Сфера

We all remember the moment when Odin tells Loki the "truth."

"I went into the temple and found a baby... small for a giant's offspring. Abandoned, suffering, left to die. Laufey's son."

After that, Loki kills Laufey. He takes revenge on his biological father, who supposedly abandoned him to die.

But what if Odin lied?

If Laufey really considered his son "defective" and shameful - why not just kill him immediately? Why leave the child in the temple, where the Casket of Ancient Winters - their most sacred and protected artifact - was kept?

It doesn't look like "left to die." It looks like Laufey hid his son during the war with Asgard to protect him as much as possible.

Odin couldn't tell the truth: "I took you from your father." So he lied. And adult Loki believed it.

The worst part - Loki kills his biological father precisely because of this lie. He commits patricide thinking he's getting revenge. In reality, he's killing the man who may have been the only one who truly loved him with all his heart.

And now - Hela. Many fans have long believed that she is Loki's biological mother and Laufey's wife.

When Thor was born, Odin decided to get rid of Hela's claim to the throne. He marries her off to Laufey - to appease the Frost Giants and remove the dangerous daughter far away.

Laufey could have fallen in love with Hela precisely because of her power and strength. He saw in her a woman worth giving up everything for - equal to him or even superior. But Hela didn't love him - she considered Laufey weak compared to her ambitions and Odin's power. For her, it was purely a political tool.

Nevertheless, Laufey obeyed her and fulfilled her wishes. Most likely, it was Hela who stood behind the idea of the invasion to distract Odin and seize Asgard. Odin won, Hela was imprisoned.

Laufey was convinced that both Hela and his son were dead.

And this is where the Jotunheim scene takes on a completely different meaning. When Thor and Loki come to him, Laufey doesn't attack immediately. He is calm and wise, calls Odin a "murderer and thief" (oddly specific for a war where everyone killed, unless he believed Odin had murdered his own son). And then he says:

"Go now, while I still allow it."

If Hela is Loki's mother, then Laufey looks at them and sees the brothers of the woman he loved and thought was dead. He believes he has lost everything - his wife and child. And yet he shows mercy to "her brothers," even though he hates Odin. That was incredibly noble of him.

In the end, Laufey is the most unfortunate and tragic character in this story. He thought his wife was dead, his son was dead too... and then he is killed by his own son, who acted based on someone else's lie.

Instead of a truly cool, tragic and emotional family drama full of tears, betrayals and deep feelings, Marvel simplified everything into a regular plot and went into the multiverse. Without real drama, without pain, without anything truly heavy.

Honestly, Zendaya doesn’t suit the role of Athena at all, no matter how hard her fans defend it.

As soon as I found out she was cast as the goddess of war and wisdom, I knew the casting would be a failure. Back then, no one knew yet that Lupita Nyong’o would play Helen of Troy. Everyone was still full of hope, but I already saw where this was going.

Just look at Isabel Lucas as Athena in Immortals (2011). That is a real goddess - majestic, radiant, golden. That’s exactly how the ancient Greeks envisioned their Olympians.

Zendaya in the same role just looks like an ordinary modern girl. Average. Earthly. No divine presence at all.

Why did the Greeks depict their gods with fair skin, golden hair, and bright eyes?

Because these features were rare in ancient Greece. Most people had dark hair, olive skin, and brown eyes. Light skin, golden-blonde hair, and luminous eyes stood out dramatically and were therefore associated with divinity and otherworldliness.

Homer constantly emphasizes this in the Iliad and the Odyssey:

Athena is almost always called γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη (glaukōpis Athēnē) - the “bright-eyed” or “gleaming-eyed” Athena.

Hera is described as λευκώλενος Ἥρη (leukōlenos Hērē) - “white-armed” Hera.

Achilles is ξανθός (xanthos) - golden-haired.

And even though people keep saying “Zendaya is a great actress” - please show me even one role where she truly shone. She almost always has the same stone-faced expression. Honestly, I don’t see any real acting talent there. She’s simply a heavily promoted celebrity right now, but that doesn’t make her right for the role of an ancient Greek goddess.

Let me clarify this from the start. My issues with the new Dune adaptation are not limited to a single character. I have problems with several casting choices, and not all of them work for me.

However, Zendaya as Chani stands out as the most miscast role in the entire film, which is why I am focusing on it specifically.

This is not about hate. I do not deny that Zendaya can look striking. On red carpets, she looks stunning thanks to excellent stylists, designers, and makeup artists who do their job flawlessly. In that context, she appears every bit a Hollywood fashion icon.

But looking striking is not the same as having natural beauty, and it certainly is not the same as being right for a specific role. Strip away the couture, elaborate hairstyles, and polished makeup, and what remains is a very ordinary appearance. Not bad, just unremarkable.

And that becomes a serious problem when it comes to Chani.

Chani is not a background character or simply the love interest. In Frank Herbert’s novels, she is described as a very beautiful woman with red hair and an almost elfin quality. She has natural charm and a quiet inner strength. There is something wild, otherworldly, and deeply captivating about her, a sense that she belongs to Arrakis more profoundly than most.

Zendaya’s Chani lacks all of this. On screen, she appears grounded to the point of plainness, at times even rough, and far too ordinary. There is no mystery, no distinctive femininity, and no magnetic presence. She does not feel like a symbolic figure of the Fremen, nor like someone capable of emotionally balancing Paul. She is simply present, but empty.

I understand Denis Villeneuve’s logic. Casting popular actors is a smart commercial move. Zendaya is a recognizable name, a marketing asset, and a guarantee of attention. From a financial perspective, it makes sense. Artistically, however, I believe this choice failed.

For comparison, let’s look at the 1984 adaptation, where Sean Young played the role of Chani. That version wasn’t perfectly faithful to the book either, but it managed to convey the charm, softness, and inner strength that defined the character. Her Chani possessed charisma, emotional depth, and genuine feminine allure — even within the stylistic limitations of that era.

As for Zendaya’s acting, I did not see it in either the first or the second film. There was no depth, no inner conflict, and no character development. The performance feels flat, as if the actress is merely occupying the frame rather than inhabiting the role.

I disagree with the way many people - including J. K. Rowling and other writers - harshly criticize C. S. Lewis for the portrayal of Susan in The Chronicles of Narnia, especially the claim that he treated her “cruelly.”

This criticism reveals not depth, but a superficial understanding - both of the character and of the author himself.

Susan is not a punishment.

Susan is a reflection of Lewis.

At a certain period in his life, Lewis himself lost his faith. He turned toward the rational, the earthly, the everyday - exactly where Susan turns. Her interest in “nylons, lipstick, and ordinary life” is not a moral condemnation, but a state of mind familiar to almost everyone. We, too, tend to focus far more on daily concerns and worldly values than on heaven. Just as Susan stopped thinking about Narnia.

What matters is this: Lewis did not close the door for her. He explicitly said that Susan still has a chance to return - just not immediately. She needs time. In the same way, Lewis himself needed years - and the help of Tolkien - to find his way back to faith.

Susan remains alive not because she was “bad,” but because her journey is not finished. She is not rejected. She is postponed.

When Lewis returned to faith, he left the door open for her as well. To say that he “destroyed” Susan is to misunderstand both the book and the man who wrote it.

This is not cruelty.

It is honesty.

And it is a self-portrait.

Analysis of Mae and Noa's Relationship in Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Their Dynamic in the Film

Mae and Noa’s relationship in Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes goes beyond mere survival or necessity. Their bond develops through cautious observation, the gradual dismantling of prejudices, and a deep, unspoken understanding that builds over time.

Initially, Noa views Mae with suspicion. He has been raised in a society that sees humans as primitive and dangerous, a belief deeply ingrained in his worldview. However, through their shared experiences, he begins to see her as an individual rather than just a human. Similarly, Mae undergoes a transformation-she realizes that not all apes are her enemies and tries to connect with Noa despite his initial reluctance. Her intelligence and resilience earn his respect. Their relationship evolves gradually, without abrupt shifts, yet it carries significant emotional depth.

Thus, their bond is not just about cooperation but a genuine connection where both begin to see each other beyond the limitations of their species.

How Their Relationship Could Develop in Future Installments

If the franchise continues their story, several possible paths could unfold:

1. A Deepening Trust and Alliance - Their connection grows stronger, but they remain bound to their respective worlds. They could symbolize change-Noa challenging his people’s perception of humans, while Mae plays a key role in humanity’s survival.

2. Separate Paths - They may part ways, realizing that their worlds are too different. However, their bond would leave a lasting impact on both.

3. A Bridge Between Species - They could form a small community where humans and apes learn to coexist, serving as a turning point for both civilizations.

4. A Conflict of Interests - Over time, they might find themselves on opposing sides, adding a layer of tragic tension to their story.

Regardless of the direction, their relationship has the potential to shape the fate of both species. Noa could become a leader who understands that humans cannot be ignored, while Mae might play a crucial role in humanity’s future.

Could a Romantic Arc Exist?

A traditional love story between Mae and Noa is unlikely, as the Planet of the Apes franchise has always maintained a realistic boundary between species. However, this doesn’t mean their bond cannot be deeply emotional - something akin to platonic or even tragic love. Possible scenarios include:

1. Profound Attachment Without Romance - They could become the most important individuals in each other’s lives without a romantic element.

2. Tragic Impossibility - Even if emotions emerge, their relationship remains impossible due to biological and social divides.

3. Cultural Taboo - If Noa develops feelings for Mae, his society might reject it, leading to an internal conflict.

4. Allegorical Love - Their connection could be symbolic, representing a deeper understanding rather than conventional romance.

If the filmmakers choose to include subtle romantic undertones, they would likely rely on gestures, gazes, and emotionally charged moments rather than direct romantic interaction.

Could a Scene Similar to the 1968 Film’s Kiss Work Today?

The original Planet of the Apes (1968) featured a kiss between a human and an intelligent ape, but it was seen more as a symbolic gesture of respect than a romantic act. Today, such a scene would be viewed differently, considering modern perspectives on biology, ethics, and audience perception. However, deep emotional bonds between different species can still be portrayed effectively through subtler means:

Silent, Meaningful Moments - Scenes where one stays beside the other in difficult times.

Nonverbal Gestures - A protective touch or a sign of gratitude.

Sacrifice and Trust - One risking everything for the other, despite societal consequences.

A Poignant Farewell - The realization of their importance to each other, even as they go their separate ways.

Future films are unlikely to depict direct romantic interactions between Mae and Noa, but their emotional connection could be portrayed with remarkable depth.

Conclusion

Had Mae and Noa been of the same species, their relationship would have been straightforward. However, the realization that an insurmountable boundary separates them makes their connection all the more compelling. They may feel something profound for each other but cannot express it in the ways they instinctively might. Yet, the emotional bond they share will endure, even if they walk different paths.

The strong chemistry between the actors enhances this dynamic, making their interactions feel authentic and engaging. Interestingly, some deleted scenes may have delved even deeper into their relationship, hinting at elements left unexplored in the final cut.

Noa and Mae: Unspoken Bond in Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

There’s something deeply compelling about Noa and Mae’s relationship in Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes. While it never crosses into overt romance, the emotional undercurrent is undeniable. They share a fragile trust, formed in the harsh ruins of a collapsing world, and it’s that slow, quiet connection that hits the hardest.

What stands out is how much restraint there is. They aren’t just from different species — they come from completely different worlds, ideologies, and life experiences. And yet, the empathy, the curiosity, the protection... it's all there, just below the surface. If they were the same species, it might’ve bloomed into something more obvious, but maybe it’s the impossibility that makes it so poignant.

There was even a deleted scene where Noa chases Mae after she leaves, showing his desperation — another thread of connection we only glimpse. Their chemistry is subtle, but it’s real. And it adds unexpected depth to the film.

I don’t need a full romantic storyline between them. But I love that kind of intense, quiet bond — the type that lingers, even if it can never fully be named.