|
Karloff 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. Go to the BVS thread!
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Rarity posted:So is Suicide Squad any good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Rarity posted:So is Suicide Squad any good? There's at least one guy who repeatedly comes back to the Suicide Squad thread to make one-word posts about how garbage, awful, terrible it is and gets probated every time. This should tell you everything you need to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
If it doesn't, though, that's me endorsing it as a good film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted: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. Apologies, that comment wasn't aimed at you. To answer your questions: Lex Luthor's motivations are muddy and obfuscated; whether he has knowledge or an oncoming danger, hates Superman for his power, is generally concerned about what Superman can do, or has some unresolved issues with an abusive father are unclear as all these elements are thrown in but never formulate into a coherent character psychology, as such his plan is a mess of different threads finalizing in the creation of a monster that has no real purpose other than to kill Superman which is something he arranged elsewhere. But I've not seen the Ultimate Edition, perhaps it goes into more detail. Superman's very existence as a hero breaks civil liberties, but what is especially troubling is him going to other nations and smashing warlords through brick walls. There are rules for this kind of engagement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Go to the BVS thread! Okay, see you guys, it's been fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
See you guys in the BVS thread, I hope you mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Apologies, that comment wasn't aimed at you. To answer your questions: Lex Luthor literally sits the audience surrogate down and explains why he hates Superman. He's angry at God for not saving him, so he's going to kill space Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Okay, see you guys, it's been fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Rarity posted:So is Suicide Squad any good? I didn't like it. I enjoyed the take on The Joker; thought Will Smith was Will Smithing pretty good but pretty uninterestingly cliched, felt that Harley was about as good as Will Smith. The other characters were pretty soft and not that neat or boringly underutilized. Overall, the movie seemed like a summary of an actual movie. Coming off of MoS and BvS it just seemed shallow and boring. On its own it seemed like a mediocre TV show. I thought the relationship conflict presented between Joker and Harley was actually pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:Everyone is entitled to their own opinions I guess, but I still don't see what's so wrong about that quote. It seems to me to be a pretty nice quote about the importance of faith in things, even if those things don't necessarily exist in tangible reality we all agree that they exist so that society functions. It is a very dumb quote/opinion because justice is simply the opposite of injustice. Like for example, the holocaust is a grave injustice. When we talk about 'justice', we're referring to emancipatory justice, or egalitarian justice, revolutionary justice, etc. Slavery is a real thing and is really unjust. A just society is, concretely, one where slavery is abolished and people who attempt to enslave others are punished. It's very sad, but noteworthy, that this stuff about "Batsman absolutely doesn't kill, ever!" goes hand in hand with this nonsense about how justice is a "collective societal fantasy", 'nothing is real, it's all relative', etc. Karloff posted:Batman. Is. Not. Real. Such things as crime, technology, death, rich people, police (and so-on) are real. Batman stories are about real things. Our fundamental delusion today is not to take fictions seriously enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Our fundamental delusion today is not to take fictions seriously enough. I was going to take issue with your comment about "nonsense" but my answer would have just been a version of this. Justice is a fiction, but this does not devalue it, it just forces us to take responsibility for whatever ideals we embrace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Karloff 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. Actually, the real argument that actually happens with Spider-Man 3 is "Peter Parker is emo." Which is untrue because he joyfully dances on tables, flirts with women, and in general has a good time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It is a very dumb quote/opinion because justice is simply the opposite of injustice. Like for example, the holocaust is a grave injustice. I think you're missing the actual thrust of the quote to be honest. The take away point is that whilst from an outsider's point of view there is no justice in the world, because terrible tragedies still happen, as a human we believe in these ideas of justice, duty and mercy, and in doing so we remain human. Terry Pratchett isn't saying Justice doesn't exist, he's saying people require the idea of justice because it is a part of both society, and a coping mechanism. As an example it is a grave injustice that people are bullied in school for being different, and we as people attempt to bring justice by punishing those bullies. However those are things people do, we commit injustice and justice, reality just happens. The coping mechanism is that as long as the victim believes justice will come, they're less likely to do something drastic in response. It's a statement about belief not justice, which I think I may have failed to describe correctly. I also agree that not taking fiction seriously is a problem, but there is also room for escapist fantasies and stories. Ideally there would be an infinite number of choices so that everybody can find a fiction they enjoy reading/watching/playing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I.... have.... done..... this...... so....... many....... times. No, you haven't. Karloff posted: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. This is what you've been saying, which is equivalent to saying it's bad because it's bad, but now you've actually followed it up with something tangible. 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, I guess he's just crazy. Lex Luthor literally gives a speech about Prometheus being struck down for daring to defy God by aligning with humanity. Karloff posted: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. Karloff posted:Superman's very existence as a hero breaks civil liberties, but what is especially troubling is him going to other nations and smashing warlords through brick walls. There are rules for this kind of engagement. Superman has been depicted being violent when he saves humanity from Zod in Man of Steel and when he saves Lois in the Africa scene, which is the crux of the whole movie. This act was not out of a sense of vigilante justice, but an act of pure love. This distinction is not an accident considering there is a senate committee formed to hold Clark responsible and the media questions the ethics of his interference (Which is all being followed by Bruce Wayne and results in his nightmare about dictator Superman). Clark and Lois then have a serious discussion about Clark's love for Lois poisoning the idea of Superman. He's shown in a montage rescuing people and he never actively goes after criminals. While Clark is being scrutinized and torn apart in the media, Batman is ignored. Clark is worried about Batman because his vigilantism is rooted around the poor parts of Gotham. Clark posted:It's like a one man reign of terror. This bat vigilante has been consistently targeting the port and the adjacent projects and tenements, and as far as I can tell the cops are actually helping him. He deduces it's because Batman is targeting the symptoms and not the system, which is why the status quo is not afraid of Batman, and the police are actively helping him. Superman scares people because the Africa incident makes them realize that he can turn on white upper class America. Batman even admits that his past 20 years of work has resulted in no real change. He thinks Superman is far too powerful and detached from humanity to be trusted, and thinks all of his exploits amount to saving cats from trees. Batman finally recognizes his complicity in a broken system when Lex Luthor's power, money and influence have enabled him to skirt punishment and brands the institution itself. Detective No. 27 posted:Actually, the real argument that actually happens with Spider-Man 3 is "Peter Parker is emo." Which is untrue because he joyfully dances on tables, flirts with women, and in general has a good time. A case of poor language use rooted entirely in Peter Parker's haircut.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Suicide Squad was okay, but the flaws were painfully obvious (weird pacing, most of the squad were underdeveloped). Really, the best thing about is that it shows Hollywood that superhero movies with diverse casts can be money-makers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I was going to take issue with your comment about "nonsense" but my answer would have just been a version of this. To be clear though, there is a difference between Batman as a fictional character with verisimilitude, and Justice as a universal Idea that is realized in various particular ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:. Batman even admits that his past 20 years of work has resulted in no real change. Batman said this at the height of his emotional desperation and tension. Him admitting that was a feeling, not a fact. He feels like he doesn't make a difference sometimes; he makes a difference to the people of Gotham.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
He's not making the difference he wants to make. That is to say, his plan has some flaws in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Lex Luthor's motivations are muddy and obfuscated; whether he has knowledge or an oncoming danger, hates Superman for his power, is generally concerned about what Superman can do, or has some unresolved issues with an abusive father are unclear as all these elements are thrown in but never formulate into a coherent character psychology, as such his plan is a mess of different threads finalizing in the creation of a monster that has no real purpose other than to kill Superman which is something he arranged elsewhere. But I've not seen the Ultimate Edition, perhaps it goes into more detail. I think I can clear up Lex for you. The place where Lex talks about a general concern for what Superman can do is when he's talking to Holly Hunter's senator character, the bit about how if you forge a silver bullet, you don't have to depend on the kindness of monsters. He's full of poo poo there and Holly Hunter calls him on it with the peach tea line. He's not just interested in a theoretical defense, he wants to use it. Him delivering the peach tea to her is him admitting she's right and then demonstrating the consequences of calling him on it. So this is only conflicting in that we should expect a lie to conflict with the truth. The hatred of Superman for his power is tied into his unresolved issues with his abusive father. His unresolved issues with his abusive father explain his hatred of God and, through that, his hatred of the god-figure Superman. Not a conflict, but rather a cause and effect. Heroes do not, of course, inherently break civil liberties. What civil liberty is violated by a firefighter, or any person, rescuing someone from a burning building? I don't understand where you're coming from here. Going to a foreign country to intervene in a conflict is arguably illegal, but I'm not seeing the violation of civil liberties. Superman performs two significant actions: he destroys a missile and its drone to keep Lois from being killed, and then he attacks a man holding a gun to Lois's head who was then, and even before Superman's arrival, threatening to kill her. Governments and objects (e.g., the drone and its owner) do not have civil liberties. And I have trouble seeing what right of the warlord is being infringed by preventing him from killing Lois. We can get into the appropriate use of force, but it doesn't seem fundamentally unjust for Superman to act in defense of another. So I have to admit, I'm still not seeing in Batman v Superman what you describe. Can you clarify what I'm missing here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:I think you're missing the actual thrust of the quote to be honest. The take away point is that whilst from an outsider's point of view there is no justice in the world, because terrible tragedies still happen, as a human we believe in these ideas of justice, duty and mercy, and in doing so we remain human. Terry Pratchett isn't saying Justice doesn't exist, he's saying people require the idea of justice because it is a part of both society, and a coping mechanism. Your problem here is that you're mixing up concepts like truth and fantasy, belief and escapism, idealism, fiction, etc. Pratchet makes the same mistake when talking this 'atom of justice', which is some profoundly stupid reductionism. That Batman kills people is the truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:I think you're missing the actual thrust of the quote to be honest. The take away point is that whilst from an outsider's point of view there is no justice in the world, because terrible tragedies still happen, as a human we believe in these ideas of justice, duty and mercy, and in doing so we remain human. Terry Pratchett isn't saying Justice doesn't exist, he's saying people require the idea of justice because it is a part of both society, and a coping mechanism. He's really not. The quote is pseudo philosophical drivel that doesn't stand up to any critique. The crux of the passage relies on the misunderstanding that if it's not a tangible piece of a matter, then it is inherently a lie. Justice is a theoretical system for distributing fairness: there is no deception there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:No, you haven't. He did, more than once. It's not his fault you just didn't read it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Karloff was tricked by the lie that the senator saw through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
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. Man I should probably see a doctor. And let's be clear, if you are OK with Batman killing people, you are condoning the act of killing. You made up a world in which people are "cheering" for Batman to kill people. In reality, we're horrified by the premise of the Caped Crusader.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:The crux of the passage relies on the misunderstanding that if it's not a tangible piece of a matter, then it is inherently a lie. Justice is a theoretical system for distributing fairness: there is no deception there. You haven't actually read the book, have you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:You haven't actually read the book, have you? No, please explain to me what I have missed. There is no sarcasm here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I think the desire to have Batman kill is a result of the need to have something one loved as a child legitimized as an adult thing, so that the now adult fascination with a children's comic book character can be done so without shame. In a sense "guys, I like Batman, but... but.... Batman's totally adult now, look he kills people". I said that Batman not killing makes no sense with the texture of the character as presented, as he uses non lethal weaponry, and has a roster of returning villains, which you can't have if you straight up end them. To use your examples; Luke Skywalker, John McClane and Neo exist in their own fictional worlds with their own contexts and have different functionalities to Batman, they are not immediately comparable simply by the virtue of being fictional characters. You've got the situation mixed up. You don't have a problem with other popular characters who kill because Batman represents a particular fetish for violence and police brutality that you want to feel gratification from without guilt, and non-lethality is the proof that you're not a bad person. The no-killing rule is like a safeword. Put on the suit. Punch him. Harder. Don't kill him!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:No, please explain to me what I have missed. There is no sarcasm here. For context, the character who made the "atoms of justice" quote is the personification of death, whose entire existence relies on humanity's ability to believe in abstract concepts even though that's something he can't do himself (which is why he has such a clumsy way of articulating himself around the subject). One of the central themes of the novel is that belief in abstract concepts is absolutely crucial to the human condition and if someone was to somehow stop people from believing in them, even if it was only a dumb childish concept like Santa Claus/The Hogfather, that would have severe repercussions on our humanness. When Death says "Humans need fantasy to be human" and "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" he's not being condescending, that's just how the process of being human appears to a non-human entity. The villains of the novel are entities called The Auditors who are also incapable of believing in abstract concepts (at one point they disassemble a painting into its component colors to try and discover the 'beauty' inside it) but who are trying to force the universe to conform to their viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:09
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:No, please explain to me what I have missed. There is no sarcasm here. the whole "find me a grain of justice" speech is given in response to the protagonist saying that believing in the setting's version of Santa is bullshit because he doesn't actually cause the sun to come up or give people smoked meat products in return for good behavior, and calling people stupid for spending their time believing in nonsense like a pagan pigman sho maybe doesn't exist in a real sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
To be very specific, Bruce Wayne is a liberal - that's what the character stands for. In the Dark Knight films specifically, he's a more-liberal version of liberal vigilante Paul Kersey from Death Wish 1 (a version who's stronger on gun control, etc.). When we talk about escapist fantasy, we're talking about specific ideological fantasies like 'if we ban guns there will be no violence', and so-on. The truth is that billionaire Wayne's exploitation is more violent than any gun can be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
I've always thought of Batman as a 'law and order' right winger. He's a billionaire beating up poor people to restore order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Stacks posted:I've always thought of Batman as a 'law and order' right winger. He's a billionaire beating up poor people to restore order. beating up noted poor people, like The Penguin, the Joker, and Catwoman
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
HIJK posted:beating up noted poor people, like The Penguin, the Joker, and Catwoman He'd beat up a mouthy gutter-punk like you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
BvS exists so that film students can practise using obscure theory nobody cares about to defend an inherently bad movie long enough for everyone to get bored
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Stacks posted:I've always thought of Batman as a 'law and order' right winger. He's a billionaire beating up poor people to restore order. He's gone after the richest crime families in Gotham as often as he's gone after the lowest level street thug. The beating up poor people meme is just that - our country's forceful effort to equate a lack of a job with laziness and criminality rather than gentrification and upperclass capitalist domination. And most of the criminals in Gotham have a few bank robberies or human trafficking deals under their belt at the least, so Batman mostly preys upon the modestly successful middle-class. Drifter fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Stacks posted:He'd beat up a mouthy gutter-punk like you! HIJK's more likely to win the lottery than to run into Batman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:HIJK's more likely to win the lottery than to run into Batman. Maybe I'm actually Batman. You've never seen us in the same room, have you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Stacks posted:I've always thought of Batman as a 'law and order' right winger. He's a billionaire beating up poor people to restore order. This reminds me of the 2012 election and people debating whether Dark Knight Rises was supposed to equating Mitt Romney with Batman or Bane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:For context, the character who made the "atoms of justice" quote is the personification of death, whose entire existence relies on humanity's ability to believe in abstract concepts even though that's something he can't do himself (which is why he has such a clumsy way of articulating himself around the subject). One of the central themes of the novel is that belief in abstract concepts is absolutely crucial to the human condition and if someone was to somehow stop people from believing in them, even if it was only a dumb childish concept like Santa Claus/The Hogfather, that would have severe repercussions on our humanness. When Death says "Humans need fantasy to be human" and "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" he's not being condescending, that's just how the process of being human appears to a non-human entity. Not believing in abstract concepts is a stupid idea. The idea of the self, the individual soul, is an illusion that is just an abstract concept. If Death believes he is the personification of death, then he already believes he is an abstract concept.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 23:32
|
|