Historical accuracy in popular media is one issue, but today's "Unleash Your Inner Viking" trailers for Assassin's Creed Valhalla peddle disproven misinformation that supports dangerous ideology – we're talking toxic masculinity at best, and white supremacy at worst.
Here's how:
The trailers follow a group of caryoonishly-inept losers going to a camp in the woods to learn how to solve their life problems by placing AC:V and then Acting Like A Viking – in practice, this means: being angry and rude, threats of violence, and actual violence.
It's played for laughs, but this perpetrates the ideas that: 1) Vikings were angry brutes who solved everything with violence. 2) Vikings had to use violence because if they didn't their enemies would (most viking violence was directed at innocent monks at sacked monasteries)...
3) Therefore if YOU want to stop the world from walking all over you, you've got to man up and fight back – in the campgoers' case, against an acquaintance & a barista. Moral of the story being it's okay to throw a piping hot drink in the face of someone who got your order wrong?
In part 3, the one campgoer who addresses the problems with the camp is drugged and sent away to Greenland – lesson learned: conform or else.
And even after bucketfulls of historical inaccuracy and the insinuation that Vikings killed and so should you, there's one core issue –
The framing device of "people go to camp in the woods to man up like vikings" mirrors real-life camps attended by white supremacists to reinforce their worldview and indoctrinate others.
This association is more damning for Ubi since Vikings have an established WS/neonazi fandom.
Historians have been working for decades to detatch Vikings from nazi propaganda (1930s and modern), and this marketing piles those associations back on for crude slapstick and 6th grade bodily humor.
I am shocked that these videos ever got made; by a videogame company, no less.
There are developers & historians at Ubisoft working hard to make this a great and historically-grounded game, so it's even more inexcusable to see these dangerous tropes in promotional material when other historical aspects *are* handled well.
Getting history wrong is sometimes harmless and sometimes misleading, but here, it plays into decades of hateful, violent, and dangerous bastardizations of Scandinavian culture that have no place in a game or its advertising.
These three videos should never have been made.
-B
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some stories are all buildup to a final payoff, and some stories are a series of smaller buildups & payoffs. Smaller buildups and regular payoffs are considered risky because they don't FORCE the audience to keep watching - but they don't risk it all if the ending disappoints. -R
So many series seem to believe the first approach is the only way to hold an audience. A finale can never be unconditionally satisfying - it leaves the audience wanting more payoff. And then if (when) those series fail to deliver in the finale, they leave nothing behind. -R
This was brought up by @Hbomberguy in his Sherlock video as a series that promised an ever-increasing series of increasingly arcane questions and then wildly disappointed when its finale didn't actually give a satisfying resolution. Game of Thrones had the same issue. -R
In order to avoid compulsively checking the news tonight, I'm thinking of doing a bad movie night! Anyone got any suggestions for a terrible movie? Maybe one that could have and SHOULD have been good but somehow absolutely crashed and burned? -R
Hokay let's narrow this sucker down -R
oooookay lemme just get my snacks ready for this one, be back soon
I was minding my own business playing minecraft when something went "BZZ" right next to my ear and flew into my hair. This is NEVER good, but then I discovered it was a Fucking Wasp, and things took an abrupt right turn into shitsvillle… -R
But the thing is, a bug doesn't wanna be in your hair ANY more than you want the bug in your hair. They can't move very well, and the human the hair is attached to normally starts freaking out and swatting them, which is bad. So, despite our differences, we had similar goals… -R
I tease out the lock of hair the wasp is stuck in and it starts regaining its footing, but it's not flying. I gently grab it in a tissue, check the rest of my hair for Bonus Wasps, then carry it outside, at this point worried that my frantic swatting might have injured it… -R
The more I write, the more I think I need to analyze the difference between coding, allegory, and parallels. Is the only difference authorial intent? Does ham-fistedness factor into it? Is the key factor what (if any) message the author hopes to send? There's a lot to unpack -R
Here's my initial thoughts:
Coding - character is written with traits intended to remind the audience of a real group
Allegory - char's experiences are meant to remind the audience of a real situation/event
Parallel - char's experiences mirror some real situations/events
-R
The distinction between "Parallel" and "Allegory" is mostly intent - like, Tolkien didn't intend Lord of the Rings as an allegory for World War I (and was very annoyed at the suggestion) but since he drew on his life experiences, the parallels between them can still be seen -R