fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2005 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2005 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06. [nf]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. http://i.imgur.com/H1X1Z.gif
[linked because uh not sure if this is porn or not; live action]

__________________________________________________

09. http://i.imgur.com/pNcu1.jpg
[porn of the drawn variety - Tintin]

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

11. [SPOILER WARNING for Hourou Musuko]

__________________________________________________

12. [SPOILER WARNING for Prometheus]

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILER WARNING for Homestuck]

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILER WARNING for Avengers]

__________________________________________________

15. [SPOILER WARNING for Merlin]

__________________________________________________

16. [SPOILER WARNING for Tangled]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

17. [WARNING for ... pretty sure this has something to do with rape]

__________________________________________________

18. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #286.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I disagree with the assessment of his abilities in the movieverse (there was a great lj entry somewhere I can't remember that discussed the little details of his characterization really well), but also...just because the movieverse doesn't show the complete range and extent of his abilities doesn't mean they aren't there? It's not like the movie showed Jarvis's limitations, it's simply that Jarvis had a minor role in the movies and wasn't exactly explored in great detail. So what fanon comes up with doesn't contradict anything in the movies (or even put things in a new light, like the dumb fanon defense of woobie!Loki as "well, we don't actually know that he wasn't abused as a kid!"), it just expands on and deepens what we saw and what could possibly be inferred.

Put it this way -- if Iron Man 3 shows Jarvis as very explicitly sentient, no one would notice a change from his characterization in Iron Man 1 or 2, or the Avengers, they would just be more aware of it.

AYRT

just because the movieverse doesn't show the complete range and extent of his abilities doesn't mean they aren't there?
Well of course. But it doesn't mean that they are either. Fanon posits that JARVIS can and does sometimes act against explicit orders and own make decisions. I've watched the movies with JARVIS' sentience/sapience in mind, and not once does this happen. Sure it doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't, but it does put atleast as much weight (and I think a bit more, given the tropes of an AI in every other bit of real and fictional media) in the column of 'yeah, not happening'.

To put it in a similar analogy to yours - in Iron Man 3 explicitly reveals that Stane subtly sexually abused Tony as a teenager, there would be no need for a change in his actions in IM1 needed to fit that revelation. We'd just be more aware of the creep-factor. But that doesn't mean that it's canon or true that this happened in movieverse at all. I'd be really interested in that article if you can find it! But from what I've seen I remain as unconvinced of JARVIS's sapience as I am of the fact that Steve Rogers is a technologically helpless blushing ingenue.

I don't think that analogy is comparable at all -- a reveal like that would throw Tony and Obadiah's relationship into an entirely different light, whereas if Jarvis was explicitly shown as sentient, people would at the most go "huh", but most likely would not even realize any difference from the previous movies. What I'm saying is, I think it's perfectly reasonable and logical (if not absolutely neccessary) to assume Jarvis is sentient given all the factors in the movies.

And...hmm...I think that the Jarvis discussion was in a thread in the comments section of a journal entry about...I'm wanting to say it was an personal review/recap of either The Avengers or the MCU in general, but now I think it may have been in the comments for a fic. I've seen people comment on Jarvis's humanness in multiple different venues though, so I'm not sure if there's some place where I can show you everything that's been said on the subject.

AYRT

Uhh, not really. In fact I'd say that this particular 'reveal' about Obadiah would just add one more level to the already textual manipulative and heavily implied subtly abusive relationship. While JARVIS being revealed to be 'sentient' puts a whole new spin on a LOT of things - not least Tony's genius (could go either way), Tony's relationship with him (is it slavery? Does he know about the sentience or not?), Fury shutting JARVIS down becomes akin to attempted murder rather than disabling a security system, JARVIS not taking any action when Stane paralyzes and de-arcs Tony becomes worthy of scrutiny (if he's sentient why didn't he take any action on his own?) and so on and so forth.

I'm an engineer, and I've worked with both artificial speech systems and robotics, and I'd damn well need more 'proof' before JARVIS's sentience became any apparent or 'true' or anything more than fanon. I'd be glad to see any meta on this, not actually asking to see 'everything that's been said on the subject'. I get you're pretty attached to that headcanon and that's okay. But that doesn't make it more than headcanon. But I think if you really feel so strongly that "perfectly reasonable and logical ... to assume Jarvis is sentient given all the factors in the movies" then it's not untenable to ask you to be able to give a few of all these factors and your thoughts for thinking so. *shrugs*

[ SECRET POST #2005 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject