Disney slash MCU's "Ironheart". Hilarious garbage? (television hobbies)

[Syne]

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head again?

[Magical Realist]

38 Review-Bombed TV Shows & Movies
by prgiordano • Created 2 years ago • Modified 1 day ago

"The state of social media in recent years has resulted in a sub-section of it becoming plagued with users that will denounce any attempt that has representation of minorities and LGBTQ+ content, calling any sign of that parts of an "agenda," "woke mind virus," "political statement," and/or "radical" leftist-driven takeover of people's minds. The majority of these claims have been made by conservative christian republicans that will do anything to either dissuade any further attempt at such acknowledgement of these people's existence, and/or burn these works' reputation in a way that somehow can be seen as not a blatant discrimination of a person's race, sex, and/or political beliefs. This list serves as a warning for those that want to make sure that what they want to watch has actually gotten reliable reception elsewhere on the internet and hasn't ended up becoming victims of what is now disturbingly becoming an increasingly common-place phenomenon."

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls564571596/

[Syne]

As usual, you can't answer simple questions.

[Yazata]

It went straight to Disney+ and as I don't pay extra for Disney+ I won't see it. I don't think that's a big loss.

I get female Ghostbusters vibes. Repeat a successful film formula, except gender- (and in the Ironheart case) race-swap it. As opposed to giving the black female character a new story to call her own. The woke swap seems to be the only reason that Disney made this and the only reason that it exists.

I disagree with CC about Riri not being a Mary Sue character. She's basically a female Tony Stark, except poor (and oppressed) and from the hood. But she's still supposed to be a super-genius who is smarter than everyone else at MIT at age 15. Yet she can't find her way to doing anything original and settles for copying what Tony Stark already did. With her suit, she can beat any man in a fight and goes full Mary Sue.

Not only does she not do anything original, she uses her super-powers (intellect and suit) to become a super criminal. I'm not sure what's up with that.

Does she slowly find her way towards good as the story evolves, step by step, like Walter White in reverse? Is this the origin-story of a new Marvel super-villain? Or does Disney perceive her as some kind of liberator, fighting the supposedly "racist" system that supposedly oppresses people like her. (Despite her being given a scholarship to MIT at 15.)

Bottom line: I haven't seen it and don't expect that I ever will. But just from the way it's described, it sounds initially like it suffers from serious creative and ethical deficiencies.

[C C]

It went straight to Disney+ and as I don't pay extra for Disney+ I won't see it. I don't think that's a big loss.

I get female Ghostbusters vibes. Repeat a successful film formula, except gender- (and in the Ironheart case) race-swap it. As opposed to giving the black female character a new story to call her own. The woke swap seems to be the only reason that Disney made this and the only reason that it exists.

The original Ironheart in the comic book was a Black girl, so for once this show was a vote of confidence that a diverse slash female character could make it on their own, rather the usual humiliation of having to ride atop an established white male figure via the racial/gender swap. But OTOH, the comic book itself was unoriginally playing off of Ironman (like Batgirl from Batman and Supergirl from Superman) -- so Ironheart was spun from a vetted formula in that sense.

I disagree with CC about Riri not being a Mary Sue character. She's basically a female Tony Stark, except poor (and oppressed) and from the hood. But she's still supposed to be a super-genius who is smarter than everyone else at MIT at age 15. Yet she can't find her way to doing anything original and settles for copying what Tony Stark already did. With her suit, she can beat any man in a fight and goes full Mary Sue.

Not only does she not do anything original, she uses her super-powers (intellect and suit) to become a super criminal. I'm not sure what's up with that.

Does she slowly find her way towards good as the story evolves, step by step, like Walter White in reverse? Is this the origin-story of a new Marvel super-villain? Or does Disney perceive her as some kind of liberator, fighting the supposedly "racist" system that supposedly oppresses people like her. (Despite her being given a scholarship to MIT at 15.)

Bottom line: I haven't seen it and don't expect that I ever will. But just from the way it's described, it sounds initially like it suffers from serious creative and ethical deficiencies.

The moral shortcomings (and "another brat who thinks the world owes him/her something") seems to be what the critics are focusing on. But there have been "superheroes" in the past who break laws and have rebel attitudes, like The Punisher.

So where it becomes controversial here is if one of the goals was to avoid racial stereotypes (a perverse failure if that was the intent). But since the head writer is Black, apparently there wasn't much concern about Riri having major character flaws like this (at least in the beginning -- who knows what direction Riri would develop if there was a second season).

[stryder]

As with most "superhero" stories, there is usually the origin story and that can lead to moral dilemmas and decisions that eventually shape the character.

In the case of Ironheart you've got Riri trying to be be what she wants to be and not be what everyone else wants her to be (she constantly references people making her "small"), eventually the character is going to succumb to being something different from what she wanted but not what everyone else wanted either. It's character growth, otherwise the character would become exceedingly shallow. That's what I assume the writer was/is intending, however we'll see if that manages to come across through the series.

"Is it leftist?, is it woke?, is it...." Thats a you problem. It's fiction, is meant to be a distraction and interlude from this mortal coil. Its not meant to be some brainwashing material (no matter how many people claim to see it buried within the subtext) If you are thinking too deeply on the subject, then you'll likely having problems letting go of what is going on the world or your life and not escaping like you should.

[C C]

[...] "Is it leftist?, is it woke?, is it...." Thats a you problem. It's fiction, is meant to be a distraction and interlude from this mortal coil. Its not meant to be some brainwashing material (no matter how many people claim to see it buried within the subtext) If you are thinking too deeply on the subject, then you'll likely having problems letting go of what is going on the world or your life and not escaping like you should.

Hopefully the case with some, if not most. But the fourth season of The Boys went undeniably political by fully revealing that Homelander and his followers were a dark parody of Trump and MAGA. Even some of the progressive viewers complained about having to endure an allegory about Trump in their escapist entertainment. Real-life apparently being saturated enough with him even before the election.

The audience receptivity will probably be partly different for Season Five next year, though. Since a recreational, fictional program like that is the only place they can experience Trump (Homelander) get his downfall, granting it being the final season (maybe it's not). And the anti-Left viewers will also watch again so that they can garner enough details to review bomb it.

Wikipedia: "Multiple journalists, fans, and critics have theorized and noted Trump inspired the series character development of Homelander, a theory which has been confirmed by Kripke [the showrunner]."

[Syne]

"Is it leftist?, is it woke?, is it...." Thats a you problem. It's fiction, is meant to be a distraction and interlude from this mortal coil. Its not meant to be some brainwashing material (no matter how many people claim to see it buried within the subtext) If you are thinking too deeply on the subject, then you'll likely having problems letting go of what is going on the world or your life and not escaping like you should.

So if people intentionally inject their own politics into escapist entertainment, it's your fault for having the gall to notice?

Once upon a time, people were perfectly capable of making fiction without any politics. God forbid anyone simply want that.

[stryder]

"Is it leftist?, is it woke?, is it...." Thats a you problem. It's fiction, is meant to be a distraction and interlude from this mortal coil. Its not meant to be some brainwashing material (no matter how many people claim to see it buried within the subtext) If you are thinking too deeply on the subject, then you'll likely having problems letting go of what is going on the world or your life and not escaping like you should.

So if people intentionally inject their own politics into escapist entertainment, it's your fault for having the gall to notice?

Once upon a time, people were perfectly capable of making fiction without any politics. God forbid anyone simply want that.

Unfortunately people do take from the world around to fill the void, otherwise there would be a lot of long pauses, more sexploitation and countless montages of stock footage.

As my sister quotes:

"TV is chewing gum for the eyes."

[Magical Realist]

It's not that people are deliberately inserting their politics into their art. It's just that their own personal ethical values inform both of these areas. Values of equality, justice, truth, and self-empowerment prominent in fiction can thus seem to be politically motivated when they really aren't. EX: Is Lord of the Rings really about liberalism fighting fascism? Or is it merely expressing the same values found in that political conflict?