|
Corrosion posted:But I wasn't referencing a watch, I was referencing the fact that she asked about the concept of "time" in relation to "the watch." I actually think that in the third act of the film and parts of the first act, Diana's ignorance to the world is as you describe and even sort of endearing given the opening scene and Diana's admission about her past self. I absolutely don't think you were meant to take her not knowing about "time" to mean some beep boop literal thing where she literally didn't know what time is. Go read about like when railroads came with railway clocks in like 1850. It's an unthinkable thing today but people had protests at the idea. People got religious about it, claiming it was against god. That there was a century you just set your clock as solar noon and everywhere had slightly different times and it was a helpful guide, not some standard everyone lived by. People got initially really freaked out at the idea of time keeping being a real thing people kept to instead of just a loose helpful estimate. Like it was a huge change to society when work started at 7:15 instead of "A bit past dawn". For a long time time was just "there is around 5 hours till sundown" not "it is 2:15 and 42 seconds".
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:See I specifically thing it's wording like this that makes the arguments go on and on- the implication, even unintentional, that making it happier would be "treating the audience like children", and that this is Showing Us The World As It Is. It would, and it is, and this is precisely what made Snyder's films so refreshing. It's also important to make the distinction that acknowledging how hosed up the world is isn't cause for despair. MoS ends on an explicitly hopeful note and even as the Empire Strikes Back-esque emotional low point movie, BvS is still a call to arms to do the right thing, and Superman's death is a refutation of Luthor and Bruce's cynicism even while it is admittedly grim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
farraday posted:In interviews I believe they say Diana is 5000 years old. Eh...my head canon is going to be that she aged like normal until she was an adult, because otherwise that means she spent like 3,600 years as a child which is pretty drat creepy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Okay for the ending I am almost positive that is a loving Boom Tube we hear go off
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:I still don't know if "dark" is the right word though. I think "modern" or "grounded" or "realistic" would come to my mind before "dark", though what you're saying is all very correct and after watching BvS again today, I think I would call that one a dark movie. I think both of them, despite the general consensus that seems to have built up around them, are deeply sincere movies. Snyder has developed a reputation as someone who makes ultra-violent, cynical, dark movies based off of stuff like Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen, but I think Man of Steel doesn't have that same level of cynicism at it's core, though because it still looks like a Zack Snyder movie, people just kind of carry that over. It doesn't completely redefine who Superman is, it just takes the archetype and places it in a setting very, very reminiscent of our world circa 2013-15, and doesn't treat it's audience like children by making Superman into a cartoon. The problem there is that when people go to comic book movies, a lot of the time they are not looking to connect the world they're watching on screen to where they're currently at, they want to escape. Man of Steel is not a movie for escaping, and nor is BvS. They are very close to home politically speaking (to the point where they definitely hit you over the head with it, i.e. Zod's terrorist message, or the end of MoS with the drone). All that works fine in the context of the finale but it's a dark film for plenty of reason before the ending conflict. And you can have a sincere film that is dark just like you can make one realistic and grounded that is also dark. I'm just saying that given any opportunity to present a scenario common to the Superman or superhero film genre, they chose a dark one. Every interaction is one of violence, from where ship computers try and kill people and require destruction before having a conversation, where the joy of flight is about destroying mountain tops. If you have to remove the fathers from Superman, it can't be in the death of their planet but from being stabbed or forcing a wife and child to witness it while being fully able to stop it. The idea that he can hide his secret is demonstrated by cowering before bullies he could easily defeat. But then you have to drive the notion to it's absolute absurd extreme by killing his dad who makes him watch his dad demonstrate heroism in a version of "do as I say, not as I do". And you get the threaten Martha thing in both movies.  When you bring up the finale, with 9/11 imagery, massive death toll, and cheer (?) for genocide, I don't see how anyone can balk at calling the movie dark. Here's the common scene where Lois kisses Clark (or almost):    It's the same required element only in the burning crater of a million dead Metropolites and a billion dead Kryptonians. Always the darker choice in Man of Steel. The kiss could have come in the epilogue but they decided that this was the moment that fit their tone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Intriguingly, they incorporated some New Gods material into Wonder Woman in a pretty subtle way. I missed this. What was it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Eh...my head canon is going to be that she aged like normal until she was an adult, because otherwise that means she spent like 3,600 years as a child which is pretty drat creepy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It would, and it is, and this is precisely what made Snyder's films so refreshing. I think that's as much a blinkered view as a Polyanna-esque 'everything's wonderful!' There's as much truth in comedy as in tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I missed this. What was it?  Think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Man of Steel gets called dark because they take the bleakest interpretation of common Superman things when given the option... He leaves impact craters trying to jump, terrorizes flocks of animals just because... Lol you are a lunatic This isn't the movie "tak(ing) the bleakest interpretation" of everything, you are doing that all on your own. Half the stuff you describe is so mundane it's not worth mentioning (like seriously, the bad guy threatening people??) and a bunch of other stuff is part of Superman's normal story (complaining about Krypton being destroyed? I hate to tell you what happens to Spider-Man's uncle) -- Saw the actual movie this thread is about earlier today. Liked it a lot but still thinking through a bunch of it. Really confused by the "they didn't use WW1 correctly" criticisms since I felt it was at least as well integrated as Captain America, and not significantly more sanitized. Wished there was more Etta Candy and while I don't necessarily agree with the idea that Act 3 was weaker than the previous too, I wish they could have squeezed in more of the good parts of Act 2 (mostly involved the fish out of water and supporting character interactions)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
So overall I really enjoyed the movie but I really don't get why they used an actual historical figure like Ludendorff as the secondary villain then had him murder other notable person to survive WW1 General Von Hindenburg with super gas. It would have worked just as well with a purpose built German General character which would have avoided a lot of confusing implications about how history goes in the DCEU.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:So overall I really enjoyed the movie but I really don't get why they used an actual historical figure like Ludendorff as the secondary villain then had him murder other notable person to survive WW1 General Von Hindenburg with super gas. It would have worked just as well with a purpose built German General character which would have avoided a lot of confusing implications about how history goes in the DCEU. Because Ludendorff is someone who we know became a Nazi in our timeline, hinting that something isn't right with the "Ares is the cause of war" story we were told earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:So overall I really enjoyed the movie but I really don't get why they used an actual historical figure like Ludendorff as the secondary villain then had him murder other notable person to survive WW1 General Von Hindenburg with super gas. It would have worked just as well with a purpose built German General character which would have avoided a lot of confusing implications about how history goes in the DCEU. They did it so Vandal Savage can take over Germany and be the man behind WWII that Diana has to defeat in the sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think that's as much a blinkered view as a Polyanna-esque 'everything's wonderful!' There's as much truth in comedy as in tragedy. You're miscasting the conflict here, though. It's not a question of comedy or tragedy, it's a question of how your story relates to the status quo. I like MoS for the same kind of reason I like, say, Dr. Strangelove or The Mouse That Roared; you can make a funny, light-hearted film about the nuclear bomb, to a greater or lesser degree, and that's totally legitimate. But if you make a movie about how the nuclear bomb solves all our problems and we're better off with it hanging over our heads than not, the problem isn't how cheerful or grim you are, the problem is you're a goddamn liar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I absolutely don't think you were meant to take her not knowing about "time" to mean some beep boop literal thing where she literally didn't know what time is. She inquires aloud and Steve Trevor struggles and fails to find the words to describe what is significant about time. And yet, this age old culture knows that language is important. But language isn't merely speech, language is culture and how various people's think. Concepts like time are embedded and referential in language, which we see Diana show her grasp of in the bar before they take off for the front. So, again, I find it perplexing that Amazon's would know modern language but not the things that would be carried across language as embedded. But this is a naturalization gripe and I think it's important that we not merely say "It's not realistic", I think there's a conveyance there about where Diana comes from and who she was relative to who she is while pondering this past part of her life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
People learned to speak English without knowing how to live by the clock, and that kind of Sapir-Whorfianism is pretty heavily disproven.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You're miscasting the conflict here, though. It's not a question of comedy or tragedy, it's a question of how your story relates to the status quo. I like MoS for the same kind of reason I like, say, Dr. Strangelove or The Mouse That Roared; you can make a funny, light-hearted film about the nuclear bomb, to a greater or lesser degree, and that's totally legitimate. But if you make a movie about how the nuclear bomb solves all our problems and we're better off with it hanging over our heads than not, the problem isn't how cheerful or grim you are, the problem is you're a goddamn liar. Well, nukes may destroy us eventually, but we would probably have fought a Third World War with the Soviets without them hanging over us. So up until now, it's been a plus. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:It's the same required element only in the burning crater of a million dead Metropolites and a billion dead Kryptonians. Always the darker choice in Man of Steel. The kiss could have come in the epilogue but they decided that this was the moment that fit their tone. holy loving lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You're miscasting the conflict here, though. It's not a question of comedy or tragedy, it's a question of how your story relates to the status quo. I like MoS for the same kind of reason I like, say, Dr. Strangelove or The Mouse That Roared; you can make a funny, light-hearted film about the nuclear bomb, to a greater or lesser degree, and that's totally legitimate. But if you make a movie about how the nuclear bomb solves all our problems and we're better off with it hanging over our heads than not, the problem isn't how cheerful or grim you are, the problem is you're a goddamn liar. Yeah, but the nuclear bomb is a real thing about which you can make actual assertions. Superman does not exist. Making him a lighthearted figure is not betraying reality, because there is no reality to betray. And I'm not just talking dark comedy here. I think there's as much truth in an episode of Frasier as anything Snyder's made. That's no knock on him. Maxwell Lord fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Incidentally for all that I think the movie condescends to its audience (and is weaker for it), on a purely tonal level I really like Wonder Woman. We as the audience know what's coming, we pretty much know that humanity is going to carry on with terrible wars with or without Ares, and in fact will be worse than ever without him -- but it also encourages the viewer to identify with Diana as she makes a progression from naive to disillusioned to confident.Maxwell Lord posted:Yeah, but the nuclear bomb is a real thing about which you can make actual assertions. Superman does not exist. Making him a lighthearted figure is not betraying reality, because there is no reality to betray. Power exists, and Superman has traditionally had a literal motto telling us what particular power he stands for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:People learned to speak English without knowing how to live by the clock, and that kind of Sapir-Whorfianism is pretty heavily disproven. Yeah, I just took it to mean that she didn't know why you'd wear something on your wrist to tell you where you needed to be. It's of a piece with her interpreting Etta Candy's job as slavery. She can't think much of how modern Americans and the like live their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Incidentally for all that I think the movie condescends to its audience (and is weaker for it), on a purely tonal level I really like Wonder Woman. We as the audience know what's coming, we pretty much know that humanity is going to carry on with terrible wars with or without Ares, and in fact will be worse than ever without him -- but it also encourages the viewer to identify with Diana as she makes a progression from naive to disillusioned to confident. Yes, but you can tell a story about the best use of that power (if such a thing exists) against a light or dark background, it's not inherently "better" to be "more real". Siegel and Shuster were able to tell some really political stories and also very clearly make them stories for kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Or put another way, I find MoS's Superman far less disturbing than the Donner movies' Superman, because he's deeply uncomfortable with the idea of being a god. The idea that power can express vulnerability and self-doubt, and want to avoid making our decisions for us, is ultimately far more comforting to me than the idea that a farm boy from Kansas is going to unilaterally make things his idea of "all right." You could argue that any story about morally righteous power is a fantasy -- it's basically what Lex Luthor does in BvS, and that would be cynical. But even then I'd still prefer the story that interrogates itself as a fantasy to one that doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
I think your mistake there is in thinking Donner's Superman never has moments of self doubt. You're mistaking the chirpy, seriocomic style with "has no internal conflict." The two are independent of each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think your mistake there is in thinking Donner's Superman never has moments of self doubt. You're mistaking the chirpy, seriocomic style with "has no internal conflict." The two are independent of each other. The Donner Superman sucks Lois Lane's memories out through a kiss and beats up mortal bullies in a petty act of vengeance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:The Donner Superman sucks Lois Lane's memories out through a kiss and beats up mortal bullies in petty acts of vengeance. The former is unethical but it's also the end of a story in which Superman realizes he can't be Lois' and the world's at the same time, and she understands that and it's killing her inside, and it's kind of sad. I think you can disagree with his decision there but there is implicitly an element of "this is a bummer". It just doesn't hammer on that. Maxwell Lord fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Donner's Superman does have self doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Doesn't Snyder's Clark also do the latter Not that I recall, but it's been a while. If he does it's before he takes up his calling, while in the Donner movies it's what he does after he's rediscovered himself as a hero at the very end of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Donner's Superman is seen as a fallible person in the 2nd film. So him going back and beating the poo poo out of some rear end in a top hat makes sense. Like he totally fucks up and suffers for it . He grows as a character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Donner's Superman does have self doubt. yeah he spends a good part of the movie literally not being superman because he'd rather be with Lois, the self-doubt is there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Yes, but you can tell a story about the best use of that power (if such a thing exists) against a light or dark background, it's not inherently "better" to be "more real". Siegel and Shuster were able to tell some really political stories and also very clearly make them stories for kids. All right, but again, I'm not really interested in whether the stories are or are not political (I don't think the latter is even possible) or whether they're for kids or not -- I'm interested in what kind of politics they have. e: I guess this whole argument started over whether movies "treated the audience like children" but I'd submit that there's a difference between "suitable for children" and "treated like children" that anyone familiar with classic fairy tales would probably recognize. 
Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:yeah he spends a good part of the movie literally not being superman because he'd rather be with Lois, the self-doubt is there. And we see this in Batman v Superman as well. But the thing that I find more compelling about Snyder's Superman is his doubts about what he can even do to help the world, how he can turn being a very strong man into being someone who can change the world. Apart from destroying otherworldly threats, that is. Less the desire to just live a normal life stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:And we see this in Batman v Superman as well. But the thing that I find more compelling about Snyder's Superman is his doubts about what he can even do to help the world, how he can turn being a very strong man into being someone who can change the world. Has he really changed the world, though? Like in the context of the DC movies, for the "present day" to be recognizable, it's still going to be a capitalist-dominated world with corrupt billionaires and dysfunctional governments and international terrorism and all that. Throughout BvS he's still mostly doing "rescue" operations, saving people from bad things that have happened, which is good, but he's not shaking the fundamental pillars of power. Even Luthor is just one guy, when he's put in jail at the end that's not the end of Silicon Valley douchebags.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The former is unethical but it's also the end of a story in which Superman realizes he can't be Lois' and the world's at the same time, and she understands that and it's killing her inside, and it's kind of sad. I think you can disagree with his decision there but there is implicitly an element of "this is a bummer". It just doesn't hammer on that. So he roofies her for her own good, and they breeze past the sad stuff, and that's better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:And we see this in Batman v Superman as well. But the thing that I find more compelling about Snyder's Superman is his doubts about what he can even do to help the world, how he can turn being a very strong man into being someone who can change the world. Apart from destroying otherworldly threats, that is. Less the desire to just live a normal life stuff. It's the difference between "should I sacrifice my own happiness to do the right thing?" and "is what i am doing even the right thing?" edit: Snowman_McK posted:So he roofies her for her own good, and they breeze past the sad stuff, and that's better. it was the 70s man, it was a different tiiiiiiiime
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Has he really changed the world, though? Like in the context of the DC movies, for the "present day" to be recognizable, it's still going to be a capitalist-dominated world with corrupt billionaires and dysfunctional governments and international terrorism and all that. Throughout BvS he's still mostly doing "rescue" operations, saving people from bad things that have happened, which is good, but he's not shaking the fundamental pillars of power. Even Luthor is just one guy, when he's put in jail at the end that's not the end of Silicon Valley douchebags. That's exactly what I'm talking about. He wants to help, but even if he just rescues a family from drowning, he's concerned how awe inspiring that must be for the family (the shot of him eclipsing the son), and he gets poo poo from the government. There's oil platforms and factories collapsing in flames, the workers trapped inside. The poor in a nearby city are being terrorized with the cooperation of the police and the newspapers don't care, even one run by a relatively good man like Perry White. But these aren't problems that can be solved by punching someone into orbit. Batman is a bad guy, but he only exists because the system supports him. DC Murderverse posted:It's the difference between "should I sacrifice my own happiness to do the right thing?" and "is what i am doing even the right thing?" Yeah. Nothing against the former, but it's already well explored in superhero movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:That's exactly what I'm talking about. He wants to help, but even if he just rescues a family from drowning, he's concerned how awe inspiring that must be for the family (the shot of him eclipsing the son), and he gets poo poo from the government. There's oil platforms and factories collapsing in flames, the workers trapped inside. The poor in a nearby city are being terrorized with the cooperation of the police and the newspapers don't care, even one run by a relatively good man like Perry White. But these aren't problems that can be solved by punching someone into orbit. But that's the thing- if that's the conflict, then it's completely unresolved. Superman does not defeat capitalism in BvS, and he likely never will as long as WB wants to make superhero movies- but then, neither does the film say he CAN'T destroy the corrupt world order, he just gets sidetracked saving everyone from a giant alien monster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah. Nothing against the former, but it's already well explored in superhero movies. X-Men The Last Stand, Spider-Man 2, Dark Knight Rises (to an extent), Superman 2... Interestingly, the MCU has stayed away from that particular trope, probably for the benefit of everyone who was sick of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
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) “Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!" A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgűl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye." A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may." "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You are looking upon a woman. Eowyn am I, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him." The winged creature screamed at her, but then the Ringwraith was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them. There some paces from him sat the great beast, and all seemed dark about it, and above it loomed the Nazgul Lord like a shadow of despair. A little to the left facing them stood whom he had called Dernhelm. But the helm of her secrecy had fallen from her, and and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears gleamed in them. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes.” ― a hack
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
Tell that to no man land's snapped neck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 05:07
|
|
