|
Wow this thread is pretty terrible.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Imagine a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie comes out, and Michaelangelo is suddenly no longer a party dude. He wears a tie and goes to work at a 9-5 job. He never says Cowabunga, not even once. People saying they want the old Mikey back aren't saying "NOT MY MICHAELANGELO" they are saying that the new interpretation is shittier than the old one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:So I just made up in my head all the posts of people saying that Batman having a no-kill rule is totally unrealistic and that a realistic Batman would kill? Yep. I'll elaborate why, but you're just going to ignore this so I'll put it in spoilers. Your statement has the implicit assumption that a realistic Batman would act differently. This is demonstrated by your followup comment: SolidSnakesBandana posted:Imagine a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie comes out, and Michaelangelo is suddenly no longer a party dude. He wears a tie and goes to work at a 9-5 job. He never says Cowabunga, not even once. People saying they want the old Mikey back aren't saying "NOT MY MICHAELANGELO" they are saying that the new interpretation is shittier than the old one. What people are actually saying is that Batman would kill people as part of his regular activities he does now. Like beating up a bunch of dudes is going to kill them. That is entirely non-offensive to most people, because that's why people don't like vigilantes in real life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Are u ok? The DC cinematic stuff thus far has been exploring heroes in a world that is far more cynical and jaded than the optimistic worlds they came from. Superman from a world where he can pretty much solve any problem. Batman from a world where beating up thugs in alleyways can actually make a difference. The DC stuff explores how futile this ideal is if the world won't accept it, or won't allow it to be possible. That's interesting and actually bears discussing to some degree compared to what's come from other superhero movies, which are utterly forgettable once you've 'consumed' them. At least it seems that way given how people still talk about DC stuff constantly. As in, their movies seem to carry discussion all the way to their sequels, which is no mean feat. You may not agree with it, but surely you can do better than 'not my batman' when it comes to lethality. You claim he employs multitudes of non lethal weapons and tactics, but much like police violence, non lethal tools does not guarantee no deaths. In fact, the proliferation of less than lethal options can result in a greater propensity to brutality because it won't kill, actually increasing the number of chances were someone can die to the employ of less than lethal tools. This is important because Batman has usually been used as a symbolic extension of the police, free of their limitations and accountability. Batman has run his course as a paragon, you have your fill of stories where he can be your infallible defuser of every situation. So has Superman, who has turned back time to even save the lives of others. Where exactly could the movie explore those further without undercutting it's exploration of consequences. The visual storytelling makes it all very clear. There's a reason cuts of the violence don't happen til after the blow has clearly been delivered and the damage felt. Every single blood splatter, injury placement, etc is planned and done deliberately to be seen. You can either write it off as incoherent noise, or as deliberate choices to convey what everything in the text and subtext is screaming at the audiences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:And let's be clear, if you are OK with Batman killing people, you are condoning the act of killing. This is awfully sorta strawmanny. Who cares if I condone killing in self-defense during efforts to stop crimes? Who cares if I condone killing? The discussion about Batman has been a couple of people whining about how much they truly love their childhood hero Batman and how dare anyone complicate the Berenstain Bears-esque level of fiction about a man they wish they could be who brutalizes criminals and there's no fuckin' way that a movie that explores a more grounded level of consequence show such things. SolidSnakesBandana posted:So I just made up in my head all the posts of people saying that Batman having a no-kill rule is totally unrealistic and that a realistic Batman would kill? To say nothing of the people that come out and claim that Batman has always killed and its weird to expect him to have a no-kill rule. A realistic Batman could kill. It's refreshing to see the filmmaker build a rational reason as to why that might happen to a guy who maybe wouldn't otherwise consistently do such a thing - refreshing to see the consequences of Batman's violent rampages acknowledged. Also, he's not killing willy-nilly like a serial killer. Batman STILL subdues bad guys and lets the cops handle the rest. It's cool you don't like the movie. It's not cool you're creating a narrative of the movie that in no way reflects the actual movie. Say you didn't like it because you refuse to accept a different evolution of Batman and you can't stomach the difference. Don't say you hate the movie because the scene where Alfred stabs a unicorn in the nutsack and dances naked around a dead stripper Batman crucified at Seaworld. You're screaming and shouting NOT MY BATMAN so hard that nostalgia is blinding you to anything else. Drifter fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Imagine a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie comes out, and Michaelangelo is suddenly no longer a party dude. He wears a tie and goes to work at a 9-5 job. He never says Cowabunga, not even once. People saying they want the old Mikey back aren't saying "NOT MY MICHAELANGELO" they are saying that the new interpretation is shittier than the old one. North by Northwest is about a non-party dude who wears a tie, goes to a 9-5 job, and never says Cowabunga, and that's one of the greatest movies ever made, so I feel like it could work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:Pretty much all of his arguments boil down to an emotional reaction of "NOT MY BATMAN!", which combined with an utterly bizarre reading of BvS (along with yours) are easy to dismiss. This is an inaccurate summation of my arguments. I have said that I would take a kill Batman if he was compellingly realized as a character within a narrative that makes sense, I have cited examples previously as to where I think a Batman who kills works, which is rare granted, as on the whole it doesn't work but there are exceptions. I like multiple different kinds of Batman provided they are well crafted. BvS's Batman is not well crafted, it is an astonishingly poorly written film with very little sense of how to build character or make them interesting, or how to utilize the killing as part of the character. None of you can decide whether Batman killing is the result of Superman's arrival, or something that he has always done because this is a realistic version. It's easy to dismiss my argument by saying that I'm all like "NOT MY BATMAN", but I can point the same accusation at you. This "IS YOUR BATMAN", the ultimate amalgamation of all the elements you have always desired Batman to be, you've emotionally attached to this version as it's a grotesquely incoherent Frankenstein's monster of Frank Miller, the Arkham games, and the "Batman beats everyone" cultural meme. It's all the indulgent one-dimensional aspects of the character crammed into one package, with all the interesting, thoughtful and compelling aspects sheared away. And that is why you love it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
See my point of view at this point is that people can have different interpretations and opinions on this movie and any other movie, and neither side should be reducing the argument of the other to some blanket statement like "NOT MY BATMAN" because it discourages actual discussion. He has a valid opinion that he does not like this interpretation of the Batman and is giving what he would prefer, you cannot then say that his argument has no merit just because he doesn't like a different version of the Batman. Similarly I don't like man of steel or the Nolan batman movies, but I will not say that people only like them because they're "DARK AND REALISTIC", which is not something I personally look for in a comic book movie but is a valid direction to go in. It's also incredibly reductive of why people like those movies, so I will now re-iterate that that claim is not a true claim of the movie, but how I view those movies. People can want different things from comic book movies and it does not reduce your enjoyment of said movies, or your dislike. For example I really enjoy most of the Marvel movies, especially Ant-Man, Guardians and both Avengers, yet the consensus on this board seems to be that at least both Avengers movies are bad. I don't agree but I'm not going to say anyone is wrong for feeling that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:See my point of view at this point is that people can have different interpretations and opinions on this movie and any other movie, and neither side should be reducing the argument of the other to some blanket statement like "NOT MY BATMAN" because it discourages actual discussion. He has a valid opinion that he does not like this interpretation of the Batman and is giving what he would prefer, you cannot then say that his argument has no merit just because he doesn't like a different version of the Batman. When someone says "And let's be clear, if you are OK with Batman killing people, you are condoning the act of killing" it's very hard to take them seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:When someone says "And let's be clear, if you are OK with Batman killing people, you are condoning the act of killing" it's very hard to take them seriously. Well you aren't wrong there, I actually wrote that up before he said that to be fair. Admittedly I am OK with Batman killing when given a clear and logical reason why this version of the Batman in this universe would kill, and BvS seems to make an attempt at giving this reason. I also condone killing as a last resort in certain situations, I don't condone killing unprovoked or unnecessarily, which is where I've always seen Batman's internal logic for avoiding killing comes from. He knows he's a deeply damaged individual, and is scared if he slips once he will become no better than his criminals. Even if killing the Joker is a morally correct thing to do Batman's own issues make him feel that even that would be one step to far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Karloff posted:This is an inaccurate summation of my arguments. I have said that I would take a kill Batman if he was compellingly realized as a character within a narrative that makes sense, I have cited examples previously as to where I think a Batman who kills works, which is rare granted, as on the whole it doesn't work but there are exceptions. I like multiple different kinds of Batman provided they are well crafted. BvS's Batman is not well crafted, it is an astonishingly poorly written film with very little sense of how to build character or make them interesting, or how to utilize the killing as part of the character. None of you can decide whether Batman killing is the result of Superman's arrival, or something that he has always done because this is a realistic version.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:I don't really like how the term ludonarrative dissonance became synonimous to decoupling narrative from gameplay, when they're not. It's not like with movies we evaluate it seperatly, story A+, acting C- Yep. The dissonance comes from the fact the same "immersion" argument common to movies. Something in this disturbed me enough to break my immersion, and it's usually not something like a visible boom mic or a glitch. It's a usually a dissonant choice, one the player has a choice in accepting, rejecting or deciding what it means. Much like movies, the most common reaction is the knee-jerk rejection. "This is a mistake. I'm supposed to be immersed, and I'm not." Lord_Magmar posted:He knows he's a deeply damaged individual, and is scared if he slips once he will become no better than his criminals. Think one step further. What do actual people do when they "slip up" once, or twice, or ten times. What do you think he'd do? Kill himself? Stop being Batman? He needs to be Batman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
It's interesting that some people believe because we have a few possible interpretations of why this Batman is the way he is, plausibly supported by the text, that this is a muddled failure of the film maker. It's loving art, highly commercial art but art nonetheless, and the fact that there is something to interpret at all (rather than just being told) is good. Better movies embrace ambiguity at times to better engage the audience, to let them make their mind up, discuss, whatever. A movie that spells everything out for you, wraps everything up in a neat comfortable little bow, and moves on, doesn't tend to be discussed much further than 'wasn't it cool when that thing happened'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:No but I was once, and there are things I was told that weren't true that still taught me important lessons. For example that there is a man who lives on the North Pole who will give me presents if I was good for a year. You consider being temporarily "good" for material gain to be a positive lesson? SolidSnakesBandana posted:20 years of awesome stories are irrelevant because in a "post watchmen world" (which I have to assume is everything after 1986) they are suddenly stupid. It totally makes sense for Batman to see an alien and decide then that human life isn't worth saving, despite it being a lifelong vow from the worlds most disciplined man, and the thing he's afraid Superman will do. When I said Post-Watchmen I was referring to the fact that Man of Steel, and BvS are both thematic sequels to his Watchmen movie. Karloff posted:None of you can decide whether Batman killing is the result of Superman's arrival, or something that he has always done because this is a realistic version. This critique is just bizarre because the confusion has absolutely nothing to do with BvS and is just baggage brought in by other media. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:Batfleck makes perfect sense to me within BvS and I felt the movie contextualised him well and I understood his narrative arc, and my internal idea of Batman is restricted to the Nolan movies, some hazy memories of the DCAU cartoons and the Arkham games where he is essentially just an empty headed battering ram. i've never even read a Batman comic book. There is no "NOT MY BATMAN!" argument for me because I have no attachment to him in any shape or form because I don't link myself to fictional characters in the same way you do. I don't get what it is that you want me to do. Never criticize any version of Batman ever? Declare all versions of Batman as equally brilliant? I have never once said that I did not like this Batman because he doesn't remind me of whatever Batman was in my childhood. Or that he's unfaithful to some sort of ultimate Batman. You are saying what that is what I am doing because that is easier than tackling my points. I have suggested that Batman killing rarely works because it has rarely been done well, and it is done especially poorly in BvS. Batman has had more different interpretations than most, this is part of his appeal, that he's malleable and changes with the times and that there are always new and different takes. BvS Batman is bad, not because he's new or different (which he really isn't by the way), but because he's poorly thought, one dimensional and a waste of a good performance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:It's interesting that some people believe because we have a few possible interpretations of why this Batman is the way he is, plausibly supported by the text, that this is a muddled failure of the film maker. This is usually what people mean when they say something is "obvious". The ambiguity is obvious, and ambiguity is good! This is why the three Captain America films are worth coming back to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:It's interesting that some people believe because we have a few possible interpretations of why this Batman is the way he is, plausibly supported by the text, that this is a muddled failure of the film maker. I agree that ambiguity is important in art. But saying that Batman's motivations are incoherent because it's art is I think letting the writers off the hook, Batman is one of the major players in the drama, which requires the audience to functionally understand his headspace in order to go into scenes understanding who he is and why he is doing something. BvS fails to communicate this for a multitude of reasons, and to say that this sloppy storytelling is a result of purposeful ambiguity to highlight.... something is I think massively generous. There are plenty of films, or any narratives, that deal with the emotional truths afforded by ambiguity cleverly which complements the theme or texture of the work, BvS is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Karloff posted:BvS fails to communicate this for a multitude of reasons, and to say that this sloppy storytelling is a result of purposeful ambiguity to highlight.... something is I think massively generous. You keep saying the writing is bad, the plot is incoherent, but how about going into some of these reasons so that actual discussion can be had?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:You keep saying the writing is bad, the plot is incoherent, but how about going into some of these reasons so that actual discussion can be had?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:You keep saying the writing is bad, the plot is incoherent, but how about going into some of these reasons so that actual discussion can be had? I.... have.... done..... this...... so....... many....... times. But once again: The film barely has any conceivable structure making it a thuddingly boring experience, paced so poorly that conflicts are poorly established or not established at all. The main narrative revolves around a bizarre and inccoherent plan by Lex Luthor to destroy Superman, though Luthor himself seems to have multiple different conflicting reasons for doing this, I guess he's just crazy. Anyway, Batman is depicted as a violent vigilante who breaks civil liberties, therefore Superman, who is also a violent vigilante who breaks civil liberties, doesn't like him for reasons, I guess he's just crazy. Batman doesn't like Superman for good reasons (his employees being killed), and has got darker recently because of it, which is why he's killing people or maybe he was always doing that. Anyway, a set of convoluted misunderstandings and trickery engineered, as well as the Flash coming through a portal, by Lex Luthor using a tired damsel in distress plan lead Batman and Superman to fight, rather then y'know any ideological or moral difference that would actually be interesting. Then this conflict is tied up so quickly and bizarrely so that the film can slingshot incredibly into an adaption of the Death of Superman despite those story elements being unearned in any way whatsoever. Then it ends. Oh, but Batman has found a computer drive containing trailers for DC's upcoming slate, so tune in next time folks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I have never once said that I did not like this Batman because he doesn't remind me of whatever Batman was in my childhood. Or that he's unfaithful to some sort of ultimate Batman. You are saying what that is what I am doing because that is easier than tackling my points. I have suggested that Batman killing rarely works because it has rarely been done well, and it is done especially poorly in BvS because it's not the Batman I have come to love. The bolded extension is the single subtext that runs through each of your arguments, despite your denials to such. All of your posts run off this single childlike blind nostalgic conceit because all of your posts to this point are irrational and uninformed. None of your complaints have any basis in the movie that was run in theaters or now available on bluray.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Wow this thread is pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Drifter posted:The bolded extension is the single subtext that runs through each of your arguments, despite your denials to such. All of your posts run off this single childlike nostalgic conceit because all of your posts to this point are irrational and uninformed. None of your complaints have any basis in the movie that was run in theaters or now available on bluray. You say this, because you are utterly incapable of discussing character, theme, film making or storytelling in any interesting and compelling terms, but finally you've got your fourteen year old ultra awesome sweet Batman, and you will stand for no criticism of him whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:You consider being temporarily "good" for material gain to be a positive lesson? It works on my dog. Santa doesn't follow through on his threats of not giving presents though so I don't know how effective that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Karloff posted:You say this, because you are utterly incapable of discussing character, theme, film making or storytelling in any interesting and compelling terms, but finally you've got your fourteen year old ultra awesome sweet Batman, and you will stand for no criticism of him whatsoever. Probably because you should take it to the drat BVS thread!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
You know, let's cut some bullshit here. Even for a Batman that kills, how is he expected to keep the Joker down? Let's not forget, DCAU Batman basically killed the Joker a dozen times over, one way or another. The fucker just kept surviving some how because he was off screen- and even the one time he DID get dead dead, he still found a way to come back. A good villain isn't going to let something like being killed stop them from returning, literally or metaphorically. Also again, the way people talk about this Batman, it makes him sound like the Predator. That he's blowing heads off or slitting throats. Every single death Batman is responsible for is in self defense or because the villain's own stupidity. All of them. Never once does he just walk up to some helpless fucker and murder them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:You consider being temporarily "good" for material gain to be a positive lesson? It's incredibly common to think that the word responds karmically to your actions. That's still wrong, but talking about it strictly in terms of material gain or selfishness is kind of missing the forest for the trees. Santa stands for the world's benevolence and justness, just in a way that a child would understand, and more importantly for adults to understand in retrospect as something we do for children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
All of them should kill. Batman, Superman, Spider man. gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Karloff posted:The main narrative revolves around a bizarre and inccoherent plan by Lex Luthor to destroy Superman, though Luthor himself seems to have multiple different conflicting reasons for doing this What are these multiple conflicting reasons? Karloff posted:Superman, who is also a violent vigilante who breaks civil liberties Whose civil liberties does he violate and how? These are honest questions, I don't recall this stuff from the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Stacks posted:All of them should kill. Batman, Superman, Spider man. gently caress it. All three of them have in the past and will in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Burkion posted:All three of them have in the past and will in the future. The next time Spider-man kills they'll just BraveNewDay it away. Sir Kodiak posted:What are these multiple conflicting reasons? Less than ten percent of what he talks about has to do with the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Drifter posted:
This is a great tactic, just deny whatever bad thing happens in the movie ever happened at all. I shall use this next time someone challenges my fondness for Spider-Man 3. Person: But those dance sequences were terrible. Me: There are no dance sequences. Person: Yes, there is. Me: Nope. Person: There is! Me: Nope, you're not discussing the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Superman in particular should just atomize every fucker that gets in his way. Everyone from Luthor to Brainiac to a common mugger. He already operates outside the law and there's nothing we can do to stop him. Ethics and morality and facades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Superman's an individual with the power to interact with nation-states as equals, with the joke being that despite how scary that is, he's still a much better moral actor than most nation-states. If Batman finds Superman that terrifying, he should probably be an anarchist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Karloff posted:This is a great tactic, just deny whatever bad thing happens in the movie ever happened at all. This isn't what I'm doing. I honestly don't know what events you're referring to and I've seen the movie a couple times. I'm not asking for a clip here. But if someone described Spider-Man 3 as having Peter Parking engaging in "over-the-top theatrics," it would be fair to request that they specify "the scene where he dances on the tables to make Mary Jane jealous while on a date with Gwen Stacy" to understand what they're getting at. That's all I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Superman's an individual with the power to interact with nation-states as equals, with the joke being that despite how scary that is, he's still a much better moral actor than most nation-states. If Batman finds Superman that terrifying, he should probably be an anarchist. Batman's just a space racist. All this talk about how he's "not even human" and how Clark's parents were all "probably not murdered right in front of his eyes as a young lad". He's a jealous space racist. It was pretty funny at the end of the movie when Bruce is all waxing poetic about how humankind isn't all that bad when we really actually are. That ending monologue was the least believable part of the movie, imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
So is Suicide Squad any good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Rarity posted:So is Suicide Squad any good? Yes. No. *starts sweating*
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I like how Karloff can come in and make numerous excellent points with actual evidence from media to back them up, and when people can't come up with a response they just insult him out of the thread. To be clear, people think that Batman not killing is totally unrealistic whereas him killing a few people every now and then is totally realistic. And we should cheering Batman for taking another mans life, despite the fact that he possesses the skill and the numerous non-lethal tools necessary to subdue them non-lethally. We can introduce 20 instances of Batman being non-lethal but this is totally cast aside the moment its pointed out that some Batman, somewhere, killed. 20 years of awesome stories are irrelevant because in a "post watchmen world" (which I have to assume is everything after 1986) they are suddenly stupid. It totally makes sense for Batman to see an alien and decide then that human life isn't worth saving, despite it being a lifelong vow from the worlds most disciplined man, and the thing he's afraid Superman will do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Rarity posted:So is Suicide Squad any good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:43
|
|