|
Jenny Angel posted:Who knows, but the point I'm making is that doing so strips characters of a lot of their traditional visual signifiers in a way that the writing didn't seem to really acknowledge and make up for A lot of its poignancy comes from it being a staid Where's Waldo game. Compare it to Top 10.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
The conflict between nu metal heroes and Silver Age culminated in a cool showdown with Superman and Mongol, for some reason DC later decided to actually use that dumb character outside of Kingdom Come. There's a lot of detail packed on the background as well, with minor characters and such. It is kind of a slog though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:The conflict between nu metal heroes and Silver Age culminated in a cool showdown with Superman and Mongol, for some reason DC later decided to actually use that dumb character outside of Kingdom Come. There's a lot of detail packed on the background as well, with minor characters and such. It is kind of a slog though. What is it with comic books naming their supervillians after ethnic groups?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
The problem with KC is that it's more of an outline than a story. The structure really hurts it. It's some Christmas Carol poo poo, except the preacher guy is no Scrooge--it should be about Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman but they end up, by necessity, being kept at arms' length. There's a reason the best scene is the one in the diner at the end, where the framing device kind of evaporates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Squinty posted:What is it with comic books naming their supervillians after ethnic groups? Apparently he's named Magog, close enough
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:In the ultimate cut, pay attention to the proportions of ethnicity in the prisons and on the police force. A bit of commentary there. This was one of my favorite details from the BVS extended edition. The newspaper clipping in the mostly-white police force show how the police are on the side of this vigilante who all the poor POC characters of Gotham are depicted as being terrified of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:This was one of my favorite details from the BVS extended edition. The newspaper clipping in the mostly-white police force show how the police are on the side of this vigilante who all the poor POC characters of Gotham are depicted as being terrified of. That's an interesting observation but I don't think that's exactly true. They are divided - the older guy says he's mean and hungry, the younger lady says that nobody has to be afraid of him unless they did something wrong. A little bit of ambivalence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The proof of BVS's success is that people are now terrified of Batman. He's changed too much. He's gotten worse. A line's been crossed, and something was lost. You can't go back again.Things have actually happened - and I don't mean just the steady unspooling of the runtime. People died onscreen, it was unjust, and it was Batman's fault. Batman made a mistake - and Batman isn't supposed to make mistakes! First of all I never said anything about what the movie did and didn't do so chill out. Civil War was a decent movie but it's also very forgettable. I'm just talking about Steve Rogers as he's presented in the MCU. Secondly, I failed to recognize any "hardcore socialism" in Steve's character in The First Avenger. His stance throughout the movies is stated quite clearly: that he doesn't like bullies and that he doesn't care where they're from. He's an independent actor first and foremost, provided he's given some prodding from Peggy. Third, I also fail to recognize any "corporate stooge" quality to Steve's character in Civil War. If he was that, than it was during Winter Soldier when he was branded with SHIELD insignias which he exchanged for the American flag because that's the only symbol he wants. Countries are by definition different from corporations. He's totally out for himself about twenty minutes into Civil War and doesn't talk about any companies or big organizations or loyalty to his country, because he cares more about Bucky than he does about other people. That isn't fair to Steve's other friends or even the world but it's true. Steve even acknowledges this in conversations with Tony if I remember right. quote:This is an empty platitude. What is the 'right thing'? Are we talking about justice? Is the 'right thing' libertarianism or socialism? I'm not talking about -isms and it's foolish to talk about -isms when speaking about abstract concepts like "right" or "wrong." -isms create division and little tribes for people to rally around so they have an enemy to focus on. Concepts like "right and wrong" are produced by socialization, cultural expectations, and the nurturing we receive growing up. Politics is downstream of human nature, which is what I'm more interested in here. Steve's stated goal throughout the movie is finding and helping Bucky. He's willing to circumvent whatever authority he has to in order to facilitate this. His actions are a result of his personal sense of morality, which he acknowledges in conversation with Tony. After the break-out from Martin Freeman's prison Steve has stopped caring about the Accords and is completely focused on getting Bucky somewhere safe to be deprogrammed. I only saw the movie once and I don't remember a whole lot of it, but I do remember that. So what I'm saying here is that yeah, of course Steve Rogers puts his personal morality above other people. We all do that. He isn't immune just for being Captain America. I agree that the movie doesn't provoke much of a reaction though. It's to be expected from Marvel right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
HIJK posted:So what I'm saying here is that yeah, of course Steve Rogers puts his personal morality above other people...He isn't immune just for being Captain America. Uh, I think that's one of the ideas of Captain America, actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Uh, I think that's one of the ideas of Captain America, actually. I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I never saw Captain America as an actual RL personification of the country particularly since Civil War: The Movie goes out of its way to point out that a lot of the conflict is generated by Steve being a self-righteous prick. A sympathetic one but still a self-righteous prick. That's how I interpreted the conference room conversation he had with Tony, anyway. And sure, there are lots of intentional parallels between Steve and the United States, his flaws are our flaws, etc etc etc etc. But viewed as a single character and individual, yeah, Steve isn't immune from making mistakes and being selfish and pigheaded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
HIJK posted:I'm not talking about -isms and it's foolish to talk about -isms when speaking about abstract concepts like "right" or "wrong." -isms create division and little tribes for people to rally around so they have an enemy to focus on. Concepts like "right and wrong" are produced by socialization, cultural expectations, and the nurturing we receive growing up. Politics is downstream of human nature, which is what I'm more interested in here. This is nonsense, you either don't believe in any sort of morality or have come to believe yours personally is somehow 'scientific', 'apolitical' or even 'factual'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I wonder if Zack Snyder is familiar with Injustice: Gods Among Us. In that game, Superman turns evil when Joker kills Lois. but then again the same plot beat happened in Kingdom Come. Do you guys also hate that comic? I've actually gone sour on Kingdom Come since Waid's reaction to MoS. Specifically, Waid was p.i.s.s.e.d. at MoS for Supes killing Zod, but there is a scene in KC where he almost collapses the U.N. in an act of revenge, which would have killed everyone inside including like innocent staffers, security guards, maintenance staff, etc. Which in my mind was worse than the MoS scene because he had a super good reason to do what he did outside of just seeking revenge (which in my mind is so un-Superman it's scary, but I get that was the point). There was a similar incident with The Flash TV series where there was a fake-out with one of the characters (specifically Jay Garrick being a villain's alias) which Waid tweeted about. Oddly he had again done a really similar fake out with Barry Allen (who was dead at that point) in one of his most iconic stories, but lucky for him the internet wasn't around, nor was their a weirdo respected writer like Waid leading the charge to attack him on it. I feel like Waid was given the opportunity to explore these iconic characters and do interesting things with them, but he doesn't want other creators to have the same opportunities (or at least he's too far up his own rear end to realize it's the same thing).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:This is nonsense, you either don't believe in any sort of morality or have come to believe yours personally is somehow 'scientific', 'apolitical' or even 'factual'. This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you elaborate? What is it about morality that requires the attachment of political -isms? Why am I required to choose between socialism and libertarianism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
HIJK posted:This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you elaborate? What is it about morality that requires the attachment of political -isms? Why am I required to choose between socialism and libertarianism? Your response seems to indicate that you don't actually believe Captain America is about doing the right thing, but simply that he does what he wants and also believes he is correct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
HIJK posted:This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you elaborate? What is it about morality that requires the attachment of political -isms? Why am I required to choose between socialism and libertarianism? Because you believe that you do not have an ideology unless you choose one - despite unwittingly quoting anarchocapitalist character Lex Luthor in your previous post*, and praising Steve Rogers for being an 'individual [rational] actor'. *"See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark-Joe. 'Cause God is tribal. God takes sides!" Sinding has already called you out for this, but it bears repeating: because you refused to make a choice, the decision was made for you. You now spontaneously follow libertarianism. It comes naturally to you. And you, consequently, perceive the actions of a man dressed in an american flag costume as 'natural' too. And this is why truth and justice are perceived as the ultimate threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Uh, I think that's one of the ideas of Captain America, actually. He's given up being Captain America before because of his distaste for American policies. He changed his name to Nomad that one time. Captain America is portrayed a lot like Superman in the comics... a dude who's always going to do the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Can I agree with this and still be endeared by Batman v Superman? Because that scene embodies everything about the movie that's inept, but also everything that is ambitious. It's conceptually great and executed horrendously. The difference between you and Karloff is that Karloff doesn't recognize the poetry. He thinks the scene is about Batman learning the name of Superman's mother: Karloff posted:Maybe [Steve Rogers and Tony Stark] should have just learnt that their mums had the same name and made up and then fought the abomination with the help of Spider-Man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
dublish posted:The difference between you and Karloff is that Karloff doesn't recognize the poetry. He thinks the scene is about Batman learning the name of Superman's mother: Yeah he's not in the know like us smarties
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Yeah he's not in the know like us smarties this, but unrironically
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
By mentioning the word "poetry," you've invoked George Lucas. You've doomed us all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
George Lucas is pretty boss and it's a shame trio of HACK FRAUDS besmirched his name forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
HIJK posted:This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you elaborate? What is it about morality that requires the attachment of political -isms? Why am I required to choose between socialism and libertarianism? There is no divide between politics and morality. The 'isms' you speak of are actually a taxonomy of moral thoughts. A liberal view of justice is different from a libertarian or socialist view. Rejecting the label does not make your conception of morality neutral, it distances yourself from an existing body of critical thought. It isn't choosing to be objective, only to be ignorant of the origins, history, implications, etc. of your own ideology. Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
greatn posted:George Lucas is pretty boss and it's a shame trio of HACK FRAUDS besmirched his name forever. What's this in reference to? We all know George was elevated by the people who worked for him, before he became too big.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Everybody is elevated by the people who work for them, but there's been an insane mythology that's popped up that he never did anything of value, just got lucky, and everyone else made every good decision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Martman posted:By mentioning the word "poetry," you've invoked George Lucas. You've doomed us all. Poetry doesn't have to rhyme, George Lucas There are half-rhymes too
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
greatn posted:Everybody is elevated by the people who work for them, but there's been an insane mythology that's popped up that he never did anything of value, just got lucky, and everyone else made every good decision. But, I mean, you can see the clear difference between the original three Wars movies that he did collaboratively, and his more recent...attempts on his own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
The idea he did the prequels on his own and just was a megalomaniac with complete control taking no input is also ridiculous. Personally I'm of the opinion the prequels are pretty good, and a hell of a lot more interesting than the new Disney stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Drifter posted:What's this in reference to? We all know George was elevated by the people who worked for him, before he became too big.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
HACK FRAUD is a term of endearment in this case, but I think they're wrong about Lucas and the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Drifter posted:But, I mean, you can see the clear difference between the original three Wars movies that he did collaboratively, and his more recent...attempts on his own. All of the films were done collaboratively. All films are done collaboratively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
greatn posted:The idea he did the prequels on his own and just was a megalomaniac with complete control taking no input is also ridiculous. While this is true, part of the problem is that for the prequels he got input from people like Rick McCallum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:All of the films were done collaboratively. I made a short film with a camcorder once, all by myself. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I made a short film with a camcorder once, all by myself. You weren't filming anyone and nobody was filming you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Because you believe that you do not have an ideology unless you choose one - despite unwittingly quoting anarchocapitalist character Lex Luthor in your previous post*, and praising Steve Rogers for being an 'individual [rational] actor'. Are you sure you're not assigning labels based on your own belief system? Confirmation bias is a heck of a drug my friend  I don't think Steve Rogers acted particularly well in Civil War -- the movie was kind of bland and terrible, and most of his decisions were based off his own biased morality. That's not a great thing to do when you're a super human that can jump hella high and punched out Hitler 200 times!But if we're discussing actual ideologies, I believe that ideologies mutate and transform depending on what time period you're in and the state of your culture and upbringing. For example "socialist" does not mean today what it meant 50 years ago. We assign ideologies labels because we're human and we like to have descriptors attached to things. People would still believe in libertarianism or socialism, even if those things were called by totally different labels. Ideologies exist and we use them as a way to define ourselves and separate out the people we don't like. And of course sometimes ideologies choose us, based on our upbringing and culture, as I mentioned before. We're each victims of our confirmation bias. Humans are quite irrational creatures! Sinding Johansson posted:There is no divide between politics and morality. The 'isms' you speak of are actually a taxonomy of moral thoughts. A liberal view of justice is different from a libertarian or socialist view. Rejecting the label does not make your conception of morality neutral, it distances yourself from an existing body of critical thought. It isn't choosing to be objective, only to be ignorant of the origins, history, implications, etc. of your own ideology. I'm not rejecting any labels. If you asked me about my politics in real life I would give you an earful about those -isms and which one I espoused. I just don't give a poo poo about what -isms are driving Steve Rogers in the MCU. I never claimed to be objective: that's a label you're trying to foist on me because of your own confirmation bias. You can analyze the subtext of -isms if you want, I just don't really care since we get so much about politics in our everyday lives. It's nice not to think about it for a while. It's a movie about a closeted bisexual Army captain that punches his way to moral triumph, his politics are the least interesting thing about him. Martman posted:SMG was questioning your claim that Captain America is about "doing the right thing" when you weren't willing to define what the right thing is. I defined "doing the right thing" as Steve trying to save Bucky and get him deprogrammed. I guess if you want to go more deeply into it, Steve thinks that Bucky didn't actually do anything, and is trying to prove his innocence and keep him from suffering at the hands of a global government that wants a scapegoat and is being manipulated by Baron Zemo. At least that's what I remember, I only saw the movie once  Captain America is about doing the right thing -- which is defined by what he thinks is right and correct, as it is with all individuals. I'm not saying this to be spiteful to Steve or to any other real person, I'm only pointing out that as squishy and irrational humans "the right thing" is a very slippery concept. None of us have the complete picture of reality and Steve Rogers can only act in accordance with the things that he knows. That is all anyone can do. e: I mean technically the conversation is moot, since "Steve Rogers doing the right thing" is defined as "whatever the person writing his lines thinks is morally correct." HIJK fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
HIJK posted:Captain America is about doing the right thing -- which is defined by what he thinks is right and correct, as it is with all individuals. This is an example of ideology, specifically libertarian ideology. By ideology, I mean in terms of "the default assumptions held that seem 'natural' or 'common sense' ". It's libertarian because it presumes that each individual person conceives their own version of "doing the right thing". In reality, moral goodness is more often than not a social measure that groups of people share.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is an example of ideology, specifically libertarian ideology. By ideology, I mean in terms of "the default assumptions held that seem 'natural' or 'common sense' ". That's a good point, actually, though our values and such are shaped by the culture and groups around us -- does that count as a social measure?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
HIJK posted:Captain America is about doing the right thing -- which is defined by what he thinks is right and correct, as it is with all individuals. It seems like you're describing the Cap in a way that isn't much of a description at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
HIJK posted:I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I never saw Captain America as an actual RL personification of the country particularly since Civil War: The Movie goes out of its way to point out that a lot of the conflict is generated by Steve being a self-righteous prick. A sympathetic one but still a self-righteous prick. That's how I interpreted the conference room conversation he had with Tony, anyway. A sympathetic, but self-righteous prick known to occasionally be pig-headed, selfish, and gently caress things up sounds like a pretty spot-on description of America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
dublish posted:The difference between you and Karloff is that Karloff doesn't recognize the poetry. He thinks the scene is about Batman learning the name of Superman's mother: There is no poetry, Batman and Superman's issues are still unresolved. Batman is still a murderous lunatic, and Superman is still potentially dangerous, they are not friends even if they act like it; it's a pat, one-dimensional, overtly simplified, barely considered story telling beat that doesn't even scratch the surface of approaching a nuanced examination of the concepts of empathy, humanity or even exposes any thematic truth about the frictions that occur between ideologically or morally opposed people. It's only real purpose is to quickly hand-wave the conflict between the two away so the film can divebomb into a fight scene against a monster. Probably, I mean I could just be not brilliant and intelligent enough to understand Batman v Superman, which is of course, the smartest and best thing ever made. The greatest piece of storytelling since Shakepeare last put quill to paper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Sick burn on yourself, dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 07:23
|
|
