|
Karloff posted:You have, more than once, ignored my responses to questions you have specifically asked me. Why do you expect me to behave in a way that is any different from yourself? I'm not going around saying "Look nobody has ever given me a response to this thing I pointed out, therefore I win." If you want to ignore the ways you're blatantly wrong about those two scenes, don't act like you're genuinely looking for any kind of response or dialogue. So are you still claiming the first scene is superfluous?
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
You asked: You said this was the goal, and you said the "cinematic language" was used to achieve this goal, but you didn't actually construct an argument for how the cinematic language was used to achieve this goal. As far as not seeing the consequences of Batman's actions... you see people die. That is the whole point of this argument. Death is the consequence of action which is very dangerous and potentially fatal. Where other works shy away from showing that fighting (especially the kind of fighting Batman does) will often result in death, BvS does not. To which I wrote a very long answer and..... no response. Which is fine, we all have other stuff to do, but don't play the "you didn't respond to my posts" card on me. Look, I'm not biting, I have explained to you countless times and you ignore it or accuse me if some weird agenda, you are not listening because I am saying things you don't want to hear. Neither of us are getting anything out of this. I say we just don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
In that answer you attempted to use the cinematic language of the movie to prove your point. Good job. There's my response. What I didn't do was post afterwards "Look, Karloff didn't even try." You've claimed the opening scene is superfluous. That's nice if you feel that way, but you are basically objectively missing purposes that were served by that scene. People, including me, pointed out reasons for the scene to be in the movie. You then respond "None of you have put forth anything even slightly compelling to argue I'm wrong." It's just bad faith arguing dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:If he thinks Geoff Johns is the one that will save the DC movieverse than you have all the info you need about his decision making. For some reason my brain read that as "the DC moneyverse "which is guess would also work given the article we're discussing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:But that's an entirely different narrative. When you say Batman was never good, do you mean movie Batman? Or all Batmen? Because MY BATMAN gives petty criminals jobs at Wayne Enterprises and chills with the Justice League
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Martman posted: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. I stand by what I said when I said nothing compelling. This above, really? You don't explain how this Lois issue runs through the movie, you just state it does and expect me to take your word for it. You entirely miss the point of the Batman scene, taking the broad spectrum of horror-movie texture that it employs, ignoring the fact that one of the police specifically denotes Batman as a "good guy" and how the scared girls say "He saved us", and also ignore the long history of film heroes being introduced as formidable and threatening from the perspective of the bad guys, which is a long used tactic for communicating, yes you guessed it, power (look at the entrance of Indy in Raiders, the way he steps out the shadows, the menacing edge on William's score) but mostly you hide behind a wall of semiotic film theory while ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the functional understanding of how filmmakers utilise empathy, we have met Bruce before this point, we have seen him with Bats, we have spent an entire action sequence from his perspective, he is not alien to the viewer. Your analysis is dependent on each scene being viewed separately, which incidentally backs exactly my criticism of it. And then your final point was just to say Karloff BadMan doesn't like Batman v Superman (rhymes), ignoring all the points I made because it's easier. That is bad faith. But once more, now we are just arguing about who is the shitter debater, which is why I say we just shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:When you say Batman was never good, do you mean movie Batman? Or all Batmen? Because MY BATMAN gives petty criminals jobs at Wayne Enterprises and chills with the Justice League whenever that kinda thing propped up in batman stuff it always rubbed me the wrong way; it's a precursor to tony stark finding and buying the nearest empty building mid-hulk fight so he could destroy it or hulk never once ever killing a person in all his rampages because banner subconsciously did all these amazing calculations to avoid it it's the author assuring me these heroes and the violent power fantasies i get out of them are Good and Responsible and Marketable, it feels too clean in a convoluted way
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I stand by what I said when I said nothing compelling. This above, really? And now you'll claim that that is merely lip service, and the bathtub scene was just there to thrill 13 year old boys or something. Are you claiming that Clark's attachment to Lois interfering with his ability to be Superman is not part of the movie? Or are you just dissatisfied with the way it was presented? quote:You entirely miss the point of the Batman scene, taking the broad spectrum of horror-movie texture that it employs, ignoring the fact that one of the police specifically denotes Batman as a "good guy" and how the scared girls say "He saved us", and also ignore the long history of film heroes being introduced as formidable and threatening from the perspective of the bad guys, which is a long used tactic for communicating, yes you guessed it, power (look at the entrance of Indy in Raiders, the way he steps out the shadows, the menacing edge on William's score) but mostly you hide behind a wall of semiotic film theory while ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the functional understanding of how filmmakers utilise empathy, we have met Bruce before this point, we have seen him with Bats, we have spent an entire action sequence from his perspective, he is not alien to the viewer. Your analysis is dependent on each scene being viewed separately, which incidentally backs exactly my criticism of it. You've interpreted the scene in such a way that you are forced to conclude that we were meant to sympathize with the bad guys and that, therefore, the use of sex traffickers was a mistake. My argument was that none of what happens requires sympathy for the bad guys. You're now trying to shoehorn this scene into something along the lines of cops finding some dopey bank robbers hung up by Spider-Man's web, but the whole point is that there is something more sinister going on. EDIT: And I'm really not sure what you're going for at the end. The action sequence you're referring to, that we see from Bruce's perspective, is the one between Superman and Zod? I.e. the one we saw in the previous movie, but from Superman's position, when we empathized with him. Then we see him from Bruce's position and see how that makes Bruce hate him. Are you saying the opening Metropolis scene is also meant to make Superman look powerful and good, because we already empathize with Superman and know he saved a lot of people? To be direct, no! The point is that we see how a guy like Bruce can see someone like Superman as a dangerous alien. The scene you've referred to that initially helps us empathize with Bruce is the very same way that Batman is made to look like a demon in the sex trafficker scene. EDIT2: Oh right, and they say "It saved us." Not "He saved us." Martman fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Martman posted:The Gotham city police (notoriously, in basically every version of Batman, the most corrupt police force ever) like the fact that Batman does their job for them and can handle dirty work in ways they're not allowed to? Wow, I guess that makes him look like a good guy. Are you implying I was not aware Batman saved those women? The fact that Batman is being communicated as powerful is not the same as presenting a "power fantasy," if that's what you're implying. Kurzon fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Karloff posted:You so thoroughly missed the point of my posts, but maybe I should have made them clearer (like the storytelling in BvS lol), The point I was making was how the "NOT MY BATMAN" defence is a lovely position to take because it can easily be applied to anyone if they have any preference in Batmans at all. Mate chill out
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Karloff posted:ignoring the fact that one of the police specifically denotes Batman as a "good guy" Karloff posted:we have met Bruce before this point, we have seen him with Bats, we have spent an entire action sequence from his perspective, he is not alien to the viewer. Older police officer: "How about you don't shoot the good guys? ...Oh. Oh. Jesus Christ. He branded him." Younger police officer stares in horror. Yes, this is alienating - and it creates a conflict, because we're very much privy to the character's psychology, so it's alienating to look at him from this outside perspective. Watching Batman in action is a dissonant experience. This is a good conflict the movie has set up. You're both attracted and repulsed by the anti-hero. Now it seems you find it offensive because there's "empathy" for the brutal vigilante, which leads to your bizarre "power fantasy" criticisms. You don't actually explain why something being a "power fantasy" is bad. You actually end up praising the fight scenes ("...the cinematic language employed is done specifically to excite the viewer, make them feel adrenaline, and yes, make them feel powerful, like Batman"). In one of your responses you state that the violence is unconscionable because there's no "exploring the consequences of violence". Well truth be told, there's less exploring consequences of violence and more exploring violence itself. It's almost like you're criticizing the movie for making the audiences experience psychology of violence, which is a bit silly. It's actually good. Lol you're gonna say that it's bad for violence to have a dangerous allure BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:The Adam West show police and the early Comics Code era Gotham police were honest. Depicting pervasive corruption was forbidden because it inspired disrespect for authority. Could it not also be argued that Batman's "no killing" conduct hugely helped the Comics Code, a corporate method entirely designed to ruin competition?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:When you say Batman was never good, do you mean movie Batman? Or all Batmen? Because MY BATMAN gives petty criminals jobs at Wayne Enterprises and chills with the Justice League Especially your batman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Especially your batman. The original Batman was a pulp power fantasy, in a genre which included The Shadow, etc, which honestly depicted and exploited the reader's desire for reactionary violence. SSB's is the sanitized version which dishonestly depicts this desire as wholesome and fun. The comparison which comes to mind for BvS' Batman is Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. We don't necessarily disagree with their branding of Hans Landa, but right from the title, the film isn't pretending that the Basterds are heroic paragons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:The original Batman was a pulp power fantasy, in a genre which included The Shadow, etc, which honestly depicted and exploited the reader's desire for reactionary violence. SSB's is the sanitized version which dishonestly depicts this desire as wholesome and fun. Moreover, his Batman is literally wage-enslaving foes and using their exploitation to fund his personal anti-joker space stations and whatever. Like he's praising Bruce Wayne as a job creator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Meanwhile, at stately Romney manor-
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:The Adam West show police and the early Comics Code era Gotham police were honest. Depicting pervasive corruption was forbidden because it inspired disrespect for authority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Moreover, his Batman is literally wage-enslaving foes and using their exploitation to fund his personal anti-joker space stations and whatever. Is he wage-enslaving when he gives an individual a viable means of support and ability to function within society other than turning to crime? I'd suggest that he's enriching both his business and that particular citizen. He's doing what prison theoretically tries to do, which is to renovate to mostly social normatives the character of a fellow human being. What Bruce does with his share of profits is his own issue. Drifter fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Who is SSB Batman?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Is he wage-enslaving when he gives an individual a viable means of support and ability to function within society other than turning to crime? Yes, that's practically the definition of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Yes, that's practically the definition of it. You're going to have to work no matter if it's Wayne giving you a job or some other place, or scrounging for fruits berries and hunting animals in the wilderness. You're portraying the act of working for Wayne is a negative, then all work is negative and the only way a man can be free is to take advantage of other workers by stealing their gainful payment. I disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Nyah, that's just enployment. Wayne Industries most likely follows all rules and laws, and giving a guy who willingly takes a job to elevate themselves above poverty and criminalism is not the pejorative that wage-slavery invokes. Nah, you can disagree with whether the general form of having to be employed to live should have a pejorative applied to it, but the specific term "wage slave" was absolutely constructed to apply to the general notion of being forced into employment, not just being employed by an abusive employer. That "you're going to have to work no matter" is why the term "slavery" is used. Note that "scrounging for fruits berries and hunting animals in the wilderness" is not actually an option due to the division of the wilds into property that aren't freely available to the use of all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I still don't know why they picked Scarecrow for Golden Boy Cillian Murphy. There's against type and there's that. Nolan's kind of weird with his casting in that he tries to be nice to everyone. Murphy was the runner-up to Bale (they weren't sure if Bale would be available), so Nolan gave him the Scarecrow role as a consolation prize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nah, you can disagree with whether the general form of having to be employed to live should have a pejorative applied to it, but the specific term "wage slave" was absolutely constructed to apply to the general notion of being forced into employment, not just being employed by an abusive employer. That "you're going to have to work no matter" is why the term "slavery" is used. Note that "scrounging for fruits berries and hunting animals in the wilderness" is not actually an option due to the division of the wilds into property that aren't freely available to the use of all. I think I have to disagree with the usage of such a negatively connoted term like wage-slave. The other dude has other options. He can move to another city where Batman isn't around and return to a life of crime that would've likely been somewhat successful without Batman's interference (but with its own level of risk), he could stay at Wayne Industries and earn what is likely a fair wage with benefits, or he could do any number of other things. He doesn't have to be there, but is likely the most comfortable and reliable of available options. Ask any recently freed prisoner and the ones who don't willingly recidive would most likely say that they just want stability - which a proper job would likely give. Which is what Bruce has occasionally provided. If we're arguing semantics, what's the difference between being gainfully employed and being a wage-slave? Drifter fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Timby posted:Nolan's kind of weird with his casting in that he tries to be nice to everyone. Murphy was the runner-up to Bale (they weren't sure if Bale would be available), so Nolan gave him the Scarecrow role as a consolation prize. The whole cast of Batman Begins actually auditioned for the Batman role and Nolan had to find some way of including them all in the film. Just think, we almost had Tom Wilkinson Batman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Lobok posted:The whole cast of Batman Begins actually auditioned for the Batman role and Nolan had to find some way of including them all in the film. Wait does that include Liam Neeson? Because that's a hell of a missed opportunity if I've ever heard one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:Wait does that include Liam Neeson? Because that's a hell of a missed opportunity if I've ever heard one. *speaking to Ra's in the train moments before it explodes* "I won't kill you, I don't even know who you are. What I do have is a very particular set of skills and if you save yourself I will look for you, I will find you and I will won't kill you again."
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I think I have to disagree with the usage of such a negatively connoted term like wage-slave. The other dude has other options. He can move to another city where Batman isn't around and return to a life of crime that would've likely been somewhat successful without Batman's interference (but with its own level of risk), he could stay at Wayne Industries and earn what is likely a fair wage with benefits, or he could do any number of other things. There isn't a difference. The term "wage slavery" is a rhetorical device used to highlight the coercion implicit in a capitalist system in which the people have been both denied a public commons (because it's been divided up amongst a capitalist class) and denied ownership of what was formerly the public commons (because the vast majority of people aren't part of the capitalist class). That you recoil from the use of the term to describe something you have positive associations with, being "gainfully employed," is one of the goals of using the term. That all other options besides being gainfully employed are made intolerable, that laboring on behalf of another is "likely the most comfortable and reliable of available options," is how the coercion functions. As you yourself point out, if you don't want to submit to that, well, you have the option to engage in a dangerous behavior (criminality) that may result in being subjected to imprisonment. In SolidSnakesBandana's conception of "the good Batman," Bruce Wayne plays both sides of this. He benefits when someone is willing to take a job because he's part of the capitalist class; he's one of the people they may submit to laboring for, from which he profits. And if they're not willing to submit to that, if they reject the system (and are therefore branded a criminal), well here comes the Bat to make that decision more likely to end in imprisonment. And who is most likely to be unable to "move to another city" to escape the Bat? The poor, who are also likely to be stuck with the least gainful of employment as their alternative to crime. It's win-win for Bruce Wayne: either he profits or he gets the thrill of putting on the suit. This, of course, turned into a semantic discussion when you posted this: Drifter posted:Nyah, that's just enployment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This, of course, turned into a semantic discussion when you posted this: Fair enough, I'll grant you most of what you say, but it turned into a discussion of semantics when a loaded term was being used to paint a hero like Batman as some evil aristocrat giggling over the downtrodden masses.  Batman, especially the BVS Batman, would LOVE for a criminal to rehabilitate. Clearly it doesn't happen, but he'd be open to the possibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Fair enough, I'll grant you most of what you say, but it turned into a discussion of semantics when a loaded term was being used to paint a hero like Batman as some evil aristocrat giggling over the downtrodden masses. Well, let's be clear. He's not being painted as any more evil than any other aristocrat. What's being suggested is that the existence of an aristocracy at all is an evil. And Batman doesn't giggle (it's the Joker who recognizes the humor in the system), he authentically cares (in SolidSnakesBandana's conception of "the good Batman") about the people he employs. The question, then, is: is a kindly owner (e.g., Benedict Cumberbatch's character in 12 Years a Slave) a good person for being kindly? Note that if 'rehabilitation' is defined by restraining oneself to gainful employment, then it's synonymous with obedience, not moral growth. And this is precisely the point: "the good Batman" is the one who makes obedience as comfortable as possible within the constraints of the owners still being able to profit. The nicest carrot he can provide while still building his fortune, with the Bat as the stick. This is all true. The question you're invoking is what terms are used to describe it: semantics. And the term that most clearly should be rejected is the most loaded term of all: 'good.' Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Dang, ppl complain bout this thread but that's a whole buncha good posts
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
I think this thread has gone on to a weird ivory tower. I think it's fundamentally dumb to analyze a fictional character as if he were a real person in an attempt to draw life lessons.
Kurzon fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I think this thread has gone on to a weird ivory tower. I think it's fundamentally dumb to analyze a fictional character as if he were a real person in an attempt to draw life lessons. Did I miss the sarcastic joke here? Is this real life? Or is this fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Did I miss the sarcastic joke here? Is this real life? Or is this fantasy? You only have one avenue to your perception of reality. Who's to say that it is the correct one, simply because it is the only path available to you? What IS reality; objectively? #Batman
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I think it's fundamentally dumb to analyze a fictional character as if he were a real person in an attempt to draw life lessons. You're not a big fan of Aesop, I take it? Or, like, literature in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I think this thread has gone on to a weird ivory tower. I think it's fundamentally dumb to analyze a fictional character as if he were a real person in an attempt to draw life lessons. Life lessons are mostly theoretical so what's the harm in ascribing a name and system to them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Life lessons are mostly theoretical so what's the harm in ascribing a name and system to them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:He is not written to teach us anything. You're acting like authorial intent matters here. It doesn't. Anything can be analysed because all fiction is an extension of the existing world and some author's interpretation of some element of it. When you analyse a fictional character it inherently extends to real world parallels, sometimes ESPECIALLY when they're silly, after all satire exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:You're acting like authorial intent matters here. It doesn't. Anything can be analysed because all fiction is an extension of the existing world and some author's interpretation of some element of it. When you analyse a fictional character it inherently extends to real world parallels, sometimes ESPECIALLY when they're silly, after all satire exists. But the only insight you will gain is the nature of the author's worldview.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Kurzon posted:Batman is a silly-arse character who is written mostly by sheltered white people who know little about crime, policing, government, and corporations; and their work in turn is controlled tightly by corporate bigwigs whose concerns are sustaining sales and a larger franchise. Batman is not Animal Farm. He is not written to teach us anything. Are you sure you're not part of the ivory tower? Equeen fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 22:13
|
|
