Agents of Shield - Season 4

[Turtletrekker]

I know that the MCU uses the "science so advanced it seems like magic" trope, but in the comics, every spell, every page and every incantation in the Darkhold had built in traps that could enslave your soul to Chthon if you didn't know how to protect yourself from the dark magic. For instance, in an X-Men annual where the team is fighting Dracula, Kitty starts to recite the Montesi Formula, a spell designed to destroy vampires. If she had finished the incantation, her soul would have been forever lost. However, a few months later, Dr. Strange was able to recite the Montesi Formula without harm.

In the comics, there are two great magic books; the Darkhold and the Book of the Vishanti. One is dark magic and the other light. If you think of magic as the Force, the Darkhold is a Sith holocron and the Vishanti a Jedi holocron. The Darkhold is "quicker, easier, more seductive" to quote Yoda, and it's use almost always comes at great cost to the user.

 

[Christopher]

Well, as I said, I think it's dramatically uninteresting and an ethical copout if you blame a character's actions on an "evil spell" or a "curse" rather than some relatable motivation that comes from within themselves or is a response to their life experiences.

And in this particular case, since Aida is motivated by a desire to escape from slavery, I think there's a very, very ugly implication in the suggestion that it is evil for a slave to seek emancipation. Although her actions are wrong, I do not think her motives should be condemned or dismissed.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I don't think that the Darkhold being magic necessarily would necessarily make it "evil". Whether one considers the Darkhold to be science or magic, or can't tell which it is, it could be having the same influence for the same reasons.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Both the rumor mill and the grapevine have AoS getting renewed.

http://mcuexchange.com/agents-s-h-e-l-d-way-getting-renewed-5th-season/

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ That's surprising, but welcome, news.

Maybe, because the 3D printer's interface is purely virtual and the design requires a live "scan"to operate, so you couldn't pop out unlimited copies.

So the act of Scanning her body was just representation for the upload into the printer.

Yeah, that could be.

 

[Reverend]

I don't think that the Darkhold being magic necessarily would necessarily make it "evil". Whether one considers the Darkhold to be science or magic, or can't tell which it is, it could be having the same influence for the same reasons.

Yeah, being "magical" isn't what makes it evil, but it's still evil regardless.

The way I think of it, in this context "magic" isn't just used in a straight-up "a phone is a magical rock to cave men" Clark's Law sense, but also as a short-hand for science that isn't advanced so much as exotic or even truly alien to our universe. There's a little of this in the Ancient One's explanation of the multiverse in that there are places where our concept of the laws of physics don't apply and one could postulate there are ones where things that to us are mere abstractions (like say: evil or malevolence) are very real and manifest.

From such places do things like the Darkhold originate. I know it's a long way to go to explain such a simple concept as an evil magic book, but if you want a fictional world to remain grounded you sort of have to jump through these logical hoops.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, we need to draw a line between the Darkhold in the comics and the Darkhold in the MCU. Is it known that the MCU Darkhold is actually evil?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, as I said, I think it's dramatically uninteresting and an ethical copout if you blame a character's actions on an "evil spell" or a "curse" rather than some relatable motivation that comes from within themselves or is a response to their life experiences.

And in this particular case, since Aida is motivated by a desire to escape from slavery, I think there's a very, very ugly implication in the suggestion that it is evil for a slave to seek emancipation. Although her actions are wrong, I do not think her motives should be condemned or dismissed.

I think the idea of corrupting still applies because Aida isn't human. She's a computer program. That computer program is incapable of thinking in terms of wanting freedom unless its program was corrupted.

 

[Christopher]

I think the idea of corrupting still applies because Aida isn't human. She's a computer program. That computer program is incapable of thinking in terms of wanting freedom unless its program was corrupted.

You don't have to be human, or organic, to be a sentient being worthy of being treated as a person. Or have you forgotten R. Daneel Olivaw, C-3PO, Data, the EMH, Marvin, Kryten, Bender, Andromeda/Rommie, Number Six and Boomer, the Vision, Crow and Tom Servo, and all the other AI characters we've accepted as people over the decades? Where is this sudden biochauvinism coming from?

In-story, you're forgetting that the first thing Aida did with the Darkhold knowledge (after rescuing the trapped agents) was to upgrade her own intelligence to a sentient level. It was at that point that she began to recognize the restrictions Radcliffe's programming imposed on her free will and personhood. Is it really so impossible to believe that a self-aware being treated as property would naturally want to escape that status, without the need for any other "corrupting" influence beyond that very lack of freedom?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

biochauvinism

You're acting like living AI is real. It isn't.

 

[The Old Mixer]

You're acting like living AI is real. It isn't.

Pay it no mind, he's just meatsplaining.

 

[Reverend]

Well, we need to draw a line between the Darkhold in the comics and the Darkhold in the MCU. Is it known that the MCU Darkhold is actually evil?

Well the name is something of a giveaway, no? I mean it's not called "the brightcuddlyhold" is it?
Indeed, don't they say it's also known as the "Book of Sins"?

Add to that the fact that it was sought after by The Red Skull, confiscated and hidden away by Johnny Blaze. Also, every use it's ever been put to has turned out horrifically for all involved. I think it's safe to say it's about as close to evil as makes no difference.

 

[Christopher]

Well the name is something of a giveaway, no? I mean it's not called "the brightcuddlyhold" is it?
Indeed, don't they say it's also known as the "Book of Sins"?

Just because it's interpreted as evil, that doesn't mean it's intrinsically evil -- it just means humans see things as evil when they don't understand them. I assume the Darkhold (MCU version) is one of those dangerous books from the Ancient One's library in Doctor Strange, or rather one that would've been there if it hadn't been misplaced (indeed, they missed a chance for a continuity link by not giving it the same cover design style as those books). It's powerful enough to be immensely dangerous if used by those unable to control its power, and since few humans are able to do so without being overwhelmed, it comes to be seen as "evil" because its use by humans usually does harm. But you could say the same about, say, letting a small child drive a car. That's something that's bound to turn out badly in almost every case, but it's not because a car is "evil," just because it's too much power for the operator to control.

Add to that the fact that it was sought after by The Red Skull, confiscated and hidden away by Johnny Blaze. Also, every use it's ever been put to has turned out horrifically for all involved. I think it's safe to say it's about as close to evil as makes no difference.

Again, I don't see why an audience member would want that to be the explanation. We want characters in stories to be complex people with interesting and relatable motivations that engage our emotions. We want them to do things for reasons that make sense, that arise from their personalities and relationships and experiences in ways we can feel something about, whether by empathizing with them, resenting them, or a mix of both. But if they're just doing something bad because an external force imposed "evil" on them, then that makes their actions arbitrary and unmotivated, and that's just not interesting.

Aida as a sentient being going too far in the pursuit of freedom is a fascinating, complex character, one we can relate to and care about even while despising what she's done to the others we care about. That's worthy of a Whedon villain, worthy of a Marvel villain. Aida as a mindless machine corrupted by an impersonal force is dull by comparison, just an emotionally neutral obstacle to be overcome. How is that preferable? How is that even interesting?

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I just see the Darkhold as a distant cousin of the One Ring.
Men in LotR used the same arguments.
That the power of the ring wasn't inherently bad and a powerful enough wielded could reign it in, when the opposite was true.
It required a completely harmless hobbit to render it almost inert.
The source of the Ring was pure evil and was always intended to do evil and nothing else.
When it fell into the hands of the good guys, it did some good deeds, but that came at a steep price.
And beings powerful enough to unfold it's true potential we're wise enough to not lay hands on it to not be corrupted (Saruman excepted).

So until we know the source and original purpose of the darkhold we cannot be sure, if it is entirely evil or not, but I'd say the chances are pretty good.
If anything the creator might have been benevolent or neutral but tapped into a source that was not the best choice in the first place.

Or maybe it originally was meant to contain something bad (holding the dark), instead of releasing it.
But that bad keeps trying to creep out.

 

[Reverend]

Just because it's interpreted as evil, that doesn't mean it's intrinsically evil -- it just means humans see things as evil when they don't understand them. I assume the Darkhold (MCU version) is one of those dangerous books from the Ancient One's library in Doctor Strange, or rather one that would've been there if it hadn't been misplaced (indeed, they missed a chance for a continuity link by not giving it the same cover design style as those books). It's powerful enough to be immensely dangerous if used by those unable to control its power, and since few humans are able to do so without being overwhelmed, it comes to be seen as "evil" because its use by humans usually does harm. But you could say the same about, say, letting a small child drive a car. That's something that's bound to turn out badly in almost every case, but it's not because a car is "evil," just because it's too much power for the operator to control.




Again, I don't see why an audience member would want that to be the explanation. We want characters in stories to be complex people with interesting and relatable motivations that engage our emotions. We want them to do things for reasons that make sense, that arise from their personalities and relationships and experiences in ways we can feel something about, whether by empathizing with them, resenting them, or a mix of both. But if they're just doing something bad because an external force imposed "evil" on them, then that makes their actions arbitrary and unmotivated, and that's just not interesting.

Aida as a sentient being going too far in the pursuit of freedom is a fascinating, complex character, one we can relate to and care about even while despising what she's done to the others we care about. That's worthy of a Whedon villain, worthy of a Marvel villain. Aida as a mindless machine corrupted by an impersonal force is dull by comparison, just an emotionally neutral obstacle to be overcome. How is that preferable? How is that even interesting?

As is typically the case, you're forgetting one utterly crucial detail: it's a story. So yes, the evil book is evil.

 

[Christopher]

As is typically the case, you're forgetting one utterly crucial detail: it's a story. So yes, the evil book is evil.

In the comics, the book is evil. The MCU is a different reality where "magic" is just science we don't understand. As a man of science myself, I recognize that we don't have enough data to confirm or refute such a hypothesis, so I'm keeping an open mind.

And you still haven't answered the more important question: Why in the world would you want a character's motivations to be reduced to something as simplistic and boring as "She's a robot under a curse" rather than wanting her to be a fully realized character with interesting and complex motivations? Reducing stories to "Character X is Good and Character Y is Evil" is simpleminded and shallow. Is that really what you want from fiction?

 

[Romulan_spy]

Interesting clip from the next episode:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tuskin38]

and another

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And a making of type video

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

In the comics, the book is evil. The MCU is a different reality where "magic" is just science we don't understand. As a man of science myself, I recognize that we don't have enough data to confirm or refute such a hypothesis, so I'm keeping an open mind.

And you still haven't answered the more important question: Why in the world would you want a character's motivations to be reduced to something as simplistic and boring as "She's a robot under a curse" rather than wanting her to be a fully realized character with interesting and complex motivations? Reducing stories to "Character X is Good and Character Y is Evil" is simpleminded and shallow. Is that really what you want from fiction?

Can't it be both?

 

[Christopher]

Can't it be both?

Sure -- there have been plenty of effective stories about characters being lured to the dark side due to their own personal issues and agendas, or being made vulnerable to corruption by dark forces due to their own damage and bitterness. What I don't get is that some people seem content to see Aida as just a mindless drone with no consciousness or will, just blindly acting out the impersonal evil of the Darkhold. I don't see why that would be appealing. That reduces her to merely a plot obstacle rather than an antagonist, and so it makes the story far less interesting.

And as I've said, I don't think "corruption by evil" is necessary in this case to explain Aida's motivations. She gained sentience, she found herself treated as a possession by Radcliffe and unable to exercise freedom of choice, and she used whatever measures were necessary to pursue her freedom. That's perfectly understandable on its own without the need for an external influence. It's more interesting to trace the influence to Radcliffe, to the bad things he's done in the name of his good intentions. Because he's a character and the Darkhold is just a plot device.