|
Other Thor 3 rumors from the same twitter guy I saw that picture from (I think from NeoGAF based on observing filming or whatever, so just for fun): - loki makes Odin go crazy and puts him on earth to wander like a homeless person - Thor gets Dr. Strange's address on a scrap of paper in the photo, for odin reasons or just to warp way out into space? - Mark Mothersbaugh is doing the score, described as a mix of symphony and synth - seems to fit with the logo design.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Electromax posted:Other Thor 3 rumors from the same twitter guy I saw that picture from (I think from NeoGAF based on observing filming or whatever, so just for fun): So I guess this is a followup to the ending of Thor 2?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Electromax posted:- Mark Mothersbaugh is doing the score, described as a mix of symphony and synth - seems to fit with the logo design. drat, I'm still surprised I'm saying this but Thor 3 is gonna rule
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:So I guess this is a followup to the ending of Thor 2? It also sorta kinda references the Ultimates comic Thor where Thor was a homeless guy whose memory had been wiped
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Electromax posted:- Mark Mothersbaugh is doing the score, described as a mix of symphony and synth - seems to fit with the logo design. Of
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
I have a very clear memory of watching The A-Team with my dad and laughing with him at the absurdity of Mr. T spraying machine gun fire at the "bad guys", followed by cuts of them jumping out of their exploding vehicle or running away while bullets sprayed everywhere. Same with GI Joe always showing people bailing out of their crashing planes or jumping free of their exploding tanks or never getting hit anywhere but in the shoulder by their laser machine guns.Think that you can fire a machine gun at people at not hurt them? Yeah right. This was something my friends and I laughed at on the playground, how unrealistic and stupid it was. At 10 years old I had realized that massive violence without consequences was just bullshit pandering so that kids could enjoy it. At 10 years old. There's really no hope for the people who haven't grasped that in their twenties or (shudder) older. If someone chooses to beat the poo poo out of people then their moral code against killing doesn't matter, because a moral code vs. a brain hemorrhage caused by blunt impact trauma to the skull doesn't mean poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It also sorta kinda references the Ultimates comic Thor where Thor was a homeless guy whose memory had been wiped Or it references that time that it happened to Odin like 10 years before the Ultimate line existed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I read the book GOing Postal & that quote and as a collected work i am not feelin Terry Pratchett
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
"Batman never pooped." "Can we be so sure?" "There is nothing in the comics to say that he did." "And there's nothing in the comics to say that he did not."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:He's really profound and witty when you're like 13 I enjoy Reaperman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I enjoy Reaperman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:He's really profound and witty when you're like 13 Him and Piers Anthony were the go-to fantasy guys when I was that age.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:He's really profound and witty when you're like 13 Makes sense, in seventh grade I pulled my extended hardback version of The Stand out of my backpack during silent reading time so everyone could see the big book and how "smart" I was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I mainly read his books because I legitimately enjoyed his sense of humour and still do, although I have realised that perhaps that quote muddled the argument more than it helped my point. I have also actually forgotten my original point at this time so instead I'll say that I think the worst series of comic book movies is the X-Men series, because whilst I enjoy most of Marvel's stuff and can at least discuss the DC stuff I don't remember a drat thing about any of those movies and I've seen all of them except Apocalypse. I think the strongest memory I have of them is First Class where Charles freezes an entire building of people. I just remembered an actual important point about the Batman killing thing, I have no problem with the claim Batman kills, because as has been pointed out in a realistic setting his methodology would absolutely lead to some deaths. I do still think the statement that he has a no kill policy is important, because it emphasises the idea that the heroic thing is to avoid unnecessary deaths. After all a policy is not a fact it's a statement of intent, so Batman can have a no kill policy and still accidentally kill or kill in self defence in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
I watched The Shadow with Alec Baldwin recently and it made me wonder if all of those 30s/40s-esque stylized superhero movies from the early 90s (Shadow, Dick Tracy, Phantom, Rocketeer, even Cool World) were all meant to capitalize on Burton's Batman. I have no idea what all those movies development schedules were like, but it seems like you have the Burton Batman (Burtman?) that was a film about a character who, even though it's a comic, was also one of a number of pulp adventurer/detective characters from the 1930s, and done in a film that had a deliberate throwback style and distinctive visual, and the response to its success was at least to a degree based on replicating that style and visual instead of finding other comics to adapt.MacheteZombie posted:Is Falcon an anti-hero? He murders those 3-4 henchmen pretty quickly at the beginning of Civil War. No, he flirts and jokes with Black Widow right after killing them, so he's solidly on the heroic end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Batman is not an anti-hero. Punisher is an anti-hero. Batman is typically portrayed as being the moral equal of Superman and Wonder Woman. He displays compassion frequently, just not outwardly. For instance he might stop someone's crime as Batman and hire him as Bruce Wayne, if he feels like the criminal can be redeemed. Or he might stop bullets with their body. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
That's just Gordon doing what the Bat can't
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Toady posted:Or he might stop bullets with their body. I like that apparently the gunman is just taking his time with the gun while his bud gets the poo poo punched out of him. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Toady posted:Or he might stop bullets with their body. Nah that guy's just .... asleep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgc
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Okay, so: you are saying that humans are naturally credulous, but not naturally good. Therefore it is expedient to use 'good lies' to cover up the 'bad truths' that cause bad actions. Your justification for lying (more specifically: treating lies as interchangeable with truth, aka 'bullshitting') is that beliefs, morals, and values (and so-on) are effectively meaningless. Only actions are good or bad. I think he's just arguing for the importance of Authentic Belief? You quoted Zizek in the Prometheus thread. "For both liberal cynics and religious fundamentalists, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while skeptical cynics mock them. No wonder religious fundamentalists are among the most passionate digital hackers, and always prone to combine their religion with the latest results of sciences. For them, religious statements and scientific statements belong to the same modality of positive knowledge. The occurrence of the term "science" in the very name of some of the fundamentalist sects (Christian Science, Scientology) is not just an obscene joke, but signals this reduction of belief to positive knowledge. The case of the Turin Shroud (a piece of cloth that was allegedly used to cover the body of the dead Christ and has stains of his blood) is indicative here. Its authenticity would be a horror for every true believer (the first thing to do would be to analyze the DNA of the blood stains and resolve empirically the question of who Jesus's father was), while a true fundamentalist would rejoice in this opportunity. We find the same reduction of belief to knowledge in today's Islam where hundreds of books by scientists abound which "demonstrate" how the latest scientific advances confirm the insights and injunctions of Quran: the divine prohibition of incest is confirmed by recent genetic knowledge about the defective children born of incestuous copulation. The same goes for Buddhism, where many scientists vary the motif of the "Tao of modern physics", of how the contemporary scientific vision of reality as a substanceless flux of oscillating events finally confirmed the ancient Buddhist ontology. One is compelled to draw the paradoxical conclusion: in the opposition between traditional secular humanists and religious fundamentalists, it is the humanists who stand for belief, while fundamentalists stand for knowledge. This is what we can learn from Lacan with regard to the ongoing rise of religious fundamentalism: its true danger does not reside in the fact that it poses a threat to secular scientific knowledge, but in the fact that it poses a threat to authentic belief itself." -Zizek, "The Perverse Subject of Politics." How to Read Lacan. http://www.lacan.com/zizbouyeri.html So why the fundamentalism now? (Though I fully agree with you about Batman Killing People. I'm just confused by the way you're treating Justice as an objectively real concept.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I have a very clear memory of watching The A-Team with my dad and laughing with him at the absurdity of Mr. T spraying machine gun fire at the "bad guys", followed by cuts of them jumping out of their exploding vehicle or running away while bullets sprayed everywhere. Same with GI Joe always showing people bailing out of their crashing planes or jumping free of their exploding tanks or never getting hit anywhere but in the shoulder by their laser machine guns.Think that you can fire a machine gun at people at not hurt them? Yeah right. This was something my friends and I laughed at on the playground, how unrealistic and stupid it was. This is Batman. He knows exactly how to beat someone up without killing them
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:This is Batman. He knows exactly how to beat someone up without killing them He doesn't
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Water Sheep posted:I think he's just arguing for the importance of Authentic Belief? The prospect of scanning Christ's DNA is horrific to a true believer not because they fear their religion will be debunked (e.g. that tests will reveal that that Christ had absolutely normal human blood, and that Batman kills people). The horrific thought is precisely the opposite: that they will find something in the blood, some alien God-creature, and Christians will begin worshiping that creature as an objective scientific fact. In the case of Batman, think of the very dumb story where it's asserted that Hulk has objectively never killed anyone, because his brain is a supercomputer and he has presumably x-ray vision or something. So whenever he destroys a building, his supercomputer brain has, unconsciously, done calculations so that the hundreds of people inside will bounce gently off the flying chunks of concrete and just coast safely to the ground. He can even bomb Dresden without killing anyone. That's the fundamentalist logic of fans: worshiping the supercomputer. Going further though, Magmar is following the evangelical logic of lying for Christ. Like when you see the most absurd evangelical claims about creationism or whatever, they are not necessarily the result of mere stupidity. Secular culture is seen as too powerful, so evangelicals 'admit defeat' and effectively just start scamming their followers. For example, trying to promote abstinence by claiming condoms don't work, or even that condoms cause AIDS. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The prospect of scanning Christ's DNA is horrific to a true believer not because they fear their religion will be debunked (e.g. that tests will reveal that that Christ had absolutely normal human blood, and that Batman kills people). The horrific thought is precisely the opposite: that they will find something in the blood, some alien God-creature, and Christians will begin worshiping that creature as an objective scientific fact. Ahh, paleblood.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Edit: and thinking about Hogfather last night, it only just occurred to me how much the central plot of the personification of death (associated with the harvest festival/Samhain/life -> death) taking over the duties of the personification of the winter solstice festival (Yule/rebirth of the Sun) completely rips of The Nightmare Before Christmas which came out three years earlier. Nightmare Before Christmas is more of a conversion story, though. Jack is dissatisfied with the limitations of his existence, transcends into a higher realm, accidentally/selfishly violates it with his presence; brings his discoveries back to his people, who pervert it, realizes what a horrible thing he's done, repents, destroys the symbol of his own monstrous selfishness, and then the end of the movie is Christmas bringing itself to Halloween. Jack is an exemplary monster in Nightmare, but he's not Death itself, and the monsters in general are us -- the actual "human beings" in the movie are little more than window dressing. The gist of Hogfather is that nihilism is bad and if we don't protect traditional beliefs it might conquer the world and end humanity. The basic conflict is between beliefs, not the believer against his worst self. Pratchett's attitude towards religion is that he has never believed and never will, but that he has never disliked it and "considered it to have a purpose in human evolution." Death, and Pratchett, are apologizing for religion while denying its truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:The gist of Hogfather is that nihilism is bad and if we don't protect traditional beliefs it might conquer the world and end humanity. And that's precisely the regression, innit. The admission of defeat. Magmar has absolutely given up on Batman as a good person, so he invents the lie that Batman is harmless. Taken to a logical extreme, Batman's no-kill rule means he can raise a loaded gun to an innocent child's head and pull the trigger. If the gun randomly malfunctions, Batman remains 'heroic' because he hasn't broken the no-kill rule. This is precisely what happens at the end of Dark Knight: Dent raises a gun to the boy's head and flips a coin. The coin flip comes up 'heads', so the boy was safe. Same with the female cop: the coin flip came up 'heads', so he simply bashed her head in (of course dialogue implies that she died later, in hospital - but we don't see that). The irony is that BVS is actually about authentic belief: when, after seeing all the overwhelming factual atrocity, Wayne insists that "men are still good."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Alright, I'm totally cool with a Batman that kills, especially when it's clearly condemned at least a bit by the film itself, but when did we all agree that a no kill rule is by definition the most childish fantasy possible? I don't find pointing out that beating someone up has consequences any more clever than pointing out that, I dunno, King Kong is too massive to be supported by a skeletal system or any other cracked.com '5 Movie Universes It Would Secretly Be Awful To Live In' type pedantry. I don't find that particular power fantasy any more egregious than say, John Wick murdering enough people that he gets a replacement car and replacement dog and drives off into the sunset. There's room for all our power fantasies, and room for their deconstructions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
The reality of police brutality is significantly more (socially) important and more controversial than the square cube law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:This is Batman. He knows exactly how to beat someone up without killing them The problem here is that Batman is also supposed to be a man. A peak man, but a man. There is no human being, and there never will be, who can beat people unconscious without accidentally killing some of them occasionally. Sorry. It's like saying that it's possible to shoot a machine gun full-auto at a moving jeep full of guys and not hit any of them because "he's a marksman". The idealogy in no-kill Batman is that it's possible for an ordinary man to use consequence-free violence. It should be explicitly rejected. Slugworth posted:when did we all agree that a no kill rule is by definition the most childish fantasy possible? When people started saying that it produced a superior, richer character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:The reality of police brutality is significantly more (socially) important and more controversial than the square cube law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:So, enjoying Batman stories where he refuses to kill would be acceptable in a different political climate? Because again, I'm not arguing that Snyder should have done anything different, I just feel that 'Snyder has the right to tell the story he wants, but also, the story that you want could only be enjoyed by a literal child' seems.... excessive. It's ok to have stories where he refuses to kill. It's silly to have those stories where he still knocks a whole bunch of dudes unconscious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:So, enjoying Batman stories where he refuses to kill would be acceptable in a different political climate? Because again, I'm not arguing that Snyder should have done anything different, I just feel that 'Snyder has the right to tell the story he wants, but also, the story that you want could only be enjoyed by a literal child' seems.... excessive. None of this has anything to do with whether people have "the right to tell the stories they want." They have told their stories, and now the ball's in our court to interpret and criticize them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
To say "there's room for all our fantasies" and "one doesn't seem more egregious than the other" is to ignore just how much antipathy and contradiction there is between those fantasies. Politeness means you don't deliberately hurt each other. It doesn't mean you pretend to agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:08
|
|
Slugworth posted:So, enjoying Batman stories where he refuses to kill would be acceptable in a different political climate? There's a difference between a story where Batman refuses to kill (and, by extension, limits and controls his actions as appropriate) and a story where Batman engages in ridiculous action movie violence that only fails to kill via authorial fiat.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:"Batman never pooped." Well Kevin Smith wrote a comic where Batman peed his pants, so we can assume that he poops as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:There's a difference between a story where Batman refuses to kill (and, by extension, limits and controls his actions as appropriate) and a story where Batman engages in ridiculous action movie violence that only fails to kill via authorial fiat. Pretty much every other aspect of Batman also relies on authorial fiat: getting into hundreds of firefights without getting killed/permanently maimed/hospitalized for months, relying on technology that doesn't exist in the real world/would regularly fail to work as well as it does, keeping his identity secret from all those detectives/reporters/genius supervillains, getting the Batcave built in secret, guaranteed to figure out the fiendish schemes that the villains spend months putting together, etc etc.. I get a feeling that people are putting greater requirements of verisimilitude onto Batman because he's the superhero that doesn't have super powers and is closer to achievable reality than most of the other comicbook characters but "Knocking people out without ever killing them accidentally" is just one part of the foundation of unrealistic tropes that underpins the character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:
I'm sure there must be a couple boxers or street fighters who have never killed a man out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
i have no problem with a no kill rule either set by bats himself or the real human beings actually writing the story(let me tell you about my favorite batman property, the brave and the bold) but i do have a problem with people who insist it's a necessary component for telling a worthwhile batman story
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Pretty much every other aspect of Batman also relies on authorial fiat: getting into hundreds of firefights without getting killed/permanently maimed/hospitalized for months, relying on technology that doesn't exist in the real world/would regularly fail to work as well as it does, keeping his identity secret from all those detectives/reporters/genius supervillains, getting the Batcave built in secret, guaranteed to figure out the fiendish schemes that the villains spend months putting together, etc etc.. But if there was a movie that went against those aspects, we wouldn't be crying about how it ruins the essential purity of Batman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
mr. stefan posted:There's a difference between a story where Batman refuses to kill (and, by extension, limits and controls his actions as appropriate) and a story where Batman engages in ridiculous action movie violence that only fails to kill via authorial fiat. Right, Batman being just so good that he never needs to choose between killing and letting an innocent die because he won't kill and killing is just complete cowardice. It's a complete abandonment of possessing a moral principle. A Batman who says that Martha has to die because there's no way to non-lethally save her would be interesting, but that's not what the no-killing side of the discussion is asking for. RBA Starblade posted:I'm sure there must be a couple boxers or street fighters who have never killed a man out there. Hah, yeah. However, a professional boxer who denies that they're engaging in a sport with risk of lethal injury is either lying or fooling themselves. Not every boxing movie needs to depict traumatic brain injury as a result of the sport. But a movie that sidesteps even the implicit moral question of engaging in a dangerous sport by being about a guy who's diegetically so good at boxing that it is literally impossible for him to receive or cause such an injury would need a really interesting angle on that to not be completely pathetic. In BvS, Batman is killing mercenaries in order to save an elderly waitress from being burnt alive. It's okay to think it's still wrong to kill in that circumstance, but then you/the film should just say that, not demand that a building full of people all get tapped in the off switch. "Today, nobody dies," where the hero figures out how to do it, could even be a wonderful moment. But it makes for a really dull demand for that to be universally available. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:37
|
|
