|
Karloff posted:It was a cheeky joke, maybe you (AND Batman vs Superman for that matter) should cheer up. ROGERS: Dr. Banner! This might be a good time for you to get angry BANNER: That's my secret, Cap. I'm never angry. In fact, this is always funny to me
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Karloff posted: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. What in BvS says he didn't?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What in BvS says he didn't? Is Leto Joker #2?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Is Leto Joker #2? Jared Leto is not in Batman v Superman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Well, there's the fact that BvS strongly implies that Bruce has been Comics Batman for most of his career (he definitely hasn't branded people before, and Ultimate makes it even clearer that this is out of character for him) and that he's in a new, scary phase of his Batmanning. So if he were Comics Batman up until METROPOLIS: MANKIND INTROS SUPES then Joker has lots of reasons to be alive. Or maybe Joker is...just...that...good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Well, there's the fact that BvS strongly implies that Bruce has been Comics Batman for most of his career (he definitely hasn't branded people before, and Ultimate makes it even clearer that this is out of character for him) and that he's in a new, scary phase of his Batmanning. Right, Suicide Squad handles this by having Joker be in Arkham during Batman's wild period. But even if it didn't, it would be ridiculous to slam BvS for something done in another movie released after it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What in BvS says he didn't? BvS makes it very clear that Batman killing is a recent and concerning issue. Why is this so hard to understand*? *Not referring to you Sir K
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
I really wonder how some people in this thread manage to watch action movies without starting to scream about murder. Batman has brutally attacked criminals. This inspires revulsion both among characters and audiences. Superman (who feels that he's failing despite all of his power) is moved to stop him. = 'Doesn't communicate anything other than power fantasy aspects' Superman is falsely worshipped. Lex Luthor kneels before Satan. = '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' Superman has become a symbol of both hope and fear for people, who project their needs and expectations on him. The worship and fear-mongering both end up hamstringing him. = 'a lot of people on TV's saying "What does Superman mean?" but never really tackles this question meaningfully' BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaZTgOAK7FI Sense and Motion fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I dunno, I think I went into quite a bit of detail. But it is bad. I went back and looked and this is the single time you actually reference any concrete part of the movie: Karloff posted:featuring a lot of people on TV's saying "What does Superman mean?" Otherwise it's just "...ad. i didn't like it. it's bad. i didn't like it. it's bad. i didn't like it. it's b..." ad nauseam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
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. 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. That's pretty much the long and short of it, yeah. Under the Red Hood was laughable and Moore's long since disowned Killing Joke for its pointless brutality. Crion fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:This is not true because Superman was also subject to the same prohibition yet he had no sidekick. This is a basic misunderstanding of how censorship and subtext work together. Batman keeps the killing hidden for Robin's sake. It's censored for the children, and for the censors who 'think of the children'. Of course adults know that Batman kills people, but the denial allows him to remain innocent in the eyes of the Big Other. If Robin is told that he was delivered to Earth by a stork, I pray that you won't immediately update the Batman wiki to say vigilante heroes hatch from eggs. Perhaps the classic song about Robin himself laying an egg is now canon. (To be absolutely clear: in reality, there is no stork. They're actually talking about sexual reproduction & childbirth.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:This is not true because Superman was also subject to the same prohibition yet he had no sidekick. Jimmy Olson was not always a twenty-something CIA agent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I went back and looked and this is the single time you actually reference any concrete part of the movie: Alright, after the flashback sequences the film opens in a convoluted (admittedly clearer in the Ultimate Cut) sequence in the desert where a complex situation occurs which Lex Luthor has arranged in order to make Superman look bad. This kicks off the narrative where the public mistrust Superman as they feel he may have had a part in the deaths of some people. This scene is entirely superfluous, the function of it is clearly to give the nebulous public a reason to distrust Superman, but wasn't that what the ending of Man of Steel was meant to achieve, is s fight that destroys a big chunk of a city not controversial enough, why contrive this entirely useless scene? Unless perhaps the thrill of crafting a moment where Superman smashes a terrorist through multiple brick walls and Jimmy Olsen gets shot in the face was too good to pass up. This of course leads to the first act revolving around multiple plots running concurrently, Superman investigates Batman, Batman investigates the White Portuguese, Lex Luthor tries to convince Senator Finch to go along with his mad plan, Lois Lane does her own investigation, but these scenes aren't constructed with any thought for narrative propulsion. Superman's is most interesting as he is investigating Batman and forms part of his motivation to want to stop Batman (which was unbelievably removed from the theatrical, is there any more damning evidence that the filmmakers don't understand BASIC story telling). But the White Portuguese is removed of context and clarity (a dirty bomb is mentioned but it would have been more interesting to know that Batman was going after kyrptonite earlier, why hold this information? Otherwise he's just hunting a random dude for reasons that don't have anything to do with anything). There are slivers, and I mean tiny slivers of character detail, Alfred gets to explain to Bruce and the audience who Batman is supposed to be in some pretty raw lazy writing, this conversation, though ably performed doesn't actually carry any weight, or hurt, or the kind of frisson between a parental figure and the man he thinks of as a son, I mean compare it against the Alfred and Bruce scenes in Rises, there's no sense of Batman as a fallen angel, or Alfred's dissapointment, it's just a one-note "Have you noticed your darker now? Have the audience noticed" Also, Batman's darker nature is introduced where he goes after sex traffickers, so if the film makers were actually hoping you'd feel sorry for the criminals and think of Batman as a bad guy, why the gently caress did they pick the most reprehensible people in the world for him to go after? And then there's the Knightmare sequence, where it is revealed to Bruce that Lois Lane is the key, and he proceeds to spend the rest of the film not caring about this, never does he worry about Lois, or think of her safety, he barely even reacts to her presence unless she's right in front of him. Does he even know who she is? It's a cool sequence where Batman uses a gun against a lot of people and when I watched I was like "Wow, that's really cool, this nightmare shows Batman at his worst possible point, where he uses guns and murder, it's not just that the world has fallen but that this nightmare future is one where he is forced to be a monster and....no wait, he's got machine guns on his car, that is just how he rolls, that Knightmare sequence was just there to be awesome". And.... I can't do this anymore, almost every bit of connective tissue in this film is broken,I'm not even an hour in, I haven't even got close to the part where Batman opens a file with all the trailers of DC's upcoming films. I'm tired, and it's late, and I'm just gonna go to bed. Good night. EDIT: And honestly, at this point I don't think either party is going to convince each other of anything, and we are going in circles and no one is getting anything valuable out of this. I am glad you all enjoyed the film, genuinely. Have a good one. Karloff fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Superman smashing the terrorist ties into the issue running throughout the movie that Superman's attachment to Lois is preventing him from being the hero that he feels the world needs. We're kind of intimidated by how pissed off Superman is, while still empathizing with him. When Batman stops the sex traffickers we see that even the people he saves are terrified of him, he's branding people, it's messed up. We also see that he's only bothering to save these particular women to further his own ends. I.e. he appears possessed by the mission he's on and literally looks demonic, you know? It's not about how bad the criminals were, it's about why Batman is acting the way he is. The way you analyze the movie is basically "And then Alfred said a thing. But it was bad. And then Batman does a thing. But it was bad." Replace "bad" with "one-note," "not cohesive," etc. You're listing things that happened in the movie, and you're saying they were bad, but you're not putting forward an argument using the movie itself for why it was bad. When you actually attempt to make points like the two above, it seems like you're either not willing or not able to put in an actual few minutes of thought into other possible interpretations of the scene.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted: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. Fredric Wertham back in the 50s managed to gently caress up the comicbook genre for decades and we're still feeling the effects of that today. There was actually a pretty big superhero movie industry in the 30s and 40s which pumped out tons of serialised movies but superheroes got relegated to TV in the 50s and didn't get back onto the silver screen until Donner's Superman (apart from the '66 Batman). A big part of the problem is that the serialised nature of comicbooks and of superhero radio shows and of movies in the 30s and 40s (when the average cinema goer would go to the movies once a week regardless of what was on, so the cinemas needed new movies and new serials every week) and of the 50s/60s TV shows imposed a repetitious quasi-sitcommy vibe onto the genre for the first few decades of the its existence, and that forced a bunch of limitations onto the genre which it still hasn't fully escaped. The shows/movies had to be accessible to anyone who jumped in halfway through the series so they had simplistic origin stories that could be explained in a 30 second intro sequence and they tended to re-establish the status quo at the end of every episode so the characters pretty much never developed or grew. Superheroes could have adventures but they couldn't have genuine arcs. When you combine that with the whole 'Seduction of the Innocent' movement in the 50s it's no wonder that superheroes have been widely regarded as dumb trash for kids ever since. There'd been a whole bunch of comics aimed at adults but the introduction of the Comics Code Authority in 1954 killed pretty much all of them off for decades. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Alright, after the flashback sequences the film opens in a convoluted (admittedly clearer in the Ultimate Cut) sequence in the desert where a complex situation occurs which Lex Luthor has arranged in order to make Superman look bad. This kicks off the narrative where the public mistrust Superman as they feel he may have had a part in the deaths of some people. This scene is entirely superfluous, the function of it is clearly to give the nebulous public a reason to distrust Superman, but wasn't that what the ending of Man of Steel was meant to achieve, is s fight that destroys a big chunk of a city not controversial enough, why contrive this entirely useless scene? Unless perhaps the thrill of crafting a moment where Superman smashes a terrorist through multiple brick walls and Jimmy Olsen gets shot in the face was too good to pass up. this scene doesn't exist to provide a reason for the public to doubt superman, it exists to make superman himself(and potentially the viewer) doubt his actions; stopping zod from destroying humanity was very clearly the right thing to do no matter the collateral damage involved, but there's more wiggle room and questions with the scenario lex estbalished
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:this scene doesn't exist to provide a reason for the public to doubt superman, it exists to make superman himself(and potentially the viewer) doubt his actions; stopping zod from destroying humanity was very clearly the right thing to do no matter the collateral damage involved, but there's more wiggle room and questions with the scenario lex estbalished Right, you'd have to a bit damaged to hate Superman based on him saving Metropolis less well than you'd like. There's a couple characters in the movie that illustrate this even.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Right, you'd have to a bit damaged to hate Superman based on him saving Metropolis less well than you'd like. This was the starting point of Civil War, right? I remember some Politician was chastising the Avengers for the Alien Invasion and their most damning evidence was Hulk jumping from building to building fighting giant, flying alien space worm tanks, then cutting to Winter Soldier where the evil Nazi CIA deathblimps were being destroyed, saving millions of lives, and then haha, finally Age of Ultron's floating island crashing back down. I'm sorry, I just remembered that happening and thought it was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Going by all the previous movies Cap should have been pro-registration and Iron Man against registration, but they really had to contort stuff and make Cap a dumbass to get them be on the same sides they were on in the comic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Not like they really should have sought to make it like the comic. The video game Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 came out about two years after the comic and it had a much better take on Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
In a store today and saw a globe-style Christmas tree ornament from BvS of the pair fighting: Just what my X-Mas tree was missing.Neo Rasa posted:Going by all the previous movies Cap should have been pro-registration and Iron Man against registration, but they really had to contort stuff and make Cap a dumbass to get them be on the same sides they were on in the comic. Couldn't have Avengers 2/Winter Soldier even sort of hinted at something along these lines? Tony has a need to fix things on his own if he thinks its his fault. He thinks he knows better than anyone else. Cap's happy to be a soldier again, he sees SHIELD as the agency it's supposed to be, he thinks the corruption is all rooted out. It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to have flipped it around to be something different. I really sort of wonder if Iron Man 3 had never existed as it did how an IM3: Age of Ultron (with greater focus on Tony's post-Avengers experience wanting to built a suit of armor around the planet that culminates in Ultron) and Avengers: Civil War (repercussions of IM3 and could put Tony and Steve more at odds without Bucky being there) would have played out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Alright, after the flashback sequences the film opens in a convoluted (admittedly clearer in the Ultimate Cut) sequence in the desert where a complex situation occurs which Lex Luthor has arranged in order to make Superman look bad. This kicks off the narrative where the public mistrust Superman as they feel he may have had a part in the deaths of some people. This scene is entirely superfluous, the function of it is clearly to give the nebulous public a reason to distrust Superman, but wasn't that what the ending of Man of Steel was meant to achieve, is s fight that destroys a big chunk of a city not controversial enough, why contrive this entirely useless scene? Unless perhaps the thrill of crafting a moment where Superman smashes a terrorist through multiple brick walls and Jimmy Olsen gets shot in the face was too good to pass up. Okay, this is better, but now it's taking the form of "A thing happened in the film. It was bad. Another thing happened in the film. I didn't like it." Like, in your second paragraph, your list all the plots in the second act. Okay. Then you say that the White Portugese is removed from context and clarity. Ok- wait, what? What does that even mean? How does that follow from its bare existence in the script? And this goes on. When you escape this pattern, you spend your time fantasizing about what either the director or the audience was thinking. There's this repeated reference to obscene enjoyment someone, somewhere is purportedly getting instead - like, supposedly the desert scene is there to show increasing frictions between Superman and the US government. But I'm sure that really it was there because those sick, twisted, freaks were getting off to Jimmy Olsen dying! Those savages! Those animals! But I just don't see it. Isn't it it more logical to note that MoS ended with Superman interfering with the US military and getting away with it, and then BvS starts with Superman interfering with the US military and not really getting away with it, and that contrast is worth putting onscreen? Where are these imaginary attendees of a gladiatorial arena who're baying for Olsen's blood coming from? This is demonstrated no better in a thing you keep saying that people keep quoting and responding to with psyduck emoticons or whatever: your constant refrain that people accept a killer Batman because killer Batman is acting out some vicious power fantasy of theirs, even though no one says anything approaching this when they actually talk about how they read the movie. It's like you see someone explain that people dying as a result of Batman's actions is an ugly inevitability given the character's other properties and you just recoil, like, no! They can't mean it! They're just lying to cover up their psychogamer murder-lust!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:This is demonstrated no better in a thing you keep saying that people keep quoting and responding to with psyduck emoticons or whatever: your constant refrain that people accept a killer Batman because killer Batman is acting out some vicious power fantasy of theirs, even though no one says anything approaching this when they actually talk about how they read the movie. It's like you see someone explain that people dying as a result of Batman's actions is an ugly inevitability given the character's other properties and you just recoil, like, no! They can't mean it! They're just lying to cover up their psychogamer murder-lust! People have called out him on the "NOT MY BATMAN" mindset, but it's deeper than that: he's convinced that anyone who likes BVS is worshipping a false idol ("Psycho Batman"), hence the baffling "YOUR BATMAN" posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Personally nothing gets me harder than Batman going on a misguided mission, killing a bunch of people in the process, and then realizing he was a total idiot right before he goes too far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
A superhero movie thread is the last place I'd expect to find cantiflas
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Going by all the previous movies Cap should have been pro-registration and Iron Man against registration, but they really had to contort stuff and make Cap a dumbass to get them be on the same sides they were on in the comic. Kurzon fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
I am watching civil war right now and it's a shame that the movie stops in the middle to introduce the recruitment of spiderman. I mean the kid is great and endearing and robert downey is charming as always, the scene is great but feels completely out of place with the tone of the movie.Also bringing a 14 looking kid to a fight with dangerous individuals. hump day bitches! fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Okay, this is better, but now it's taking the form of "A thing happened in the film. It was bad. Another thing happened in the film. I didn't like it." Like, in your second paragraph, your list all the plots in the second act. Okay. Then you say that the White Portugese is removed from context and clarity. Ok- wait, what? What does that even mean? How does that follow from its bare existence in the script? And this goes on. Re-read my post. I explain what bolded means the very sentence after, you see how that works? I make a statement, then I back it up and with the film in the next sentence after. None of you have put forth anything even slightly compelling to argue I'm wrong, none of you use the film as I have in any interesting fashion, Bravest of the Lamps a few pages back use one sentence descriptions of things in the film (that arguably do not happen) but failed to actually argue how the film communicates this (because he can't, because it doesn't). All you all have done is convince me how right I am, because rather than tackle my arguments or say anything interesting at all you just raise some sort of half-baked, insecure reason why anyone who dislikes Batman v Superman has some alternative agenda, whether it's "NOT MY BATMAN" or something else, or that my arguments just aren't communicative at all, or you say they're "innacurate" and fail to elaborate upon why. The sheer madness of you accusing me of accusing you all of loving a "PSYCHO BATMAN", which was a comment in response to you all saying "that anyone who doesn't like murder Bat just wants to vicariously experience violence without the real life responsibility" is hypocrisy of the highest order, I can barely comprehend it. The very fact that you think Batman v Superman is a commentary on violence at all, and bring up no evidence to back this terrible assertion up is damning in and of itself. I explained why the Knightmare sequence has no purpose for example, I didn't just say it was bad, I said it was bad BECAUSE it has no import or function on anything else in the film, the one bit of salient information "It's all about Lois" going forward has NO affect on Batman. That is one of the foundational concepts of storytelling; an event happens which has an effect on something else, or changes something else. BvS is marinated in scenes that have no effect on anything, and when all those scenes have to offer are visually, dynamic, violent or cool comic book imagery and nothing else, I feel I am justified in calling it an empty power fantasy puppet show which alludes to interesting concepts in order to convince people it's about something, but it's about nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
quote:And then there's the Knightmare sequence, where it is revealed to Bruce that Lois Lane is the key, and he proceeds to spend the rest of the film not caring about this, never does he worry about Lois, or think of her safety, he barely even reacts to her presence unless she's right in front of him. Does he even know who she is? It's a cool sequence where Batman uses a gun against a lot of people and when I watched I was like "Wow, that's really cool, this nightmare shows Batman at his worst possible point, where he uses guns and murder, it's not just that the world has fallen but that this nightmare future is one where he is forced to be a monster and....no wait, he's got machine guns on his car, that is just how he rolls, that Knightmare sequence was just there to be awesome". Batman played way too much New Vegas before bed that day, he probably just thought Lois Lane was a npc he hasn't seen yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:I am watching civil war right now and it's a shame that the movie stops in the middle to introduce the recruitment of spiderman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Karloff posted:
Every single Marvel movie has a post credit sequence teasing the next movie. Please post a similar comment about all of them as well, since they are the same thing. Also, imagine that George Zimmerman's girlfriend was captured and held hostage by Sri Lankan rebels while on vacation in Africa. Suddenly, she's back home. We find out that Zimmerman chartered a private helicopter, flew there, and recovered her. It also is revealed that the village she was held in is now on fire and full of dead bodies. Do we collectively "¯\_(ツ)_/¯, oh well he rescued his GF." or is it an immediate media circus of political madness? :%s/George Zimmerman/Superman/g
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:this scene doesn't exist to provide a reason for the public to doubt superman, it exists to make superman himself(and potentially the viewer) doubt his actions; stopping zod from destroying humanity was very clearly the right thing to do no matter the collateral damage involved, but there's more wiggle room and questions with the scenario lex estbalished
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
The CEO of Time Warner just admitted that BvS and Suicide Squad were not "up to par" and they are looking to significantly shift the tone and improve "the creative" of future DC films. He also gave some details about taking control away from directors and more towards Geoff Johns and Jon Berg for future movies. DC Studios thinks that Batman's reboot was a success, but that Superman still needs to find a voice. BvS was a "launching point" for the DC universe to introduce lots of characters and it may have suffered. They are happy with Wonder Woman, The Joker, and Batman's reception though. quote:Time Warner chief admits DC movies not up to par, promises a fix quote:“The DC Comics characters… have a little more lightness in them than maybe what you saw in those movies, so we’re thinking about that,” Bewkes told investors this week. quote:Despite these sobering, honest remarks, Bewkes also claimed that the movies are serving their primary function by operating as a moneymaking enterprise. “The main thing was to launch DC and reinvigorate it with the fan base,” he said. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:Every single Marvel movie has a post credit sequence teasing the next movie. Please post a similar comment about all of them as well, since they are the same thing. Well, there is a difference between a post-credits sequence which is an explicit advertisement for a following film (and can easily be disregarded hence its appearance post credits), and a scene right in the middle of the picture that is unmotivated and pointless, and has little affect on anything, especially if that scene is one of many scenes that are unmotivated and pointless. A better point of comparison would be the Thor vision quest in Age of Ultron, which probably serves more purpose than the Knightmare but is contrived due to it being a quick and tidy resolution to resolve multiple plot points all at once rather than have those resolutions bloom from character. Age of Ultron is pretty flawed, though probably still lightyears ahead of BvS, but also, whether Marvel is brilliant or terrible has no bearing on whether BvS is good or not, the comparison your making is simply "Yeah, but they did it too". I have no idea what you're talking about in the second part of your post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Had Stark defied the Sokovia Accords, his superhero career would have been over because the government would have seized all his assets, including his basement Iron Man factory. I feel like this is probably contradicted by the movie where we saw Stark break the Sokovia Accords Karloff posted:I explained why the Knightmare sequence has no purpose for example, I didn't just say it was bad, I said it was bad BECAUSE it has no import or function on anything else in the film, the one bit of salient information "It's all about Lois" going forward has NO affect on Batman. Lois is the one that explains the idea of "Martha" to Batman enough that he calms down and drops the spear, as opposed to his initial reaction of freaking out even more than he already was. One could say that she's "the key"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:
That's quite interesting, it certainly shows the "key" line in a new light, though I'm not sure it absolves the Knightmare sequence as a whole. Mainly because Batman only reacts to Lois saying that "It's his mother", not to Lois, and he still after that is unconcerned about her safety. Karloff fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Karloff posted:A better point of comparison would be the Thor vision quest in Age of Ultron, which probably serves more purpose than the Knightmare but is contrived due to it being a quick and tidy resolution to resolve multiple plot points all at once rather than have those resolutions bloom from character. Let's take a look at Thor's visions in Ultron: (These include the visions throughout the movie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iJrijyx5Oc two things to note: - It really has very little to do with the events of the movie. There's a quick shot of Ultron and a calamity but mostly it's "whoa look at these cool gems, they're gonna be used by a bad guy! oh and one of them powered Ultron I guess". Compare that with Knightmare, which is directly about Batman's fear of what Superman is and will bring to the world. - Thor's vision is unambiguously true. Like there are no events that he misinterprets and later has to backtrack on. He just somehow knows that he must go and shoot lightning at this pod even though that's what caused all the issues in the first place. As you noted, it would have been much more organic if Thor had reservations about awakening Vision. Contrast that with Bruce who is just as stalwart but ends up being incredibly misguided.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Karloff posted:None of you have put forth anything even slightly compelling to argue I'm wrong, none of you use the film as I have in any interesting fashion, Bravest of the Lamps a few pages back use one sentence descriptions of things in the film (that arguably do not happen) but failed to actually argue how the film communicates this (because he can't, because it doesn't). This is because you're simply flatly denying that anything happens in the movie. This is a losing position, which is why you end up talking little about the movie itself. Actually talking about the movie would mean admitting that it has plots and meanings that it communicates to the viewer. In BvS, Superman feels like he's failing despite his power because people either worship or fear him, which leaves him alone. This is communicated by him looking despondent at being worshipped and watching talking heads debate what he is. It's a very clear narrative that depends on the visuals. Another example: Batman's branding of a criminal becomes a symbol of his violent vigilantism (the police officer that likened Batman to "good guys" like him is shocked and disturbed). Batman's war against crime has always had it's supporters, but the branding makes it disturbingly personal. This is commentary on Batman's character and what he represents: audiences have enjoyed and approved of Batman, but now they realize that something's gone wrong. People are actually questioning Batman. Just lol when you deny that characters commenting on violence doesn't count as commentary on violence Karloff posted:The sheer madness of you accusing me of accusing you all of loving a "PSYCHO BATMAN", which was a comment in response to you all saying "that anyone who doesn't like murder Bat just wants to vicariously experience violence without the real life responsibility" is hypocrisy of the highest order, I can barely comprehend it. This is what you posted: Karloff posted:It's easy to dismiss my argument by saying that I'm all like "NOT MY BATMAN", but I can point the same accusation at you. This "IS YOUR BATMAN", the ultimate amalgamation of all the elements you have always desired Batman to be, you've emotionally attached to this version as it's a grotesquely incoherent Frankenstein's monster of Frank Miller, the Arkham games, and the "Batman beats everyone" cultural meme. It's all the indulgent one-dimensional aspects of the character crammed into one package, with all the interesting, thoughtful and compelling aspects sheared away. And that is why you love it. Karloff posted:Here's the thing with the "NOT MY BATMAN" argument.A lot of people who have been fond of and defended the kill Batman in BvS and other media have stated how much more a killing Batman makes sense and how it's a superior take than other versions where he is not seen killing (the cartoons etc) for a multitude of reasons, but fail to grasp that this is also a "NOT MY BATMAN" argument. By admitting to a preference in Batmen, you have admitted a preferred vision for Batman, and therefore any Batmen that do not align to this (ergo, any version that does not kill) is "NOT YOUR BATMAN". When Justice League is released, and Batman is shown to not be killing (which interviews and set reports have suggested will be the case, murder Bat is going away for a while guys, sorry) a lot of pro kill-Bat people in this thread who have accused others of making "NOT MY BATMAN" arguments will look at this new vision of Batman and think to themselves "Well, that's not MY Batman". You're saying that people who like Batman in BvS is because they love this fascist vigilante. You're so deep into "not my Batman" territory that you're accusing people of idolatry. They like the Wrong Batman. They always wanted this fascist vigilante. If they like this Batman, they hate other versions.This is what you've said above ("therefore any Batman that do no align to this.... is "NOT YOUR BATMAN"). In truth, nobody here loves fascist vigilante Batman because they agree with him or worship him. People like this version of Batman because he presents an interesting portrait of obsession and vengeance, and a conflict over justice and violence. It's a good extension of the adolescent fantasy of justice that Batman embodies. And above all, BvS communicates very clearly what Batman would feel like to an outsider or a normal person. Some audience members are even disturbed by this version, and end up denouncing the violence and vigilantism they usually support in action movies and superhero stories. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
The knightmare gives you the most crystal clear look into Batman's psyche of anything in the film, residually combined with the previous nightmare where the blood of his dead mother serious through the walls before a monster attacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:37
|
|