Uwe Boll, Brett Ratner and Paul Anderson all make movies about franchises and subjects I like. Unfortunately, I don't like their movies.
I avoid watching movies those people direct. I am always disappointed in their version. The disappointment is made worse by the fact that I care about the subject matter their movies cover before I even see the film.
I don't scream my disappointment across the internet in every thread and board I come across that deals with any of their movies. That would be stupid. I just don't watch their movies anymore.
I find that this is what most people do when they discover they don't like something. It baffles me why Joss Whedon has this bizarre faction of people who are like anti-fans, who are just as much (if not more) engaged in his work than people who actually like him. I can't think of any other director who has that problem.
Its really weird.
Weird isn't the word that I'd use. I'd be a little less...polite.
But Whedon isnt the only director with that anti-fandom thing going on. Spielberg, Nolan and even Ridley Scott all have their anti-fans. The reason that Whedon is more known for his anti-fans is because he's had several TV shows out there for people to rabidly love\hate. Buffy was 7 seasons (basically 6-7 years) Angel was 5 seasons (4-5 years) Dollhouse 2 seasons (2 years?) Firefly 1 (1 year) and now Agents of Shield (which really isnt a Joss Whedon show, it's a Marvel show).
A director may have a movie out every two or three years or so then he/she is in and out, but that long form storytelling and the repeat / rehashing of certain tropes tends to build the kind of love/hate you see with fandom.
Uwe Boll, Brett Ratner and Paul Anderson all make movies about franchises and subjects I like. Unfortunately, I don't like their movies.
I avoid watching movies those people direct. I am always disappointed in their version. The disappointment is made worse by the fact that I care about the subject matter their movies cover before I even see the film.
I don't scream my disappointment across the internet in every thread and board I come across that deals with any of their movies. That would be stupid. I just don't watch their movies anymore.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that you have never ever said anything negative about any of these people online.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, but I also doubt that he makes it a point to go into every single thread that touches upon something any of those guys made to rant about how horrible they are =P
outside of websites focused on bad movies, I doubt people regularly come across topics where they need to rant about Uwe Boll or Paul Anderson. Nor do those 3 directors have much of any fanbase I imagine.
And yes whedon steals from anime on the regular.
I don't care. All great art is stolen IMO. Stealing ideas from other people I have no problem with, only in the execution of what was stolen.
I have the same opinion on game design.
Stealing/borrowing ideas for creative efforts is one of the core methods of being creative. It's what you do with what you steal that matters, not whether you stole it or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, but I also doubt that he makes it a point to go into every single thread that touches upon something any of those guys made to rant about how horrible they are =P
hey, I havent been in EVERY thread!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yes whedon steals from anime on the regular.I don't care. All great art is stolen IMO. Stealing ideas from other people I have no problem with, only in the execution of what was stolen.
I have the same opinion on game design.
Stealing/borrowing ideas for creative efforts is one of the core methods of being creative. It's what you do with what you steal that matters, not whether you stole it or not.
Agree! personally I want to see MORE stolen ideas floating around. It helps stave off the remakes.
My favorite example is Castle. It's a story about a mystery writer who works with the cops to solve real murders. Is it original? HECK no. That idea's been done before. It's 'like' Murder She Wrote. Except different. He's goofier, it's a man not a woman, there's romance between the him and the cop... Stolen idea, reworked nicely.
In other news, they are talking about remaking 'Murder She Wrote'. This I couldn't care less about. Same with a new remake of 'Charmed' Because, apparently a story involving a few hot actresses playing witches in every OTHER show floating around right now is enough. They need to reuse the same characters and call it the same thing...
I think the best shows out there combine a couple of shows I've liked in the past. Leverage was 'like' the A-team crossed with Ocean's Eleven'. Supernatural is kind of a cross between X-files and a buddy cop movie... Vague generalizations that will tell me immediately if I'll be interested in something.
The last Nightmare on Elm Street was scene for scene (just shuffled) remake of the first one.
For me the preferences are [original/borrowed/stolen] ideas, Hybrid combinations, Sequels and finally remakes.
Whedon has his tropes, we've seen most of them a dozen times before, but they aren't outright remakes so I say bring them on. And seriously... Anime?? The ones I've seen seem to cover EVERY genre everywhere and steal from each other all day long... ;)
Actually, I a surprised that Freehold DM didn't point out the rather massive Chickification of Black Widow in this film.
And from a self-professed Feminist of all people.
I am still writing my review, I was just busy because of painting the house this weekend.
I'm a feminist?
I am still writing my review, I was just busy because of painting the house this weekend.
I'm a feminist?
I was not making any comment about you.
Joss Whedon is a self-proclaimed Feminist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I a surprised that Freehold DM didn't point out the rather massive Chickification of Black Widow in this film.
And from a self-professed Feminist of all people.
Funny, I didn't interpret anything that happened to BW to be chickification. Apparently showing that characters have broad ranges of emotions is frown upon?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reports of Joss' misogyny have been greatly exaggerated. Apparently by people who either didn't watch the movie at all or only managed to catch approximately 20 seconds of it.
EDIT: There's lots of completely reasons to call Marvel's treatment of women in the MCU, its advertising, and so on, sexist. Black Widow's story arc in Avengers 2 is not one of them.
Funny, I didn't interpret anything that happened to BW to be chickification. Apparently showing that characters have broad ranges of emotions is frown upon?Actually, I a surprised that Freehold DM didn't point out the rather massive Chickification of Black Widow in this film.
And from a self-professed Feminist of all people.
Not at all.
But the way she was "calling herself a monster" implies that she feels that she is one because she cannot have children. This has to do with the scene with Banner in the farmhouse.
Also, the scenes would have been FAR less damaging in a larger Black Widow movie, but in an AVENGERS film this tends to stand out more.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I didn't interpret anything that happened to BW to be chickification. Apparently showing that characters have broad ranges of emotions is frown upon?Actually, I a surprised that Freehold DM didn't point out the rather massive Chickification of Black Widow in this film.
And from a self-professed Feminist of all people.
Not at all.
But the way she was "calling herself a monster" implies that she feels that she is one because she cannot have children. This has to do with the scene with Banner in the farmhouse.
Also, the scenes would have been FAR less damaging in a larger Black Widow movie, but in an AVENGERS film this tends to stand out more.
If that is how you interpret that scene, that is how you interpret it. Your wrong though. She is calling herself a monster because she is talking about how easy it is for her to kill people and how it helped her to not care.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I didn't interpret anything that happened to BW to be chickification. Apparently showing that characters have broad ranges of emotions is frown upon?Actually, I a surprised that Freehold DM didn't point out the rather massive Chickification of Black Widow in this film.
And from a self-professed Feminist of all people.
Not at all.
But the way she was "calling herself a monster" implies that she feels that she is one because she cannot have children. This has to do with the scene with Banner in the farmhouse.
Also, the scenes would have been FAR less damaging in a larger Black Widow movie, but in an AVENGERS film this tends to stand out more.
It's funny but the article you linked to on the controversy is actually very thorough and balanced and debunks the whole "monster" thing beautifully:
In this context, the Black Widow storyline becomes not about her mourning for the children she can't have, but about her creation by a system that cared nothing for her as a human being and everything for her as a game piece it could move around on the board. Her reproductive rights were violated in the most heinous way possible and her freedom of choice stolen from her...As much as it may look on the surface like Natasha is mourning motherhood, what she’s actually mourning is her ability to choose. It’s not about children; it’s about choice. What she has lost isn’t even so much her ability to have a family (as mind-bogglingly brilliant as she is, she, of all people, could find a way to procure a baby). No, what she mourns is her ability to fantasize about that "normal" life, the world opposite the one she currently lives in.
Not much more needs to be said, I believe. I would have thought it obvious to the most casual observer that Romanov is more upset about her past as an assassin than about not being able to be a mother. We have seen her talk already about that in the first Avengers movie. In this second one we see another facet to the horror - the maiming that was done to her to make her more efficient.
Or in other words: had this been about a male character sharing the secret that during training, as he was being brainwashed and shaped into a perfect killer for cold overlords, his testicles were cut off... nobody would have said that the character was reduced to his role as a child-producer. Everyone would have understood that the character was troubled by something more profound than that.
To be perfectly blunt, I think that the whole controversy reflects badly much stronger on those who cry against Whedon than it does about him.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the way she was "calling herself a monster" implies that she feels that she is one because she cannot have children.
Dude. That isn't what she said.
Here's the exact quote:
They sterilize you. It's efficient. One less thing to worry about, the one thing that might matter more than a mission. It makes everything easier — even killing. You still think you’re the only monster on the team?
The part where she's talking about being a monster? It doesn't follow the revelation of her sterilization. It follows her saying how easy killing is. You know, the sort of thing people actually consider monstrous.
(Note: calling herself a "monster" because of the evil deeds she is trying to atone for would have been quite different.)
I'd dearly love to know how.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the way she was "calling herself a monster" implies that she feels that she is one because she cannot have children. This has to do with the scene with Banner in the farmhouse.
And yet that's entirely what I thought she was talking about. The hospital fire, Drakov's daughter, etc. Not that she couldn't have kids, which, as I understand her character, she never wanted anyway.
She's not a 'monster' because she can't have kids, but because she's a stone cold killer, and, at the end of the day, she's not even all that upset about it (as she later demonstrates by pushing Banner off a cliff, because she 'needs the other guy,' something that Banner reacts to by leaving her and not saying good-bye, since he *hates* being 'the other guy' and doesn't want to spend his life with someone who will literally push him off a cliff to make him more useful to her tactically).
It's kind of a poignant irony that she gives him that speech, and completely misses the point she's making, that he *doesn't want to be the Hulk,* that he, as she says with her mouth-words, he's 'not like other guys she knows because doesn't want to get in a fight, not because he's afraid of it, but because he knows he'll win.'
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing in that article that I disagree about, by the way, was the claim that we have four different black widows in four movies (meaning, that the character is completely different in each of her appearances) and that this is much more the case with her than with male characters.
We had Hawkeye in three different movies, I think (Thor, Avengers, Avengers 2) and he is a completely different character each time.
We had Fury in many, many movies and his character has not been terribly consistent either. Coulson, too, for his short time in the sun.
Generally speaking, the support characters - those who don't have movies of their own yet appear across multiple story lines - change a lot. Black Widow is one of them, but she isn't worse in that regard than any of them.
_______________________________________-
On another related matter, the other "chikification" in the movie, with Romanov being held captive by Ultron? yeah, that's not convincing either. Romanov is kidnapped after a scene where she is incredibly compatent (she was snatched out of the air during leaping alongside the cargo she was after between aircrafts, after all. Hard to say she was passive there).
If you want to have Ultron kidnap someone, it has to be one of the normals (try holding Thor imprisoned, why donthca) - Tony Stark, Hawkeye or Romanov. It can't be Stark because he was needed to create Vision. It can't be Hawkeye because he spent the entirety of the previous movie mind controlled by the bad guy so this movie was all about returning maximum heroic screen time to him. That leaves you with Romanov.
___________________________________________
One last thing that I find funny. Had the characters of Hulk and Black Widow been gender swapped - that is, the female was the one with the super power to turn into a giant destructive monster that can't control itself and the male be the deadly assassin - then everyone would *still* have been crying sexism. *of course* the woman is the one who can't control herself. And *of course* she will be given a romance with a man who can bring her under control. Clearly she is being relegated to her gender role. Raise the pitchforks!
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come to think of it, people would have probably been accusing Whedon/Marvel of sexism regardless of the role that a female character would have taken in the team -
1) Ironwoman (gender swapped Tony Stark) - "oh, so the woman is the most flirtatious member of the team and instead of having a super power of her own she is reliant on technology? SEXISM!!"
2) Thor (apparently, that's how you say "gender swapped Thor"): "bah! the sexy woman in revealing armor doesn't even count as a character, she is clearly meant to be fan service catering to horny teenage males, look how she gets partial nudity scenes in all of her movies! SEXISM!!"
3) Captain America (gender swapped): "Are you guys seriously going for the whole 'the woman serves as the moralistic compass of a group of males' thing? The way everyone treats the woman as a more pure creatures is just plain insulting. And the disregarding behavior of Iron Man to her is intolerable. SEXISM!!"
4) Hawkeye (gender swapped): "Yes, of course the only female character didn't have any agency of her own in the first Avengers movie, being mind controlled the whole time. And of course in the second movie we find out she has a family hidden away, because how could she not? Also, have you noticed how she obeys her husand with 'yes, sir'? What kind of a massage is that supposed to send to female viewers?"
So, how about instead of talking about how the character was sexist we'll talk about the actual problem with the movie - women being underrepresented. When there's just one actual female character in the entire movie franchise, anything and everything she does or doesn't do can be interpreted as icky chauvinism. But Black Widow deserves to exist as a character, not the representative of a gender. She gets to have quirks and personality traits like the rest of the crew. Had we had more women aboard, there wouldn't be a problem at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On another related matter, the other "chikification" in the movie, with Romanov being held captive by Ultron? yeah, that's not convincing either. Romanov is kidnapped after a scene where she is incredibly compatent (she was snatched out of the air during leaping alongside the cargo she was after between aircrafts, after all. Hard to say she was passive there).
If you want to have Ultron kidnap someone, it has to be one of the normals (try holding Thor imprisoned, why donthca) - Tony Stark, Hawkeye or Romanov. It can't be Stark because he was needed to create Vision. It can't be Hawkeye because he spent the entirety of the previous movie mind controlled by the bad guy so this movie was all about returning maximum heroic screen time to him. That leaves you with Romanov.
Really, she spent a lot of her screen time coming face-to-face with how out of place she really is. She can't fight as well as all the powered heroes, and she can't have a family like the other non-powered hero. At the party at the beginning, she listens to two of her teammates bragging about their girlfriends, but then she (the master manipulator who outwitted Loki), can't even get Banner interested.
When she's captured, she's faced with the possibility that she is just as much a liability as an asset to the team. But when she gets the chance to run off and find Banner and try to live happily ever after with him, she instead decides to stay behind and use the one thing she does have to offer, to train the new people. It was really a great character arc for her.
|
|
Well, the next Avengers line up will apparently have Scarlet Witch on board formally, so that will help.
So, how about instead of talking about how the character was sexist we'll talk about the actual problem with the movie - women being underrepresented. When there's just one actual female character in the entire movie franchise, anything and everything she does or doesn't do can be interpreted as icky chauvinism. But Black Widow deserves to exist as a character, not the representative of a gender. She gets to have quirks and personality traits like the rest of the crew. Had we had more women aboard, there wouldn't be a problem at all.
Frankly her I found to be pretty dull in Age of Ultron (the twins were under developed and felt mostly pointless in this movie) so hopefully the character would change and improve a lot before her next appearance.
There are a couple of female characters in Guardians of the Galaxy, although that barely counts as the movie doesn't feel like it belongs with the rest of the MCU even though it technically does. When people think of Marvel female characters I don't think they consider Gemorra and her sister (that blue android thing). I mean Gemorra is kind of just a less interesting Black Widow, right? We need other character types for females, too.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What kind of a massage is that supposed to send to female viewers?"
That would really depend on what sort of massage the female viewers would want.
Shiatsu, deep tissue, Swedish, just to name a few. Its all according to personal preference and what they thought would be most beneficial to their body.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What kind of a massage is that supposed to send to female viewers?"That would really depend on what sort of massage the female viewers would want.
Shiatsu, deep tissue, Swedish, just to name a few. Its all according to personal preference and what they thought would be most beneficial to their body.
I have a course in university about distributed computation - you know, a bunch of computers assisting each other for better performance and communicating over some web. Despite English not being the spoken language around here, homework for the course is done in English.
And whenever I hand in homework, every single time so far, I got the massage/message thing wrong at least once.
I think it's a genetic thing. My father was notorious in his company for being physically incapable of writing "warehouse" correctly, typing in "whorehouse" instead as often as he got it right.
Its one of my favorite things: How the meaning of a sentence gets changed over one misspelled word, changing it to another word.
I have to type notes for design drawings at work, and sometimes proofread others. I've fallen into fits of laughter sometimes over things that I've read.
Frankly her I found to be pretty dull in Age of Ultron (the twins were under developed and felt mostly pointless in this movie) so hopefully the character would change and improve a lot before her next appearance.
I agree with the first part. I found her rather dull too. Same with the Twins. The difference is that I always found all three dull in the comics and kinda wish they would get away with even bothering with these characters at all.
Every scene with BW just feels like a desperate attempt to explain why she is even there... and failing pretty badly. Hawkeye has been a hundred times better then her in any appearance. He may only have a bow and special arrows... but at least that's somewhat unique. Nothing she does is even 'as good' as anyone else. Cap has her beat on the physical beatdown techniques... Fury's as good if not better super-spy. Hawkeye has the 'normal guy' on team taken care of...
Scarlet Witch? Her main points are 'married a robot', Magneto's daughter, and Destroyed the avengers (and Mutants). None of which is really worth dredging up in MCU... Quicksilver has always been useless. Poor man's Flash...
With all the potential Avengers available... they could do a LOT better then constantly pushing these three at us. The closest BW gets to being relavent... is when she sticks with low/underpowered heroes. She did ok as the sidekick in Winter soldier, but would have shined as a player in AoS. However, now they have mockingbird and agent May, she wouldn't even shine there?!?
It wasn't just designed by Stark, it was designed by Bruce Banner and used by Stark.Tony's been building a Hulk-control system. ConvenientI can definitely buy this, because they'd have to be extremely stupid NOT to have some sort of plan for what happens if the Hulk goes out of control.
(The better plans involve "Call Thor")
My biggest problem with it is that the MCU Hulkbuster armor was about a billion times more effective than any comic version of it has ever been.
I think that's the key difference. As far as I can recall, every time Comic Tony builds a Hulkbuster armor he does it on his own and ends up being crushed by the Comic Hulk (who is clearly "the strongest one there is"). MCU Tony built a Hulkbuster armor with the help of Bruce Banner, and eventually subdues the MCU Hulk (who is *not* fully established as the strongest one there is).
Furthermore, I like the fact that Tony was fighting Hulk reluctantly. You could tell by his commentary, body language, and actions that he didn't want to fight the Hulk, just keep the nearby people safe. Usually, comic Tony is fighting Hulk because he is angry about something.
I just realized that with the 8 or so female heroes in the MCU, they all fall into 3 archtypes. Gamora, Black Widow, May, Bobby, are pretty much interchangable in any fight they have been in, and have overall similar personalities. You have Scarlet Witch and Quake with very similar power set physically, SW just has added mental powers while Quake now also fits in with the other group and genius hacker. That just leaves Simmons, a super scientist, and Peggy Carter, who is in a league of her own. They could really use some more diversity in that first group.
|
|
I just realized that with the 8 or so female heroes in the MCU, they all fall into 3 archtypes. Gamora, Black Widow, May, Bobby, are pretty much interchangable in any fight they have been in, and have overall similar personalities. You have Scarlet Witch and Quake with very similar power set physically, SW just has added mental powers while Quake now also fits in with the other group and genius hacker. That just leaves Simmons, a super scientist, and Peggy Carter, who is in a league of her own. They could really use some more diversity in that first group.I was kind of displeased with them turning the Witch into a second rate Jean Grey rather than her normal weird powers. Much harder to explain on the screen and they wouldn't have been able to set up all the mindf~!+s, but it would be nice to have something a little different.
Though mostly they'd play out the same way in the fight scenes, so it wouldn't be too big a deal. Unless they'd gone the other route in making Ultron actually invulnerable.
Still it would be nice to see some women with other power in the MCU. Ms Marvel would work. She-Hulk? If they're losing Banner, doing her would make a neat replacement. A Wasp is a possibility. It would be really cool to have a woman play the super scientist role, but there really aren't any Marvel hero candidates for that. Not on the Stark level anyway.
In age of Ultron there was that Asian woman who Ultron forced into helping him build a new body. I don't think she's meant to be Tony-Stark/Bruce-Benner levels of genius and she's a minor character, but still nice having her around.
You forgot Potts and Hill.
Hill just fits into the first archetype again, and Potts is more of a plot device than a hero.
|
|
I just realized that with the 8 or so female heroes in the MCU, they all fall into 3 archtypes. Gamora, Black Widow, May, Bobby, are pretty much interchangable in any fight they have been in, and have overall similar personalities. You have Scarlet Witch and Quake with very similar power set physically, SW just has added mental powers while Quake now also fits in with the other group and genius hacker. That just leaves Simmons, a super scientist, and Peggy Carter, who is in a league of her own. They could really use some more diversity in that first group.
You forget Peggy Carter! After Black Widow she is definitely my favorite so far, and she is a completely different character type.
EDIT: I mean, you can't say that Carter fits into any of the first three types so she should not count as being in an archtype.
And, in Agents of Shield there are plenty more women with more minor roles and varying types. Agent 33, Hand and the female council member (don't remember the name).
Now that I think about it, the fact that all of the SHIELD women are interchangeable is kinda representative of the comics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the scene with BW and Banner was a bit clumsily edited, in that it does seem like she relates sterilization with monster, when the intent was "Red Room programming = monster"
My understanding was that BW had to have her role extensively altered and rewritten, due to the actresses RL pregnancy. So some of the problems might be blamed on that.
|
|
I agree that the scene with BW and Banner was a bit clumsily edited, in that it does seem like she relates sterilization with monster, when the intent was "Red Room programming = monster"
My understanding was that BW had to have her role extensively altered and rewritten, due to the actresses RL pregnancy. So some of the problems might be blamed on that.
She was pregnant while doing that scene? Ha. Nice bit of trivia.
Yeah, I didn't read that scene the way others did. I get that she didn't have a lot of screen time, and the writing could have been tweaked to completely dispel the idea. But I got the intended message, as far as I can tell.
I caught that scene as well and felt the dialogue could have been edited better. I would like to see the deleted scenes and see if there was more to that (needlessly long)conversation.
|
|
Now that I think about it, the fact that all of the SHIELD women are interchangeable is kinda representative of the comics.
Most of the SHIELD men are much the same. Hard-fighting action hero with a gun. Rah.
The dudes are mostly James Bond. The ladies are mostly Jackie Chan with some extra acrobatics.
Once we start seeing more super-powered femmes, like Carol Danvers and some version of the Wasp and the Scarlet Witch and DaisyQuake and Jessica Jones, it should change things up a bit. Hopefully we'll see some more super-powered options than 'strong tough person' (Carol and Jessica) and eventually see folk with more interesting powers like Monica Rambeau or Crystal, of the Inhumans.
|
|
When people think of Marvel female characters I don't think they consider Gemorra and her sister (that blue android thing).
That's Nebula.. she's not an android, just cybered up. And they're "sisters" by adoption only. And it's Gamora, The Most Dangerous Woman in the Galaxy.
Gamora's people, the Zen Whoberis were massacred by religious extremists who worshipped the Magus, the future evil self of Adam Warlock. Thanos wished to create an assassin that would be capable getting past the omniscient senses of the Magus. (For various reasons, killing Adam Warlock himself would not be the answer). Using a time ship of his own devising, Thanos traveled back in time and rescued Gammora from the destruction of her people and taught her to be a living weapon. He first set her on the killers of her people, having her kill them before the massacre even occured, thus making her a temporal anomaly that he hoped would bypass the Magus' enhanced perceptions. (Spoiler: It didn't work. and the Magus was defeated by Warlock moving ahead and consuming the soul of his future Warlock self. But that's another story.)
Thanks. I'm a bit hazy on GotG lore mostly because the parts dealing with it are the least interesting parts in the movie which is my only acquaintance with the story.
I'm just upset that Karen Gillan cut off her beautiful ginger hair for the role of Nebula. Face ended up looking CGI anyway (I have no idea if it was real or not but it looked computer generated)
Now that I think about it, the fact that all of the SHIELD women are interchangeable is kinda representative of the comics.Most of the SHIELD men are much the same. Hard-fighting action hero with a gun. Rah.
The dudes are mostly James Bond. The ladies are mostly Jackie Chan with some extra acrobatics.
Once we start seeing more super-powered femmes, like Carol Danvers and some version of the Wasp and the Scarlet Witch and DaisyQuake and Jessica Jones, it should change things up a bit. Hopefully we'll see some more super-powered options than 'strong tough person' (Carol and Jessica) and eventually see folk with more interesting powers like Monica Rambeau or Crystal, of the Inhumans.
For the male field agents, we have Coulson, Ward, Mack, Hunter, Trip, Fury, Deathlock. They have different fighting styles, builds, and specialties. Aside from making Lucy Lawless's character special by using knives instead of guns, all the women are agility based, wear nearly identical clothing, and fight the same way.
|
|
For the male field agents, we have Coulson, Ward, Mack, Hunter, Trip, Fury, Deathlock. They have different fighting styles, builds, and specialties. Aside from making Lucy Lawless's character special by using knives instead of guns, all the women are agility based, wear nearly identical clothing, and fight the same way.
Actually...barring Deathlok (who's special because he's a super) and Mack (who's something like 50 to 100 lbs heavier in sheer muscle than anyone else on that list) I'd argue that all the male characters you list (Coulson, Ward, Hunter, and Trip) have about as agility-based a fighting style as the women in close combat (Ward occasionally relies a little more on strength, but not a whole lot). The women are just better at hand to hand and/or more inclined to use it over shooting people (and that's rather skewed by May and Bobbi being two of the women on the list...they're both kinda specialists).
As for different weapons, Bobbi's batons are sorta a signature, and May usually fights unarmed. So that's a fairly large difference right there. At least as large as between Coulson and Ward (who use identical weapon choices).