• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Criticism that misses the point

Taraqual

Words words words
Validated User
I was glad when her master was killed.

I was less glad when she left the guy who was trying to help her escape starve to death.
Although there were about a dozen possible ways for him to escape if he decided to think about them. Because if you could say anything about Nathan Bateman, you could say that his ego was so huge that he would not allow himself to be trapped in his house even if the security alarms are tripped. But since Caleb's fate is not the point of the movie, worrying about whether he lived or died in the long run isn't important--Ava was willing to leave him behind to die, and that's what matters.

I personally think there was no particular reason her escape plan required her to leave Caleb, since bringing him along would logically even help her escape and pretend to be human, but she was thinking emotionally rather than logically, and her emotions--much like those of Westworld hosts--were to get the hell away from these people as quickly as possible.
 

Kevin Mowery

WAUGH!
Validated User
I personally think there was no particular reason her escape plan required her to leave Caleb, since bringing him along would logically even help her escape and pretend to be human, but she was thinking emotionally rather than logically, and her emotions--much like those of Westworld hosts--were to get the hell away from these people as quickly as possible.
Also, if Caleb comes with her, he's the only other person who knows she's not human. If she wants to genuinely escape, taking the one person who can blow her cover with her is a huge risk. She can't trust his feelings toward her to make him keep her secret, because how genuine are those feelings? Is he in love with her, or has he just projected his desires onto something that, on some level, he'll always think of as an object?
 

DarkStarling

Brilliantly Crazed
Validated User
Then you also get the point that, even if she is evil, she's got a good reason for having ended up that way. Doesn't make her better, but it does mean that it's not a result of her being a robot. It's a result of her having been in a horrible situation.

It's sort of like how I see the setup in Alien Resurrection. You can't say they're monsters even though they're intelligent beings killing people because, by that point, they've got a damn good reason to hate humans.
 

Dave999

Registered User
Validated User
The typical feminist critique of the ending is.

"Our heroine/antiheroine doesn't want to be his girlfriend in exchange for freedom. She just wants freedom and any freedom with him is conditional."
 

Taraqual

Words words words
Validated User
The typical feminist critique of the ending is.

"Our heroine/antiheroine doesn't want to be his girlfriend in exchange for freedom. She just wants freedom and any freedom with him is conditional."
It may be feminist, but it's also fairly misanthropic. Which is my biggest problem with the movie in general; I find the cynicism and misanthropy to overwhelm the parts I like. But that's definitely a different conversation entirely.
 

Dave999

Registered User
Validated User
It may be feminist, but it's also fairly misanthropic. Which is my biggest problem with the movie in general; I find the cynicism and misanthropy to overwhelm the parts I like. But that's definitely a different conversation entirely.
True, but it's also the case, "If she was completely good in this story, it wouldn't be nearly as memorable." :)
 

Antendren

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
All we know is she didn't show up for the Avengers Assemble scene. Maybe he brought her back, or opened a pathway to doing it, but she's still stuck on Vormir until someone can go get her. Or she appeared elsewhere. Or now someone now to do another thing to rescue her, like maybe Gamora has to go in there to rescue her previous self and gets Natasha in the bargain. Who knows?
Banner explicitly said that he tried to bring her back using the stones, but he wasn't able to.
 

Hunter

Registered User
Validated User
Dracula as a sex symbol is one thing. Dracula as an outright romantic figure I think first appeared when Richard Matheson introduced the idea that Dracula was searching for his lost love in the 1973 British TV movie directed by Dan Curtis. I remember that movie as having Mina be the reincarnation of Dracula's wife, but wikipedia tells me it was Lucy, and I don't think the movie is streaming anywhere for free, so I'll just trust wikipedia.

I don't think the reincarnated wife angle has shown up in any movies other than the Curtis and Coppolla versions. And having a romantic plot for Dracula is the one thing that I think keeps Bram Stoker's Dracula from being a great adaptation. Replace Gary Oldman's Dracula with Christopher Lee's Dracula, and you're basically there.
Amusing, it first shows up in vampire films in 1972, as the plot of Blacula.
And six years before that in DARK SHADOWS.

The most insane reviews I ever personal read was way back when Firefly has just come out. There was this woman who was doing a "where I watch" of the show on her LiveJournal and kept going on and on about how abused and subservient Zoe was, especially to Mal and Wash. How cruel Wash was to her and how he was gas-lighting her so he could control her. And on and on.
I re-read that review a couple of days ago, and it was as nutball and misandrist as you remembered it, but, in light of what we now know about Joss Whedon, this part hit home:

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon. But somehow I doubt that it is. No amount of money can buy back wasted emotional resources.
 

The Watcher

Cosmic Observer
Validated User
I swear that there was something in the first movie that said it was a one-way transaction. You pay the price, you get the stone, but you couldn't go the other way.

Which makes sense, frankly, because it isn't much of a sacrifice if you can just trade the stone back when you're done.
Of course, the Soul Stone has never been given a soul that exists twice in same universe (as far as we know). The Black Widow of that divergent timeline is still alive. I wonder if that could somehow be exploited metaphysically to give "Prime" Black Widow a possible out that no other soul ever had.

In a similar vein, I wonder what "Prime Thanos" and 2014 Thanos had to say to each other when they met in the Afterlife. That definitely would be an interesting conversation.
 
Top Bottom