(no subject)
Aug. 3rd, 2019 11:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWhile it was thunderbolt and lightening, very very frightening...I was rewatching Infinity War, which I just finished watching on Netflix, and now Avenger's Endgame, that I enjoyed so much I bought it (the version with the bonus material) for $19.99 (which is actually cheaper than what I spent to see it in the theaters, yeah, I know, go figure.).
The lightening storm last night -- that didn't really appear to have much rain (at least not in my area - no clue about elsewhere), was like watching natural fireworks - and it was frightening in the way that well -- it could hit things. Although for the most part it seemed to sit back in the clouds. Interesting - we've had more frequent lightening storms in New York this year than in previous years.
Regarding Avengers: Endgame? I didn't have the issues some of the people on my flist and I've met elsewhere appear to have had with it. Mainly because I didn't really ship any of the individual characters (I liked them, but I wasn't obsessed or fannish about any of them or their relationships), nor did I have a pre-existing story or idea of where I wanted them to go in my head. I was more interested in the story as a whole and the embedded metaphors within it -- also I found it relatable in a way that I can't put into words. For me, the story is brilliant for the most part and the characters (sometimes annoyingly so, in character). What I liked about it -- was they were shown with flaws firmly intact. With competing egos, insecurities, and selfish intent that often got in the way of their mission or what they were trying to do as a team. (Very realistic and human. People are annoyingly selfish, insecure, with big egos.)
I was thinking about it last night, because I'd read a critique online about how Endgame screwed up Captain America's story. (I honestly didn't see that at all -- and I've watched all the movies several times, and recently.)
But I also am rather ambivalent about Captain America. The character has never interested me that much. I've never read fanfic about him, nor would I. I have seen him in the comics, but I haven't read his comics nor have much interest. This is also true of "Thor" -- I was always deeply ambivalent about Thor and Loki. I never read their comics nor have I read any fanfic related to them. Nor do I really want to. The Thor comic that I am reading is about Jane Foster and Loki, Thor himself isn't shown. I think the only character in the main Avenger's lineup that I might have been a little fannish about is Tony Stark -- because of Robert Downey Jr. And I have read one or two Iron Man comics, but I've never been interested in the fanfic.
I've picked up on a pattern among viewers of Endgame. The one's who loved the movie like I did, weren't invested in individual characters happiness. They hadn't written or read any fanfic on the MCU, they didn't necessarily read all the comics -- maybe dabbled. While the people who did read lots of fanfic, comics, and were highly invested -- were disappointed. They did love the movies, and they had seen all of them more than once -- but they hadn't gotten overly invested in specific character arcs. They weren't say just fans of Captain America/Bucky or Hawkeye. But fans of the "MCU" movie series as a whole. (When I discussed the films with a guy on a friend's FB post, he made a point of how comic nerds preferred Batman vs. Superman because they'd read the comic -- and it fit the comic perfectly. While the people who loved the movies or movie superhero fans preferred the MCU films and hated Batman vs. Superman, because the movies veered from the comic world. (As an aside, no, they didn't veer completely, and unlike the Batman vs. Superman comic which was a one-shot comic, the MCU films were based on a very convoluted story arc in the Avengers comics that contained characters that could not be put in the films for various intellectual property rights reasons. But in regards to how viewers react to content based on what they bring to it -- it is a fair point.)
This pattern is NOT isolated to the MCU films or Endgame. I'd dismiss it if it was.
But I picked up on the same pattern emerging with the Game of Thrones Finale. Whether you liked it or not, depended a great deal on what characters you were most invested in, and how emotionally invested you were in an outcome that was in your head or you saw coming. For example, my friends in Martha's Vineyard who binged the whole series in about two or three months, enjoyed the ending. They had no issues. They didn't analyze it, they weren't invested, they hadn't waited two years for the finale season. In addition, people online who were invested in Ayra, Jon, Brandon, Sansa and Tyrion's arcs and didn't care about anything else -- loved it. Those who were invested in Jamie and Dany, hated it. But, I noticed that among coworkers and people online -- the people who watched it casually liked the finale better than the "Fans" did.
Buffy? Same pattern more or less. Those who read a lot of fanfic and watched it in real time -- not on DVDs had more issues with the finale seasons.
What I'm picking up on -- is well, we all interpret the facts and images presented to us very differently. Almost as if we aren't watching or looking at the same thing at all. Also our memory plays tricks on us. For example? I recently was watching a television series and thought the writer was Barbara Wood. I clearly had that name in my head. I deleted the show. I got into a debate with someone on social media, who insisted no, that was Barbara Bloom, and the writers of the dialogue were Scott Sickles and... That night I went home and checked on Demand, the social media person was correct. I'd been doing more than one thing during the telecast, saw the name Barbara and my memory may have put it with another name I saw that same night.
It taught me that memory plays tricks on us. It's why every time we see something, we think -- wait I don't remember seeing THAT before.
I was watching Endgame last night and picked up on Karen Gillian's character carrying Stark and laying him gently in his pilot's seat for sleep. He'd been on the floor. I didn't remember seeing that scene in the movie theater. I rewound, fascinated.
And we focus on different things -- one person watching Endgame may focus on Captain America -- and his interest in Peggy, with deep annoyance, because they were invested in the Cap/Bucky relationship. While another may be focusing on Tony Stark, and how Cap related to him, and others do. And another might just be seeing Thor's annoying antics. And a third -- might be focused on Black Widow and relating only to her, and not seeing the rest. Someone else may be distracted by the time travel bit and how that works, and it doesn't make sense to them.
Then of course there's reading and writing fanfic, not to mention the source material, comics -- and if it conflicts with the story on screen, and you preferred the fic or comics better....This happened to me with the X-men franchise. Dark Phoenix, I liked better than most people did, because at least this time -- it was closer to the original source material. Also no Wolverine. But at the same time, I remember being annoyed that Magneto and Xavier got all the attention -- because the original source material and characters were vivid in my head. I liked Days of Future Past, one of the previous movies better -- because that original source material wasn't vivid in my head. It's why it can be heard for people who LOVED a book to watch a film adaptation of the book, unless of course it plays out exactly the way it did in their heads.
How we view things says so much about how we think and process information. And our decisions and behavior in response to that information. For example? Five people witness a crime. They will all respond to it differently. And each will see something different, their perspectives most likely will conflict or contradict each other. And what they each see will be affected by where they were in proximity to the crime, what they were thinking about at the time it occurred, physical limitations in regards to perception of it, and how emotionally they were invested.
If a convenience store is being robbed -- the person who visits it every day will relate differently than someone who just dropped in for a pack of smokes. Or the clerk behind the desk who is being robbed will see something very different than a teen hiding behind a stack of magazines, trying to call 9-1-1. Or say the old lady who brushed past the robber when he came into the store, on her way out.
Point of view fascinates me in stories -- because often the characters contradict each other in amusing fashions. It's also why I love to read reviews of things I've seen and see contradictory reviews or takes on the same show, movie, or art. Because we all see it so differently. And relate to it differently. Can art be persuasive and change things? Well on an individual level, yes, I think it can, but not necessarily en mass for the reasons stated above.
In other news, my allergies are still beating me up this weekend. I don't know if going outside and walking about will help.
The lightening storm last night -- that didn't really appear to have much rain (at least not in my area - no clue about elsewhere), was like watching natural fireworks - and it was frightening in the way that well -- it could hit things. Although for the most part it seemed to sit back in the clouds. Interesting - we've had more frequent lightening storms in New York this year than in previous years.
Regarding Avengers: Endgame? I didn't have the issues some of the people on my flist and I've met elsewhere appear to have had with it. Mainly because I didn't really ship any of the individual characters (I liked them, but I wasn't obsessed or fannish about any of them or their relationships), nor did I have a pre-existing story or idea of where I wanted them to go in my head. I was more interested in the story as a whole and the embedded metaphors within it -- also I found it relatable in a way that I can't put into words. For me, the story is brilliant for the most part and the characters (sometimes annoyingly so, in character). What I liked about it -- was they were shown with flaws firmly intact. With competing egos, insecurities, and selfish intent that often got in the way of their mission or what they were trying to do as a team. (Very realistic and human. People are annoyingly selfish, insecure, with big egos.)
I was thinking about it last night, because I'd read a critique online about how Endgame screwed up Captain America's story. (I honestly didn't see that at all -- and I've watched all the movies several times, and recently.)
But I also am rather ambivalent about Captain America. The character has never interested me that much. I've never read fanfic about him, nor would I. I have seen him in the comics, but I haven't read his comics nor have much interest. This is also true of "Thor" -- I was always deeply ambivalent about Thor and Loki. I never read their comics nor have I read any fanfic related to them. Nor do I really want to. The Thor comic that I am reading is about Jane Foster and Loki, Thor himself isn't shown. I think the only character in the main Avenger's lineup that I might have been a little fannish about is Tony Stark -- because of Robert Downey Jr. And I have read one or two Iron Man comics, but I've never been interested in the fanfic.
I've picked up on a pattern among viewers of Endgame. The one's who loved the movie like I did, weren't invested in individual characters happiness. They hadn't written or read any fanfic on the MCU, they didn't necessarily read all the comics -- maybe dabbled. While the people who did read lots of fanfic, comics, and were highly invested -- were disappointed. They did love the movies, and they had seen all of them more than once -- but they hadn't gotten overly invested in specific character arcs. They weren't say just fans of Captain America/Bucky or Hawkeye. But fans of the "MCU" movie series as a whole. (When I discussed the films with a guy on a friend's FB post, he made a point of how comic nerds preferred Batman vs. Superman because they'd read the comic -- and it fit the comic perfectly. While the people who loved the movies or movie superhero fans preferred the MCU films and hated Batman vs. Superman, because the movies veered from the comic world. (As an aside, no, they didn't veer completely, and unlike the Batman vs. Superman comic which was a one-shot comic, the MCU films were based on a very convoluted story arc in the Avengers comics that contained characters that could not be put in the films for various intellectual property rights reasons. But in regards to how viewers react to content based on what they bring to it -- it is a fair point.)
This pattern is NOT isolated to the MCU films or Endgame. I'd dismiss it if it was.
But I picked up on the same pattern emerging with the Game of Thrones Finale. Whether you liked it or not, depended a great deal on what characters you were most invested in, and how emotionally invested you were in an outcome that was in your head or you saw coming. For example, my friends in Martha's Vineyard who binged the whole series in about two or three months, enjoyed the ending. They had no issues. They didn't analyze it, they weren't invested, they hadn't waited two years for the finale season. In addition, people online who were invested in Ayra, Jon, Brandon, Sansa and Tyrion's arcs and didn't care about anything else -- loved it. Those who were invested in Jamie and Dany, hated it. But, I noticed that among coworkers and people online -- the people who watched it casually liked the finale better than the "Fans" did.
Buffy? Same pattern more or less. Those who read a lot of fanfic and watched it in real time -- not on DVDs had more issues with the finale seasons.
What I'm picking up on -- is well, we all interpret the facts and images presented to us very differently. Almost as if we aren't watching or looking at the same thing at all. Also our memory plays tricks on us. For example? I recently was watching a television series and thought the writer was Barbara Wood. I clearly had that name in my head. I deleted the show. I got into a debate with someone on social media, who insisted no, that was Barbara Bloom, and the writers of the dialogue were Scott Sickles and... That night I went home and checked on Demand, the social media person was correct. I'd been doing more than one thing during the telecast, saw the name Barbara and my memory may have put it with another name I saw that same night.
It taught me that memory plays tricks on us. It's why every time we see something, we think -- wait I don't remember seeing THAT before.
I was watching Endgame last night and picked up on Karen Gillian's character carrying Stark and laying him gently in his pilot's seat for sleep. He'd been on the floor. I didn't remember seeing that scene in the movie theater. I rewound, fascinated.
And we focus on different things -- one person watching Endgame may focus on Captain America -- and his interest in Peggy, with deep annoyance, because they were invested in the Cap/Bucky relationship. While another may be focusing on Tony Stark, and how Cap related to him, and others do. And another might just be seeing Thor's annoying antics. And a third -- might be focused on Black Widow and relating only to her, and not seeing the rest. Someone else may be distracted by the time travel bit and how that works, and it doesn't make sense to them.
Then of course there's reading and writing fanfic, not to mention the source material, comics -- and if it conflicts with the story on screen, and you preferred the fic or comics better....This happened to me with the X-men franchise. Dark Phoenix, I liked better than most people did, because at least this time -- it was closer to the original source material. Also no Wolverine. But at the same time, I remember being annoyed that Magneto and Xavier got all the attention -- because the original source material and characters were vivid in my head. I liked Days of Future Past, one of the previous movies better -- because that original source material wasn't vivid in my head. It's why it can be heard for people who LOVED a book to watch a film adaptation of the book, unless of course it plays out exactly the way it did in their heads.
How we view things says so much about how we think and process information. And our decisions and behavior in response to that information. For example? Five people witness a crime. They will all respond to it differently. And each will see something different, their perspectives most likely will conflict or contradict each other. And what they each see will be affected by where they were in proximity to the crime, what they were thinking about at the time it occurred, physical limitations in regards to perception of it, and how emotionally they were invested.
If a convenience store is being robbed -- the person who visits it every day will relate differently than someone who just dropped in for a pack of smokes. Or the clerk behind the desk who is being robbed will see something very different than a teen hiding behind a stack of magazines, trying to call 9-1-1. Or say the old lady who brushed past the robber when he came into the store, on her way out.
Point of view fascinates me in stories -- because often the characters contradict each other in amusing fashions. It's also why I love to read reviews of things I've seen and see contradictory reviews or takes on the same show, movie, or art. Because we all see it so differently. And relate to it differently. Can art be persuasive and change things? Well on an individual level, yes, I think it can, but not necessarily en mass for the reasons stated above.
In other news, my allergies are still beating me up this weekend. I don't know if going outside and walking about will help.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-04 02:28 pm (UTC)As for Endgame, I loved the ending Captain America had, because I really appreciate when a character gets something good in their life. I loved all the Captain America movies, and he had lost so much. To finally have the chance to go back and have a life with Peggy was fitting to me.
I don't really understand why people hate it so much.
But then, though I read lots of fanfic - including Bucky/Steve and Bucky/Hawkeye, and others, I don't let that influence my love of what happens in the movies.
I thought the Black Widow dying made sense. In her mind, if what they were trying to do worked, Hawkeye would have his family back. She gave him the gift of being with them, which I thought spoke well of their love and partnership.
Ironman had had Pepper and his child, and he died the hero he really wanted to be. Was it sad? Yes, but it was a meaningful death. Pepper was there and she told him it was all right to rest now. Even she recognized that he'd done what he wanted, and would now have what he deserved - a savior rather than a merchant of death.
I love the comics, which are different from the movies. I love the movies which are different from the fanfic. I love the fanfic which is different from everything else.
I just don't get the being so invested in one aspect of story-telling that you can't enjoy the others.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-04 03:09 pm (UTC)As for Endgame, I loved the ending Captain America had, because I really appreciate when a character gets something good in their life. I loved all the Captain America movies, and he had lost so much. To finally have the chance to go back and have a life with Peggy was fitting to me.
I don't really understand why people hate it so much.
I think they were heavily invested in the Bucky/Steve pairing? Also they viewed the Captain America films as being about that relationship -- which I can see someone doing. But it sort of ignores everything else about the character.
Anyhow, I didn't see it that way. For me, the films are more about why Steve chose to become Captain America -- and coming to terms with that decision and realizing that his reasons had less to do with defending his country no matter what, and more to do with fighting bullies. Which he was willing to sacrifice a great deal for -- up to a point. His relationship with Bucky, I felt, was just a deep friendship or that they were brothers -- and he felt he owed Bucky a great deal. But his reasons for helping Bucky in both Winter Solider and Civil War were more complex and had a great deal to do with why he became Captain America to begin with. The films are really an excellent exploration of what it means to defend one's country and what it means to stand up for what one believes in. And that parallels Stark's arc, which is similar to Steve's. (It's why I loved the movies and the characters in the films so much.)
Also, I felt the Steve/Bucky relationship sort of played itself out. Steve owed Bucky -- but he wasn't in love with Bucky. He was in love with Peggy -- and what a lot of viewers don't seem to understand is from Steve's perspective -- he fell in love with Peggy Carter the day before he woke up from being frozen. Forty-Fifty years didn't pass for Steve, from Steve's perspective -- he traveled a Forty-Fifty years into the future against his will and lost everything as a result. Peggy was the one for him. Some people are like that -- they find one person and that's it for them, or they find no one at all. It makes complete sense that when given the opportunity, Steve decides to stay in his own time with Peggy Carter.
He no longer needs to be a hero -- he was already one. After he returns the stones to each respective time line -- to ensure that this timeline plays itself out and will still exist. The present has become his past, his future is with Peggy in the 1950s, where he doesn't have to be a superhero any longer.
I just don't get the being so invested in one aspect of story-telling that you can't enjoy the others.
I've never totally understood it myself. I mean -- if you are only invested in one storyline -- how can you watch all these films and enjoy them?
Or an entire television series?
It's what sort of boggled my mind in regards to the Buffy fandom. So many people were invested in just one character or relationship, and often a relationship that was clearly doomed.
It felt very masochistic to me.
I liked the whole story, and all the characters for the most part. Now, years later, not so much -- but I have no interest in re-watching it now.
It's sort of like watching a baseball game and the only player you care about is the pitcher, and it's just one pitcher. The game is going to be rather boring if that is all you care about.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-04 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-05 12:26 am (UTC)I do find that if I'm very invested in a specific part of a story--most often, in one particular character--I have a hard time disconnecting enough to enjoy reading wildly different takes on the medium. It's aggravating rather than amusing.
(I used to be more of an ensemble kind of viewer; even when I had favorite characters, my preferences weren't so extreme that I couldn't appreciate the wider story. Lately, though, I find that I gravitate more strongly to certain characters, which can make it harder to enjoy that bigger picture.)
no subject
Date: 2019-08-05 02:08 am (UTC)I'd put them above the Star Trek and Star Wars flicks. What they do well is explore all the characters, provide character moments and arcs for each and every one, and build up to well-choreographed action sequences. Also do a good job of setting.
Singular character stories are far easier to pull off -- one point of view, no juggling, and your characterization is centralized.
But an ensemble character story is really hard to pull off well. Star Wars couldn't do it -- they could do three characters but no more than that. Shame.
And Star Trek...sigh, no.
Long-running serials do it better -- more time to build up each character and less exposition. You don't have to explain as much, if you can build up by movie to movie.
The MCU is innovative and revolutionary in that it is the first time anyone has pulled off and done it well -- a series of movies that build on each other, and in which several can be watched separately, while others can't, over a ten year time span. Star Trek tried and failed. Star Wars tried and failed. Their mistake was not building on the previous films and exploring all the characters as opposed to the one or two leads.
MCU changed how a lot of people view movies and see them. Sort of brilliant in a way.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-06 04:13 am (UTC)Eh. Civil War had plenty of flaws, and shortly after that, Age of Ultron was mediocre; add in how bloated both films felt, with such a large cast of characters... I just lost interest in the idea of watching more of the big-cast stories. Especially since some of the characters that were going to show up in the next ensemble films were of no interest to me. (I watched 30 minutes of Guardians of the Galaxy and hated Peter Quill; I never bothered watching Doctor Strange because I wasn't interested, and I didn't want to see yet another iteration of Peter Parker.) But that's just my take on it.
Star Wars tried and failed. Their mistake was not building on the previous films and exploring all the characters as opposed to the one or two leads.
Absolutely. I really enjoyed VII for its the introduction of Rey and Finn, but the movie was out of balance with the stories for old and new characters. I thought LucasFilm would do some course correction in VIII, but it only exacerbated the problems.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-06 12:39 pm (UTC)Mileage varies, I suppose. See post above about how we are watching different shows. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2019-08-06 04:45 pm (UTC)I think from what you state above, if none of the characters interest you, you're done? I get that.
Age of Ultron is one of those films that weirdly enough improves upon re-watching. I hated it in the theater. Then I re-watched after seeing the films that came after -- and it's weirdly brilliant in retrospect. Since it sets up Civil War, Winter Solider, Thor: Ragnoarck, etc. The series works better after Ultron as a serial in some respects, but if you personally hate serials in film format. And despised any of the characters in the films (I loved all the characters and adore serials), then it would never have worked for you. It's not that the series doesn't work -- it's that it's not to your specific taste, which is two separate things. While in direct contrast, I did love all the characters in Star Wars, and do love serials, but it just fell apart -- and lost me. I think the flaws in that series are more technical or objective, than subjective ones. Which is why the MCU films have overall done much better.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-05 07:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-05 12:24 pm (UTC)That was my reaction to it as well and I gave up for the same reasons. The writer clearly couldn't see anything but their ship. They were only watching for Steve/Bucky. I've seen this as an on-going trend in fandom, where they really are just watching for their ship, whether it's canonical or not. Doesn't matter the fandom. And MCU, people were upset if their favorite character died -- oh the series is horrible because of that. (Well, no, as long as the death was earned and worked for the arc.) It's almost as if -- all that matters to the viewer is that their ship ride off in the sunset, doesn't matter how, the rest of the story doesn't matter to them.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-05 12:26 pm (UTC)Oh forgot to add -- I've discovered that I enjoy stories more and understand them more when I'm not overly focused on one character or ship. When I'm obsessed with just one character or ship, I tend to sometimes lose the rest of the story.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-05 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-06 02:22 am (UTC)I think this is true of books and art as well. My brother was a conceptual artist whose thesis was that people interact with art, and the art doesn't exist until they interact with it -- or their interaction creates the artistic experience. His final project was an installation piece, where he put up plots of grass, slides of dirt and other things and called it skin and portions of the anatomy, stragetically laying it out -- to see how people interacted with it and reacted to it.
Another piece he did, far more controversial, was a performance piece -- where he pretended to request charitable donations in order to provide "Arms for the Homeless" -- in Columbus, Ohio. He completely fooled the media. Which was part of the performance.
He demonstrated through each -- the people believed and saw what they wanted to see or believe. One person looked at the grass and saw grass, another saw skin...and the metaphor of it clearly, while another made up a different story. The same with the Arms for the Homeless -- the media bought it without questioning it, while others were more skeptical, and some believed it was a good idea. (This was back in the early 1990s, about 1991.)
no subject
Date: 2019-08-06 02:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-06 01:10 pm (UTC)Probably done that, considering he's now a retired graphic designer, farming his land (he doesn't sell the produce) and rebuilding his house in upstate NY. At the ripe old age of 49.