[ SECRET POST #2084 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2084 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 094 secrets from Secret Submission Post #298.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

LOL at people trying to argue that Black Widow had more depth than Loki. BW and Hawkeye in the movies at least are little more than glorified extras in leather whereas Loki's tragedy was one of the focal points of Thor.

[mudousetsuna]

Look at how you're comparing it, though.

In Thor, Loki was well developed.
That was in Thor.

Hawkeye and Black Widow didn't have a movie (yet) and Loki wasn't all that fleshed out in this movie either.

There were some disappointing constraints in Avengers due to time and probably other things, but I don't think that makes their characters flat. If anything, fanfic writers can expand on it based on what they know from comics that they may still be able to infer from the movies.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL at you acting like Black Widow and Hawkeye had the same treatment or amount of screentime in the Avengers movie. Hawkeye spent most of the movie mind-controlled and thus got very little character development, yes. But Natasha? Did most of the actual verbs in that movie. Including outsmarting the trickster god and closing the interdimensional portal to save the world. Did you just sleep through all the scenes that didn't have Loki in them?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes she was active but that hardly means she had any depth besides the exposition backstory delivered by other characters. She's just the "hot action chick in black leather" cliche.

Plus she had Iron Man 2 to flesh out her character and even there she didn't do much besides being "badass".

Trying to argue that Loki is a flat character when he's easily one of the most complex characters in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe and that Black Widow is rounded in comparison is absurd.

[intrigueing]

easily one of the most complex characters in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe

lol no.

He's more complex than Obadiah Stane or the Red Skull, but no :D

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, yes.

After Thor and Iron Man, Loki's the character with the most character development. Even the critics who didn't like the movie thought his arc was rather well-done.

That people are actually trying to argue that his character is flat and that he's less complex than a generic stock action girl archetype boggles the mind.

[(Anonymous)]

okay, okay, Loki is my favourite character, and I admit Black Widow, of all the main Avengers, has the least character backstory.

That's because she doesn't have her own movie. She's only ever been the side character/part of the ensemble. She's hardly a ~generic stock action girl~ - what's hinted of her backstory is very complex and interesting, it's just that we've never gotten the opportunity to see it in detail. She's a former assassin/baddish guy who is now trying to redeem herself for her past actions by working with a rather shady world-protecting organization.






Oh, why am I even bothering. You're obviously either a) a troll or b) sexist. Or c) both.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes because anyone who doesn't like Black Widow MUST be either a sexist or a troll. It's IMPOSSIBLE to think that she's a bland, uninteresting character by itself. There must be some ulterior motive because no one can hate a female character.

Ugh. I thought I left this bullshit behind at Scans_Daily.

[(Anonymous)]

It is entirely possible to dislike Black Widow without being a troll or sexist.

It is not, however, possible to say she's a 'flat' character with not even a hint of depth and is 'unworthy' of fucking Loki, of all people, and not either be a troll or sexist as shit.

[(Anonymous)]

LMAO, I thought Hawkeye was a shitty character as well, guess I must hate the Irish.

[(Anonymous)]

Hawkeye really was a flat character though. There was literally no hinting of any backstory to him in the movies. He's just this guy that works for SHIELD who once upon a time decided against killing Natasha.

Whereas Natasha actually has a past, a history she's ashamed of and wants to make up for, etc.

Sorry you're a sexist shithole, I guess.

[astridv]

It is not, however, possible to say she's a 'flat' character with not even a hint of depth and is 'unworthy' of fucking Loki, of all people, and not either be a troll or sexist as shit.

Myep.

[(Anonymous)]

I love how deluded the SJWs are.

[intrigueing]

Not saying his character was flat, far from it, and yes, his character arc was definitely well-done, but if you're going by multi-facetedness and layeredness, he wasn't nearly as complex as the four Avengers with movies under their belt. He's got more backstory than Hawkeye and Black Widow for sure. He's also probably more explicitly complex than them (although IMO, not as interesting).

And Black Widow was not a generic stock action girl archetype lol. If you found her character boring or flat or uninspired, that's totally valid, but "generic"? "stock"? You do realize "generic" and "stock" refers to characters who have been done a million times before, right? They're not synonyms for "boring"?

My mind would be boggling, but since you're clearly that exact same anon who was bashing her a week or so ago, I'm just giggling a little at your insistence that other people are not allowed to like a character you disliked and that they are not allowed to find complexity in her character because you didn't find it. You're as bad as those Loki-bashers who insist that Loki was nothing but a cackling dickhole who was evil for the sake of being evil.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not, actually. This is the first time I posted in an Avengers thread on FS period.

I could care less if people don't like him. But if they think that -- judging by the movies themselves and not fanwank or their comic counterparts -- that Black Widow is more complex than Loki, then they're objectively wrong. Maybe she'll get more development later on but now there's not a lot to go by.

And yes, I found the movie Black Widow to be a generic action girl that we've seen dozens of time now.

[intrigueing]

You're again confusing complexity with backstory. People can find a character who's had loads of screentime and done lots of stuff onscreen and gone through lots of character development one-note and boring and can't think of anything to discuss or questions to raise; and a character who's had not much screentime but a very ambiguous and question-inspiring hinted-at backstory very complex due to how the details we do know about her conflict or match up or connect to each other.

LOL. If you thought she was generic, you were certainly focusing on her job and her outfit, not her backstory.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

The thing is the 'bad guy turned good' is a really common trope. Maybe not in movies - I don't watch many, but in certain genres of novels I've read? It's actually pretty common. Common enough that there have been people who consider it over done. The same can be said about a character being a spy/assassin which is what she's been pretty much stated to be in the movie - and even within that, it's not uncommon for a character to have been raised to be that. It's also pretty common for someone's world view to change after a big event shakes up [in her case, someone choosing not to kill her, which given what else we know, would probably be a change for her].

So I could see where someone would think of her as pretty generic based on her backstory. It's stuff that's been done before a lot, and it's not exactly stuff that's rare to see done together.

Before you start accusing me of anything - that isn't my view of her. I just don't think she's had enough screen time to really develop much, and that with her stoic personality means it's easy to write the character off as boring as a whole. ..And in fairness, when it comes to Loki, his backstory isn't the most original thing to ever happen either.

[(Anonymous)]

he's easily one of the most complex characters in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe

Lol! You're killing me here, anon--are we actually talking about movie!Loki? You sure you didn't mean comics!Loki? Because movie!Loki is a whiny brat. Some of his complaints are valid (to a lesser extent than he complains about them) but for the most part, he's as complex as toast. Somewhat sympathetic toast.

Just admit you think he's hot and move on, Loki-stan.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm actually not into guys, so my interest in Loki has nothing to do with Hiddleston being hot. I am into girls, and I find ScarJo to be hot, but I also found her character to be bland. So clearly sexual attraction is not a factor into which characters I like.

No, I genuinely found his character and storyline to be compelling and I thought Hiddleston did a good job playing him.

Maybe Loki's not up there with Roy Batty but he's definitely more interesting than most of the characters in the Avengers movies thus far.

[tabaqui]

She's just the "hot action chick in black leather" cliche.

Wow, so no. We also got a little backstory/character on her in IronMan 2. She's way more interesting, objectively, than Hawkeye in the movie, despite my love for both characters.

[tinuelena]

"She's just the "hot action chick in black leather" cliche."

lol are you serious right now? See above post. She carried the movie. Also, they didn't exactly have TIME to develop her character in Avengers. It was a bit fucking packed with other shit. Black Widow's backstory would not a good subplot make.

And Iron Man 2 wasn't about her. She was shrouded in mystery because Tony didn't know about her.

Here's hoping we actually get an origins story for her.

But you are right in that Loki is one of the most complex characters and Natasha isn't rounded when you compare the two.

[astridv]

LOL
You really ought to take off the Loki goggles every now and then, they're distorting your view.

[(Anonymous)]

Likewise, you should take off the Natasha Goggles if you're so far up your own ass that you accuse anyone who doesn't like Black Widow to be a secret sexist/troll.

[(Anonymous)]

10/10

Perfect combination of ridiculous Loki stanning with outrageously bullshit arguments, to be utterly unbelievable and yet enraging enough that one can't help but respond. You graduate with full honours from troll school, good sir or madam.

[(Anonymous)]

"I can't respond, so I'm just going to call you a troll."