|
What kind of sickness compels someone to argue with internet video men? Just enjoy them and have fun.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
^ It's fun discussing movies with people. Even if they are wrong. Especially if they are wrong. mallratcal posted:Those people were able to articulate their arguments, so Jack and Rich engaged them. I never said I was very good at articulating it, especially with twitch chat limits and speed being what they are. I'm honestly just glad there are people (some in our own BvS thread) that are capable of explaining how Jack and Rich fundamentally didn't pay attention to parts of the movie, even if it's not me. The fact that that little bit ends with Jack covering his eyes and shaking his head is a sign of that. Granted, we're talking about people who came out of MoS worrying about the damage to Metropolis as if it was a thing worth caring about (coded as Wrongity Wrong Wrong in the sequel), so paying attention is occasionally an issue. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Jack and Rich are right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Granted, we're talking about people who came out of MoS worrying about the damage to Metropolis as if it was a thing worth caring about I'd say the complaints about that are less about the substance of the film in itself and more about how mass property damage has become an overused visual motif, especially in superhero media, and MoS is just an especially glaring example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:^ It's fun discussing movies with people. Even if they are wrong. Especially if they are wrong. But you're unable to do this. What you do is whine like a child. I'm honestly interested if you can have a discussion like a normal person, because I've never seen it. Also: 
mallratcal fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
I Before E posted:I'd say the complaints about that are less about the substance of the film in itself and more about how mass property damage has become an overused visual motif, especially in superhero media, and MoS is just an especially glaring example. I hadn't thought about it in this light, but I'm not entirely convinced. BvS covered in "If you're thinking Superman is a threat, you're ignorant or crazy" coding, and (iirc) Synder himself said the film was about the (irrational, ignorant) reaction some people had about MoS. I'd go as so far as to posit that a big chunk of the negativity expressed towards BvS is based on the (accurate) treatment of anti-Superman/anti-MoS beliefs as wrong and flawed. If you came out of MoS thinking Superman is dangerous despite it telling you he's not, BvS is not going to treat that opinion as any more intelligent than it already was. It's going to treat your dislike or distrust of this iconic character as what it is: wrong-headed and ignorant. Christ, other films had to stuff in entirely pointless save-the-civvies scenes stuffed into them, due in no small part to people having issue with the wrong parts of MoS, but somehow treating those views as legitimate. Which ties back into the coding in BvS. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:Some of the things he's said, in complete seriousness, about fallout new vegas are really entertaining Go on...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Too be fair MrBibs they did point out that they weren't ignoring it its just that the motivation comes two and a half hours into the movie. That was their main point, at that point the motivation doesn't make sense because all of Luthors motivations didn't make any sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
The RLM guys don't know that MrBibs is a SA poster, do they? Do they think he's just a random autist or has he shamed all of us by association?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The RLM guys don't know that MrBibs is a SA poster, do they? Do they think he's just a random autist or has he shamed all of us by association? I seriously doubt they'd give a poo poo if they do know. SA is not much of a thing on the rest of the internet these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Ben Affleck is human garbage. You have very strong opinions on Ben Affleck
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:If you came out of MoS thinking Superman is dangerous despite it telling you he's not It really did not do a good job of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Weirdo posted:It really did not do a good job of that. It did it perfectly well. A movie cannot be held to blame because some of its audience actively/ignorantly took a contra-indicated view of things. The notion/argument that Superman is trustworthy cannot fail - it's Superman, after all - it can only be failed to be accepted. It should not surprise you that BvS treated such lack of faith in Superman as a character flaw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It did it perfectly well. A movie cannot be held to blame because some of its audience actively/ignorantly took a contra-indicated view of things. The notion/argument that Superman is trustworthy cannot fail - it's Superman, after all - it can only be failed to be accepted. It should not surprise you that BvS treated such lack of faith in Superman as a character flaw. I think you're seeing subtext where there is none.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It did it perfectly well. A movie cannot be held to blame because some of its audience actively/ignorantly took a contra-indicated view of things. The notion/argument that Superman is trustworthy cannot fail - it's Superman, after all - it can only be failed to be accepted. It should not surprise you that BvS treated such lack of faith in Superman as a character flaw. This is going to sound like an insult, and I really don't mean it that way. This is a genuine, honest question; Have you ever been diagnosed with a form of autism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Even accepting Luthors motivation, BvS was a poorly structured mess. I don't think I've seen such poor editing in a major movie before. Just awful awful stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
The authors' intentions mean nothing in the face of the viewers' interpretation. If there are viewers who did not see him as heroic, then he was not heroic to them. Basically, people who disagree with you are not dum-dums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Weirdo posted:I think you're seeing subtext where there is none. It's not subtext, it's literal text. Note the two people they focus on outside the capital. Theres two people in frame, at one point, one of which is pro-Superman and the other isn't. The pro Superman person is a cheering, cute blonde bouncing up and down down at seeing get hero. The other is a black haired dude with a skrillex-meets-Dormer-in-hunger-games haircut, in black leather, screaming at a dude he hates because he's an alien. People who oppose Superman are never given the "well, they are kinda right" treatment. This is intentional. Neurolimal posted:The authors' intentions mean nothing in the face of the viewers' interpretation. I fundamentally disagree. A viewer's interpretation, especially when it flies directly into opposition with the literal text, is immaterial. More to the point, the author's intention should be a teaching moment for those who have alternative ones. You can walk out of Star Wars blaming the Rebels for the destruction of Alderaan, but the movie is going to treat that as a silly thought, if it acknowledges it at all. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It's not subtext, it's literal text. Note the two people they focus on outside the capital. Theres two people in frame, at one point, one of which is pro-Superman and the other isn't. The pro Superman person is a cheering, cute blonde bouncing up and down down at seeing get hero. The other is a black haired dude with a skrillex-meets-Dormer-in-hunger-games haircut, in black leather, screaming at a dude he hates because he's an alien. That's from BvS, right? Not Man of Steel. So they try to retcon Superman into being unambiguously good in BvS, that doesn't change what happened in Man of Steel
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs watching Triumph of the Will: "All of this is coded very positively, it's absurd that anybody could have a problem with the Hitler character"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:That's from BvS, right? Not Man of Steel. So they try to retcon Superman into being unambiguously good in BvS, that doesn't change what happened in Man of Steel There is not a single person who treats the events of Man of Steel as something dangerous or worrisome that is proven right. The man who personifies this irrational, baseless viewpoint, in the end, is converted to Superman's cause and belief system. Even in a broken man, the character flaw of Thinking Superman Is Dangerous is wiped away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:There is not a single person who treats the events of Man of Steel as something dangerous or worrisome that is proven right. The man who personifies this irrational, baseless viewpoint, in the end, is converted to Superman's cause and belief system. Even in a broken man, the character flaw of Thinking Superman Is Dangerous is wiped away. It may be coded as irrational, but is that coding and the argument the film presents convincing? Does the character actually portrayed by Henry Cavill embody a sort of morality that could be trusted with that sort of power? The film says he does, yes, and you say he does, but you haven't cited anything that proves he does other than he hasn't destroyed the earth yet, which makes him neutral at best. Just because a given police officer has the power to shoot you and hasn't used it yet doesn't mean he won't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Okay, seriously, are we just disputing what MisterBibs is saying because it's him saying it? It seems entirely valid that you're supposed to automatically trust Superman on the basis of him being Superman; Superman, in addition to being a character, is also one of the most iconic images in American culture and is universally associated with "truth, justice, and the American way." Asking BvS to say this outright is asking an already-incredibly-obvious movie to be even less subtle. Whether the film works from this perspective is a matter of debate, but on its face, it's not a particularly bizarre perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Okay, seriously, are we just disputing what MisterBibs is saying because it's him saying it? It seems entirely valid that you're supposed to automatically trust Superman on the basis of him being Superman; Superman, in addition to being a character, is also one of the most iconic images in American culture and is universally associated with "truth, justice, and the American way." Asking BvS to say this outright is asking an already-incredibly-obvious movie to be even less subtle. My question is more about whether the actions taken by Superman in the film are consistent with that heroic coding and that iconography. I'm asking Bibs to back up his argument that they are with textual evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Okay, seriously, are we just disputing what MisterBibs is saying because it's him saying it? It seems entirely valid that you're supposed to automatically trust Superman on the basis of him being Superman; Superman, in addition to being a character, is also one of the most iconic images in American culture and is universally associated with "truth, justice, and the American way." Asking BvS to say this outright is asking an already-incredibly-obvious movie to be even less subtle. the problem is that Superman in Man of Steel is very different from Superman as a cultural icon. You can't have Superman as a broody, doubting dude who's first introduction to humanity is a fistfight with another of his species that destroys a city and presumably kills thousands, and then turn around and say, "It's Superman like from the cartoon, you'd be silly to doubt Superman!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It's not subtext, it's literal text. Note the two people they focus on outside the capital. Theres two people in frame, at one point, one of which is pro-Superman and the other isn't. The pro Superman person is a cheering, cute blonde bouncing up and down down at seeing get hero. The other is a black haired dude with a skrillex-meets-Dormer-in-hunger-games haircut, in black leather, screaming at a dude he hates because he's an alien. I was referring to the first movie with regards to your comment. boom boom boom posted:the problem is that Superman in Man of Steel is very different from Superman as a cultural icon. You can't have Superman as a broody, doubting dude who's first introduction to humanity is a fistfight with another of his species that destroys a city and presumably kills thousands, and then turn around and say, "It's Superman like from the cartoon, you'd be silly to doubt Superman!" I would not trust this movie superman that's for sure!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
I think Zack Snyder simply doesn't enjoy portraying heroic acts onscreen, so he avoids it where he can. Which works for something like Watchmen (to whatever extent that movie "works") because that's the whole point -- you're supposed to be heavily critiquing these alleged heroes' actions. But that doesn't work quite as well for Superman. Unless it's a new-fangled deconstruction of Superman that's asking us to be suspicious of his motives, by having him and his supporters claim that he's a "hero" but purposely avoiding the depiction of heroic behavior as much as possible. I'm not innately opposed to the idea of doing that, but it doesn't seem to be what Snyder is actually going for. And so the end result is just kind of a lazy mess, where he relies on the audience's assumptions about Superman from previous incarnations without actually putting in the work himself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:I think Zack Snyder simply doesn't enjoy portraying heroic acts onscreen Colonel Hardy got some kickass heroic moments in MoS when he faced down Faora several times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZvsLhj5hd4
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
for what it's worth, the way I took Man of Steel was as a depiction of a very human Superman. he's significantly more powerful than everyone else around him, and a good dude, but he's also neither omnipotent or omniscient, and sometimes he fucks up. I think a lot of people's beef with it comes from the idea that Superman has to have a perfect solution to every single problem; the problem is, that would make him God, not Superman. while I haven't seen BvS yet, it seems like this is pretty much what Snyder's going for: there's a very strong undercurrent of the anti-Superman people in BvS, from what I've seen, treating him as if he were attempting to be God, when he... isn't. he's pretty much a regular Kansas farm boy, just one who can lift a car over his head with one finger and shoot eye lasers. WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Colonel Hardy got some kickass heroic moments in MoS when he faced down Faora several times I love it when American movies inadvertently lionize the suicide bombing a technologically superior foe in defense of your homeland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I love it when American movies inadvertently lionize the suicide bombing a technologically superior foe in defense of your homeland. Yeah, I've described MoS as really 9/11-y but I had completely forgot about the actual 9/11-ing that happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
I Before E posted:It may be coded as irrational, but is that coding and the argument the film presents convincing? Does the character actually portrayed by Henry Cavill embody a sort of morality that could be trusted with that sort of power? The answer to both of these questions lan unequivocal Yes, because of who the character is. There's no need to convince anyone that the character Cavill is playing is trustworthy, because the trust is unarguable and implicit, baked into the character. This isn't some movie based on the Father Of The Dark Age Of Comics, this isn't an Elseworlds comic, this is a baseline comic. Superman as trustworthy is the definition of Text, before anyone sits their butt into the seats. I Before E posted:The film says he does, yes, and you say he does, but you haven't cited anything that proves he does other than he hasn't destroyed the earth yet, which makes him neutral at best. Just because a given police officer has the power to shoot you and hasn't used it yet doesn't mean he won't. A police officer is not Superman. You do realize that saving the earth and it's seven billion inhabitants being considered a neutral act is an example of the irrationality of the position? You (general you) not buying the inherent goodness of Superman by the end of BvS isn't the movie's problem. They've done all they can. LORD OF BUTT posted:Okay, seriously, are we just disputing what MisterBibs is saying because it's him saying it? I thought this was an agreed-upon facet of the discussion? 
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:
I have no dog in this fight but your position that "the viewer's interpretation of the text is irrelevant" and your general attitude that the purpose of movie criticism should apparently be to just try and discern the intent of the author are both pretty stupid and your arguments in support of them are utterly unconvincing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The answer to both of these questions lan unequivocal Yes, because of who the character is. There's no need to convince anyone that the character Cavill is playing is trustworthy, because the trust is unarguable and implicit, baked into the character. This isn't some movie based on the Father Of The Dark Age Of Comics, this isn't an Elseworlds comic, this is a baseline comic. Superman as trustworthy is the definition of Text, before anyone sits their butt into the seats. This is the reason people think you're autistic. A movie holds up a sign that says "believe x" and then you think that the movie doesn't have to bother doing anything else to support "x".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The answer to both of these questions lan unequivocal Yes, because of who the character is. There's no need to convince anyone that the character Cavill is playing is trustworthy, because the trust is unarguable and implicit, baked into the character. This isn't some movie based on the Father Of The Dark Age Of Comics, this isn't an Elseworlds comic, this is a baseline comic. Superman as trustworthy is the definition of Text, before anyone sits their butt into the seats. Leaving aside whether you're right or wrong about Superman in this particular movie, this isn't how media works. Nothing is ever baked into a character. Also the movie isn't a comic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
If I made a movie where Jesus goes around killing prostitutes, would MisterBibs make fun of people who think Jesus is not good in this film?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Are the prostitutes villainous? Which comic era Jesus are we talking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Post Nicaea council Jesus as in new testament Jesus where he becomes less... Jewish and more European... for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Kharn_The_Betrayer posted:Post Nicaea council Jesus as in new testament Jesus where he becomes less... Jewish and more European... for some reason. Post Nikaea council jesus where the emperor has forbade his use of psyker powers
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
I would not want to have a beer with Henry Cavill Superman. He legit creeps me out. A creepy, off putting Alien who just looks so bummed out saving my life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:53
|
|