|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Shirkelton posted:Interesting that you would call a movie centring two black, disabled voices 'racist'... I'm pretty sure he's making fun of the people who said it would be racist to have an Asian actor for Iron Fist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 11:18
|
|
|
I am absolutely baffled at the creation of this Cole character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 11:21
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I am absolutely baffled at the creation of this Cole character. Sub Zero is going to die and he will become the NEW Sub Zero - Ice Cole(d)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 11:25
|
|
|
SCORPION: Bi-Han... but... you were thrown into Shao Kahn's soul tornado... and shot and called a fucker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 11:31
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Sub Zero is going to die and he will become the NEW Sub Zero - Ice Cole(d) Cole Young. Kuai Liang.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 11:31
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:That's kinda weird tbh Whoa, he's not a dude bro. He's a Bernie bro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 12:50
|
|
|
Batman is the least interesting character in comics, as demonstrated by the last couple of pages
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
Shirkelton posted:Cole Young. Oooooooh, okay that would be... ..cool. Great to see Jax, Mileena and Kung Lao are already in. Still, given Scorpion, Sonya, Bi Han, Liu Kang, Kano, Goro, Shang Tsung and Raiden all appear in the trailer, it does feel odd that Hollywood's brightest star and greatest nutpuncher is seemingly the only OG guy absent. I guess they realised they can't top the original film's Goro ballsmash moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
You got to save somebody for the sequel and there's really nothing about Cage that insists on him being there first up. He doesn't really do anything canonically during the first tournament and having a guy show up talking about how he does all his own stunts but is actually a god-killing badass is way funnier if everybody's already attuned to the mysteries of other realms. Plus, they got Josh Lawson, who seems like he loving rules as Kano and you probably don't need another wacky 'not taking this seriously' dude after a two-bit Australian comedy actor rips out a lizard-man's heart and says 'You Fucken' Beauty'. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
There's a MK canon that people actually care about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
Fangz posted:There's a MK canon that people actually care about? You just spent a page-plus arguing about Batman's no killing rule in the Synder-verse, you bitch, lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:There's a MK canon that people actually care about? No lie, the MK11 expac story that's just a couple of hours of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa hamming it up being a devious, smug poo poo to everyone was more entertaining to me than any superhero film of the last 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:There's a MK canon that people actually care about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:That's kinda weird tbh I think a hero is already a violent figure, and drawing lines about what kinds of violent they are isn't the way to make them a moral figure. bluntly, if the fantasy is of a crime-fighter who fights crime without ever taking a life, why not a fantasy of a crime-fighter who doesn't have to fight at all? what is the purpose of including violence in our fantasy, and for what reason do we put bounds on it? Snyder's quote doesn't say that Batman has to kill to be true to the character, but the opposite. someone has told him Batman doesn't kill and his Batman is not a real Batman, and his response is that the world is violent and violence is traumatic, and that's what he seeks to reflect in his film. I don't think he's ever found an episode of Batman: The Animated Series and said "hey everyone, that's not Batman! Batman kills!" Lunatic Sledge posted:thank you for demanding me to ask questions, then dodging it to answer completely different questions instead I don't think I'm upset. rest easy on that account sometimes the point of asking questions is to realise you're asking the wrong ones. you can't do that if you just sit with your friends and make sweeping generalisations about how everyone who disagrees with you makes, uh, sweeping generalisations about you I believe you can decide one interpretation is best, most accurate and most interesting, and anyone who disagrees is incorrect and not thinking about it properly; I also believe you can decide all interpretations are valid and true, and anyone who says only one is correct is mean and arrogant; I don't believe you can do both, and I don't believe you can blame others for the contradiction in your thoughts
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
I genuinely would like to see a Batman with a no-punch rule
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
I was a kid when I played MK and I never really paid much attention to the plot. I guess in my head I reasoned it as a contest between the characters with the more grounded fighting styles and the ones with bullshit superpowers. For that reason I always thought of Raiden as a villain....
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
Kano has never really fired a gun. He's a hero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Kano is to Mortal Kombat what Royce Gracie is to UFC. Laser Eye = Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I think a hero is already a violent figure, and drawing lines about what kinds of violent they are isn't the way to make them a moral figure. bluntly, if the fantasy is of a crime-fighter who fights crime without ever taking a life, why not a fantasy of a crime-fighter who doesn't have to fight at all? what is the purpose of including violence in our fantasy, and for what reason do we put bounds on it? I fundamentally disagree with this. The idea that if a hero commits violence at all then they might as well be as violent as possible and any limitation they have is arbitrary just doesn't fly with me. Beating someone up is different from killing someone, they are not the same. That doesn't mean either is good, but I think universally everyone accepts there's a difference between hurting someone and killing them, and it does change how we perceive these characters. We put bounds on the violence committed by characters because it defines them, it tells us something about who they are. James Bond kills with impunity and often in cold blood, that says something about who he is. Indiana Jones only kills in self defence, but doesn't murder in cold blood, that tells us something different about him. Now, you could argue that Indiana Jones should execute people in cold blood because, as you say, what's the point in drawing lines about how violent they are, but the point is there are degrees of violence, different uses tell us different things and not all uses of violence should be viewed equally, even if we agree that violence is "immoral".
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Liu Kang is a Shaolin Monk who is never quick to anger and he turned into a dragon and ate dudes. Multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
I think the critical disagreement we will have there is if violence is "immoral", and possibly what counts as violence in the first place. Christ, famously, is a violent figure despite his pacifism this is separate to the idea that bounds on violence provide character definition, which I don't think is accurate. however the question was for us, not the characters: when building our fantasies, why do we still imagine bad guys that have to be punched?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Oooooooh, okay that would be... 'Johnny Cage' is also the character's stage name in the games, so Cole might in fact be him, either making Cole the alias for his real name or he decides to go into show biz at the end with a stage name. Cage and Subby are both not entirely human, though, so the destiny stuff could go either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Well, look, if they don't punch people, then they lose ten straight Mortal Kombat tournaments and Earthrealm falls to Shao Khan's forces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:when building our fantasies, why do we still imagine bad guys that have to be punched? Because violence is the simplest, most viscerally satisfying form of catharsis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I think the critical disagreement we will have there is if violence is "immoral", and possibly what counts as violence in the first place. Christ, famously, is a violent figure despite his pacifism Of course bounds of violence provide character definition, all the character's decisions do. Seeing how a character interacts with their world is number 1 on the list of ways to define character. To be honest I just can't understand the idea that a character's behaviour doesn't define them and is irrelevant, that doesn't make any sense to me. As to why we imagine bad guys have to be punched? Partially because it's spectacle. There are millions of narratives, films or otherwise, where characters resolve their conflicts without violence if that's what you want to see, but they tend not to be huge blockbuster films like the films under discussion here are. As to why the idea of violence exists in culture at all, well, it's because it exists in real life, people do violence, justified and unjustified, all the time so it's no surprise that the stories we tell reflect that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I fundamentally disagree with this. The idea that if a hero commits violence at all then they might as well be as violent as possible and any limitation they have is arbitrary just doesn't fly with me. Beating someone up is different from killing someone, they are not the same. That doesn't mean either is good, but I think universally everyone accepts there's a difference between hurting someone and killing them, and it does change how we perceive these characters. We put bounds on the violence committed by characters because it defines them, it tells us something about who they are. Sure, but take that one step further. Modern boxing and MMA combat is about the safest forms of full contact combat that exist, and yet it's sadly not unheard of for people to die in the ring. When Batman knocks out some number of bank robbers or whatever he's not doing so within the Unified Rules of the MMA. So if we presume Batman has pursued his hobby for any extended length of time its a safe bet that -- barring author fiat -- that at some point someone's died. Even with author fiat such that this never happens, world's greatest detective Batman certainly recognizes that it may happen eventually yet makes the choice to go beat up criminals anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
I can't remember Batman ever throwing a soccer kick or a 12 - 6 elbow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Modern boxing and MMA combat is about the safest forms of full contact combat that exist, and yet it's sadly not unheard of for people to die in the ring. When Batman knocks out some number of bank robbers or whatever he's not doing so within the Unified Rules of the MMA. So if we presume Batman has pursued his hobby for any extended length of time its a safe bet that -- barring author fiat -- that at some point someone's died. Even with author fiat such that this never happens, world's greatest detective Batman certainly recognizes that it may happen eventually yet makes the choice to go beat up criminals anyways. I once read an article about Batman that said he actually had a superpower, and that superpower was moral certainty. He's positioned as the World's Greatest Detective so that we can rest assured that when Batman decides to punch a guy, he knows it's the right guy. We're assured that he's the greatest martial artist in the world so that when he punches that guy, he knows exactly how to do it in a way that'll knock him out but not kill him. Batman is (like a lot of action stars and superheroes) the myth of safe, productive violence. The problem comes when, as you pointed out, people try to either bring reality into comics or use comics as a blueprint for how they behave in reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
Shirkelton posted:I can't remember Batman ever throwing a soccer kick or a 12 - 6 elbow. I did hear he was upset that Superman got a move named after him though
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Not all superheroes (let alone heroes, full stop) necessarily punch people, or try to punch people. Spiderman does some amount of punching but his main verb is using his webs to disarm and tie the bad guy up. Ant man is mainly about avoidance, and getting into places, though he does punch in mass battle type situations I guess. There's also a distinction you can draw between *people* and less obviously sentient enemies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
They recently made a Mega Man cartoon where he couldn't shoot robots. (this was also true in the Ruby Spears 90s cartoon, he would have to shoot something in the environment that would fall on a robot)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I once read an article about Batman that said he actually had a superpower, and that superpower was moral certainty. He's positioned as the World's Greatest Detective so that we can rest assured that when Batman decides to punch a guy, he knows it's the right guy. We're assured that he's the greatest martial artist in the world so that when he punches that guy, he knows exactly how to do it in a way that'll knock him out but not kill him. Batman is (like a lot of action stars and superheroes) the myth of safe, productive violence. The problem comes when, as you pointed out, people try to either bring reality into comics or use comics as a blueprint for how they behave in reality. Tom King did an arc in his Batman run where Bruce had to deal with the idea that a lot of Gotham views Batman as infallible and if he beats up a guy and says he did it then he did it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:There's also a distinction you can draw between *people* and less obviously sentient enemies. This doesn't seem like a good jumping off point for a discussion about the morality of violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
The lore in MK is REALLY important now and it's basically 2+ hour long movies in each game. MK 2011 is a reboot of everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URUJPTpZXnE&t=281s MK X continues things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWL55Np1s2s And MK 11 is the latest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEi4lr4lMQ It's schlocky b-movie, Shaw bros stuff and is very entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
I don't like this "Cole Young" guy or understand why he's being stretched into Sub-Zero II just after seeing that trailer (objectively the best character in the franchise) but I'm ready. The overwhelming feeling I get is this is being made by people who really like Mortal Kombat. That's always a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I don't like this "Cole Young" guy or understand why he's being stretched into Sub-Zero II just after seeing that trailer (objectively the best character in the franchise) but I'm ready. The overwhelming feeling I get is this is being made by people who really like Mortal Kombat. That's always a good thing. It's just going to be a reveal that he's sub zeros secret younger brother for extra drama and for them to still have a good guy sub zero ready to go when they kill bad guy sub zero so he can become noob Saibot in the next movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Because violence is the simplest, most viscerally satisfying form of catharsis. Karloff posted:As to why we imagine bad guys have to be punched? Partially because it's spectacle. There are millions of narratives, films or otherwise, where characters resolve their conflicts without violence if that's what you want to see, but they tend not to be huge blockbuster films like the films under discussion here are. As to why the idea of violence exists in culture at all, well, it's because it exists in real life, people do violence, justified and unjustified, all the time so it's no surprise that the stories we tell reflect that. hah! and they call Snyder cynical! I'd like to offer an alternative philosophy: violence is amoral, is more than just physical contact and is necessary. a hero is a violent figure not because they kill or even punch anyone, but because the basic concept of heroism is in itself violent: an expression of what should be against what is. again, the example of Christ comes to mind: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." of course, Jesus didn't bring an actual sword - but you don't need a sword (or a gun, or a fist) to divide families, to do violence a less charged example would be perhaps a detective/murder mystery, in which the hero intrudes into a stable (if tense) situation and uncovers everyone's dirty secrets on the path of catching the killer. the hero only uses conversation and their own reason to expose the truth, but the result is violent and traumatic - and worthwhile. truth is violence. relevant example: the play An Inspector Calls (in which there technically hasn't even been a murder to violently kick things off) so: physical violence is just one kind of violence among many, and not actually worse by its nature. all violence is traumatic. what makes violence - of any kind - moral or immoral is the ends to which it is put. James Bond is not a dead-eyed psycho because he shoots first, with intent to kill; James Bond is a dead-eyed psycho because he kills in the name of British imperialism. Batman's not a superhero because he only ever breaks bones and concusses people but never kills, he's a superhero because he fights crime I would partly agree with Karloff in that violence exists in stories to reflect real life, but not in the sense that "violence exists" - as people have noted, bat-themed genius billionaires don't exist in real life but we put them into stories anyway. I think violence exists in stories because as said heroism is violent. the purpose of violence in stories is not to titillate but to authenticate; a hero who doesn't do violence (in whatever form) is a hero who doesn't do anything, i.e. not a hero. heroes take a stand for what should be, and the cost of that is violence at what currently is - rightfully so Karloff posted:Of course bounds of violence provide character definition, all the character's decisions do. Seeing how a character interacts with their world is number 1 on the list of ways to define character. To be honest I just can't understand the idea that a character's behaviour doesn't define them and is irrelevant, that doesn't make any sense to me. I think character definition provides character definition. as noted above, James Bond kills because he's a loyal servant of the British Empire. he doesn't kill because Fleming needed to flesh out his central character and decided a "yes-kill" rule would be the best way to do it. equally I don't think anyone has actually interrogated the Indiana Jones character based on when and why he kills or not - that's not what people consider when they imagine the character
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:The lore in MK is REALLY important now and it's basically 2+ hour long movies in each game. Tsk, don't forget the best part of MK 11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZt5ec-kNC8 "We can't trust him! He'll betray us!" "I'm just waiting for you to stab us in the back, sorcerer." "The fools have allied with Shang Tsung, he will be the end of them."  "Who? Me?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Tsk, don't forget the best part of MK 11: Lol I'm actually interested in watching these cinematics now
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:15
|
|
