Pop culture stuff

[shadowkat]

I'll do the daily update later, I think.

1. I read an interesting interview with Harry Lennix regarding Joss Whedon and Justice League the other day - that haunts me. I feel as if the universe is poking me again? So I'm going to poke you, because this reminded me of something - I can be a self-righteous idiot sometimes. Can't we all? I don't get much comfort from that.

Harry Lennix - you most likely know as Boyd from Dollhouse. He is a 6'4 tall black man from the South Side of Chicago, in his fifties. And played the Martian Manhunter in Justice League - most of his role was scrapped when Whedon took over.

The reason there’s a Snyder Cut is because Zack was replaced by Joss Whedon on the movie. As you know, Ray Fisher has alleged that Joss engaged in misconduct during the shoot. You worked with Joss on two seasons of “Dollhouse,” so I wanted to ask if you had any thoughts on the matter?

I wasn’t there during the time in question. I am sorry that anybody had to experience what it was that was described. Obviously, there’s one side of the story that we’ve heard. I don’t know that Joss has made any comments. As you point out, I worked with Joss fairly closely for a couple of years there. I didn’t see that behavior, and at the same time, as an actor, my heart goes out to anybody that had to endure that kind of treatment. We get treated as a second-class citizens frequently. But I did not see it, and I would be curious as to what [Joss’s] response to this has been.

I just hope everybody can move on with their lives, to be honest with you. As a former seminarian, and as somebody who has made mistakes, I’ve been on either side of that equation.

Directors sometimes are insensitive to the needs or the feelings of actors, and sometimes actors are needy, and sometimes they are oversensitive. I know I can be. So that said, I hope whatever it was that happened, that people could move on, and — outside of some unforgivable thing — that people can forgive, not just each other, but forgive themselves. To say, “Look, I may have made this mistake in the past, now I know better, and I’m going to do better.” This was a different time. What was tolerable, five years ago, a year ago, is no longer, and we have to adapt to that. I think there’s some of that going on, that this is generational in some way. I know that Ray has it in himself to be better because of this, to be stronger, to have survived it. And I also hope that Joss can, too, that he can survive it, be the writer and creator that that he is and we can all be better because of it.

You’re looking at this with more empathy than I would say many observers have in light of what Ray has alleged, and what actors on “Angel” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” alleged about Joss on Wednesday. Were you experiences with Joss purely professional?

Yes. Utterly professional. I didn’t see any of that kind of behavior that I’m hearing about. But I’m in a different place. That kind of thing is not likely to happen to me, just cause I’m a big Black guy from the South Side of Chicago, that people are a little more circumspect in however they might think about treating me or talking to me. I think maybe we should give [Joss] another chance to respond, to see what his side of the story is. Not minimizing anybody’s story, not minimizing the experiences others had in any way. But I believe that we must learn to reconcile. And we must learn to move on.

We wouldn’t be able to take this into a court, per se, not really. What I’ve learned over the years is that two people could be telling the absolute truth from their point of view, and disagree on what those salient points are.

Whatever those salient points are, I think that everything that I have heard so far — and that’s not everything — is recoverable. And so to the extent that it’s recoverable, let’s recover from it and keep moving.Joss hasn’t commented, Ray hasn’t gone public with almost any details about what he says happened on “Justice League,” and WarnerMedia hasn’t revealed what the company learned in its investigation. So figuring out how to move forward is complicated in the absence of detail.

I agree, 100%. What I’ve been able to glean from the stories and the back and forth, such as it is — mostly the forth — is that nasty things were said, mean, insensitive things were said, that made certain people uncomfortable. That’s certainly something I’m familiar with actors having to endure. Indeed, that’s part of the process. People say “no” to us for any number of reasons, or tell us to lose weight or gain it or get taller or shorter or younger. That’s just the nature of the business — it’s a personal business. I am of the opinion that this is entirely fixable, and that really what needs to happen is a dialogue. I mean, the old standard in American jurisprudence is you have a right to face your accuser and to respond. I think that people have the right to present both sides of the case. In fact, it’s not just a right, I think it’s an obligation. I wonder what’s going to happen.

I'm remembering tonight a line from the Buffy episode I Only Have Eyes For You - where Giles tells Buffy that we forgive not for others but for ourselves. But it's more than that I think - we have to forgive ourselves for getting hurt and not handling it better or differently. It took me a very long time to forgive myself and others for things that happened twenty years ago or even just ten years ago. I think people forgive in their own time.

Our society is built on a ...painful foundation of punishment and retribution, which I'm not certain is all that helpful and often runs counter to forgiveness - and promotes revenge (in the name of Justice). This eye for an eye mentality has almost destroyed us more than once.

Our society often doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the phrase..."turn the other cheek" or "heap kindness upon thy enemy's head". Yet, if we pay attention to the stories told in various mediums - the lessons are there. In the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Buddhism, in the works of Shakespeare and Toni Morrison, Buffy, Angel, Star Wars, Hunger Games, Harry Potter, in Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Farscape, Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Breaking Bad, Black Sails, Crime and Punishement, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, Oliver Twist, Les Miserables, etc.

Every single one - teaches that compassion and mercy are more important and go further than vengeance. That love is better than hate or condemnation.

I was struck by Nick Brendan's statement - that there was cruelty and kindness, and he loved both CC and Whedon, the story isn't a kind one, and Whedon was cruel but also very kind, and he's not one to judge. And people can change. It haunts me too - this poor forty-nine year old man's statement from his hospital bed, while various folks are social media jeer at him from afar.

We are all more than one thing. I think. Humanity is. It is what makes us undeniably human the ability to be good and evil at the same time, and constantly have to choose between the two. And there's always more to every story. Something beneath the marketing spin. And there's alway another way of looking at it.

I can tell you stories about my time going in and out of Leavenworth Penitentiary. It was brief but very educational. Where I sat in a room, next to or across from a hit man, a felony-bank robber, drug dealers, and rapists. But at the end of the day? They were just people. My boss or advisor at the time used to tell us "There but for the Grace of God Go I" and I think that is very true. A different roll of the dice...

Every morning during the week, and often weekdays - I do a meditation entitled Loving Kindness, where I wish someone I care about, someone who is acquaintance, and someone I've difficulty with or dislike - loving kindness.
Doing it has made me less anxious, less irritable, less raging, and kinder.
The hardest part is the last one.

I am lucky.

And very grateful for a gift - in my life, I am constantly having my perspectives and assumptions questioned.

I remember discussing Justice League and the Snyder films with a woman a few years back. She'd invited me to see Black Panther. She's African-American, a Feminist, and very progressive, also sensitive. She prefers the DC films to the Marvel films, and loved the Snyder films, including Batman vs. Superman and even Justice League. I saw Man of Steel and Superman vs. Batman with another female friend, who is black by way of Brooklyn and the Caribbean. She's also liberal and progressive. She liked Man of Steel, but felt as I did that Batman vs. Superman was a tad too violent and slow. We had the same critique of Avengers Age of Ultron. My former college roommate who is an African-American woman in Boston - loves all of the MCU films, particularly adores Endgame.

Race and gender have nothing to do with how you perceive art as far as I can tell. Or much to do with politics. I know right-wing conservatives who adored Whedon's shows and Harry Potter. I know progressives who do.

And no one sees them the same way. My cubical mate who happens to Hispanic loved all the Superhero movies. He had issues with Last Jedi - because it was confusing and long. As I did.

I think sometimes its only academics and film critics who see anything more?
Most just see a fun movie that they escape into for a bit, then forget afterwards. They don't see movies to think, they see them to escape for a while.

I've learned over time not to care too much what others think. For it has more to do with them than me. And to try to see both sides of a person. This has helped me deal with more than one impossible work situation. All are on some level. No human is perfect.

To someone...we are most likely perceived as an asshole. And from their perspective? They are most likely right.

It reminds me of something else...that was stated in a commentary once - Seth Green and Whedon, Wild at Heart commentary - in it Whedon stated in response to Green's comment about how well Whedon handled villains. "Well," Whedon stated. "The villain never really sees themselves that way. In their eyes they are the hero, so I write them that way."

I wonder sometimes, if from a distance, are we percieved by others as the bad guy in the story or the good guy or neither?



2. I got annoyed - I realized that the four hour movie I was gearing myself up to watch and even looking forward to - isn't premiering until March 18. For some reason I kept reading 3/18/21 as 2/18/21.

3. Finished Illona Andrews self-published best-seller Blood Heir - a spin-off from her Kate Daniels verse. I read thirteen chapters of the draft version on her blog over the summer. I liked, in some respects, those chapters better. This feels paired down and exposition/back story heavy, also alot of action. I find action scenes kind of boring to read. They are like sex scenes - hard to right.

Also she gets preachy in the middle - feeling the need to have the lead preach about a new and better political system, which is based on a kind of magical/militaristic power dynamic. It's a problem that I have with Andrews novels - they each have a very strong power/militaristic base or thematic to them that I personally find off-putting, and have to constantly handwave to get to the bits I like.

It's a problem with the urban fantasy genre, to be honest. It has a heavy anti-hero/noir feel to it - and a kind of uneven power dynamic. Progressive this genre isn't. Yet, I love aspects of it - enough to hand wave the bits I don't. Also it helps me to understand the other mindset a little. Not that Andrews are conservative - they aren't. They were anti-Trump, and seemed fairly progressive actually. And unlike the Dresden Novels and others in the genre, they have bisexual, and homosexual characters in their books.

I can love things I am critical of. Also, I'm well aware that people are more than one thing. I went to law school in Kansas, with people who adored Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s. And I work with a woman, who is a colleague, and I've known for over 13 years, whose cousin works for Scean Hannity. My ability to ignore the politics has served me well.

4. Working my way through Promised Land by Barack Obama. It's very good. He's currently talking about Benghazi and what happened. It is a fascinating and insightful take on the politics of that region, and the conflicting and messy issues surrounding it. There are no good answers.

The problem with being in a leadership role - is often you have to make decisions that are unpopular to benefit the greater good. As Lando once state - you can't please everyone, someone is always going to despise you.
Obama kind of demonstrates that in his book, and show has complicated and dicey some of these decisions actually were.

It's informative and insightful reading and explains quite a bit of what happened, and how Trumpism came about. He seems to eerily foreshadow the rise of the authoritarian movements...while at the same time predicting their eventual demise.

5. WandaVision - haven't seen the latest episode but for the folks who are wondering if they have to see the MCU films to follow it? No, you really don't. In fact it might work better if you haven't - but hard to know.

If you feel an overwhelming urge to get back story?

*. Avengers: Age of Ultron - is the origin tale of The Vision and Wanda. The Vision is basically a combination of Tony Stark (Iron Man) Jarvis - and the Mind Stone. Tony Stark creates the Vision in that film to fight his other creation - Ultron. Wanda - is the reason that Stark creates Ultron - she provides him with a vision of the future that scares the shit out of him. Wanda is the villain in the story who becomes a good guy.

*. Captain America - Winter Solider (one of the best of the Marvel films but not really necessary to this story - in it we do see Vision and Wanda getting closer, and Vision is in charge of keeping her power in check. Tony has figured out that she's deadly and Vision is to keep it in check.

*. Captain America - Civil War - Wanda is being kept in check with Vision, they leave Stark Enterprises and join with Captain America. The superpower accords are brought up and passed by Stark - in part because of Wanda

*. Captain Marvel - provides the debute of Monica Rambeau (the pilot and co-star of WandaVision). Monica is the daughter of Captain Marvel's best friend and fellow pilot. We see her as a little girl in about three scenes that take place in the 1990s. (Captain Marvel is kind of Marvel's version of Wonder Woman 1984 - it is a MUCH better film that Wonder Woman 1984, btw.)

*. Infinity War - which is kind of hard to watch without seeing Endgame. Since it ends on a tragic note and Endgame is Chapter 2.
Infinity War is the death of Vision. Wanda kills him to try and save the world from Thanos, but it is futile, since Thanos can rewind time.

Endgame - the Vision is still dead. And we only see about five-ten minutes of Wanda displaying magic and grieving Vision

[Note - Infinity War and Engame are focused primarily on: Tony Stark, Captain America, Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. You don't get much more than cameos from the others. Although Thanos, his daughters, Star Lord, Spiderman, Doctor Strange, Ant-man, Wanda, and the Vision all get something to do. But the emphasis is on the others. If you don't like or care about Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, or Black Widow - I'd pass. If you hate Iron Man - really pass. I adore Iron Man - so adored the movies. I'd watch Downy Jr read the phone book.]

Comments

[yourlibrarian]

I was starting a reply to your other post which I got interrupted with this morning, but I might as well post it here as the topic is continuing. I didn't see anything new in the tweet story about the Snyder cut, though obviously many people may not have been following the news as each bit came out. What I recall reading is that WB wanted Snyder off the film before the family tragedy and used that as a way to provide an excuse for his stepping away that didn't involve him being publicly removed from the film.

Given that public statement, it's pretty distasteful that people would be celebratory about him leaving but I also understand it as a lot of people didn't like the grimdark tone of DC films and wanted something lighter with a different approach, which is why bringing in Whedon would have seemed like a change in that direction. What I'm surprised no one mentioned is that Joss' behavior re: the original story is not unlike what happened when he was brought in to direct Avengers and was extremely dismissive of Zak Penn's original Avengers script, which was redone even more drastically than Snyder's. Of course, obviously there had been no filming done yet, but that WB was willing to let him reshoot most of the film at tremendous cost rather than just "finish up" what Snyder had left undone says volumes about how unhappy they were with what had been done. No company is going to pay to redo a nearly completed film unless they are very unhappy with the product. Nor is it any surprise that Snyder was kept in the billing as I'm sure there are contractual reasons, just as Penn's name is still on The Avengers even though he was responsible for nearly nothing.

I am also unsurprised at Lennix's response compared to the link about Hemsworth. I have little doubt that Joss was exasperated as I know I would have been over actors extended the day and the cost by continually blowing takes. It's a human thing to do, getting the giggle fits, but to keep it going on is quite unprofessional and to me that story says more about Hemsworth than it does about Whedon. I'd be more curious to hear about Hemsworth's experiences on Cabin in the Woods. But yes, Lennix's experience is quite interesting to hear. As with Firefly, I suspect that the situation was different than after seasons of Buffy which had, among other things, quite a young cast. And that Whedon had a lot of trouble with FOX while making the show may have also changed dynamics on the set, creating more unity. For example, I recall hearing about a very positive unified vibe on Buffy during S1 when no one knew if the show would succeed and it was an "we're all in this together" sort of situation. Once success hits, things can change.

Clarifications..

[shadowkat]

What I recall reading is that WB wanted Snyder off the film before the family tragedy and used that as a way to provide an excuse for his stepping away that didn't involve him being publicly removed from the film.

That's what I thought happened too. But it wasn't what really happened. What happened was Snyder was fighting with the WB, along with a portion of the cast for a direction that he was taking the film in. This was after 95% of the film was completed, he had done the final work on the end story. And intended to split the movie into two sections - one focused on the resurrection of Superman, the other on defeating Darkseid's army. But WB didn't like what he showed them. Note the reason they didn't like it is they wanted an Avengers - which had been popular and made more in their view than Batman vs. Superman did. They didn't want an Endgame. From those who've seen the cut - Endgame and Infinity War borrowed heavily from what Snyder came up with in Justice League.

Around this time, Snyder's daughter tragically died and he got tired of fighting. WB lied to the cast and crew and said that Snyder hand-picked Whedon, and that Whedon had been working with Snyder the last year and the transition would be seamless. This was a baldfaced lie. What really happened was Whedon was brought in after Snyder left - and re-shot and re-wrote 90% of the film.
Only 10% of Snyder's vision remained. 90 minutes Whedon/ 30 minutes Snyder.

From those who've seen the Snyder Cut - it is a completely different movie - they are nothing alike. And Snyder hates the Whedon version.

I didn't realize that. Also you appear to be handwaving a few other things here - Whedon and WB threw out over two years worth of work. Try to imagine what it would be like to have two years worth of your work - and I mean 12-18 hour days, 7 days a week for two years, thrown out?

That surprised me. I honestly thought at least 50-60% of the film had been Snyder's and Whedon had been working on it all along - because that's the lie they told. And that Snyder had picked Whedon and this was Snyder's vision.

But I admittedly had stopped following it after 2017.

Given that public statement, it's pretty distasteful that people would be celebratory about him leaving but I also understand it as a lot of people didn't like the grimdark tone of DC films and wanted something lighter with a different approach, which is why bringing in Whedon would have seemed like a change in that direction.

I felt the same to some degree. But I also thought Snyder had parted ways amicably. These folks knew he hadn't - which surprised me. What really bothered me was how the WB and Whedon and the comic book writer and others - used that to their advantage and spin-doctored it. That I found distasteful. It wasn't so much the fans who did - who didn't know everything, but the marketing folks and others who did that bothered me.

What I'm surprised no one mentioned is that Joss' behavior re: the original story is not unlike what happened when he was brought in to direct Avengers and was extremely dismissive of Zak Penn's original Avengers script, which was redone even more drastically than Snyder's. Of course, obviously there had been no filming done yet,

Not the same at all. I think you are looking at this from a writer's perspective and not a filmmaker's perspective? In Hollywood or film period - scripts are a dime a dozen. They are important in some cases - such as for a film like...say Trial of the Chicago 7 which is basically all talking, but not for superhero films - which is all visuals.

In way your description of what Whedon did with the Avengers more closely fits what happened with Wonder Woman - and Whedon's script being kicked aside in favor of Snyder and Patty Jenkins years later. OR say, his script for The X-men being entirely re-written by Bryan Singer.

Most scripts are changed in films. The Director often kicks aside 85% of the script. That's why a lot of writers ask to have their name taken off of films.

My brother worked on the film Love Crimes - which was written by one person, and had problems, so Kit Carson with my brother - rewrote the script and directed the film. But got no credit for it. My brother was his assistant and intern.

What never happens is having a film 95% complete, with just a few scenes left and in post-production, after two years of hard work, and a release date scheduled in four-five months - being completely re-shot start to finish. And they had a guy who was a writer first, director second do it. Writers aren't always the best filmmakers. Whedon is great at dialogue he sucks at plotting, fight scenes, special effects montages, and visuals. Chosen was horrible. So too were the Avengers in regards to their fight-sequences. Ultron was a mess.

So they grabbed a writer and had him reshoot an entire film in the space of five months. So, you've just completed two years of hard work on a film - 180 hour weeks, not seen your family, and it's finally over - only to be told that you have to go back to the set, reshoot it with another director - who you haven't worked with before, and do basically a completely different movie that flies in the face of the work you previously did?

That's not done. Usually a studio either scraps the film, or they figure it out earlier.

Of course you will have problems.

That shocked me. I honestly thought 90% of the film had been Snyders and 10% Whedon's because that was what they told us. When I saw the film - I was confused and jarred by it, but I thought the reason was that they had tried to meld the two styles - and did a 50/50 split. I didn't know that they did a 90/10 split.

The rest not so much.

I am also unsurprised at Lennix's response compared to the link about Hemsworth. I have little doubt that Joss was exasperated as I know I would have been over actors extended the day and the cost by continually blowing takes.

I didn't post Lennix's response for that reason. Although I can see why you thought I had.

No...I did for the reasons I rambled about in the cut below it. And for these two quotes:

What I’ve learned over the years is that two people could be telling the absolute truth from their point of view, and disagree on what those salient points are.

And

I just hope everybody can move on with their lives, to be honest with you. As a former seminarian, and as somebody who has made mistakes, I’ve been on either side of that equation.

My point or rather the point I was attempting to make - is that we need to realize that there are two sides to things. Two points of view. And people are more than one thing. And it is important to forgive - and to remember that sooner or later you will be on the other side of the equation.

Brendan said the same thing, just not as eloquently - but he was also getting spinal surgery at the time. Because he's been on both sides of that argument.

And I kind of agree with that to an extend. I'm not grappling with the same issues you appear to be - mainly because I've directly experienced a toxic work environment and struggled to handle it. So I'm looking at it from a perspective of how can we learn to forgive, move on, and work to make a better workplace. And less from the perspective of -- did Joss do it or not, and should I judge him. If that makes sense?

It's a human thing to do, getting the giggle fits, but to keep it going on is quite unprofessional and to me that story says more about Hemsworth than it does about Whedon. I'd be more curious to hear about Hemsworth's experiences on Cabin in the Woods.

Two things:

1. It wasn't just Chris Helmsworth and the scene in question was a group scene. There's actually a blooper of it in the Avengers Age of Ultron end-reel and in one of the Endgame end-reels. It's in that tricky hand-held camera group scene - where they are joking around and Ultron shows up and scares them.

Downy Jr, Chris H, Chris E, Mark Ruffaleo, and SarJo kind of did it together. That's why Whedon got angry - they were all goofing off. Downy Jr is a bit of a jokester - he makes fun of things. And Chris H cracks Downy up. (David Boreanze used to do the same things with Alexis Denisof on Angel - which annoyed the hell out of Adam Baldwin.) So it really doesn't tell you much, if anything about anyone.
Also I sincerely doubt Whedon was abusive on that set - hello, Sam Jackson and Downy Jr, and Jon Favereau. Also Kevin Feigue, Mark Ruffalo, and SarJo. They'd have killed him. These guys outrank Whedon. Whedon was the low guy on the totem pole power wise on those films - which is partly why he left them after Ultron - he had no control Downy Jr, Favereau, Evans, and Feige had the control. And you have Disney (as someone else remarked online - Disney is bigger snd smarter than the WB). Justice League didn't have quite the heavy hitters Avengers did.

2. Cabin in the Woods wasn't directed by Whedon. It was directed by Drew Goddard. Whedon co-wrote it with Goddard, but Goddard directed it. That's why no one in Cabin in the Woods would come forward - they never worked directly with Whedon.

Whedon really isn't much of a director and hasn't directed that many films. I think he's done 14 as opposed to 36 as a writer. Joss Whedon And of the 14 - only five were films, counting Justice League - 6. He's mainly a television writer.

[shadowkat]

As with Firefly, I suspect that the situation was different than after seasons of Buffy which had, among other things, quite a young cast. And that Whedon had a lot of trouble with FOX while making the show may have also changed dynamics on the set, creating more unity. For example, I recall hearing about a very positive unified vibe on Buffy during S1 when no one knew if the show would succeed and it was an "we're all in this together" sort of situation. Once success hits, things can change.

Well, a couple of things about Firefly and Buffy S1, which you aren't taking into account. On Firefly, Whedon was show-running with Minear and Espenson. Also the leads of Firefly were Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, and Gina Torres, along with Alan Tudyke. None of which would be bullied by Whedon. He did bully folks in the writers room however. And Firefly was only 13 episodes. And Whedon didn't direct many of them - he only really did two.

Buffy S1 - was co-run by David Greenwalt and Gail Berman was a major presence. Although it was still toxic. I know I was watching it live at the time - and I got online following blogs out of boredom in S2. They had problems. Gellar insisted Marsters and Landau had chairs in S2 - no one gave them a chair to sit on when they weren't working on the scene. The crew left Landau and David tied up together while they took off to lunch, the cast took credit for stunts, David was wandering about flashing cast members, and people were sleeping with each other.

If you want proof of a toxic workplace - all you need to know is David Boreanze was permitted to flash men and women crew and actors with his penis. They didn't talk about it because you don't, but it has come out at the cons, during Q&A's and in information released by crew members (who also to get back at Whedon released and sold spoilers online along with footage.)

[atpo_onm]

"The villain never really sees themselves that way. In their eyes they are the hero, so I write them that way."

I wonder sometimes, if from a distance, are we perceived by others as the bad guy in the story or the good guy or neither?

While searching for another toon just a few days ago, I came across this one, and its resonance with this current subject of difficult film or TV directors, or writers, etc.



Pretty sure what the bird thinks of all this is very different from what the artist thinks. And the painting is lovely, by the way.

As to the "turn the other cheek" concept, my observations through life have made me realize that the phrase is taken differently by different personalities. It was in high school that I finally understood that some people see a person turn the other cheek, and in their minds, that is proof beyond doubt that said person is weak, a loser. They only respect someone who fights back.

Respecting the intended meaning-- as in the many examples you provided-- requires the assailant to have empathy, and the ability to consider if one's actions are possibly questionable or uncalled for. Many do not have this ability. Worse yet, in our culture, with its the ingrained greed-obsessed nature, people are often generously rewarded for having this personality characteristic. The whole thing turns into a feedback loop.

It's a difficult problem to resolve, because those thousands of years of DNA data we carry pre-program us to survive as an extremely high priority. While we have the gift of being able to consciously override that programming, unlike most (all?) other animals, instinct often just takes over.

And fighting that instinct, even for people who think they have, is not always a trivial task. Those who do succeed-- more power to them.

[shadowkat]

Its ironic in a way - the weak are those who can't feel empathy or have never learned it. Who can't fight the instinct to put themselves above all else.

Just look at the difference between Joe Biden and Trump. Biden feels empathy for others and is not seeking vengeance. Trump only cared about getting back at those that hurt him.

Or look at Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates. Jobs put himself first, wasn't a philanthropist, was divorced, struggled with his children, hated by most of his employees and died of cancer. Gates left Microsoft to focus on philanthropic causes, and tried to help those around him - he's alive, well, and happy with his wife and his employees for the most part think kindly of him.

Society may reward assholes, but the Universe...well, has a sense of humor and likes to throw interesting choices and obstacles in our path.

And I wonder if that bird might bite that artist soon?

[mefisto]

I liked Blood Heir rather better than some of her other recent books. It reminded me more of the first Kate Daniels novel.

But I agree that the superhero genre in general, including Ilona Andrews, has a real issue with "strong man" politics. There is no democracy in a superhero universe.

[shadowkat]

I liked Blood Heir rather better than some of her other recent books. It reminded me more of the first Kate Daniels novel.

Agreed. I read the WIP for free on her blog and pre-ordered based on it. I'm having troubles getting through her new series. This one basically has the same feel as the Kate Daniels novels. And Julie talks a lot like Kate, and Derek a lot like Curran. Their chemistry is even somewhat similar. Although the character I'm most intrigued with is Ascanio, and I'm curious about his relationship to Julie and Derek...that I'd like to see explored in more depth. Because he had a relationship with Julie in the previous books.

But I agree that the superhero genre in general, including Ilona Andrews, has a real issue with "strong man" politics. There is no democracy in a superhero universe.

I was thinking about this today - while watching WandaVision - and realized the reason I've always preferred the Marvelverse to the DC - is it comments on this and kind of fights against it. It has a heavy anti-fascist theme, that is almost a response to and commentary on the DC comics.

Captain America in some respects is more honest commentary on Superman. As is the Vision to Cyborg, or
Captain Marvel to Wonder Woman, or Iron Man to Batman.

I think it has a lot to do with the creators and who worked on the genres? Don't know. But I've always found the fandom and the comics/films/television series in the Marvel verse to be a little more questioning.

DC is...a little hard to stomach at times. And I've always struggled with Zack Snyder's films. The fact that his latest film appears to be another adaptation of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, does not help. I like Snyder's visuals, but I am all too aware of what londonkds stated above about a kind of almost libertarian right-wing feel to the films that is unsettling. But that's also true of a lot of the DC comics...

[mefisto]

And Julie talks a lot like Kate, and Derek a lot like Curran.

I noticed this too.

I won't see any more Snyder films I suspect. Not only does he have the problem that kds notes, but I find him weak on plot and dialogue, needing action scenes and special effects to carry his movies.

As for Marvel, my impression is that Stan Lee had pretty left wing politics. That probably carried over into the ideas he brought to the stories. Weirdly, I preferred DC comics as a kid and it's only when I look back now that I see them as problematic. But I'm not sure that even a good movie like Captain America: Civil War really deals with the problem created by superheroes in a satisfying way.

[shadowkat]

I think it is important not to politicize it? Some things you should just enjoy for the sake of enjoying them.

I mean, everything is problematic in some respect. Harry Potter was. As was the Hunger Games. Shakespeare. Etc. And you can to some degree politicize most. It's not hard to do. I tend to like to not think too much when I watch or read some of it - and I don't think loving something for its entertainment value necessarily endorses whatever ideology or theme that it may or may not be pushing.
My mother loved the Fountainhead - but she's not a libertarian and doesn't share the politics at all. She just liked the characters and the romance at the center of it. And I loved the Narnia novels as a child, the religious stuff leaped over my head.

There's a tendency, I think - or so I've seen on the internet - to assume that a thematic is there or seen by everyone or even intended. We don't know. I mean, I doubt everyone saw what I did in Blood Heir.

Anyhow, in regards to Snyder? Yeah, I hear you. I'm on the fence myself. I like the visuals. And I admittedly liked aspects of Batman vs. Superman better than most. But I'm also a visual person - I tend to think in pictures, and appreciate a good visual style. Also I have a weakness for superhero flicks - I like the medium.

But, that said - Snyder's long drawn out violent action scenes tend to bore and irritate me in his films...so there's that. They remind me of watching a violent video game - and I'm not a fan of that medium at all.

You are correct about Stan Lee - he was progressive on a lot of things, and that carried over into his comics.

[mefisto]

I think it is important not to politicize it? Some things you should just enjoy for the sake of enjoying them.

Agreed, though these days I find I'm really sensitive to political implications that I never would have noticed in, say, the 80s.

[shadowkat]

Sigh, very true.

Although I did get annoyed with a couple of folks declaring an animal rescue society was racist back in the summer of 2020, because they let people wear Trump hats and supporter buttons.

I mean...come one. I work with people who voted for and supported that thing - I'm smart enough to know that people are more than one thing. I was gaslit by a liberal, and given a job and helped by a Trump supporter/alt conservative who rescues animals in her spare time. There are no bad guys and good guys, just nutty people.