|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I don't think you quite got the movie. This is like the Godwin of film discussion.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
I wonder what Batman thinks about pitbulls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:That's fine, except Zod isn't the interesting part of the movie. There's nothing interesting about ~Zod Resurrected~ vs the actual central conflict of the film. Batman's bizarre hosed-up inability to deal with his loss of power in the face of 9/11 and his immense xenophobia that results from it and Superman's awkward mix of immense personal power and complete powerlessness against people and opinion are far more interesting and Doomsday's appearance conveniently avoids having to deal with anything meaningful from them. Batman accepts that he's powerless in a sense - he needs people like Superman and Wonderwoman. The Doomsday fight is all about this: Superman: "Was she with you?" Batman: "I thought she was with you". So Batman has now fully accepted the stranger. Superman on the other hand accepts all the burden of his power and responsibility by sacrificing himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
That is actually a problem with the movie, Batman does a complete turnaround for no reason once the acceptance threshold is breached. Sloppy writing for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is actually a problem with the movie, Batman does a complete turnaround for no reason once the acceptance threshold is breached. Sloppy writing for sure. Even in Avengers Hulk still throws that punch at Thor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
It's a bit quick, but it's a logical development from the Martha scene.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is actually a problem with the movie, Batman does a complete turnaround for no reason once the acceptance threshold is breached. Sloppy writing for sure. That depends on whether or not you buy the "Martha" moment. A lot of people don't. It worked really well for me though. It was a Paul on the road to Damascus moment where Batman saw what he was becoming and remembered why her became Batman in the first place and realized Superman wasn't his enemy. A lot of people thought it was hokey or stupid. I didn't. That was the films real resolution. Doomsday afterwards if anything was an unnecessary fourth act. But it was an unnecessary fourth act I thought was really fun to watch and visually pretty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
The issue I had was that Batman had already kinda reveled in the idea of killing Superman despite thinking he had a family that loved him. The idea that MARTHA made Batman see the humanity in Superman falls flat to me. It came off a lot like he knew it was there and was still willing to snuff it out. It's only when their moms have the same name that it makes a difference? Hokey is a good word for it to me. Why not have Superman just talk him down? I know he can't just refuse to fight him given the title of the movie, but why not have him reach out as Clark? I'm kinda glad next year won't have a bunch of superheroes fighting each other screaming about how the other side is beyond reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
greatn posted:That depends on whether or not you buy the "Martha" moment. A lot of people don't. It worked really well for me though. It was a Paul on the road to Damascus moment where Batman saw what he was becoming and remembered why her became Batman in the first place and realized Superman wasn't his enemy. A lot of people thought it was hokey or stupid. I didn't. That was the films real resolution. Doomsday afterwards if anything was an unnecessary fourth act. But it was an unnecessary fourth act I thought was really fun to watch and visually pretty. I am actually arguing from the standpoint that that scene is fine, but it shouldn't have fostered the interactions that followed. Batman was unhinged and paranoid, so he shouldn't have been that buddy buddy that quickly. It's like all the mistrust just evaporated instantly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:The issue I had was that Batman had already kinda reveled in the idea of killing Superman despite thinking he had a family that loved him. The idea that MARTHA made Batman see the humanity in Superman falls flat to me. It came off a lot like he knew it was there and was still willing to snuff it out. It's only when their moms have the same name that it makes a difference? Hokey is a good word for it to me. Why not have Superman just talk him down? I know he can't just refuse to fight him given the title of the movie, but why not have him reach out as Clark? MARTHA didn't make him see the humanity in Superman, it made him see his own lack of humanity because the situation at hand framed him as Joe Chill with Superman literally delivering his father's dying words as he was about to kill him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Look at this way: Batman gets to save his mother after all these decades. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Batman accepts that he's powerless in a sense - he needs people like Superman and Wonderwoman. The Doomsday fight is all about this: "Batman accepts he's powerless" is why it is unsatisfying. He is a man who has spent his entire life dealing with the fact that he was powerless at a critical moment and insisting he'll never be so again. When he encounters someone who effectively forces him to that same sense of childhood powerlessness he freaks the gently caress out and tries to murder him while justifying his arguments with claims of how threatening and dangerous Superman is. Yet his arguments, flawed as they are, are never refuted. We're just left to assume they're wrong because Batman was wrong. They conveniently sidestep any sense of why Batman was wrong, just that he was wrong because Superman is good and they have a shared point of history. It's dull. It's boring. It doesn't say anything, just that Batman was Wrong. Why was he wrong? The film isn't interested in this. It sets him up having prophetic visions of a horrible future where he's right after all. He's wrong because he quotes Dick Cheney and is mean to Superman, not because they ever actually address the flaws in his ideology or thoughts. It's lazy as hell because Batman can't be THAT wrong so he has to swap gears from literal murderous rage to joking around in a heartbeat. Likewise Superman conveniently sidesteps everything by dying. Once he's a martyr he doesn't have to deal with anything and everyone is okay with him because he's no longer a threat or a thing they have to deal with, and he dies fighting a conveniently mindless monster who has absolutely no ambiguity to it at all. He doesn't even have the drama that came from needing to kill Zod. Doomsday is entirely meaningless as anything but a punching bag. All the interesting subject matter of 'how does a world deal with someone like this and how does he deal with those expectations and fears?" is "he dies and it doesn't need to be discussed anymore, everyone mourns him now."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It doesn't say anything, just that Batman was Wrong. Why was he wrong? The film isn't interested in this. 1. That the movie relies on visual storytelling and acting is not a flaw. 2. They say why Batman is wrong ("He is not our enemy", which calls back to MoS). 3. "Martha" and everything after that is not about explaining his wrong, but about him realising why he was wrong. ImpAtom posted:Superman conveniently sidesteps everything by dying. Read this aloud to yourself a few times. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Jul 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:I wonder what Batman thinks about pitbulls. I bet he's been to Planet Pitt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:1. That the movie relies on visual storytelling and acting is not a flaw. "He is not our enemy" isn't an answer. It's meaningless. That ins't something visual storytelling addresses either. "He isn't our enemy because he's a Good Person" is completely vapid. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Read this aloud to yourself a few times. It's true? Superman dying doesn't actually say anything except that people aren't willing to criticize someone who died, which is pretty loving common even for non-Supermen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
That Batman fight scene was sure something though. Shame about the other five hours of movie
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:"He is not our enemy" isn't an answer. It's meaningless. That ins't something visual storytelling addresses either. "He isn't our enemy because he's a Good Person" is completely vapid. You're arbitrarily just ignoring characterisation. Superman isn't our enemy because he's fighting for justice, like Batman, but people reject his power. Batman has to accept the fact that Superman also wants to save Martha. ImpAtom posted:It's true? Superman dying doesn't actually say anything except that people aren't willing to criticize someone who died, which is pretty loving common even for non-Supermen. Death is actually terrible thing, not a convenience. You've persuaded yourself that dying to save the world is selfish. Superman dying is a consequence of what's come before. The movies have always been about "how does a world deal with someone like this and how does he deal with those expectations and fears". Everything in BvS is about that. The answer is that Superman would get killed. It's how he and the world end up resolving all the contradictions of his power. The next movie is apparently lighter, so there's the subtext of Superman coming back to life in a brighter world. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You're arbitrarily just ignoring characterisation. Superman isn't our enemy because he's fighting for justice, like Batman, but people reject his power. Batman has to accept the fact that Superman also wants to save Martha. Right. That's meaningless. "Fighting for justice" is a non-phrase and the film itself addresses that. Superman 'fighting for justice' doesn't mean he's fighting for the same justice as other people or that he's acting correctly or that he isn't capable of corruption and flaws. (It's an ongoing plot point that he does things he shouldn't because Lois is in danger.) BravestOfTheLamps posted:Death is actually terrible thing, not a convenience. You've persuaded yourself that dying to save the world is selfish. It isn't a terrible thing when you're an immortal demigod who 'dies' once in the film already and where the movie itself doesn't even try to pretend his death has any lasting significance, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
It feels like there's a confusion of in-universe justification and criticism of the film from outside that view. IA can speak for himself of course, but I think his issue is more why would they write Superman dying instead of resolving the conflict at the center of the movie. Not that he thinks Superman the character died to get out of trouble. The answer I got to "how does a world deal with someone like this and how does he deal with those expectations and fears" is "it doesn't" and "he doesn't". The world is already mourning him before they can settle whether he's hero or menace and he dies before he can reach a conclusion on what to do. Unless his sacrifice is meant to state that he definitively has chosen to be their hero. But that confuses me since both of his parents tell him not to do that, the movie doesn't go to any lengths to paint them as wrong for that, and Lois is there so dialogue leans more towards him trying to save her life than save the world at large.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Right. That's meaningless. "Fighting for justice" is a non-phrase and the film itself addresses that. Superman 'fighting for justice' doesn't mean he's fighting for the same justice as other people or that he's acting correctly or that he isn't capable of corruption and flaws. (It's an ongoing plot point that he does things he shouldn't because Lois is in danger.) You're losing sight of what you're arguing. Your original complaint is that there was that the' story denounce Batman's post-9/11 xenophobia. It actually did, in a movie called Man of Steel. Batman was always wrong, but he's the one who didn't realize it. ImpAtom posted:It isn't a terrible thing when you're an immortal demigod who 'dies' once in the film already and where the movie itself doesn't even try to pretend his death has any lasting significance, yes.  Okay so you're complaining both that Superman dies and that he doesn't diequote:It feels like there's a confusion of in-universe justification and criticism of the film from outside that view. IA can speak for himself of course, but I think his issue is more why would they write Superman dying instead of resolving the conflict at the center of the movie. Not that he thinks Superman the character died to get out of trouble. The answer I got to "how does a world deal with someone like this and how does he deal with those expectations and fears" is "it doesn't" and "he doesn't". The world is already mourning him before they can settle whether he's hero or menace and he dies before he can reach a conclusion on what to do. Unless his sacrifice is meant to state that he definitively has chosen to be their hero. But that confuses me since both of his parents tell him not to do that, the movie doesn't go to any lengths to paint them as wrong for that, and Lois is there so dialogue leans more towards him trying to save her life than save the world at large. He was always a hero, but actually being a hero is an immensely difficult burden (hence the hero-cake speech). Justice League will presumably be about a world which can accept Superman. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
It did make me laugh when armor Batman got all up in Superman's face yelling and Superman just shoved him and he flew like twenty feet back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You're losing sight of what you're arguing. Your original complaint is that there was that the' story denounce Batman's post-9/11 xenophobia. It actually did, in a movie called Man of Steel. Batman was always wrong, but he's the one who didn't realize it. Man of Steel didn't denounce that. In fact BvS is a direct response to the fact that what people took away from MoS was that Superman was dangerous. Pointing to MoS and going "it answered it!!" doesn't actually work when the film is 3 hours of dealing with the fact MoS didn't for a significant enough number of people they made the sequel about that. Batman is a stand-in for the people who saw MoS and went "Superman was wrong" and even make arguments mirror many popular ones about MoS. So the lack of resolution is significant. Batman isn't just Batman in BvS. He is an intentional standin for a part of the audience. Based off the response, BvS failed to convince the people it most wanted to talk to. BravestOfTheLamps posted:
Yes. I am in fact complaining both that they use Superman's death to avoid having to deal with consequences while also not even trying to pretend Superman's death carries an iota of weight. This is not difficult to understand. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Man of Steel didn't denounce that. It did. MoS is about a stranger who has to deal with a hostile world. Both need to make a leap of faith to trust each other in the face of catastrophe and fascism. That's the denunciation of post-9/11 xenophobia and paranoia. BvS is then about people dealing with this possible new way forward. Batman believes Superman will turn on them, which was the wrong thing to do. ImpAtom posted:Yes. I am in fact complaining both that they use Superman's death to avoid having to deal with consequences while also not even trying to pretend Superman's death carries an iota of weight. This is not difficult to understand. Now you do realize that this is non-sensical, right? Superman's death and return is the resolution to the conflict, not a way to avoid it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Now you do realize that this is non-sensical, right? I am sorry you have difficulty understanding basic concepts, Bravestofthelamps. It's okay. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I am sorry you have difficulty understanding basic concepts, Bravestofthelamps. It's okay. I mean, it's a basic contradiction: you're complaining that Superman's death ends the conflict (which is strange in itself), when Superman is actually coming back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I mean, it's a basic contradiction: you're complaining that Superman's death ends the conflict (which is strange in itself), when Superman is actually coming back. No, Superman's death does not actually resolve anything. The issues brought up in the first 3/4ths of the films are neatly sidestepped by "he dies so it doesn't matter anymore, he's dead." Except of course he's really not dead but the new lighter sequel won't actually mean Superman has to answer to congressional hearings or struggling with the weight of his failures because he'll be too busy punching Darkseid's minions because WB is upset that Civil War made more money. His death isn't a resolution because he isn't really dead but at the same time it conveniently prevents BvS from answering the questions it brings up and I'm willing to bet they won't be a serious part of Justice League either. It ends the conflict in a weak way (He's dead, we're sad) rather than saying anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, Superman's death does not actually resolve anything. Superman's death isn't a way to avoid resolution. It is the resolution: SonicRulez posted:The answer I got to "how does a world deal with someone like this and how does he deal with those expectations and fears" is "it doesn't" and "he doesn't". It's the same answer as in Dark Knight: "you either die a hero, or live long enough see yourself to become the villain". BvS is about how that philosophy destroys Superman (the movie pointedly also shows a Superman who lived long enough to see himself become the villain). The addendum is that people actually need Superman, which inspires other heroes to take his place. This presumably leads to a new world and a new Superman who accept each other, and the promise of MoS is fulfilled. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman's death isn't a way to avoid resolution. It is the resolution. It isn't though. It avoids answering any questions or coming up with any meaningful answer. "Oh, well, the answer is he dies because humanity can't accept a Superman" is undercut by "except he comes back right away because have to make Justice League." At best, it means that the answer is "The problem is put off until Superman returns and then we're right back to the same questions except it's a different person who thinks Superman is a threat." At worst it's "Superman comes back and everything is hunky-dory because Justice League can't be critical or else people get angry at us." Nothing is resolved, it's just put off or forgotten. Maybe I'll be surprised and Justice League will actually follow up on this but with new heroes to introduce and Superman dead for at least part of the film I don't really expect them to, especially with them talking about how people 'disliked deconstruction of heroes' or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It isn't though. It avoids answering any questions or coming up with any meaningful answer. "Oh, well, the answer is he dies because humanity can't accept a Superman" is undercut by "except he comes back right away because have to make Justice League." It's not that you're missing the answer the movie offers, you're missing the question it asked. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's not that you're missing the movie the answer offers, you're missing the question it asked. Oh, do you have a list of them then? I wasn't aware there was a single defined list of questions the movie asks. Whew! That's sure a relief. Makes all these movie discussions far simpler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's not that you're missing the movie the answer offers, you're missing the question it asked. Alright you got me, I admit it. Up until now I was convinced you actually believe the things you post. Pretty embarrassed to admit it but you got me good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's not that you're missing the movie the answer offers, you're missing the question it asked. What is the question? How is it answered by Superman's death? How is that answer not rendered meaningless by his near-immediate return?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Man, you guys really never learn
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
BvS is a movie about "how does a world deal with Superman and how does he deal with those expectations and fears". The answer is that he dies, but the promise he represents has not been forgotten. His "near-immediate return" is more symbolic than anything without a sequel. It's not about how superheroes deal with media and congressional hearings. Now, all that stuff was good, but you do need a resolution to a story. Justice League is apparently lighter and more of a straight superhero movie, so the longer answer is likely that Superman's sacrifice leads to a new world that accepts superheroes, including the resurrected Superman. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:Man, you guys really never learn I'm just munching popcorn at this point
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Chill Penguin posted:You're all wrong, War Machine has just been re-cast again. Nah, I don't think Don Cheadle is a woman-beating crazy man like Terrance Howard is, so he's probably safe in the role for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Civil War made Falcon feel like an A-list total rockstar badass. Falcon! He has motorized hang-glider, and a quadcopter linked to his Google Glass, and somehow he seemed spectacular in a movie with Black Panther, Giant Man, two Irons Man, and a robot übermensch powered by an ancient god-stone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:BvS is a movie about "how does a world deal with Superman and how does he deal with those expectations and fears". The answer is that he dies, but the promise he represents has not been forgotten. His "near-immediate return" is more symbolic than anything without a sequel. It's not about how superheroes deal with media and congressional hearings. Now, all that stuff was good, but you do need a resolution to a story. Superman never comes to that conclusion though, at least on screen. He's only ever shown reacting to events he has no control over while being eternally unsure of himself. I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you take Doomsday to be a symbol of humanities hatred and fear, which would work if he had any kind of build up. Instead, that build-up is spent on Batman, who works much better in that role being a human driven by fear. But they dump that in the final act and hastily replace him with Doomsday, who comes off less symbolic of humanity, but as another apocalyptic consequence of Superman's true heritage. It would have been so much better if Superman had come to that conclusion, deciding to fall at Batman's hands. It would have also been better if, instead of the contrived Martha reveal, Batman recognized Superman's humanity in such a sacrifice and thus stayed his hand. But that's not the movie we got. Assuming that was the intended message, it was executed terribly. All that said, even if it had been done better, it is all meaningless unless Superman represents something meaningful to real life. What does Superman represent? Why should anyone but comic book nerds care about him, looking only at how he is depicted in MoS and BvS?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
I liked the part where the big guy punches the other big guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Did we actually learn anything encouraging or interesting about Justice League?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:32
|
|
