|
The answer will just be "it's not that" so rest easy, ungulateman.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I dunno, it seemed like neither of them had the trademark hair. X-24 had a buzz and Logan had just regular guy hair. https://www.quirkybyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/x24-logan.jpg The chops are the signifier of The Wolverine. The pointy side hair is the signifier of James Howlett. Logan is the realization that he is in control of his own styling choices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The chops are the signifier of The Wolverine. The pointy side hair is the signifier of James Howlett. Logan is the realization that he is in control of his own styling choices. permanent weekend bender is a hairstyle choice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:permanent weekend bender is a hairstyle choice? Nobody ever claimed he makes the best choices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
The adamantium skeleton in “Logan” serves as a metaphor for contemporary capitalist-consumerism. Unwillingly thrust onto the eponymous hero and despite its great strength, the adamantium slowly poisons Logan and leads him to his inevitable demise. Wolverine, alienated from both human society and from the product of his labor, seems fundamentally incapable of leading a lifestyle outside of that pre-selected for him by his exploiters. Unsurprisingly, the only hope for future generations comes in the form of violent revolution and resistance against the servants of capital who would see the very structure of human genetic diversity brought to heel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
It's kind of the same symbolism as the hero mask in Drive. The face of the hero is, ultimately, something horrifying and terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:Congrats on getting mad at his posting even in his absence I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Does this movie contain quips? I need to know to decide if it is good or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
UmOk posted:Does this movie contain quips? I need to know to decide if it is good or not. It's like a 2/10 on the Deadpool scale. It's the John Wick of superhero movies. Brutal and efficient action. A good movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
GigaPeon posted:Brutal and efficient action. A good movie. Not at all. The most shocking thing about the movie's violence is how bland it quickly becomes. It's an incredibly violent movie but hardly any of it registers after the first two action scenes, so that a child shooting someone's skull wide open doesn't even merit a blink. It's a surprisingly safe movie (and thus hardly leftist in style). Nothing indicates this as well as the moment it's revealed that Laura isn't actually a feral child but just unwilling to speak. It's a very safe choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Not at all. The most shocking thing about the movie's violence is how bland it quickly becomes. It's an incredibly violent movie but hardly any of it registers after the first two action scenes, so that a child shooting someone's skull wide open doesn't even merit a blink. It's a surprisingly safe movie (and thus hardly leftist in style). If you cannot actually add anything except "yawn, was boring and trite and I coulda done better" then okay bro, let's hear how you would improve things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Have you ever considered that it might be you who's desensitized - and that the movie itself was pretty okay while you just might need to talk to someone face to face about your inability to empathize? That's a pretty interesting leap of logic there - I was talking about how the movie's violence is not unsettling or discomfiting (except in how numbing it is), but you've made the connection that I must not be able to empathize with others (specifically, fictional characters). The latter is not hard at all with Logan, a movie that includes an expertly edited video appeal for the well-being of Third World children. The truth is that Logan's violence is bland despite the sheer amount of it. Logan's and Laura's "claws" are a good example - an animal's claws are frightening because they rip flesh apart, but adamantium claws are extremely clean killing devices. They cut as quickly as the camera does away from the gore. They're rarely as uncomfortable as Wolverine's awkward, pained walk after the carjacking gone wrong. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
The cool thing about any given BravestoftheLamps post is how transparently they're intellectualizations of being opposed to anything "fans" like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The cool thing about any given BravestoftheLamps post is how transparently they're intellectualizations of being opposed to anything "fans" like. "The level of violence gets old and quickly loses its shock value" isn't really an intellectualisation. Seeing Laura get a harpoon through the leg is brutal and uncomfortable, but nothing later on in the film really lives up to that, even the theoretically more horrifying scenes of people getting claws through the skull.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:"The level of violence gets old and quickly loses its shock value" isn't really an intellectualisation. But that relies on a teleological assumption that the meaning of violence in this movie is to be shocking rather than blasé. Or, rather, that that particular moment isn't meant to be the only shocking moment of violence in the film. That is, if the movie fails on these grounds, that is one thing, but whether it ought to be tested on them is another. It's like the earlier assertion that feral children are inherently more interesting than nonferal children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But that relies on a teleological assumption that the meaning of violence in this movie is to be shocking rather than blasé My evaluation is based on what the movie does as a story. The blandness of its violence makes the viewer numb rather than aware, unable to appreciate it even when the horror of violence is such an important theme.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:No it doesn't. My evaluation is on what the movie does as a story. The blandness of its violence makes the viewer numb rather than aware, unable to appreciate it even when the horror of violence is such an important theme. Your evaluation is on the story, but actually on the political implications of treating violence as a dull thing. Okay, whatever, your politics are (heh, heh) liberal identity politics counter-revolutionaryism, blah blah blah. Anyways, Truffaut's point about there being no such thing as an anti-war movie explicitly comes from the notion that violence is shown as bad when it's shown as shocking, when loving slasher films should have buried that notion for all time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your evaluation is on the story, but actually on the political implications of treating violence as a dull thing. Okay, whatever, your politics are (heh, heh) liberal identity politics counter-revolutionaryism, blah blah blah. The politics are part of the whole of Logan's story. My criticism is essentially that Logan isn't leftist enough despite the anti-corporate trappings. Leftism (and great art) depend on an individual's conscious awareness. Leaving the audience unaware of the nature of violence and power is bad. There's a massive contradiction with the Shane quote according to which man can't live murder, but all the murder Logan and the kids commit is actually ultimately just and necessary. Also bland violence in a gory action movie is really boring. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The politics are part of the whole of Logan's story. My criticism is essentially that Logan isn't leftist enough despite the anti-corporate trappings. Leftism (and great art) depend on an individual's conscious awareness. Leaving the audience unaware of the nature of violence and power is bad. There's a massive contradiction with the Shane quote according to which man can't live murder, but all the murder Logan and the kids commit is actually ultimately just and necessary. The nature of violence that must be explained to people is that violence is exciting and sensual, but also bad? This kind of thinking is why soldiers laugh and cheer at Full Metal Jacket and Platoon, because the psychological arousal of seeing violence depicted as intense can be turned to violence being exciting quite easily. There is also the tedious insistence that all movies should be didactic propaganda, which deserves nothing more than raspberries and funny faces in response. Assuming you meant to write something coherent about the movie's use of Shane, I think it's really strange to demand movies lack any ambiguity and resolve all the questions they pose. I guess the kids should have been mowed down as junior satyagrahi, or the movie should have endorsed violence as the first refuge of the competent? Finally, we get to the aesthetics and your personal sense of taste. Well, suck it up, buttercup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The nature of violence that must be explained to people is that violence is exciting and sensual, but also bad? Yes. That's what violence is like. The violence in Logan is really numbing, in contrast. It makes child soldiers revolting against their corporate masters kind of dull.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Yes. That's what violence is like. So how often do you have a boner at the thought of punching someone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So how often do you have a boner at the thought of punching someone? I think you've lost focus on 2017 comic book movie Logan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think you've lost focus on 2017 comic book movie Logan. You made a general statement about the nature of violence and now you've decided to make a cowardly retreat from defending it. If you did not wish to do either of those things, I recommend a Communications 101 course at your local institution of higher learning, which will help you say what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You made a general statement about the nature of violence and now you've decided to make a cowardly retreat from defending it. If you did not wish to do either of those things, I recommend a Communications 101 course at your local institution of higher learning, which will help you say what you mean. Earlier you even stated that maybe the intention with Logan's violence was to be blasé and not shocking. The definition of violence as something "exciting and sensual, but also bad" was yours, and it was a fairly accurate one. But according to you, it's bad to make violence exciting and sensual in movies because then people might enjoy it. You're defence of Logan is that it's boring and that it's safer that way. The truth is that people are actually enjoying Logan's violence just like how soldiers enjoy FMJ and Platoon, and being blasé about it probably helped that. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Earlier you even stated that maybe the intention with Logan's violence was to be blasé and not shocking. The definition of violence as something "exciting and sensual, but also bad" was yours, and it was a fairly accurate one. But according to you, it's bad to make violence exciting and sensual in movies because then people might enjoy it. Okay, so we're back to you being ashamed about your belief that violence is inherently glamorous, but not enough to actually keep quiet about it. I guess those erections must be awkward when you're watching Terror Train or The Burning or whatever. Anyways, whining like the doughfaced little marsh goblin you are about people psychoanalyzing you and then turning around and psychoanalyzing them is a well-known tactic used by serial domestic abusers, liberals, and people who buy theater candy. Now I will bravely piss straight into the wind. The argument I am making is that your argument is politically nonsense, that it relies on a totalitarian view of the arts, and that it is derived from placing art within a straitjacket and concluding the art is bad if it doesn't fit. Your response, after dragging it out of your rotted remains of a brain, has been to assume that I must secretly have the same beliefs and aims as you, adding one more piece to the mountain of evidence that you are incapable of dialogue, but only can monologue at people. And of course, this is incompatible with discussing a movie, or even the weather. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
I personally found most of the film's violence pretty disturbing throughout the whole thing, the complete desperation made it hit me a lot harder than the blood and gore did. Logan feels like he's on his last legs even when he's winning and that seemed like a testament to good action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The argument I am making is that your argument is politically nonsense, that it relies on a totalitarian view of the arts, and that it is derived from placing art within a straitjacket and concluding the art is bad if it doesn't fit. My totalitarian-based argument is that good leftism and art make people conscious and aware, while Logan's violence is so bland that the hardly registers. All the ad hominems seem like a very severe overreaction to such a statement. Now your argument seems to that it's completely okay for leftism and art not to make people conscious and aware, which seems a bit counter-productive for both. A True Jar Jar Fan posted:I personally found most of the film's violence pretty disturbing throughout the whole thing, the complete desperation made it hit me a lot harder than the blood and gore did. Logan feels like he's on his last legs even when he's winning and that seemed like a testament to good action. The bleakness of the near-future was convincing, at the very least. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:My totalitarian-based argument is that good leftism and art make people conscious and aware, while Logan's violence is so bland that the hardly registers. All the ad hominems seem like a very severe overreaction to such a statement. Those are not ad hominems. I am not saying you are wrong for having a vast echoing cavern of a skull, or being born a swamp Swede, I am making these completely accurate observations in response to your torrent of whining. Your argument relies on the assumption that all art is necessarily didactic and propagandistic, and art which is not such is inherently bad. This is totalitarian in ideology because it renders all art as subjected to hegemonic power, as an ideal. Perhaps you did not mean to say such a thing, and perhaps you ought to remain silent rather than vomit out such a combination of the abhorrent and the stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your argument relies on the assumption that all art is necessarily didactic and propagandistic, and art which is not such is inherently bad. No it doesn't. My argument is that good art makes it's audience aware - aware of its artifice, its content, its themes, themselves, the world, etc. Logan doesn't really do that. This idea that movies should be didactic is your own imagination at work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:No it doesn't. My argument is that good art makes it's audience aware - aware of its artifice, its content, its themes, themselves, the world, etc. Logan doesn't really do that. This idea that movies should be didactic is your own imagination at work. You haven't offered any contradiction, just went "nuh-uh" and then repeated yourself. Now, I know parrots aren't native to Europe so I have to ask why your handler/owner lets you have a phone to post online with. Am I involved in an elaborate ethological experiment? Or are you unwilling to engage at a level that risks you having to abandon your prepared fortifications of passive-aggressiveness? Because passive aggression is counter-revolutionary, comrade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You haven't offered any contradiction, just went "nuh-uh" and then repeated yourself. Your fallacy here is assuming that "making the audience aware" can only be accomplished through lecturing. In truth there's a lot of things art can do to make people aware and reflective (which does include didacticism). Brecht's Verfremdungseffekt is probably the most famous explication of the idea. Action movies tend to be made too absurd to watch with a straight-face, demanding some distance. Logan has blandly numbing violence and syrupy sentimentality, which aren't too good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Logan's violence only lacks impact when compared to the stark, unvarnished brutality of its character scenes. There wasn't an action scene I didn't wince my way through, both because of the injuries being inflicted on the villains and the obvious toll it was taking on the protagonists. Logan very obviously isn't a typical action movie, wherein the heroes deal out copious amounts of carnage and then swagger away as badasses. Each act of violence is costly. The movie doesn't shy away from that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Your fallacy here is assuming that "making the audience aware" can only be accomplished through lecturing. In truth there's a lot of things art can do to make people aware and reflective (which does include didacticism). Brecht's Verfremdungseffekt is probably the most famous explication of the idea. Action movies tend to be made too absurd to watch with a straight-face, demanding some distance. You still don't understand my argument, which is pretty rich given your unending piss-stream of intellectual pretensions. Gotta walk before you can invoke ol' Bertolt!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
A True Jar Jar Fan posted:I personally found most of the film's violence pretty disturbing throughout the whole thing, the complete desperation made it hit me a lot harder than the blood and gore did. Logan feels like he's on his last legs even when he's winning and that seemed like a testament to good action. Phylodox posted:Each act of violence is costly. The movie doesn't shy away from that. Same thing that made the original Die Hard so good. The hero feels like a real person instead of some impossible action cliché. By Die Hard 4 we're driving cars into helicopters and flying jets upside down and it's way harder to actually care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Logan very obviously isn't a typical action movie.... Each act of violence is costly. The movie doesn't shy away from that. That actually sounds like a typical action movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Why is violence considered such a bad thing?
UmOk fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That actually sounds like a typical action movie. I get what you mean, but I think the reason why is because the targets are from what i assume to be, random privately contracted soldiers. In the casino room scene, it wasn't treated as a shock, it was necessary to get rid of them. Any other scene they are actual threats to Logan, and not as much a threat to X-23 because of the character's power and overall health. I don't know. Me? i wasn't desensitized. When X-23 went all angry, I was kinda terrified at this little murder machine
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
shut the gently caress up bravestofthelamps
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
I have picked human brain matter off of my work clothes, and I did not find the violence in the movie to be bland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Fargin Icehole posted:I don't know. Me? i wasn't desensitized. When X-23 went all angry, I was kinda terrified at this little murder machine Her primal screams was the most unsettling part of the movie, certainly more so than the action. Which is why walking back from her being a feral child was such a weird choice. I watched John Wick, and it was a great counterpoint in how effectively it used action choreography to a certain effect. It was so restrained and professionally deliberate that it quickly becomes sickening how coolly the hero offs countless people, making it both exciting and repulsive. Logan's fight choreography is unremarkable, and doesn't evoke the animalistic motifs the characters embody. X-23's Caerbannogian jumps and flips are the obvious exception to that. When Logan returns in top form on a berserker rampage, what changes is that he runs a lot and jumps once. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 13:41
|
|