iamanartichoke:

philosopherking1887:

iamanartichoke:

sabbykatt3:

i-need-a-hero-i-need-a-loki:

Russo brothers with Loki in infinity war:

Shame and opprobrium where it’s due: the people who wrote the screenplay for Infinity War are Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. I blame them more than the Russo brothers for the bullshit that was IW … though of course the Russos executed Markus & McFeely’s shitty vision in predictably shitty fashion.

^^ Fair, idk why, but I always tend to assume that the screenplay is like a guideline and the directors are the ones who ultimately carry it out – but, I really have no idea how movie-making works. I think I’ll just make “Russos+M&M” my kind of blanket blame name for IW, haha.  

I think it depends a lot on the specific case… but I think in the normal case, the screenplay dictates the course of fictional events. Thor: Ragnarok is a highly unusual case because so much of it ended up being improvised. People who have read the novelization have pointed to significant differences in storyline as well as dialogue, which did not exist between the novel and movie versions of the previous two Thor movies. Most significantly, the electrocution/ultimatum scene was not in the novel; Loki arrives in Asgard with Thor & co. rather than coming later. So I think we can conclude that the “shooting script” that’s available online, which is just sort of a transcript of the movie, is not Eric Pearson’s screenplay, which is why I leave him out of my beefs about Ragnarok. I get the impression that the process with Infinity War was a lot more conventional, so the screenwriters deserve at least as much blame as the directors for the issues with plot and characterization.

angryowlet:

philosopherking1887:

Was briefly tempted to write “don’t @ me” in my course syllabus, in regard to a paper I think I’m going to assign that was written by a conservative jurist and legal scholar.

Now imagining students responding to the paper by saying “OP is a racist capitalist shill but go off I guess”

To be fair, though… the guy is arguing that engaging with literature doesn’t make you morally better. His own moral flaws, given the obvious evidence that he’s very well-read, only tend to reinforce his point.

@philosopherking1887 Wait a minute, I’m confused. Is the guy’s self-burn intentional or a happy byproduct of his own ignorance? 

The self-burn is not intentional… though he’s reflective enough to know that he doesn’t live up to the standards of the supporters of ethical criticism.

The reason I want to assign the paper is because the guy makes a lot of good points, but I’m worried that my students will have the same purist mindset that you see all over Tumblr and will dismiss him out of hand based on some questionable comments, or after looking him up on Wikipedia. The irony of that reaction, though, would be that his moral Problematicness actually speaks in favor of his thesis. I’m worried that my students will be too locked into a sectarian moralistic mindset to recognize that.

Was briefly tempted to write “don’t @ me” in my course syllabus, in regard to a paper I think I’m going to assign that was written by a conservative jurist and legal scholar.

Now imagining students responding to the paper by saying “OP is a racist capitalist shill but go off I guess”

To be fair, though… the guy is arguing that engaging with literature doesn’t make you morally better. His own moral flaws, given the obvious evidence that he’s very well-read, only tend to reinforce his point.