Bump on this, btw
Not really "look up to" as so much as "Love to Hate"/"Evil is Cool".I am rather uncomfortable with how some people here seem to look up to a satanically evil character who once blew up an entire populated utopian universe out of petty spite.
No problem.Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
Being cool is subjective, so they canWell, I strongly disagree with the entire fundamental concept of that genuinely evil people can ever truly be "cool", rather than just wanting to appear that way, and my story extensively explored that area.
Evil people can be admireable in aspects of their being, a merciless general who kills civilians may result cool due to his war tactics and the countries he conquered, the way this person speaks, the ways he dresses, his presence, there are many different aspects of a person can be admireable, doesn't matter if they're evil or goodCool heavily implies admireable, so I still strongly disagree. True real world evil is completely hollow at its core. Anything else is a marketing distortion.
Literally every marvel character including doctor doom couldn’t possibly be evil by your definition, because there are a very small handful of marvel characters that are completely hollow at their coreCool heavily implies admireable, so I still strongly disagree. True real world evil is completely hollow at its core. Anything else is a marketing distortion.
However, that seems like an extremely amoral, shallow, and simplistic definition of admireable human qualities.
but it is the definition, since what someone finds admireable or a quality or moral changes from person to personHowever, that seems like an extremely amoral, shallow, and simplistic definition of admireable human qualities.
I apologise for my too harsh tone earlier, but as anybody who has read my story knows, I have a major personal issue with when any form of media, culture, or ideology attempts to make genuine evil seem like something admireable, cool, and laudable.
Yes on both counts.
I just found an obscure quite recent YouTube interview with Al Ewing, mainly about his Thor run.
Among other things, he also strongly disliked that another writer mischaracterised Thor as supporting Doctor Doom's fascist world takeover (although there have been a lot of deliberate Thor potshot mischaracterisations over the years, including letting him support Hydra's Captain America copy), mentions that overfocus on who is able to kill who power levels as some kind of virtue, to the exclusion of any genuine ethics and story appreciation is inherently somewhat fascistic, and discusses his "Chad Hammer" late stage capitalism parody story (all of which I agree with), but also seems to agree with the Storm writer going on a very extreme "bestest best that ever bestest bestbestbestbestbest!!!!" power trip, which I have personally considered annoying and a double standard, but we cannot agree about everything.
That seems like an extreme leap in logic to take it...Thor should canonically know that an evil narcissistic egomaniacal tyrant with a history of sacrificing somebody who loved him to demons and turning her into magic skin armor for power, and who blew up an entire utopian universe out of petty spite and jealousy, and likely used mental enslavement magic on the world leaders, would not be an ideal ruler of the Earth.
The writer of the story was likely just yet another one in a long line who hates Thor, has somehow rationalised Scandinavia into being a root of evil in the world, and took an opportunity to undermine and slander him. It has happened quite frequently.
Thor never said Doom was good, only said that Doom was doing good and the things he accomplished in very little time were impressive. As I said before, Thor and the rest of the avengers went to make sure Doom was not using mind manipulation on the world leader, only then did Thor ssaid some good things about what Doom was doing, also the people were happy with the changes, the avengers were against Doom not because he was doing evil but because he did evil in the past and therefore assumed he was doing it again, Thor asked the Avengers to give it a second though before going after Doom.Thor should canonically know that an evil narcissistic egomaniacal tyrant with a history of sacrificing somebody who loved him to demons and turning her into magic skin armor for power, and who blew up an entire utopian universe out of petty spite and jealousy, and likely used mental enslavement magic on the world leaders, and applied draconian death penalties against everybody who broke his laws in the slightest, would not be an ideal ruler of the Earth...
The writer of the story was likely just yet another one in a long line who hates Thor, has somehow rationalised Scandinavia into being a root of evil in the world, rather than one of the most harmless spots, and took an opportunity to undermine and slander him. It has happened quite frequently.
Is this supposed be in Victor's defense? Because honestly the Avengers being against Doom in that context seems pretty reasonable given his track record.
I'm not defending him from his acts, he is evil and was sacrificing his own people to archive this which in my opinion is against his whole history.
And that was way too stupid and unsympathetic a sentiment to fit for Thor.
Thank you. Planck handled it.So uh... once again, someone is trying to merge MCU and Marvel Comics cosmologiesMcu Spider-Man H1C
Gördüğüm kadarıyla, bu durum aykırı değerler için belirlenen her bir noktayı ihlal ediyor: 1) Güçte büyük bir sıçrama mı yoksa düşüş mü var? Şehir yıkımı konusunda birçok başarısı olan bir karakterin bir dağı yok edebildiği gösterilirse, bu durum mutlaka bir istisna olarak değerlendirilemez...vsbattles.com
I think that this was a stupid hasty sentiment of me. I don't think that it is about Scandinavia (I just find it annoying that the single prominent Scandinavian superhero has ended up as a general scapegoat), but I have seen a writer illogically connect Thor with Nazism in an interview (the Nazis completely bastardised religions and mythology from all over the world, not just Viking mythology), and others do seem to inaccurately automatically associate him with the global patriarchy, even though he is very chivalrous and respectful of women when written properly, so that seems to be two major reasons for the neverending attempts to severely negatively distort and thereby slander him, whereas the most extremely corrupt cases, such as Jonathan Hickman and Kieron Gillen seem to take excruciating pleasure in systematically defiling, corrupting, and violating virtually anything kind and noble that they touch into absolutely malevolent, morbid, sadistic, filthy, and amoral dystopian memetic mind cancer, not remotely limited to Thor alone.The writer of the story was likely just yet another one in a long line who hates Thor, has somehow rationalised Scandinavia into being a root of evil in the world, rather than one of the most harmless spots, and took an opportunity to undermine and slander him. It has happened quite frequently.
I have also wondered why he adds so many adjectives to everything.
No disrespect btw, just interesting.I don't know. I just tend to try to describe things according to what I have observed.
I think that I just prefer to thoroughly describe what I perceive.
