|
Sir Kodiak posted:There's definitely Christian denominations – Methodism, for instance – and I'm sure schools of other religions, in which doing good works is an affirmative obligation, not merely faith or the abstinence from sin. Similarly, plenty of philosophies – Humanism, for example – define an obligation to actively do good for others. I know about Christianity and good works but we're not talking about Superman or you and me helping out at a soup kitchen or donating to a charity. The thing that got me involved in this in the first place was the statement that Superman cannot be with Lois if he wants to be Superman. He must renounce himself and his happiness and his love if he wants to do good works. He is obligated to sacrifice the greatest thing a person can have in their lives if he wants to do good. That is what really got to me. I'm sorry but would I choose America over my girlfriend ? gently caress no. Sorry.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I know about Christianity and good works but we're not talking about Superman or you and me helping out at a soup kitchen or donating to a charity. The thing that got me involved in this in the first place was the statement that Superman cannot be with Lois if he wants to be Superman. He must renounce himself and his happiness and his love if he wants to do good works. He is obligated to sacrifice the greatest thing a person can have in their lives if he wants to do good. Yep, we all ultimately fail in our obligation for true universal love. That's part of being human. Superman, with the overt power of what he could do, makes for an engaging example of this. Hence, the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
The point of Superman in the movie is that he's "just a guy trying to do the right thing." Clark's moral dilemma is outlined in Man of Steel: "What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" We can talk up a storm about Superman's symbolism but the fact remains that he was raised with the values to do good, help people when he can, and to treat others with respect. Most people don't have to face moral dilemmas about helping people because we can't fly or shoot laser eyes. But Man of Steel is all about Clark trying to square the facts: that he can help and protect people, but that humans resent and hate being helped and protected. Clark is faced with the dilemma that just because he can break normal human parameters doesn't mean he should. Man of Steel happened because Zod forced Clark's hand. That didn't make the dilemma disappear. It just made it worse. Dawn of Justice is the natural consequences of an embittered world rejecting the hope Clark presents. It takes his death to make everyone realize that he was totally sincere in his desire to help. Hence: "I've failed him in life. I won't fail him in death." Clark's death was supposed to herald the continuation of the pitch back, hopeless, cynical age: "But the bell's already been rung. And they've heard it. Out in the dark, among the stars...ding dong, the god is dead! The bell cannot be un-rung! He's hungry. He's found us. And he's coming!" But Luthor overshot. He was unable to pit Batman and Superman against each other. His attempt to drag Batman further into Hell failed. Now Bruce seeks the redemption he never thought he could earn: Clark gave him the path to be worthy of it, to be worthy of the hope Clark placed in him. And justice will have a new day. Anyway I really love Zach Snyder's Superman you guys. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
HIJK posted:The point of Superman in the movie is that he's "just a guy trying to do the right thing." Clark's moral dilemma is outlined in Man of Steel: "What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" It sounds really good and I should probably check out Man of Steel as well. I got so much to watch next month. edit: Also I just got linked to this comic.This is kind of what I thought K. Waste was getting at.But maybe I jumped the gun with the Lois stuff since that is an issue that hits home with me. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:A simple answer for a not simple question, I'm afraid. I appreciate the depth of thought put into this but morality is something the greatest minds of humanity have debated for thousands of years and I don't think they're any closer to determining the answer yet. NikkolasKing posted:I know about Christianity and good works but we're not talking about Superman or you and me helping out at a soup kitchen or donating to a charity. The thing that got me involved in this in the first place was the statement that Superman cannot be with Lois if he wants to be Superman. He must renounce himself and his happiness and his love if he wants to do good works. He is obligated to sacrifice the greatest thing a person can have in their lives if he wants to do good. I'm afraid you're critically misinterpreting my explicit point that the radical good that I'm discussing transcends even national patriotism, which, as I said with the example of Godzilla, is actually comorbid with the Western supremacist, 'nuclear family' ideal. Aside from that, however, in a more generic sense, you continue to engage the moral question of both what one can and should do in order to accomplish good through repetitive explanation of 'freedoms' and 'rights.' As a result, you reinforce this really superficial standard in which, as long as you do not commit murder, and "love your neighbor," without defining who your neighbor is or what love is, you are "golden." But moral actions are not defined simply by the decision to not perform evil, or to tolerate people who are physically close to us. Otherwise, we define 'goodness' not in positive, affirmative terms, but in passive and negative ones, as you say, without assumption or obligation. You're preoccupied entirely with defending the 'right' of people to not do anything which does not benefit them materially, but that's precisely the point I'm trying to make: There is no 'comfortable' version of good. You must clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned and mentally ill, protect the persecuted, and give your wealth to the most needy. Discursively doubling back upon the persistent failings of humans to live up to moral ideals doesn't jeopardize those ideals - The ideals exist specifically to counteract the banality of inactive and complacent ascent to broad, systemic evils. I'll give you an example of so-called 'post-racial' consciousness or what's referred to in some social justice Leftist critical circles derisively as 'colorblind talk.' In response to the systemic and historical problem of racism, we (everyone, but mostly the white men who maintain majority and disproportionate hegemonic power) conclude that all one needs to do is to 'not be racist' in order to work pragmatically towards MLK's sublime, multiculturalist dream. We decide collectively that racism is expressed through overt prejudice, stereotypes, political incorrectness, whatever, but that once we learn to see human beings 'without race,' through 'colorblind' eyes, we can finally judge a man (and it is usually always a handsome, able-bodied man) on the content of his character, not the color of his skin, blah blah blah. But you are nonetheless faced with the actual outcome of this new hegemony. The lot of dark-skinned and indigenous peoples in the U.S. has not, in fact, improved substantially. All of the classic problems of the de jure white supremacist state persist in the de facto colorblind one: the segregation, the cycle of poverty, police brutality and mass criminalization, 'unconscious bias' in employment and loans, etc. It is simply not enough to decide that you are 'not racist,' that you don't possess overt prejudice. We are fundamentally misreading the problem of racism as a problem of us having 'bad thoughts,' rather than recognizing the empirical reality that racism - a totally non-figurative economic hierarchy of so-called races - is systemic and deeply comorbid with our individualist-driven, boot strapping, capitalist and liberal-democratic ideology. What is necessary, then, in order to achieve good, as opposed to merely being 'not evil,' is to go beyond the reductive paradigm of overt racism versus the colorblind fantasy: We must be decisively and deliberately anti-racist. And this, again, does not mean you simply oppose overtly racist rhetoric. It means you recognize there is simply no basis for groups that have been historically oppressed and exploited by colonizing groups to be suddenly and pragmatically 'equal' to their former oppressors, at least not so far as the conventional, conservative ideology where everyone is responsible for their own poo poo and no one is intrinsically obligated to help a brother out. In the case of Lois & Clark, we keep cycling back to this issue where I maintain that radical good means putting the universal sanctity of all life ahead over personal concerns, but this concerns you because by defining Clark and Lois's responsibilities in this way - and accurately describing the events of the film - it implies that it's not enough for him to hold a platitude in his heart. He needs to be earnestly and decisively willing to let his own happiness fall to ruin for the good of all humankind. But unfortunately, or rather fortunately, that is the case of ethics - The ten commandments don't simply tell you to not steal or kill or pal around with your neighbor, silly. They also specifically tell you to reform the very way you think so that you can live in the kingdom of God. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
I can't speak for K. Waste but the movies don't reflect the attitude in the comic. The movies take the position that if the Superman exists than it's to extend his aegis around the planet against the interstellar threats lurking in the dark. The rest of the time the movie focuses on the good but flawed Clark Kent and the simple fact (IMO) that he chose Lois Lane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Hannibal Buress is gonna be in that Spiderman movie so now I'm marginally interested in the Spiderman movie
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Hannibal Buress is gonna be in that Spiderman movie so now I'm marginally interested in the Spiderman movie I'm really excited for the new Hannibal Burress, Donald Glover, Michael Keaton, Martin Starr joint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I'm afraid you're critically misinterpreting my explicit point that the radical good that I'm discussing transcends even national patriotism, which, as I said with the example of Godzilla, is actually comorbid with the Western supremacist, 'nuclear family' ideal. Well, I respect your opinion. You've phrased it very eloquently. But I'm afraid we're at an impasse because, while I acknowledge God likely exists, I have nowhere near the strength of character to truly believe it. Having faith is a hard thing and I know from a long and fruitless search for a religion that I simply can't manage it. As such, I can't really use it as a source for my moral compass. It's ironic too because we agree in principle it feels like. I would put "rights" in quotes too because they are a worthless made-up concept and are often dredged out to defend selfishness. And I think I may have been coming off as doing exactly that. But the thing is, I can't really define "good" but if I was going to try to, I wouldn't bring religion into it. I'd bring in culture and society. Human beings only have worth in relation to other human beings and as such, it's logical to put others above yourself because you, yourself, aren't much of anything. But I would never suggest one do this because of religion and I wouldn't suggest it to the extremes you outline. I don't think a lot of religious and pious people would, either. Part of living a good life is finding fulfillment and happiness and you don't do that through extreme deprivation of all the things life has to offer. But I respect you and I'm glad we could have this chat but I just don't think it will go anywhere since we have a very fundamental difference in how we see the topic. Also you're a lot smarter and better informed than I am. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I'm really excited for the new Hannibal Burress, Donald Glover, Michael Keaton, Martin Starr joint. Too bad none of those people are the Spiderman
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Too bad none of those people are the Spiderman Too bad they're not all Spider-Man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
HIJK posted:Dawn of Justice is the natural consequences of an embittered world rejecting the hope Clark presents. It takes his death to make everyone realize that he was totally sincere in his desire to help. One of the biggest problems Snyder had to struggle with is that Superman is literally an old-fashioned superhero from a different age. The US was a very different place when Superman was created - there were only 48 stars on the flags, for a start. He was first published back in 1938 at the tail end of the Great Depression and since then the US has gone through Pearl Harbor, McCarthyism, Vietnam, JFK, the moon landing, Watergate, Reaganomics, etc etc etc.. The major fictional heroes of the age were characters like John Carter, Tarzan, Conan, Zorro, the Lone Ranger (and hundreds of other cowboys), Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, the Green Hornet and Dick Tracy. The superhero genre was in its infancy and had barely developed any nuance or depth or self awareness. Superman's character was also a lot less complex - Ma and Pa Kent (John and Mary Kent, originally) weren't introduced until 1939, Kryptonite wasn't really a thing until 1949 and Lois didn't figure out that Superman was Clark Kent until 1978 (or at least, didn't figure it out only to have Superman wipe her mind or pull some other trick to convince her otherwise). He really was a less complex character for a less complex age, or at least an age where the US was a lot more sure about its identity and hadn't been forced to face a whole bunch of difficult questions. If I had to sum up Superman's original character I'd say that it was Paternal - he was incredibly powerful but he always knew exactly what needed to be done as well as knowing exactly the right punishment to hand out to suit the transgression. He always did the right thing and his motives were never questioned. He actually stood for things - Truth, Justice and The American way only being a few of them. You know how some people say "My Dad has always been my superhero?" Superman fed off that vibe in spades. Clark Kent was the mild front that the world saw but Superman was the real guy underneath. He was the idealised hero that every young kid saw in their Dad, turned up way past 11. He was the guy who always knew how to make things better, how to make the pain stop. He was comforting. But then the world changed and the US changed and the superhero genre changed and everyone moved on .... but Superman stayed pretty much the same. DC tried to update the character a bunch of times but the audience always balked and DC always ended up changing him back to pretty much the same as he'd always been. Batman held a similar role in the country's psyche but since he was a vigilante who pretty much worked according to his own rules (but still a Paternal figure - remember that almost all of his sidekicks have been young boys) he could adapt and change with the times a lot more readily and the audience would be a lot more accepting of those changes, quite often because he only needed to make tiny changes to stay current. But Superman was stuck being a big, bold, simplistic (but not simple) Paternal hero, and the wider population gradually became reeeeeeally sick of paternal, unrelatable heroes . And that's the whole mess that was dumped in Zach Snyder's lap which he had to sort out and make palatable for a wider audience, so he had to dump pretty much all of the paternal aspects of the character and make him and 'everyman' who was struggling to understand his role in life which also meant he had to initially dump most of the character aspects which had made Superman so comforting to previous generations. And that's what people really mean when they say "That's Not My Superman".
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Superman is the Dad that helps you with your homework and is "very disappointed" when you do something wrong. Batman is the Dad that tells you you won't learn anything if you don't do your own homework and kicks your rear end to keep you in line. Also Batdad has a way cooler car and is less embarrassing to have drive you to school every morning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:One of the biggest problems Snyder had to struggle with is that Superman is literally an old-fashioned superhero from a different age. The US was a very different place when Superman was created - there were only 48 stars on the flags, for a start. He was first published back in 1938 at the tail end of the Great Depression and since then the US has gone through Pearl Harbor, McCarthyism, Vietnam, JFK, the moon landing, Watergate, Reaganomics, etc etc etc.. The major fictional heroes of the age were characters like John Carter, Tarzan, Conan, Zorro, the Lone Ranger (and hundreds of other cowboys), Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, the Green Hornet and Dick Tracy. The superhero genre was in its infancy and had barely developed any nuance or depth or self awareness. Superman's character was also a lot less complex - Ma and Pa Kent (John and Mary Kent, originally) weren't introduced until 1939, Kryptonite wasn't really a thing until 1949 and Lois didn't figure out that Superman was Clark Kent until 1978 (or at least, didn't figure it out only to have Superman wipe her mind or pull some other trick to convince her otherwise). He really was a less complex character for a less complex age, or at least an age where the US was a lot more sure about its identity and hadn't been forced to face a whole bunch of difficult questions. I'd like to weigh in on this because I think what attracts me and other people to some heroes more than others is that we think heroes aren't born, they are made. Hence the comics I posted about earlier showing how, if Superman had been raised differently, he could become absolutely horrible. It's also why I think the origin stories that are the most iconic are things like Spiderman's and Batman's. Neither of them would be who they became without a sudden, violent loss changing their lives forever. Peter especially I think is a stand-in for every human being alive who, if they suddenly found themselves with superpowers, would only use them for their own selfish gain. Now selfish doesn't mean evil - we'd probably just use our strength and speed to make money and help our family and friends. The idea of going and risking our lives be crazy and stupid. But then, Uncle Ben dies, Mr and Mrs. Wayne die, and suddenly our heroes have to look outward instead of inward. Other popular examples would be Punisher or Daredevil. Would any of these men have become what they did without the violent loss of those they loved? Perversely, the world benefits from their loss and we have to wonder was it a good thing? Bruce Wayne and Frank Castle are, depending on continuity and writer, dramatically unhealthy and obsessed individuals. The world's health and happiness comes at the expense of their own and for them to be happy, the world would have to be deprived of their great deeds. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Yep, I think that the creation of Spider-Man specifically was one of the major developments of the genre which made classic Superman seem reeeally outdated. NikkolasKing posted:I'd like to weigh in on this because I think what attracts me and other people to some heroes more than others is that we think heroes aren't born, they are made. Hence the comics I posted about earlier showing how, if Superman had been raised differently, he could become absolutely horrible. Also on this, back in 1938 I'm pretty sure that the assumption would have been that a Kansas farm boy was ipso facto raised properly so there was no question that he'd grow up to always do the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Yep, I think that the creation of Spider-Man specifically was one of the major developments of the genre which made classic Superman seem reeeally outdated. Superman 1938 grew up in an orphanage, and decided "from an early age" to become a champion of the oppressed. Kansas didn't enter the picture for decades, and comics Smallville was still placed on the Eastern seaboard in 1981. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well, I respect your opinion. You've phrased it very eloquently. But I'm afraid we're at an impasse because, while I acknowledge God likely exists, I have nowhere near the strength of character to truly believe it. Having faith is a hard thing and I know from a long and fruitless search for a religion that I simply can't manage it. As such, I can't really use it as a source for my moral compass. Like the excellent, and more complicated, conclusion from The Motion Picture: the ultimate Christian emancipatory struggle is between the universal and the particular. It's not to forsake Lois, but to love all as you love her. Whether or not god exists is irrelevant to the Christian mission. The answer, of course, is Matthew 25:35-40.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman 1938 grew up in an orphanage, and decided "from an early age" to become a champion of the oppressed. That was retconned a year later when Siegel & Shuster retold his origin in Superman #1, where the Kents dropped him off at the orphanage but went back pretty much immediately to adopt him. 1938:  1939:  Edit: but yeah, I just checked and the Kents weren't even confirmed to be farmers until 1948 Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:That was retconned a year later when Siegel & Shuster retold his origin in Superman #1, where the Kents dropped him off at the orphanage but went back pretty much immediately to adopt him. That's why I specified Superman 1938. Also, quote:After Clark graduates from high school, Jonathan and Martha take a vacation to the Caribbean Islands, where they contract a fatal and rare tropical disease after handling materials from a pirate's treasure chest they had exhumed; despite Superboy's best efforts, Martha dies, with Jonathan dying soon thereafter. Before dying, Jonathan reminds Clark that he must always use his powers for the benefit of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's why I specified Superman 1938. Goddamn I would have liked to see this on the big screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
quote:Before dying, Jonathan reminds Clark that he must always use his powers for the benefit of humanity...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Shanty posted:...instead of squandering them by looting tainted pirate treasures. Man, I want to see this movie as well. No one in the Justice League understands why Superman keeps getting weirdly aggressive and intense every time Aquaman mentions a sunken galleon or something. "Sunken pirate treasures are YOUR JOB, Aquaman, this is NOT a good use of my powers," he almost-shouts, before storming out of the room. The Flash turns on the tv and Pirates of the Caribbean is playing. Superman breaks out in a cold sweat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
It's a universe where we can easily answer why Aquaman is necessary when Superman is still around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
I've never had an issue with the "boy scout" Superman. It made for a lot of great and clever interactions and served as a basis for moral arguments amongst the characters. This is particularly evident in the Justice League animated series, which to date is the best on-screen adaptation of DC Comics. If anything his attitude should be almost exactly like MCU Captain America. They even went so far as to show Captain Marvel and basically introduced him as 1938 Superman. There's an awesome scene where Lex Luthor tricks Captain Marvel and Superman into fighting, and the arguments they have are pretty awesome, its basically 1938 Superman arguing with his future self. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:It's a universe where we can easily answer why Aquaman is necessary when Superman is still around. Superman can't control fish (and dolphins for some reason) with his mind. His one weakness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
I just want to point out that we, humanity, know more about outer space, than we know about the bottom of the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
When Jimmy fantasized about Superman beginning president of the united states, he paid off the national debt by going into the ocean and getting all the sunken pirate treasure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Superman can't control fish (and dolphins for some reason) with his mind. I liked that in Grant Morrison's JLA run Aquaman had influence over the reptilian brain in humans. It was just the right amount of stupid-but-plausible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
greatn posted:When Jimmy fantasized about Superman beginning president of the united states, he paid off the national debt by going into the ocean and getting all the sunken pirate treasure. Obviously, there are things about Superman that Jimmy just doesn't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:I liked that in Grant Morrison's JLA run Aquaman had influence over the reptilian brain in humans. It was just the right amount of stupid-but-plausible. Actually, the human brain doesn't have a "reptile brain," that's just a slang term for the non-cognitive and instinct-based portion of the brain. Reptillian brains are not similar to human brains in any unique way. Also, reptiles aren't fish and don't have brains similar to dolphins.  And Jellyfish don't even have brains, but can be mind controlled by Aquaman. WHERE DOES THE MADNESS END?!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Obviously, there are things about Superman that Jimmy just doesn't know. But if Superman got all the pirate treasure, no one else would ever suffer the same fate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Actually, the human brain doesn't have a "reptile brain," that's just a slang term for the non-cognitive and instinct-based portion of the brain. Reptillian brains are not similar to human brains in any unique way. Also, reptiles aren't fish and don't have brains similar to dolphins. People don't have superpowers either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I just want to point out that we, humanity, know more about outer space, than we know about the bottom of the ocean. Man, I can't wait to hear an exposition person say that a hundred times during the first half hour of the Aquaman movie. "Guys, guys, the ocean is mysterious and spooky! And interesting!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
I want Aquaman to summon up some gnarly looking bioluminescent creatures only to have them dissolve the second they reach the surface. Also James Cameron should get a cameo death in his DSV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:I want Aquaman to summon up some gnarly looking bioluminescent creatures only to have them dissolve the second they reach the surface. If I remember my movies correctly those creatures should actually increase in size a thousandfold, because you know, pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
For anyone interested, BvS Ultimate Cut will be shown in select theaters all over the US this Monday June 27th. However you will only be able to buy tickets via the DC-All Access App
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:For anyone interested, BvS Ultimate Cut will be shown in select theaters all over the US this Monday June 27th. However you will only be able to buy tickets via the DC-All Access App I really wish they would have released it alongside the PG-13 cut or shortly thereafter. Since I've already paid for the Blu-ray that's out in a few weeks it doesn't seem worth it to buy another ticket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:If I remember my movies correctly those creatures should actually increase in size a thousandfold, because you know, pressure. I believe the term is "explosive decompression" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
the main antagonist of an Aquaman movie should just be a goon continuously screaming "gently caress THE OCEAN! gently caress THE OCEAN!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
The ocean is loving awesome. Haven't you guys ever watched 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea as kids?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:48
|
|
