|
Roth posted:I believe they are being somewhat snarky, because they immediately got called a weirdo by BrianWilly for saying they don't mind that Batman kills people. Well, BrianWilly shouldn't be calling people weirdos, either.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Agreed OP
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Roth posted:I believe they are being somewhat snarky, because they immediately got called a weirdo by BrianWilly for saying they don't mind that Batman kills people and doesn't consider "killing" to be a particularly important boundary. not that it's inherently better or worse, just clarifying edit: BrianWilly didn't call him a weirdo, either, I can post a screencap if that's what we're resorting to now Lunatic Sledge fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Your question is part of an ongoing conversation in the thread, man. And, again, nobody's arguing about what you seem to be saying. You just kind of keep saying the same thing over and over and seem to want to engage with increasingly more abstracted ideas of "violence" when it really doesn't serve any purpose. Violence is a form of conflict, yeah, we get that. And accusing people of being messed up for stating really pretty tame opinions is kind of lovely and not conducive to civilized conversation. well, this particular conversation comes from Lunatic Sledge and SlimGoodbody discussing the reasoning (and how there isn't any) behind Snyder's Batman. that's the ongoing conversation in the thread. I thought I already explained this I keep reiterating the argument because you keep paraphrasing it and getting it wrong. the point isn't that violence is a form of conflict, no. if you disagree that's fine, but I'm not sure why you keep posting about it if you also don't want to talk about it? just be like "you don't make any sense dude", it's cool I don't approve of the idea of violence-as-catharsis - but you are right in that it's not an uncommon understanding. apologies if I was rude, not intending to single you out. that said I thought the criticism against grimdark comics and comic book movies was that violence was being deployed gratuitously, for spectacle and audience catharsis. is that criticism wrong? is grimdarkness cool again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:well, this particular conversation comes from Lunatic Sledge and SlimGoodbody discussing the reasoning (and how there isn't any) behind Snyder's Batman. that's the ongoing conversation in the thread. I thought I already explained this I think I understand, I just think you're using a very broad, very vague meaning of the word "violence" and implying that it's all kind of interchangeable, which I don't think is true at all, and I think that's meaningful to the conversation being had. And I think that, by necessity, all violence in fiction is catharsis. It's not necessarily, like, good catharsis. But it provides an emotional release. At its most fundamental level, that's what physical violence in fiction is, it's a release of tension that can't be contained anymore (either in the characters or in the audience or both interchangeably). It's like in musicals; when the emotions get too strong, you start singing. When singing doesn't do it anymore, you start dancing. It's the same with violence, really. Beyond that, a film chooses what that violence means, what it says about the world, the characters, the audience, yeah. But that doesn't change its fundamental function.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Lunatic Sledge posted:not that it's inherently better or worse, just clarifying If you're being that pedantic, he said it's really weird, and it is a goofy thing to care about if you're that bothered by someone saying that violence is catharsis is a little bit messed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Roth posted:If you're being that pedantic, he said it's really weird, and it is a goofy thing to care about if you're that bothered by someone saying that violence is catharsis is a little bit messed up. he said it's kinda weird tbh like I know I'm splitting hairs but you can't even say what he just, said, when called out on misrepresenting what he said here, let me help  I'm tapping out folks, if I could go back in time I'd stop myself from ever posting about Batman I'm loving sorry
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:I think he just embellished poo poo and the ouline of some of it is very plausible. A bunch ofbspy thriller writers from his time were OSS or cia. Maybe he cribbed from the stuff Christopher Lee actually did, who amusingly once told Peter Jackson just how somebody sounds when they’re stabbed in the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I actually agree that, completely divorced from any context, "killing" within a fictional setting doesn't carry any inherent moral weight. It's exactly as important as the narrative says it is, which I think was the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Please keep talking about Mortal Kombat and stop letting this SMG wannabe run circles around y’all
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:stop letting this SMG wannabe run circles around y’all where is that happening
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Lunatic Sledge posted:he said it's kinda weird tbh It is beyond splitting hairs to complain that they didn't call somebody a weirdo exactly, they just said they were weird. Checkmate, I guess. I think it's goofy that it was worth calling out Lt Danger for something innocuous that was no worse than what had been said to him. Just as goofy were the posts about how it's such a shame nobody that likes the Snyder DC movies can engage in good faith while this thread frequently has posters complaining about Snyder cultists deluding themselves into liking bad movies and the Cine D hivemind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
it is weird to say that killing isn't a particularly important boundary tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
site posted:it is weird to say that killing isn't a particularly important boundary tho I read it as within the context of fiction. Because we're talking about Batman. If Lt Danger thinks IRL killing isn't important, then the fool is me I guess Essentially this: Phylodox posted:For what it's worth, I actually agree that, completely divorced from any context, "killing" within a fictional setting doesn't carry any inherent moral weight. It's exactly as important as the narrative says it is, which I think was the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Roth posted:It is beyond splitting hairs to complain that they didn't call somebody a weirdo exactly, they just said they were weird. Checkmate, I guess. I don't appreciate being called messed up, and I'm not BrianWilly. I think this is a big part of the problem, it's so hard for people to talk about this stuff because it's so tempting to just end up arguing with an entire point of view instead of an individual person. I've been trying to restrict my responses to what Lt. Danger has been saying and not bringing in any outside baggage. I understand that there's a lot of history going on with the subject, though, so I try to be understanding about that, too. If calling what Lt. Danger said "lovely" is overstepping, I take it back. site posted:it is weird to say that killing isn't a particularly important boundary tho Consider something like, I dunno, Hot Shots Part Deux where Charlie Sheen throws a handful of bullets at a bunch of enemy soldiers and they all fall over dead. He killed them, but it's treated as a joke. It's entirely dependent on the context of the film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I don't appreciate being called messed up, and I'm not BrianWilly. I think this is a big part of the problem, it's so hard for people to talk about this stuff because it's so tempting to just end up arguing with an entire point of view instead of an individual person. I've been trying to restrict my responses to what Lt. Danger has been saying and not bringing in any outside baggage. I understand that there's a lot of history going on with the subject, though, so I try to be understanding about that, too. If calling what Lt. Danger said "lovely" is overstepping, I take it back. I think it seems to be more of a misunderstanding considering Lt Danger's latest post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
Roth posted:I read it as within the context of fiction. Because we're talking about Batman. If Lt Danger thinks IRL killing isn't important, then the fool is me I guess i guess my problem here is that you're quoting something that literally says "completely divorced from any context" while putting into a context of batman Phylodox posted:Consider something like, I dunno, Hot Shots Part Deux where Charlie Sheen throws a handful of bullets at a bunch of enemy soldiers and they all fall over dead. He killed them, but it's treated as a joke. It's entirely dependent on the context of the film. i get what you mean, and yes you're right it is treated as a joke. and there are certainly quite a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot of movies where that happens. but i just feel like i personally don't agree that that means you can't ascribe any moral weight to whether the killing was good or bad or "just is", just because the story itself does not make the morality of it a topic? that feels like a subjective choice the viewer is making, to not engage with it in that way, but it's not an absolute, if that makes sense. e: like hot shots is a parody of rambo, which seems like it would be quite open to thinking about how we engage with both a series that began as a look into the ptsd a vietnam vet has, how that evolved into the action series that lost its sense of the violence it was portraying, and society's willingness to parody that. you don't have to, and it's not something i would have ever thought to do before right now. but it's there to be engaged with if you so choose. site fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
site posted:i get what you mean, and yes you're right it is treated as a joke. and there are certainly quite a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot of movies where that happens. but i just feel like i personally don't agree that that means you can't ascribe any moral weight to whether the killing was good or bad or "just is", just because the story itself does not make the morality of it a topic? that feels like a subjective choice the viewer is making, to not engage with it in that way, but it's not an absolute, if that makes sense Again, though, you're talking about a moral weight that you choose to assign to it. If you want to be horrified at "Weird" Al Yankovic chewing up bullets and spitting them out and killing a bunch of nameless baddies, that's your choice. It's not inherent to what's being depicted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I think I understand, I just think you're using a very broad, very vague meaning of the word "violence" and implying that it's all kind of interchangeable, which I don't think is true at all, and I think that's meaningful to the conversation being had. ok - I do think different kinds of violence are interchangeable, or more specifically that physical violence isn't morally worse than other kinds of violence and doesn't require special treatment. I feel a theoretical superhero who bankrupts and impoverishes villains through legal and economic pressure isn't more noble than someone who just beats them up. this may just have to be a difference of philosophy? I think I see what you mean now about catharsis - I'm sorry, I definitely misunderstood. I don't think I agree, though - that is, I don't think audiences should be getting emotional release from the violence itself, but rather as vicarious catharsis from the character. for me the catharsis of the Batman warehouse scene isn't getting to see Batman hurt/kill some goons, but from Batman's change of heart, his choice to do good and save a life instead of vent his rage on an enemy. that choice (the heroic choice) demands violence, and the violence itself is not cathartic but the opposite - it's quite traumatic and unpleasant!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
I do think murder in real life is wrong btw. this is something you could have asked me directly, site
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Just elling my god drat aye oh https://twitter.com/HourComeAtLast/status/1362876249010409472?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:ok - I do think different kinds of violence are interchangeable, or more specifically that physical violence isn't morally worse than other kinds of violence and doesn't require special treatment. I feel a theoretical superhero who bankrupts and impoverishes villains through legal and economic pressure isn't more noble than someone who just beats them up. this may just have to be a difference of philosophy? I'm not making an argument that physical violence is more or less morally wrong. I think it's different because it appeals to a much more fundamental part of us than other kinds of conflict. Watching Columbo go "One more thing..." is, like, good and fun and satisfying but I don't think it can give us that deep-down hind-brain feeling of watching, say, George McFly smack the poo poo out of Biff. And the catharsis can be two-fold, we can get vicarious release from seeing characters resolve their disagreements through physical violence, but I also think there's definitely an element of projection going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Again, though, you're talking about a moral weight that you choose to assign to it. If you want to be horrified at "Weird" Al Yankovic chewing up bullets and spitting them out and killing a bunch of nameless baddies, that's your choice. It's not inherent to what's being depicted. e2: actually you know i got a mom who's keeling over from covid vaccine i cant spend time on this today site fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
site posted:well yes, naturally. i think by definition that's true, just as you are choosing not to assign any. i guess my hangup here is, why does a thing have to be Depicted As Bad for a viewer to "correctly" assign moral weight to whether a thing is bad? The act, in these fictional milieus, at least, is entirely dependent on its context. The same act can be monstrous or humorous depending on how it's presented to us. There's no absolute moral value that we can assign to them. Is killing someone in real life morally wrong? Yes. But no one is actually getting killed in a movie ( one certainly hopes), and so we're allowed leeway to examine and interpret the act divorced from its real-world consequences. If Deadpool shot someone in the head because they were annoying him in real life, it would be horrific. In the movie, however, it can be a brief sight gag. Can you be horrified by that? Sure, but it's not absolute. It's silly to hold someone else accountable for not feeling the way you do about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
At least, not in movies directed by people other than John Landis
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Just elling my god drat aye oh Chun-Li is banned from appearing in films for at least four more years because of Street Fighter: Legends of Chun-Li.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Roth posted:At least, not in movies directed by people other than John Landis I mean...they didn't die in the movie did they? Jesus God, did they?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Just elling my god drat aye oh Isn't Jezebel a parody site?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
catlord posted:Isn't Jezebel a parody site? That’s reductress. Jezebel is the feminist blog by the same people who bring you kotaku
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
DUDE! Street Fighter vs Mortal Kombat!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:no one is actually getting killed in a movie ( one certainly hopes), and so we're allowed leeway to examine and interpret the act divorced from its real-world consequences. If Deadpool shot someone in the head because they were annoying him in real life, it would be horrific. In the movie, however, it can be a brief sight gag. Can you be horrified by that? Sure, but it's not absolute. It's silly to hold someone else accountable for not feeling the way you do about it. I guess I just fundamentally don't conceptualize "yes a thing really is bad, but if it's fiction it no longer is bad". Because like, you already acknowledge it is bad, and you have to provide ex post facto justification for why it is not bad in this particular instance, whether it is because it's a parody or, they're bad guys and that's just what happens in action movies, or ya know whatever. So you know it's bad, but you're choosing to not place moral weight on it because of those reasons, that doesn't mean on a fundamental level that the moral weight doesn't exist, because otherwise why are you having to justify choosing to ignore it because it's fiction?(maybe better put, it's not that it doesn't have any moral weight because of it's context of being fiction, it's that we are choosing to ignore it because of its being fiction). I'm not trying to "hold accountable" anybody it just feels a weird sidestepping of the issue, even though I know that's not the intent I'm thinking this just boils down to personal philosophy, and I know I'm not wording good right now I shouldn't even be paying attention to this right now. Trying to post this 5 words at a time. Turns out second dose can make you speedrun covid symptoms! site fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:That’s reductress. Jezebel is the feminist blog by the same people who bring you kotaku Ah, whoops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
That article has to be fishing for hate clicks.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
For the record, I think it is absolutely deffo "kinda weird" to consider killing an unimportant boundary whether we're talking about real life or fictive situations. I can understand it not being something that every text necessarily needs to highlight, lampshade, or obsess over...but for us the audience to not see it as a meaningful distinction between two characters, much less between two adaptations of the same character? That feels like disengaging from the text in a profound way. It relates back to that appeal towards subjectivity that seems to actively discourage critical thought, where we're told to look at two depictions that are just bluntly distinctive and somehow come to the conclusion that they're not actually so different if we tilt our heads and squint our eyes and spin in place. "The degree of violence this character enacts isn't really important." What? It doesn't actually matter...how the character acts? Are you sure, friends? Like are you really sure?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:For the record, I think it is absolutely deffo "kinda weird" to consider killing an unimportant boundary whether we're talking about real life or fictive situations. I can understand it not being something that every text necessarily needs to highlight, lampshade, or obsess over...but for us the audience to not see it as a meaningful distinction between two characters, much less between two adaptations of the same character? That feels like disengaging from the text in a profound way. I don't think it's that the characters aren't different, it's a matter of why one iteration is seen as more different than another. Take Batman (1989). Batman kills in that movie and, regardless of your personal feelings about that, you can't deny that it doesn't generate anywhere near as much controversy as Snyder's Batman. Why? I think it probably has a lot to do with how the fact that Batman kills is presented. In 1989, it's simply a given. Batman kills. The movie doesn't really ask us to make any judgements about that. Batman kills in The Dark Knight, and again, while some people have a problem with it, it's not the center of an eternal Internet hate storm. Why? Again, I think it's because the movie presents that to us in a way that makes sense; Batman doesn't want to kill, will do whatever he can to avoid it, but in the end it happens and he has to take that burden onto himself. It's a fairly satisfying conclusion to the conundrum that's been presented. Snyder, on the other hand, presents us with what a lot of people find to be a pretty muddled premise from the beginning. It revolves around killing and cruelty and violence etc. It's the subject of a lot of debate because its vagueness allows people to bring a lot of their own baggage into the conversation. In the end, it presents a similarly nebulous resolution; killing out of rage or callousness is bad, but properly directed righteous fury in the defense of others is A-OK! Some people find that appealingly complex and nuanced. A lot of people, myself included, think it's just a kind of a half-answer that doesn't really resolve anything at all. When Lt. Danger talks about the way characters dress, I think he's kind of speaking to your point about differentiation. In terms of fiction, whether a character kills or not can be* as meaningful as what costume they wear. * But doesn't have to be. Again, it depends on the context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgcPhylodox posted:I don't think it's that the characters aren't different, it's a matter of why one iteration is seen as more different than another. Take Batman (1989). Batman kills in that movie and, regardless of your personal feelings about that, you can't deny that it doesn't generate anywhere near as much controversy as Snyder's Batman. "It was in this context that Bat-fan Michael Uslan broke into Hollywood. A newly minted lawyer who took more pride in teaching a graduate course on comic books at Indiana University than the law degree he earned, the fledgling producer spent a decade pursuing a Batman movie after getting the rights from DC Comics. Many of those years, however, involved the rejection of his dream adaptation: a dark and serious action movie that returned the character to his pulpy roots... ...it was Peter Guber who took a shine to Uslan’s concept of a dark superhero movie and signed a contract with Uslan’s Batfilm Productions Inc. just three days after hearing a pitch... ...Hired to write multiple drafts of Batman between 1981 and ’83, Mankiewicz adapted heavily from Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers’ late ‘70s Detective Comics run where Batman dealt with dirty politicians and murdered love interests. In fact, long before Tim Burton famously had the Joker kill Bruce Wayne’s parents, Mankiewicz’s drafts essentially did the same by beginning with street thug Joe Chill murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne at the Joker’s behest... ...Yet even these questionable changes still underline why Batman’s aesthetics and stylist ambitions will never be matched: There was less of a concern about changes to comic book lore than there were in developing a blockbuster unlike anything before it." Assepoester fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Feb 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Tsk, don't forget the best part of MK 11: i watched this without ever having played mortal combat and drat that was some good schlock. got a bit boring during sidala parts because the good part was old shang tsung. then i was gonna post "lol im big shang tsung" then there was robocop joker terminator and... ghost rider? lmfao. what a game
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
Quotey posted:i watched this without ever having played mortal combat and drat that was some good schlock. got a bit boring during sidala parts because the good part was old shang tsung. then i was gonna post "lol im big shang tsung" Todd McFarlane's(C) SpawnTM. Wasn't Rambo actually voiced by Stallone as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Yeah, he was. They got Keith David as Spawn too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 05:13
|
|
