|
BrianWilly posted:Karli didn't just "get violent." She tied up a building full of people and murdered them in cold blood. Call it what it is. If she shows remorse and wants to make amends at some point down the line I'm all for that, but right now I absolutely do not support anything she does anymore, she needs to be arrested and sent to jail. That's the only reasonable response to her actions, as the writers well know, which is why they had her do this, so that there's now a convenient villain for our pro-establishment good guys to take down who, oh hey, just so happens to have been a revolutionary who wanted to feed the poor and help the needy. They have her partner be shocked by her actions so that when we come to the end of the story the heroes can take down the antagonist without the show having to take a moral stance on the antagonists beliefs.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Karli blew up that GRC building after the death of someone close to her in a GRC camp from a treatable illness. It also happens right after a conversation about the life she thought she was going to have and is shocking to her partner. It was a twist but it's one that's clearly set up in the character development and doesn't even signal her as an out and out villain. Walker, who we haven't actually seen do anything, is still coded much more like a villain.
live with fruit fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They have her partner be shocked by her actions so that when we come to the end of the story the heroes can take down the antagonist without the show having to take a moral stance on the antagonists beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They have her partner be shocked by her actions so that when we come to the end of the story the heroes can take down the antagonist without the show having to take a moral stance on the antagonists beliefs. This is the same thing people say about Killmonger when T'Challa's whole character arc was realizing that Killmonger (and Nakia) was right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
I mean, we previously saw the flag smashers as non-killers, even to Torres who is trying to stop them. And to our protagonists during the truck brawl (throwing someone off a moving truck is probably non-lethal to other super soldiers.) I imagine it would be very hard to get hundreds of million dollars for an action movie where the problems can’t be solved by punching, so the critics of capitalism, when they appear movies, have to be evil people so their criticism is invalid. And that’s lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Just to reiterate: I'm completely aware that the fictional character Karli Morgenthau can be given fictional rationales to murder a bunch of people. The problem is that I'm tired of this type of character (the anti-establishment revolutionary who just so happens to be a mass murderer so that they aren't completely in the right) and also this type of writing trope (a character who would otherwise be completely in the right all of sudden having to do very bad things so that they aren't completely in the right).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That's not the point. You need to address 'premeditated unnecessary serial murder'. It is absolutely the point. She is a terrorist, and I make no bones about that. What confuses me is that the story has set her and the Flagsmashers in general up as terrorists from the very beginning, and being a terrorist does not mean someone cannot be a good person in other ways or have good ideals. That's generally what most terrorists are like in real life, after all. They just choose awful means to affect change; often because the system is so rigged against them that they feel they have no choice. Which is basically the case here too. There is still a lot about the Flagsmashers I find sympathetic, and while I don't condone or agree with her actions I can absolutely understand where she's coming from and why she did it. Which is all that a story needs to establish for someone to be sympathetic or interesting. Her killing people is not remotely unexpected, because it's par for the course for a terrorist. Which is expected of an antagonist in a story of this kind, and about the only thing I'd hope is that the protagonists come out of the story with a point of view influenced by the Flagsmashers, even if the use better methods to support that new point of view. Golden Bee posted:I mean, we previously saw the flag smashers as non-killers, even to Torres who is trying to stop them. And to our protagonists during the truck brawl (throwing someone off a moving truck is probably non-lethal to other super soldiers.) Bucky is the only one of the four they were fighting who was a super soldier as far as we know, and the Flagsmashers may not even know that he is one and could reasonably be expected to survive that. BrianWilly posted:Just to reiterate: I'm completely aware that the fictional character Karli Morgenthau can be given fictional rationales to murder a bunch of people. On the other hand, I'm confused by what you want an antagonist to be. Do you think the story should portray them as good people absolutely in the right with no major faults? Why even have them be antagonists at that point? Why not just center the story on them? And again, I also wonder how you think you can portray anti-establishment revolutionaries who aren't violent without also being completely ineffective; especially in a story about punchmens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Constantly depicting NYC as a place that literally only exists to be destroyed/bombed/invaded by aliens is funny because you'd think after the 3rd supervillain attack after the a;ien invasion everyone would just leave. The best part about RTD-era Doctor Who is that after 30% of London's population almost jump off the roof one Christmas, and then a weird spider-UFO almost blows up London the next Christmas, by the third Christmas, everyone except the Queen and Donna's granddad pretty much like "gently caress this, I'm going to Kent for the holidays".
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Thing is this isn't the Flagsmashers being shown wrong, this is, so far, specifically Karli being wrong. We were shown that this isn't their usual MO with the Australian guy she was with being horrified. Now, Karli seems to be the leader via her charisma, so I fully expect her to bring the majority of the other over to her side, which is still not the same as the Flagsmashers ideology being wrong, just that it's been co-opted by Karli who is now lashing out at the system that failed her mother figure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
tsob posted:On the other hand, I'm confused by what you want an antagonist to be. Do you think the story should portray them as good people absolutely in the right with no major faults? Why even have them be antagonists at that point? Why not just center the story on them? And again, I also wonder how you think you can portray anti-establishment revolutionaries who aren't violent without also being completely ineffective; especially in a story about punchmens. They're not on the loving hook to do a re-write on the fly for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
tsob posted:I also wonder how you think you can portray anti-establishment revolutionaries who aren't violent without also being completely ineffective; especially in a story about punchmens. The show did this with the Flag Smashers in earlier episodes relatively effectively: They have the Super Soldier Serum which has opened the option of subduing people who are trying to kill them. They can disarm and knock-out people with guns relatively easily because they have the serum. There is no reason (as of yet) for Karli to bomb an a building full of people she has already beaten. I do believe that somebody floated the idea earlier that the SSS is beginning to have adverse effects on the morality of those who have used it - as it has in all SSS subjects except for approximately three.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I think Karli's car bomb will set up a schism in the Flagsmashers. It's not unheard of for groups with political motives to fracture because an internal subset decides there needs to be more violence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
The Flag Smashers aren't even really antagonists because they're not the problem for Sam or Bucky. The Power Broker and Walker are both more direct antagonists for the heroes based on what they represent, and they both happen to be going after the Flag Smashers themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
They're doing the same thing on a smaller scale with Walker. It's not enough to have him be a nice guy who's the beneficiary of privilege and represents institutional power. He has to be an arrogant power-crazed dick who roughs up the vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Ravel posted:They're doing the same thing on a smaller scale with Walker. It's not enough to have him be a nice guy who's the beneficiary of privilege and represents institutional power. He has to be an arrogant power-crazed dick who roughs up the vulnerable. Aren't these usually the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
Hellbore posted:Thing is this isn't the Flagsmashers being shown wrong, this is, so far, specifically Karli being wrong. We were shown that this isn't their usual MO with the Australian guy she was with being horrified. I would personally doubt that Karli obtained explosives, rigged them up to her car and set the detonation system entirely on her own. It's possible, but it's way more likely other people in the group support her methods already. mind the walrus posted:You're confused because you think they're doing anything other than saying "I'm tired of this trope." No, I'm confused because that's not being tired of a trope, it's being tired of the concept of an antagonist being antagonistic. Which seems silly. I don't want them to rewrite the show, I want them to explain how an antagonist that is set up from the start as a terrorist can be effective within their established means without using violence against the system. Was Karli supposed to spend the entire show stealing from the GRC while only mildly beating enough to put them out of commission, then redistributing it to the poor and needy? What makes her an antagonist at that point? Why are Bucky and Sam even in conflict with her if she's not doing anything bad, beyond stealing? Something they have both done themselves in the past, in service of what they felt were worthy causes? How is that going to work out long-term, when she can only steal as much as a few people can reasonably transport, and they only have a tiny transport network to distribute those supplies; far outsized by the amount of people they want to help? How can they change the system without attacking it? AngryBooch posted:The show did this with the Flag Smashers in earlier episodes relatively effectively: They have the Super Soldier Serum which has opened the option of subduing people who are trying to kill them. They can disarm and knock-out people with guns relatively easily because they have the serum. There is no reason (as of yet) for Karli to bomb an a building full of people she has already beaten. That's not antagonistic though. Which is why people spent the last few weeks calling them the show's true heroes. Not saying "well, they're bad guys, but I sympathize". If anything, Sam and Bucky were the ones antagonizing them, because Sam and Bucky chased them down and tried to beat them up to return medical supplies, food etc. that they were distributing to the needy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Hellbore posted:Aren't these usually the same thing? No, Walker would still have represented privilege and institutional racism even if he, personally, was a nice guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Ravel posted:No, Walker would still have represented privilege and institutional racism even if he, personally, was a nice guy. Then he'd be Steve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Think about it this way - whenever banks and hiring committees overlook people and give jobs and resources to white guys who would otherwise have been rejected, there is no need to have the recipients themselves be personally and individually villainous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
Hellbore posted:Thing is this isn't the Flagsmashers being shown wrong, this is, so far, specifically Karli being wrong. We were shown that this isn't their usual MO with the Australian guy she was with being horrified. I'm thinking that Karli always meant to set off the bomb to blow up the building. However, I think her initial plan was to cut the guards loose and send them running and then set off the bomb to send a "we're through playing around" message to the GRC. However, her "mom" had just died due to willful GRC neglect and then that guard said what he did and that was the straw that broke her particular camel's back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
tsob posted:On the other hand, I'm confused by what you want an antagonist to be. Do you think the story should portray them as good people absolutely in the right with no major faults? Why even have them be antagonists at that point? Why not just center the story on them? And again, I also wonder how you think you can portray anti-establishment revolutionaries who aren't violent without also being completely ineffective; especially in a story about punchmens. You keep saying revolutionaries would be ineffective unless they...hmm [check notes]...tie a bunch of people up and burn them to death. Really? This is based on nothing. The idea that anyone who wants to overthrow corrupt establishments must also use over-the-top evil actions to accomplish their goals is the exact sort of wide-brush-painting that makes this trope so tiresome. Hell, even this show has it so that this mindset mostly come across like Karli giving a half-baked justification for her bloodlust after the fact. There's no saying that you can't have an effective revolution without mass executions. And even if there was in real life...which is debatable...this is fiction. If the writers really wanted to, they could absolutely portray it so that while the Flag Smashers were behaving dangerously, lawlessly, or even violently in many cases, they still had certain lines they wouldn't cross...and they could still show this affecting positive change. They don't do this though, because that would be saying that a capitalist, nationalist status quo could be reasonably challenged through reasonable means. And I guess we just can't have people thinking that? And even then, even if you don't wanna show a non-brutally-murderous anti-establishment revolution be reasonably successful, you still don't have to paint their leaders as actually being brutal murderers all along because that emphasizes the impression that anyone who wants to challenge the capitalist, nationalist status quo is actually partial to brutal murder. "We can't find fault with their ideology, so we'll just besmirch their character instead" is the whole reason this trope annoys people. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Except she was not a brutal murderer all along, this is treated as a new and unsettling action to her closest confidant (in fact it mirrors Walker being pulled aside by Battlestar for his shifted tune around Bucky and Sam after finding out Zemo is free). This is not the writers just deciding we made Karli and the Flagsmashers too heroic and sympathetic better make her a monstrous killer. This is them showing her actions changing in response to personal grief and a desire to more immediately create systematic change. Someone she cared for died because people like the ones she left to burn likely refused to give aide, if not those people specifically. Tony Stark did not have to personally murder a bunch of terrorists after escaping them, he could have disarmed them and left, he chose to do so partially because they killed his friend and were threatening people. Karli is doing the same thing, her targets are just less visibly acting against her and the people she cares about, except of course they have their personal Captain America busting down the doors of innocents and threatening them to find her as well. I do not see her actions as immediately vile, so much as a potential dark path that she’s starting to go down, which is the point. Likely the ultimate intent is to leave Karli and Walker as mirrors, each losing themselves to internal darkness even as they desire to do good in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
Yeah I think we all understand that. Dramatically it makes sense. It's also a tired trope in capitalist media to take a "freedom fighter" terrorist with largely sympathetic motives and shove a "oh yeah and they kill people" as a sign that they're too dark to respect and thus everything about their ideology needs to be dismissed in favor of the status quo. They set it up with Kari well-enough when she's talking to the dude by the motorcycle, but we don't really get a beat that establishes her as thinking "yeah... violent murder is the only way forward here." We just get apprehension. An inverse example is when John Walker pulls a gun out to shoot a Flag-Smasher on the truck as a jarring, pearl-clutching "But Steve was never so low-down and shady about his punching!" (even though we've seen that yes, he was, including outside of WWII). It's just a tired beat that doesn't fully land both because of its cliché factor and because it's a bit too much of a shortcut to get you to ally against a character and their way of doing things. Hopefully they pull more out of the material down the line, but speaking exclusively to the confines of this one episode it felt a bit trite (then again so did nearly everything about this episode).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Sam and Karli can both want the same thing but have different lines they are willing to cross to achieve those goals -- Sam from within the system, and Karli from without -- and this can easily lead to conflict between them. This was already the case within this story, even before this episode. No, it wasn't. Both Sam and Karli have crossed the same lines up to this episode to achieve goals at some point i.e. theft and moderate violence against government employees. Sam even revolted against the system himself to cross those lines. If Sam is against Karli when she is only doing that then he is a massive hypocrite, especially when Karli is explicitly doing it to help people and he has already expressed sympathy for their apparent cause after just hearing about the broadest details. If he ever attacked them with any real knowledge of their ideals and goals when those were the only lines they'd crossed then he'd be even more hypocritical. BrianWilly posted:More importantly, this can easily be done without Karli tying a bunch of people up and burning them to death! Do you think this is the first story of this type to ever be told, for an antagonist to have a good point but ultimately being pit against the protagonist? Do you really think the best, most nuanced way to approach these stories is by making the antagonist so vile that we simply have to side with the protagonist by process of elimination? Do I think she has to tie a bunch of people up and burn them to death specifically? No. Do I think she has to attack the system and come into conflict with the people employed by the system, who believe in it or who benefit from it? Yes, because that's kind of the point of being an anti-establishment terrorist in the first place. If she's not fighting the system, then she's just making half-hearted gestures at an ideal without truly ever fighting for the cause and methods (i.e. operating outside the system because the system is bad) she purports to believe in. Not doing more means that the system is quashing more people under problems she stands against while she does nothing about it since it's beyond her means, and if all she's going to do is what she can as a singular person without ever commiting to violence against the system, then why even operate outside the system in the first place? You can do as much or more within the system. You can even bend or break some rules within the system without being rejected by it, pushing supplies to people who need it on occasion even as a bit player. The higher placed you are, the more you can do and the more you can do it. BrianWilly posted:The idea that anyone who wants to overthrow corrupt establishments must also use over-the-top evil actions to accomplish their goals is the exact sort of wide-brush-painting that makes this trope so tiresome. Hell, even this show has it so that this mindset mostly come across like Karli giving a half-baked justification for her bloodlust after the fact. There's no saying that you can't have an effective revolution without mass executions. Terrorism is over the top and evil by it's nature, since it pretty much always boils down to "attack civilians at random to threaten the stability of systems they inhabit and you don't like". Terrorism and terrorists are generally looked down on for that reason. That doesn't make the people who perpetuate it unrealistic or not sympathetic. If you do think that anti-establishment revolutionaries can achieve notable change without any violence whatsoever though, feel free to post examples, because I cannot think of a single example. The best cases are ones where charismatic proponents of non-violence were at the forefront, like Martin Luther King Jr for the civil rights movement in the US or Mahatma Gandhi in India, but they are only part of an equation and violent revolutionaries were present and influencing events in any such cases I can think; even if not operating in cooperation with those non-violent leaders. Malcolm X was just as important as Martin Luther King Jr, while the Indian National Army and their leader Subhas Chandra Bose was a major influence on Britain's decision to grant India independence too for instance. BrianWilly posted:And even if there was in real life...which is debatable...this is fiction. It's fiction that's trying to present the facade of realism. Which generally does mean a terrorist is going to use terrorism to advance their ideals while justifying it to themselves, yes. Lord_Magmar posted:This is not the writers just deciding we made Karli and the Flagsmashers too heroic and sympathetic better make her a monstrous killer. This is them showing her actions changing in response to personal grief and a desire to more immediately create systematic change. Someone she cared for died because people like the ones she left to burn likely refused to give aide, if not those people specifically. It's not even that they actively chose not to give someone aid; it's that they sat on months worth of supplies that could help lots of people for who knows how long, and never made any attempt to use it for anyone's good. Or even gave it any consideration so far as we know. The camp that Mama Donya was at was in Riga, Latvia , while the GRC center they destroy was in Vilnius, Lithuania. Which is about a 3.5 hour trip according to Google. Given it's a global initiative they probably don't have centres in every country, since that's not really efficient. As such, it's likely that was the nearest one to the camp in Riga. Which would mean those people were indirectly responsible for the death of someone she obviously cared for. One of the group grabbing supplies even notes that the centre has enough supplies for their whole camp but that it's just been sitting there for months. Which, again, implies it's close to what they consider home. Meanwhile, all the supplies at that GRC Depot were just there, collecting dust while people suffered and died and all the people that Karli blew up were wearing protective gear and looked like military personnel, and we see people in similar gear standing around guarding the entrance to the depot earlier in the episode. So they were probably the kind of guys targeting and detaining civilians for information that Walker had crashed in on at the start of the episode. Which would make them far from innocent in her eyes, and probably make her view them as legitimate targets since they help enforce a system she sees as hurting and killing people she cares about. Leading up to the incident we get Karli's friend outside the compound asking if she wants to wait until another time to make the raid and to mourn instead. Which confirms that the woman she was visiting died not long ago, and she says that they can't wait and have to do it now, then shortly afterwards says that they're going to use all of their strength to give the world to the kids in the camps since they couldn't give it to Mama Donya and then looks haunted and sad when the other guy jokes that maybe she can still be a teacher after all. All of which directly sets up her realizing she has to be more forceful in her means if she wants to get the changes to the system she thinks are necessary in time to help people. She absolutely is justifying the change in intensity afterwards when she says that violence is the only means the GRC understands, but it's based on development within the episode and, more to the point, she might be right. That's kind of the point of, or at least the thing that makes terrorism a point of contention. People who are desperate and have no further means to change the system use it because they feel they have other option after being shut out of the system. It sometimes works, at least as part of a larger campaign. It's also arguable that more lives are saved by the actions taken than there are lives lost, so that it serves a Utilitarian purpose. So maybe it is necessary. That's certainly the kind of thing people doing would use to justify their actions. It's certainly vile, but when you feel you have no other recourse and the world is ignoring you, then vile is better than nothing. All of which gives some moral complexity and ambiguity of it's own. tsob fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
Look, the GRC is basically just the gray marauder
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
I liked the Madripoor set design it was neat and cool Thanks for reading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 06:18
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:The problem is that I'm tired of this type of character (the anti-establishment revolutionary who just so happens to be a mass murderer so that they aren't completely in the right) and also this type of writing trope (a character who would otherwise be completely in the right all of sudden having to do very bad things so that they aren't completely in the right). See: Agatha Harkness. When you actually think about what she did during the series, she did.... nothing wrong? I mean, disregarding the dog, which may or may not have been a fabrication of scarlet. She hurt no one, was mostly just there investigating and when she found out scarlet was using chaos magic, tried to drain it to prevent the end of the world (as prophesied). But uh, let's have her choke some kids so that we know she's the bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 07:17
|
|
|
Pretty sure Agatha was trying to steal Wanda's power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
Are people really like, not getting why Karli crossed the line? It wasn't left field at all. Someone important to her died from Tuberculosis that they got from being in a refugee camp. She escalated against the people responsible for the refugee camps out of anger and grief. The other Flagsmasher guy even asks her if she wants to put off the mission because she's upset and she forcefully tells him no. She wanted revenge. It's not really complicated. Also the other Flag Smasher was clearly upset about it. I'm pretty sure this plot point is not a giant conspiracy on the part of Capitalism to undermine the concept of revolutionaries in favor of the Status Quo. Especially not in this, the show that just told us that the US Government indeed experimented on a black military hero without his consent and has been consistently about how the main character superhero is suffering constantly under systemic racism. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 08:53
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:See: Agatha Harkness. When you actually think about what she did during the series, she did.... nothing wrong? I mean, disregarding the dog, which may or may not have been a fabrication of scarlet. She hurt no one, was mostly just there investigating and when she found out scarlet was using chaos magic, tried to drain it to prevent the end of the world (as prophesied). Her whole thing was psychologically torturing Wanda and pushing her further and further into grief. So she could steal her power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 08:59
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Pretty sure Agatha was trying to steal Wanda's power. Agatha is just trying to work out what on earth is going on so she can learn the power, until she finds out in the penultimate episode that Wanda has no training and is just raw dangerous chaotic magic. If she just wanted to steal the power thats how episode one would have started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Agatha is just trying to work out what on earth is going on so she can learn the power, until she finds out in the penultimate episode that Wanda has no training and is just raw dangerous chaotic magic. If she just wanted to steal the power thats how episode one would have started. She isn't just watching, she's intentionally sabotaging what Wanda is doing and trying to exploit her grief and mental instability to figure out what's going on. It's not like she cared about the people in the town or whatever, she wasn't loving with Wanda to help anyone, she was loving with Wanda for selfish personal gain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:16
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:She isn't just watching, she's intentionally sabotaging what Wanda is doing and trying to exploit her grief and mental instability to figure out what's going on. It's not like she cared about the people in the town or whatever, she wasn't loving with Wanda to help anyone, she was loving with Wanda for selfish personal gain. She is, the problem is nothing she does is remotely as bad as what the show establishes Wanda is doing. Tinkering around the edges of Wanda's large scale torture diorama doesn't really make her stand out as a villain of the story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:She is, the problem is nothing she does is remotely as bad as what the show establishes Wanda is doing. Tinkering around the edges of Wanda's large scale torture diorama doesn't really make her stand out as a villain of the story. You don't think that attempting to mentally break an unstable person suffering from severe emotional trauma is villainous just because that unstable person is causing harm to those around her? I'm pretty sure its steal really loving villainous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:You don't think that attempting to mentally break an unstable person suffering from severe emotional trauma is villainous just because that unstable person is causing harm to those around her? I'm pretty sure its steal really loving villainous. Uh, if a person was holding a building full of people hostage at gunpoint and forcing them via torture to act out some play they'd written then if they didn't surrender to the police you'd expect them to get shot. It would be sad if they were mentally ill, but it wouldn't change things if it got to that point. Thats the closest real world analogy to whats going on. Its only Wanda's power that makes it a bad idea to try to drone strike her early on. She is unambiguously the worst person in the show. E: also the show establishes early that Wanda is lucid and knows exactly what's going on, she's explicitly doesnt care about the lives she's hijacked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Uh, if a person was holding a building full of people hostage at gunpoint and forcing them via torture to act out some play they'd written then if they didn't surrender to the police you'd expect them to get shot. It would be sad if they were mentally ill, but it wouldn't change things if it got to that point. AGATHA ISN'T THERE TO SAVE THE HOSTAGES. SHE'S ONLY THERE TO gently caress WITH THE HOSTAGE TAKER.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:35
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:AGATHA ISN'T THERE TO SAVE THE HOSTAGES. SHE'S ONLY THERE TO gently caress WITH THE HOSTAGE TAKER. Yeah that doesn't make her the hero but it also doesn't make her worse than the hostage taker. Unless the script has her do some gratuitous unmotivated evil. You are almost there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:36
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah that doesn't make her the hero but it also doesn't make her worse than the hostage taker. Unless the script has her do some gratuitous unmotivated evil. Torturing Wanda IS gratuitous evil! What about what she does to Wanda is not evil?! What does it matter that Wanda is also acting bad?! Your contention that Agatha was not evil until she choked Wanda's kids is utter nonsense rooted in your value judgment that Wanda's circumstances are unsympathetic and don't mitigate anything that she did, ergo anything done to her regardless of what it was or the actual motives behind it can't be evil because she's MORE villainous than the person hurting her. Its an absurd argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:47
|
|
|
Wanda is explained to think she's making things better, she's also having a literal psychotic episode which Agatha intentionally makes worse to drive her deeper into her trauma and delusions for the explicit purpose of getting her in a vulnerable state to drain her power. Wanda is doing something bad, Agatha made what she was doing worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:Wanda is explained to think she's making things better, she's also having a literal psychotic episode which Agatha intentionally makes worse to drive her deeper into her trauma and delusions for the explicit purpose of getting her in a vulnerable state to drain her power. They really dropped the ball here, there are multiple occasions early on where she either directly threatens Vision, rewinds time when he realizes what's happening or goes outside the Hex to attack SWORD. Does she think those SWORD agents are better off being clowns?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 09:53
|
|
