|
Sir Kodiak posted:One of us is, because your example seems to speak against your point. Someone with homosexual desire who engages in homosexual relations may feel that they are doing the wrong thing, by their own standard, at the time they are engaging in the act. Some will, of course, justify it in the moment, and feel guilty later. Some will justify it in the moment and for the rest of their lives. But some will just hate themselves in the moment and do it anyways. You can't break people down to some absolute that they always believes themselves to be in the right. I'm not trying to insult you, I just think we're arguing semantics. I never said anything about absolutes. Superman believes that killing Batman would be wrong, but he obviously thinks it's the overall right decision if it would save his mom. A theoretical person who would have to choose the life of their loved one over 100 people they don't know: either choice they make, they think they are right. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Sep 22, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Superman believes that killing Batman would be wrong, but he obviously thinks it's the overall right decision if it would save his mom. A theoretical person who would have to choose the life of their loved one over 100 people they don't know: either choice they make, they think they are right. But how are you extrapolating this? I get that you're not trying to be absolutist or anything, so, again, where is the third option? What about human beings being driven by psychological processes within themselves that go, perhaps in a way that's a bit on the nose when discussing "The Superman," "beyond good and evil." I agree with Kody that the line "No one stays good in this world" and its particular context speaks vividly to this condition, although obviously in a highly hyperbolic, even melodramatic fashion. Clark is explicitly agreeing to the proposition that killing Bruce Wayne to save his mother is the opposite of good, but that he nonetheless feels like there are both these esoteric and palpable forces which are compelling him to do what he knows in his heart is wrong. He hasn't even gotten to the Milgram/Zimbardo follow-up point, where he engages the rationalization or justification or whatever (it was a simulation, I was told to do it, I trusted their authority, etc.). At that moment, he is thoroughly within this mentality that he has already, though imminently, failed. I think this piece of dialog is lending voice to something that I think really is very common: This feeling that what is right is concrete and undeniable, but that this is independent of a je ne sais pas that renders the prospect of doing wrong both objectively unnecessary (not "necessary evil," not part of some "bigger picture") but also unavoidable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:I'm not trying to insult you, I just think we're arguing semantics. I never said anything about absolutes. Superman believes that killing Batman would be wrong, but he obviously thinks it's the overall right decision if it would save his mom. A theoretical person who would have to choose the life of their loved one over 100 people they don't know: either choice they make, they think they are right. Our discussion includes questions of semantics because any response to a person's statements is going to be dependent on the meaning of those statements. I'm not hung up on the word "right" or whatever, most of my posts in this discussion haven't even used it. It might help me if you'd expand on what you mean, since a decent amount of what you've produced here is some variation of flatly asserting "but you believe you're right in that moment." Anyways, it's not at all obvious that Superman thinks he's making the right decision. Hence, "no one stays good in this world." There is no right decision. Whatever his issues with Batman, he doesn't believe he should be sacrificed in order to save someone. He'll try to talk with Batman, to find a better way, but he has no faith in it, and, sure enough, it fails. And when it fails, and he embraces really fighting Batman and recovers his powers, we get that look of superiority on his face, and that Zod musical cue. He's not someone doing what he believes in: he's doing what he wants. And, fortunately, he fails at that too. Which is real human behavior. When "right" seems impossible, you can end up abandoning it. You don't necessarily believe you're right in the moment. Maybe you feel guilty about that, or maybe you don't care, but not everyone is continuously self-justifying. We don't get any of this nuance with Civil War. We get people talking about how Steve obviously thinks he's in the right, but an awful lot of his dialog is about his emotional state, about how he just can't let someone kill his friend. We can only really end up with the idea that he thinks this is a correct moral position, engaging in violent conflict with his other friends, if we assume that he thinks that anything he does is the correct moral position. And from that this argument. K. Waste posted:Kody 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I think we're approaching the unavoidable conclusion that comic book fans push this No Kill Rule, or that Captain America stands for nothing, because they have no sense of ethics or even basic morality. Nobody's thought about what justice is, or what law is. Human rights. Democracy. These things are all irrelevant. Western civilization is effectively over. Art and its consumers reflect that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
quote:Nobody's thought about what justice is, or what law is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:I'm not trying to insult you, I just think we're arguing semantics. I never said anything about absolutes. Superman believes that killing Batman would be wrong, but he obviously thinks it's the overall right decision if it would save his mom. A theoretical person who would have to choose the life of their loved one over 100 people they don't know: either choice they make, they think they are right. I'd say in that particular argument he knows that logically killing Batman to save his mom is the 'wrong' choice because its the most selfish one. It's just that he doesn't give a gently caress because its his mom. I felt like he started to lapse in judgment but came to his senses in his attempt to enlist Batman's help... it's just that he was really bad at communicating this thought and kept shoving the poo poo out of Bruce. Realistically though Superman should have just superspeed exploded through the wall and grabbed his mom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
HIJK posted:Western civilization is effectively over. Art and its consumers reflect that. Pish posh. What it actually shows is that things are chugging along just fine, without incident. It's only when Superman appears and actually posed a threat to status quo that fans started clutching at their pearls. And now he's dead. Make no mistake: this is the same Batman that has always existed. Batman kills people, and Batman has always killed people. The reason Batman is suddenly objectionable is that we're now seeing him from Superman's point of view. Superman says Batman is a bad person, and he means it. Fans are driven insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The reason Batman is suddenly objectionable is that we're now seeing him from Superman's point of view. Superman says Batman is a bad person, and he means it. Fans are driven insane. "Civil liberties are being trampled on in your city; good people living in fear."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Realistically though Superman should have just superspeed exploded through the wall and grabbed his mom. Did we know where his mom was being held when Bruce and Batman made up? Or was the location something Bruce figured out on the way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Did we know where his mom was being held when Bruce and Batman made up? Or was the location something Bruce figured out on the way? Alfred listened in and tracked down the kidnapper's cell phone while Bruce was pulling himself together and let him know once he hit the Batjet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
At this point my one problem with the Batman doesn't kill thing is it drives both sides of the argument to very weird places. The obvious intent is that Batman will not intentionally kill someone, accidental deaths are a fact of life but the chance of these can be reduced significantly based on the tools and techniques he uses. So yes Batman probably kills people, but the intent of the claim, that he doesn't actively murder/execute/slaughter/kill people but instead only does so through accidents is kind of important. There's also an element of suspension of disbelief, for example the Arkham Games have very brutal visceral combat and request you believe that nobody is killed, which some people cannot and others can, as a side effect of needing to be a game that is enjoyable to play when in combat. If Batman intentionally went out and shot every criminal he came across in the head regardless of their circumstances he would be a monster who possibly ended crime in Gotham, if only by being the last criminal left. Thankfully we haven't had that version of the Batman yet, and this version seems to just be old and worn down and thus works less hard to lower the chances of fatality in his actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
I find it a little odd, actually, that there is a line of objection to Batman actively killing in a scenario in which lethal force is mutually deployed, but not to Batman passively killing through deliberate inaction. I consider the former to be (broadly) morally permissible, but the latter incredibly immoral; because in the latter scenario the person is helpless and entirely at one's mercy. The real irony of the Nolan Batman is that when he says "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," he belies the pretense that he is "not an executioner." This is probably a deliberate comment on the politics of negative vs positive rights. Capitalism won't kill you, it merely won't save you from starvation, disease, etc. Its proponents consider this a moral stand against ideologies which are explicitly willing to execute those who stand in the way of saving the lives of others. By way of contrast, The Punisher actively seeks to deploy lethal force outside of a combat situation, both before combat has been joined by both parties and after an opponent has been subdued. He is both an executioner and an assassin. However, it should be said that The Punisher tends to be honest with himself and others about this. Frank Castle knows that he is a poo poo person driven by selfish desires, and that if society benefits from this it is largely by accident. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
I won't kill you but I don't have to save you is moral cowardice, plain and simple, compare that to the "hero cake" speech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I won't kill you but I don't have to save you is moral cowardice, plain and simple, compare that to the "hero cake" speech. I bet a hero cake tastes better than a don't-care cake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I bet a hero cake tastes better than a don't-care cake. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
What's the hero cake speech? Is that from Batman Begins as well? And yeah, I've always thought it weird that nerds crow so loudly over how cool BatBale rasping out that little donthavetosaveyou speech and then jumping away was, like that was some sort of extremely righteous and heroic behavior. Like, either the dude gets murdered by proxy, since Baleman could have saved him if he wanted to, or the dude miraculously survives somehow, but is now on the lam and able to do more city-destroying deviltry. Batman was greedy. He wanted him to die there, and took the laziest course of action to ensure it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Drifter posted:What's the hero cake speech? Is that from Batman Begins as well? He wanted the ultimate I-told-you-so. Ghul was like "whoa, you're a bit too theatrical" earlier on and so at the end Batman basically gets to show him "oh yeah? Well theatrical led me to the cape. And now my cape is gonna save my rear end! Batman A-WAYYYYYY"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Drifter posted:What's the hero cake speech? Is that from Batman Begins as well? Hero Cake is from BvS, where Pa Kent is telling Supes how he saved the farm from flooding, not realising he diverted it all into the next farm while he had his 'hero cake'. See, even when the concept of unintended consequences of heroics is written into the text, there seem heaps of people all too eager to miss the forest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Hero Cake is from BvS, where Pa Kent is telling Supes how he saved the farm from flooding, not realising he diverted it all into the next farm while he had his 'hero cake'. See, even when the concept of unintended consequences of heroics is written into the text, there seem heaps of people all too eager to miss the forest. Oh gently caress, that was an amazing speech to be in a superhero film. drat, I was REALLY impressed by all the dialog with Costner in BvS. Drifter fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Hero Cake is from BvS, where Pa Kent is telling Supes how he saved the farm from flooding, not realising he diverted it all into the next farm while he had his 'hero cake'. See, even when the concept of unintended consequences of heroics is written into the text, there seem heaps of people all too eager to miss the forest. Specifically about myopia and self congratulation. "While I was eating my hero cake, their horses were drowning." contrasted with "I'm afraid I didn't see it because I wasn't looking, Lo."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:They are trying to steal a virus to make a biological weapon; gently caress them. I suppose I should be surprised that some guy in Cine D is white-knighting terrorist death cultists who are trying to obtain a bio weapon while assaulting innocents and trying to kill the movies heroic protagonists...but gently caress, I'm not. What I'm saying is, I lust for more terrorist immolation death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I know, but it wasn't a discussion, it was an accusation saying that I have never made such arguments and have only ever relied on "memes", whatever that means. This is incorrect and just looking at my post history exposes it as a lie. SolidSnakesBandana posted:I wonder if Zack Snyder is familiar with Injustice: Gods Among Us. In that game, Superman turns evil when Joker kills Lois. but then again the same plot beat happened in Kingdom Come. Do you guys also hate that comic? Gorn Myson posted:I'm pretty sure the "Batman doesn't kill" obsessives just kind of want the satisfaction of the ultra-violence but with absolutely no consequences to it, which is how you end up with the Arkham games including a high speed battle tank Batmobile that crashes around Gotham but miraculously kills no one. The second, related problem with the "No Kill Rule" is that, as SMG eloquently pointed out, grown-ups don't talk about "No Kill Rules", they talk about concepts like justifiable use of force. I think it's great that we, as an audience, are seriously critiquing the values of superhero films, but it should be obvious that a "No Killing Ever (But Sadistic Maiming in Pursuit of Multiple Felonies is Okay)" is a deeply weird morality that is utterly tone-deaf to real concerns about violence, police brutality, vigilantism, race and class, and so on, as K. Waste pointed out in his post about BLM and use of force. The third reason is that the No Kill Rule is the centerpiece of the dumbest loving Batman stories ever written. Some tedious story where Batman gets self-righteous with one of his proteges because they were going to kill a mass murderer in the heat of battle, or another tedious story where Batman wrestles with his pathological inability to kill the Joker. All these stories do is throw in your face that the reason Batman & Friends don't kill villains is because those villains are valuable pieces of intellectual property. Imagine if, every time a given Avenger isn't in a given movie for production reasons, the plot of the film made a point of it and treated it with deadly moralistic seriousness, how they let them down or whatever. The audience would get sick of it. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:He had magical thermal/radar vision that could see the position of every person on the floor. And he's Batman. Those bullets wouldn't be indiscriminate. Karloff posted:Snakes posts are mostly pretty thoughtful and good, but he has engaged in the sisyphean task of criticizing Batman v Superman in this thread where there is a lot of defensiveness about that particular film, for reasons which I am still trying to understand. SolidSnakesBandana posted:Yeah he's not in the know like us smarties Karloff posted:Probably, I mean I could just be not brilliant and intelligent enough to understand Batman v Superman, which is of course, the smartest and best thing ever made. The greatest piece of storytelling since Shakepeare last put quill to paper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
There was a Batman story where Joker was about to be executed for murder, but Batman broke him out because he knew he wasn't guilty of this particular murder. Which has to be pretty high up there for dumb Batman stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
greatn posted:There was a Batman story where Joker was about to be executed for murder, but Batman broke him out because he knew he wasn't guilty of this particular murder. Which has to be pretty high up there for dumb Batman stories. Did the Joker make a quip about how craaaazy that was?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
He says "thanks, bats! Now I'm off to rape babies!" "Wait, sorry, I meant vape rabies"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
greatn posted:He says "thanks, bats! Now I'm off to rape babies!" Batman looks on, pleased with his actions this night.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Speaking of Batman, have anyone played the Telltale game? Apparently it made a big change to Batman's origin: his father was involved in organized crime and the Crime Alley murder was no accident. In TV news, if you want to catch up on iZombie, season 2 will be on Netflix next month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Batman looks on, pleased with his actions this night. "You're innocent Joker. Now enjoy your newfound freedom." "Thanks, Batsy!" *Batman turns around, pleased that justice has been done. Joker runs off, murders some kids in the frame.*
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
In fact, if I remember right, Batman ends it by telling the Joker "Now you owe your life to me!" Which drives the Joker crazy. I don't know why that's treated as a win for Batman, practically or ideologically. If anything it just furthers the view of Batman and the Joker as mythical characters, fighting because they're opposed forces of nature, beyond human morality. There will always be a Joker. Because there's no cure for him, no cure at all. Just a Batman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Speaking of Batman, have anyone played the Telltale game? Apparently it made a big change to Batman's origin: his father was involved in organized crime and the Crime Alley murder was no accident. I played episode one (of what will be a five or so episode game) and found it disgustingly dull and repetitive. And I could have sworn there have been stories where Wayne's parents followed down a similar path, but I can't for the life of me remember them. I just know when the reveal took place in the game I kinda went, "gguhh, again?", but maybe that was just because up until that point the Batman story was just kind of bog standard with uninteresting characters and I was bored of it all. Of Telltale's games, I really enjoyed Borderlands, Walking Dead 1, and to a slightly lesser extent Wolf Among Us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
HIJK posted:You can analyze the subtext of -isms if you want, I just don't really care since we get so much about politics in our everyday lives. It's nice not to think about it for a while. It's a movie about a closeted bisexual Army captain that punches his way to moral triumph, his politics are the least interesting thing about him. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are never "not thinking" about movies you watch. You can't "turn your brain off." Brains don't work that way. So when you refuse to think actively and critically about movies you see, what happens is that you passively go along with the point of view given you by the filmmaker. You say that a soldier "punching his way to moral triumph" in spite of what everyone else wants is not political, because you can't be bothered to consider it. This leads you to say nonsensical things, like that Captain America's defining trait is that he "does the right thing," when by your own admission you can't distinguish between "the right thing" and "whatever he wants to do." By your reasoning, Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Johann Schmidt, and Arnim Zola are all the same person, only differentiated by illusory "isms" that you wisely ignore. You're putting an astonishing amount of analysis into your refusal to analyze media. This sort of moralistic, explicit stance that you don't want to engage in critical thinking and how dare we ask you to do so--it's something I'm only used to seeing from college freshmen who are being asked to question their assumptions for the first time in their lives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
The idea of taking a film seriously by reading it and criticizing it is embarrassing to some, even moreso when the film in question is a superhero movie. Its ok to space out and enjoy some fun superhero action, that's not the realm of the nerd anymore, you can do that without fear of being judged for it. But if you analyze or attempt to have a serious discussion about it, that means you've gone over the line and are now a legit nerd. Its just part of what's happened in our culture, the line is in a different place now, but there's still a line that most people don't want to cross for fear of being given certain labels
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Rough Lobster posted:I suppose I should be surprised that some guy in Cine D is white-knighting terrorist death cultists who are trying to obtain a bio weapon while assaulting innocents and trying to kill the movies heroic protagonists...but gently caress, I'm not. What's heroic about napalming men via remote control? Do you also lust for old lady kidnappers death? In other, controversial news, I saw Terminator Genisys yesterday and very much enjoyed it.        ...and Tiny Sarah Connor was great: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
I love you Pocket Sarah Connor. Sarah Connor with the Good Eyebrows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Emilia Clarke apparently disliked the role? That's a shame. Not that there ever will be any sequels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
seravid posted:Emilia Clarke apparently disliked the role? That's a shame. Not that there ever will be any sequels. She's a poo poo actress so good riddance. If she wanted a shot at doing the role justice she really needed to alter her physical appearance at least somewhat. I know what Linda Hamilton did was a little extreme, but Clarke needed to get in the gym a little bit and get some muscle tone. Something along the lines of Emily Blunt in Live Die Repeat. The physicality is just way more believable when you see Hamilton's physique in T2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:She's a poo poo actress so good riddance. I like her in Game of Thrones, but she really does have a Seinfeld syndrome thing going on. She was the new Jennifer Lawrence for a bit, but all of her role choices and performances outside of GoT have been pretty meh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If she wanted a shot at doing the role justice she really needed to alter her physical appearance at least somewhat. I know what Linda Hamilton did was a little extreme, but Clarke needed to get in the gym a little bit and get some muscle tone. Something along the lines of Emily Blunt in Live Die Repeat. The physicality is just way more believable when you see Hamilton's physique in T2. T2's Sarah Connor put everything into making herself hard because she was trying to protect and raise the future savior of mankind by herself. Emily Blunt's character was trying to make herself into the perfect warrior that everything thinks she is because she got to cheat for a day. Genisys's Sarah Connor has been carried through life by a titanic cyborg with complete devotion to her. Linda Hamilton's physique sold Sarah being a survivalist. Emilia Clarke's physique sold Sarah being still a bit of a baby. Giving these two characters the same physical presence would run completely counter to the story being told and function entirely as service to the fans of T2. That isn't to say you need to like the movie's take on the character. But that's an issue with the fundamental conception of the movie, not Emilia Clarke's casting or whatever physical prep she did or didn't do for the role.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:T2's Sarah Connor put everything into making herself hard because she was trying to protect and raise the future savior of mankind by herself. Emily Blunt's character was trying to make herself into the perfect warrior that everything thinks she is because she got to cheat for a day. Genisys's Sarah Connor has been carried through life by a titanic cyborg with complete devotion to her. Linda Hamilton's physique sold Sarah being a survivalist. Emilia Clarke's physique sold Sarah being still a bit of a baby. Giving these two characters the same physical presence would run completely counter to the story being told and function entirely as service to the fans of T2. That's one way of looking at it, but its not really very consistently presented in the movie. She's constantly wearing tactical gear, and the first thing she does in the movie is bust through a wall with a truck, empty a pistol into a Terminator, and deliver a one-liner. I interpreted this version as being not quite as obsessive and paranoid as Hamilton's, but still extremely competent and serious about doing what needs to be done to protect the future. I think at the very least we're supposed to think she's probably been put through some pretty intense training by Pops right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:T2's Sarah Connor put everything into making herself hard because she was trying to protect and raise the future savior of mankind by herself. Emily Blunt's character was trying to make herself into the perfect warrior that everything thinks she is because she got to cheat for a day. Genisys's Sarah Connor has been carried through life by a titanic cyborg with complete devotion to her. Linda Hamilton's physique sold Sarah being a survivalist. Emilia Clarke's physique sold Sarah being still a bit of a baby. Giving these two characters the same physical presence would run completely counter to the story being told and function entirely as service to the fans of T2. Yes, I thought Clarke did a solid job portraying a badass, extensively well-trained soldier that has never actually seen combat due to being carried all her life by a goddamn Terminator. Of course she's not going to look or act like Hamilton's Sarah. Still pretty drat fierce:  
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:07
|
|