No, but seriously, I don't know that I would blame people for disliking this show or not getting engaged with it. It's not perfect at all and I definitely recognize she isn't a character that's easy to get into. Not because she's kinda a villain but because I think the writers just weren't sure how to develop her character. And I really think that's the foundation of all the problems with the show, at least for me.
I don't know if I mentioned here already but I realized what I really wanted was something like Reservation Dogs with powers and crime bosses etc. (They even had half their cast from that show.) I saw someone suggested Roxxon should have been the main villains and I can't unthink that now.
It's just interesting how (even thought Maya CAN communicate) maybe not being verbal was too much of a handicap for the writers as far as conveying her character? But we needed more windows into who she is and what she's about. And I don't mean beating up dumb gropey henchman, but if any show needed more 'show, don't tell' it was this one.
All that said, I still did enjoy it. but again, I wouldn't blame anyone for not, nor would I immediately call 'racist' or 'sexist' on them.
I also had issues with who to root for at first, but that kind of resolves itself (not as much as I would like) once Fisk shows up. They missed really making her sympathetic by having her be groomed more overtly by Fisk, in my opinion - it was there but they needed to tie it together.
I suspect many Native Americans are a little tired of the focus on their beliefs/mysticism/connection to nature all the time in stories about them, even modern ones, as it is sort of stereotypical and paints them as an old culture not a current one. (Parks and Recreation poked fun at this as well with the head of the Wamapoke Casino playing off those stereotypes). They sort of did a riff on the "native culture is so cool" with the couple buying things at the Grandfather's store - and I say this as someone who has some Navajo sand art and carved fetishes myself as I think they look cool, but not to create some fake connection between me and their beliefs or that the person I bought it from wasn't just selling them as souvenirs.
It is a little bit like having an Italian American action hero have story flashbacks to Romulus and Remus, Julius Ceasar, etc.; or how every Catholic Priest in horror films know how to fight demons - as if that's part of divinity school and there is a manual. But in the MCU where mystical dimensions are a thing, tying Echo to their creation story gets more of a pass I guess. But most filmmakers, despite how they like to talk about themselves in the entertainment press, are not nearly as deep and sophisticated and influential as they like to think they are.
I'd recommend spending the remaining hour and 45 minutes of actual TV time...although if your favorite part was the fight with DD, maybe not.
@fac I guess I gave that stuff more of a pass due to the Native people who were behind the scenes on the show. The connection to and protectiveness of nature still seems like a big deal as far as I can tell though, even if not as much for the younger generations. A Lakota elder I was lucky enough to spend a lot of time speaking with lamented the focus and direction of a lot of younger people on her Reservation. I admit the comparisons you make are kinda all over the place from my perspective though. A lot of cultures have belief systems, and even if they've been portrayed many times, they're still there. I don't know if every Catholic Priest on screen is a certified demon expeller, but there's certainly plenty of movies portraying different aspects of the church and Catholic households.
I also think there is a difference with a lot of the films and shows coming out in the last decade (usually from Native film makers) and where their focus is as storytellers, compared to the way Indigenous people were portrayed on screen years ago. More truthful versions of these stories should be produced, and if anything I think they could/should have leaned even harder into what distinguishes Maya and her culture from the other Marvel characters.
@ru1977 To be clear, I wasn't saying all Catholic priests are portrayed that way, but they get dragged out for certain horror film tropes.
It isn't that shouldn't lean into different cultures but from a superhero standpoint is it necessary for that to be the cause of the superhero skills?
I'm not sure I explained my thoughts well - basically, there seems to be more of a focus on linking a new character's powers to some sort of cultural lineage when it is for a non-European character. Tony Stark didn't need flashbacks to 900 AD England where a Stark was a blacksmith making armor and then 1600 AD when a Stark developed some new type of weapon to explain who he is; we didn't need to see Steve Rogers ancestors heroically fighting in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War; we didn't need to see that Hawkeye had a lineage with archers in France in the 1400s or whatever. Compare that to Black Panther which has a lineage for many generations and a whole ceremony around it, or how Shang-Chi ended up fighting alongside mythical creatures from Chinese culture instead of just his crime boss father, or how Kamala had her side trip back in time in Pakistan.
I'm not saying that as a criticism as much as an observation. Echo's original ability was based on her own observational skills, correct? That gets lost a bit when it stems from some lineage instead (admittedly, it is unclear to me how we were to take her powers - I guess as an Echo from the past) of just Echo being exceptional herself.
Having Echo's final fight occur at a pow-wow is both good in that it exposes people to that and bad in that you probably wouldn't have Captain America getting into a fight during the July 4th parade or a Veterans Day parade just to point out how patriotic he is - as it is too on the nose.
@fac Thank you for explaining again, I definitely feel I get where you're coming from a lot better!
It isn't that shouldn't lean into different cultures but from a superhero standpoint is it necessary for that to be the cause of the superhero skills?
I understand this point but I see it the opposite way. With characters like Echo, Ms Marvel, and Black Panther, the superhero was used as a means to portray, and celebrate, these cultures. Things like the First People, or the Lighthorsemen, I don't know if those have been portrayed on screen before, but certainly not in a mainstream production like this. I imagine they were really excited to be able to show those things.
Tony Stark didn't need flashbacks to 900 AD England where a Stark was a blacksmith making armor and then 1600 AD when a Stark developed some new type of weapon to explain who he is; we didn't need to see Steve Rogers ancestors heroically fighting in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War;
True (though, didn't Rogers have ancestors who did fight in those wars? Or am I thinking of Lieutenant Dan?)
What Tony did have though was a lot of 'sins of the father'. It wasn't about his cultural heritage as much as learning from/building on things his dad had done, as well as fixing things his dad had done wrong. His cultural background isn't as interesting as, say, Echo's, Ms Marvel's, or Black Panther's, as far as showing the audience, or most of the audience, something they haven't seen before.
On the other hand, you have someone like Black Knight (assuming he comes back) inheriting from an ancestor, or even Thor. Or Starlord, whose culture isn't about ancestors as much as movies and music, which all stems from his mother. His celebration of ancestors isn't a long trail, but it's there.
But heroes like Hawkeye don't inherit their abilities from ancestors so there isn't reason to explore those facets.
Compare that to Black Panther which has a lineage for many generations and a whole ceremony around it, or how Shang-Chi ended up fighting alongside mythical creatures from Chinese culture instead of just his crime boss father, or how Kamala had her side trip back in time in Pakistan.
And I would say maybe Shang-Chi is the one that broke the least new ground, but I still don't see integrating someone's culture into their character as something to shy away from. I guess it's like reading comics with a character like Banshee who is chock full of "boyo"s and "aye, lass", and thinking "Man, they are really leaning into stereotypes," or you can see it as them trying to celebrate what makes this character distinct from the ones they're surrounded by.
And I also do come at this as a writer. For instance, I have a lot of Mexican characters in my stories despite having no Mexican DNA myself. And that's because of all my in-laws, so I get to see a lot of cultural things that are amazing, beautiful, and completely different from my family and upbringing. So I really try to work in as much of that as I can because I see it as an important and entertaining window.
I get that Kamala's side journey into Pakistan of the past probably seemed pointless or arbitrary to some in the audience, but I was totally into it. Not only was it significant to the character, it was also culturally significant. I admit I was pretty ignorant about Pakistan's beginnings and while I won't consider myself an expert now because I watched a superhero show, it definitely opened my eyes to something I was unaware of before.
And I feel more characters should be so rooted in their culture. I'm not suggesting Tony Stark should have... I dunno... had Medieval tapestries draped all over Stark Towers, but really his culture wasn't based on his ethnic background. it was a culture of war mongering and avarice. In the end, his story was about rejecting that culture rather than embracing it like Maya.
I'm not saying that as a criticism as much as an observation. Echo's original ability was based on her own observational skills, correct? That gets lost a bit when it stems from some lineage instead (admittedly, it is unclear to me how we were to take her powers - I guess as an Echo from the past) of just Echo being exceptional herself.
That's right about her skills, and yes the creators (little 'c') decided to change up her abilities for the show, but it WAS a choice they made and with a clear reason. They wanted to portray Maya's culture and as I watched the show I totally got why. My understanding, again based on people I've spoken with, is that for at least some Indigenous culture's, ancestors ARE important. Lineage is a big deal, and tying that into her origin and her powers was likely too much to pass up for the writers. Just too big a window not to show.
Having Echo's final fight occur at a pow-wow is both good in that it exposes people to that and bad in that you probably wouldn't have Captain America getting into a fight during the July 4th parade or a Veterans Day parade just to point out how patriotic he is - as it is too on the nose.
Right, but his patriotism isn't what defined Steve, is it? His through-line was always not putting up with bullies, and that's what his final battle was about. He wouldn't give up, he always stood by his friends, and he wouldn't let bullies get away with it no matter how he ended up because of it. His journey wasn't about patriotism (as much as the government tried to make it) or even the military, which was a means to an end for Steve.
Echo is someone who was removed from her family and her home without a say in the matter. In the end, she needed to come home and even knew that, despite telling herself and everyone else it was temporary. But in the end, she needed to embrace her family and her ancestors to break free of the conditioning she'd been experiencing since leaving home and figure out who she really needed to be. It wasn't done perfectly, far from it, but it's there. And as usual, I appreciate our discussions because it really helps solidify my thoughts.
What Tony did have though was a lot of 'sins of the father'. It wasn't about his cultural heritage as much as learning from/building on things his dad had done, as well as fixing things his dad had done wrong. His cultural background isn't as interesting as, say, Echo's, Ms Marvel's, or Black Panther's, as far as showing the audience, or most of the audience, something they haven't seen before.
I guess that is sort of my point - Tony represents only Tony and his own unique story of his family, while at times for the others they represent a whole culture as much as themselves? That is an oversimplification, I know, but Maya represented herself until the final fight, when she became the conduit for her people's strength - if that was just metaphorical, I could see it, but it became literal as she had the healing power and other glowing hand skills.
Not saying you don't show and introduce different cultures - I like that part as well - but it doesn't have to be a core component of their power, or the basis for it, as often as it is.
But heroes like Hawkeye don't inherit their abilities from ancestors so there isn't reason to explore those facets.
And presumably heroes from other backgrounds don't need to inherit either?
I guess it's like reading comics with a character like Banshee who is chock full of "boyo"s and "aye, lass", and thinking "Man, they are really leaning into stereotypes," or you can see it as them trying to celebrate what makes this character distinct from the ones they're surrounded by.
That to me is different. What if there has always been a Banshee for 1,000 years in Ireland, and the "original" Banshee got his powers from leprechauns? That's how some of the "let's tie a character to the myths of their people forever" feels to me at times, a little forced and making the person a proxy for a culture.
I'm not suggesting Tony Stark should have... I dunno... had Medieval tapestries draped all over Stark Towers, but really his culture wasn't based on his ethnic background. it was a culture of war mongering and avarice. In the end, his story was about rejecting that culture rather than embracing it like Maya.
I don't think he should have had that either per se, but I disagree his cultural background didn't influence him (or anyone in real life, for that matter) - the difference is they chose not to overtly point to it or highlight it, but a writer could have if they wanted. My question is more why they don't want to in some cases. In theory, any arms merchant super genius from any culture could make the IM suit in a cave, while only someone with Maya's background/lineage could become Echo. Does that take away some of her agency? It seems unevenly balanced when someone like Tony never has a prior interest in armor, or ancestors that made armor, never has a voice from his ancestors telling him to "make an armor", or whatever, it is about him and him only taking that action.
Right, but his patriotism isn't what defined Steve, is it?
Nope, so does being an American Indian need to define Maya? Up until the end, that was an aspect of her that was interesting, then she became the culmination of her ancestor's history. Ultimately I liked it as a solution to the Kingpin problem and ending the cycle of violence, maybe.
Not arguing, just find it intriguing.
I always enjoy our back and forths and appreciate that (at least from my perspective) it never gets combative or insulting. Now I'm at work so either I just give a quick response or wait several hours to do my more traditional loquacious retorts. (And actually now I've been working on this post for two hours because of how busy it is here, sorry if this isn't coherent.)
I get your point, really do, about some of these characters taking on a role of being cultural ambassadors while someone like Tony or Steve definitely do not. But I also feel like Maya and Kamala have very specific stories. I don't feel like they represent an entire culture, while still definitely showing windows into that culture. I didn't watch Goodfellas and think I got a thorough Italian/Irish American perspective, or even a full Italian/Irish American organized criminal perspective as Henry Hill's experience is very specific to him. Plenty for others to sympathize with or see themselves in but still a specific perspective, much like I got Kamala's family's perspective, particularly hers. (I also didn't see Jame Gumb representing all homosexuals in Silence of the Lambs but I still get why people got upset about that.)
In theory any weapons person COULD have made a suit in a cave but in practice, Tony was the only one. Even with far better resources, several others couldn't reproduce it. The first person who did without stealing directly from Tony had learned how to from his dad, sorta like Tony did. So it's not the LITERAL spirits of Howard Stark and Vanko's bestowing this upon them but Tony definitely took things Howard had done and built on them.
Again, I get where you're coming from and don't 100% disagree with your point, but also isn't every character a culmination of their ancestors? Few LITERALLY inherit directly from them the way they did with Maya, but her abilities weren't really 'Native powers' were they? Sincerely asking because I don't remember completely what she had. But they were native people who had abilities and she got them too,but was it strictly a "native power"? She also wasn't a conduit for the entire Choctaw Nation, or even all her ancestors as much as particular ones. She took what she needed. And I do get the difference you expressed with Banshee, but I didn't see Maya as being tied to myths of her people as much as... She drew strengths from certain ancestors and portraying those ancestors gave the writers a chance to showcase some history and a myth that hasn't been portrayed in mainstream media before, or not much.
I do think they went a little too on the nose with it and could have done less of the flashback cutting during the ultimate fight scene. One indication that she is echoing her ancestors would have done it for me. I keep saying but there were some clunky and clumsy creative decisions with the show and it was far from perfect.
Okay, I do NOT have the time to wade into this right now with my own thoughts, but I still wanted to pipe up and say 'good convo, guys!' Because legit... good convo, guys. I'm digging it, even if I can't engage with it more directly than reading bits and pieces while I have time.
Okay, I do NOT have the time to wade into this right now with my own thoughts, but I still wanted to pipe up and say 'good convo, guys!' Because legit... good convo, guys. I'm digging it, even if I can't engage with it more directly than reading bits and pieces while I have time.
Right on. Jump in when you can damnit.
I suppose I find it interesting as it’s not a typical super hero show. Actually I’d almost prefer they dove more into character and not necessarily needed to ended up with a big punch em up. I get it. Organized crime is violent. So there is some violence implied. I didn’t need super hero powers necessarily in this story.
Thwipp!
I didn’t need super hero powers necessarily in this story.
Yeah, while I liked the "heal Kingpin's pain" ending concept, I was disappointed they gave her a power, as compared to having leadership, tenacity, warrior and kindness as what she could draw upon from her past.
Might have been more powerful if she had actually talked to him (so to speak) as a person she cared about and believed could be better - in spite of what he did to her family - and he walked away.
Wilson Bethel is apparently returning as Bullseye in Born Again!
Also rumors that Born Again will directly reference Punisher S1 & S2.
I would love to see Fisk as mayor of NYCC meeting behind the scenes with crime bosses. Make Jigsaw one of the bosses, make Bullseye one of the enforcers. Introduce Silvermane and Tombstone.
Latest Post: Mondo Marvel 1/6th Line Our newest member: RonaldTrarf Recent Posts Unread Posts
