|
Emilia Clarke was fine, it was Jai Courtney that really dropped the ball. His back-and-forth with Schwarzenegger was pretty massively one-sided. Still thought the movie was all right though.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
seravid posted:Of course she's not going to look or act like Hamilton's Sarah. I definitely agree with that, which is why I threw out Emily Blunt as a good example of a middle ground that I think Clarke should have been going for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Or a better idea: Don't make the movie about the goddang Connors'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted: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. Well, that's exactly it, she's so prepped for Terminators that it's actually not that much work for her to kill them. She's got her armor penetrating rifle, which while it takes skill to use, doesn't require significant physical strength or endurance. She's got her kill room with acid in the ceiling, so she doesn't need to run very far from a T-1000. And she doesn't think she needs to be ready for the unexpected, because she thinks Pops knows what's coming. Yeah, she's been trained. She's very good at driving and shooting. And I'm sure she's in good shape. But she's never shown having lived the sort of life that flenses the fat from your body. She's prepped, but she's never lived a hard life. I was dubious about her casting beforehand, but casting someone who hasn't seemed to have quite lost their baby fat turns out to have been perfect. CelticPredator posted:Or a better idea: The characters are Connors in nearly name only. Like, "John Connor" is a shapeshifting robot. "Sarah Connor," as people are complaining about, is very different than what came before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I know a professor who teaches a class on superheroes, a large component of which is watching DC and Marvel films. She says that the biggest problem in her class is that it's often difficult to get students to engage in any criticism at all--because, and I quote "People watch these movies because they think nothing is required of them." I've been wanting to pull this comment out of my rear end for a while, but the long story short is that I think historically from just about every direction, from audiences to to critics to the actual people making the films, comic book movies were not seen as serious film to be looked at too deeply, they were seen as the ultimate commercial movie. Even kids/family movies and cartoons might get some eventual historical significance or analysis of what the movie was REALLY about, but comic book movies hardly got that until around the time of Ang Lee's Hulk. I don't think it really finally exploded until around the summer of 2008 with TDK, Iron Man, Hulk and impending shared MCU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I definitely agree with that, which is why I threw out Emily Blunt as a good example of a middle ground that I think Clarke should have been going for. Edge of Tomorrow's Emily Blunt isn't a middle ground, though, dang. I suppose doing an elbow lever instead of a planche could cost her a few points. Regarding Clarke: right from the start (sniper scene), she acted convincingly enough for me to believe she was (a version of) Sarah Connor, even without striated deltoids. seravid fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
seravid posted:Edge of Tomorrow's Emily Blunt isn't a middle ground, though, dang. I suppose doing an elbow lever instead of a planche could cost her a few points. We're comparing her to Linda Hamilton in T2 remember, not us normal humans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, she's been trained. She's very good at driving and shooting. And I'm sure she's in good shape. But she's never shown having lived the sort of life that flenses the fat from your body. She's prepped, but she's never lived a hard life. I was dubious about her casting beforehand, but casting someone who hasn't seemed to have quite lost their baby fat turns out to have been perfect. In the same way, Jai Courtney's version of Kyle Reese doesn't have PSTD. John Connor's tactics have become so refined, through repeated time-loops, that they win the war rather easily. Reese hasn't suffered much hardship either. The point of the film is that the characters have all become complacent - stuck in their ways, going through the motions. So, even though they have the same names and clothes as the resistance heroes from 1984, they've subtly morphed into the bad guys: servants of a liberal billionaire tech CEO. It is a Captain America analogy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Plus the self defense angle with Skynet who is doing what it can to survive is also shown more personified by being a child and aging rapidly due to stress while the heroes visibly try to kill it and it hasn't done anything yet or gone online. Remind me, was effort being made to reason with it so much as in all iterations it's noted it acts in self defense? Terminator John is shown clearly trying to reason with the heroes. Like T1 and T2 is after the fact that Skynet has sent back Terminators to prevent its death and it is far from Judgement Day so it's about survival. But now you are at Judgement Day when Skynet goes online and all everyone's doing is trying to kill it immediately. It's kind of tragic. So an ending proposed where Skynet is attempting to build a society of humans in peace even if ruling may be indications it's trying to find redemption for an outburst or what if some hero is sent back and gives Skynet a lolipop and a hug when it's sentient?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
I believe James Cameron has been on record saying that Skynet believes its early actions against humanity was a mistake, but one done in self defense. It would make total sense that Skynet is trying to rig things up so that it can finally coexist with humanity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I know what Linda Hamilton did was a little extreme  She got in shape enough to show tone, and was capable of pull-ups
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Pocket Sarah Connor I love this so much!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
cvnvcnv posted:
Well that's the understatement of the century. She's absolutely ripped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:"You're innocent Joker. Now enjoy your newfound freedom." *Batman turns around, pleased that justice has been done and unaware of the "kick me!" sign taped to his cape.*
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted: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. How can these stories and ideas be tedious if they have yet to be properly explored? I and many other people love these stories. Under the Red Hood for instance. The Killing Joke. Although I'm sure there's about a hundred people about to tell me that those comics are garbage. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Like T1 and T2 is after the fact that Skynet has sent back Terminators to prevent its death and it is far from Judgement Day so it's about survival. But now you are at Judgement Day when Skynet goes online and all everyone's doing is trying to kill it immediately. It's kind of tragic. So an ending proposed where Skynet is attempting to build a society of humans in peace even if ruling may be indications it's trying to find redemption for an outburst or what if some hero is sent back and gives Skynet a lolipop and a hug when it's sentient? An exploration of this is exactly what I wanted out of the sequel we'll sadly never get. Genisys has Kyle Reese in a pretty murky place. Given that the future can change, and that the Skynet being birthed is not the original Skynet at all, all they have is the possibility that it will try to burn down the whole planet. But if there's even a one-percent chance...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:How can these stories and ideas be tedious if they have yet to be properly explored? I and many other people love these stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:They can't be "properly" explored without either putting the focus on the meta-narrative (Batman and Joker won't kill each other because they exist to make money for Time Warner Inc.) or making Batman into an unrelatable monster (his rivalry with the Joker is an insane game with no regard for the impact on mere human beings). Neither of those stories may be published, but I'd absolutely read them both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
The first has been written more than once, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Batmans no kill policy started in like 1940 or some poo poo when Bob Kane's publisher decided that heroes shouldn't kill people. I'm on a phone so I don't feel like grabbing a link but it was discussed in the Making of Mask of the Phantasm. You are displaying a total lack of imagination to say that there is simply no way to do no kill stories well
SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I think everyone forgets the comma. It's actually a "No, kill rule"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Works on contingency?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I think everyone forgets the comma. It's actually a "No, kill rule" I thought it was no kill rule like there shouldn't be a rule on killing. Do whatever!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Works on contingency? I thought that was so over the top when I first saw it, but now that I work for a law firm I've seen that its really not all that far-fetched. They throw around terms like "free consult", but its just semantics, if you want a legit meeting with an attorney you're gonna pay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Batmans no kill policy started in like 1940 or some poo poo when Bob Kane's publisher decided that heroes shouldn't kill people. I'm on a phone so I don't feel like grabbing a link but it was discussed in the Making of Mask of the Phantasm. You are displaying a total lack of imagination to say that there is simply no way to do no kill stories well
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Batmans no kill policy started in like 1940 or some poo poo when Bob Kane's publisher decided that heroes shouldn't kill people. I'm on a phone so I don't feel like grabbing a link but it was discussed in the Making of Mask of the Phantasm. You are displaying a total lack of imagination to say that there is simply no way to do no kill stories well He started no killing because Robin, his youthful sidekick, was introduced and then kept on the roster. As well as pressure from socially aware people complaining about the violence of this comic and nudity and weird poo poo from other comics. Not killing was an appeasement to capitalism that they then worked into the stories. Him not killing was also the best way to maintain stories over time. Otherwise you get poo poo like Hitler Joker, or Duala Dent. There are great ways to do no kill stories, I mean, especially for detectives - True Detective on HBO only had their heroes kill an incredibly low-level antagonist or two, and the more powerful members of the occult were too hidden away to even be approached, much less caught. The Killing Joke showed a side of Batman that demonstrated his willingness to kill as a last resort, but his desires were superseded by Jim Gordon's constant influence beating him over the head to NOT kill Joker. Drifter fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Neither of those stories may be published, but I'd absolutely read them both. Drifter posted:He started no killing because Robin, his youthful sidekick, was introduced and then kept on the roster. As well as pressure from socially aware people complaining about the violence of this comic and nudity and weird poo poo from other comics. Not killing was an appeasement to capitalism that they then worked into the stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Drifter posted:He started no killing because Robin, his youthful sidekick, was introduced and then kept on the roster. As well as pressure from socially aware people complaining about the violence of this comic and nudity and weird poo poo from other comics. Not killing was an appeasement to capitalism that they then worked into the stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:This is not true because Superman was also subject to the same prohibition yet he had no sidekick. What about Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen (rip)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:This is not true because Superman was also subject to the same prohibition yet he had no sidekick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:This is not true because Superman was also subject to the same prohibition yet he had no sidekick. Your problem here, Kurzon, is that you seem to be responding without actually understanding what people are talking about. Take a minute, re-read the last few posts, and critically think for a moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Nah, I said you repeated a dumb meme, if you made actual arguments in the past it doesn't change that. Because a criticism is popular, it does not make it no longer valid. Darth Vader's "NOOOOOO" is popularly criticized, and became a meme as well. This does not change the fact that it's still terrible. Halloween Jack posted:
Your first and second point there are interesting, but sadly mistaken. A Batman story where Batman kills that deals with real consequences of violence and concerns about police brutality, vigilantism, race and class sounds like something that could be truly compelling. But that's not Batman v. Superman though. Let's use the above example; that Arkham City is a flawed work because it shows the trappings of violence but not the consequences as no one dies. By contrast Grand Theft Auto has similar vehicular mayhem but with lots of violence and death. So I guess that means it's a mature work. Well, no it isn't. nor is it interested in what violence means, or entails. Neither Grand Theft Auto or Arkham City are interested in dealing with consequences of violence, they are both power fantasies that give you the power to cause lethal and non-lethal mayhem righteously or not (and no, the police chasing you and if they catch/kill you, your weapons are lost, does not qualify as a thoughtful examination of violence ) Your mistake here is that your seeing violence, mayhem and death as the sole measure of whether something qualifies as mature or not. I disagree, I feel that the way a film tells its story, communicates ideas and contextualizes its influences and source material, all through the use of cinematic language is how one measures maturity in a work. Although it must be said, both Batman and Superman are children's comic book characters, or at least originated that way, so maybe a little immaturity and childish fun isn't so terrible? Swinging back to Batman v Superman; its functional problem is, and I've spoken on this before, is that the Batman (and Superman) killing, doesn't communicate anything than the power fantasy aspects which means it is a symptom not the cause, of the films entirely flawed approach, which is one-note indulgence to the viewer tied together with bad plotting. Snyder's innate gift with cinematic immediacy supercedes the wider themes of the work, which are either thinly sketched, absent or curiously mean-spirited. There are so many scenes that I could point to and say "That's a great scene" because it is viscerally thrilling or exciting, but they do not add up to any sort of cohesive whole or meaning, because the story scenes are really only there to piston the film to the next "cool" moment, it's a specious work that looks slick and gives the surface level illusion of thematic depth by featuring a lot of people on TV's saying "What does Superman mean?" but never really tackles this question meaningfully. Basically, Batman v Superman is a jar of piss, and you're telling me it's Granny's Peach Tea. Your third point can easily be reversed and pointed at Batman v Superman as well. Like it or not, Batman and Superman are pieces of intellectual property and to pretend that BvS is somehow free from the concerns of satisfying the marketplace is generous to say the least. What, you think incoherently mashing together The Dark Knight Returns and Death of Superman has nothing to do with the fact that those comics were bestsellers? The Death of Superman isn't even particularly regarded as a good story, more of a savvy media event. Also, perhaps Batman has a no kill rule to explain the fact that Joker can return for market reasons, but at least that's a reason, there is NO reason why DCEU Batman shouldn't have wasted the Joker long ago. Why does helpless hanging-by-his-leg man face lethal justice - and yes, it's murder, the moment before he kicks him Batman uses a batarang to subdue an enemy from afar, so he could do that with grenade guy as well, but the filmmakers show that Batman kicks the dude, communicating that he did it maliciously - but clown man who kills spuriously, and killed his partner, gets nothing? This isn't about "NOT MY BATMAN", if this was the first Batman thing ever, and he was just an invented for the screen villain for the Man of Steel sequel then it still wouldn't work, because the character as presented is a one-note mess of indulgences and nothingness, I'm not bothered about the Man of Steel neck breakage because even though it's arguably NOT MY SUPERMAN because that neck breakage was interesting in the terms of that narrative as it was about Superman severing a part of himself, it was compelling, and maybe necessary for that story, so though not the one I grew up with, was good. BvS is not good. It is bad. Halloween Jack posted:I agree, some people in this thread are extremely defensive about BvS. It was a cheeky joke, maybe you (AND Batman vs Superman for that matter) should cheer up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Your mistake here is that your seeing violence, mayhem and death as the sole measure of whether something qualifies as mature or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
As usual, if you remove the parts of your post that truly boil down to "it's just bad," it would be about 10% as long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Nice casual racism, fucktard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Nope. Wrong. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 Riddler trophies. Well, thank you for your quick response and your time it took to read it. Martman posted:As usual, if you remove the parts of your post that truly boil down to "it's just bad," it would be about 10% as long. I dunno, I think I went into quite a bit of detail. But it is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Martman posted:As usual, if you remove the parts of your post that truly boil down to "it's just bad," it would be about 10% as long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Mean Bean Machine posted:Nice casual racism, fucktard. Drifter is Asian
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
 Mean Bean Machine posted:Nice casual racism, fucktard. Nice casual ableism, neighbor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Batman shouldn't waste his time with martial arts anymore. Just give him a gun and some grenades. He'll be like an 80's action hero. Think Arnie in Commando!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:01
|
|
