An Open Letter to Marvel: Respect Your Dead

"If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people," - Virginia Woolf

WARNING: This post contains massive spoilers for 2017's Logan and 2018's Avengers: Infinity War. 

Did y'all really think I wasn't going to make an analysis post about Infinity War? C'mon, do you even know me?

Well, this post really isn't about Infinity War strictly. It's more of a recurring trope in Marvel properties that drives me up a wall, across the ceiling, and down the other side. 

An Open Letter to Marvel: Respect Your Dead

Marvel does not respect its dead. 

Marvel does this in two ways - one being the just-kidding death slash the resurrection death, and the second by not giving fictional death the proper treatment it deserves.

Consider Loki's death at the beginning of the movie. Loki has died . . . how many times now? Maybe just once, but the fact is that we all believed he was dead, and then he 'resurrected'.  Same with Nick Fury. The problem is that many deaths in the MCU are seen as temporary, as plot devices, or for shock value instead of being portrayed as what they actually are - deaths of (fictional) human beings. (Shoutout to my homie Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 for actually giving a character a good and respectful death.)

If you'll remember from my review of the masterpiece that is Logan - read that here - then you'll remember my only real gripe was that Professor X's death wasn't given more time. The title character of the entire X-Men franchise just died. His death really needed to sink in, and there needed to be just a bit longer of a lull for both the characters and the audience to feel the full effect of the moment. 

And I have this same complaint with Infinity War.

At the very end, Thanos snapped his fingers and half of our beloved characters dissolved into dust, including Bucky Barnes. This is where the biggest crime of the century comes in. 

But it all starts with earlier in the Wakanda sequence, when Steve and Bucky are reunited. I was so incredibly excited for an emotional scene of the two life-long best friends finally seeing each other again after years of separation. 

But no. From what I remember, we got a smile and a handshake and a half-hug thing. I wanted to stand up in my seat and riot at what an absolute disappointment and bloody disservice this was to what undeniably is one of the most important relationships in the MCU. 

And it only gets worse. 

When Steve Roger's best friend of 70+ years who is his only link to his former life and whom he just got back after the trauma that was Civil War literally disappears into dust in front of his very eyes, Steve just kind of . . . touches the ground, looking shocked. 

This is not at all how he would react. His best friend has just been taken from him again and assumed dead. It was an extraordinary disservice to both Bucky and Steve that Steve had very little emotional reaction to this life-altering event. This is honestly what broke Infinity War for me, and why I'm here ripping this aspect to shreds. 

In contrast, Peter Parker's death was an absolute tear-jerker. It was so heart-breakingly human and perfect for the context of Peter and Tony. Okoye's reaction to seeing T'Challa disappear was stunning and horrifying and real. 

But the problem with all of the deaths at the end of Infinity War harks back to what I mentioned about Loki, as well as the deaths of Bucky and Professor X, etc. Most of the people who died in Infinity War probably aren't actually dead. There is the time stone after all, and heck, Red Skull is technically still out there. 

But the problem that the MCU has is, that when a character does die, the audience has trouble believing that this character is actually dead or permanently dead. This causes a myriad of problems, ranging from the inability to mourn characters when they actually do die, to breaking the suspension of disbelief within the universe. It dissolves all tension, all of the impact that a good character death can have, when in the back of the audience's mind, they're thinking of all of the other times that characters have 'died' or died and gotten resurrected. Why trick the audience with an emotional bait and switch? What narrative purpose does this serve other than shock value? By devaluing character deaths, it creates an emotional separation between the audience and the character, which is the exact opposite of a good thing. 

The truth is, is that the MCU does not allow the characters nor the audience to fully mourn the deaths of the characters, or even believe their deaths at times, abusing and overusing the intended effect of a character death. 

An argue against this is that sometimes death is sudden, and sometimes, in reality, we don't have time to process death as it happens. And to that I say: fiction - much less, superhero movies -  aren't real life. The writers/directors can and should give the characters and the audience the mourning time they deserve. These are characters we've spent hours with. Give the fictional dead and their fictional loved ones respect and care. 

Wow, it sounds like I'm crazy, doesn't it?

~The WordShaker

Why I Don't Like Tony Stark

"Characters do not change.  Opinions alter, but characters are only developed," -Benjamin Disraeli

Tony Stark, brilliant mastermind.  Playboy turned superhero. While the character was created for the specific purpose of making an unlikable person a likable character, I do not find him very likable past tolerance and the occasional chuckle at his wit. And there's one key reason why. 

Tony's only redeeming qualities are his wit, his ability to make someone laugh.  His sense of humor is enjoyable, 'only-funny-because-it's-true' kind of thing, while being self-deprecating. His quick, deadpan responses make him an enthralling watch, my own mind racing to catch up to the challenge. But the reason that he's not a deep, beautiful, and complex character is because he shows no vulnerability. 

We attach to the characters we do because of a deep human need to be understood, to empathize and overcome. Steve Rogers is a relatable character because we see the greatness in him, and realize that we have the potential to be just as great.  And despite all of the amazing things Steve can do, he is irrevocably and humbly human. His reaction to Bucky's 'death' is much like anyone else's grief of a death.  And the horror and shock of Bucky's return is felt on a deep level, resounding with every once of betrayal we've felt. Natasha Romanoff is strong and resillient, yet is ultimately taking a path well tread of redemption.  Because that is all we aspire to be.  Natasha is relatable because her journey of hard-earned redemption, turning from bad to good, is one we all can relate to on some level. 

But again, almost nothing about Stark is relatable.  He's a billionare, which 99 percent of the population can only dream of that kind of money. He's a genius, which on some level is an appointed title, but, really, how many geniuses do you know?  Sure, an awful part of us wishes we had all that money and alcohol and girls, but is that gluttony and lust something to aspire to?  Characters are supposed to relate to us and lift us up at the same time.  Tony Stark does none of this. 

Tony Stark seems the least human out of all of the Avengers.  Even Thor, a god, whose human side was displayed beautifully in his first movie, has tapped into his human potential more than the actual homosapien Stark has. The reason Stark has nothing of value to offer as a character is because we never become personal with him.  We never sympathize with him because he just seems to perfect and sassy all of the time.  We never cheer for him because the stakes never seem high enough. We never can develop a personal character to receiver relationship (yes, that's a thing) because he is never emotionally or physically vulnerable, making him not a strong or likable in terms of any definition of the word 'character'. 

#SorryNotSorry

~The WordShaker

Avengers vs. X-Men: 6 Reasons Why the X-Men Franchise is Superior in Every Way

In light of the new Avengers movie coming out, I decided to go against the flow and tell all of you why the X-Men are leaps and bounds better than the Avengers.  Now, the Avengers aren't bad by any means, but the X-Men are just so much better. And here are my 6 reasons why. 

*Disclaimer: My knowledge of the Avengers and X-Men extends just beyond the movies, so I will only be discussing  mainly the movie realm.  If you don't like that, then you can write your own article with all your fancy comic-book knowledge.*

SPOILERS, duh. 

3 Reasons why The X-Men are Superior to the Avengers

1. The Wonderful Characters
The complexity of Wolverine, the elusiveness of Mystique, the vile nature of Magneto, the goofy Quicksilver, the classy and cool Professor X.  The characters in the X-Men are diverse and real.  Being more general, the X-Men are ten times more relatable because, in the end, they are just real people with genetic mutations.  Rogue is just a teenage girl who cannot have what every person needs - human contact. Charles Xavier was just a boy when he thought he was going crazy when he heard everyone else's thoughts. Mystique is not comfortable in her own skin because she can be in anyone's skin. Peter Maximoff is just a teenager who uses his super-speed to steal 2 liter bottles of coke and pull pranks. Erik Lehnsherr is only evil because an evil man who hated mutants killed his mother. All of these things make the X-Men just a band of ordinary people with extraordinary powers in extraordinary situations. And we cannot forget the amazing bromance between Charles and Erik. In the end, the X-Men are less super, and more heroes. 


2. The Science Behind the X-Men is Much More Interesting and Realistic
I like science fiction.  But when I watch/read science fiction, I want it to be somewhat plausible.  Hey, that's just me. I have always found the science behind the X-Men to be much more cohesive and realistic.  Society is just on the cusp of genetic discovery, and we have been for the last ten-or-so years.  Genetic testing and research has been progressing for leaps and bounds, and since the X-Men focuses on this and takes a very relevant topic to today and puts a science-fiction spin on it, the X-Men in general prove to have more of an interesting concept that can be applied to today, whereas the Avengers and their powers are more scattered and not as cohesive as the X-Men. 

3. The Gritty, Realistic Spin on Superheroes in the 21st Century
The mutants pose a threat because of their evolutionary diversity and dominance. And the Avengers pose a threat because of their powers and the mass destruction they can truly cause.  Except the difference between the X-Men and the Avengers is society's reaction to them. Society's reaction to the mutants is realistic, with fear.  The government gets involved and they are trying to change them because they different.  And nearly anything different poses a threat. This serves as a metaphor to how people react to things they don't understand: with fear and hostility. 

The mutants have powerful, human reactions as well. Rouge hates her powers.  She hates it so much that she gives in, and takes the antidote that changes her so she can have human contact. And Erik - he gets egotistical.  He lords his powers over everyone, and puts himself on a pedestal.  Some use their powers for good, and some for bad.  And the innate motivations they have behind their choice for good or evil are clear cut and relatable. 

Another theme I enjoy is that it's less about fighting evil, but about fighting the evil within.  Think of it as two sides to the same coin. There are good mutants, there are bad mutants.  There are mutants that don't care.  There are mutants who hide.  There are many shades of gray within the spectrum, which is much more realistic than the conflicts within the Avengers.  It is always good versus evil, nearly no shades of gray.  While I will admit that Age of Ultron better displays this concept, it is still nothing like the X-Men franchise.  Because the X-Men is about those shades of grey, and how sometimes good and evil are just two sides of the same coin. 

3 Reasons why The Avengers aren't as Amazing as Everyone Says

1. The Unfortunate Character Archetypes

Captain America, the fearless leader. Tony Stark, the smart one with a mouth. Hulk, the strong one. Black Widow, the girl. And Thor . . . whatever Thor does. Unfortunately, the characters in the Avengers have always come off to me as cardboard, only standing out by their fancy outfits and their powers.  Not by who they really are, by but what they can do.  They have always appeared to me as an elite breed of humans who aren't like me, which, in turn, make them much less relatable. Relatability is what makes or breaks a character, and, in my opinion, all of the Avengers are broken.  It's not that I don't feel for them, but they seem too plastic and molded to pop off of the page as individuals. 

2. The Boring Villains and Plots

Yeah, everyone loves Loki.  But why?  Only because he's attractive. Loki never seemed a force to be reckoned with - Thor could defeat him in his sleep.  Unfortunately, I never cared why he was evil, what he was doing.  Also, I never doubted that the Avengers could defeat him.  Ultron did seem like much more of a threat, but again, he lacked things that made a villain convincing and truly evil. 

And here, I just have one question: If the villain is already so evil and powerful, why do they need these huge armies of thousands that can be taken out by the Avengers with one punch of their fists?  As a distraction, probably, but that is just a weak plot device that every villain uses - and hardly ever works. 

To me, the Avengers always seemed to reliant on the action sequences.  The plot moved along based on the scenes with action, not the scenes based on plot or character development.  The heavy emphasis on the action shows how weak that the Avengers franchise truly is, whereas I was never under that impression in any other Marvel franchise. 

And Ultron.  Oh, Ultron. You were much better than Loki - whom everyone liked only because he was 'beautiful' - but not what was needed here. The Avengers are strong - they're human and they're flawed and they are a band of heroes who really need a strong villain to single-handedly oppose them.  Whereas I saw Ultron as a physical threat, I never saw in him the depth that a villain needs to resonate with me.  He was sadistic and menacing, but he never rang truly evil.  The best antagonists are just as human as the protagonists, but they have given in to their dark side because of internal or external forces.  And I very much enjoy that concept in a villain and a hero.  But the thing that made Ultron not stick in my memory was because he wasn't human.  He had no moral compass, he had nothing he cared about because he was a robot, he had no back story, and that's the problem with Ultron.  He was never a mental or emotional force to be reckoned with.  Sometimes, he was so sadistic, that he made me cringe and draw back.  So no, Marvel, you can do so much better with your villains.  

Take Magneto for example.  Magneto is one of the most amazing and flawless villains Marvel has ever created.  He is the main antagonist in most of the X-Men films, but he is never boring. Just, I don't even think I can fit the amazingness of Magneto into one blog post, so just, read up on him yourself and learn how to appreciate a great villain. 

Also, I have a post coming up about my two favorite villains, so stay tuned for that. 

3. The Glossy, Gaudy Universe, which Turned Sadistic in AoU

I feel like that the Avengers are more for kids, but X-Men is more for the mature teens and adults. All of the Avengers are elevated like gods, with their fancy suits and colors.  The Avengers are polished to a shine, and, I've noticed that they are over-glorified by the society that they save.  But I don't think that that's how our society would react.  Our society as a whole would be afraid.  Maybe the children and the individual people they save would love them, but the adults that are reading about them in the news, the government observing this, they would be suspicious, they would be afraid because of the power and advantage they have over the average Joe. This is one of the reasons that I like the Spider-Man movie franchise, is because they touch on this subject frequently. But the Avengers are these glossy, perfect people despite their pasts. 

And moving on to Age of Ultron.  I feel like the directors realized that the Avengers were lighter and fluffier than other Marvel movies, so they darkened the tone - a lot. Unfortunately, this didn't sell with me so well.  I found that I left the movie feeling depressed.  But with the X-Men movies, I never felt that way.  With all of the bad things that happened, I always left with that feeling of a greater hope. 

And we cannot forget the unfortunate case of Quicksilver and Quicksilver

Again, X-Men trumps the Avengers here. I felt that, however much they tried, the Avenger's Quicksilver, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, stayed flat to me. He always appeared to be just Wanda's minion, who, in turn, was just Ultron's minion. Pietro never had anything to him that made him jump off the screen.  Unfortunately, he was always just kind of . . . there.  He never had any stand-alone quality like all of the main Avengers have. The only reason I was sad that he died, because I felt deeply for Scarlet Witch, although I will admit that it was very tragic how he died. But his death was his only redeeming quality. And his poorly constructed back story only served as a plot device to get Wanda and Pietro on Ultron's side, yet this was entirely disregarded when  the Maximoff twins joined the Avengers. 

Peter Maximoff, played by Evan Peters, raced off the screen.  He stole every scene he was in, but was unfortunately shoved under the rug when his part of the story was done for. But Evan Peter's interpretation of Quicksilver was very entertaining and well done. He seemed very realistic to me, because he was portrayed as your average teenage boy, who just happened to have super speed. Like any teenager would, he used his powers not for good or bad, but for his own personal gain. This opened the X-Men up to the possibility that there are people like this all over the X-Men universe, making it down-to-earth. 

However, Taylor-Johnson and Peters both were given two different interpretations of a character, but the X-Men Quicksilver surpassed the Avenger's one. 

Again, these are all my interpretations and opinions. This is 100% biased because this is me and this is what I like.  But, in the end, The Avengers is a fun, action-packed movie for entertainment purposes, and Age of Ultron takes it to a darker level, and the X-Men is a gritty, intelligent movie that studies the human condition and hypothetical genetic mutations. But how much does it really matter, anyways? 

Hope you enjoyed this, nerds and geeks far and wide,

~The WordShaker