Brainiac Five posted:

Please elaborate, I can't tell if you're saying "no, it's not Christian" for an unexplained reason, or if you're saying "no, you didn't agree with my exact wording, therefore it's not Christian", or what.

I mean, Pigsy is someone who did get stripped of his divine glory and tossed down to Earth, but I suspect you will continue to avoid engaging with the underlying argument that "this motif is not uniquely Christian or Abrahamic in origin".

Brainiac Five posted:

It's explicitly clear you're a condescending dickhead

Sir Kodiak posted:

I didn't want to go into detail because it seems stupid to argue about a work I'm not familiar with, but if you insist, I guess we can.

I asked if specific imagery had been deployed in the work you mentioned, and the implication of your comment was that, no, that specific imagery hadn't been used, and you instead described broader, less specifically similar imagery that had. Was Monkey thrown down by the creator of mankind? Is Monkey shown as a god when in heaven? Is Monkey a deceiver, corrupting man through his own worst impulses?

Corrosion posted:

Calm down, learned one.

So, Sir Kodiak makes a valid statement, as many others have, that there's a lot of Judeo-Christian imagery that people would recognize. All the same, people would recognize that this Christian imagery is being delivered alongside images of lightning bolts that one would also associate with Zeus, who is explicitly named. I think it's possible that these things are used simultaneously. You've presumed something about some kind of agenda against other types of religions and beliefs, while ignoring the very text of the film using imagery that people are very familiar with. I'd love to talk about how this film uses this imagery as effectively as I think SMG points out that "Colossal" is really about a bad "Soul Metaphor", but I think the person who is throwing the proverbial fist is you.

I have to come to a similar conclusion that you are not someone worth talking to, but I do feel like showing some solidarity to people who I think were genuinely engaging you while you made all these assumptions about what they think imagery is.

Nickoten posted:

Unless I'm misremembering, she never interacts with Dr. Poison nor has Dr. Poison pointed out to her during the gala. Is there a scene before that where people show her a picture or something?


Because if you know Greek mythology, then you know Zeus never created humanity nor really cared about them enough to make a "godkiller" to counter Ares who is reimagined in this movie as akin to the Antichrist (a "false prophet" who sows discord and incites world-ending war among men). And these changes are made to a movie that has to tie in with Batman vs. Superman, which is absolutely drenched in similar imagery.

So why are you saying people must not be familiar with either of these mythos to make this observation, exactly?


Grew up half Hindu and I can tell you the allegories are pretty obvious, especially coming from a movie made, as far as I can tell, by WASPs.

Brainiac Five posted:

Since Ares doesn't "corrupt" anyone…

Sir Kodiak posted:

There's literally a scene of him walking, hidden, as he whispers schemes for power in someone's ear.

Brainiac Five posted:

The entire point of the revelation is that he only offers ideas and the person has to act on them. There's no moral degeneration (and this is why Ludendorff was used as a character) involved. Indeed, if your version of the movie were the case, there would be no ambiguity because humanity would be free from war after Ares had died.

Brainiac Five posted:

Throwing fists is a good response to condescension, since the only way to get people to stop being conceited is for them to face negative consequences for it.

Sir Kodiak posted:

So your argument now rests on it being inconsistent with Christian imagery to present Satan as encouraging man's own worst impulses. You may want to reconsider the path that led you here.

Corrosion posted:

I disagree. You clearly never gave a poo poo about what I thought, but you're accusing me of condescension after presuming what I think in ill will. The worst type of bad faith communication. You don't have poo poo to teach me, now back to stuff that matters:

You've misread the film again. Ares does corrupt people, the film shows everyone hugging once Wonder Woman kills him. The misfire in killing Luddendorf sowed doubt, which again Trevor had to sacrifice himself for, all the while Wonder Woman's intuition was correct. Killing Ares does have an immediate effect on what he was doing, but corruption isn't what Diana thinks it is.

Brainiac Five posted:

No, I am saying that there's no "encouraging humanity's worst impulses" going on, because the entire point of the movie is that Ares doesn't have to do that, indeed he explicitly encourages their best impulses, like peacemaking, because he's convinced humanity is inherently brutal and violent and will refuse goodness when it is offered.

Brainiac Five posted:

No, I am saying that there's no "encouraging humanity's worst impulses" going on, because the entire point of the movie is that Ares doesn't have to do that, indeed he explicitly encourages their best impulses, like peacemaking, because he's convinced humanity is inherently brutal and violent and will refuse goodness when it is offered. If he were, in fact, actively encouraging them to do evil, there would be no ambiguity in the final parts of the movie, Dr. Poison would be purely a victim of external control and we would have no sympathy to Diana's desire to kill her, and (since Ares would clearly have to constantly push evil) the movie would end with humanity free from the desire to do violence.

Corrosion posted:

Saying he encourages peacemaking is ignoring the subtext of the film. That his "armistice" is going to lead to World War 2. Which is a direct allusion to historical events.

Brainiac Five posted:

No, I am saying that there's no "encouraging humanity's worst impulses" going on, because the entire point of the movie is that Ares doesn't have to do that, indeed he explicitly encourages their best impulses, like peacemaking, because he's convinced humanity is inherently brutal and violent and will refuse goodness when it is offered. If he were, in fact, actively encouraging them to do evil, there would be no ambiguity in the final parts of the movie, Dr. Poison would be purely a victim of external control and we would have no sympathy to Diana's desire to kill her, and (since Ares would clearly have to constantly push evil) the movie would end with humanity free from the desire to do violence.



I didn't respond to anything you said until you posted about how I was obviously in bad faith and stupid and whatnot, or if I did, I didn't pay any attention because your post didn't stand out at all.

Wrong. The movie ends with the nationalistic victory celebrations, and we know that a worse war, without any influence from Ares, is coming. The brief moment of reconciliation doesn't lead to any kind of spiritual redemption for humanity, and indeed Diana believes humanity is irredeemable until the events of Batman v. Superman.

DC Murderverse posted:

Is that why he gave Maru the poison recipe and whispered in the ear of Ludendorff? Or do you maybe have no idea what you're talking about?

Sir Kodiak posted:

There's literally a scene of him walking, hidden, as he whispers schemes for power in someone's ear. He encourages humanity's worst impulses, but he doesn't brainwash people into acting on them. He says, if you want to kill thousands or millions, here's how you could do it. But he doesn't make them do it. This is encouragement and seduction into power. But humanity still bears responsibility for acting on it. This is extremely clear in the movie. I would have thought overly so, being represented both visually and multiple times in dialog, but I guess this conversation is why they have to do stuff like that.

DeimosRising posted:

How are you getting from "encouraging" someone to that someone being "external[ly] control[led]"? If these ideas were synonymous you wouldn't be posting anymore

Brainiac Five posted:

I didn't respond to anything you said until you posted about how I was obviously in bad faith and stupid

Brainiac Five posted:

So, your entire position is that Ares is simultaneously responsible and not responsible for war. Quite unassailable, quite stupid.

Corrosion posted:

Those initial responses, I took issue with you assuming what my reading was, which is actual condescension on your part. "So it's actually this thing I thought all along." You never asked me what I thought of the use of the film's imagery, you assumed what it was. I was merely pointing out that I think it's using simultaneous imagery and you said "OH HO HO, Egalitarian but it's actually not." I never said anything about that, so I reminded you and you're implying that I have no reason to feel like you're trying to slight me. You have a very clear agenda here and people can sense that.

Sir Kodiak posted:

Ares and humanity share responsibility. It is in the nature of encouraging that you are responsible if what you encouraged comes to past. It is in the nature of being encouraged that you are still responsible for your own actions. Even if this moral proposition was unfamiliar to you, despite it being the sort of thing commonly taught to children, the movie explains it.

Steve Yun posted:

Friends, let's examine the character of Dr Maru.

Dr Maru is disfigured. She finds meaning in her work, which involves death and destruction. She is the confidante of a German general who loves killling people. They have a few laughs while killing German officers.

So in strolls this handsome stranger at the gala who lavishes her with attention and praise that she's rarely gotten before, but then Wonder Woman strolls in and catches his eye, and Dr Maru resigns herself to the fact that she's ugly before walking away. The camera lingers on her forlorn face deliberately.

At the climax of the film, she is cowering helpless before this goddess of a woman who has everything. She's beautiful, she's powerful, earlier she stole a man away from her and now she holds a tank held above her head and is ready to squash her. Steve saw her face and knew to prey on her need for attention and affirmation.

What is going on with Dr Maru's character? Dr Maru in the comics is not disfigured, so there was a deliberate change and that change is tied to her confidence about herself. Was there a theme of womens' poor self-image that the film was exploring? What is it saying? Is it fully developed in the film or did the film not follow through on this idea?

Brainiac Five posted:

I have an agenda, that is true:

Brainiac Five posted:

There is indeed nothing to suggest he did anything but put plans for military action and chemical formulas into people's heads

Sir Kodiak posted:

Yes, and this encouraged the continuation of the war. The method by which he encouraged the continuation of the war was to provide a means to do so to precisely the right people.

BrianWilly posted:

Did the Serpent literally take control of Eve's mind and force her limbs to pluck the apple and forcibly manipulate her jaws into biting into it, or did it merely speak pleasing words and twisted truths in order to tempt her into Sin?

Ares did not cause the war in the way that Diana believed. No one was possessed, no one was mind-controlled. But he was still manipulating events and leading people astray in ways that make him directly complicit in the senseless evil and degradation that pervaded the war. He attempts the same thing on Diana herself. It definitely makes him more comparable to Satan than to the Ares of myth 'cuz, like...who the gently caress has Ares corrupted like this? Like, name one single instance in Greek mythology where Ares flew down down Earth, disguised or otherwise, and whispered pleasing words or twisted truths at people?

Brainiac Five posted:

So, in other words, we agree but you're too much of an rear end in a top hat to admit to that. I guess you'll insist that sneering about how I have an infantile grasp of morality was actually a kindly thing to do or something.

Brainiac Five posted:

Quite unassailable, quite stupid.

Brainiac Five posted:

They're the ones who decided to act on that information to do evil. That is rather the point- Dr. Poison isn't innocent, otherwise Diana struggling with the urge to kill her just makes her into a cartoon psychopath.

Sir Kodiak posted:

DC Murderverse posted:

But that's definitely not encouraging them to act on their best impulses. The only evidence you have of that is of his role as a general, and even then he directly undermines it by sending Diana and Steve after Ludendorff and the gas.

Brainiac Five posted:

Did I say there was anything wrong with being an rear end in a top hat?

Steve Yun posted:

Guys, arguing over Greek mythology is boring, let's talk about womens' self-image issues

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

This movie gets all the credit in the world for doing the whole no man's land scene where people are saying "it's called no man's land because no man can cross it" without having to be the sort of garbage movie that has wonder woman say "good thing I'm no man" (even if that still was the implication of the scene)

Sir Kodiak posted:

Brainiac Five posted:

Well, if you want to insist that you were victimized by my hideously evil posting, that's your decision to make.

Brainiac Five posted:

So, in other words, we agree but you're too much of an rear end in a top hat to admit to that. I guess you'll insist that sneering about how I have an infantile grasp of morality was actually a kindly thing to do or something.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

This movie gets all the credit in the world for doing the whole no man's land scene where people are saying "it's called no man's land because no man can cross it" without having to be the sort of garbage movie that has wonder woman say "good thing I'm no man" (even if that still was the implication of the scene)

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

This movie gets all the credit in the world for doing the whole no man's land scene where people are saying "it's called no man's land because no man can cross it" without having to be the sort of garbage movie that has wonder woman say "good thing I'm no man" (even if that still was the implication of the scene)

Brainiac Five posted:

The gods giving advice to people is at the core of the Iliad and the Perseus myth, off the top of my head.

Steve Yun posted:

Friends, let's examine the character of Dr Maru.

Dr Maru is disfigured. She finds meaning in her work, which involves death and destruction. She is the confidante of a German general who loves killling people. They have a few laughs while killing German officers.

So in strolls this handsome stranger at the gala who lavishes her with attention and praise that she's rarely gotten before, but then Wonder Woman strolls in and catches his eye, and Dr Maru resigns herself to the fact that she's ugly before walking away. The camera lingers on her forlorn face deliberately.

At the climax of the film, she is cowering helpless before this goddess of a woman who has everything. She's beautiful, she's powerful, earlier she stole a man away from her and now she holds a tank held above her head and is ready to squash her. Steve saw her face and knew to prey on her need for attention and affirmation.

What is going on with Dr Maru's character? Dr Maru in the comics is not disfigured, so there was a deliberate change and that change is tied to her confidence about herself. Was there a theme of womens' poor self-image that the film was exploring? What is it saying? Is it fully developed in the film or did the film not follow through on this idea?

BrianWilly posted:

Yes, the gods are famous for taking guises to walk amongst mortals to influence or test them but, again, I'm inquiring specifically about instances of Ares doing this. I know it doesn't happen in the Perseus myth and am unaware of any such instances in the Illiad. Ares is actually a sort of curiosity amongst the gods for how rarely he tries to manipulate people in this way. In fact, most instances of mortals being influenced by Ares would be described as them being overtaken by a blood-rage or warlike impulse that he "compelled" -- ie, through a sort of mind-control instead of subtle verbal manipulation -- which does make him more like what Diana initially believed him to be, and not the trickster serpent archetype that he was ultimately revealed to be in the film.

BrianWilly posted:

The character Ares in this film acts more like another character, from another mythos, than he acts like the classical Ares from his own mythos. Therefore people are saying that the character Ares in this film acts more like another character, from another mythos, than he acts like the classical Ares from his own mythos. Your initial admonition -- that people who think Ares acts like this other character instead of himself simply don't know either mythology very well -- is specious and flawed and, honestly, makes it seem like you're the one who doesn't know Ares, Satan, or this film.