#This scene makes me so sad#because above all else#above UNIT and Torchwood#and even the Doctor#SHE was a doctor#Martha Jones helped people - her passion was to heal#and save lives#and now she might be the only one who can save the universe#but at the cost of the entire planet#she’ll kill them all#and it’s the last thing that she wants to do#but it’s the only option now#so when this woman pulls the gun on her and threatens to kill her#Martha sadly nods her head and tells her to do it#because then she wouldn’t have to make this choice#and it kills me
They said you might come.(via riveralwaysknew)
oh my god martha nearly did to the earth what the doctor did to gallifrey
oh my god
This is the exact reason why I maintain my position that Martha was not, under any circumstances, the companion.
She was the doctor.
Now I know that he’s always the same man at the core after regenerations so on and so forth, but when it really boils down, the doctor isn’t a timelord, the doctor is an idea. At least in the RTD era, every companion at one point or another, has had to make the choice to become the doctor.
Rose Became the Doctor when she accepted her fate as the bad wolf.
Mickey became the doctor when he stayed in the parallel universe.
Donna became the doctor during the meta-crisis.
Jack became the doctor when he ‘died’ for the first time trying to save everyone before Rose destroyed the Daleks.
But Martha? Martha was different, Martha was special. Martha never chose to become the doctor, because that was who she always was in her heart; and substantially she was the only companion of the RTD era who didn’t need to be saved by either the timelord doctor or TARDIS intervention (in the case of Jack, seeing as it was the badwolf, who brought him back).
groot is probs assumed to be male but tbh i figure groot is a lil genderless being. who needs the gender binary when you’re a celestial tree creature. riddle me that.
"Are you a boy, or a girl?"
"I am Groot."
Tree sex and gender are actually a fascinatingly complex topic.
From a reproductive perspective, it all comes down to flowers. Like most animals, trees reproduce using “eggs” and “sperm” - in this case, egg cells and pollen - which are both manufactured by flowers. A given flower may produce pollen, egg cells, or both. A flower that produces only pollen is known as “staminate”; one that produces only egg cells, “carpellate”, and one that produces both pollen and egg cells, “perfect” or “bisexual”. This, in turn, yields three possible configurations:
- All of the tree’s flowers are perfect.
- Some flowers on the tree are carpellate, and some flowers on the tree are staminate (possibly with some perfect flowers mixed in).
- The tree has only carpellate flowers, or only staminate flowers.
These three configurations in turn yield numerous permutations. For example, some trees produce mostly or exclusively staminate flowers in the Spring, a mixture of staminate and carpellate flowers in the Summer, and mostly or exclusively carpellate flowers in the Fall. Other trees produce only staminate flowers when young, and gradually transition as they grow until the largest, oldest trees produce only carpellate flowers.
Given such a complicated reproductive dynamic, it’s possible that Groot’s people would have no gender roles - but it’s also possible that they’d have a set of gender roles just as complicated and dynamic as their reproductive roles.
#looooooook #groot #is a complex #multigendered #being #i’m so fucking in love #also #i am groot #is a perfectly valid #gender identity
A selection of tags from zooeyscigar
In The Winter Soldier, Arnim Zola all but brags outright that Howard Stark’s “accidental” death was in fact caused by HYDRA. The Russo brothers have apparently confirmed that they meant to implicate the Winter Soldier in the assassination, which opens the door for all sorts of fun pain and angst once we get Bucky back and he starts interacting with Tony… but that’s not actually what I want to talk about here.
No, the real question I want to address is: Why Howard, and not Peggy?
omg yES OF COURSE WHY DID NOBODY THINK OF THIS UNTIL NOW?
(if they did and I just didn’t see it, shush, you’re still brilliant)
Writing and reading fanfiction isn’t just something you do; it’s a way of thinking critically about the media you consume, of being aware of all the implicit assumptions that a canonical work carries with it, and of considering the possibility that those assumptions might not be the only way things have to be.
At this late date, fanfiction has become wildly more biodiverse that the canonical works that it springs from. It encompasses male pregnancy, centaurification, body swapping, apocalypses, reincarnation, and every sexual fetish, kink, combination, position, and inversion you can imagine and probably a lot more that you could but would probably prefer not to. It breaks down walls between genders and genres and races and canons and bodies and species and past and future and conscious and unconscious and fiction and reality. Culturally speaking, this work used to be the job of the avant garde, but in many ways fanfiction has stepped in to take that role. If the mainstream has been slow to honor it, well, that’s usually the fate of aesthetic revolutions. Fanfiction is the madwoman in mainstream culture’s attic, but the attic won’t contain it forever.
Anne Jamison. Fic: Why Fanfiction is Taking Over the World. 2013
Wicked is structured like a queer 1950s Rodgers and Hammerstein musical. It follows many narratological and musical conventions of the “golden age musical” but places two women as the central couple. Like the heterosexual couples of mid-twentieth-century musicals, Glinda and Elphaba begin as enemies and competitors, as opposites in voice and temperament. Constructed as a butch- femme couple, they eventually merge vocally through the show’s numerous duets. By the end, they express their love for one another and promise eternal commitment in “For Good,” as they sing, “Who can say if I’ve been changed for the better? Because I knew you, I have been changed for good.” In this duet, they cross voice parts: Glinda sings alto, Elphaba sings soprano, and they finish the song together on middle C. Wicked’s very project is double divadom.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
#that’s it #that’s the entire character #’you can’t pick fights with people three times your size t hey’re gonna pummel you’ #’WE’LL SEE’ #’you can’t join the army steve #you’ll die #’you can’t go beyond enemy lines to rescue your friend steve it’s suicide #’you can’t save your brainwashed boyfriend he’s going to kill you’ #on va voir: an autobiography by steve grant rogers #’i didn’t sign up for this: a foreword by natasha romanoff’ (x)
"Yeah, I guess that makes sense that he would be drafted, but I always liked the idea that he wasn’t drafted, you know, that he made the choice to enlist himself because I always thought that he, uh… When I read up on the comics, he was, you know, given his family background. He was always sort of following his dad’s footsteps, which would always had been in the army. So, he gave him — it kinda gave him no choice that he had made on his own to become — to be in the army, which later for me kinda gave him that angst to be unsure whether or not he wanted to be there." (x)
I like Sebastian Stan’s ideas about Bucky following in his father’s footsteps. It rings pretty true to me that Bucky would kind of consider signing up a foregone conclusion (see also: you can’t hang around Steve Rogers so much without some commitment to the good cause of your own), then got knocked on his ass by actually being on the front line and getting tortured, like “what the hell was I thinking, fuck I wanna go home”, but even then he stuck around and signed up for a whole new kind of danger because now there’s Steve to look out for too. Either way, it makes sense with the rest of what we’re shown, it keeps a little bit of Bucky’s comics backstory, which is otherwise almost entirely discarded by the MCU, and it’s something Steve and Bucky would have in common. Hell, you could even headcanon their mothers meeting through the kids and then bonding over being a military wife and a military widow, respectively, and more female character interaction is always a good thing.
Going even just “eh, maybe” about drafted!Bucky is being really nice and non-confrontational of him though, considering that no, it actually would not make a lick of sense, character-wise and story-wise. Choice - choosing to fight, choosing WHY to fight, choosing WHAT to fight for, choosing HOW to fight - is, I daresay, the defining theme in both Bucky and Steve’s stories, and the Captain America movies as a whole as a result. Even Peggy gets her share of crucial characterisation couched in terms of choice! "Why would you join the army when you’re a beautiful woman? You’ve got so many other options, so many easier options, and the men don’t even want you here.” “Like hell I’m going to sit on my arse and look pretty when I could be helping my country.” “Relax, doll, the war’s over. Us men will handle the rough stuff from now on.” “LIKE HELL I WILL.” And Sam! "You got out for a good reason." "There’s no better reason to get back in."
In no sane world would the draftee status fandom is so determined to foist on Bucky not get a single mention or acknowledgement in First Avenger, when Bucky finds his chronicaly ill, in no way fit to fight Nazis to the death, best friend’s fourth fraudulent attempt to enlist, or when said best friend is so desperate to try again he walks out on what could quite possibly be the last night they’ll get to spend together until Bucky’s corpse comes home in a casket, or when Steve finds Bucky strapped to an evil scientists’s lab table reciting the service number that caused all of this nonsense fanon, or when Steve asks him point blank whether or not he’s willing to go back into that hell with him, or when Peggy goes “he made this choice himself, and he made it for a good reason” after it turns out Bucky not only won’t get to go home alive, he won’t even get to go home in a casket, OR DURING THE ENTIRETY OF WINTER SOLDIER, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE STORY OF “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET DRAFTED BY HYDRA”.
/opinions nobody asked for
One thing I’m suddenly thinking about is Black Widow’s reputation as a femme fatale and where it comes from. Because both in the MCU and in most of the comics I’ve read, there’s not a whole lot of her seducing men/using sex to get what she needs.
In comics, her very earliest appearance with Iron Man in Tales of Suspense #52 has her serve as a distraction in the form of a pretty face, but there’s scarcely anything there, and while there were some hints of it in Richard K. Morgan’s Black Widow run overall I find it’s much more typical that the men around Natasha assume she’s there to seduce them, when in fact she has other means of getting what she wants.
(Of course, the above panel is having it both ways. Natasha’s reason for not sleeping with her mark here is that she’s “involved” - and the suggestion of sex is there, along with a close up on Natasha’s thigh.)
Outside of Ultimates (and I don’t talk about Ultimates) sleeping with people - or even trading on her sexuality that much - just doesn’t seem to be a thing Natasha really does.
And then in the MCU - in The Avengers she trades much more on her perceived vulnerability and assumed weakness (as a woman) than any kind of sexual appeal (“just another pretty face” and the whole scene with Loki). In Cap 2 there’s even less - the closest thing I can come up with is the “hello, boys” in the scene on the Lemurian Star and that is immediately followed by a brutal fight rather than a seduction. Later on, with Sitwell, her interrogation style is to kick him off a building.
What I’m getting to, I guess, is that it seems to me one of those things that kind of comes out of nowhere. It’s an assumption - like the man in the panels above, that because Natasha is a woman and a spy and wears a tight black suit, that her modus operandi is sex. And if it’s an assumption made in universe (by Natasha’s interrogators and opponents) then it’s one that, despite its being proven wrong, is perpetuated out of universe in discussion. (Think of the reviews of both Winter Soldier and The Avengers that dismissed Natasha as sexy eye candy in fetish gear.)
It’s just - funny, for lack of a better word, that no matter what canon evidence there is, Natasha is still overwhelmingly perceived as a femme fatale figure trading on her sexual appeal, when it’s been demonstrated in both comics and the MCU that that’s not what she does. It’s like the trope of spy woman = sex object is so deeply embedded that even with two movies and several volumes of comics to the contrary, perception still sticks Black Widow in that box, again and again.
While doing fanfic orientated research on Loki’s weapons, I came across an ‘On Set With Tom Hiddleston' interview from the first Thor movie. While this interview is by no means new, it is - in Tom's typically detailed manner - an interesting read for anyone wanting to recap on the psyche of Loki (prior to his psychological meltdown), his fighting style, etc.
Some segments of Tom’s narrative I found particularly interesting, especially as the resulting movie didn’t really expand upon these areas of Loki’s psyche quite as well as they could have."Thor and Loki are a 2-man team and they’re both going to run Asgard when Odin steps down.” (Tom, Collider interview)
This notion of Loki running Asgard alongside Thor wasn’t shown to us in the finished movie, however it was hinted at in a removed segment of conversation between Frigga and Odin in the original Thor transcript:FRIGGA: Thor won't be alone. Loki will be at his side to give him counsel. Have faith in your sons.
- Original Thor transcript
This deleted segment between Frigga and Odin showed us that the value Loki’s family held for him was not of a ‘stolen relic’ as Loki believed himself to be, but as a trusted counselor to assist Thor in his rule.
Also in the interview was Tom’s description of Loki’s areas of expertise, part of which was his skill as a tactician:
"And Loki’s gifts are different in that he is sharper, he’s cleverer, he’s more interested in tactics and strategy." (Tom, Collider interview)
This part of Tom’s interview reminded me of how Loki’s skill for strategy was portrayed in a (deleted) Jotunheim scene from the original Thor transcript:LOKI Perhaps we should wait. (Thor turns back to his brother.) THOR For what? LOKI To survey the enemy. To gauge their strengths and weaknesses from a distance.
Again, it’s a shame that snippet of scene was not in the movie, as it portrayed the concept of Loki being a wise tactician with subtle clarity and gave us insight into the person Loki was before his circumstances took a turn for the worst.
Although we did get an idea of Loki’s skill as a strategist in the way that he carried out his plan to ‘fix the mess Thor made’, this only showed us the darker side of his stratagem.
Another important foundation stone of Loki’s persona was in the deleted scene where we see Frigga give Loki the kingship - much to his surprise and disbelief.
Perhaps this scene was removed so as not to paint Loki as too much of sympathetic (and somewhat accidental) villain. It’s far better for Loki to be the bad guy if taking the throne is seen as one of his inner machinations, than to realise it was given to him by his very mother.
But this is actually a really powerful and integral scene especially when Loki accepts Odin’s staff, Gungnir, and we see his expression settle into one of resolve. In this instant he knows what it is he has to do to ‘fix’ everything and make his father proud, and now he’s been handed the exceptionally powerful means to carry out the task.
It’s a real turning point for him as we see the way that being handed such power - however unexpected - begins to transform him.
The shame of these scenes being cut meant that much of the good aspects of Loki’s persona were removed, and this in turn prevented the wider audience from gaining a greater insight into the motivations of Loki, and of his dynamics within Asgard’s royal family.
Deleted scenes - they must be the bane of existance for those who don’t want to see Loki as anyone other than a scheming manipulative ‘evil villain’.
So anyway, there we have it. A random bit of (pointless) ramble from me, and perhaps food for thought for any new Loki fans out there who haven’t yet checked out the deleted transcript and movie scenes.
Oh, but back to Tom’s Collider interview for a moment, I can’t help but love this quote:
"And everything’s been dyed black and my skin’s been made paler than it normally is and so I’ve got black eyebrows and black hair and…just on my face mind you."
Sorry Tom, what was that again? Where else might we have suspected the hair dye to be…?
The mind boggles.
I’ll even add that the pre-coronation scene between Loki and Thor was significant as well. Because not only do you see that Loki loves Thor—that there is a very strong bond between the brothers—but it’s revealed that Loki is quite cognizant of his own jealousy and had learned to live with it.
He was correct (arguing later with Sif and the Warriors Three) that Thor wasn’t ready to be king yet. Unfortunately, he went about preventing this premature “passing of authority” in a rather drastic manner (which ultimately led to his own unraveling). But then again, we’ll never know if he actually tried to share his concerns with Odin and had those concerns dismissed, which in turn led to him taking more radical measures.
But I could go on ad nauseam. I do think you are correct, however, in that some of these scenes were removed because they would have made Loki too sympathetic. The film would have been less about Thor’s transformation and more about Loki’s self-destruction.
I do wonder how this story would have played out if it had been a true drama (rather that a film about comic book characters). Something that wasn’t constrained by needing to be family friendly, but allowed to be a contender for the likes of the Academy Awards. (There’s a fic here. Quick! Somebody write it.)
And this, aside from the criminal injustice done to Frigga (*SCREAMS INTO PILLOW*), is why I will forever and always rail and rage against the deletion of all those scenes. ALL THE CHARACTERISATION IS IN THE DELETED SCENES. ALL OF IT. FOR EVERYONE. Even Thor himself, jfc.
I can just picture the convo Branagh had with Marvel HQ (if only in his head): “Ken, you were supposed to direct a comicbook movie, not a Shakespearean tragedy! No Ken, you can’t make people feel more sorry for the villain than the hero, it’ll confuse their feels. Dammit Ken, make Hiddleston stop crying and turn Loki into a proper villain.”
(I found it particularly interesting to note that Loki’s "destroy everything" addendum to the Destroyer wasn’t in the original script.)
I haven’t watched the movie without breaks for the deleted scenes in AGES, and I honestly barely consider the end version canon anymore in my head. Healing stones FTW, yo.
Page 1 of 46