I was ok with the Avengers, but the one big problem with the team movies, is that they're written by Joss Whedon. I know he's well liked as a writer, but he's a rather... simplistic writer in some concerns.
For one thing, he completely does NOT get Steve Rogers, (or Thor for that matter). In contrast to the Russos who do. He writes Steve way more simplistic than the character actually is, because, in some ways like you, he sees him as a simplistic character. Which Steve Rogers plain out isn't. It's the mistake a lot of people make, that just because a character is good and heroic, that that means they have to be flawless or boring. They don't. But they're not as easy to write, and are more demanding to the writer.
It's why for many years, writers wrote Scott Summers as the one dimensional leader with a stick up his butt, instead of the complex character he is. A lot of writers go for the easy characters, boring ones like Wolverine, or Gambit.
The thing is that there's nothing more complex, nothing harder to write, than a good man. (or woman)And Whedon made the mistake with Steve, that he made with Riley as well, which is to see them as one dimensional characters, rather than the complex mature characters that they actually are.
Thor for example was a flawed character, who made mistakes.(one of which being almost causing a war due to his own shortsightedness) Only unlike Loki, he got over himself and his own issues, learned humility and became a better person in consequence. That's why I like his character. That and the actor managed to play him as both wise and naive at the same time. Whereas Loki has always bored me, because he's one of those characters that sound complex, while they're really rather one dimensional jerks.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2015-11-29 03:20 pm (UTC)For one thing, he completely does NOT get Steve Rogers, (or Thor for that matter). In contrast to the Russos who do. He writes Steve way more simplistic than the character actually is, because, in some ways like you, he sees him as a simplistic character. Which Steve Rogers plain out isn't. It's the mistake a lot of people make, that just because a character is good and heroic, that that means they have to be flawless or boring. They don't. But they're not as easy to write, and are more demanding to the writer.
It's why for many years, writers wrote Scott Summers as the one dimensional leader with a stick up his butt, instead of the complex character he is. A lot of writers go for the easy characters, boring ones like Wolverine, or Gambit.
The thing is that there's nothing more complex, nothing harder to write, than a good man. (or woman)And Whedon made the mistake with Steve, that he made with Riley as well, which is to see them as one dimensional characters, rather than the complex mature characters that they actually are.
Thor for example was a flawed character, who made mistakes.(one of which being almost causing a war due to his own shortsightedness) Only unlike Loki, he got over himself and his own issues, learned humility and became a better person in consequence. That's why I like his character. That and the actor managed to play him as both wise and naive at the same time. Whereas Loki has always bored me, because he's one of those characters that sound complex, while they're really rather one dimensional jerks.