(Thread IKs:
Nuns with Guns)
|
McCloud posted:They did a whole movie about the consequences, it was called Batman v Superman, perhaps you heard of it? I mean I'm not personally a fan of the "we'll do it in the sequel" defence, as sequels often react to negative responses. But, even then, BvS could not have done a worse job of discussing the consequences.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:that would literally be one of the funniest movies made if it was just played 100% straight thriller about a kid hiding from robbers after a fight with his family and all and then the final scene is just him getting his head taken off by his own paint bucket trap. So essentially You're Next!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I mean I'm not personally a fan of the "we'll do it in the sequel" defence, as sequels often react to negative responses. But, even then, BvS could not have done a worse job of discussing the consequences. I can understand your point about t dealing with the fallout in sequels. I disagree with your second point though. Anyway my point was that it was brought up and given a fair bit of attention
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
McCloud posted:It's like they're ascribing Superman with omnipotence, he didn't save everyone, this must clearly be because he didn't care, and not because he was unable to, because something something hypercompentent violence something something hypercompentent randian sociopath hypercompentent ctrl alt delete I remember that for most of the 00's there was a sentiment that Superman wasn't an interesting character because he had become so powerful over the decades that it had become impossible to tell stories about him. All Star Superman was held as the exception that proved the point. Grant Morrison was able to just make it work for 12 issues, and even then it showed its seams at points. But when you cut back on how powerful he is he gets held as a "disinterested, irresponsible sociopath" when he... beats the bad guys and saves the planet, in an extremely typical super hero way. It makes me feel for anyone tasked with writing the character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
I think the fundamental problem with the argument that Man of Steel and its ilk are serious examinations of the consequences of violence is that they absolutely aren't what are you talking about. The violence didn't make me uncomfortable it made me bored because the city level destruction was treated with the same gravatas as in a Transformers movie. I remember watching the end of the movie and laughing out loud when they cut back to the daily planet office, fully staffed and back to work with wrecked buildings in the background like nothing had happened. And in the sequel they did the whole 911 thing with batman and it went absolutely nowhere because the actual central conflict of the movie wasn't really explored in any meaningful way. Like we have a conflict between a vigilante murderer and a superpowered dude who pushed a city over in self defence and its resolved because the vigilante realizes the super powered murderer has a mother just like he did. And then he goes on to spare the villain not because he's suddenly woken up to the reality that the faceless thugs he's been dropping like fles all movie might also have a mother named Martha but because the dude says he's summoned satan and its a bad idea to kill him right now. I'm sure I'm being Uncharitable or I missed a line somewhere that handwaves it or whatever but I really don't understand how you can make a film obstensably about batman and superman needing to fight, and making the story be about a batman who's been driven to use extremely violent methods to facilitate that only to 1) not really explore what made batman that way and 2) blackmail superman into fighting batman so as to not explore their actual conflict before hand waving it away and they're friends now. Why is superman cool with batman having murdered a bunch of people? Why isn't batman in jail? I thought this was mature lasting consequences for violence town for clever adults now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
The real-world consequence of having billionaires is that they can kill thousands of people and not go to jail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Ok so in your own words, can you please explain how Snyders work is Randian? Have you ever met a non-Randian who thinks The Fountainhead is a good book? And even without that we have 300, which is not specifically Randian but is incredibly unsubtle in its far-right messaging. josh04 posted:It's the finale of JLU, Darkseid comes back from the dead and only gets defeated by a deus Lex machina. It's extremely violent, but the violence is used in an entirely different way. Re-read the first scene of Watchmen. It's not a cool slow-mo martial arts fight like in the film. It's a first-person image of an old man's face getting progressively more bloodied and bruised. Compare these two:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXLfTv42T8A There's no fighting back, nobody looks cool, the Comedian might have even been too drunk to do so. And the way Snyder makes room for these fights is by addressing point b, i.e. by cutting out all of the cultural commentary Moore is providing on superheroes beyond the violence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
fun hater posted:henry cavill is like the concept of watching paint dry anthropomorphized Him and his mustache are okay in the Mission Impossible movie. The scene where he and Tom Cruise both get the poo poo beaten out of them by a completely random no-name guy is very good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:39
|
|
Microcline posted:Have you ever met a non-Randian who thinks The Fountainhead is a good book? Most of the people I know who have read and like The Fountainhead are not randisns, because while it is insane it is also (shockingly) one of Rand’s less actively didactic books and, besides fuckin’ anthem, usually the one non-politically minded people are most likely to know and have read.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
josh04 posted:The real-world consequence of having billionaires is that they can kill thousands of people and not go to jail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:Most of the people I know who have read and like The Fountainhead are not randisns, because while it is insane it is also (shockingly) one of Rand’s less actively didactic books and, besides fuckin’ anthem, usually the one non-politically minded people are most likely to know and have read. They didn't say "who has read The FOuntainhead" they said "Thinks it's a good book". Mr Phillby posted:I think the fundamental problem with the argument that Man of Steel and its ilk are serious examinations of the consequences of violence is that they absolutely aren't what are you talking about. The violence didn't make me uncomfortable it made me bored because the city level destruction was treated with the same gravatas as in a Transformers movie. Yeah ultimately this is what I mean by Snyder's version of this extremely cold take is extremely poorly done. It's trying to make you uncomfortable but it never really sits with any actual human reaction long enough to actually make you uncomfortable. The violence is usually done to property or scales so big you can't feel anything about it because you're in reality just watching a bunch of CGI buildings fall on one another. the closest he gets to it are the opening of BvS which is mostly just Ben Affleck Stone Face going "NONONONO THE HORROR", the twenty seconds of screentime the home life of the former Wayne Industries worker who Lex is setting up is given, and the actual titular fist fight the movie is about and even that last one, which is all just close ups of two dudes slapping each other as hard as they can still goes for glamour over horror and shock because they get up afterwards like it didn't happen and go fight the real villain. Again, I see what he's trying to do, he just does it very very poorly because at the end of the day he's kind of a dumb guy that likes to see wicked cool slow mo punches. The rest of the movie is Superman sadly looking at TV's or tubthumping in what looks like ice cold water and Jesse Eisenberg capering around pissing into open mason jars. ZenMasterBullshit fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
^- neck snap?Mr Phillby posted:Either that or whoops you just made a movie where superman thinks billionaires are good actually and should be allowed to kill who they like I wonder why people think its an insult to the character of superman. No-one has ever made a film where Superman is actively dismantling capitalist society so yes, no-one has ever made a film where Superman isn't happy with billionaires being allowed to kill whoever they like. Superman, both the character and the concept, is the product of a society which is happy allowing billionaires to kill whoever they like. The film's solution to this is some liberal nonsense about imprisoning the bad billionaires and making a human connection with the good ones, but the problem isn't that it's willing to recognise the issue at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
josh04 posted:^- neck snap? Pretty sure they made a film out of Superman: Red Son, though I didn't see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:15
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:They didn't say "who has read The FOuntainhead" they said "Thinks it's a good book". Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:Most of the people I know who have read and like The Fountainhead are not randisns, because while it is insane it is also (shockingly) one of Rand’s less actively didactic books and, besides fuckin’ anthem, usually the one non-politically minded people are most likely to know and have read.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Pretty sure they made a film out of Superman: Red Son, though I didn't see it. Red Son ends with Superman conceding defeat to the end of history and a thousand years of happy liberal democracy, I regret to say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:I'm sure I'm being Uncharitable or I missed a line somewhere that handwaves it or whatever but I really don't understand how you can make a film obstensably about batman and superman needing to fight, and making the story be about a batman who's been driven to use extremely violent methods to facilitate that only to 1) not really explore what made batman that way and 2) blackmail superman into fighting batman so as to not explore their actual conflict before hand waving it away and they're friends now. 9/11, Joker killing Robin, disillusionment with his own vigilantism. When Bruce is talking with Alfred in the ruins of Wayne manner, he talks about how criminals are like weeds and how the only meaningful thing he'll ever do is kill Superman. That's how Batman got that way. It's one of the few things that was pretty clear in the theatrical cut, which was basically all about Batman. The second point is lost, though. It's why the Ultimate Edition is better because it explores why Superman has a problem with Batman. In the beginning of the film he has that one guy dead to rights and still decides to brand him. It wasn't out of self-defense it was just an act of cruelty, which Alfred berates him for. I mean, you have a point about random mooks but it does attempt to reconcile this in that these people Batman are fighting are using overwhelming lethal force. Every time Batman confronts them they have hardware that'd make the US military blush with envy and each takedown is Batman targeting the machinery they are wielding and not the wielder itself. I get that you don't accept that, which is cool and to each their own, but the film does make an attempt to address the lethal use of force Batman uses compared to, say, Iron Man flying to the Middle East and selectively icing a bunch of armed people holding hostages. It's why you probably don't have human enemies all that often after the first Iron Man and why parademons are the orcs in Justice League.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
That's also the first I've heard about The Fountainhead being the least didactic. I gather it's where she introduced the concept of objectivism. Bear in mind though I've not read it, I did read Atlas Shrugged and holy poo poo what a terrible book. That was enough for me. But from synopsis' of Fountainhead it looks 100% her kind of bullshit. Is it really necessary to redeem it just because Zack Snyder likes it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
I know its easy to be glib about the popular opinion on something being poorly informed, but I feel like if you have to spend substanial amounts of text explaining to each new person that a peice of media has certain themes, those themes might of been poorly communicated in the first place. In penance for Snyder posting I'll reccomend Aunty Donna on youtube for Australian funny men. Edit: lol i just watched that watchmen opening fight, that is some goofy poo poo. Strikes pretty much the opposite tone from the comic. Vagabong fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
josh04 posted:^- neck snap? I'm aware it exists. I'm talking bout when the movies get closest to actually working on those themes and showing the brutality and pain of violence successfully. It's such a loving poorly do The neck snap scene is....so poorly directed and acted that it's comical. Like, actually got laughs in the theater I saw the film in comical. It's kind of a perfect example of what I mean by "Snyder's trying for something but is also kind of incredibly stupid in ways." Jimbot posted:9/11 I'm sorry you shouldn't have started with this cause the idea of someone saying "The film doesn't do a great job exploring the character and their motivation outside of a few background elements and, largely, leaving the viewer to imagine whatever they need to to make sense" and the response is "9/11 Did it!" is....the funniest poo poo. ZenMasterBullshit fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
JustaDamnFool posted:I know its easy to be glib about the popular opinion on something being poorly informed, but I feel like if you have to spend substanial amounts of text explaining to each new person that a peice of media has certain themes, those themes might of been poorly communicated in the first place. Are you criticizing Snyder or F. Scott Fitzgerald?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
JustaDamnFool posted:I know its easy to be glib about the popular opinion on something being poorly informed, but I feel like if you have to spend substanial amounts of text explaining to each new person that a peice of media has certain themes, those themes might of been poorly communicated in the first place. Nah. By this metric there's nothing wrong with any piece of media ever because you have to spend a substantial amount of text explaining to each new person that there's something wrong with it. That's just something to stifle a discussion and presents one side as being defensive and irrational. ZenMasterBullshit posted:I'm sorry you shouldn't have started with this cause the idea of someone saying "The film doesn't do a great job exploring the character and their motivation outside of a few background elements and, largely, leaving the viewer to imagine whatever they need to to make sense" and the response is "9/11 Did it!" is....the funniest poo poo. I mean, that's what people, and that post, are referring that event to and the imagery isn't exactly subtle. After 9/11 the US government enacted the worst piece of privacy destroying and civil liberty infringing piece of legislation in history with the majority backing of the US population. Even being remotely critical of the US during this time was met with some pretty severe hostility. It's not exactly a stretch to say "this world's version of 9/11 broke a man". Jimbot fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Are you criticizing Snyder or F. Scott Fitzgerald? Why not both? Jimbot posted:I mean, that's what people, and that post, are referring that event to and the imagery isn't exactly subtle. After 9/11 the US government enacted the worst piece of privacy destroying and civil liberty infringing piece of legislation in history with the majority backing of the US population. Even being remotely critical of the US during this time was met with some pretty severe hostility. It's not exactly a stretch to say "this world's version of 9/11 broke a man" or "it served as the catalyst for Yes I know. That's why I said I was reacting to how you said it. You could have said "The events of the previous film" or something but just going "9/11." up front was funny. ZenMasterBullshit fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Yes I know. That's why I said I was reacting to how you said it. You could have said "The events of the previous film" or something but just going "9/119." up front was funny. Ah, gotcha. I guess it is kinda silly, but I figured I'd just use brevity in that case. Zack Snyder isn't exactly subtle with his imagery and people hate that but I find it pretty endearing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Depends on the level of ink spilt, innit. If I can point out that actually Gatsby is sad as hell and his money isnt to someone who read the novel and they clock it quickly, Scott F. Fitzgerald has written a better novel than needing to endlessly argue with each new person that actually this film is good. Like if a bunch of people watch something and enjoy it, and it takes reams of text to convince them it was actually bad, then the thing is probably just good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Fair enough. Just replace text with youtube videos that take hours or days to make and you'll see where I'm coming from. I don't agree with what you posted because even if I don't at all agree with youtube critics' videos on Zack Snyder's films, they had something to say about it and their opinion is just as valid as those who argue that his films try to say something about superheroes but do so on a comedy forum in text form. We all like films and we want them to be to our liking and discussing them, regardless of how heated it may get, is always a good thing. It's just some films and directors are more tiring than others because neither party likes to shut up about them. And this is coming form someone who can't shut up about them. So anyway, how about them Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:43
|
|
Karloff posted:That's also the first I've heard about The Fountainhead being the least didactic. I gather it's where she introduced the concept of objectivism. Bear in mind though I've not read it, I did read Atlas Shrugged and holy poo poo what a terrible book. That was enough for me. But from synopsis' of Fountainhead it looks 100% her kind of bullshit. Is it really necessary to redeem it just because Zack Snyder likes it. I have read it, and while it is genuinely fuckin terrible in the way only Ayn Rand can be, it was a book she wrote while still vaguely aware that there were these things called “symbolism” and “allegory” she should at least try to use, before she abandoned all that stuff and wrote Atlas Shrugged as an actual, literal political screed with some vague trappings of fiction around it. The Fountainhead is pretty objectivist, yes, but it actually disguises most of the overt political statements within the structure of discussions of artistic liberty and the integrity of creators, and while it is incredibly obvious what she’s trying to get at, as an artist, you can also somewhat sympathize with Howard Roark’s motivations, even if he is an insane rear end in a top hat. I mainly bring this point up about The Fountainhead because, like you said, you haven’t read it. Most people who bring it up as a gotcha have not read it, either. And certainly, there’s not much reason to - with 60 years of hindsight to understand exactly what kind of bitter, sniping, petty, and untalented hacky shitstain Ayn Rand was, there’s not really much reason to give her works any attention. But when people who do not actually know the material outside of a Wikipedia summary try to use it as a mindless gotcha to prove that Zack Snyder is secretly an objectivist, it ignores that there are entirely apolitical reasons why the book can appeal to people, it gives people an excuse to avoid actually discussing the text of the things Snyder has actually made (in particular- calling Man of Steel, a film explicitly about the dangers of power wielded unwisely contracted against the necessity of using the power you have, an “objectivist fantasy,” is laughably loving stupid) and it just makes the whole discussion that more of a loving slog because you’ve moved entirely from the subject of the actual movies to attacking Zack Snyder directly, as a person.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
I'm not asking for superman to crush the patriachy and bring about glorious gay space communism, I just think that the he should have something, anything at all to say about a corrupt billionaire commiting extra judicial murders or investigate why his bosses at the paper aren't reporting on it. Even if you accept the premise that batman getting away with it us supposed to be a damning condemation of real life billionaires there aren't even emotional consequences, there's nothing in the movie to indicate how batman feels about killing people or if he even feels bad about it at all. Jimbot posted:9/11, Joker killing Robin, disillusionment with his own vigilantism. When Bruce is talking with Alfred in the ruins of Wayne manner, he talks about how criminals are like weeds and how the only meaningful thing he'll ever do is kill Superman. That's how Batman got that way. It's one of the few things that was pretty clear in the theatrical cut, which was basically all about Batman. The second point is lost, though. It's why the Ultimate Edition is better because it explores why Superman has a problem with Batman. In the beginning of the film he has that one guy dead to rights and still decides to brand him. It wasn't out of self-defense it was just an act of cruelty, which Alfred berates him for. We get one scene of bruce in his burned house. There is no context for what happened to the house. It isn't clear when batman started killing again but it feels like a while given he has criminals on the inside to carry out his extra judicial murders (also thats just kind of thrown at the audience, like what? Why? ) There's a blink and you miss it reference to the killing joke. The film is named batman versus superman but we only get the barest glimpse of his motivations. We don't really know why he started killing and at the end I'm not even sure he changed his mind about it. I guess he did because he stopped doing that poo poo in the sequel but its some weak poo poo my dude. Also iron man is a bad counter point because the film did actually expolre the issue of superheroes taking unilateral unsactioned military action in foreign countries and that sort of was the crux of the idealogical disagreement between Cap and Tony in Civil war. Like yeah they could have done more or come to conclusions that line up with my personal politics more but as jingoistic as the bit where he goes to the middle east and owns the terrorists it isn't a throwaway part of the story but a logical progression from Tony stark sells weapons-> terrorists use his weapons against him-> builds robot suit to escape-> stops weapons production and works on cooler robot suit -> sees new report showing terrorists using his weapons on tv. We understand Tony's motivation and he gets in trouble for doing it. I'm not saying that Iron Man is perfect but it tells a coherent story at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Also hearty lol at "they're using military grade araments against him" when talking about the version of batman who brands criminals with a hot iron so that they get shanked in jail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:I'm not asking for superman to crush the patriachy and bring about glorious gay space communism why not
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:Also hearty lol at "they're using military grade araments against him" when talking about the version of batman who brands criminals with a hot iron so that they get shanked in jail. I mean, both happen in the film. But I digress, I just disagree with you and I'm honestly tired of discussing in a thread about online creators. I can watch the film again and cite every example that I think supports my point and you'll reject them just as I reject your Iron Man example or vise versa. It's fine. You didn't obviously didn't think it was good enough, I obviously did. We'll talk about it until we're blue in the face but it just won't convince either of us. Since this is a youtube creator thread this conversation will inevitably happen again when a creator will make their obligatory Zack Snyder video. Or until our friend McCloud posts again, who has an unending fountain of will to draw upon for discussing this stuff around here. Edit: That's not to dismiss your effort post there. I appreciate it a ton! It's just that this derail can get out of hand and if you want to get the last words in I won't have any follow ups. Jimbot fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
Oh do gently caress off, batmans use of leathal force isn't inherently in self defense if he loving murders the ones he actually arrests too. Military grade hardware hasn't traditionally prevented him from non leathally fighting people in other batman media either. Batman has loving military grade kit by default. He's horny for killing and does it on a systemic scale. Edit: your edit appeared after I edited, sorry for being rude. I feel like part of the disagreement here is that it feels like the movie you describe sounds like exactly like a movie I would like to watch but it does not line up with what I watched at all. Batman is kinda fundamentally flawed and hypocritical, a movie that actually explored batman's no killing rule and played in that space would be great but the film I watched only touched on that idea and didn't attempt to justify batman's behaviour. Andrast posted:why not Mr Phillby fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:We all like films and we want them to be to our liking and discussing them, regardless of how heated it may get, is always a good thing. It's just some films and directors are more tiring than others because neither party likes to shut up about them. And this is coming form someone who can't shut up about them. I dig it, I was being a bit wrong headed in part cos I'm lacking the words for what I'm trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
The real problem with Snyder discourse is how much of it is working backwards from an assumed conclusion. He's an objectivist, so we must look for examples of such in his movies rather than actually engage with the movie and then draw a conclusion from it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Snyder should direct the next star wars movie
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Snyder should direct a fate/stay night movie
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Snyder should direct the next star wars movie You joke but there's almost assuredly better versions of at least a few of the Disney films locked in the back of some store room. At the very least there's a mostly complete Lord and Miller Solo cut that we poor bastards are never going to get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:You joke but there's almost assuredly better versions of at least a few of the Disney films locked in the back of some store room. At the very least there's a mostly complete Lord and Miller Solo cut that we poor bastards are never going to get. There has to be one for The Last Jedi. That film is super frustrating to me. Going by his other films, Rian Johnson doesn't seem like a director who doesn't follow up on ideas but the way that film is put together just undercuts itself all the time. At least I hope there is. He really does have the benefit of the doubt because of who owns Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Rian has said he would’ve liked to have test screened it to fix some issues. They also took out some pretty great scenes in the deleted ones. Ones that really hammer home Finn’s and Rey’s character growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
The next Star Wars should be a music composed by the same people that wrote the music for The Rebel Force Band https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWcTbjSrguc
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Hopefully when the gov smashes Disney to pieces for monopoly violations someone can grab the archives on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 21:05
|
|