happen quickly and be unstoppable.
This is why I wanna see doom in the mcu. He's a Villain with powers sometimes on par with Dr strange and the like, but he mostly just wants to do small social changes in the country he runs.
Reminds me of the last short story in "I, Robot" (the novel, obviously). The world depends on a collective of superintelligent AI to make decisions about how the world is run. Eventually, the main character realizes the AI is intentionally making "bad decisions" to take people that might disable it or change it out of power, since it won't be able to protect humanity if it's disabled, and it's been told to prioritize humanity's survival above all else. It's implied the AI achieves it's goal without anyone save the main character noticing.
I hate the trope of activists as villains SO much, and not many people even realise this trope exists. It has been very present in media for a long, long time. I feel like the number of media in which activists are "allowed" to be heroes (as they are in real life) increases nowadays. But there's still a very long way to go, as long as these sort of films are the mainstram norm. Thank you, Jonathan, for another excellent video.
The goal is to convince people that there's a "right" kind of social change. The kind that imagines Dr. King as a complete pacifist and paints the successes of the civil rights movement as being due to asking nicely through established systems rather than what actually happened. This is because most real change can't really happen within established systems, but if people feel they can't go beyond that lest they become the villain, those systems are safe for those in power.
propaganda at its finest. that is the whole deal. you don't want the people who want a change be good people, because that way the people would look up at them and not the reactionary conservatives. American government is influencing what kind of movies are being made in Hollywood, using the tactics such as blacklisting to stop people from making movies they don't like, and is even funding movies to have a certain "hidden" message inside. Hollywood is like the Korean music industry. The only reason it is successful is because it is heavily funded by the government. Here in Croatia we have a similar "problem" with our sportsmen and sportswomen being surprisingly successful. You would normally expect the country of 30-40 times the our size to make that many medals. Newspapers write about sports too much, sport trainings are quite cheap for both kids and adults to enrol. Why would the foreign language classes cost 4 times as much as sports classes with the groups of the same size? You think an American thing with sporty kids being the most popular is bad? Here the majority of kids are playing some sport. You are judged based on which sport do you play, not if you play any. If you are good at sports, you may even attend a special highschools, with small classes, better teaching methods and everything nicer than what you would get in the normal school. If as an adult you are successful, you will have a paycheck just for being a good sportsman. You will not have to work, but would be free to train like crazy. If you also manage to get a good sponsorship, you are set for life. If not, once you are not young enough to compete anymore, you can train the next generation. Sports are getting more funding than education. The American government is even more obsessed with Hollywood. Billions are spent every year on it, so the movies could be better, while at the same time, of the kind what the government would want them to be.
Honestly the way they have the villains turn around and murder a bunch of people to establish them as the villains when usually what they seek to change is a legitimate issue has made me more and more uncomfortable over time because of how it frames social justice causes over and over as villainous in nature.
Agreed. It’s a form of saying that it’s not possible to enact real change that the world needs. Which is horrible and needs to be stoped in fiction, give us the message that we CAN get change moving. Otherwise we’re nothing but mindless sheep unable to help ourselves stuck in a cycle.
After the immediate hype of the first BP died down after the cinema. I remember discussing with my brother how they gave Killmonger the "psycho" turn. Everyone agrees with him until the studio decides he's the villain. Same for all the villains related to Tony Stark in some way or the other. It is cool to see you talking about it.
have you seen BP 2? it sort of plays w that aspect of killmonger and turns it on its head, if only for a brief moment. i feel the same way abt killmonger, very compelling character until all of s sudden he kills an old lady lol
Idk, Killmonger was framed very differently than Ironmans villains, at the end of the movie they acknowledge that hes right, T'Challa's father was wrong, and theres a way to do what Killmonger wanted that doesn't require the violence his plan came along with, and then T'Challa just does it, completely changing the status quo
the killmonger situation is a little different though, at least from my perspective. as an ethiopian, i've seen so many african leaders promise to liberate black people/ethnic groups with their troops/weapons but do it as a power play. i saw killmonger as a commentary on those kind of black leaders, especially with the burning of the heart-shaped herb garden. the bag was definitely fumbled, though i think coogler has learned somewhat from that mistake.
Tbf Obadiah Stain just wanted to make even more money selling weapons then he already was. Come to think of it, Iron Man 1's the only Marvel movie I can think of where the main conflict involves the hero trying to preserve a positive change in the status quo (Tony moving Stark Industries away from weapons production and toward green energy) .
You know, coming back to this video a few months later I'm just now realizing how similar ultron's "I think you're confusing peace with quiet" is to martin Luther king jrs "who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice", at least in sentiment. Of course, Ultron wanted to exterminate all of humanity, but I find it kind of weird that the villain is basically unintentionally quoting MLK lol. Kindaa concerning.
The reality is that that quote is as foolish as it gets because not only is order more important then justice order is the fundamental prerequisite without which you can't have a society and therefore you can't have the human invented concept of justice without order we are back to the law of the jungle in which there is no space for justice, but only for the rule of the strongest
@@Victorvondoom9159 that's not what he means by "order." He's referring to the status quo, which at the time was segregation. The order of importance on which we place our fellow human beings should always be questioned, perpetually. No progress has ever been made without stepping outside of that order. If order were a more righteous thing than justice, then the Kings of old should still be subjugating the people, and it shouldn't matter how much pain and death it brings. Because that's the order of things. Disruptions of the status quo, the order of society, are what ended segregation, what gave women the right to vote, what legalized the act of being openly LGBTQ. It's funny how you call something foolish, when you undoubtedly benefit from it today. Overall, order is changing, across societies, and across time. Order is arbitrary, and if the order at which a society operates is unfair to one or more groups of people, it should be subject to change.
@@rainbowwigglecactus6605 while it undoubtedly important to question the status quo in order to achieve better outcomes you would still prefer the injustices of feudal society over the law of the jungle so yes while justice is undoubtedly important and w should strive towards it, It doesn't change the fact that order still trumps in it in terms of importance for a society to function
This is actually exactly why The Boys works. We follow the superheroes’ opposition, the Boys, as the protagonists whose primary goal is to take down Vought, which represents all that is wrong with our current status quo. In Vought’s defence are the superheroes. It feels like the most realistic and compelling depiction of superheroes because it allows them to play their part straight and faithfully to how they would function in our world, and it frames those who challenge the status quo to enact change, ie. the “villains”, appropriately for once.
Agreed, which is why the Boys is so frustrating in that they never actually progress, as each season feels like the same cycle with new heroes or villains but nothing actually changing.
@@Beatness121 though I love the show, I can agree that it can be frustrating to watch at times because of that. It's a tough scenario to write out of, but I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out and how the writers handle it.
@@ShadowSonic2 SPOILER ALERT FOR SEASON 3 OF THE BOYS, HUGE SPOILERS: if you mean butcher and the boys taking V? Yes that was largely disappointing and wish it didnt happen but from a character study POV, somehow it makes sense
Alan Moore's views on the superhero are available in video interviews and well worth watching as a follow-up to this. The vigilante, great man, and de facto autocrat are just as much an enemy to us as the antagonists they fight. This is why Neil Gaiman's 'Sandman' has been my favorite story/main character. To have a powerful figure who must correct the wrongs they have committed and profoundly grow as a person is something that is rarely seen in a genre which denies the realities of being a standard human.
Your comment is one of the reasons why I love Valiant Entertainment so much, it really emphasizes that good people are prone to doing bad things for example Peter Stanchek from Harbinger realized how much of an unchecked monster he was after using his powers on his childhood crush.
I immediately thought of Watchmen when he was expanding upon bringing the world back to the status quo. it's the only comic I've read that ends with the world not only completely altered from the status quo, but teases the idea of the truth of what happened during the story could be unveiled and change the status quo even further. I also appreciated that the truth is entrusted to normal people: Rorschach drops his notebook in the mail slot of a newspaper publisher. the supers' job was over with the confrontation with Ozymandias; now it's up to the people to rebuild the world and shape it, perhaps differently than before.
@@SniffyTugBoat Check out Moore's Marvelman/Miracleman, it's contemporaneous to Watchmen and goes in a very different direction around the status quo changes.
This became glaringly obvious to me when I watched The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. I remember finishing the series and thinking, “They really missed the mark on this one.” The next time I recognized it was when my partner and I watched Moon Knight and he commented on how much he was sick of villains with good intentions and good ideas but carried them out in such an extreme way. I definitely agree. I think Jim Gordon in The Killing Joke comic is a good example of this, where after everything Joker puts him through, he still tells Batman to bring him in “by the book”. This perpetuates the point most superhero stories make that “we’re not the same as the villains we fight because we don’t stoop to their level by still following the rules”. But then they neuter their attempts at every turn so that the impact they could have made is unfortunately diminished.
Well said. It also works under the belief that the best way to improve the system is to work *within* the system to change it - when the system is specifically structured to resist change. It assumes the system is inherently good, just off track or misguided. In reality it's fundamentally flawed and needs radical change, not incrementalism. The people who rule within the system are, almost universally, the last ones who will bring about necessary change.
...if you think "stop evil in the world by simply profiling people and preventing them from being evil" is a good idea with any execution, there's something wrong with you. A lot of our real-world systemic issues literally boil down to thinking you can just predict who is bad and preemptively punish them. There's no "nonextreme" version of Arthur's ideas, they are inherently extremist. Minority Report did a similar plot decades prior. There is no "good idea that's executed poorly to make it look bad" unless you broaden literal profiling to just the vague concept of crime prevention. The comparison to the more toothless neoliberal politics of FaWS is nonsensical because anarchism is a thing you can actually believe in without blowing up buildings. You can't believe in predetermined, immutable good and evil within a person without being some sort of fascist.
FatWS was such a letdown. The way the Flag Smashers make total sense in their purpose until the leader decides to randomly kill someone, Sam's weird antagonism towards his own Blackness, his downplaying of Isaiah's very real mistreatment by the US government. Truly could have done without because the very blatant neoliberalism made me like Sam's character waaay less
My least favourite trope in possibly all of fiction has to be ‘revolutionary that goes too far’ Because it acknowledges something wrong with the world around us but implies any form of substantial action won’t work because of the personal grievances that motivate it.
I don't mind that trope per se, what I hate is its justaposition to status quo defending heroes and an ethos of change only being allowed at a pace that makes the people in power comfy with the pace, and only going through channels approved by the status quo, and the commonality of that. Revoluntaries heroes that don't go too far stopping wannabe revolutionaries with bad ideas would be fine and dandy in my book, or even some hero defending a better status quo from a revolutionary that goes too far, as long as what they fight against isn't exclusive either that or completely moustache twisting evil for evilness sake cartoony villains.
I agree that this tropes is often used in a bad way, a cliche that came with it is that the story imply that since the revolution is violent the society should have stayed the same even if it caused the same share of violence than the revolution to end it because said violence is less spectacular than the one caused by the revolution. Writters also tend to forget that if revolution are violent the violence is meant to be temporary and that even if the one doing the revolution gave up to not be violent their enemies would repress them and put back the unfaire system
I want to point out an irony: the MCU did not start out this way, with the original Iron Man film representing a hero who disrupts the status quo vs a villain preserving it Most specifically it is focusing on the status quo of Stark Industries with a sidebar of military disruption as well. Tony Stark takes his billion dollar military weapons supply company & decides no more. He takes the company on a full right angle pivot into the energy sector, specifically focusing on arc reactors, and while he continues to make weapons in the form of iron man suits, they are explicitly not for sale. Completely shifting the company from one sector to a completely different sector is a massive shift of the status quo, and part of what first puts him at odds with Obadiah Stane, who’s motives from start to finish are to maintain control of the company so that he may continue his war profiteering. Regarding the military, Stark introduces a game changing weapon/defense item in the iron man suit, but rather than allowing military access to it he keeps it for himself. This is also a massive disruption of the status quo, as it moves the authority over violence away from the military, and onto himself. This is a large shift of status quo that would ultimately lay the groundwork for the new status quo of power laying in the hands of super powered individuals like the avengers. Now, we can argue further as to whether or not there were any benefits to the change in social order Tony was responsible for, but there’s no denying that he is one of the few superheroes that was making attempts to shift it (up until Sokovia). In the light of this essay, it’s incredibly ironic that this is the way the MCU began
@@ethancox9737 They just told you. It represents a shift of power away from the world's militaries, to an individual, eventually many powered people. Iron Man could go toe to toe with a fighter jet and win. The World Security people try to nuke NYC in Avengers, and Iron Man can stop that. Whenever there's a huge disaster, it's a super person who has to be able to stop it.
@@ethancox9737 Because the writers are creating a product, not creating art. Unlike the source material (comic books), these films are not made by a creative person who has a story they want to tell or a message they want to promote, they are created by committees that want to maximize sales. Even if people involved have a clear, coherent idea they want to put forth, that inevitably gets watered down by the hundreds of people involved in finalizing production, ending with corporate executives who are the real-world embodiment of maintaining the status quo.
There's an entry in TV Tropes called "Reed Richards is useless" which points out that usually superheroes use technology to beat villains instead of solving real problems. One motivation for writing stories that way is to not trivialise such problems by presenting them as simple to solve. This becomes especially apparent when you think about how Jane Foster lives in a world with unbelievable magic and technology, and yet she struggles with cancer. I feel like you should have addressed how a solution from a superhero movie would be insensitive to those who struggle with a real issue.
I think "doesn't want to trivialize the issue" covers a lot of this. If they made an MCU film in which the hero fought racism the whole time, and at the end of the two hours they'd fixed racism, it would come off as bizarre and insulting. I know in the X-men comics they made an HIV/AIDS metaphor disease in the 80s that has resisted the best superscience and magic the multiverse could offer because the authors didn't want it cured while real HIV was still uncurable. I also think that people sometimes overestimate the practicalities of advanced technology. We live in an astonishingly technologically advanced society, but cancer is still hard to stamp out because it is a naturally diverse and difficult problem. Even if Tony Stark creates immensely powerful clean energy arc reactors, actually converting the world's energy grid to arc power would be a Herculean task that would require enormous effort and resources and regulatory approval and time. He can't just snap his fingers and cause instant worldwide adoption. (At least, not without an Infinity Gauntlet.)
@@michaelramon2411 It doesn't have to trivialize issues. Like a Super Hero who attempts to solve "big structural problem", but then realizes it's much bigger than a lone Super Hero, especially because there are villains working to keep the Status Quo and reactionary villains that have a different idea of what progress looks like. The Hero uses their powers instead to expose institutions and media that perpetuates "big structural problem" and with the help of the people, and a lot of work and mobilization, attempt to make real progress. The Hero doesn't have to be a magical wand, it can just be a very powerful tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands. Something like what we see in "The Boys" tv series.
@@vicshephard9231 Is there any indication that the MCU has NOT starting using arc reactors in their electrical grid? I feel like that could have altered many of their power plants already and it wouldn't make much of a visually obvious difference. Unless some recent Marvel product had a character making a big deal about climate change, I feel like we can probably assume that that problem has been addressed.
That gets VERY disturbing when you realise the people making these films are probably aware of the message they convey. Almost like Big Brother Marvel telling you to accept the world how it is because wanting change makes you a supervillain
you know this has had real world consequences, sometimes it takes away the ability to understand art, to be having an open mind, its a matter whether you care or you don't. This is just one example, everyone in life faces some like these and many fall to them.
I disagree. My issue is it conflates that the heroes not using extreme methods to fix the stats qou is somehow wrong. Or that the heroes should impart their will and ideas on the world. It's a nice sentiment if the power is controllable and the heroes' ideals are just. But it falls apart otherwise. Should Dr. Strange really use the time stone to fix issues? Where would he stop? It was a last-ditch effort to correct a cosmic problem. It's not something to just use off hand. This is a big crux of CA: Civil War's debate. Who should act and who should decide? Everyone would have their own agendas.
@@danielolsen3514 The problem isn't that the hero's actions are unjustified within the context of the story (most of the time), in fact it's almost the opposite. The MCU universe is constructed to justify heros who refuse to allow social progress. As mentioned in the video, the hero's actions seem rational in the context of the stories because we're either shown or told outright the alternative is worse.
@@74oshua That’s mainly because there’s only one way a super powered individual could combat the “status quo”. A way that the creator of this video understands is absolutely immoral, therefore he didn’t mention it.
@74oshua Sure. But is it the heroes job to push progress? (Who says they would have the correct view? I don't expect to put pressure on firemen to be the forerunners in great social changes). We also only see snapshots of their lives. Avengers :cspan might be a good world building in the context of society changes. But it would be a terrible movie. My issue with the overall premise of this video and the source it's referencing is that it's using 4th wall meta knowledge to judge and contextualize the stories. Do the movies have the villains go too far to help justify the heroes stopping them? Yes. Because if they didn't, it wouldn't be a story. No conflict, no story. That's the story structure. Heck, the MCU set up the Avengers solely on the idea of having a response team to the threat of Loki, not a long-term global task force. They rejected Furys' initial pitch.
You literally did a video which is a much better formulated version of the argument I have made to everyone I am close to in explaining my statement that I dislike superheroes. Now I shall send it to EVERYONE I know because I always knew I wasn’t alone in thinking this. Thanks for validating that
@chandllerburse737 I know. I dont really argue with people much about it its more a when it comes up and the topic is similar(often its just me defending MCU villains for fun usually).
The video fails to address how the heroes would implement the change though. Do you have examples of that? Its the single most important part of the discussion surrounding this topic, because unlike Tony (who was even shown in this video to take steps for cleaner energy btw) most heroes don't have the power to change the world without being tyrannical dictators.
@@zillva Anarchists are more concerned with tearing shit up than with creating. This is what they don’t admit to themselves. They just kinda expect to “go along with it and see what happens”
@@zillva But isn't it the writers', artists', and creators' job to dream up of ways the heroes can change the world? Why is it the audience's responsibility to fix the story? This video is a critique, it's not a "how to".
I’ve been meaning to read Utopia of Rules and I have an audible credit burning a hole in my pocket. I absolutely adore Graeber. Humanity shared a tragic loss when he passed away.
As a child I was fascinated by the villains. It seemed to me that they had a more complex background story (we always got to know why they were evil and/or how they became villains) and in a way they were brave, risk-takers, fought for their course and usually had the cooler and extravagant outfits 😀
I mean, in these more episodic and black-white shows (moustache-twirling villain and always good hero), the heroes are the ones supposed to have the coolest attacks and sickest designs since we're going to see them every episode, but the villains, who only shows up once every 10 or so episodes/once a season/once in the entire show's runtime will have visuals that are always fresh and their powers are always new (and thus more appealing), so no matter what the shows runner try to do... the villain always will have the coolest design XD pretty much what the video says, Innovation is the differential to a villain, plus having liberty to have more cool and 'gray' backgrounds since they're not supposed to be used as role models (and if the villain's a staple of the series instead of sharing screen time with other villains, some watchers will also take in consideration their determination, they always lose yet always get back up, while usually the hero needs to get a rehabilitation arc whenever they lose once)
Honestly one of the most impressive aspects of your videos is the amount of footage you use. Like you will literally have specific clips of specific quotes selected for dozens of movies, all in one video. Do you look through all of it yourself or do you have someone to help you?
The sad part about this is that, as a kid, what i learned from reading Marvel (and dc) was that being a hero was to help others in need, despite your identity. It didnt matter who you were, just that you would help people. Yes, there are pieces of their media that reflect on that, but on a grand scale, not that much transpires. Amazing video, as always.
(sigh) On a good day, helping and protecting other people in need does sort of give you a morally justified reason to protect the status quo - in a good way. The Marvel Cinematic Universe and also the DC Universe could use a new superhero movie with a superhero who actually dares to challenge the status quo - because it could certainly make for a more interesting storyline when the hero and the villain have the same goal, and they are foils to each other when the hero has a much better idea of how to transform the world without murdering people. December 7, 2022, 4:42am
@@adampkalb I would appreciate a truly revolutionary Marvel hero. Take the standard villain formula, strip out the unnecessary violence, and put an emphasis on the hero's greatest power being not in raw destructive capability, but in the motivation they inspire in the common man to stand up and do the right thing. The antagonist could be a traditional superhero wrongly assuming that any large-scale disruption is dangerous, and instead of reinforcing the whole "heroes are just violent vigilantes" narrative by having the hero kill them, let the antagonist be won over to the cause and help them make real change.
A lot of this can be blamed on mark miller's the ultimates. That comic alone set the trend for viewing the avengers as basically American "super police/super soldiers" but supposedly Millar meant to write the book as a satire. It was meant to be critical of the idea. Then marvel studios starts making an avengers movie and looks at the ultimates and goes "hey....this aesthetic is cool and modern and slick. Let's make it more like this!" It's sad because superhero stories used to be more imaginative and critical of the status quo. I think back to the early fantastic four comics especially and how characters like Reed had to use their creativity to solve problems. A lot of jack kirby's comics were characterised by his musings about the world of tomorrow and where the future was going. Or i think of the earliest issues of action comics where superman took down abusive prison wardens and fought labor exploitation. But now the characters and the brand are all that matter. The characters are just products. These aren't stories about imagining the future anymore they're just stories about reinforcing the status quo and placating audiences by offering light social criticisms.
Same thing happened with the watchmen. %100 satire, with Rorschach meant to be a gross incel like asshole. But then you have so many people just adoring and seeing themselves as him and therefore a potential hero.
It's interesting how superhero stories stand in comparison to the rest of sci-fi/fantasy - in superhero stories, the villain is a disrupting force that the hero has to beat back to preserve our cherished way of life. In most other sci-fi/fantasy, the villain is in charge (the "dark lord"), and the hero is leading a revolution to overthrow them.
@@PhantasmalBlast Its funny cuz literally the only time in Star Wars (the prequels and Clone Wars) that they're promoting the status quo it goes incredibly wrong enough because the Jedi Republic was incredibly corrupt and internally stagnant. Every other time, changing the status quo is the goal and the hope.
Do you have any idea how it would look on Marvel and Disney if Killmonger actually did things far more rationally and grounded within The Black Panther? It would endanger how many perceptions of how heroes have existed to begin with. Much less the perception of the world all around us. Companies would never allow for that to happen. It endangers their interests
Killmonger was planning to commit genocide on white people, essentially. The thing that makes Black Panther good is that T'Challa actually learns from Killmonger, and has enough empathy to understand why he would go that far, and actually implements his ideology into his own, starting to share the resources of Wakanda to make people more equal throughout the world, even starting with Oakland to show his respect to Killmonger for giving him the resolve to do so, despite maybe not being the place that acutally needed it the most
I love how the super advanced wakanda nation was willing to start war World 3 because a dude Threw another dude from a waterfall And they Turned against him because he didn't throw the dude properly
As a big fan of the MCU and superheroes and comics... I think about this a lot. It is absolutely a genre-wide dilemma across all mediums, and it's really rare to see it challenged. I especially love your point that when superheroes DO get fed up and try to change something, they risk becoming the villain. We see this in Red Son (where Superman rules Soviet Russia). Or in the Ion Saga (where Green Lantern seizes unlimited power and attempts to end all war and famine and suffering). Or Zero Hour (where a different Green Lantern tries to retcon continuity to fix a bunch of issues). Or everything with Cyclops in the past fifteen years (he lost faith in Xavier's optimism and murdered him). Or Secret Empire (with Hydra Cap convinced his fascist ideologies will make the world a better place). Or the Cancerverse (where a bunch of heroes literally killed Death and the universe became this freaky melting pot of Lovecraftian horror). I would love to see these stories actually embrace meaningful change. Let Wakanda share that cure for cancer that they've got (Mar-Vell sure could've used it). Bring back classic Superman who would wreck slums to force the slumlords to build something better. There's so much cool stuff all these heroes are capable of. Let's see it happen, for real.
God do I agree. Its starting to piss me off that the genre seems to only gives the heroes the impulse to change stuff only for the thrill of having them "break bad". And it hasn't helped, I think? , that a lot of the fanbase has embraced the "heroes are bad, actually" narrative as the better quality one. Like, I enjoy The Boys, Invincible, Injustice.... but it pisses me off that our only two options are heroes protect the status quo or heroes break bad, cause they're all power hungry, actually...
Invincible, being one continuity with a definitive end, embraces change both with characters and the systems they inhabit should read and watch it if that’s what you want!
Read Worm, then. You'll get an address to your complaints. Worm doesn't fix those issues but codifies them into the laws and rules of that universe. For example, when a character has plot armor that's because they literally have the power of plot armor (though it's explained more cleverly and within the rules of that world). Or when a character has the power to be forgotten, they are not introduced to the audience, they just happen to be there one day. And they have an extreme amount of character development off-camera (so-to-speak, since it's a book-no camera), because they were developed when you weren't thinking about them (that's their power!). Powered individuals in Worm *do* try to cure cancer, fix world hunger, etc. They still don't, largely, but why they don't fix those issues is directly addressed and explained cleverly by Worm using the rules of how powers are divvied out. If you've ever watched/read a super-hero story and asked "why doesn't the character just do ____ with their power?", Worm answers your question.
When i was a kid iron man inspired me to learn engineering. But as an adult what inspired me to keep going on with engineering was the one piece character Tom San, he was a fishMan, an amphibian species superior to humans, but was gentle and kind, unlike the fishmans shown until that point. In that story arc He was to be executed due to his connection with pirates .Still manages to save a remote island country using his engineering skills. No, he doesn't make weapons or super suit to blast invading aliens, but develops a revolutionary transportation system connecting the island to the rest of the world, resulting in the improvement in economic activity and saving the people out of poverty. Due to this, his execution was to be cancelled. But still gets executed due to corrupt people in the government.
@barabaramoo Can't say the same for naruto. Most the villain literally wanted to change the status quo yet Naruto disagree with their method but didn't really changed anything.
I never really considered the public in the new MCU until you mentioned it. Remember in the X-men animated series(one from the 90s), public protests were commonly featured. Additionally, there was not the sort of hero worship bestowed upon the superheroes of today's MCU. The members of the Xmen would constantly be ridiculed or demeaned by the public as "mutants", "freaks", or "monsters" even if they saved them!
Yeah but the X-Men were part of the problem. They hid away in their fancy mansion and rarely went out to do things to try and proactively change the status quo.
@@navaryn2938 The show really leans into heavy topics: episodes about Communism, pandemics, marginalization, nuclear war, faith, cultural preservation, etc. I've been rewatching it, made it my Sunday morning ritual
This channel is terrifying to watch. Every time i think you can’t turn something on its head, and make me see it in a truly awful light, you just ram the point home. I love it hahah
Some of the best Superman stories are about the character having inner conflicts with how much he should intervene in the world, and the ethical implications in changing the status quo by force and might. So, he wants to inspire people to be better people in general. He is himself a simple man, who would much prefer a simple life taking care of a farm than the busy city, much less super-heroics, but he feels he has a duty to help. Batman is an interesting character, and full of nuance in his actions and personal drama, sacrifice. Batman The Animated Series, and the movie Mask Of The Phantasm, are definitive portrayals of that nuance. He is a hero, but at the cost of ruining his own personal life and happiness.
Exactly! I was going to make a similar point, which is raised by you and within the video, about how these heroes already hold immense power so what gives them the right to shape the world. The conundrum comes from the fact that by already choosing to align themselves with institutions that uphold the status quo, like law enforcement agencies like the police, military or federal law enforcement like CIA, they put themselves in a box because they are playing by the state and that institution's rules. I guess one last point that is interesting is that if the (partial) thesis of the video is that seeking change, whether progressive and or radical, makes one a villain then that would mean if these MCU heroes preached and or acted in more progressive and radical ways, for the public no less, then they would be deemed villains (at least by the state probably not the people).
For all of his "personal drama an sacrifice", Batman is still a multi-billionaire who chooses to punch bad guys in the street in his free time (which is almost all the time since he's a billionaire).
@@ekki1993 I always love when people bring up Elon like he's not a rich boy playing superhero for funzies rather than spending his immense wealth helping to create substantial systemic reforms... oh, sorry, I meant Batman. Honest mistake.
For MCU, status quo means 'world established in the comics that we shouldn't alter because we cannot build another world due to our complete lack of creativity'
Your comment reminds me of Kay and skittles third video covering the legend of korra series where he talks about the red lotus. He's talking about how the creator of LOK are purposefully misrepresenting anarchists and he says "The boys are so deeply instilled in the ideological framework of capitalist realism, they can't even *imagine* an anarchist revolution that isn't top down. That isn't being thrust upon the people without their consent or involvement by a few great men."
While you're right, Marvel is comically incorrect in seeming to think this to be the case. The worlds of the comics and their status quos did change drastically over time. Marvel is stuck in the status quo at the beginning of the "Silver Age", with a few modifications here and there. We've had five eras since that, all of with distinct events and societal changes to these events, so it's extremely odd to me that the MCU refuses to move beyond. Like, even if their excuse was lack of creativity, they already doing plots for eras beyond the silver age - why not just adjust the world to match?
Yeah, I think that these conversations underestimate the "we need our world to look like the real world so we can keep selling these movies" factor. Like, a world with infinite free energy, no world hunger and everybody lives for centuries and is vaccinated against cancer would be really cool to live in, but it would be pretty low on terrorism and bank heists and fascist regimes and alien assassins and all that stuff we go to marvel movies for.
@@Olivman7 That’s why all this mofos complaining in the comments about “heroes are defending the status quo” are dumb. Is a story, all stories need conflict. That’s it is not that deep
You perfectly articulated the feelings that I have been having for years whenever someone asks me if I want to go watch the newest Marvel movie and I cannot explain to them how *tired* that would make me. Thank you.
This philosophy reminds me of The Legend of Korra, first she's trying to protect the status quo but at the end she always realizes their point and she tries to make it work in a good way
The channel Just Write talks about this in The Legend of Korra, using the Hegelian Dialectic! In short, for every season of Korra, a villain challenges the Status Quo with their opposing extreme ideology. In the end of the season, the villain is stopped, but some of that opposing ideology is mixed with the current state, creating a new and nuanced current world. This way, the world is always changing in a iterative way, and some value is given to the villains' ideas. Just Write explains it better in his video, just check it out!
@@bebbization and kay and Skittles explains it better through a materialist perspective that Korra disregards the core message of these villains while only doing surface level changes
@Tech Issus Cool, I'll check that out! I think the legend of korra has a lot of lost potential, especially at the end of each season. It's a bit of a letdown to have each season start with an interesting problem, only to be simplified and rushed in the end. Still, I think they do it better than most MCU stories, even though the changes Korra makes should have been more
@@bebbization Yeah I agree, Hello Future me wrote multiple essays on how that could be remedied. But Ultimately the show's structure make it difficult. Also Just don't trust anything Just write says, he has a tendency of making unsubstantiated claims about philosophers like Hegel.
I think the issue isn't just ideological but also due to writing constraints. Imagine a hero or villain actually manages to change the world - permanently and irreversibly. Everything taking place afterwards would have to be written like well thought out Sci-Fi instead of basic Urban Fantasy. That's way harder to do.
it's easier to do with some character's than others. Spider-man 2099 literally fights for good in a dystopia world where corporations have absolute power. Thor and the fantastic four frequently travel to other realities and dimensions and across space and time so it's easier to have a villain 'win' and write around their victory. Heck the marvel 2099 line literally had a whole period where dr doom successfully conquoted the united states and it was easy to write around because the setting was already a dystopian future.
Yeah and by that point their world would be so ideal that they won't be able to make any social commentaries that mirrors the world we live in anymore.
@@galactic85 That was the point. If the status quo is "contemporary New York" and required knowledge is "skills and traits of one hero" almost any artist can help with the next episode of the comic. If there's new tech, architecture and a new social system you need to be immersed first. Therefore any big deviations are usually one-off things or projects of a specific author.
I actually think if they permanently change the status quo, there would be so much possibilities for new stories and less for them to worry about-- For example ,if Tony Stark actually give everyone in the world free energy using his battery, we wouldn't have critique about him not really caring for people. There could be capitalist villains trying to kill him so they can keep selling energy. There could be a massive scientific evolution that lteads to new storylines.
100% agree and this even applies to how the MCU handles the fallout of the Snap/Blip, which arguably has (or should have) irreversibly changed their world. Outside of some jokes, references, and a very clumsy Falcon & Winter Soldier show, the MCU writers have demonstrated they are either uninterested or unable to really engage with the implications of such a global event and how it would change the world.
This sort of “only evil desires to change the way the world works ” mentality is something I really hope Spider-Verse bucks in its final movie. A lot of people are theorising that Canon Events don’t really exist, and Spider-Society is just too blinded their collective trauma to see it. I believe a more compelling idea is that really *are* a fundamental pillar of the multiverse, only for Miles to just start looking for a way to alter the very nature of the multiverse itself if that’s what’s keeping from protecting both his universe and his family. The idea that Miles’ ultimate enemy won’t be a supervillain, but rather the system that controls the world he lives in demanding he sacrifice constantly to protect and sustain it while giving him nothing in return is a story I think most young people today go through all the time. Something they’d be overjoyed to be told they’re not alone in.
I think it's important to mention that the heroes can and do bring about sweeping changes to their worlds, as long as that world is not earth. It shows that making drastic change doesn't have to be seen as a precursor to villainy in Marvel; which makes the excuse more obvious
And in some fictions, when more advanced and progressive alien societies (some advanced by super beings) they also just randomly happen to be, in some aspects, less "spiritual aware" (or some junk like that) than the visiting Earthlings despite having been previously shown to be spiritually developed aeon before Earth. It's just a very Earth-centric narrative that promotes the Earth status quo as ultimately right.
That makes it seem almost like an analogy for America and the rest of the world; Earth and it's heroes fight against change on earth while going out of their way to make change on other worlds based on their own authority, much like how America and it's police and military will actively fight against change domestically but will have an active hand in regime change abroad.
I think this is because of the real reason is because authors like to have their stories take place on "The Real World", so they can address things that are happening at the time. This in turn means they will ignore the changes made by other authors or the potential implications of other characters or technology also existing in the same universe. The most famous example is the X-Men and other Mutants being subjected to prejudice other characters are exempt from. The original Days of the Future Past storyline brought the implications to light by explaining that the Sentinels also targeted aliens, superpowered beings and technologically enhanced people as Mutants.
This is also why I always been an X-men fan and preferred them over the Avengers since I was a little kid. Before the MCU came out, I hated the Avengers and thought they were corny. I loved reading the X-men comics, watching the shows, and movies. I found the X-men more relatable especially as someone who experienced racism since I was a kid. I related to the prejudice they experience for being mutants just like I was discriminated against for being black.
I'm from Europe so my exposure to superhero stuff was minimal. Grew up with a different comic culture. When the X-Men live action movies came out they were engaging and were able to stand on their own without being a lover of the X-man universe so to speak. Even my brother and mother liked these movies. Captain "AMERICA" on the other.... You gotta be the most arrogant numb-nut to even create something like that and let it live in modern times.
Yeah The Uncanny X-Men was my first love for comic book characters. I didn't even hear about the Avengers until much much later. I knew what Captain America looked like but didn't know anything about him. I didn't know who the other members are. I think the kids in my country had the same experience.
@@amberbaum4079 There were a few times where writers got to give Cap something interesting to say, mainly along the lines of telling America to reform or become reviled.
Loved this. Graeber was always a fantastic theorist, and his insight on superhero stories has if anything become more clearly true in recent times. Well done on demonstrating it so comprehensively.
I always hated it when a bad guy or character has an idea that would actually help people but then randomly start killing people, innocent people as well not even the ones holding power.
I think addressing this tension, to a point, was what made Arcane so engaging. Not a superhero story I know. But you got to see people on both sides fighting for change to make lives better. Totally different ways, with different original motivations. They were dynamic and changed. And that status quo at the end was very different to the beginning.
And interestingly the villain is killed just after he makes an agreement with the elite to keep up the city's status quo to prevent another civil war from breaking out. With his chaos gremlin daughter Jinx almost certainly kicking off the civil war anyways.
@@jessip8654 i also really like that the end of arcane isn’t just out of the blue… like… yes, seeing jinx suffer makes the audience feel sad and having seen her whole backstory makes us attached to her, empathize with her and want her to get better, even almost excuse some of her actions, but the extreme act that she does in the end still makes perfect sense for the character and the audience can’t help but say “ damn, things could just have been different if…”
@@wisteriaaaaaa you are right, althoug I was kinda annoyed at Jinxs's character. I am kinda burned down by those "femme fatale clown psychos" on the media nowadays. But yes, her actions actually make sense, Arcane was pretty well written.
Karli Morgenthau was the most egregious, for me, as far as "Villain who has a point suddenly kills civilians for no reason to uncomplicate the feud." And the way she ended really angered me, because so many white characters with no ideology to speak of were allowed to commit more atrocities than her for way longer without dying.
Yeah, and it seemed especially out of character for her. I would have liked it better if the heroes had teamed up with the flag smashers to ensure positive change
You would think that a person who actually is pointing out a problem within the un-Snapped world and is actually making a community would at least consider that when a person comes up and agrees with you and has the means to make change, you would at least coordinate with them if not team up with them if they are sincere. But apparently taking Extremis makes you become extremist which leads to the last minute of Episode 4 to the end of The Falcon and The Winter Soldier. Also, Baron Zemo is still afoot as another arbiter on “who should be superheroes”, so nothing was accomplished
Add to that, let's be honest here - the real world has shown that the "Language these people understand" is Property Destruction, not mass death.Killing a lot of people conveniently allows society to do exactly what the show writers did - Revel in the spectacle of death, then say 'Okay, maybe she had some points, but the mass murder makes everything she said now null and void'. Destroy the things - empty government buildings, rich people's third homes, monuments that are symbols of the actual oppression, etc. Especially if they're popular. The media already paints property destruction as Just The Worst, so lean into that and make the audience ask whether these buildings and objects ARE more important than the lives of the people Karli's fighting for? Hell, if the mouse REALLY want people to die, have one of those buildings or monuments not be as empty as they thought - maybe there's a few squatters there that the media now suddenly cares about, or some poor drone working late who wasn't cleared out. Actually grey things up, cowards. The only reason for the turn is because someone realized that actually, while companies think destruction of property is the worst because they're entirely made of assets, some real human people might think people are more important than places and they didn't want anyone to think their good guy wasn't 100% good.
@@washipuppy It's the same problem Riddler had in "The Batman". He's overall not wrong in what he does...so the last part has to reveal he's going to flood the city and murder innocent people
I honestly don't understand her point. It's been a while since I watched it but all I got from it was that "I'm annoyed the world's government didn't immediately find a solution that had no losers to the world's population suddenly doubling."
One day while I was speaking about Black Panther ending my brother asking pointed the fact that while Wakanda hoped to help People in need there first center of help was in America instead of somewhere in Africa
No, you misunderstood. He helped that black community in America specifically because of Killmonger was raised there (a man with Wakandan blood, born and raised in America) and to complete Killmonger's character story. Also representing how Africans can help Black Americans. And the end he said he's opening his resources and borders to the rest of the world. Meaning other African countries.
I kind of feel like this message can also apply to My Hero Academia. Most of the villains we’ve seen in that series were pushed to the extreme due to the various flaws of hero society. However, while the show constantly points out the world’s flaws and implies that the series will end with progress to make hero society better, the recent chapters give the feeling that everything will return to the status quo with the exception of heroes being more virtuous like All Might rather than pursuing fame or money
Ehhh after the current arc in the manga, i dont really agree. it does seem like true change will happen once All for one/shigaraki is defeated. You can tell by the character actions and how they have seen the villains and what made them that way. IDK how you can read the latest chapters and not see it lmao
Now Fullmetal Alchemist had a thing or two to say about oppressive systems. Every instance of war and bloodshed is proven unnecessary and for hidden selfish motivations. Every institution is actively hiding a secret. In the end it takes officers actively abandoning their role and duty to reveal conspiracies and remove leaders. But I never read the manga. I wonder how the society puts itself back together when their leader is gone.
I got a similar feeling from Danganronpa. Spoilers for the 2nd game. When, after so much of the games has been criticizing the talent = hope dichotomy, and how Hope's Peak was corrupt, it's portrayed as a good ending that Makoto starts a new Hope's Peak.
I wish they kept the attitude that the first Iron Man film had. Tony tries to SHUT DOWN the corporate arms company and the rich and powerful immediately try to freeze him out But in later films there's no consideration of whether America's largest arms maker stayed shut down.
So bizarre and how stupid was it to see this guy allegedly a genius go into shock and horror when he discovers the weapons of mass destruction he makes are actually used for mass destruction 💀 and the fact that he thought giving it to the US government was putting it in the right hands
This makes me like (comic book) vigilantes more than the big superheroes, as they at least try to change their neighbourhood for the better. Yes Spiderman and Daredevil arent causing any social change but their attempt to help the little guy does in fact help the little guy. Like daredevils goal isnt to save the world but he wants to make his small neighbourhood a better place and he does this both as a lawyer and by stepping in when he hears violence happening around him. The aim is smaller but atleast theyre homest about their aim
It also makes more sense why they are not changing the world. They are too small scale to do so, but at least are doing all they can with what they have.
Same. It’s more humble, but honestly more people should be. Too many people trying to change the world, that can hardly keep their own homes in order. Like, how am I supposed to trust you know what you’re doing with world changing power, when you can’t even keep a small ecosystem healthy like your family? And you want to promise the concerns around unintended consequences are ridiculous?
I once got into a discussion with a person about black panther. I said the movie is about making the choice to utilize restorative justice instead of fear mongers plan to create social change through militaristic force. The person said no, it's just a movie with a bad guy and good guy fighting. I have to remind myself that a portion of the general public is never going to look deeper into their art that good guy=good and bad guy=bad.
I mean... the reason why the social commentary in action movies is so incredibly out of touch is that it's only there as an excuse to make the action happen, nothing else
I mean, we talking about mcu, a lot of people see Marvel movies just like explosions and Big fights, not even The fans in a Big majority see that there is depth in It at all
That's called capitalist realism, or as Jameson said, for Hollywood "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism "
Star Wars definitely handles this topic well as in the Original and Sequel trilogy, you have a group of heroes and an entire resistance fighting to change the status quo. Meanwhile in the Prequels, you have the Jedi fighting to defend the current status quo and this was what led them to their inevitable downfall.
The prequels even go that far to have people in charge, despite all their wisdom, actively deny that change is happening. Hell, you even have to give the Harry Potter universe some points for that - the whole fifth book about people not wanting to believe Voldemort is back despite facts telling them otherwise (a school boy has been murdered ffs) really hit home.
Also reminds me of what Filoni did with Barriss Offee in the Clone Wars. Having her speak the truth of the Jedi order's downfall yet then bomb the temple in order to alienate not only the fictional world from her idea, but also the real life audience.
This is also what makes Qui-Gon's death so tragic in Episode I, with him dies the last hope that the Jedi can change before the fall. Not only would Anakin have had a far better father figure, but the Order lost a potential leader who actually realized how blind they had become. He saw value in people that other Jedi dismissed as "pathetic life forms", etc.
Having watched the video in full, my mind went to Captain America: Civil War. It is the one time where direct criticism of the superheroes and their behavior is leveled. Ironically, it is made clear that Tony Stark, the billionaire weapon maker, is the one who most seriously considers the idea that, yes, the Sokovia Accords do need to exist to keep a check and balance on the Avengers, while Captain America, the boy scout from the streets of Brooklyn, is the one who says "the safest hands are our own". But like with the villains mentioned, the Accords are implemented in such a way that it presents the idea as a bad one that should never have been done, rather than even entertaining a more reasonable version of it. I heard LegalEagle broke down the Sokovia Accords in a video of his own, and it includes a long list of Human rights violations. In other words, when society pushes back against the superheroes, the defenders of the status quo, it is also depicted as unilaterally in the wrong. Same with No Way Home. After Peter Parker is framed and ousted as Spider-Man by Mysterio, most of the public we see either immediately believes Mysterio's frame-up, antagonizes Peter Parker, or just has most of the people around him, at his school, no less, hovering apathetically around him with phones pointed at him, if memory serves. We have very few cases of any other reaction, much less sympathetic ones willing to hear him out. J. Jonah Jameson is just the face of the anti-Spider-Man public opinion after Mysterio's video. It adds to the point that starts being made around 18:48. We don't see the public outside of narrow confines. Either they are people in distress who need saving, unruly mobs, passive fandom who adore the heroes, or people who are antagonistic towards the hero of the film.
The problem is that the Sokovia Accords turned superheroes from basically defenders of the status quo to literally defenders of the status quo. It made them subordinate to the United Nations, which isn't really an improvement when the criticism being leveled is that modern nation-states are bad.
The Sokovia Accords and Civil War is such an interesting topic imo, because the movie dangles this political issue in your face and makes its two central heroes take opposing sides... but that's not really what the movie is about. As you say, the film fully villainizes the Accords by the end of its runtime (although it's still a massive improvement over the comic version of the story which went full Guantamano Bay allegory and had Iron Man's team employ villains and shoot the Hulk into space). But more than that, the conflict in the end of the film... has absolutely nothing to do with the Accords at all. The conflict is actually just about Bucky and his past. A scifi plot with scifi implications. That's not to take away from the ending -- I actually think it's one of the best ending the MCU has had -- but you could make a totally different movie without the Accords, and the final sequence could remain entirely intact. Really, the moment Bucky is added into the cast, all the genuine political conflict is thrown away because the real issue is "Who framed Bucky???" And the battles then are not fought over the Accords... they're fought over Bucky.
I think the issue with the Accords is much more that they would essentially make the Avengers in to a world police. Rather than curbing the problematic behaviors of a bunch of super powered individuals intervening in conflicts it turns them into a super powered private army. It pretty much created Team America World Police. Instead of the checks and balances that it is trying to set up. I think Tony and Steve’s arguments for and against it are close but miss the point. And are completely a reflection of there own personal insecurities. Tony need checks and balances. Where as Cap is worried about personal accountability and the effects of world powers using there strength for bad ends. Both had valid consents but aren’t really seeing the bigger picture
@@TheLithp at least the United Nations would implement restrictions and oversight onto them, not saying its ideal but the current situation is that essentially the Avengers are a non-government military organization that intervenes whenever they want and are run by the members personal agendas. For all we know Stark could easily intervene in one of his factories in the developing world protesting by just landing in an Iron Man suit and killing them. Now he wouldn't do that, but the Avengers themselves represent this type of "we are better and more morally right than every other institution and deserve the right to intervene whenever"
The book version of Civil War was much better at evenhandedly presenting arguments in favour of authoritarism and liberty. Even the silly punchfest at the end could be considered a commentary on how an ideology becomes illegitimate when it resorts to senseless violence. Even so, this video's criticisms apply to the book version too: the choice is whether the status quo should be maintained by an autonomous group of super-police or by an authoritarian state. Empowering the social movements that are struggling for positive change is not an option.
What always bothered me about Tony's inventions is that he does create a lot of stuff that can be considered "building a better future" but Marvel movies completely brush that off, or use them as a place where the action or fighting happens. Like the example of the Stark Tower - the first sustainably powered building that literally is proof that sustainable energy is good and is the future, is used as a battlefield of 2012 Avengers and then the idea of Tony trying to make the world sustainable is never brought up again in the narrative, because it doesn't serve any action, and instead what is brought up from what he does are always the things he creates to protect the world that are reactionary and are technically a defensive weaponry that can be used to attack as well. It's nearly the same case as with mental issues in MCU. They are only brought up to serve a narrative point once, and then promptly forgotten afterwards. Tony's PTSD is only important in IM3 and Age of Ultron, and then nothing. He is suddenly cured. Not to mention that all the other Avengers that probably also have mental problems (Steve's PTSD hello?), are never shown going to therapy or trying to deal with their symptoms (unless to make fun of someone's problems like with Thor's depression and alcoholism in Endgame), because showing superheroes as breathing, living human beings is not important for the MCU. MCU only cares about showing the action and battle. But even without that, even in the comics Avengers are more police, while X-Men are the underdogs that fight for change.
As a life long Iron Man fan, I am very happy to see something like this. Batman has gotten similar criticism, but I haven't seen many throw it towards marvel, ig because the movies were so popular.
anytime criticism of iron man comes up, people try to defend him by saying he's philanthropic or that he doesn't make weapons anymore. except, just like any billionaire, philanthropy is just tax-deducible PR that aims to scrub their reputations clean. and tony stark never stopped making weapons. he just stopped selling them to state militaries and instead supplied them to his own personal friends so they could personally be the world police. there are no good billionaires, and tony stark is not exception.
The reason batman gets that criticism is because he fights actual criminals. There is a lot of politics behind crime. The grunts in a batman story are poor people. The grunts in marvel films are closer to soldiers than anything else. Batman can probably help the criminals that he ends up beating to a pulp. By improving living conditions, less people turn to crime. That’s something that he can actually do as a wealthy person. Very few marvel characters actually fight criminals, and those that do aren’t in a position to have helped them not be criminals.
@@58209 Yeah the problem with the world police tagline is that the heroes do actually need to exist in some capacity as they fight: nazis with lasers, robots, and evil aliens. They don’t spend a lot of time post 2012 avengers fighting any real group or country that’s analogous to our own world. I agree no billionaires are good in our world, but maybe the hulkbuster armor is a justifiable piece of hardware. I’m not even touching philanthropy. Billionaires use profit for their own ends. Tony uses his to actually save their world, which no billionaire can lay claim to in our own world.
@@trevor4950 Batman and Superman both implement a lot of social changes in the comics such as building free housing for those with low incomes and preventing environmental exploitation but a lot of that isn't focused on in the movies since it wouldn't be as interesting to watch. Part of Batman's character is his goal of REHABILITATION which can become a flaw when he refuses to kill the Joker even after all the horrible things he's done.
@@adeptune6067 There's also the fact that, in the comics, their attempts to help people get thwarted or usurped by villains. In Bruce Wayne's case, almost every fund, charity or attempt to fix Gotham gets taken over by The Joker, The Court of Owls or whatever. They try to change the status quo, but the writers make sure it always goes back to the status quo.
100% give me a marvel movie where the heroes have a plan and the villain is trying to stop them. Like, the Avengers join up with environmental activists and use their powers to force companies to switch to renewable energy via protests, sit-ins, direct disruptive action, pressuring politicians to ensure mining workers are protected in the transition, etc. But some coal billionaire (a thinly veiled Gina Rinehart type) does not like the idea of having slightly less money and she goes full supervillain. That way the heroes are actively planning a better world (not just reacting to an apocalypse) while the villain is trying to prevent positive change.
"100% give me a marvel movie where the heroes have a plan and the villain is trying to stop them. Like, the Avengers join up with environmental activists and use their powers to force companies to switch to renewable energy via protests, sit-ins, direct disruptive action, pressuring politicians to ensure mining workers are protected in the transition" This feels like an USA Democrat Party propaganda advertisement and not a well thought well written action movie.
god, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier kinda feels like the epitome of this whole thing, with the flag-smashers being incredibly sympathetic and wanting what was, inarguably, positive and necessary change, only to turn into cartoonish terrorists and the new captain america speaking politely to the politician to think about the people or whatever. I felt crazy watching that ending, it was played as a good ending but the whole world they're in remained this dystopic, ill-equipped and unregulated post-disaster site
The Batman had the same problem. For 90% of the story we side with Riddler and his scheme...until he randomly decides to kill innocent people as his "Final Plan".
@@ShadowSonic2 The Riddler already put innocent people in danger from way earlier on in the movie... he runs a car into a crowd of 100s (nobody gets hit in the church but Riddler certainly isn't shown to care either way, not to mention the screaming and gunshots outside the church), tries to blow up Bruce (who he has no real dirt on, as Riddler is merely trying to commit an act of vengeace against Thomas Wayne) without thinking of the others in the building that might get caught in the crossfire, of coursewe have the flooding, etc... The Riddler is established throughout the movie as someone who is trying to change the city but doesn't care about the collateral damage. Batman is established as someone who is also trying to change the city, not defend the status quo, but is going about it the wrong way. That's a pretty different scenario.
Yeah the flag smashers were literally justified in everything they did and wanted to do. The bad guys won in F&WS and Falcon was literally rubbing shoulders with a murderous thug and war criminal. Bucky of all people should have known better too.
This makes me want a spin-off focused on some normal civilian trying to make some normal area in the MCU a better place. Post-Endgame gives lots of possibilities. After the Snap, what happens to everybody coming back and finding that their families have changed or moved on without them? What happens if a soldier in the middle of a war suddenly reappears in the middle of a newly constructed plaza? During the Snap, what organizations popped up to support those affected by the Lost? How did the underground crime rings shift and change once some superiors suddenly vanish? Which people stayed firm, inspired by the Avengers, and held on to their humanity instead of being tempted by the opportunities provided in the Snap, and how did they fight against those who fell to crime and temptation? So many stories that involve the 'public' and all we get are 'Avenger-level' threats. Sure, those are deadly, but what's even deadlier are the threats lurking beneath, what is commonly seen but what is chosen to be looked over.
Love your videos! This one was very well made and discusses an important topic. I've always hated it when the villain has a completely logical view on why they are wanting the change and just randomly does a brutal act of violence just so they can be painted as bad. Marvel being a billion dollar franchise which is viewed worldwide, I feel it enforces and normalizes the idea that people who want to change the status quo are bad. I love "The Boys" because it does the complete opposite. Great video! Keep them coming
The one thing I wish Marvel would do would betray just average humans pushing for reform in MCU to make it like our world I think they would be able to do it
An important thing to note is Black Superheros fight for social change. Luke Cage, Black Lightning, and Family Static Shock, all fought to end police corruption, gang violence and did a lot of charity work using their power. Just saying...
Loved the analysis. It reminded me of the villain - hero dynamics in avatar the legend of Korra. Villains were so cool and their ideologies and intentions seemed so good, untill they just did something completely evil, just for the sake of it
And while some people were definitively more prone to evil (namely the first two main villains, even if Amon does make the point that nonbenders are not treated fairly in Republic City because he is obviously set up as a demagogue) the other two main villains (groups) were people that could counter Korra’s role. Korra is a person who is basically the arbiter on stuff; that is inherently unfair even if the Avatar is culturally sensitive, can read people nicely, and generally supports good ideas; that is Zaheer’s point. And while Korra is better positioned to be a leader by the time of Kuvira, Kuvira is still a reminder that Korra could very easily be imperialist or some warring power herself (and by Zaheer’s logic, is so by helping those in power stay in power for the sake of peace). Korra is a story of a person growing to be a great leader who can handle multiple crises but it is also a story of what that great leader can easily become, and technically still has the chance to be.
@@iantaakalla8180 This is what I actually liked the most about LoK. At some point in the last season (it's been a while since I've watched it now), they actually acknowledge that each of the villains had good intentions and valid grievances, with the point being that they had become villains when they turned to violence, chaos and oppression to achieve their goals. It's not perfectly done, but the story is written in a way that actively brings the systemic injustices of their world into consideration and forces you to see their point of view.
It had been a few years (I didn't see avatar when o was young) but I don't remember it being gratuitous at all. I might be wrong but I remember feeling I understood why the villains wanted to use extreme methods, and kora recognizing explicitly they weren't really on the wrong. I really thought the writing was better than avatar, but I still remember not being so glued to it as the original. Thinking about it at the time I thought it was most likely due to feeling kora ended up being a very passive character whom things keep happening to. It's pretty much other people that make plans and are really critical to sabe the day, which is refreshing but ended up leaving her without much of a real arc besides going from a hash teenager to a less hash adult. But even that isn't all bad the end was thought provoking in that she decided to create her own adventure after that without just relying on being the super hero of that universe. The world left by the original avatar was very complicated and interesting and in fact goes against the idea exposed here of heroes not doing anything to change the world, very refreshing. Anyways sorry for the rambling, it brought back memories of a great show. I might be misremembering, it would be worth a rewatch if I had company.
Hi! I'm a Canadian independant comic artist who specialise in super heros for kids. I was just doing a panel on that subject two weeks ago at a college. You put it quite well! I'm not an expert of the MCU specificaly but I've always said that the problem with the MCU is that it only shows the tip of the iceberg of what you can do with the genre. It is the most important cultural manifestation of our time. It can talk about our fears, our hopes, our relation to power, etc. You can do Action, Sci-fi, Horror, Adventure and even Autobiography. They are us and they can do everything as much as we can do everything with them.
It's interesting how in a lot of these movies, the heroes aren't depicted as performing any acts of heroism unrelated to the problems and conflicts they themselves cause or are embroiled in at a personal level, outside of maybe a quick montage.
That's why I love the Spider-Man game by Insomniac and it's side missions. Peter does small things like disinfecting pigeons of a disease that could leap to humans, fixing water pressure, and investigating pollution causing products. He's actually making the effort to turn the neighborhood into a friendlier place in ways that don't just involve punching people. (Though he still does that because it IS a superhero game)
Feels like this is a result of the whole "complicated villain" fad, where the movies try to have their cake and eat it too by having villains who have more complicated motives but still are pure evil in their _actions_ . A big problem is that these movies need to pick either a sympathetic or pure evil villain and stick with it because when they don't everything gets muddled.
When I clicked on this video I had 0 idea what to expect. But wow, you make incredibly valid and backed up points, and it really does make you reflect on the superhero genre as a whole
I hate how so many villains have genuinely good points but then go “therefore the solution is genocide”. I especially hate when the “solution” is to kill the villain and then to move on. Nothing is ever done with the initial grievance. I wish they’d leave them alive so the character can come to the realization that the solution to their problem ISN’T to blow up New York City. Help them come to a better conclusion, or have the heroes at least make efforts to make sure a new villain won’t pop up from similar circumstances. Another peeve I have is when the heroes win through sheer force. If the hero and villain have clashing values/beliefs/morals, then have the heroes win BECAUSE of those beliefs. Why is the hero’s beliefs “right”, and what would the world look like under the villains world? Being able to out-punch someone doesn’t automatically make you morally right.
@@randomusername3873 Magneto: “Mutants are being persecuted” (true) “therefore genocide” (wtf) Thanos: “Overpopulation is a problem. Not enough people are getting enough resources.” (True) “therefore genocide” (wtf) The angry mob from Belle (not Gaston because he probably did it for selfish reasons): “There is a beast holding Belle captive so we should fight it” (true, but could be avoided with a conversation or some reassurance from Belle) Killmonger: “Wakanda should reveal themselves and show the world what they can do” (good point) “I’m gonna be a dictator” (wtf) Ursula: (If she didn’t try to sabotage Ariel, she would’ve been fully in the right to offer a contract and expect Ariel to follow it if she signed it. Nothing wrong with that) These are a few of the top of my head, so I could be getting some facts wrong, but I hope you get the general gist of when I’m trying to say. Apologies in advance if I misrepresented anything
@@littleblueclovers Your complaint is extremely weird. If villains dont find a "good cause" to disguise their evil behaviour, why would they even exist, let alone grow into positions of power? This is literally how cults work. They're all "save the world" or "liberate the marginalized" and then they go committing terrorism. Evil people putting the appearance of an activist is literally the most normal thing on the planet. Complaining about this is like complaining about water being wet. You, as well as many people in this comment section, also seem to think that a person believing in a good thing is incapable of supporting an evil thing.
I rewatched Watchmen recently and had a strong urge to reread the novel as well. This video perfectly articulates the general impression I got from Watchmen - that superheroes fail as an idea because they are unable to fundamentally save our world. They can only cure the symptoms but not the disease, thus basically becoming a glorified police. Real change, if it’s possible in the first place, is usually done collectively and in rather boring, unsexy ways which have little to do with epic battles. I freaking love that novel although it ruined any sympathy I had for superhero media.
@@sonchik6324 I don't think so. (spoiler ahead) The ambiguity of Veidt's actions is one of the of the most important aspects of the book, yet Snyder presents Veidt like a 100% villain, with Night Owl scolding him because he 'mutilated humanity to save it' or something, which sounds like nonsense to me.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D2 | Fall | ต้องรักษาฟอร์ม อย่ายอมให้ใครแซง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x38QsGn7A3M/mqdefault.jpg)
Subtitles for this video are now available in English, French, and Japanese. If you'd like to us help out with even more language translations, it's easy over on Amara: amara.org/videos/bnhuIc588XqN/info/marvels-defenders-of-the-status-quo/
Do you think the issues you discuss have anything to do with America's tradition of anti-communism? Because I swear that whole section where you talk about a group of people with revolutionary ideas who seem like they have great ideas for promoting society, but in practise are ridiculously callous about killing innocent people, could have been written about the Bolsheviks.
@@mankytoes Agreed. The Americans' distrust for any system certainly prevented the writers from imagining the possibility of building a good system. The only system they can imagine is to let the protagonists do their thing according to their respective moral compasses. In comparison, the heroes in Japanese action anime are often a team of specialists working together under government supervision while the status quo is not always maintained. The heroes in Korean action film are often trying to change the status quo but usually ended up in a dystopian tragedy. And the heroes in Chinese action films often changes the status quo to promote China.
uh... meow?
This whole video just had me thinking about invincible now that I’ve read it.
Muchas gracias por ponerlo al español
something that I think about a lot is how Spider-Man 2’s train scene was really one of the last and only times that we saw civilians taking an active role in helping a hero as a collective. now in most films they just exist to be either starry eyed or to die screaming
The Wakandans fought in Infinity War. But I did really like that bit in Spider-Man 2.
@@ollieb.9731 doesn't count, that was just an army of faceless goons
Amazing spiderman crane scene ?
Spiderman did it often new Yorkers threw things at green goblin too
The other scene that comes to mind is The Dark Knight’s ferry scene
i will say it is incredibly annoying when you notice how many of the villains are on the right path but then they randomly decide to start murdering people just so we don't forget who the bag guy is.
Pretty much what happened with the Riddler in Batman
i don't understand that logic cause the heroes themselves have killed a lot of people
@@daisymagnus306 thiiiiis
@@daisymagnus306 the riddler is shown to be totally wrong, and he was never in the right. People who agreed with him are scary.
@@julianjpantoja4603 agree
"You wanna protect the world, but you don't want it to change."
It always bothered me that this quote came out of the mouth of a villain.
"You confuse peace with quiet." was also pretty good.
It's almost like change is a possible vessel for those who plan corruption or something.
@@seventhcyborg sounds very similar to you promoting a "negative peace, which is a lack of tensions, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice." In his time, MLK was viewed as a villain by two-thirds of the population...
@@michaellevin1400 MLK was right on the money.
@@seventhcyborgUltron was so philosophical
On the other side, it’s frustrating just how many villains these days have the motivation ‘fix a problem, but do it evil’
That's the point. The message often times in MCU is that changing society from the status quo is and can only ever be evil and must be stopped, which is the heroic and right thing to do. Even though _restoring_ things to how they were doesn't actually help anyone and is actually saying that things are fine as they are. It's quite sad.
@@notaburneraccount I was actually talking about modern media more generally. Kingsmen, apparently that fast and furious spin off with Idris Elba, I don’t know if you’ve heard of Alex rider, but the Amazon series changed the villain’s motivation from racism to population reduction
@@SW017yeah Kingsmen and Stormbreaker actually have very similar villain plots. "I'm going to gift efelctronics to poor people... and then kill them with it"
@amiablereaper How does Kingsmen fit into this? The villain doesn't try to improve society using evil methods. Instead he starts off as outright evil and hides this by doing something aparently generous: Gifting phones to the everyone (iirc). So if anything it is thre exact opposite to a Marvel villain who has seemingly good motivations and goals but does unnecessarily horrible things to archive them or just because he can (like Killmongers sexism).
Unless you think population reduction is a good thing, which it isn't. Populations ideally remain stable.
@SW017
Oh come on now dude. There _has_ to be some kind of plot. You can't just have a villain that fixes a problem and does good, and the heroes fight him for doing good. Then they wouldn't be a villain, they'd be heroes fighting. The villain has to have a warped mindset, in order to be believable as a villain, otherwise it would be frustrating as well, seeing somebody with the right ideals in every way get attacked.
The trick in order to make a good villain, is to be skilled enough as writer to combine the best of two worlds. For example:
let's say a villain wants to blow up the world in order to stop people from bullying him. Despite the trope being potentially oversaturated, it's still a good villain plot set up, because it shows their warped mindset is transfixed on vengeance, and not concerned with who they hurt. They become the bully they were against.
I feel like this is why many people prefer the X-Men to the Avengers.
The Avengers, as cool as they are, are glorified superpowered police. The X-Men, in comparison, have no choice but to constantly call the status quo into question because their lives and existence count on it.
I always been an X-men fan since I was a little kid. Before the MCU came out, I hated the Avengers and thought they were corny. I loved reading the X-men comics, watching the shows, and movies. I found the X-men more relatable especially as someone who experienced racism since I was a kid. I related to the prejudice they experience for being mutants just like I was discriminated against for being black.
Yeah, they're activelly fighting racism and creating safe spaces for their persecuted minority. I've always felt the X-Men is the best take on superhero stories, and it's quite telling that most of the viewership claim for a version that's more similar to the Avengers.
Kevin Feige needs to see this vid, especially since he's about to include the mutants/x-men in the mcu
@@carlbonara602 nah, he already knows all about this, he's the architect. If the X-Men were to be more in touch with real life social problems and challenge the status quo in any way, they had to stay as far as possible from Disney and Marvel Studios.
I mean, just look at what they did to Spider man with his working class hero roots to a billionaire stooge in the MCU - that's what they'll do to the X-Men too. Verily has a great video breaking down MCU spiderman
I remember after Infinity War, a friend of mine said "Well, Thanos has a point. Resources are distributed unfairly, people suffer, and this is a solution." I then pointed out that instead of killing half the universe (which is, besides cruel, also ineffective because a society can't run with a sudden 50% drop) he could've doubled the resources instead. With that, my friend agreed that Thanos was indeed a bad guy. But neither of us realized that it made our 'heroes' bad guys for not doubling all resources when undoing the blip.
literally yesterday we rewatched infinity war bc at least the villain won for once and i heard thanos saying that “the universe is finite, it’s resources finite. it needs correction” and i suddenly said out loud “so why didn’t you just make everything infinite instead of killing everybody” bc imo doubling would end the same way because it’s still finite, yknow?
We don't even necessarily need more resources, just resource distribution. For example, we make enough food for 10b people but thousands still die from starvation. It's an issue of hoarding and waste rather than resource scarcity
@@Mosstoad Very true! Thank you for this addition! :)
If you think about it doubling the resources could cause problems too. Because resources isn't just ores and food (both of which would need space to be stored in) it's also landspace and labor and energy all of which would need new space of their own. This basically means that Thanos would have to more of less double the size of the universe and everything in it. Thus even more problems.
@@Mosstoad yeah, the doubled resources would prolly just go to the wealthy while the Poor will have poverty
This isn't MCU, but in Wonder-Woman 1984, at the climax of the movie she says: "The world is fine the way it is" to the antagonist whose whole project was to use a magical wishing stone to change the world. That movie is a really good example of what you're talking about.
The problem was that it only showed the extremes of how everyone getting every wish they wanted ended up being destructive.
@@ShadowSonic2Yeah, WW84 has problems, but this is not one of them.
Literally 1984
I love how she says that only 20 years after segregation ended.
Hell, domestic abuse was legal during her time lol. Like, you could get away with raping your wives during this time.
Very jarring when you consider part of what she learns in the first one is that humans aren't inherently good, but not inherently evil either. They have to learn from each other and improve.
"You confuse peace with quiet. "
Great sentence from Ultron
@chandllerburse737 I think that's a case of marvel making the villains hypocrites or pull atrocities so you'll be on the side of the hero even though the villain has valid social justice ideas
@chandllerburse737 well im just kinda going based off the video here, but like theyll have villians who have genuine good points like the confusing peace with quiet and then compeltely distort that points and not have the heros questions their defense of the status quo if that makes sense? he didnt have a good goal, but it comes across as elaborate villianization of those who seek change . my og comment didnt really word that well and ill be honest its been years since ive watched age of ultron so i cant pull more examples, but the video explains what im trying ot get at way better. mb if i sound wordy or defendy of him, i think the you confuse peace with quiet is a great line and one that a lot of mcu villians reflect, like the flagsmashers and thanos. they just always have to do something evil. why cant the good guys do something that isnt keeping the status quo for once? why do they rarely question it? why cant they fight the systems that was causing resource distrubution issues to counter thanos weird "lets kill them all" mindset? or at least try to provide some of those resources themselves? why couldnt they fight against systems of oppression that prefer quiet over peace instead of upholding it?
@Chandller Burse I’d say the main problem with that quote is that it was so obviously inspired by Martin Luther king’s writings of “When peace becomes obnoxious” and they went and shoved it down the throat of a genocidal robot.🙄
@@wormflavoredskittles6395 "valid social justice ideas" hhhhhhh just say you have trouble telling right from wrong
This is a quote from Martin Luther King that resonates with that Ultron quote, and this video more generally:
- - I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the [African American's] great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the [pointy hooded clansmen], but ; who constantly says who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the [African American] to wait until a "more convenient season." - -
Woah. You really pointed out something that consistently bothered me about MCU films. I frequently felt like the villains had a point and then bam, pointless murder. You put it into words, thank you.
They do the same in the musical Across the Universe
In Forest Gump, the black panthers were portrayed as misogynist
I think 2pac, Marley, and Lennon were targets of the state
In movies and in reality
@@markayala3754 They also do the same in nearly all Disney properties, and animated shows like Korra
Step 1: Make the villain compelling by having them make good points
Step 2: Get the audience to sympathize with the villain
Step 3: Wait we need to make the heroes punch the villain
Step 4: Have the villain kick a puppy, that'll get the audience to hate them!
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit!
Or pointless genocide in Endgame...
And don't forget to treat the culprit as a war hero and a martyr before going to eat cheeseburgers.
@@FeministCatwoman I'd argue that Korra (and the world around her) still very much learns from the villains - unlike people in the mcu.
At the end of book 1, Republic city elects a non-bender as mayor; at the end of book 2, Korra decides to leave the spirit portals open and so on.
The only marvel movie with a similar development that comes to mind is Black Panther, I think.
I remember thinking a few years after the first Iron Man: Tony Stark invents what appears to be an infinite nearly-free energy source - this would be a world changing event, and solve so many societal problems, with the potential to save the environment, reduce wealth inequality, and save lives in countless ways. Yet in the MCU, life for regular people appears unchanged. It's clear that Tony never plans to actually share this technology with the world, I'm guess due to some fear of it 'falling into the wrong hands', which is when I realized those movies are about punching bad guys, not actually helping improve the world.
Well, the parts to make it are probably incredibly difficult to find. You can't just whip one together out of anyth- hold on, what's that? I'm- I'm being told Tony Stark built it in a cave with a box of scraps.
"Falling into the wrong hands" also implies his hands aren't the wrong ones. He only uses this power supply to fly around in a suit of metal and for his own vanity. I'd wager his hands might be the "wrong" ones afterall.
The issue I see with him not employing these ideas is because he too would lose his status among society. For an arrogant, self centered individual like him what is life if he can’t go to Monaco on a whim?
The problem is... What are the right hands? Absolute power corrupts absolutely
@@theleap2946 bro literally killed himself to save everybody and this is your take on him 💀
Status quo and celebrity worship is so ingrain in MCU that we never questioned that Tony Stark basically hires literal child with some superpowers to fight his own organisation Civil war by giving him scholarship as bribe.
Well... I questioned it, lol. But then again, I've never liked Tony Stark. Argh, I can't help it: I will forever side-eye an "Asshole with Billions" character even if it's a superhero who prevents the apocalypse.
@@Newfiecat I thought I was the only one..
I never understood the hype around Iron man, sure he's cool and all but nothing really impressive compared to a batman or Superman.
And his comic version its even worse 😱
@@Newfiecat I agree
@@wrestlinganime4life288 eh....because he develops, he's interesting because of his flaws but he does get better.
@@wrestlinganime4life288 that’s the point, he is flawed and learns from his mistakes. He is more human than superman or batman will ever be.
There's a comic where Superman tries to solve world hunger by himself just to get ousted by politicians who dont want an alien to intervene. That story for me is the epitome of superheroing, as Superman challenges the status quo and gets defeated temporarily by it. Truly, the hidden archnemesis of all superheroes is status quo
Well said
@Chandller Burse Yes, probably because he resides in America, so yeah, propaganda.
@Chandller Burse which is why pen will always be mightier than sword
@chandllerburse737i mean if you come with a suit that represents america to a country that was invaded by them, i don't think people will receive you well
@chandllerburse737 well i didnt read that comic so i dont know if it is a case of superman being naive at not knowing the resentment third world countries have over the US or the comic just making a racist stereotype portraying middle eastern people as inherently violent
Ok the final shot with the avengers pointing at the camera with him saying "makes you a villain" is pure brilliant
and musk when he talks about ruling class
The media is the propaganda arm of the ruling elite who have a vested interest in maintaining things exactly as they are with them firmly in charge like always. Does anyone really think those people wouldn't do everything they could to take down anyone who tried to create stories that showed anything different? Regular people might begin to think they could actually change the world or that they actually matter.
I got shivers!
Reminds me of how in every survival or horror story the self sufficient kind community is secretly cannibalistic or sadistic. It never fails.
That reminds me of the manga Fire Punch, where the protagonist has healing powers and so feeds himself to his village to help them survive, and the villain is the one to attack them for doing so.
@@mikei6605 Fire punch is good but I think it's different because they don't try to portray an ideal as opposed to this. Like for the walking dead the richeous characters are the main cast whereas in fire punch no one is.
the walking dead 💀
@@mikei6605 fire punch is so damn good bruh
how are they supposed to drive catt-i mean TOURISTS in the village?
I'm reminded of a story concept I ran across about a guy who gains the power to reshape rock and concrete. At first he uses his powers to fix damage caused by fights, which makes him extremely popular. Then he started making homes for marginalized people and all the funding stopped, and got jailed when he tried to push it. He gives up trying to be "heroic", and since his jail cell is made of the same material he has power over, he walks out and starts breaking out everyone jailed near him.
O yea I believe that was a Tumblr story
@@marcusvale5783
yup, that's the one
Interesting! I wish writers would be more creative with what their characters can do. There's a video by Tom Scott 'So You've Learnt To Teleport' on youtube where he explains just a handful of the things you could do with just one superpower:
”So you can teleport. Congratulations. Welcome to the club, You are a superhero. But superheroes are boring: they just go and save a few lives, You can do so much better than that...
...Find something big, heavy and magnetic, get up high and drop it through a massive coil of wire. You're generating free electricity. Or better yet, if you're one of those people who can create portals in mid-air, there’s a much better thing you can do. Get your something big and heavy and magnetic, create an infinite loop. There we go. Put a coil around that, infinite free energy generation. That ought to save a few million lives. Or better yet jump to orbit, make the cost of putting something into space nothing more than your time. Or jump to Mars, with some colonists and some equipment. You could kickstart the colonisation of the solar system. Or you could do what every other superhero does, and fight crime in one city, in one country, on one planet. Superheroes have no imagination.”
Sauce?
While interesting, being forced to teleport in an eternal loop to generate power would be a living nightmare. It’s one thing to be able to place portals, but another thing entirely to be forced to teleport manually.
And quite honestly, some powers would just be too taxing. Say you have the power to heal anyone of anything. You’d be working every second of every day and every time you took a vacation you’d be wracked with guilt for letting people die.
I agree that some Marvel superheroes are small minded, but if your power is having DID with a monster (the hulk) then I’m not sure how much you can do.
My least favorite part of this trope is that even if the hero realizes "damn, the bad guy was kinda right, we do need to have a change" and they donate 20 dollars to charity or something insignificant like that
Just give the cops a Pepsi
Basically the ending of Black Panther.
Point out a villain that has a point then
And no, killmonger "kill all white people" is not a valid point
@@selalewis9189 where they ignore all of Africa...cough....cough
@derigel7662 and one of Tchalla ally was a CIA agent
This kinda reminds me of Shaun's critique of Harry Potter, how our heroes never challenge the status quo or fight for institutional changes, to the point that some magical beings support voldemort because the ministry of magic is so against their rights.
Alan Moore did an excellent critique of Harry Potter in his League for Extraordinary Gentlemen.
@@CosmoShidan The one where Harry was the Antichrist who shot lightning out of his Penis and God turned into Mary Poppins to kill him?
would you watch a "POLITICAL" movie? I don't think so. Every people watch these movies for action genre purposes.
@@ShadowSonic2 Yes, that's the one.
@@Qaosbringer "Everything is political."
-Gaheris Rhade, Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda
The message here was so much more clear in "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" and "Black Panther." It's always been there, but in those two particular MCU inclusions, it was staring you dead in the face that the heroes were actively stopping social progress. And the that villians were being made to take actions deemed "too much, too fast, too far" in order to stop the audience from aligning with them.
At least Black Panther had the heroes learn from the villain. T’challa strives for change after Killmonger dies. My biggest issue with it all is the fact that we… really don’t see any changes? Like Wakanda going public should have had MASSIVE effects on the world and. Instead we get. Nothing.
Ah the old "as long as they're minorities they can kill and oppress whoever they want" trope.
@@Vivigreeny25 i mean we got countries trying to steal wakandas resources and attempting to kill them all to get them(the nato scene in wakada forever)
Also interesting how when the MCU goes full mask off in defending Imperialism and Colonialism they use black heroes as their mouth piece. In "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" they have Falcon literally play the part of the White Moderate that MLK Jr called out in this "Letter From a Birmingham Jail".
Exactly. I was 100% on the Flag Smashers' side until they blew up that building (which was completely out of character). And I still would have been happier if they'd won in the end because they actually wanted positive change. It's so obvious they accidentally made their villains too sympathetic and tried hard to walk it back.
This is what I really like about The Boys. The whole point of the show is calling out how the superheroes are the protectors of the status quo and are so much a part of the system that they ARE the system. This also reminds me of how being a “moderate” and advocating for things to stay in the middle is in actuality a conservative ideological approach. No change means oppression persists
Oh yes I do hope more things similar to it get made in the future!
But the thing is, the Marvel heroes have tried to change things. To varying degrees of success. Like Captain America and Black Widow shutting down SHIELD, Tony wanting to create better defenses for the planet (which Steve objected to every step of the way, admittedly), Thor choosing Earth as the place for New Asgard in hopes that they will help humanity. T'Challa opening Wakanda to the rest of the world, etc.
So true it's why centrists are so dangerous
I absolutely love this comment, directly at centrists.
@@ShadowSonic2 yes, but many times it was a villain who made them see that they should or need to do that
Not to mention that, if when they do something against the status quo, it's always misled or warped. One thing that always bothered me about Black Panther was that Wakanda's very first social center was built in.... CALIFORNIA, only the richest state of the richest nation of the world; not in - say - any other neighboring AFRICAN COUNTRY lol.
As long as the rich people see that you are doing good.
Or because California has the highest homeless population in the US (a country with very high racial tension).
@@Just_normal_youtube_channelthey’re not AMERICAN
@@maddieb.4282 So? Wouldn’t be the only time Wakanda has violated another nation’s borders.
@@Just_normal_youtube_channel That’s... actually a pretty good reason.
I think a unintended consequence of the villains being sympathetic and then ending that with a large act of violence is having the unintended consequence of shifting people to the perspective of violence being necessary. Yes may are detoured mostly by the narrative as is, but when cycled over and over again, that teaches those who are struggling that big violence and action are needed or else nothing in their lives will change.
It’s just a thought.
I hope you’re not suggesting large acts of violence
@@abibi9458 however history teaches us that social change is driven through the violence of opressed classes taking over their former opressors, a class struggle if you will
@@abibi9458 but those villains are portrayed as
1.wrong, primarily due to that violence
2. almost always fail to bring about their desired social change
So it's not much of a model for viewers.
If anything the moral is you can't out violence the status quo. The billionaires, military, deep state, and religious conservatives will stop you.
Basically The Batman tbh
This actually reminds me of a point Patrick H Willems made talking about the spider-man trilogy compared to the mcu (and specifically the peter of the mcu): the importance of showing the population that inhabits the hero's worlds outside of just the characters important to the plot. The 2000s spider-Man films made a point of showing as much as possible the city of new york and the people who inhabit it and making peter part of them, part of the common people. In comparison, MCU peter is under the tutelage of a billionaire and has access to his company and technology even after his passing and his first bad guy is one of employees of said billionaire who wanted better work conditions.
Hopefully with the ending of No Way Home that will change and Spidey will be seen in the "friendly neighborhood" way we all know and love him for
Nice picrew 😜
That is my problem with MCU Spider-Man too. Jon Favreau and Marvel completely ignored the fact that he’s a working class Superhero and instead made him into little orphan Annie with Tony Stark as his Daddy Warbucks. Also: If Tony Stark was a real Superhero he’d try to use his Arc Reactor tech to transition the Marvel Universe off of Fossil Fuels.
What you pointed here, kinda reminds me of Civil War. We got this register vs no register conflict, "turn Bucky to law" vs " allow him to be free" etc. but one thing missing IMO is the point of view of average Joes. For them, Bucky is known as terrorist who murdered people. Events do not take place in a vacuum, world is not spinning around Avengers only and i would like to see more of how normal people react to those world changing things.
@@Endru85x Not to mention how Tony “a responsible pro-Sokovia accords” Stark, showed his responsibility by recruiting (more like conning) a 16 year old Peter Parker to fight against hardened warriors like Steve, Sam and Clint. An enigmatic but extremely dangerous hero like Scott. A mentally unstable super powerful witch like Wanda and a most wanted TERRORIST at that time like Bucky.
Imagine Obama recruiting a 16 years old to take down Bin Laden. Extremely irresponsible, isn’t it?
The closest the MCU has come to rejecting the status quo was Civil War whereby one half literally went like "Yeah let's be state-mandated super-cops, I guess." and the other half was like "Maybe let's stay as vigilantes who are above the law and don't actually carry any responsibilities."
Either way, I think that makes the heroes look bad. In the first scenario, the heroes turn into super cops, as you said. They work for the American Government and help reinforce the status quo that the government wants to keep to stay comfortable as they are. The other way is for sups to stay as vigilantes who carry no responsibilities, no matter what they do or decide not to do. That way they can opt to not engage in something as it’s not their job to do so. That could lead into them allowing suffering if they don’t feel like acting, or causing suffering themselves if they decide to fight for something that may be wrong or bad for the general public.
Imo, the mcu movies don’t want to go against or question the status quo in general. The only one that feels kinda different in that way for me is The Winter Soldier, as the Captain fights a governmental institution that wants people to resign their liberties in exchange for security. Sure, security is a nice thing, but to achieve that, people have to die and anyone who starts causing waves to change the status quo will be considered a danger to society. It’s a fantastic movie, but it also fails to create a meaningful conversation about the matter because it turned out not to be a plan of the government, but a plan of a secret nazi organization that infiltrated the us. Winter soldier, as many other mcu movies before and after, just threw the conflict out of the window because the writers decided that the bad guys should be nazis in disguise.
Wouldn't really be super-cops as much as super-slaves. They'd have no say in when or where they'd be used, against who, for what reason, and how. The UN, notoriously indecisive and prone to geopolitics, would be able to send superpeople to end genocide just as easily as to facilitate one. And while some of the heroes would be able to lay down their suits or trinkets or whathaveyou and stop being heroes, others were innately superpowered and would have no choice but to submit to the state by virtue of being born.
@@alanrubio8435 “allow suffering” why do you assume that suffering shouldn’t be allowed? We all are the architects of our own suffering most of the time. And superheroes don’t owe anyone anything. There every act of grace, mercy and compassion towards the less fortunate than themselves is a gift not a right!
And instead of responsibility you should have used accountability perhaps. You used a lot of words but Cap is still right with what he said to Tony in Captain America 🇺🇸 Civil War. That even Iron Man himself had no debate left in him.
Steve Rogers: Tony, if someone dies on your watch you don’t give up.
Tony Stark: Who said we’re giving up?
Steve: We are if we’re not taking “responsibility” for our actions. This document just shifts the blame.
Rhodes: Sorry Steve, that… that is dangerously arrogant.
Me: No Rhodey it’s the truth!
Rhodey: This is the United Nations 🇺🇳 we’re talking about.
Me: A well documented trash institution that exploits 3rd world countries that they’re suppose to be helping!
Rhodey: It’s not the World Security Council. It’s not SHIELD. It’s not HYDRA!
Steve: No but it’s run by people with agendas and agendas change!
Tony: That’s good!
Tony: That’s why I’m here.
Tony: When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands I shut it down and stopped manufacturing.
Steve: Tony… You chose to do that.
Steve: If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose!
Steve: What if this panel sends us somewhere we don’t think we should go?
Steve: What if there’s somewhere that we need to go and they don’t let us?
Steve: We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.
It is a false dichotomy as well.
@@clarkmichaels822 thank you Clark! I was just about to say the same thing to Alan. Because the way he’s talking is that he seems to think a superhero is obligated to work nonstop 24/7 to prevent the suffering of others and have no life, no dreams and goals of their own. Meaningful relationships or self agency to speak of.
I've always found funny how sometimes the villains have legitime good points and objectives, but the writters need to make you hate them and their ideas, so they'll make the villain kill people or blow an hospital for no reason at all other than to show to you that they're the bad guys
@PepeGibon exactly. Want to make a evil character, make him evil, don't give him actual reasons for someone to revolt and then stamp a "now I kill people for no related reason"
i'm reminded of the white fang in RWBY. the show isn't that great but the white fang is especially bad.
They're animal people, but its supposed to be a thin alegory for the civil rights movement.
however they're also one dimentional villains, because the show wanted to have those. And needless to say they did not handle this complexity well.
As a result the show's message (at least the white fang parts) boils down to "MLK should have kept his mouth shut"
Memory of Vulture from SM Homecoming immediately jumps on
@@mausolus8466 I mean iirc Vulture didn't really kill anyone in the movie, he just made threats. The only guy we saw him kill was the first Shocker and that guy lowkey deserved it
@PepeGibonhe literally killed his girlfriend for no reason some scene prior
Him talking with people is the out of character part
This kind of thing makes it understandable why shows like The Boys catch on, the characters actively challenge the status quo and treat the idea of beings with unfathomable power as realistically as it can.
Even as someone who likes these movies, this was a neat perspective and one I wouldn't have thought of before. Thank you for sharing.
The problem is, even the Boys fell into the trap of maintaining the status quo. Season 3 shows this.
They started out strong , then had way too much condemning of violence, then busted Hughie's political bubble but still just didn't go back to the _ by all means_ approach of season 1. They mellowed out.
That's because The Boys comic was a superhero comic created by a guy that hates superheroes
Although season 3 did mostly roll-back potential disruptions to the status quo, they did plant the seeds for some *major* changes. Now, Homelander can execute people in public without losing support, Ryan who is just as powerful has joined him, and Edgar's adopted daughter is becoming vice president (iirc). Things are set to become very dystopian, and they have very little choice but to go all out.
Also, people seem to forget this, but Soldier Boy was nearly as dangerous and unhinged as Homelander. Even if they had successfully killed him, it wouldn't have changed much.
@@PapaphobiaPictures The Boys is a rip-off of Pat Mills' Marshall Law, just with the actual politics removed.
Marshall Law is a critique of hero worship propaganda, using Superheroes as allegories, The Boys is just a very cynical superhero story.
The part about the sympathetic villain crossing a line so that the audience is alienated by them is really frustrating. I never put my finger on it before, but now I'll be sure to look for this.
tbf, the 20th century, especially the 1930s when superheroes really got started, is littered with historical figures who did exactly this, they talked a good talk about truth, justice and 'reform' and then got people killed. The status quo, messy, often unfair and complicated, got ridiculed by autocrats on the extreme left and right who promised a changed world.
@@kahkah1986 Thatcher, Churchill, Franco, etc. : all were very clearly bad people. They were ending kids' lives from episode one of their careers.
It would be funny to see a superhero movie where a hero asks someone who is trying to change the world, "Oh you say all that stuff, but when are you going to snap and kill a bunch of people?" And the social reformer is like "wtf, why would I do that?", and they end up just being a good person.
@@kahkah1986 true, but when the writers create this kind of media and write these villains I doubt they have realism in mind. At best, they are creating something that can comfortably be invested in and advertised, and at worst they are actively trying to push a narrative that reform and violence is 100% inexcusable and humanity has reached its peak.
@@Wastelander1337 Captain America was explicitly created by artists who were repulsed by Nazi Germany, even before the US had entered the war, though. They consciously made their baddies Nazi-type villains, i.e., villains who promise the earth but are actually committing crimes against innocent people. For obvious reasons, at the time people felt suddenly, deeply protective of the status quo, as it was threatened by Nazism and Communism (they were allies until halfway through the war, remember). Of course, hindsight gives us a more nuanced picture of the status quo, but that was where the original Marvel template came from.
I mean, if the super heroes challenged the status quo, Disney would be one of the villains. And we can't have that.
Statu Quo, no S
@@plak77StatuS quo StatuS quo StatuS quo StatuS quo StatuS quo StatuS quo StatuS quo StatuS quo StatuS quo
After I finished watching Across the Spider-Verse and came back to this video, I feel like the "canon events" are pretty much similar to the status quo of Marvel that you described in this video. Especially with how Miguel O'Hara pretty much represents the enforcer of the status quo.
Also, Hobie Brown/Spider-Punk is probably the only time I've seen a Marvel movie (well, one by Sony and not Disney) handle an anarchist character well and actually make him a HERO. And it's gorgeous.
its kind of weird tho that big companies are not even afraid of showcasing anti-capitalist sentiments. its not in their best interest at all to broadcast these ideas but anti capitalist ideas hold so little weight and power it doesnt even matter.
@@valqzx1144What's upsetting is also the news of the animators for ATSV being overworked. Even if the animation is gorgeous and wroth the effort, knowing about what happened soured me and it's hard to rewatch ATSV without thinking of how many animators had been treated poorly during the process.
And the Red Scare itself is still in full effect, so any actual attempts at promoting an anti-capitalist message would be met with scorn.
@@devofficialchannel ancap is a joke when now corporates themselfs are doing it, and animation are always wrought with overworked miserable artist.
Slight critique of capitalism does pop up from time to time in popular productions but often time it seems more like "ofc we are rich but we recognize that it's bad so it's not so bad" rather than genuine criticism or strive for change.
@@Elamado97 Problem is Miguel is projecting himself onto other Spideys and basically treats losing loved ones as something that HAS to happen instead of something to AVOID.
Most Spideys often lose loved ones, but it's mainly because of their own lack of responsibility as opposed to the fact that the universe wanted it to happen. Miguel's very own ideology is basically "let them die since it'll build who you are" as opposed to "do the right thing, no matter what".
Likewise, the whole idea of Spider-Man having to fit a certain formula kinda reminds me of how comic books would always have things revert or follow the status quo which prevents creativity (though this is a problem with just about any popular IP). The most infamous being One More Day.
i was thinking about this recently, how in both black panther movies, the oppression of colonized peoples is addressed by the villain. the ideology behind it is really is quite transparent and keeps the movies from telling truly inspiring stories imo. just imagine what wakanda could've come up with if they hadn't been distracted by fighting other marginalized people.
To be fair, its also addressed by Nakia. I haven't seen the second film yet (no spoilers please) but in the first movie, she basically makes all the same points as Killmonger but is on the side of the heroes.
(Someone pointed out that this mirrors real world dynamics, like real life civil rights struggles. The women of the movement, like Martin Luther King's wife to give an example, often make important contributions but are overshadowed by the men on both sides.)
This was my main problem with the movie
@@stemcareers8844 Because Nakia wants to help people with Wakanda, Killmonger wants to fight people against Wakanda.
@@stemcareers8844 oh yeah that's a good point!
Killmonger's grievences were legitimate, but his methods were not.
He wanted to create a new colonial order but with Wakanda at the top rather than European powers.
His path would create the same problems he wanted to amend, only for other people instead of his own. He was no different than the people he hated.
I love how this channel gets you to zoom out of the box we are used to living in and exposing the many hidden assumptions outside of the frame
That's my favorite thing about media criticism generally and this channel in particular. Propaganda wants you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, just accept the justifications they've made within the framing of their media.
I would love a part 2 of this video. There is definitely more to be talked about, in the MCU and the real world.
Depending on this video goes over, I have plenty of other MCU videos in mind
Maybe even follow it up with a part 3 that talks about superhero shows/movies that do have heroes/villains actually changing the status quo (for the better or worse).
@@PopCultureDetective Can you make a Stark Industries Commerical please ?
@@PopCultureDetective And More Star Wars videos please!
I second this! There is SO much more to talk about! I hope this video does well so he will do a part two
And that’s why Daredevil is arguably the best marvel content. Matt has been fighting for innocents in the law while buried in debt and as daredevil even before Fisk and he unites groups to not only bring down Fisk but many criminals and collectively improve life in New York in multiple ways. He is proactive in his law practice and monitoring of criminal developments, he fights for the little guy instead of protecting politicians or current economic landscape. He gives it his all every second and if he had the wealth of tony stark, the world would’ve ended up a hundred times better off
The key here is that he does not use his status as a superhero to leverage his monopoly of force in order to unduly give more weight to his own agenda. Though it could be argued that Daredevil is far from strong enough of a hero to actually be a monopoly of force.
But yes, it's fine for heroes to fight for social justice. As long as they don't abuse their power to do so. It has to be separate from their superhero identity. And if they start using their powers to bypass democratic institutions to further their own goals, they're at a great risk of becoming corrupt.
it’s also telling that it is a disabled man that is looking out for under privileged people rather than a super able bodied hero
And this is exactly the issue with comics. If you have superheroes who have literal reality warping powers, they could literally solve the issues of the world immediately (imagine if Wanda just replaced all fossil fuels or used her powers for an infinite renewable energy source, or us seeing the direct result of a mass produced arc reactor), making it much more difficult to write a compelling villain and thus forcing heroes to be reactionary else there wouldn't ever be a villain in the first place. Luke Cage also does this well with a really compelling story (fighting the congress woman), but bungled the finale.
@@son_guhun ? Hes basically a wanted man for the entire series (in his daredevil persona anyway). He has 0 leverage outside of just being a very good lawyer, hed be arrested if he tried to enact change as daredevil
@@kman1893 The point is he could simply defeat the cops and enact his agenda using force. Thus he would not have to go through any legal or democratic processes and his word would be law. Even if someone has good intentions, that's just bound to end up badly.
As I said, Daredevil probably isn't strong enough to actually do this successfully, but someone like Superman is literally unstoppable by any human institution and thus has an effective monopoly of force. His leverage is literally that he can strip you of your freedoms instantly if you disagree with his views on morality.
Even without a total monopoly, it would still be extremely questionable for Daredevil to just beat up his political opponents instead of engaging with them through legal means. Or to just destroy the headquarters of a corrupt company that his client is suing instead of facing them in the court room. That's when the hero can easily become corrupt.
The villains are very often like "You know the rich elites and the powerful people? They're kicking down on us and we aren't even trying to stop them." .. and then they just blow up a box full of puppies, because EVIL.
They never seem to go after the rich elites, either. When they blow people up out of nowhere, it's random screaming bystanders on the street instead of the people they actually claim to have beef with. Having the villains deliberately only target people in power (who the viewers aren't attached to, so not the superheroes or their families) might make them too sympathetic, or too political, or something.
The part about "the public" in the MCU reminded me of something that's always bothered me about Marvel movies and most modern superhero movies for that matter - the selfishness of the heroes and their seeming lack of interest in the general public. When you think about the classic stereotypical image of a superhero, what do you see? A muscular, heroic figure swooping in to save an innocent bystander from a flaming inferno, falling debris or a runaway train. After all, what could be more heroic than saving an innocent life? Risking your own safety to save the life of a complete stranger goes straight to the core of our notions of "heroism". In the original Superman film, Superman doesn't even punch a single bad guy, instead spending the entire time rescuing helpless citizens from danger.
But how often do you see modern movie superheroes going out of their way to save strangers? They spend most of their time punching bad guys while destroying vast swathes of public property. If they're saving anyone its most likely another superhero and if it's a non-super person then it's someone they're intimately acquainted with. We might see the hero very briefly scoot a faceless crowd out of harm's way in the middle of an action scene, or they might make some one-off nice gesture as described in this video. But a whole elaborate, lengthy set-piece to save a bunch of strangers who the superhero's never met? Forget about it. In MCU films barely any meaningful time is spent with ordinary, common people. All we really see are the beautiful perfect SuperPeople, sitting in their ivory towers high above the common folk. They live among themselves in their SuperSociety completely detached from the lives of ordinary people yet dictate their justice and morals upon them.
It seems that somewhere along the way we've lost sight of the general public in superhero movies. They are mostly absent, only briefly shown or mentioned in passing. But the common everyday folk are the heart and soul of superhero stories. They are what make Superheroes super. The very concept of superheroes was born from the wish that there could be a divine protector watching over us, risking life and limb to keep innocent people safe from harm. Modern movie superheroes seem to be only interested in protecting themselves.
Stopping villains is almost treated like a step up from helping ordinary folk
This is why Multiverse of Madness was a breath of fresh air, brought to us by the same guy who directed the good Spider-Man movies
They Don't owe us to stop climate change
This is why I loved Spiderman and why him becoming in my view corrupted by Stark tech was so disappointing
This is the same problem with American police. They are more concerned with stopping a suspect than protecting a victim. It's about the person suspected of a crime. The victim of the crime is just not part of the picture.
The problem isn't that there are characters who want to change the status quo who are villains. The problem is that there are only villainous people trying to change the status quo in these movies.
Very true! Why can't there be a movie where the superheroes are working together for some cause that will change the world for the better and the villains are reacting to that with violence?
@@Newfiecat Which would be more aligned with reality, thinking about it, considering recent events like the destruction of power relay stations to stop a drag event
when you look closer at Tony Stark's character, he is essentially every instagram influencer and kardashian rolled into one. look at me and my rich life and how great it is. Why would he deep down want to change that? stop being rich and let others live amazing lives too? Changing the world would be hard but being a superhero on insta ... totally easy ... at least in the marvel world
@@dragonstooth4223 he tried to though? Ultron was the result. Tony tried to make a "suit of armor around the world", which ended up causing more harm it should
@@hashuvan425 also he does changes the world and comercializes his technology, we see him installing an arc reactor to power the stark tower and in that same conversation mentions that he is in works to power half of new york on that technology by next year, he builds robots to try to keep the population safe that is the iron legion, we see that he gives grants and advanced technology to universitites, hehas programs to give free university of students that show promise and give works on stark industries, he tries to improve the world with his technology and resources the movies just center on his super hero technology because its more exciting and whetever they center on his more altruistric efforts is because something goes sideways
When you put it like that "the bigger the villain, the bigger the change they are trying to implement" - that opens up a very interesting thought. What would happen if a BIG villain attempted small change? It would happen quickly and be unstoppable.
How Magneto made Genosha Island his own little mutant comumity in the comics?
You mean of they planned realistically and build up a grassroots movement?
Too real, it happens all the time
This is why I wanna see doom in the mcu. He's a Villain with powers sometimes on par with Dr strange and the like, but he mostly just wants to do small social changes in the country he runs.
Reminds me of the last short story in "I, Robot" (the novel, obviously). The world depends on a collective of superintelligent AI to make decisions about how the world is run. Eventually, the main character realizes the AI is intentionally making "bad decisions" to take people that might disable it or change it out of power, since it won't be able to protect humanity if it's disabled, and it's been told to prioritize humanity's survival above all else. It's implied the AI achieves it's goal without anyone save the main character noticing.
I hate the trope of activists as villains SO much, and not many people even realise this trope exists. It has been very present in media for a long, long time. I feel like the number of media in which activists are "allowed" to be heroes (as they are in real life) increases nowadays. But there's still a very long way to go, as long as these sort of films are the mainstram norm. Thank you, Jonathan, for another excellent video.
I agree, it is a bad trope. Imo, some of the movies that frame activists as villains have them transform into terrorists.
The goal is to convince people that there's a "right" kind of social change. The kind that imagines Dr. King as a complete pacifist and paints the successes of the civil rights movement as being due to asking nicely through established systems rather than what actually happened.
This is because most real change can't really happen within established systems, but if people feel they can't go beyond that lest they become the villain, those systems are safe for those in power.
propaganda at its finest. that is the whole deal. you don't want the people who want a change be good people, because that way the people would look up at them and not the reactionary conservatives. American government is influencing what kind of movies are being made in Hollywood, using the tactics such as blacklisting to stop people from making movies they don't like, and is even funding movies to have a certain "hidden" message inside. Hollywood is like the Korean music industry. The only reason it is successful is because it is heavily funded by the government. Here in Croatia we have a similar "problem" with our sportsmen and sportswomen being surprisingly successful. You would normally expect the country of 30-40 times the our size to make that many medals. Newspapers write about sports too much, sport trainings are quite cheap for both kids and adults to enrol. Why would the foreign language classes cost 4 times as much as sports classes with the groups of the same size? You think an American thing with sporty kids being the most popular is bad? Here the majority of kids are playing some sport. You are judged based on which sport do you play, not if you play any. If you are good at sports, you may even attend a special highschools, with small classes, better teaching methods and everything nicer than what you would get in the normal school. If as an adult you are successful, you will have a paycheck just for being a good sportsman. You will not have to work, but would be free to train like crazy. If you also manage to get a good sponsorship, you are set for life. If not, once you are not young enough to compete anymore, you can train the next generation. Sports are getting more funding than education. The American government is even more obsessed with Hollywood. Billions are spent every year on it, so the movies could be better, while at the same time, of the kind what the government would want them to be.
Transformers Megatron comes to mind. Especially in the comics where it's explained he started out as a freedom fighter that then went corrupt.
Bro just called activists irl heroes 💀
Honestly the way they have the villains turn around and murder a bunch of people to establish them as the villains when usually what they seek to change is a legitimate issue has made me more and more uncomfortable over time because of how it frames social justice causes over and over as villainous in nature.
Agreed. It’s a form of saying that it’s not possible to enact real change that the world needs. Which is horrible and needs to be stoped in fiction, give us the message that we CAN get change moving. Otherwise we’re nothing but mindless sheep unable to help ourselves stuck in a cycle.
It does make me wonder if billion dollar corporations not-so-secretly think of social progress and any form of redistribution as, indeed, villainous 😅
@@lilithgrrrl they do
After the immediate hype of the first BP died down after the cinema. I remember discussing with my brother how they gave Killmonger the "psycho" turn. Everyone agrees with him until the studio decides he's the villain. Same for all the villains related to Tony Stark in some way or the other. It is cool to see you talking about it.
have you seen BP 2? it sort of plays w that aspect of killmonger and turns it on its head, if only for a brief moment. i feel the same way abt killmonger, very compelling character until all of s sudden he kills an old lady lol
Idk, Killmonger was framed very differently than Ironmans villains, at the end of the movie they acknowledge that hes right, T'Challa's father was wrong, and theres a way to do what Killmonger wanted that doesn't require the violence his plan came along with, and then T'Challa just does it, completely changing the status quo
the killmonger situation is a little different though, at least from my perspective. as an ethiopian, i've seen so many african leaders promise to liberate black people/ethnic groups with their troops/weapons but do it as a power play. i saw killmonger as a commentary on those kind of black leaders, especially with the burning of the heart-shaped herb garden. the bag was definitely fumbled, though i think coogler has learned somewhat from that mistake.
The core of his beliefs were fine I guess but his entire plot was to start a race war which is horrific
Tbf Obadiah Stain just wanted to make even more money selling weapons then he already was. Come to think of it, Iron Man 1's the only Marvel movie I can think of where the main conflict involves the hero trying to preserve a positive change in the status quo (Tony moving Stark Industries away from weapons production and toward green energy) .
You know, coming back to this video a few months later I'm just now realizing how similar ultron's "I think you're confusing peace with quiet" is to martin Luther king jrs "who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice", at least in sentiment. Of course, Ultron wanted to exterminate all of humanity, but I find it kind of weird that the villain is basically unintentionally quoting MLK lol. Kindaa concerning.
i mean people ignore also the fact that we should not be looking at skin color but character......funny isnt it
Don't forget King was THE most hated men in America at a times so it should not even surprise at all
The reality is that that quote is as foolish as it gets because not only is order more important then justice order is the fundamental prerequisite without which you can't have a society and therefore you can't have the human invented concept of justice without order we are back to the law of the jungle in which there is no space for justice, but only for the rule of the strongest
@@Victorvondoom9159 that's not what he means by "order." He's referring to the status quo, which at the time was segregation. The order of importance on which we place our fellow human beings should always be questioned, perpetually. No progress has ever been made without stepping outside of that order. If order were a more righteous thing than justice, then the Kings of old should still be subjugating the people, and it shouldn't matter how much pain and death it brings. Because that's the order of things. Disruptions of the status quo, the order of society, are what ended segregation, what gave women the right to vote, what legalized the act of being openly LGBTQ. It's funny how you call something foolish, when you undoubtedly benefit from it today.
Overall, order is changing, across societies, and across time. Order is arbitrary, and if the order at which a society operates is unfair to one or more groups of people, it should be subject to change.
@@rainbowwigglecactus6605 while it undoubtedly important to question the status quo in order to achieve better outcomes you would still prefer the injustices of feudal society over the law of the jungle so yes while justice is undoubtedly important and w should strive towards it, It doesn't change the fact that order still trumps in it in terms of importance for a society to function
This is actually exactly why The Boys works. We follow the superheroes’ opposition, the Boys, as the protagonists whose primary goal is to take down Vought, which represents all that is wrong with our current status quo. In Vought’s defence are the superheroes. It feels like the most realistic and compelling depiction of superheroes because it allows them to play their part straight and faithfully to how they would function in our world, and it frames those who challenge the status quo to enact change, ie. the “villains”, appropriately for once.
The problem is, even the Boys falls into "maintain the status quo". Look at Season 3.
Agreed, which is why the Boys is so frustrating in that they never actually progress, as each season feels like the same cycle with new heroes or villains but nothing actually changing.
@@Beatness121 though I love the show, I can agree that it can be frustrating to watch at times because of that. It's a tough scenario to write out of, but I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out and how the writers handle it.
@@ShadowSonic2 season 3 was not that bad stop crying manchild
@@ShadowSonic2 SPOILER ALERT FOR SEASON 3 OF THE BOYS, HUGE SPOILERS:
if you mean butcher and the boys taking V? Yes that was largely disappointing and wish it didnt happen but from a character study POV, somehow it makes sense
Alan Moore's views on the superhero are available in video interviews and well worth watching as a follow-up to this. The vigilante, great man, and de facto autocrat are just as much an enemy to us as the antagonists they fight. This is why Neil Gaiman's 'Sandman' has been my favorite story/main character. To have a powerful figure who must correct the wrongs they have committed and profoundly grow as a person is something that is rarely seen in a genre which denies the realities of being a standard human.
Your comment is one of the reasons why I love Valiant Entertainment so much, it really emphasizes that good people are prone to doing bad things for example Peter Stanchek from Harbinger realized how much of an unchecked monster he was after using his powers on his childhood crush.
I immediately thought of Watchmen when he was expanding upon bringing the world back to the status quo. it's the only comic I've read that ends with the world not only completely altered from the status quo, but teases the idea of the truth of what happened during the story could be unveiled and change the status quo even further. I also appreciated that the truth is entrusted to normal people: Rorschach drops his notebook in the mail slot of a newspaper publisher. the supers' job was over with the confrontation with Ozymandias; now it's up to the people to rebuild the world and shape it, perhaps differently than before.
@@SniffyTugBoat Check out Moore's Marvelman/Miracleman, it's contemporaneous to Watchmen and goes in a very different direction around the status quo changes.
This became glaringly obvious to me when I watched The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. I remember finishing the series and thinking, “They really missed the mark on this one.”
The next time I recognized it was when my partner and I watched Moon Knight and he commented on how much he was sick of villains with good intentions and good ideas but carried them out in such an extreme way. I definitely agree.
I think Jim Gordon in The Killing Joke comic is a good example of this, where after everything Joker puts him through, he still tells Batman to bring him in “by the book”. This perpetuates the point most superhero stories make that “we’re not the same as the villains we fight because we don’t stoop to their level by still following the rules”. But then they neuter their attempts at every turn so that the impact they could have made is unfortunately diminished.
Well said. It also works under the belief that the best way to improve the system is to work *within* the system to change it - when the system is specifically structured to resist change. It assumes the system is inherently good, just off track or misguided. In reality it's fundamentally flawed and needs radical change, not incrementalism. The people who rule within the system are, almost universally, the last ones who will bring about necessary change.
...if you think "stop evil in the world by simply profiling people and preventing them from being evil" is a good idea with any execution, there's something wrong with you. A lot of our real-world systemic issues literally boil down to thinking you can just predict who is bad and preemptively punish them. There's no "nonextreme" version of Arthur's ideas, they are inherently extremist. Minority Report did a similar plot decades prior. There is no "good idea that's executed poorly to make it look bad" unless you broaden literal profiling to just the vague concept of crime prevention. The comparison to the more toothless neoliberal politics of FaWS is nonsensical because anarchism is a thing you can actually believe in without blowing up buildings. You can't believe in predetermined, immutable good and evil within a person without being some sort of fascist.
FatWS was such a letdown. The way the Flag Smashers make total sense in their purpose until the leader decides to randomly kill someone, Sam's weird antagonism towards his own Blackness, his downplaying of Isaiah's very real mistreatment by the US government. Truly could have done without because the very blatant neoliberalism made me like Sam's character waaay less
My least favourite trope in possibly all of fiction has to be ‘revolutionary that goes too far’
Because it acknowledges something wrong with the world around us but implies any form of substantial action won’t work because of the personal grievances that motivate it.
I don't mind that trope per se, what I hate is its justaposition to status quo defending heroes and an ethos of change only being allowed at a pace that makes the people in power comfy with the pace, and only going through channels approved by the status quo, and the commonality of that. Revoluntaries heroes that don't go too far stopping wannabe revolutionaries with bad ideas would be fine and dandy in my book, or even some hero defending a better status quo from a revolutionary that goes too far, as long as what they fight against isn't exclusive either that or completely moustache twisting evil for evilness sake cartoony villains.
I agree that this tropes is often used in a bad way, a cliche that came with it is that the story imply that since the revolution is violent the society should have stayed the same even if it caused the same share of violence than the revolution to end it because said violence is less spectacular than the one caused by the revolution. Writters also tend to forget that if revolution are violent the violence is meant to be temporary and that even if the one doing the revolution gave up to not be violent their enemies would repress them and put back the unfaire system
Basically Jet from Avatar the last arbender or Bismuth from Steven Universe
I want to point out an irony: the MCU did not start out this way, with the original Iron Man film representing a hero who disrupts the status quo vs a villain preserving it
Most specifically it is focusing on the status quo of Stark Industries with a sidebar of military disruption as well. Tony Stark takes his billion dollar military weapons supply company & decides no more. He takes the company on a full right angle pivot into the energy sector, specifically focusing on arc reactors, and while he continues to make weapons in the form of iron man suits, they are explicitly not for sale. Completely shifting the company from one sector to a completely different sector is a massive shift of the status quo, and part of what first puts him at odds with Obadiah Stane, who’s motives from start to finish are to maintain control of the company so that he may continue his war profiteering.
Regarding the military, Stark introduces a game changing weapon/defense item in the iron man suit, but rather than allowing military access to it he keeps it for himself. This is also a massive disruption of the status quo, as it moves the authority over violence away from the military, and onto himself. This is a large shift of status quo that would ultimately lay the groundwork for the new status quo of power laying in the hands of super powered individuals like the avengers.
Now, we can argue further as to whether or not there were any benefits to the change in social order Tony was responsible for, but there’s no denying that he is one of the few superheroes that was making attempts to shift it (up until Sokovia). In the light of this essay, it’s incredibly ironic that this is the way the MCU began
What do you think changed, then?
@@ethancox9737 They just told you. It represents a shift of power away from the world's militaries, to an individual, eventually many powered people.
Iron Man could go toe to toe with a fighter jet and win. The World Security people try to nuke NYC in Avengers, and Iron Man can stop that. Whenever there's a huge disaster, it's a super person who has to be able to stop it.
And once again, all the issues of the MCU connect back to Tony Stark
@@Stevenwave- Why did the writers stop having them change things, then?
@@ethancox9737 Because the writers are creating a product, not creating art. Unlike the source material (comic books), these films are not made by a creative person who has a story they want to tell or a message they want to promote, they are created by committees that want to maximize sales. Even if people involved have a clear, coherent idea they want to put forth, that inevitably gets watered down by the hundreds of people involved in finalizing production, ending with corporate executives who are the real-world embodiment of maintaining the status quo.
They did Killmonguer so dirty. "Quickly, the villain is making too much sense, is time to make him an evil maniac for no reason"
Killmonger never made sense.
@@avenger4027🍘🍘🍘🍘🍘
@@avenger4027 For racist. yes
@@IronheartvsMiles no i'd imagine racists find him quite relatable, he to want's to kill everyone with a different skin colour after all
@@IronheartvsMiles he kills his girlfriend for no reason, I don't think you want to say "racist" is the only one how can have a problem with that
There's an entry in TV Tropes called "Reed Richards is useless" which points out that usually superheroes use technology to beat villains instead of solving real problems. One motivation for writing stories that way is to not trivialise such problems by presenting them as simple to solve. This becomes especially apparent when you think about how Jane Foster lives in a world with unbelievable magic and technology, and yet she struggles with cancer. I feel like you should have addressed how a solution from a superhero movie would be insensitive to those who struggle with a real issue.
I think "doesn't want to trivialize the issue" covers a lot of this. If they made an MCU film in which the hero fought racism the whole time, and at the end of the two hours they'd fixed racism, it would come off as bizarre and insulting. I know in the X-men comics they made an HIV/AIDS metaphor disease in the 80s that has resisted the best superscience and magic the multiverse could offer because the authors didn't want it cured while real HIV was still uncurable.
I also think that people sometimes overestimate the practicalities of advanced technology. We live in an astonishingly technologically advanced society, but cancer is still hard to stamp out because it is a naturally diverse and difficult problem. Even if Tony Stark creates immensely powerful clean energy arc reactors, actually converting the world's energy grid to arc power would be a Herculean task that would require enormous effort and resources and regulatory approval and time. He can't just snap his fingers and cause instant worldwide adoption. (At least, not without an Infinity Gauntlet.)
@@michaelramon2411 it could've happened by now had they started in 2008. Climate change and energy are 2 things superheroes can easily solve.
@@michaelramon2411 It doesn't have to trivialize issues.
Like a Super Hero who attempts to solve "big structural problem", but then realizes it's much bigger than a lone Super Hero, especially because there are villains working to keep the Status Quo and reactionary villains that have a different idea of what progress looks like. The Hero uses their powers instead to expose institutions and media that perpetuates "big structural problem" and with the help of the people, and a lot of work and mobilization, attempt to make real progress.
The Hero doesn't have to be a magical wand, it can just be a very powerful tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands. Something like what we see in "The Boys" tv series.
@@vicshephard9231 Is there any indication that the MCU has NOT starting using arc reactors in their electrical grid? I feel like that could have altered many of their power plants already and it wouldn't make much of a visually obvious difference. Unless some recent Marvel product had a character making a big deal about climate change, I feel like we can probably assume that that problem has been addressed.
@@ElectronicCalifornia there's a Superman comic where he tries to solve world hunger and he couldn't do it.
That gets VERY disturbing when you realise the people making these films are probably aware of the message they convey.
Almost like Big Brother Marvel telling you to accept the world how it is because wanting change makes you a supervillain
@@resyntax not to put on my tinfoil hat, but I could definitely see a dystopian government leveraging exactly a company like Marvel to manipulate ppl
@@resyntax I mean... Marvel is a corporation at this point.
Marvel is making big budget mainstream films. They couldn't dare to challenge any status quo in their movies or that would upset their audiences.
surprise surprise, you, the contrarians with a mental age of 14 who think the status quo is bad because it isn't progressive enough, are the bad guys
you know this has had real world consequences, sometimes it takes away the ability to understand art, to be having an open mind, its a matter whether you care or you don't. This is just one example, everyone in life faces some like these and many fall to them.
That was hands down the best critic of the MCU I have seen in 15 years. Good job and thank you!
It makes me want to storm a heavily populated gov. building so I can have the person I want in power, in power.
I disagree.
My issue is it conflates that the heroes not using extreme methods to fix the stats qou is somehow wrong.
Or that the heroes should impart their will and ideas on the world.
It's a nice sentiment if the power is controllable and the heroes' ideals are just.
But it falls apart otherwise.
Should Dr. Strange really use the time stone to fix issues? Where would he stop? It was a last-ditch effort to correct a cosmic problem. It's not something to just use off hand.
This is a big crux of CA: Civil War's debate. Who should act and who should decide? Everyone would have their own agendas.
@@danielolsen3514 The problem isn't that the hero's actions are unjustified within the context of the story (most of the time), in fact it's almost the opposite. The MCU universe is constructed to justify heros who refuse to allow social progress. As mentioned in the video, the hero's actions seem rational in the context of the stories because we're either shown or told outright the alternative is worse.
@@74oshua That’s mainly because there’s only one way a super powered individual could combat the “status quo”.
A way that the creator of this video understands is absolutely immoral, therefore he didn’t mention it.
@74oshua
Sure. But is it the heroes job to push progress? (Who says they would have the correct view? I don't expect to put pressure on firemen to be the forerunners in great social changes).
We also only see snapshots of their lives. Avengers :cspan might be a good world building in the context of society changes. But it would be a terrible movie.
My issue with the overall premise of this video and the source it's referencing is that it's using 4th wall meta knowledge to judge and contextualize the stories.
Do the movies have the villains go too far to help justify the heroes stopping them? Yes. Because if they didn't, it wouldn't be a story. No conflict, no story.
That's the story structure.
Heck, the MCU set up the Avengers solely on the idea of having a response team to the threat of Loki, not a long-term global task force. They rejected Furys' initial pitch.
You literally did a video which is a much better formulated version of the argument I have made to everyone I am close to in explaining my statement that I dislike superheroes. Now I shall send it to EVERYONE I know because I always knew I wasn’t alone in thinking this. Thanks for validating that
@chandllerburse737 I know. I dont really argue with people much about it its more a when it comes up and the topic is similar(often its just me defending MCU villains for fun usually).
The video fails to address how the heroes would implement the change though. Do you have examples of that? Its the single most important part of the discussion surrounding this topic, because unlike Tony (who was even shown in this video to take steps for cleaner energy btw) most heroes don't have the power to change the world without being tyrannical dictators.
@@zillva Anarchists are more concerned with tearing shit up than with creating. This is what they don’t admit to themselves. They just kinda expect to “go along with it and see what happens”
@@zillva But isn't it the writers', artists', and creators' job to dream up of ways the heroes can change the world? Why is it the audience's responsibility to fix the story? This video is a critique, it's not a "how to".
@@barabaramoo Its unconstructive criticism. It fails to bring up a single suggestion as to how you would fix the issue, and is therefore unhelpful
I’ve been meaning to read Utopia of Rules and I have an audible credit burning a hole in my pocket. I absolutely adore Graeber. Humanity shared a tragic loss when he passed away.
Wholeheartedly agree. Started reading Dawn of Everything a while ago and damn, was the guy smart and a great human being.
As a child I was fascinated by the villains. It seemed to me that they had a more complex background story (we always got to know why they were evil and/or how they became villains) and in a way they were brave, risk-takers, fought for their course and usually had the cooler and extravagant outfits 😀
I mean, in these more episodic and black-white shows (moustache-twirling villain and always good hero), the heroes are the ones supposed to have the coolest attacks and sickest designs since we're going to see them every episode, but the villains, who only shows up once every 10 or so episodes/once a season/once in the entire show's runtime will have visuals that are always fresh and their powers are always new (and thus more appealing), so no matter what the shows runner try to do... the villain always will have the coolest design XD
pretty much what the video says, Innovation is the differential to a villain, plus having liberty to have more cool and 'gray' backgrounds since they're not supposed to be used as role models (and if the villain's a staple of the series instead of sharing screen time with other villains, some watchers will also take in consideration their determination, they always lose yet always get back up, while usually the hero needs to get a rehabilitation arc whenever they lose once)
Honestly one of the most impressive aspects of your videos is the amount of footage you use. Like you will literally have specific clips of specific quotes selected for dozens of movies, all in one video. Do you look through all of it yourself or do you have someone to help you?
He didn’t answer the question, just hearted the question 😔😒
The sad part about this is that, as a kid, what i learned from reading Marvel (and dc) was that being a hero was to help others in need, despite your identity. It didnt matter who you were, just that you would help people. Yes, there are pieces of their media that reflect on that, but on a grand scale, not that much transpires. Amazing video, as always.
(sigh) On a good day, helping and protecting other people in need does sort of give you a morally justified reason to protect the status quo - in a good way. The Marvel Cinematic Universe and also the DC Universe could use a new superhero movie with a superhero who actually dares to challenge the status quo - because it could certainly make for a more interesting storyline when the hero and the villain have the same goal, and they are foils to each other when the hero has a much better idea of how to transform the world without murdering people. December 7, 2022, 4:42am
@@adampkalb I would appreciate a truly revolutionary Marvel hero. Take the standard villain formula, strip out the unnecessary violence, and put an emphasis on the hero's greatest power being not in raw destructive capability, but in the motivation they inspire in the common man to stand up and do the right thing. The antagonist could be a traditional superhero wrongly assuming that any large-scale disruption is dangerous, and instead of reinforcing the whole "heroes are just violent vigilantes" narrative by having the hero kill them, let the antagonist be won over to the cause and help them make real change.
@@66maybe66 I mean Batman is kinda that but going after corruption fades away and he just ends up fighting people in costumes that are very apolitical
Tokusatsu is your new friend
@@1eyeddevil929 But it's copaganda
A lot of this can be blamed on mark miller's the ultimates. That comic alone set the trend for viewing the avengers as basically American "super police/super soldiers" but supposedly Millar meant to write the book as a satire. It was meant to be critical of the idea. Then marvel studios starts making an avengers movie and looks at the ultimates and goes "hey....this aesthetic is cool and modern and slick. Let's make it more like this!"
It's sad because superhero stories used to be more imaginative and critical of the status quo. I think back to the early fantastic four comics especially and how characters like Reed had to use their creativity to solve problems. A lot of jack kirby's comics were characterised by his musings about the world of tomorrow and where the future was going. Or i think of the earliest issues of action comics where superman took down abusive prison wardens and fought labor exploitation. But now the characters and the brand are all that matter. The characters are just products. These aren't stories about imagining the future anymore they're just stories about reinforcing the status quo and placating audiences by offering light social criticisms.
Same thing happened with the watchmen. %100 satire, with Rorschach meant to be a gross incel like asshole. But then you have so many people just adoring and seeing themselves as him and therefore a potential hero.
@@LaigledeMeaux The problem was that Moore made him too sympathetic, that's why.
"Stopping something bad is very different than creating something good."
It's interesting how superhero stories stand in comparison to the rest of sci-fi/fantasy - in superhero stories, the villain is a disrupting force that the hero has to beat back to preserve our cherished way of life. In most other sci-fi/fantasy, the villain is in charge (the "dark lord"), and the hero is leading a revolution to overthrow them.
One Way Out!
Very interesting point - proves the reverse model can work!
@@PhantasmalBlast Its funny cuz literally the only time in Star Wars (the prequels and Clone Wars) that they're promoting the status quo it goes incredibly wrong enough because the Jedi Republic was incredibly corrupt and internally stagnant. Every other time, changing the status quo is the goal and the hope.
@@bw1llis Both work, but one can be repeated more times. That's the curse of superheroe fiction.
Moreso the problem is that the heroes come before the villains
Killmonger was actually out here taking direct action but they had to make him cartoonishly evil.
Do you have any idea how it would look on Marvel and Disney if Killmonger actually did things far more rationally and grounded within The Black Panther? It would endanger how many perceptions of how heroes have existed to begin with. Much less the perception of the world all around us. Companies would never allow for that to happen. It endangers their interests
Killmonger was planning to commit genocide on white people, essentially. The thing that makes Black Panther good is that T'Challa actually learns from Killmonger, and has enough empathy to understand why he would go that far, and actually implements his ideology into his own, starting to share the resources of Wakanda to make people more equal throughout the world, even starting with Oakland to show his respect to Killmonger for giving him the resolve to do so, despite maybe not being the place that acutally needed it the most
I love how the super advanced wakanda nation was willing to start war World 3 because a dude Threw another dude from a waterfall
And they Turned against him because he didn't throw the dude properly
@@Ale-dd3ek advanced technologically but backwards sociologically
@@Ale-dd3ek The cat lady in the sky told them to
As a big fan of the MCU and superheroes and comics... I think about this a lot. It is absolutely a genre-wide dilemma across all mediums, and it's really rare to see it challenged.
I especially love your point that when superheroes DO get fed up and try to change something, they risk becoming the villain. We see this in Red Son (where Superman rules Soviet Russia). Or in the Ion Saga (where Green Lantern seizes unlimited power and attempts to end all war and famine and suffering). Or Zero Hour (where a different Green Lantern tries to retcon continuity to fix a bunch of issues). Or everything with Cyclops in the past fifteen years (he lost faith in Xavier's optimism and murdered him). Or Secret Empire (with Hydra Cap convinced his fascist ideologies will make the world a better place). Or the Cancerverse (where a bunch of heroes literally killed Death and the universe became this freaky melting pot of Lovecraftian horror).
I would love to see these stories actually embrace meaningful change. Let Wakanda share that cure for cancer that they've got (Mar-Vell sure could've used it). Bring back classic Superman who would wreck slums to force the slumlords to build something better. There's so much cool stuff all these heroes are capable of. Let's see it happen, for real.
It won't happen because the stupid writers are scared of change
God do I agree. Its starting to piss me off that the genre seems to only gives the heroes the impulse to change stuff only for the thrill of having them "break bad". And it hasn't helped, I think? , that a lot of the fanbase has embraced the "heroes are bad, actually" narrative as the better quality one. Like, I enjoy The Boys, Invincible, Injustice.... but it pisses me off that our only two options are heroes protect the status quo or heroes break bad, cause they're all power hungry, actually...
Invincible, being one continuity with a definitive end, embraces change both with characters and the systems they inhabit should read and watch it if that’s what you want!
Read Worm, then. You'll get an address to your complaints. Worm doesn't fix those issues but codifies them into the laws and rules of that universe. For example, when a character has plot armor that's because they literally have the power of plot armor (though it's explained more cleverly and within the rules of that world). Or when a character has the power to be forgotten, they are not introduced to the audience, they just happen to be there one day. And they have an extreme amount of character development off-camera (so-to-speak, since it's a book-no camera), because they were developed when you weren't thinking about them (that's their power!).
Powered individuals in Worm *do* try to cure cancer, fix world hunger, etc. They still don't, largely, but why they don't fix those issues is directly addressed and explained cleverly by Worm using the rules of how powers are divvied out.
If you've ever watched/read a super-hero story and asked "why doesn't the character just do ____ with their power?", Worm answers your question.
When i was a kid iron man inspired me to learn engineering. But as an adult what inspired me to keep going on with engineering was the one piece character Tom San, he was a fishMan, an amphibian species superior to humans, but was gentle and kind, unlike the fishmans shown until that point. In that story arc He was to be executed due to his connection with pirates .Still manages to save a remote island country using his engineering skills. No, he doesn't make weapons or super suit to blast invading aliens, but develops a revolutionary transportation system connecting the island to the rest of the world, resulting in the improvement in economic activity and saving the people out of poverty. Due to this, his execution was to be cancelled. But still gets executed due to corrupt people in the government.
One Piece is peak progressive fiction. Luffy punches unapologetic rich privileged assholes. Marvel makes them one of their heroes.
@barabaramoo Can't say the same for naruto. Most the villain literally wanted to change the status quo yet Naruto disagree with their method but didn't really changed anything.
I never really considered the public in the new MCU until you mentioned it. Remember in the X-men animated series(one from the 90s), public protests were commonly featured. Additionally, there was not the sort of hero worship bestowed upon the superheroes of today's MCU. The members of the Xmen would constantly be ridiculed or demeaned by the public as "mutants", "freaks", or "monsters" even if they saved them!
Yeah but the X-Men were part of the problem. They hid away in their fancy mansion and rarely went out to do things to try and proactively change the status quo.
the x-men franchise was supposed to be an allegory for the civil rights movement
@@navaryn2938 The show really leans into heavy topics: episodes about Communism, pandemics, marginalization, nuclear war, faith, cultural preservation, etc. I've been rewatching it, made it my Sunday morning ritual
This channel is terrifying to watch. Every time i think you can’t turn something on its head, and make me see it in a truly awful light, you just ram the point home. I love it hahah
Some of the best Superman stories are about the character having inner conflicts with how much he should intervene in the world, and the ethical implications in changing the status quo by force and might. So, he wants to inspire people to be better people in general. He is himself a simple man, who would much prefer a simple life taking care of a farm than the busy city, much less super-heroics, but he feels he has a duty to help.
Batman is an interesting character, and full of nuance in his actions and personal drama, sacrifice. Batman The Animated Series, and the movie Mask Of The Phantasm, are definitive portrayals of that nuance. He is a hero, but at the cost of ruining his own personal life and happiness.
The Superman story "Red Son" handles this particularly well, I think! "Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle?"
Exactly! I was going to make a similar point, which is raised by you and within the video, about how these heroes already hold immense power so what gives them the right to shape the world. The conundrum comes from the fact that by already choosing to align themselves with institutions that uphold the status quo, like law enforcement agencies like the police, military or federal law enforcement like CIA, they put themselves in a box because they are playing by the state and that institution's rules. I guess one last point that is interesting is that if the (partial) thesis of the video is that seeking change, whether progressive and or radical, makes one a villain then that would mean if these MCU heroes preached and or acted in more progressive and radical ways, for the public no less, then they would be deemed villains (at least by the state probably not the people).
I've read red son but could you recommend some more superman stories that are like what you said. I would love to read more.
For all of his "personal drama an sacrifice", Batman is still a multi-billionaire who chooses to punch bad guys in the street in his free time (which is almost all the time since he's a billionaire).
@@ekki1993 I always love when people bring up Elon like he's not a rich boy playing superhero for funzies rather than spending his immense wealth helping to create substantial systemic reforms... oh, sorry, I meant Batman. Honest mistake.
For MCU, status quo means 'world established in the comics that we shouldn't alter because we cannot build another world due to our complete lack of creativity'
Your comment reminds me of Kay and skittles third video covering the legend of korra series where he talks about the red lotus. He's talking about how the creator of LOK are purposefully misrepresenting anarchists and he says "The boys are so deeply instilled in the ideological framework of capitalist realism, they can't even *imagine* an anarchist revolution that isn't top down. That isn't being thrust upon the people without their consent or involvement by a few great men."
Yup
While you're right, Marvel is comically incorrect in seeming to think this to be the case. The worlds of the comics and their status quos did change drastically over time. Marvel is stuck in the status quo at the beginning of the "Silver Age", with a few modifications here and there. We've had five eras since that, all of with distinct events and societal changes to these events, so it's extremely odd to me that the MCU refuses to move beyond.
Like, even if their excuse was lack of creativity, they already doing plots for eras beyond the silver age - why not just adjust the world to match?
Yeah, I think that these conversations underestimate the "we need our world to look like the real world so we can keep selling these movies" factor.
Like, a world with infinite free energy, no world hunger and everybody lives for centuries and is vaccinated against cancer would be really cool to live in, but it would be pretty low on terrorism and bank heists and fascist regimes and alien assassins and all that stuff we go to marvel movies for.
@@Olivman7
That’s why all this mofos complaining in the comments about “heroes are defending the status quo” are dumb. Is a story, all stories need conflict. That’s it is not that deep
You perfectly articulated the feelings that I have been having for years whenever someone asks me if I want to go watch the newest Marvel movie and I cannot explain to them how *tired* that would make me. Thank you.
This philosophy reminds me of The Legend of Korra, first she's trying to protect the status quo but at the end she always realizes their point and she tries to make it work in a good way
The channel Just Write talks about this in The Legend of Korra, using the Hegelian Dialectic! In short, for every season of Korra, a villain challenges the Status Quo with their opposing extreme ideology. In the end of the season, the villain is stopped, but some of that opposing ideology is mixed with the current state, creating a new and nuanced current world. This way, the world is always changing in a iterative way, and some value is given to the villains' ideas. Just Write explains it better in his video, just check it out!
@@bebbization That video misrepresents alot of Philosophy . The Hegelian dialectic is not Thesis, Anti-theisis and Synthesis.
@@bebbization and kay and Skittles explains it better through a materialist perspective that Korra disregards the core message of these villains while only doing surface level changes
@Tech Issus Cool, I'll check that out! I think the legend of korra has a lot of lost potential, especially at the end of each season. It's a bit of a letdown to have each season start with an interesting problem, only to be simplified and rushed in the end. Still, I think they do it better than most MCU stories, even though the changes Korra makes should have been more
@@bebbization Yeah I agree, Hello Future me wrote multiple essays on how that could be remedied. But Ultimately the show's structure make it difficult.
Also Just don't trust anything Just write says, he has a tendency of making unsubstantiated claims about philosophers like Hegel.
I think the issue isn't just ideological but also due to writing constraints. Imagine a hero or villain actually manages to change the world - permanently and irreversibly. Everything taking place afterwards would have to be written like well thought out Sci-Fi instead of basic Urban Fantasy. That's way harder to do.
it's easier to do with some character's than others. Spider-man 2099 literally fights for good in a dystopia world where corporations have absolute power. Thor and the fantastic four frequently travel to other realities and dimensions and across space and time so it's easier to have a villain 'win' and write around their victory. Heck the marvel 2099 line literally had a whole period where dr doom successfully conquoted the united states and it was easy to write around because the setting was already a dystopian future.
Yeah and by that point their world would be so ideal that they won't be able to make any social commentaries that mirrors the world we live in anymore.
@@galactic85
That was the point. If the status quo is "contemporary New York" and required knowledge is "skills and traits of one hero" almost any artist can help with the next episode of the comic. If there's new tech, architecture and a new social system you need to be immersed first.
Therefore any big deviations are usually one-off things or projects of a specific author.
I actually think if they permanently change the status quo, there would be so much possibilities for new stories and less for them to worry about-- For example ,if Tony Stark actually give everyone in the world free energy using his battery, we wouldn't have critique about him not really caring for people. There could be capitalist villains trying to kill him so they can keep selling energy. There could be a massive scientific evolution that lteads to new storylines.
100% agree and this even applies to how the MCU handles the fallout of the Snap/Blip, which arguably has (or should have) irreversibly changed their world. Outside of some jokes, references, and a very clumsy Falcon & Winter Soldier show, the MCU writers have demonstrated they are either uninterested or unable to really engage with the implications of such a global event and how it would change the world.
This sort of “only evil desires to change the way the world works ” mentality is something I really hope Spider-Verse bucks in its final movie.
A lot of people are theorising that Canon Events don’t really exist, and Spider-Society is just too blinded their collective trauma to see it. I believe a more compelling idea is that really *are* a fundamental pillar of the multiverse, only for Miles to just start looking for a way to alter the very nature of the multiverse itself if that’s what’s keeping from protecting both his universe and his family.
The idea that Miles’ ultimate enemy won’t be a supervillain, but rather the system that controls the world he lives in demanding he sacrifice constantly to protect and sustain it while giving him nothing in return is a story I think most young people today go through all the time. Something they’d be overjoyed to be told they’re not alone in.
Excellent comment, just wish it had more upvotes so more people could see it.
Would that be enough of escapist, though?
I think it's important to mention that the heroes can and do bring about sweeping changes to their worlds, as long as that world is not earth.
It shows that making drastic change doesn't have to be seen as a precursor to villainy in Marvel; which makes the excuse more obvious
Very true. Actually had a section about that but ended up cutting it for time.
And in some fictions, when more advanced and progressive alien societies (some advanced by super beings) they also just randomly happen to be, in some aspects, less "spiritual aware" (or some junk like that) than the visiting Earthlings despite having been previously shown to be spiritually developed aeon before Earth. It's just a very Earth-centric narrative that promotes the Earth status quo as ultimately right.
@@kennethhwang3425 What is spiritual aware?
That makes it seem almost like an analogy for America and the rest of the world; Earth and it's heroes fight against change on earth while going out of their way to make change on other worlds based on their own authority, much like how America and it's police and military will actively fight against change domestically but will have an active hand in regime change abroad.
I think this is because of the real reason is because authors like to have their stories take place on "The Real World", so they can address things that are happening at the time. This in turn means they will ignore the changes made by other authors or the potential implications of other characters or technology also existing in the same universe.
The most famous example is the X-Men and other Mutants being subjected to prejudice other characters are exempt from. The original Days of the Future Past storyline brought the implications to light by explaining that the Sentinels also targeted aliens, superpowered beings and technologically enhanced people as Mutants.
This is also why I always been an X-men fan and preferred them over the Avengers since I was a little kid. Before the MCU came out, I hated the Avengers and thought they were corny. I loved reading the X-men comics, watching the shows, and movies. I found the X-men more relatable especially as someone who experienced racism since I was a kid. I related to the prejudice they experience for being mutants just like I was discriminated against for being black.
Solidarity
I'm from Europe so my exposure to superhero stuff was minimal. Grew up with a different comic culture. When the X-Men live action movies came out they were engaging and were able to stand on their own without being a lover of the X-man universe so to speak. Even my brother and mother liked these movies. Captain "AMERICA" on the other.... You gotta be the most arrogant numb-nut to even create something like that and let it live in modern times.
Yeah The Uncanny X-Men was my first love for comic book characters. I didn't even hear about the Avengers until much much later. I knew what Captain America looked like but didn't know anything about him. I didn't know who the other members are. I think the kids in my country had the same experience.
@@amberbaum4079
There were a few times where writers got to give Cap something interesting to say, mainly along the lines of telling America to reform or become reviled.
It's actually not racism what those X-Men experience, because X-Men are not a "race", it's speciesism.
Loved this. Graeber was always a fantastic theorist, and his insight on superhero stories has if anything become more clearly true in recent times. Well done on demonstrating it so comprehensively.
Graeber was a phenomenal anthropologist and he will be missed. I need to read up on his superhero work.
What does it matter?
His death was so upsetting, rest in power
I always hated it when a bad guy or character has an idea that would actually help people but then randomly start killing people, innocent people as well not even the ones holding power.
I think addressing this tension, to a point, was what made Arcane so engaging. Not a superhero story I know. But you got to see people on both sides fighting for change to make lives better. Totally different ways, with different original motivations. They were dynamic and changed. And that status quo at the end was very different to the beginning.
And interestingly the villain is killed just after he makes an agreement with the elite to keep up the city's status quo to prevent another civil war from breaking out. With his chaos gremlin daughter Jinx almost certainly kicking off the civil war anyways.
Seriously, Arcane was effing amazing.
@@jessip8654 i also really like that the end of arcane isn’t just out of the blue… like… yes, seeing jinx suffer makes the audience feel sad and having seen her whole backstory makes us attached to her, empathize with her and want her to get better, even almost excuse some of her actions, but the extreme act that she does in the end still makes perfect sense for the character and the audience can’t help but say “ damn, things could just have been different if…”
@@wisteriaaaaaa you are right, althoug I was kinda annoyed at Jinxs's character. I am kinda burned down by those "femme fatale clown psychos" on the media nowadays. But yes, her actions actually make sense, Arcane was pretty well written.
Arcane was brilliant for this. Everyone had a solid, human structure for their decision making
Karli Morgenthau was the most egregious, for me, as far as "Villain who has a point suddenly kills civilians for no reason to uncomplicate the feud." And the way she ended really angered me, because so many white characters with no ideology to speak of were allowed to commit more atrocities than her for way longer without dying.
Yeah, and it seemed especially out of character for her. I would have liked it better if the heroes had teamed up with the flag smashers to ensure positive change
You would think that a person who actually is pointing out a problem within the un-Snapped world and is actually making a community would at least consider that when a person comes up and agrees with you and has the means to make change, you would at least coordinate with them if not team up with them if they are sincere. But apparently taking Extremis makes you become extremist which leads to the last minute of Episode 4 to the end of The Falcon and The Winter Soldier. Also, Baron Zemo is still afoot as another arbiter on “who should be superheroes”, so nothing was accomplished
Add to that, let's be honest here - the real world has shown that the "Language these people understand" is Property Destruction, not mass death.Killing a lot of people conveniently allows society to do exactly what the show writers did - Revel in the spectacle of death, then say 'Okay, maybe she had some points, but the mass murder makes everything she said now null and void'.
Destroy the things - empty government buildings, rich people's third homes, monuments that are symbols of the actual oppression, etc. Especially if they're popular. The media already paints property destruction as Just The Worst, so lean into that and make the audience ask whether these buildings and objects ARE more important than the lives of the people Karli's fighting for? Hell, if the mouse REALLY want people to die, have one of those buildings or monuments not be as empty as they thought - maybe there's a few squatters there that the media now suddenly cares about, or some poor drone working late who wasn't cleared out. Actually grey things up, cowards.
The only reason for the turn is because someone realized that actually, while companies think destruction of property is the worst because they're entirely made of assets, some real human people might think people are more important than places and they didn't want anyone to think their good guy wasn't 100% good.
@@washipuppy It's the same problem Riddler had in "The Batman". He's overall not wrong in what he does...so the last part has to reveal he's going to flood the city and murder innocent people
I honestly don't understand her point. It's been a while since I watched it but all I got from it was that "I'm annoyed the world's government didn't immediately find a solution that had no losers to the world's population suddenly doubling."
One day while I was speaking about Black Panther ending my brother asking pointed the fact that while Wakanda hoped to help People in need there first center of help was in America instead of somewhere in Africa
Because of Killmonger being brought up there
@@jonanice ok thanks
That's because Killmonger was from a neighbourhood in Oakland and so T'Challa decided to start there first in memory of him.
I think it was intentional to turn the stereotype on its head. And to point out how backwards America really is.
No, you misunderstood. He helped that black community in America specifically because of Killmonger was raised there (a man with Wakandan blood, born and raised in America) and to complete Killmonger's character story. Also representing how Africans can help Black Americans. And the end he said he's opening his resources and borders to the rest of the world. Meaning other African countries.
I kind of feel like this message can also apply to My Hero Academia. Most of the villains we’ve seen in that series were pushed to the extreme due to the various flaws of hero society. However, while the show constantly points out the world’s flaws and implies that the series will end with progress to make hero society better, the recent chapters give the feeling that everything will return to the status quo with the exception of heroes being more virtuous like All Might rather than pursuing fame or money
exactly!
Ehhh after the current arc in the manga, i dont really agree. it does seem like true change will happen once All for one/shigaraki is defeated. You can tell by the character actions and how they have seen the villains and what made them that way. IDK how you can read the latest chapters and not see it lmao
I honestly feel like the only hope for the people in mha total quirk erasure.
Now Fullmetal Alchemist had a thing or two to say about oppressive systems. Every instance of war and bloodshed is proven unnecessary and for hidden selfish motivations. Every institution is actively hiding a secret. In the end it takes officers actively abandoning their role and duty to reveal conspiracies and remove leaders. But I never read the manga. I wonder how the society puts itself back together when their leader is gone.
I got a similar feeling from Danganronpa. Spoilers for the 2nd game.
When, after so much of the games has been criticizing the talent = hope dichotomy, and how Hope's Peak was corrupt, it's portrayed as a good ending that Makoto starts a new Hope's Peak.
I wish they kept the attitude that the first Iron Man film had.
Tony tries to SHUT DOWN the corporate arms company and the rich and powerful immediately try to freeze him out
But in later films there's no consideration of whether America's largest arms maker stayed shut down.
Doesn't matter whether it did or not. Tony Stark was, is and will always be a piece of trash
The first film still had Orientalism though.
So bizarre and how stupid was it to see this guy allegedly a genius go into shock and horror when he discovers the weapons of mass destruction he makes are actually used for mass destruction 💀 and the fact that he thought giving it to the US government was putting it in the right hands
This makes me like (comic book) vigilantes more than the big superheroes, as they at least try to change their neighbourhood for the better. Yes Spiderman and Daredevil arent causing any social change but their attempt to help the little guy does in fact help the little guy.
Like daredevils goal isnt to save the world but he wants to make his small neighbourhood a better place and he does this both as a lawyer and by stepping in when he hears violence happening around him.
The aim is smaller but atleast theyre homest about their aim
It also makes more sense why they are not changing the world. They are too small scale to do so, but at least are doing all they can with what they have.
every good guy fights crime and evil everywhere
@@plinfan6541 every good guy fights crime and evil everywhere
Same. It’s more humble, but honestly more people should be. Too many people trying to change the world, that can hardly keep their own homes in order.
Like, how am I supposed to trust you know what you’re doing with world changing power, when you can’t even keep a small ecosystem healthy like your family? And you want to promise the concerns around unintended consequences are ridiculous?
One of the reasons why Batman is my fav.
I once got into a discussion with a person about black panther. I said the movie is about making the choice to utilize restorative justice instead of fear mongers plan to create social change through militaristic force. The person said no, it's just a movie with a bad guy and good guy fighting. I have to remind myself that a portion of the general public is never going to look deeper into their art that good guy=good and bad guy=bad.
Well if it wasn’t like that we wouldn’t be so fucked up as a species
Yes, the general public is limited intellectually.
I mean... the reason why the social commentary in action movies is so incredibly out of touch is that it's only there as an excuse to make the action happen, nothing else
I mean, we talking about mcu, a lot of people see Marvel movies just like explosions and Big fights, not even The fans in a Big majority see that there is depth in It at all
But they were right, like unironically? It's like @truthwatcher2096 said.
That's called capitalist realism, or as Jameson said, for Hollywood "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism "
Womp womp
Star Wars definitely handles this topic well as in the Original and Sequel trilogy, you have a group of heroes and an entire resistance fighting to change the status quo. Meanwhile in the Prequels, you have the Jedi fighting to defend the current status quo and this was what led them to their inevitable downfall.
Andor is a good example of that. I like it's take on political apathy with Cassian's character arc
The prequels even go that far to have people in charge, despite all their wisdom, actively deny that change is happening. Hell, you even have to give the Harry Potter universe some points for that - the whole fifth book about people not wanting to believe Voldemort is back despite facts telling them otherwise (a school boy has been murdered ffs) really hit home.
Also reminds me of what Filoni did with Barriss Offee in the Clone Wars. Having her speak the truth of the Jedi order's downfall yet then bomb the temple in order to alienate not only the fictional world from her idea, but also the real life audience.
Dooku's arc is really interesting for this, esp in Tales of the Jedi you somewhat understand how he turned
This is also what makes Qui-Gon's death so tragic in Episode I, with him dies the last hope that the Jedi can change before the fall. Not only would Anakin have had a far better father figure, but the Order lost a potential leader who actually realized how blind they had become. He saw value in people that other Jedi dismissed as "pathetic life forms", etc.
Having watched the video in full, my mind went to Captain America: Civil War. It is the one time where direct criticism of the superheroes and their behavior is leveled. Ironically, it is made clear that Tony Stark, the billionaire weapon maker, is the one who most seriously considers the idea that, yes, the Sokovia Accords do need to exist to keep a check and balance on the Avengers, while Captain America, the boy scout from the streets of Brooklyn, is the one who says "the safest hands are our own".
But like with the villains mentioned, the Accords are implemented in such a way that it presents the idea as a bad one that should never have been done, rather than even entertaining a more reasonable version of it. I heard LegalEagle broke down the Sokovia Accords in a video of his own, and it includes a long list of Human rights violations. In other words, when society pushes back against the superheroes, the defenders of the status quo, it is also depicted as unilaterally in the wrong.
Same with No Way Home. After Peter Parker is framed and ousted as Spider-Man by Mysterio, most of the public we see either immediately believes Mysterio's frame-up, antagonizes Peter Parker, or just has most of the people around him, at his school, no less, hovering apathetically around him with phones pointed at him, if memory serves. We have very few cases of any other reaction, much less sympathetic ones willing to hear him out. J. Jonah Jameson is just the face of the anti-Spider-Man public opinion after Mysterio's video.
It adds to the point that starts being made around 18:48. We don't see the public outside of narrow confines. Either they are people in distress who need saving, unruly mobs, passive fandom who adore the heroes, or people who are antagonistic towards the hero of the film.
The problem is that the Sokovia Accords turned superheroes from basically defenders of the status quo to literally defenders of the status quo. It made them subordinate to the United Nations, which isn't really an improvement when the criticism being leveled is that modern nation-states are bad.
The Sokovia Accords and Civil War is such an interesting topic imo, because the movie dangles this political issue in your face and makes its two central heroes take opposing sides... but that's not really what the movie is about.
As you say, the film fully villainizes the Accords by the end of its runtime (although it's still a massive improvement over the comic version of the story which went full Guantamano Bay allegory and had Iron Man's team employ villains and shoot the Hulk into space). But more than that, the conflict in the end of the film... has absolutely nothing to do with the Accords at all. The conflict is actually just about Bucky and his past. A scifi plot with scifi implications.
That's not to take away from the ending -- I actually think it's one of the best ending the MCU has had -- but you could make a totally different movie without the Accords, and the final sequence could remain entirely intact. Really, the moment Bucky is added into the cast, all the genuine political conflict is thrown away because the real issue is "Who framed Bucky???" And the battles then are not fought over the Accords... they're fought over Bucky.
I think the issue with the Accords is much more that they would essentially make the Avengers in to a world police. Rather than curbing the problematic behaviors of a bunch of super powered individuals intervening in conflicts it turns them into a super powered private army.
It pretty much created Team America World Police. Instead of the checks and balances that it is trying to set up.
I think Tony and Steve’s arguments for and against it are close but miss the point. And are completely a reflection of there own personal insecurities. Tony need checks and balances. Where as Cap is worried about personal accountability and the effects of world powers using there strength for bad ends. Both had valid consents but aren’t really seeing the bigger picture
@@TheLithp at least the United Nations would implement restrictions and oversight onto them, not saying its ideal but the current situation is that essentially the Avengers are a non-government military organization that intervenes whenever they want and are run by the members personal agendas. For all we know Stark could easily intervene in one of his factories in the developing world protesting by just landing in an Iron Man suit and killing them. Now he wouldn't do that, but the Avengers themselves represent this type of "we are better and more morally right than every other institution and deserve the right to intervene whenever"
The book version of Civil War was much better at evenhandedly presenting arguments in favour of authoritarism and liberty. Even the silly punchfest at the end could be considered a commentary on how an ideology becomes illegitimate when it resorts to senseless violence.
Even so, this video's criticisms apply to the book version too: the choice is whether the status quo should be maintained by an autonomous group of super-police or by an authoritarian state. Empowering the social movements that are struggling for positive change is not an option.
What always bothered me about Tony's inventions is that he does create a lot of stuff that can be considered "building a better future" but Marvel movies completely brush that off, or use them as a place where the action or fighting happens. Like the example of the Stark Tower - the first sustainably powered building that literally is proof that sustainable energy is good and is the future, is used as a battlefield of 2012 Avengers and then the idea of Tony trying to make the world sustainable is never brought up again in the narrative, because it doesn't serve any action, and instead what is brought up from what he does are always the things he creates to protect the world that are reactionary and are technically a defensive weaponry that can be used to attack as well. It's nearly the same case as with mental issues in MCU. They are only brought up to serve a narrative point once, and then promptly forgotten afterwards. Tony's PTSD is only important in IM3 and Age of Ultron, and then nothing. He is suddenly cured. Not to mention that all the other Avengers that probably also have mental problems (Steve's PTSD hello?), are never shown going to therapy or trying to deal with their symptoms (unless to make fun of someone's problems like with Thor's depression and alcoholism in Endgame), because showing superheroes as breathing, living human beings is not important for the MCU. MCU only cares about showing the action and battle. But even without that, even in the comics Avengers are more police, while X-Men are the underdogs that fight for change.
Yeah, hy was Bucky the only one to go to therapy
It's nice to see how Alan Moore's stories are all about this idea exactly. No wonder they are that much appealing!
As a life long Iron Man fan, I am very happy to see something like this. Batman has gotten similar criticism, but I haven't seen many throw it towards marvel, ig because the movies were so popular.
anytime criticism of iron man comes up, people try to defend him by saying he's philanthropic or that he doesn't make weapons anymore. except, just like any billionaire, philanthropy is just tax-deducible PR that aims to scrub their reputations clean. and tony stark never stopped making weapons. he just stopped selling them to state militaries and instead supplied them to his own personal friends so they could personally be the world police.
there are no good billionaires, and tony stark is not exception.
The reason batman gets that criticism is because he fights actual criminals. There is a lot of politics behind crime. The grunts in a batman story are poor people. The grunts in marvel films are closer to soldiers than anything else. Batman can probably help the criminals that he ends up beating to a pulp. By improving living conditions, less people turn to crime. That’s something that he can actually do as a wealthy person. Very few marvel characters actually fight criminals, and those that do aren’t in a position to have helped them not be criminals.
@@58209 Yeah the problem with the world police tagline is that the heroes do actually need to exist in some capacity as they fight: nazis with lasers, robots, and evil aliens. They don’t spend a lot of time post 2012 avengers fighting any real group or country that’s analogous to our own world. I agree no billionaires are good in our world, but maybe the hulkbuster armor is a justifiable piece of hardware. I’m not even touching philanthropy. Billionaires use profit for their own ends. Tony uses his to actually save their world, which no billionaire can lay claim to in our own world.
@@trevor4950 Batman and Superman both implement a lot of social changes in the comics such as building free housing for those with low incomes and preventing environmental exploitation but a lot of that isn't focused on in the movies since it wouldn't be as interesting to watch. Part of Batman's character is his goal of REHABILITATION which can become a flaw when he refuses to kill the Joker even after all the horrible things he's done.
@@adeptune6067 There's also the fact that, in the comics, their attempts to help people get thwarted or usurped by villains. In Bruce Wayne's case, almost every fund, charity or attempt to fix Gotham gets taken over by The Joker, The Court of Owls or whatever. They try to change the status quo, but the writers make sure it always goes back to the status quo.
100% give me a marvel movie where the heroes have a plan and the villain is trying to stop them. Like, the Avengers join up with environmental activists and use their powers to force companies to switch to renewable energy via protests, sit-ins, direct disruptive action, pressuring politicians to ensure mining workers are protected in the transition, etc. But some coal billionaire (a thinly veiled Gina Rinehart type) does not like the idea of having slightly less money and she goes full supervillain. That way the heroes are actively planning a better world (not just reacting to an apocalypse) while the villain is trying to prevent positive change.
Now THAT is an MCU movie I'd really be excited to watch! :D
"100% give me a marvel movie where the heroes have a plan and the villain is trying to stop them. Like, the Avengers join up with environmental activists and use their powers to force companies to switch to renewable energy via protests, sit-ins, direct disruptive action, pressuring politicians to ensure mining workers are protected in the transition"
This feels like an USA Democrat Party propaganda advertisement and not a well thought well written action movie.
@@princesseuphemia1007 I don't think so. It may be funny to parodize in your imaginary dreams, but nobody will watch it. even you.
Honestly that would be interesting
@@Qaosbringer That's why the villain is also a fun baddy and the heroes punch the polluters instead
god, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier kinda feels like the epitome of this whole thing, with the flag-smashers being incredibly sympathetic and wanting what was, inarguably, positive and necessary change, only to turn into cartoonish terrorists and the new captain america speaking politely to the politician to think about the people or whatever. I felt crazy watching that ending, it was played as a good ending but the whole world they're in remained this dystopic, ill-equipped and unregulated post-disaster site
The Batman had the same problem. For 90% of the story we side with Riddler and his scheme...until he randomly decides to kill innocent people as his "Final Plan".
@@ShadowSonic2 i mean, the riddler does kill people at the start of the movie, that is the inciting incident of that story
@@ShadowSonic2 The Riddler already put innocent people in danger from way earlier on in the movie... he runs a car into a crowd of 100s (nobody gets hit in the church but Riddler certainly isn't shown to care either way, not to mention the screaming and gunshots outside the church), tries to blow up Bruce (who he has no real dirt on, as Riddler is merely trying to commit an act of vengeace against Thomas Wayne) without thinking of the others in the building that might get caught in the crossfire, of coursewe have the flooding, etc...
The Riddler is established throughout the movie as someone who is trying to change the city but doesn't care about the collateral damage. Batman is established as someone who is also trying to change the city, not defend the status quo, but is going about it the wrong way. That's a pretty different scenario.
Yeah the flag smashers were literally justified in everything they did and wanted to do. The bad guys won in F&WS and Falcon was literally rubbing shoulders with a murderous thug and war criminal. Bucky of all people should have known better too.
This makes me want a spin-off focused on some normal civilian trying to make some normal area in the MCU a better place. Post-Endgame gives lots of possibilities.
After the Snap, what happens to everybody coming back and finding that their families have changed or moved on without them? What happens if a soldier in the middle of a war suddenly reappears in the middle of a newly constructed plaza?
During the Snap, what organizations popped up to support those affected by the Lost? How did the underground crime rings shift and change once some superiors suddenly vanish? Which people stayed firm, inspired by the Avengers, and held on to their humanity instead of being tempted by the opportunities provided in the Snap, and how did they fight against those who fell to crime and temptation?
So many stories that involve the 'public' and all we get are 'Avenger-level' threats. Sure, those are deadly, but what's even deadlier are the threats lurking beneath, what is commonly seen but what is chosen to be looked over.
Finishing the whole video before leaving a comment is advised. The last few minutes are kinda important ;)
Love your videos! This one was very well made and discusses an important topic. I've always hated it when the villain has a completely logical view on why they are wanting the change and just randomly does a brutal act of violence just so they can be painted as bad. Marvel being a billion dollar franchise which is viewed worldwide, I feel it enforces and normalizes the idea that people who want to change the status quo are bad.
I love "The Boys" because it does the complete opposite. Great video! Keep them coming
Ok I did finished the video essay twice. My comment still stands
have you considered doing a video on how divorce is portrayed in media? like how its used to portray wives as a villain
The one thing I wish Marvel would do would betray just average humans pushing for reform in MCU to make it like our world I think they would be able to do it
An important thing to note is Black Superheros fight for social change. Luke Cage, Black Lightning, and Family Static Shock, all fought to end police corruption, gang violence and did a lot of charity work using their power. Just saying...
Loved the analysis. It reminded me of the villain - hero dynamics in avatar the legend of Korra. Villains were so cool and their ideologies and intentions seemed so good, untill they just did something completely evil, just for the sake of it
And while some people were definitively more prone to evil (namely the first two main villains, even if Amon does make the point that nonbenders are not treated fairly in Republic City because he is obviously set up as a demagogue) the other two main villains (groups) were people that could counter Korra’s role. Korra is a person who is basically the arbiter on stuff; that is inherently unfair even if the Avatar is culturally sensitive, can read people nicely, and generally supports good ideas; that is Zaheer’s point. And while Korra is better positioned to be a leader by the time of Kuvira, Kuvira is still a reminder that Korra could very easily be imperialist or some warring power herself (and by Zaheer’s logic, is so by helping those in power stay in power for the sake of peace). Korra is a story of a person growing to be a great leader who can handle multiple crises but it is also a story of what that great leader can easily become, and technically still has the chance to be.
@@iantaakalla8180 This is what I actually liked the most about LoK. At some point in the last season (it's been a while since I've watched it now), they actually acknowledge that each of the villains had good intentions and valid grievances, with the point being that they had become villains when they turned to violence, chaos and oppression to achieve their goals. It's not perfectly done, but the story is written in a way that actively brings the systemic injustices of their world into consideration and forces you to see their point of view.
It had been a few years (I didn't see avatar when o was young) but I don't remember it being gratuitous at all. I might be wrong but I remember feeling I understood why the villains wanted to use extreme methods, and kora recognizing explicitly they weren't really on the wrong. I really thought the writing was better than avatar, but I still remember not being so glued to it as the original. Thinking about it at the time I thought it was most likely due to feeling kora ended up being a very passive character whom things keep happening to. It's pretty much other people that make plans and are really critical to sabe the day, which is refreshing but ended up leaving her without much of a real arc besides going from a hash teenager to a less hash adult. But even that isn't all bad the end was thought provoking in that she decided to create her own adventure after that without just relying on being the super hero of that universe. The world left by the original avatar was very complicated and interesting and in fact goes against the idea exposed here of heroes not doing anything to change the world, very refreshing. Anyways sorry for the rambling, it brought back memories of a great show. I might be misremembering, it would be worth a rewatch if I had company.
Check out Kay and Skittles, he has videos about TLOK on exactly that topic
Not as good as ATLA but the villains in LoK had potential
Hi! I'm a Canadian independant comic artist who specialise in super heros for kids. I was just doing a panel on that subject two weeks ago at a college. You put it quite well! I'm not an expert of the MCU specificaly but I've always said that the problem with the MCU is that it only shows the tip of the iceberg of what you can do with the genre.
It is the most important cultural manifestation of our time. It can talk about our fears, our hopes, our relation to power, etc. You can do Action, Sci-fi, Horror, Adventure and even Autobiography. They are us and they can do everything as much as we can do everything with them.
As always you've made me think deeper and more thoughtfully about things I had taken for granted previously.
Thank you.
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier ending was so funny. He was literally like “can you stawp pwetty pwease 🥺”
So happy to see a different take on the MCU than the usual then again can't expect anything less than that from the pop culture detective
It's interesting how in a lot of these movies, the heroes aren't depicted as performing any acts of heroism unrelated to the problems and conflicts they themselves cause or are embroiled in at a personal level, outside of maybe a quick montage.
That's why I love the Spider-Man game by Insomniac and it's side missions. Peter does small things like disinfecting pigeons of a disease that could leap to humans, fixing water pressure, and investigating pollution causing products. He's actually making the effort to turn the neighborhood into a friendlier place in ways that don't just involve punching people.
(Though he still does that because it IS a superhero game)
@@Dalton_Boardman2000 oh I LOVE that game!
Feels like this is a result of the whole "complicated villain" fad, where the movies try to have their cake and eat it too by having villains who have more complicated motives but still are pure evil in their _actions_ . A big problem is that these movies need to pick either a sympathetic or pure evil villain and stick with it because when they don't everything gets muddled.
When I clicked on this video I had 0 idea what to expect. But wow, you make incredibly valid and backed up points, and it really does make you reflect on the superhero genre as a whole
I hate how so many villains have genuinely good points but then go “therefore the solution is genocide”.
I especially hate when the “solution” is to kill the villain and then to move on. Nothing is ever done with the initial grievance.
I wish they’d leave them alive so the character can come to the realization that the solution to their problem ISN’T to blow up New York City. Help them come to a better conclusion, or have the heroes at least make efforts to make sure a new villain won’t pop up from similar circumstances.
Another peeve I have is when the heroes win through sheer force. If the hero and villain have clashing values/beliefs/morals, then have the heroes win BECAUSE of those beliefs.
Why is the hero’s beliefs “right”, and what would the world look like under the villains world?
Being able to out-punch someone doesn’t automatically make you morally right.
Which villains have good points, exactly?
@@randomusername3873
Magneto: “Mutants are being persecuted” (true) “therefore genocide” (wtf)
Thanos: “Overpopulation is a problem. Not enough people are getting enough resources.” (True) “therefore genocide” (wtf)
The angry mob from Belle (not Gaston because he probably did it for selfish reasons): “There is a beast holding Belle captive so we should fight it” (true, but could be avoided with a conversation or some reassurance from Belle)
Killmonger: “Wakanda should reveal themselves and show the world what they can do” (good point) “I’m gonna be a dictator” (wtf)
Ursula: (If she didn’t try to sabotage Ariel, she would’ve been fully in the right to offer a contract and expect Ariel to follow it if she signed it. Nothing wrong with that)
These are a few of the top of my head, so I could be getting some facts wrong, but I hope you get the general gist of when I’m trying to say.
Apologies in advance if I misrepresented anything
@@littleblueclovers Your complaint is extremely weird.
If villains dont find a "good cause" to disguise their evil behaviour, why would they even exist, let alone grow into positions of power?
This is literally how cults work. They're all "save the world" or "liberate the marginalized" and then they go committing terrorism.
Evil people putting the appearance of an activist is literally the most normal thing on the planet. Complaining about this is like complaining about water being wet.
You, as well as many people in this comment section, also seem to think that a person believing in a good thing is incapable of supporting an evil thing.
I rewatched Watchmen recently and had a strong urge to reread the novel as well. This video perfectly articulates the general impression I got from Watchmen - that superheroes fail as an idea because they are unable to fundamentally save our world. They can only cure the symptoms but not the disease, thus basically becoming a glorified police. Real change, if it’s possible in the first place, is usually done collectively and in rather boring, unsexy ways which have little to do with epic battles.
I freaking love that novel although it ruined any sympathy I had for superhero media.
The comics are way different from the movies though
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 yeah, of course, Snyder inevitably glamorized it. But I feel like the general message was conveyed pretty well.
@@sonchik6324 No I meant superhero comics do have them do stuff like help out ordinary people more than the movies
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 yeah ive noticed that marvel comics seem relatively quite intimate compared to the movies
@@sonchik6324 I don't think so. (spoiler ahead) The ambiguity of Veidt's actions is one of the of the most important aspects of the book, yet Snyder presents Veidt like a 100% villain, with Night Owl scolding him because he 'mutilated humanity to save it' or something, which sounds like nonsense to me.