|
Doflamingo posted:Those parts were great because they showed how desperate everyone was. Not really, it was rather practical. An action hero using a gun isn't particularly impressive in itself.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Not really, it was rather practical. An action hero using a gun isn't particularly impressive in itself. If you ignore context, sub-text, text and the circumstances under which it took place, you've got a really good point
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
"So Batman, he's like 'uh I don't like guns, you know' and I never got that - it's an action film, why doesn't he just shoot the fuckers?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:If you ignore context, sub-text, text and the circumstances under which it took place, you've got a really good point I love that you didn't include cinematography there. It's really about the complex subtext of Wolverine using a gun, instead of his claws, like other characters. e: Like the subtext with Logan using a gun isn't even about desperation. He doesn't use guns normally because it doesn't fit his fighting style that involes getting close and personal. Shooting the corporate guy (mid-speech) is Wolverine saying that he doesn't really care about him. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Simply Simon posted:"So Batman, he's like 'uh I don't like guns, you know' and I never got that - it's an action film, why doesn't he just shoot the fuckers?" I didn't know Zack Snyder posts here
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I love that you didn't include cinematography there. It's really about the complex subtext of Wolverine using a gun, instead of his claws, like other characters. Holy poo poo how did you utterly miss the point of that scene. It was all about desperation. He had nothing left, he had to use a gun for the first time ever. That's the end of him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I didn't know Zack Snyder posts here In the very early years before the character was fully formed, Batman did sometimes use a gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Jedit posted:In the very early years before the character was fully formed, Batman did sometimes use a gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:It was all about desperation. He had nothing left, he had to use a gun for the first time ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9c1w8G94g
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Jedit posted:In the very early years before the character was fully formed, Batman did sometimes use a gun. I know, I was joking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Samovar posted:And then at the end he stopped using the gun because he was too used to not using it. If only there was some kind of a running theme throughout the film about people being unable to change trying to stop people going down the same path as them. A shane they didn't do that. its ok, i appreciated this post
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:
Actually Man of Steel was loving boring and stupid and an insult to any fan of Superman beyond whatever shallow appeal he has to manchildren with pathetic power fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Bill Dungsroman posted:Actually Man of Steel was loving boring and stupid and an insult to any fan of Superman beyond whatever shallow appeal he has to manchildren with pathetic power fantasies. Wow. That is...not accurate at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Bill Dungsroman posted:Actually Man of Steel was loving boring and stupid and an insult to any fan of Superman beyond whatever shallow appeal he has to manchildren with pathetic power fantasies. uhh snyder's superman is basically hated among nerds because it denies them a power fantasy
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
I'll throw my hat into the ring and proudly claim that outside of the DBZ fights Man of Steel sucked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
And BvS still managed to be worse somehow. Truly impressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
MoS and Logan are very different. Man of Steel is universal and liberating. Logan is enclosed and elitist: only a few people really matter, while the rest of the world is hostile or merely ignorant, which is a theme that is deeply and inseparably ingrained into the X-franchise. Superman changes things, and you'll even find progressives who are disturbed and angered when he smashes a US spy satellite in challenge to the establishment. Logan meanwhile kills Mexicans and rednecks who violate the isolation of the X-Men (the first shot of him is waking up in a limo in the middle of a carjacking).
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:MoS and Logan are very different. Man of Steel is universal and liberating. Logan is enclosed and elitist: only a few people really matter, while the rest of the world is hostile or merely ignorant, which is a theme that is deeply and inseparably ingrained into the X-franchise. Superman changes things, and you'll even find progressives who are disturbed and angered when he smashes a US spy satellite in challenge to the establishment. Logan meanwhile kills Mexicans and rednecks who violate the isolation of the X-Men (the first shot of him is waking up in a limo in the middle of a carjacking). Yeah, it's pretty amazing how Logan successfully made you root for a murderous hobo while MoS made you wish for metaphorical Jesus to just die already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:the rest of the world is hostile or merely ignorant This is an easy sell to anyone who has been around actual humans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Yeah, it's pretty amazing how Logan successfully made you root for a murderous hobo while MoS made you wish for metaphorical Jesus to just die already.  Also who cares about THEME when the rest of the movie sucks. THEME isn't entertainment
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Yeah, it's pretty amazing how Logan successfully made you root for a murderous hobo while MoS made you wish for metaphorical Jesus to just die already. It's not amazing at all, it's completely natural.The elitism of the X-franchise is what draws people to it. The appeal of the X-Men is that they are a persecuted few who are nevertheless an innately superior and select class, which appeals to teenage sense of alienation. A central motif of X-Men is the sense of being in a closed refuge from a hostile world. This is contrast to most superheroes, who constantly go out into the world. The traditional trappings of X-Men - a private school, private jets, international travel, freedom from mundane worries like money or employment - equate them with elites. Basically, the X-Men get to be the righteous poor and the glamorous rich at the same time (the ugly mutants are never the most important X-Men). Logan even establishes that things are bad by showing that the X-Men have been stripped of these things ("This is 2029, why are we still talking about mutants" comments a radio host on the celebrities of yesteryear). The X-Men have always been led by an affluent British gentleman, and now that he's in hiding he's attended to by a character named after one of the few subjects of the exiled Duke Prospero from Tempest. Wolverine has to work for people, that's how bad things are. MoS's Superman is genuinely heroic in a way that doesn't satisfy fantasy, which is why people find him unacceptable. What people traditionally like about Superman is that he's a paternal protector, which MoS denies with its disaffected loner. There's the same motif of a hostile world in MoS as in Logan, but the latter surrenders to it while the former redeems it. e: Alan_Shore posted:Also who cares about THEME when the rest of the movie sucks. THEME isn't entertainment MoS is a very entertaining movie. What it did wrong was to deny reassurance in its fantasy. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Something Bravest touched on that I thought was true was the way the random henchmen Logan and Laura murder the poo poo out of are basically faceless robot goons who aren't really humanised at all*. It makes it seem like the grimdark movie about how killing is kinda bad - is actually glorifying violence. How many times did we get that shot looking up at Logan/Laura over a silent fallen adversary and going "Rargh!" as they plunge their claws down to finish them? We didn't see the human face on the other end of that. Seems a waste. (*The only exception being when Xavier has frozen everyone and we see the terrified eyes of paralysed men watching those blades inch closer to their skulls. That was appropriately ugly.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Logan and Man of Steel: Both really good, nothing alike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:or walking back laura's stunted development After a second viewing, I don't know if I agree that they arbitrarily reversed her development. Laura acts feral for the first 2/3rds of the movie, but there's nothing that signifies that she doesn't understand the people around her. She reacts the way you'd expected a brutalized child to react to any threats or intrusions on their space; ferocious, overwhelming violence in order to prevent further harm. There's no indication that she can't speak, she just chooses not to. It's only after Xavier dies (which removes the one person who she marginally trusts and with whom she can communicate silently) and Logan is obviously hobbled (mentally by the death of his mentor and physically from the wounds taken in their escape from the farm) that she speaks out of necessity. It's not because she magically developed language abilities; it's because she's smart enough to realize that without some sort of human connection that Logan will not find the will to carry on, either with the mission at hand or with life in general (and Charles told her not to let him kill himself). All of that to say that her speaking didn't seem incongruent with the character's development to me, and we got a hilarious scene out of it as a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:its ok, i appreciated this post thankee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
It's odd that people have invented a history of Wolverine being anti-gun on principle, when it's really guns just not fitting his fighting style. Rap Record Hoarder posted:All of that to say that her speaking didn't seem incongruent with the character's development to me, and we got a hilarious scene out of it as a bonus. The revelation that Laura isn't a feral child isn't being criticized because it's incongruous. You're wrongly assuming that it's being perceived as a plot hole. It does make sense in the narrative. It's being criticized because the story presents an interesting idea (a feral child) and then it walks back from that interesting idea. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's odd that people have invented a history of Wolverine being anti-gun on principle, when it's really guns not just fitting his fighting style. If only he remembered the basics of CQC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Finally saw this today. This is my favorite comic book movie now. Everything about it was great. They showed just enough of the world to make you curious. Glad it was R, we finally got good Wolverine fights. Every action sequence was great. Not that it matters but I assume this takes place (until later movies change this) in the timeline from the end of Days of Future Past/Apocalypse. It is too bad they didn't have [spoiler] the Westchester incident as happening right after Logan's mind gets back to the present at the end of DOFP[/spoilers] This movie could spinoff/have sequels in so many different ways. I'm actually excited for future X-Men related films for the first time in a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Just saw the movie. It was passable, no emotion hit and it felt like Xavier was a cartoon character? Acting weird all movie only to die. Oh well, on to the next.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Dr. Tim Whatley posted:Just saw the movie. It was passable, no emotion hit and it felt like Xavier was a cartoon character? Acting weird all movie only to die. Oh well, on to the next. Haha really? He was acting like a cartoon character? Better tell everyone with dementia they're not acting like real people lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
I used to work in a nursing home and his performance is pretty spot on for someone with dementia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Magneto was right. For some reason I find the corn syrup approach to mutant genocide more horrifying than killer robots. So soon after DOFP too...I guess mutants are destined to go extinct after all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
"Movie sucked. Professor X acted all weird. Why wasn't this dementia patient rational and emotionally stable?"Roman Reigns posted:I guess mutants are destined to go extinct after all? It's kind of interesting how race conflict and genocide are as thematically central to X-Men as something abstract like vengeance or sanity are to Batman. The X-movies fetishize these apocalyptic alterverse moments the way Bat-films fetishize the Wayne's murder. "What if in Flashpoint, Thomas Wayne became the Batman?" "What if this time instead of mutant Auschwitz it was Monsanto who did it?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
The funny thing about all the "Magneto was right" replies is that the first version of the mutant apocalypse is caused explicitly by mutants openly fighting and giving humans the tools to create their own undoing. Poor mutants can't win for losing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Roman Reigns posted:Magneto was right. For some reason I find the corn syrup approach to mutant genocide more horrifying than killer robots. So soon after DOFP too...I guess mutants are destined to go extinct after all? It's more horrifying I think, as it rings true. Like robots, are just scifi fantasies and fascist day dreams.  For now... The Holocaust brought to you by Monsanto just echos America's love of eugenics, and forced sterilization of Native American, black, and mentally ill women. Like, we're talking in Mein Kampf Hitler praised America for this poo poo. "It's 2029, why are you still talking about mutants." Indeed. To me, moreso than the depictions of violence, and how it weighs on a man, or the fading of a mind with dementia, what really depressed me about this film is that twelve years from now, it's still the bleak hellscape we're living in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Xealot posted:It's kind of interesting how race conflict and genocide are as thematically central to X-Men as something abstract like vengeance or sanity are to Batman. The X-movies fetishize these apocalyptic alterverse moments the way Bat-films fetishize the Wayne's murder. At least this movie sticks to its guns and didn't offer any kind of optimism for a way out of mutant genocide. The best we get is the guys responsible get killed and the next generation of mutants survive into a bleak and unknown future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:The funny thing about all the "Magneto was right" replies is that the first version of the mutant apocalypse is caused explicitly by mutants openly fighting and giving humans the tools to create their own undoing. Poor mutants can't win for losing. I never understood those mimic Sentinels. Wouldn't it be a whole lot cheaper to tailor each robot (or even 2) to just specifically counter one mutant's powers, instead of being able to counter all mutant's powers ? I mean, you could even make dummy bots whose sole purpose is to get destroyed to figure out what powers they need to counter and it would still be much cheaper. I'm picturing a room full of disgruntled scientists and engineers:. "Look, we already have cold guns and flamethrowers and poo poo. Why can't I just strap those on 50 Sentinels? Only one has to get through". "Now now, we talked about this. Not til they can mimic any mutant's powers".
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:I never understood those mimic Sentinels. Wouldn't it be a whole lot cheaper to tailor each robot (or even 2) to just specifically counter one mutant's powers, instead of being able to counter all mutant's powers ? I mean, you could even make dummy bots whose sole purpose is to get destroyed to figure out what powers they need to counter and it would still be much cheaper. Becuase it means the system is self sustaining. They don't have to build any new ones (or at least no new designs) the world will be oppressed forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Becuase it means the system is self sustaining. They don't have to build any new ones (or at least no new designs) the world will be oppressed forever. But it's like McDonalds investing in telepathy research to help with ordering when customers could just use speech to communicate. It's like we could wait around until we can make a Sentinel that can counter any power ever...or we could just catalog the (finite) numbers of powers present and tailor a solution to each one. It just seems ridiculously overcomplicated and overwrought to me. Like it took all that energy and research essentially just to figure out that a fire guy counters an ice guy and vice versa ? Plus, what happens when a buster-buster mutant is born? https://youtu.be/Iw3G80bplTg
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
I like when X24 carries Lara off she's screaming "Dad".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 04:48
|
|
