As narrative elements, villains and pillow talk scenes don’t intersect a ton.
Is The Purge an example of the Bakhtinian carnivalesque?
So, as The Vision in the MCU, Paul Bettany has been thoroughly motion captured. Any other issues aside, his likeness could be used indefinitely, in a wide range of capacities. Meanwhile, there’s been talk that Wonder Man, another Marvel superhero, will eventually by introduced as played by Nathan Fillion.
In the comic plots, Vision possessed some portion of Wonder Man’s consciousness.
So, what if we were to eventually get a CGI rendering of Paul Bettany, but motion-controlled based on a performance by Nathan Fillion? Which performer would ‘own’ what part of that performance and how would it potentially impact our own impressions of those two actors and the characters they were portraying as independent/inter-related? How would the performers end up relating to one another? Would Fillion be playing Bettany just by looking like him, even if he were playing as Wonder Man?
Important superhero comic book vocab:
Meaning, ‘at the same time as’, though comic book superhero narratives have been known to stretch their interpretations. ‘Meanwhile’ might have become so prominent because of the particular combination of language with descriptive images in the communication of the plot. It might also have something to do with the bombastic, action-centered nature of the subject matter. Especially in team titles, there are often several different plot threads unfolding simultaneously.
So, comics are kinda like soap operas and war movies that way.
Recently excised from the ‘What’s in a Name?’/’Identity Crisis’/??? subsection of Chapter 2. Clipped for being wordy, jargony, and too on-the-nose. The Derrida ref didn’t help, even though I’m a Derridean:
Superman is weird because he seems so cleanly iconic but has so many different names!
 Superman, in his mediated status as a current pop culture figure, is an example of psycho-socio-historical, imaginative, often explicitly narrativized discourse. But this is where naming becomes qualitatively distinct from categorization or even definition, for, despite all the complexity of that string of adjectives, what more contextualized material–such as feelings or prioritized memories that reinforce the trace of the character–do we call up for ourselves in the utterance of his name? ‘This looks like a job for Superman!’ Don’t you want to deepen your voice a bit as you say it?
So, in my few hours of research on the diminishment, malformation, or absence of the death drive and the potential effects of such a situation, I’ve been a little surprised to have found just frickin’ nothing.
Freud himself said that just about any of the psychical structures he identified could be absent or aberrant in anybody. Am I looking in the wrong places–certainly a possibility–or has this concept/structure just gotten by without any such critical consideration? Do we just presume everyone has a death drive and it’s always only ever appropriately- or overly- functional, and that’s it?
The real, in a Lacanian sense, is bigger than the sum total of human knowledge, if only by mass; we can at least know that what we don’t yet know is bigger than what we know, if only because we can see so many places, out in space, that we haven’t yet been able to visit. But language–human reality–gets the upper hand and becomes the predator, the master and quantifier of even the unknown, through that one little word, articulated whenever necessary: ‘yet’. Even if there is an infinitude that we don’t know, even that infinitude only ever gets smaller, since what we know generally only ever gets bigger.