I'm not talking about the art of writing and performing comedy. I'm talking about the subject matter. And that's the beauty in comedy: no subject is off limits, as long as you can make it work.
I agree with this: no subject should be forbidden.
Now, what I was refering to was not the subject but contradicting the very core of a character with no other aim that a couple of laughs.
Sorry, I didn't meant to state that. :S
Thinking it thoroughly, I think you are right in that regard. But as Travesty said before, as a joke it shouldn't be taken so seriously.
I was just pointing out a very noticeable incoherence there. Not much different from dozens of other members who points out dozens of other things in many otehr movies. I'm just puzzled as to why humour has this special permission. Its because I like humour why I dont like when they resort to anything for a casual laugh.
Those who dislike the humor in this film or specific scenes need to understand that it shouldn't be taken at face value. I mean that it's not a naturalized world with our kind of sensibility. Whedon's style is hard to define. It is neither completely serious nor campy. It can be both very funny and very dark when it needs to be (though he didn't get to explore anything grim or cynical in his first Avengers film). Like Howard Hawks's screwball comedies, David Mamet plays or Quentin Tarantino films, Whedon's writing/direction has a certain energy and style that is heightened from our reality. It allows his characters to all be incredibly clever and witty and have a certain energy that most people in real life don't have, but it never becomes camp or takes away from the drama or seriousness of his stories. That is what he pulled off in this movie, as well.
Well, humour might be funny but its far from being unimportant. I dont care if its absurd or its not coherent (which makes it absurd), but if the movie pretends to be other than a sitcom then it should keep a basic core for the characters. If Thor is depicted as a serious, proud, arrogant prince then humour if they feel they have to include it should be around that. Tony Stark mocking his Shakesperian-like way to talk, for example. The adopted thing was just something someone else could have said. Btw, Tony Stark, that's a character that can get away with almost anything humour. It won't ever contradict what he is.
Now, Whedon style being hard to define, and being somewhat like Tarantino, Hawk or Mamet... I probably need to see more of his, because so far I've found his style incredibly close to what many other action directors do (lots of action, CGI and jokes) and very far from those directors you mention. And in a couple of moments at least his humour certainly swept away the drama.
But again, I barely saw Buffy and never saw Serenity. And so far different directors directing Marvel movies have had to adapt their styles to the Marvel movie style.
You're looking too much into it. It was a brief joke. There's really no need to write essays analyzing it.
I didnt know there has to be a need to post here.
Also you have to consider the intention behind the joke. And obviously it was a harmless one. That's the problem that you get when one makes a joke and you take immediate offense or misinterpret it, not really factoring into the intent of the orator/writer.
But on the other hand it is interesting and dare I say it smacking slightly of double standards on the part of the recipient if you already know the author's intent. If you knew Whedon was himself adopted or a feminist, you will go, 'Oh carry on, nothing to see here'. Same thing with a gay making gay jokes or any ethnicity poking their own fun. In short, NEVER confuse their intent for your own, lest you avoid all sensitive subject matter without getting offended or misunderstanding character easily.
If a joke was meant to be offensive, then you have an argument. Otherwise we'll never have political cartoons to contend with, ever lol.
Many times the intention of a joke, or an art piece, are easily overlooked by people because the jokes effect ends up having a far bigger impact. You know what they say about good intentions.
In this case I remember blind people in America being deeply offended by the movie Mr. Magoo. It sounded quite over-reactive.
Ah, one of those days when people just wont do what we say.
