|
But I am fully aware this is a work of fiction. I think you're attaching a meaning to that scene that the creators never intended and that discussing it further will take this down a road I'm not eager to repeat. I'm not insinuating anything other than what's happened literally every time I've had this discussion here. Is that cuz of you? Is that cuz of me? I don't care, I don't wanna do it anymore. That's it, end of story, let's move on with our lives. Nodosaur fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 27, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
You guys are making these Marvel movies sounds sorta interesting and good..?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Yaws posted:You guys are making these Marvel movies sounds sorta interesting and good..? The whole point of redemptive interpretations is to do this, so I'm afraid you've fallen into a clever trap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The whole point of redemptive interpretations is to do this, so I'm afraid you've fallen into a clever trap. You've fallen into our clever trap! Now you will enjoy more movies than before! Mwahahaha!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The whole point of redemptive interpretations is to do this, so I'm afraid you've fallen into a clever trap. It's not redemptive, because these movies always had that potential. Movies cannot suddenly change their minds later. They do not undergo a change of heart. You, have undergone a change of heart. Congraturaisins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's not redemptive, because these movies always had that potential. Movies cannot suddenly change their minds later. They do not undergo a change of heart. You, have undergone a change of heart. Congraturaisins. I wasn't aware that the definition of the word "redeem" was so limited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I wasn't aware that the definition of the word "redeem" was so limited. You're piggybacking off of SMG's concept, which is the one I am addressing ("I redeem bad movies"). If the movie has an interpretation that you like, you haven't redeemed a bad movie, because the movie was not bad and did not need redemption. it's a pointless phrase that only serves to attempt a condescending tone at an inanimate concept, or to justify a guilty pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Only posting to unhide the weird hidden Neuro post
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
The point of redemptive or oppositional criticism is specifically to look past a film's other relatively mediocratic qualities and identify with it as a purely ideological subject. We can still have movie fights about it. PULSE POUNDING ACTION!:      
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:But I am fully aware this is a work of fiction. I think you're attaching a meaning to that scene that the creators never intended and that discussing it further will take this down a road I'm not eager to repeat. Are you aware that the very first thing in movie 3 is Stark saying "we create our own demons" over an image of Jarvis' bodies being immolated? Of course, your initial assumption may be that the 'demon' is whatever's burning the Iron Men, but it should be extremely obvious (by the end) that Stark is referring to the Iron Men themselves. So we are provided Stark's point of view: Iron Man is perceived as demonic and, so, the 'demon' standing over the bed is some fairly standard Paranormal Activity sort of imagery. But of course Stark is wrong, in the same basic way that Micah in PA is wrong. It's not something external that can be blown up. Iron Man arrived to protect the two of them, specifically reacting to when Pepper grabbed Tony's arm. It is Stark who - both consciously and unconsciously - twists Jarvis' instinct to help into something wrong. The basic message of the film is in the ending, when Tony Stark takes the requisite 'dark version of Tony Stark', shoves him into Iron Man and then detonates them both. He believes that he's destroyed the 'unnatural' parts of himself, and can now live a normal and peaceful human life. It's the same ending as in Dark Knight Rises, where Bruce Wayne kills Batman and then takes a European vacation. So we should return to that initial image of the Iron Men being burned, which is taken from the scene where helicopters attack Stark's mansion. And in detonating every remaining suit, Stark is finishing the villain's job. Neurolimal posted:You're piggybacking off of SMG's concept, which is the one I am addressing ("I redeem bad movies"). If the movie has an interpretation that you like, you haven't redeemed a bad movie, because the movie was not bad and did not need redemption. it's a pointless phrase that only serves to attempt a condescending tone at an inanimate concept, or to justify a guilty pleasure. What you miss, in conflating this with 'liking bad movies', is the performative effect of interpretation. I am altering the fabric of reality. Make no mistake; these are not good movies. The point of redemptive interpretation is to identify the traces of authenticity in the texture of a given film. You have to sit through a whole lot of boo-hoo bullshit in order to get to Stark casually murdering Jarvis. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:But I am fully aware this is a work of fiction. I think you're attaching a meaning to that scene that the creators never intended and that discussing it further will take this down a road I'm not eager to repeat. I'm not insinuating anything other than what's happened literally every time I've had this discussion here. Is that cuz of you? Is that cuz of me? I don't care, I don't wanna do it anymore. We don't know what "the creators never intended," and since there were scads of writers and directors across the films we are discussing, those intentions would necessarily be legitimately insane if we try to imagine them by analogy to the guiding impulses of a single person's mind. Taking idea of authorial intent as given, there is still the problem that an even an individual may have contradictory intentions; with so many creative processes at work, it becomes impossible that contradictory intentions did not shape the characters we are discussing. I mean, I know you're bowing out of the conversation and all. I don't blame you if you're trying to figure out what was intended by an amalgam of hundreds of minds. That's not even discussing the MCU anymore, it's some sort of exercise in Lovecraftian fiction. And I mean SMG is already a sinister being from the starry deeps all on his own, so... Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
I think focusing on JARVIS as the heroic aspect of Iron Man is missing a huge important part of the movie, in that Tony is effectively roboticizing himself over the course of the movie. JARVIS is present, but the actual "driving" of the drone armors is 50/50, with Tony being the narrative's focus. And when 42 comes to save them as Tony has a panic attack in bed? JARVIS has nothing to do with it, it's due to the armor controlling studs he placed under the armor. You can't treat them all as Jarvis's bodies when a major theme, and important contrast to Killian and Extremis, is Tony making himself more and more of a machine to the point that the separation itself is blurred. When Tony is reacting to 42's unwanted intrusion, he's reacting to something he did as a result of his trauma, not JARVIS's misguided attempts to help. And of course the the theme of Tony's actions and their repurcussions is important to the movie, but there's a seriously huge difference between acknowledging that and saying he wants to kill the important people in his life. Also, how can 42's intrusion be Tony "misunderstanding Jarvis's attempt to help" and a reflection of his own subconscious desires? And when I speak of what the creators intended, I'm talking about what I feel is evident in the movie. Y'all bring your own baggage to the movie, same as me, though. Neither of us are special in that regard. But I don't think a lot of people understand how anxiety works, or even how the filmmakers appear to think it works, and past experience has taught me that if I try to even elaborate upon it it'll result in a very, very, very bad experience. This was just a final attempt to clarify my position. I'm gonna take my leave as best I can, now. Nodosaur fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:The point of redemptive or oppositional criticism is specifically to look past a film's other relatively mediocratic qualities and identify with it as a purely ideological subject. One is played for laughs though. Like, shooting it like Nolan did wouldn't work. It's a flat shot because the comedy bit is Paul Rudd waking up in a van and wondering what the hell is going on. You could it differently, but it's funnier when it's mostly flat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Actually wouldn't it be funnier if the lighting was dramatic, creating a sense that "this is going to be some big ace in the hole" only for it to be Paul Rudd sleeping on the floor of the van? "It's supposed to be a joke" is a poo poo excuse for lighting any scene like you're making a Judd Apatow movie. Even Judd Apatow got sick of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:One is played for laughs though. Like, shooting it like Nolan did wouldn't work. Both films are actually filled with goofy poo poo. The money shot of that Inception sequence where a man is dying is a bit where Tom Hardy makes fun of JGL for not being able to dream he had a bigger gun. That's how you do comedy relief, by actually first establishing tension.  Now, the Civil War scene on the other hand is purely expositional, and deliberately constructed in such a way that there's as little tension as possible. There are no expectations, because all we're seeing is characters in blinding daylight in a large truck-sized negative space between two squeaky clean vehicles, shot from a low angle to reinforce the security of their (specifically Steve Rogers') power. The significance of the moment is focused entirely on Paul Rudd meeting Steve Rogers, but there's zero significant contrast between Rudd and the man he's supposedly in awe of. Rudd doesn't look run-down, or tired, and his performance to meeting these characters and literally being told what his role in the movie is never rises above a shallow, affirmative effect of how awesome the idea is and how little he cares about how this may conflict with his life. So basically, nothing happens.   The part of Paul Rudd being even slightly confused lasts about seven seconds before he acknowledges that he's even met a lot of the people there and has been previously brought up to speed on what the threat is. So what we have is a character who is depicted in a series of completely flat shots waking up in a van and being totally composed and agreeable with the scenario he finds himself in. The photography is just formally complementing a hack bit. Paul Rudd waking up in a van isn't funny, it's just an ostensibly pleasing acknowledgment of his existence, which is grounded entirely in him praising the narrative. The Cameo posted:Actually wouldn't it be funnier if the lighting was dramatic, creating a sense that "this is going to be some big ace in the hole" only for it to be Paul Rudd sleeping on the floor of the van? This notion that comedy is just explicitly expositional drama with 'funny content' isn't new or rare. It's called 'hack.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
The very basic plot of the film: a stable of veterans are subjected to experimentation that turns them into unwitting suicide-bombers. However: Am I referring to Killian's experimental soldiers, or to Stark's? In order to actually look at the film's writing, you must be aware of the - now de rigeur - parallels drawn between the designated hero and designated villain. The two faces of the Mandarin are the media hypeman and the exploitative experimenter whose subjects self-destruct. And, obviously, these characters stand for the two sides of Stark's 'traumatized' persona. (Debate over the Mandarin character's 'true identity' completely misses the basic duality. There is only one Mandarin, played by two different actors.) And then: Stark 'conquers his darker side' and 'overcomes his PTSD' by 'learning humility' and - this is the actually-interesting part - by killing every single test-subject in a storm of hellfire. Not just the extremis(ts), but the Iron Men too.* In a very straightforward way: impoverished veterans are killing themselves, and Stark's solution is to kill them first. Jarvis is being disobedient? Kill Jarvis. Eliminate alterity. Kill. Kill. *The sole exception is Pepper, and that's an exception that proves the rule. The one person in the universe that Stark is prohibited from killing is his girlfriend because - in the ideological universe of the film - a 'healthy' heterosexual relationship, leading to marriage, is the highest good. Hence why children's movie Iron Man 3 has a domestic violence subtext/subplot. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Boy SMG, when you fill in the blanks, the parts of the universe that aren't stated but are left to the imagination, you really fill them in darkly, don't you? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, we all take something different from art. That's art's purpose. But I sure didn't (and don't) see it like you do. Still, it's good to see a thought out or at least passionate opinion even if I don't agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:in the ideological universe of the film - a 'healthy' heterosexual relationship, leading to marriage, is the highest good. Hence why children's movie Iron Man 3 has a domestic violence subtext/subplot. Pepper was supposed to recapture that missing female vitality/stability in his life. Unfortunately, in that cut, pepper is a really bad damsel in distress and serves little purpose other than to get wet for Killian/help Stark overcome his dimensional PTSD by almost losing her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
It's interesting to me just how much analysis and discussion has been devoted to Tony Stark in a thread about what is arguably a Captain America movie. I wonder judgements and interpretations would be made about Rogers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Coredump posted:It's interesting to me just how much analysis and discussion has been devoted to Tony Stark in a thread about what is arguably a Captain America movie. I wonder judgements and interpretations would be made about Rogers. In Captain America: Civil War, Iron Man is independent and has individuality, while Steve Rogers is dependent and has no individuality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Coredump posted:It's interesting to me just how much analysis and discussion has been devoted to Tony Stark in a thread about what is arguably a Captain America movie. I wonder judgements and interpretations would be made about Rogers. Stark employee. "Freedom is... good?" Nonentity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Coredump posted:It's interesting to me just how much analysis and discussion has been devoted to Tony Stark in a thread about what is arguably a Captain America movie. I wonder judgements and interpretations would be made about Rogers. Stark is basically the big bad except he has also been the tentpole of the MCU up until now, which is (for my money) the first really interesting turn of events in the "shared universe". Rogers is...good. He doesn't have a ton of pathos outside of his devotion to Bucky and this movie unfortunately takes a lot of ambiguity away from that by 1) making Bucky unquestionably out of control for all of his actions (except potentially for assaulting that Romanian SWAT team that was going to gun him down) and 2) making Steve's actions be totally focused on simply keeping Bucky from getting executed without a trial. I don't mind that Captain America of all people is more or less entirely righteous for the duration of his movie, but there isn't a ton to actually discuss there. The "sides" the movie wants you to take seem to be mostly about the registration but that is somewhat sidelined to deal with the Bucky issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
All we get from Rogers with regard to political conflict is "I refuse any oversight because the overseers have agendas." So is he an anarchist? An anti-globalist? A sovereign citizen kook? Mostly he just comes across as a dunderhead. In a series of movies rife with political implications, this is the first one that promotes the idea of (the audience) "taking sides" in a political conflict. And it ends up being a series of emotional reactions based on friendships and hurt feelings. Captain America's depiction in this movie is bleak and depressing. But wait, no, this movie is fun! and BvS is grim and gritty because of the colour palette and Bat-machineguns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
That's not quite true though. Yes, he's reluctant but there's a moment where he's going to agree as long as they can't negotiate terms, there's a moment where Stark almost has him on board and then he learns about Wanda. I'm not really on the side of Stark as HYDRA but in that moment I think Cap does see flashes of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah, Cap is willing to accept that regulation should exist but unwilling to work under those regulations. At first he's willing to retire, but once he learns about what lies under these regulations he decides they're not worth respecting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:All we get from Rogers with regard to political conflict is "I refuse any oversight because the overseers have agendas." So is he an anarchist? An anti-globalist? A sovereign citizen kook? Mostly he just comes across as a dunderhead. Rogers' arc in the films (such as it is) is that he's a hardcore socialist up until the end of The First Avenger, where his character does an incredible 180 off a cliff. Rogers' reaction to the 'failure' of socialism (i.e. waking up to see that the world after WWII is a capitalist hellhole) pretty much instantly turns him into a libertarian - which is why he naturally slides into role of Stark Industries employee. You don't even see it happen; he just shows up with the trademarked Avengers logo on his suit, and nobody blinks. And that's pretty much his sole character trait now, turning against his allies (Stark, America itself) whenever they reveal themselves to be 'not libertarian enough'. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
If you wouldn't punch a robot man in the face to keep your best friend from being unjustly murdered, perhaps you're not as good friends as you'd think and also perhaps you're a pansy Also lol at Captain America being a "libertarian". Libertarian Captain America wouldn't have rescued all those dangling Sokovians, he'd just tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Rough Lobster fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Libertarianism is not quite the same thing as Objectivism. You don't need to have "rational self interest" to be pro-big business small government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
To me it all comes back to the nonsensical status of SHIELD. I only recently found out that the Pentagon pulled material support for The Avengers because, far from being concerned that they were portrayed negatively, they couldn't figure out how they might be portrayed at all. Was SHIELD part of the Department of Homeland Security? Department of Defense? CIA? Some kind of international jurisdiction which would make no sense at all? The whole time I was watching Age of Ultron I was thinking about the Avengers' status after the collapse of SHIELD. "So are the Avengers just a paramilitary squad funded by the Stark corporation?" Then Civil War says "Yes, but maybe the United Nations will start overseeing them." Okay, maybe? So now I can't stop thinking about it when I think about these movies. Some of the articles publishing the news seemed to think it was absurd that the Department of Defense would be concerned about the portrayal of military bureaucracy in a superhero movie, though they understood why. But if the movies want to establish stakes moral dilemmas and make us give a poo poo about any of it, yes, it really really matters. No one would ever write a movie where MacArthur starts a civil war when Truman fires him, then they shake hands and make up at the end. But that level of conflict, paired with that kind of story logic, is normal in superhero movies. (Especially when you can see the conflict through the lens of a few costumed people having a fist fight without countless soldiers and civilians dying.) I understand character writing is tricky when your characters are living symbols or science-fictional beings of immense power, but Civil War wants to have it both ways by playing up the conflict, without actually owning up to what the conflict means.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Libertarian reading is the most coherent interpretation of the movie, and even that's generous. It really is a muddle where nobody really makes the obvious good arguments in favor of their side or seriously tries to poke holes in the other side. Cap: Did you not notice that everyone meant to regulate us was Hydra 5 minutes ago? Why the gently caress should I trust that poo poo now? I just had to 9/11 the comic book CIA because it was turbonazis all the way down! Stark: Did you not notice that you wanting to exercise unlimited power to act everywhere in the world with lethal force without restraint sounds Hydra as gently caress too? How's that will to power treating ya?" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Rogers' arc in the films (such as it is) is that he's a hardcore socialist up until the end of The First Avenger, where his character does an incredible 180 off a cliff. A notion I keep playing around with is that weirdly, Skull is not only not a Nazi, he is specifically a Futurist. He loves technology and violence and wants to literally steal the power of the gods to power things that go pew pew and kaboom. Captain America's mission is to stop him from turning Europe into a big-budget summer blockbuster remake of Victory Over the Sun. Fittingly, Ultron is not only Tony Stark's ideology taken to its furthest logical conclusion, he's also a synthesis of Zola and Skull. Zola's technocratic totalitarianism paired with Skull's megalomaniacal, futurist vision. (Thor is Hydra!) (Seriously, what does Thor represent in these movies? And what does it mean, if anything, that Vision is a product of Tony and Thor?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:(Seriously, what does Thor represent in these movies? And what does it mean, if anything, that Vision is a product of Tony and Thor?) I think Whedon thought it was very clever to make his Deus Ex Machina a Machina Ex Deus in "Age of Ultron", I'm not certain that there was any more thought put into than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Thor is a straightforward and unambiguous feudalist, which is why he fits in perfectly with the spectrum of liberal/libertarian heroes on display. Propertarian, minarchist, etc. All are represented at some point or another. As a mixture of Stark and Thor, Vision embodies the New Age ideology of the Republic Jedi in Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:To me it all comes back to the nonsensical status of SHIELD. I only recently found out that the Pentagon pulled material support for The Avengers because, far from being concerned that they were portrayed negatively, they couldn't figure out how they might be portrayed at all. Was SHIELD part of the Department of Homeland Security? Department of Defense? CIA? Some kind of international jurisdiction which would make no sense at all? DoD support for movies comes with caveats, I can understand and appreciate why they distanced themselves from the DoD in this aspect. Pretty sure CA:WS would not have been good demographics for drone operations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Watched this yesterday. It sucked.The quips are honestly getting out of control in these movies
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:he just shows up with the trademarked Avengers logo on his suit, and nobody blinks. Dang, just like our celebrity culture, you know that a crap ton of junk like t-shirts would be made in this universe by people both celebrating the Avengers and people looking to make a quick buck. And you doubly know that Stark would have a team of lawyers to cease and desist all of them so that Stark Industries would be the only source of Avengers branded memorabilia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Rogers' arc in the films (such as it is) is that he's a hardcore socialist up until the end of The First Avenger, where his character does an incredible 180 off a cliff. So, what you're saying is, Steve Rogers is Christopher Hitchens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Also watched this evening the first time. Avengers taking the blame for stopping outside forces is a loving stupid premise that ruins the movie going forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 23:45
|
|
