|
occamsnailfile posted:It's especially weird in that they don't put Black Widow on things aimed at girls like backpacks sold as 'girls backpack' and what have you. 'Family Values'? I mean Hulk is a shirtless berserk roid job. Maybe if they just didn't put her in T&A pose it wouldn't come off so sexualized. That's more or less the problem. Lots of American culture - and real old school industries like toys especially - still suffer very sharply from the whole Madonna / Whore complex. Black Widow as more or less been declared to be eternal T&A (because that's the only way a male audience could appreciate her, they'll tell you). Bringing in more Black Widow merch would mean they, either way, at some point, made a mistake.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Also Hasbro just has had a habit of mandating firings at WotC to increase its profit margin until there's practically nobody left but the Magic team, as folks get cut from anything less profitable. It's a sad thing that the awful loving garbage that is Monopoly is more profitable for them than D&D. I mean, hate on 5e all you want (I'm mostly just apathetic about it), at least it isn't Monopoly, proof that brand recognition trumps a fun game any day of the week. From what I understand being placed on the D&D team has historically been a "shape up or ship out" action at WotC, no idea if this is still true in the age of what, three full time D&D employees Kai Tave posted:To put things in another perspective, how many Black Widow toys are out there despite that character being a fairly major figure in at least three major blockbuster Marvel movies to date? Much of the blame for lack of Black Widow merchandise can be pinned on the influence Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter formerly had before Disney removed him from decision making. Whether there are more toys of her post Civil War is probably the true test of that. Rand Brittain posted:A lot of the people involved in the show keep coming out to disclaim this one. Young Justice got cancelled because it didn't sell action figures, period, to anybody. I believe the weird internally competitive atmosphere at Warner Bros probably has something to do with YJ's cancellation too. DC Nation was outright cancelled, despite doing well. The new Justice League cartoon will probably be swiftly cancelled too. Beware the Batman seemed to have been instantly cancelled. Cartoon Network seems to have much more interest in original properties, and that probably stems from not wanting to be beholden to any other subsidiaries of WB. Not that I object to this too much when the products are things like Adventure Time, Regular Show, Steven Universe and Gumball.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I believe the weird internally competitive atmosphere at Warner Bros probably has something to do with YJ's cancellation too. DC Nation was outright cancelled, despite doing well. The new Justice League cartoon will probably be swiftly cancelled too. Beware the Batman seemed to have been instantly cancelled. Cartoon Network seems to have much more interest in original properties, and that probably stems from not wanting to be beholden to any other subsidiaries of WB. Not that I object to this too much when the products are things like Adventure Time, Regular Show, Steven Universe and Gumball. The DC comics properties are a big mess right now. Their most successful ventures are the CW shows aimed at adults, their comics are a mess of a few highs and tons of lows with rumors of another reboot coming soon, none of their cartoons seem to have any staying power even when they get good word-of-mouth. They're trying very hard to copy the success Marvel has had with their crossover movies but somehow missed that Marvel's movies work because they manage to do 2 out of 3 things: get good lead actors, get a good, fun script, and get a good director.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:Marvel's movies work because they manage to do 2 out of 3 things: get good lead actors, get a good, fun script, and get a good director. This is complete dross that comes from being in an epistemic nerd bubble and reading articles from comicbookmovie.com all day. It's dangerously close to a tautology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
The common refrain from comic book fans is that Marvel comics are more about the personalities of the superheroes as more-or-less relatable people, whereas DC comics are more about superheroes being "iconic." Perhaps it's more meaningful to say that the people managing the Marvel brand understand that their properties need the underpinnings of good drama, whereas DC is more prone to leaning on the brand name to sell the characters instead of vice versa. Both companies seem to be struggling to make their comics accessible to people who are interested in the screen adaptations, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The common refrain from comic book fans is that Marvel comics are more about the personalities of the superheroes as more-or-less relatable people, whereas DC comics are more about superheroes being "iconic." Perhaps it's more meaningful to say that the people managing the Marvel brand understand that their properties need the underpinnings of good drama, whereas DC is more prone to leaning on the brand name to sell the characters instead of vice versa. As someone who enjoys superhero comics, after the mid 60s this has always been nonsense spewed by people who are only interested in perpetuating Marvel vs DC crap. I mean the two companies have drawn on the same pool of freelancers for decades, work at one publisher influences the other, and so on. Your assessment is probably true for the modern film adaptations though. From what I understand as well, it's monthly stuff that Marvel and DC have trouble selling to movie fans, because of the direct market system. The Thor and Captain America omnibus books sold extremely well in the wake of the films. See, you can get those on Amazon. That makes all the difference. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Marvel's movies suddenly became good when Marvel Entertainment Group created Marvel Studios to in-house their major franchise films (previously they licensed properties to other studios) and started making the movies themselves. You can see the line plain as day: the first two fully-inhouse Marvel movies were Blade in 1998 and X-Men in 2000, both of which were wildly successful and profitable. The success of those early in-house films can largely be credited to Avi Arad, head of Marvel Films at the time. Marvel also started self-financing their films in 2004. They've also been re-aquiring the film rights to their most important properties that were held by the likes of Sony, New Line, Lion's Gate, etc. ever since. This is a really good read for all the details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios It makes sense. Having full control over the scripts, being able to select studios to partner with, set budgets, etc. all give Marvel the ability to ensure their film projects aren't treated the way Hollywood had normally treated licensed properties to that point. No low-budget garbage productions from a license-holder hiring a no-name director to churn out a bad movie for five million dollars to try to make seven million in the market. No more apathetic directors looking at a comic book franchise they don't care about as a stepping stone to maybe getting a real actual film to direct in a couple years. Marvel still made a few stinkers, of course, but just compare Marvel's track record, to how well Sony has done with Spider-Man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
OTOH, Avi Arad produced Man-Thing. They can't all be gems, folks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:From what I understand as well, it's monthly stuff that Marvel and DC have trouble selling to movie fans, because of the direct market system. The Thor and Captain America omnibus books sold extremely well in the wake of the films. See, you can get those on Amazon. That makes all the difference. The main difference between the two publishers here is that Marvel has made a number of good-faith efforts in the past decade-plus to make new comics accessible to a broader spectrum of new readers (though how well they've actually succeeded is a matter of opinion). Meanwhile, DC's editors have shot down similar outreach efforts repeatedly, in some recent cases because their explicit reasoning is that the target audience for superhero comics is the white men in their mid-30s to mid-40s who are already reading them. That's all down to the two companies' current editorial policies; it's certainly nothing inherent to either publisher. After all, DC's Vertigo imprint made the first largely successful push to make comics mainstream in the mid-90s, while at the same time Marvel was bleeding sales month after month thanks in no small part to the assumption that people would buy their comics just because they had Marvel's flagship brands on the cover, regardless of quality or marketing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:The DC comics properties are a big mess right now. Their most successful ventures are the CW shows aimed at adults, their comics are a mess of a few highs and tons of lows with rumors of another reboot coming soon, none of their cartoons seem to have any staying power even when they get good word-of-mouth. They're trying very hard to copy the success Marvel has had with their crossover movies but somehow missed that Marvel's movies work because they manage to do 2 out of 3 things: get good lead actors, get a good, fun script, and get a good director. The DC Animated movies have been pretty good recently. And the Paul Dini era cartoons were amazing, the difference is now Dini's working for Marvel on some of their cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:No low-budget garbage productions from a license-holder hiring a no-name director to churn out a bad movie for five million dollars to try to make seven million in the market...no more apathetic directors looking at a comic book franchise they don't care about as a stepping stone...how well Sony has done with Spider-Man. Yeah the problem here is that Sony spent a shitload of money on Spider Man and got a director who loved the character and the job and still produced an under-performing movie that was perceived as a failure (despite the online cauterwailing both Garfield Spider-Man movies are broadly popular). They treated the property relatively well (story changes notwithstanding) and still couldn't deliver the unbelievable smash they were fishing for. But more broadly, saying "<some company> makes good movies because of <a handful of obvious factors>" is really a waste of time. There's been times where corporate meddling has ruined movies. Times where it has saved them. Times where directors putting in the work have made stone-cold classics. Times where they have made horrible garbage. etc. etc. etc If making movies were a simple formula then everyone would release nothing but hits. Every "big" film you see has hundreds of smart people who know their jobs very well and work very hard and still can't execute consistently. And it's not because they forgot to read their Dummies Guide to Making Movies. Edit: I sound kind of snippy here and that is not my intent. My main point is that for every example you can find of something working I can easily find a counter-example of it failing. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:This is complete dross that comes from being in an epistemic nerd bubble and reading articles from comicbookmovie.com all day. It's dangerously close to a tautology. i don't do either of those things and never have?  Or is this some CD thing where you talk about how brilliant Man of Steel is if you look at through Hegelian idealism?Halloween Jack posted:The common refrain from comic book fans is that Marvel comics are more about the personalities of the superheroes as more-or-less relatable people, whereas DC comics are more about superheroes being "iconic." Perhaps it's more meaningful to say that the people managing the Marvel brand understand that their properties need the underpinnings of good drama, whereas DC is more prone to leaning on the brand name to sell the characters instead of vice versa. DC heroes are perfectly relateable when they manage to get good writers, but Marvel and DC have very different editorial styles which leads to them driving off/retaining very different talent. Marvel's line editors and writers go on yearly retreats to map out the story arcs across their main lines for the upcoming year and beyond. DC doesn't have that kind of consistency and seems more up to the whims of the upper management filtering storylines down to the writers, sometimes with very little notice Leperflesh posted:Marvel's movies suddenly became good when Marvel Entertainment Group created Marvel Studios to in-house their major franchise films (previously they licensed properties to other studios) and started making the movies themselves. You can see the line plain as day: the first two fully-inhouse Marvel movies were Blade in 1998 and X-Men in 2000, both of which were wildly successful and profitable. The success of those early in-house films can largely be credited to Avi Arad, head of Marvel Films at the time. Marvel also started self-financing their films in 2004. They've also been re-aquiring the film rights to their most important properties that were held by the likes of Sony, New Line, Lion's Gate, etc. ever since. Blade and X-Men were both licensed out though? Blade went to New Line until 2013 and X-Men is still licensed to Fox. The first films they did totally in were Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Having all the recent films coming from the same studio has certainly helped them a ton and Time Warner seems to be pushing DC that way by making the full DC Entertainment holding company out to California to be in closer contact with the TV, antimation, and movie groups Kurieg posted:The DC Animated movies have been pretty good recently. And the Paul Dini era cartoons were amazing, the difference is now Dini's working for Marvel on some of their cartoons. The DC animated movies have been mixed for me, and I was specifically referring to right now vs the DCAU era with their regular cartoon series... man it's weird to think the DCAU has been dead for 10 years now Nuns with Guns fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
My back-of-the-napkin theory goes like this: comic companies chase the money. A lot of Marvel's bestselling comics were basically X-Men and Spider-Man, and later Avengers, all of which are pretty decent bases for other media with the right talent. DC made a lot of its money on Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns and Batman. And the former two are basically just shockers that relied on being horrifying twists on the Silver Age of comics, and though you can appreciate them without a grounding in comics, they have their biggest impact if you know how the characters are being twisted around. Batman translates really well to other media, and that's been really good for them, but they keep trying to chase the dragon with superhero deconstructions, forgetting that without ordinary DC books around to compare them to, it becomes the new normal instead of a surprising contrast. Not to say that's all DC's published by far, but it's what they've really been promoting for about the past decade or so, with no real end in sight to it. Which is how you get something like Man of Steel being produced to a hilarious lack of irony by people thinking the secret to DC's success is a muted palette, because gently caress it, even though that well's been a bit dry for the past twenty years, they'll hit water again one of these days!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
From all accounts, comics just had a fantastic year. So I think the doom & gloom is a bit unwarranted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:i don't do either of those things and never have? An epistemic bubble is a term for when you surround yourself by people who mirror your own opinions back to you until you believe that they are far more popular and accepted than they are. You can usually tell when this is happening because the person starts using meaningless quantifiers like "good" and "bad" to describe things. The fact that you deny this and then go on to dismiss listening to other critical perspectives as "a CD thing" is dryly amusing. Alien Rope Burn posted:Which is how you get something like Man of Steel being produced to a hilarious lack of irony by people thinking the secret to DC's success is a muted palette, because gently caress it, even though that well's been a bit dry for the past twenty years, they'll hit water again one of these days! See, like, this is what I'm talking about. It's just bad analysis - conventional nerd wisdom spouted off without an ounce of thought or evidence behind it. Sorry to single you out - I think you're a fine upstanding poster normally - but this is just complete bunk. If you want to come on over to the Comic Book Movie Thread in CD I'll be glad to discuss it with you but I don't want to clutter up this thread with it. This is literally what always happens when you talk about comic book films - people just start spewing the most ridiculous, easily-debunked, half-baked poo poo imaginable because the nerd narrative is now DC BAD AND INCOMPETENT/MARVEL GOOD AND SMART.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:45
|
|
dwarf74 posted:From all accounts, comics just had a fantastic year. So I think the doom & gloom is a bit unwarranted. On the other hand, the central problems facing comic books are still present, sales in dollars of individual issues have basically kept pace with inflation since the switchover to Diamond, and all this is in an environment where geeky stuff is chic.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
If gross condescension like that is what I'd have to look forward to, no thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:If gross condescension like that is what I'd have to look forward to, no thanks. You unironically believe that a 200 million dollar movie's color grading - a cooler, bluer (and not consistently muted) look which is 100% consistent with the director and cinematographer's prior output - was chosen because at every single level - executive, producer, director, cinematography - a multi-billion dollar studio thought that the these colors would be solely responsible in making the movie a success. ...and I'm condescending?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Turns out busting into a thread and telling everyone that their opinions are bad and they should go to another thread where you can school them on the error of their Marvel-liking ways makes you come off as kind of a prat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
A belief can be wrong without being condescending. Yes, you are being sharply condescending. If someone's opinions are incorrect, you can and should explain yourself without acting like a tremendous shithead about it, especially when their opinions aren't about you, but your counteropinion is about them. Just explain why he's wrong about Superman, or else shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
This is a slow-moving thread, I don't think anyone will complain if you post your Superman analysis here. They might get me to actually watch that movie!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Well, with such keen insights into my thought process, I don't know what you need me around for! You can just have this argument with the Alien Rope Burn you've perfectly replicated in your head instead. Seems to be what you want and saves me some hassle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Don't demand people come back to your secret clubhouse to hear Part Two, where Part One was, "Here are all the Classic Nerd Dumbs you're doing right now." Just say what you think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:59
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You unironically believe that a 200 million dollar movie's color grading - a cooler, bluer (and not consistently muted) look which is 100% consistent with the director and cinematographer's prior output - was chosen because at every single level - executive, producer, director, cinematography - a multi-billion dollar studio thought that the these colors would be solely responsible in making the movie a success. It's an unconscionable crime to treat someone with an incredibly stupid, incredibly proliferate opinion with even the slightest hint of contempt. No looking down at creationists for you!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
The argument feels more like "Zack Snyder's output is generally critically unpopular and I also don't like his work, and that's the direction WB has decided to go into for DC superhero films" rather than "MARVEL GOOD, DC BAD, FORUMS POSTER SMASH!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:The argument feels more like "Zack Snyder's output is generally critically unpopular and I also don't like his work, and that's the direction WB has decided to go into for DC superhero films" rather than "MARVEL GOOD, DC BAD, FORUMS POSTER SMASH!" The argument feels more like, "I'm immersed in a sea of memes about 'realistic=brown' so I express my dislike for Man of Steel in terms of 'muted palette' and I also universalize it and toss in a couple more memes like 'without irony' just for the heck of it."
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Has a "let me tell you why that thing you like is actually really bad" or "let me tell you why that thing you don't like is actually really good" ever actually swayed anyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The argument feels more like, "I'm immersed in a sea of memes about 'realistic=brown' so I express my dislike for Man of Steel in terms of 'muted palette' and I also universalize it and toss in a couple more memes like 'without irony' just for the heck of it." I legit don't like Man of Steel. It doesn't jibe with what I like to get out of Superman media, and I don't like Zach Snyder's films in general. Nolan's films are great, but I'm more a fan of the world trotting adventurer and weird crimefighter approach to Batman than the modernist political parable direction. I guess I'm just a basic nerd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Has a "let me tell you why that thing you like is actually really bad" or "let me tell you why that thing you don't like is actually really good" ever actually swayed anyone? FWIW I thought only select and specific parts of the Star Wars Expanded Universe was bad before I got on SA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
To tell the truth though my investment in this argument is more about the differences between DC and Marvel's superhero comics - which while not negligible, are deeply overstated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:FWIW I thought only select and specific parts of the Star Wars Expanded Universe was bad before I got on SA. No matter what, no one will take my deep and abiding love of the "Mofference Room" away from me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's an unconscionable crime to treat someone with an incredibly stupid, incredibly proliferate opinion with even the slightest hint of contempt. No looking down at creationists for you! Creationists are actively harming the world by denying two hundred years of irrefutable scientific achievement. Contempt for them is absolutely equivalent to sneering contempt for someone who thinks a superman movie was bad for reasons you think are dumb. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:24
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Has a "let me tell you why that thing you like is actually really bad" or "let me tell you why that thing you don't like is actually really good" ever actually swayed anyone? Yes. Lightning Lord posted:I legit don't like Man of Steel. It doesn't jibe with what I like to get out of Superman media, and I don't like Zach Snyder's films in general. Nolan's films are great, but I'm more a fan of the world trotting adventurer and weird crimefighter approach to Batman than the modernist political parable direction. I guess I'm just a basic nerd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay. I'm glad that you're able to distinguish between "I don't like it" and "Nobody (with taste) likes it." Not being sarcastic, that's a skill that a lot of people don't develop. Leperflesh posted:Creationists are actively harming the world by denying two hundred years of irrefutable scientific achievement. Contempt for them is absolutely equivalent to sneering contempt for someone who thinks a superman movie was bad for reasons you think are dumb. Yes. People who believe that movie studio executives or producers think that color palettes drive people to see movies and are a source of movies's popularity are actively harming the world by their gratuitous uncharitable beliefs about other human beings. Contempt for them is perfectly justifiable from the rather unusual perspective you are offering. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Can we please let them express their opinion on Superman now, I was actually curious to hear them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
"Hey man, that opinion is pretty uninformed, here's why" is the first approach maybe? Like, with a creationist, you can start by pointing out some resources for learning about biology and the evidence for evolution... and only after you have someone categorically refusing to accept a mountain of evidence do you necessarily go down the path of "OK you're just willfully stupid and also your agenda is hurting America so I am going to address you with contempt." Like, in my opinion, that's a more reasonable approach that doesn't weaken your own position by making people react to your lovely attitude and come to the defense of the person who is in the wrong entirely because it really seems like they're being bullied by an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:28
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"Hey man, that opinion is pretty uninformed, here's why" is the first approach maybe? Like, with a creationist, you can start by pointing out some resources for learning about biology and the evidence for evolution... and only after you have someone categorically refusing to accept a mountain of evidence do you necessarily go down the path of "OK you're just willfully stupid and also your agenda is hurting America so I am going to address you with contempt." Respectability politics is inherently bullshit. Arguing that the reason creationism is bad is because it's impairing American power is also kinda bullshit.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Man of Steel was kind of hosed because Superman learns that it's ok to take life, and that's not really something anyone associates with the character. It's arguably an unfortunate really of our world, but for a super-human Superman there's always a better way. Superman's appeal is that he's always going to do what's right and good, but in a Zach Snyder movie that's defined as climactic violence and brutally ending a dude with your bare hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Man of Steel is an amazingly well done film on a technical and visual level that severely mishandled the core themes of the character and property. And no I don't mean the usual "but he killed Zod!!!" thing moths just mentioned. The basic idea of Superman, going all the way back to the 30's, is a sort of Utopian outlook on the world, with the idea that he can solve problems nobody else can (I mean there's a whole load of early golden age stories of Superman capturing wife beaters and thwarting war profiteers and other very mundane evils) and, more importantly, that he has the moral character to stand up to these evils even when it's hard. But there's several points in Man of Steel where he seems reluctant to do the right thing, or does the right thing out of anger, or does egregious property damage without consideration. Ironically the Zod thing isn't one of these moments, since it's pretty clear he was struggling with trying to find some other option, and in the end makes a painful choice in order to save innocent people; it's actually one of the moments where the film got it right. Mind you it's hardly also the first Superman adaptation or comic to mess this stuff up since it seems to be really hard for a lot of people to write a genuinely idealistic character, so I'm not sure why cinema nerds are so obsessed with trying to redeem the film except to spite other nerds for having badwrong cinema opinions.  Also this has nothing to do with RPGs, so uh, while I'm making bad opinions I'm also going to say that HERO is a clunky relic full of bad 80's game design and you can do 90% of what it does in Mutants & Masterminds or whatever for 10% of the work, not to mention the fact modern superhero games actually put some thought into genre emulation. So there. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"Hey man, that opinion is pretty uninformed, here's why" is the first approach maybe? This doesn't work though. Let me give you an example of why this is such a frustrating topic of conversation: moths posted:Man of Steel was kind of hosed because Superman learns that it's ok to take life Like, spoilers for Man of Steel: Superman kills Zod, just like he did in Superman 2. He does it after pleading with him to stop and being smashed into the ground for 5 minutes and thrown through buildings and causing unavoidable collateral damage by the bucket-loads while Zod says "I'm going to kill innocent people, all of them if I can!" Then, after Superman kills Zod, he screams in agony, tears streaming down his face, and collapses, sobbing, while Lois Lane runs over and holds him. The thing that moths took away from this is "Superman learns that it's ok to take life". Asimo posted:Man of Steel is an amazingly well done film on a technical and visual level that severely mishandled the core themes of the character and property. And no I don't mean the usual "but he killed Zod!!!" thing moths just mentioned. The basic idea of Superman, going all the way back to the 30's, is a sort of Utopian outlook on the world, with the idea that he can solve problems nobody else can (I mean there's a whole load of early golden age stories of Superman capturing wife beaters and thwarting war profiteers and other very mundane evils) and, more importantly, that he has the moral character to stand up to these evils even when it's hard. This just isn't true. Superman is not Utopian in the Golden Age. He is a bully who bullies other bullies.  Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:15 |
|
Asimo posted:Man of Steel is an amazingly well done film on a technical and visual level that severely mishandled the core themes of the character and property. And no I don't mean the usual "but he killed Zod!!!" thing moths just mentioned. The basic idea of Superman, going all the way back to the 30's, is a sort of Utopian outlook on the world, with the idea that he can solve problems nobody else can (I mean there's a whole load of early golden age stories of Superman capturing wife beaters and thwarting war profiteers and other very mundane evils) and, more importantly, that he has the moral character to stand up to these evils even when it's hard. But there's several points in Man of Steel where he seems reluctant to do the right thing, or does the right thing out of anger, or does egregious property damage without consideration. Ironically the Zod thing isn't one of these moments, since it's pretty clear he was struggling with trying to find some other option, and in the end makes a painful choice in order to save innocent people; it's actually one of the moments where the film got it right. The character of Superman in Man of Steel is immediately willing to trade his life for that of humanity. I'm not sure how much more idealistic he's supposed to be.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:48
|
|