|
Srice posted:It's this, they have a channel for "serious" reviews that just repeat the same points brought up in their cinemasins videos. This is a pretty good video illustrating how their "just jokes" thing is a front for their actual philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEAsGoP-5I
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A: “When it comes to superhero stories obviously yes. The world is lovely enough - why make batman lovely too?” Where in this quote did you read them saying “the goal is to escape into a world of joy by ‘forgetting’ that Batman is an unethical person”. Specifically, the last bit is not there. The point of escapist fiction isn’t to not engage with it. In fact, the movie being discussed specifically invites you to consider Batman’s actions and consequences. What escapist fiction does do is overly simplify conflicts for entertainment purposes. It’s part of the required buy in and suspension of disbelief, the same way we don’t worry about concussions when someone’s knocked out in an action movie. We already know that if we apply real world constraints to this narrative, it falls apart. Now, obviously there is value in deconstructing that simplification process, both to determine authorial intent and to draw conclusions about broader societal issues, but often that discussion becomes exhausting. Partly because the arguments keep happening despite the ground being well trod by smarter people and coming to no new conclusions. But also because many assume that this simplification inherently means the story is “bad”, wether as a qualitative or moral assessment. And thats wrong. Stories can, and often are, simplifications, yet can still be relevant, still be well told, still be entertaining, etc. As always, wether it achieves these hallmarks of good fiction will depend on context, execution, and personal opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:This is a pretty good video illustrating how their "just jokes" thing is a front for their actual philosophy: Ok, I put this on in the background and I had no idea that the literal co-creator of Cinemasins said, on video, "we made Cinemasins to criticize lazy Hollywood and their 'tropes', I've always been an obsessive nitpicky jerk". A legit "wow" moment to me. So, definitively: Cinemasins is not a parody or a joke, that's their after-the-fact excuse for abdicating responsibility for the harm that their dogshit style of criticism causes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:https://twitter.com/tinywienerbabe/status/1516774255400157188?s=20&t=RJIl846egd6U-qk2srg-PA You’d think they qualify for a psychiatric hold at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:Where in this quote did you read them saying “the goal is to escape into a world of joy by ‘forgetting’ that Batman is an unethical person”. I first asked if there was an alternative to thinking about ethics, and the poster said that there wasn't one. He simply doesn't want to think about such "tedious" things, because they are "lovely". Note that, by 'shittiness', he is referring to politics in reality: "the world is lovely enough". So he is contrasting 'boring political reality' with 'joyful apolitical fantasy'. Then we have the second part: "why make batman lovely too?" Thinking about Batman makes Batman lovely, and there's no alternative except to try not to think. The act of not-thinking, in his view, produces joy. Hence the insistence that he doesn't want to be reminded that Batman is unethical. He's trying to forget reality. That's escapism. You already knew this, of course, because you then went into a defense of escapism - spinning the turn-off-your brain thing as 'an entertaining personal simplification process' that you believe can prevent a movie from "falling apart". In this case, you're confusing this escapism with the concept of 'suspension of disbelief'. Suspension of disbelief is just the understanding that a film is more akin to a stage play than to a simulation. It has nothing to do with evaluating a character's ethics. Like, "I'll continue to believe the character is ethical regardless of what he says or does."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I first asked if there was an alternative to thinking about ethics, and the poster said that there wasn't one. He simply doesn't want to think about such "tedious" things, because they are "lovely". Note that, by 'shittiness', he is referring to politics in reality: "the world is lovely enough". So he is contrasting 'boring political reality' with 'joyful apolitical fantasy'. Did they say there was no alternative? Or did they just say they are more concerned with entertainment when evaluating media primarily designed to entertain? Again, you seem to be reading things into these posts that aren't necessarily there, which makes continuing the conversation very frustrating. For example, you say I'm "spinning the turn-off your brain thing", when in fact my argument has been that no one is claiming you mustn't think about the material, ethics or otherwise. I'm saying you can think about it, recognize faults in the message of the story or where details don't work when applied to a real world setting, yet still enjoy the film for what it is, or at least what it is attempting. I think it's also important to note that at least part of this conversation started with someone hyper focusing on Gordon's role in the film and what this says about Batman's ethics, specifically citing it as a flaw in the movie. While I think there are many interesting conclusions you can reach about Batman and Gordon's ethics given what we see on screen, I don't think any of them are unintended or go against the film's narrative or themes. Personally, I'd criticize the film more for having so many "good" cops show up to arrest Falcone, as this is counter to the corruption throughout Gotham's infrastructure that the movie focused on so much up to this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:Did they say there was no alternative? Or did they just say they are more concerned with entertainment when evaluating media primarily designed to entertain? Again, you seem to be reading things into these posts that aren't necessarily there, which makes continuing the conversation very frustrating. They guy doesn’t want to read discussions about the ethics of Batman because they are “joyless” and “make Batman lovely,” those are literally the words he used and the meaning behind what he said, if you have a point to argue then argue your own point, not the imagined point of some other guy who said the exact things you’re saying he didn’t say while you imagine what he actually said. Also, why is joy equivalent to entertainment (or flavor, for that matter.). There are many ways to be entertained that aren’t joyful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:This is a pretty good video illustrating how their "just jokes" thing is a front for their actual philosophy: quote:I was a child when I was into cinima sins, and it really damaged my critical thinking skills. That might sound like an exaggeration, but I was in the single digits when I watched him, so I was still trying to figure out how to consume media. It made me miss a lot of movies because I was just convinced I wouldn’t enjoy them. Things I enjoy now are things that I hated years ago because of them, and I wanted to be a writer so they gave me such a feeling of perfectionism in my writing. I couldn’t use tropes, I couldn’t use any exposition, I couldn’t do anything until I stopped watching.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:This is a pretty good video illustrating how their "just jokes" thing is a front for their actual philosophy: Wait, the CinemaSins guy has a soul patch? Yeah, he's the worst. edit: In the first clip we see him in this video. I see he has some lovely stubble in other clips. Whatever. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:They guy doesn’t want to read discussions about the ethics of Batman because they are “joyless” and “make Batman lovely,” those are literally the words he used and the meaning behind what he said, if you have a point to argue then argue your own point, not the imagined point of some other guy who said the exact things you’re saying he didn’t say while you imagine what he actually said. “Joy” was brought up in regards to the “discussions”, not in consuming the media, as you yourself mentioned at the start of your first paragraph above. Though the initial criticism seemed primarily focused on the repetition of the arguments, not their merit or effect on the media itself. One of the points that I’ve been focusing on is how often these discussions devolve and grow repetitive from people arguing past each other, something I’ve also been guilty of at times. It is extremely annoying discussing these things when the people most likely to respond either mistakenly or purposefully mischaracterize you and what your saying. I don’t know if it’s trolling, straw-manning, or just not having the patience to discuss in good faith, but it results in a miserable time for all but a few participants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:For example, you say I'm "spinning the turn-off your brain thing", when in fact my argument has been that no one is claiming you mustn't think about the material, ethics or otherwise. I'm saying you can think about it, recognize faults in the message of the story or where details don't work when applied to a real world setting, yet still enjoy the film for what it is, or at least what it is attempting. Batman or whoever being a bad person or whatever isn't a "fault" with the story, it is the story. Framing it as something you'd have to consciously overlook to "yet still enjoy the film for what it is" is exactly the concern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
The only ethical Batman is the one that doesn't beat up criminals and just has in-costume sex with Catwoman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
YaketySass posted:The only ethical Batman is the one that doesn't beat up criminals and just has in-costume sex with Catwoman. He is still a billionaire and thus inherently unethical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:“Joy” was brought up in regards to the “discussions”, not in consuming the media, as you yourself mentioned at the start of your first paragraph above. Though the initial criticism seemed primarily focused on the repetition of the arguments, not their merit or effect on the media itself. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Ok, so: do you have an alternative to the practice of 'thinking about ethics'? Necrothatcher posted:When it comes to superhero stories obviously yes. The world is lovely enough - why make batman lovely too? The discussion isn’t merely framed as tedious but of “making Batman lovely.” Merely discussing this robs the character of their capacity to give this person joy. Maybe that isn’t what they meant, but that’s what they said and you’re the one talking past people as you try to interpret some other persons words to make the point you want to make. But also, if you find the discussion tedious then just don’t have it? There are plenty of places, including on this forum, where you can have a conversation about how badass Batman is. You don’t have to read this. You don’t have to interject. If it’s causing you psychic pain or robbing you of joy then just, like, stop reading it, log off, etc. The idea that people merely talking about ethical implications of movies on the internet is destructive to joy is far far weirder than pondering the affect of pop culture on attitudes about the police or crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
I always thought the protagonist being a weird fuckup was an integral part of enjoying Batman. Each new movie series lets us contemplate a different way that Bruce Wayne can suck rear end, it's great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
What’s really bizarre is that superhero movies are about ethics by definition. Characters are either superhumanly ethical or - more often - failing to be. Raimi’s Spiderman is told “you’re not Superman, you know” - and that’s an accurate assessment, regardless of his ‘power levels.’ Even if he were bulletproof, Spiderman remains all too human. The entire narrative in BVS is the conflict between the authentic superhero and a pathologically-motivated “costumed vigilante”. Nolan’s Batman strives to become “a symbol”, but consistently falls short of that goal despite barely even formulating what the idea is: “I'm gonna show the people of Gotham their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt. ... People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. ... As a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting. ... Something elemental, something terrifying.” If you parse what he’s saying, the bat-symbol is ultimately a symbol of enthusiasm(???).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Batman or whoever being a bad person or whatever isn't a "fault" with the story, it is the story. I think this is certainly true for this newest movie, thus my comment earlier about Batman and Gordon and how we aren't necessarily supposed to agree with everything they are doing. But I can't say that was the intended take away for many of the previous films. We all know that is because those movies, and more so the comics they where adapting, were written with a naive mindset that cops and billionaires could be "good" while remaining in those positions. So the question becomes "are those stories bad?" I think that's still as relative as ever, and dependent on whether or not the core themes and messages are contradicted by the problematic elements. I personally still find some value in them, though how much of that is nostalgic bias I'll leave to your interpretation. But I don't think trying to retcon the stories as always being about the inherent corruption of billionaires and police when they obviously aren't is very useful. That aside, and as I've tried to say already, I think it's possible to enjoy a work of media while understanding and recognizing it's flaws, and still insist no one here (at least recently) have actually argued that you should consciously overlook said flaws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:I think this is certainly true for this newest movie, thus my comment earlier about Batman and Gordon and how we aren't necessarily supposed to agree with everything they are doing. But I can't say that was the intended take away for many of the previous films. We all know that is because those movies, and more so the comics they where adapting, were written with a naive mindset that cops and billionaires could be "good" while remaining in those positions. So the question becomes "are those stories bad?" I think that's still as relative as ever, and dependent on whether or not the core themes and messages are contradicted by the problematic elements. I personally still find some value in them, though how much of that is nostalgic bias I'll leave to your interpretation. But I don't think trying to retcon the stories as always being about the inherent corruption of billionaires and police when they obviously aren't is very useful. Nolan's Bruce Wayne is a gently caress up. Burton's Batman is a horny weirdo. I would like to hear which of the many movies "Batman is a weirdo and kind of a gently caress up" isn't a take away for, since to me it seems it's for the majority of the most successful adaptations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:I think this is certainly true for this newest movie, thus my comment earlier about Batman and Gordon and how we aren't necessarily supposed to agree with everything they are doing. But I can't say that was the intended take away for many of the previous films. We all know that is because those movies, and more so the comics they where adapting, were written with a naive mindset that cops and billionaires could be "good" while remaining in those positions. So the question becomes "are those stories bad?" I think that's still as relative as ever, and dependent on whether or not the core themes and messages are contradicted by the problematic elements. I personally still find some value in them, though how much of that is nostalgic bias I'll leave to your interpretation. But I don't think trying to retcon the stories as always being about the inherent corruption of billionaires and police when they obviously aren't is very useful. I'd wager that "Batmen is a bad person" was intended for the previous live action films, in the same sense that (for example) Arnold in Commando is definitely the good guy but isn't really a good guy. But even if that weren't the case, I don't think it follows that it in and of itself is a flaw or makes the stories bad — it just means that I disagree with the filmmakers. There's certainly no need to retcon the story or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:That aside, and as I've tried to say already, I think it's possible to enjoy a work of media while understanding and recognizing it's flaws, and still insist no one here (at least recently) have actually argued that you should consciously overlook said flaws. Who here argued that because Batman is bad you cannot enjoy Batman movies? Why does Batman being a bad person make the movies flawed? You can make very good movies about bad people. Who are you arguing against?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Nolan's Bruce Wayne is a gently caress up. Burton's Batman is a horny weirdo. I would like to hear which of the many movies "Batman is a weirdo and kind of a gently caress up" isn't a take away for, since to me it seems it's for the majority of the most successful adaptations. I wouldn't necessarily categorize gently caress ups and horny weirdos as "bad" people, dependent of course on context. In fact, when done well they can be very effective, or at least entertaining, heroes. Schwarzwald posted:I'd wager that "Batmen is a bad person" was intended for the previous live action films, in the same sense that (for example) Arnold in Commando is definitely the good guy but isn't really a good guy. That's a fair take. Even in superhero stories, characters are allowed to be nuanced, complex, flawed, etc, and the story is usually better for that given that allows room for growth and change. It's my favorite part of the newest Batman. Obviously, opinions on where that puts someone on a "good" or "bad" moral binary will vary, and why such labels aren't always useful except in shorthand. But things like trying to improve themselves or help others is usually enough for me to categorize them as "good", though again context is key. YOLOsubmarine posted:Who here argued that because Batman is bad you cannot enjoy Batman movies? Why does Batman being a bad person make the movies flawed? You can make very good movies about bad people. Who are you arguing against? No one argued that, thus why I never implied that they did. I'm talking about flaws in a movie, such as where the audience arrives at different conclusion about a character's depiction than was intended. It's why I made it it's own paragraph separate from the rest of the post, where I'm discussing relative moral or ethical behaviors of a character in relation to authorial intent. But maybe I need to stop using "good" and "bad" as shorthand to better avoid confusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Batman can punch the Penguin in the face, but he can't punch concepts in the face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Grant Morrison made him get pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
I'm sorry everyone, I was very tired when making those posts about batman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
people should stop posting about batman, just like lego should stop making batman lego sets and focus on some other guys in the dc universe like , uh. hm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:people should stop posting about batman, just like lego should stop making batman lego sets and focus on some other guys in the dc universe like , uh. hm. Plastic Man. We need more Plastic Man drat't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:I think this is certainly true for this newest movie, thus my comment earlier about Batman and Gordon and how we aren't necessarily supposed to agree with everything they are doing. But I can't say that was the intended take away for many of the previous films. We all know that is because those movies, and more so the comics they where adapting, were written with a naive mindset that cops and billionaires could be "good" while remaining in those positions. So the question becomes "are those stories bad?" I think that's still as relative as ever, and dependent on whether or not the core themes and messages are contradicted by the problematic elements. I personally still find some value in them, though how much of that is nostalgic bias I'll leave to your interpretation. But I don't think trying to retcon the stories as always being about the inherent corruption of billionaires and police when they obviously aren't is very useful. Your preoccupation with a work's intent is generating some internal conflicts. For example, here you've written that one can enjoy a work while 'understanding and recognizing' its flaws, and then say that that's not the same as overlooking its flaws. But you've also directly compared that form of 'understanding and recognition' to the 'buying into/a suspension of disbelief' necessary to make a narrative work. Stories are certainly free to provide compelling & beautiful narratives about the complex & tortured lives of billionaires and police, but in no way does this mean the most valid way of viewing it is by precluding it from the very real history of those signifiers. That is to say, this consternation is totally unnecessary, because intent is irrelevant to ideological critique: what you've termed as 'flaws', or errors in the films to be excised are instead moments of truth that serve to re-contexutalize the whole — and this process of engagement can be very joyful. So when Iron Man flies into Afghanistan and deftly kills all bad brown people with no innocent causalities, and then in the conclusion of the film kills off the 'evil' capitalist, we are being told something about super-heroism; and as such our responsibility is to interpret. That this practice engenders a notion in others that their enjoyment is being unfairly attacked is another issue altogether. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:people should stop posting about batman, just like lego should stop making batman lego sets and focus on some other guys in the dc universe like , uh. hm. Lego should do M-Tron classic space again. They should bring back the tiny magnets that kids swallow again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
m-tron rules, I pulled out my messy old tub for my kid yesterday. Unimpeachable style
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:An “ethical” Batman is one who works to takedown billionaires, politicians, and other power structures in Gotham - which is more in line with what we see of the “villains” in the stories. But the status quo in Gotham is clearly awful. What Batman does may be ineffective, but he is clearly not trying to preserve the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
They should do the batman movie about how Bruce Wayne's attempts to improve Gotham via supporting housing improvements and better healthcare and police reform and so on and so forth aren't working and he has to find out why as Batman. The Court of Owls is literally the villain version of Batman/Bruce fighting the rich and powerful and is pretty great because the thing I actually think these movies fail to do is show Bruce Wayne fighting injustice as much as Batman does if not moreso. Which is a legitimate and important part of the character that movies gloss over because it isn't very actiony. He hires criminals who nobody else will to stop them falling back into lives of crime post-prison. All these arguments that he does nothing to fix the material injustice problems of Gotham occur in series where they ignore that a standard part of the Batman/Bruce Wayne set up is in fact him putting in effort to fix those material injustice problems, which when people thought about why isn't it working they came up with the Court of Owls. A literal cabal of High Society Gotham who work to keep the imbalance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 05:46
|
|
|
i like how catwoman [in the latest film] was like: "i don't know: up-state[?}" wait: what. i thought gotham was the world. batman is so weird
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 07:14
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:They should do the batman movie about how Bruce Wayne's attempts to improve Gotham via supporting housing improvements and better healthcare and police reform and so on and so forth aren't working and he has to find out why as Batman. This is a very specific plot point in The Batman. Ok, not Bruce but Thomas Wayne. It's also touched upon in Nolan's trilogy. Surprise surprise, police can't be reformed in any Batman universe, except maybe the Lego one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 07:39
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:But the status quo in Gotham is clearly awful. What Batman does may be ineffective, but he is clearly not trying to preserve the status quo. Depends on what you mean by “status quo.” He sure ain’t trying to overthrow liberal capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:He is still a billionaire and thus inherently unethical. Turns out Bruce Wayne is the Suspiciously Wealthy Furry all along
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 08:15
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:I wouldn't necessarily categorize gently caress ups and horny weirdos as "bad" people, dependent of course on context. In fact, when done well they can be very effective, or at least entertaining, heroes. I'm confused by what your definition of "bad" is, here. You seem to contrast it with effectiveness and entertainment value, which is just weird when we talk about ethics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 10:21
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Plastic Man. We need more Plastic Man drat't. Ironically, Plastic Man is a hero who wouldn't work at all in Lego.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 11:40
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Ironically, Plastic Man is a hero who wouldn't work at all in Lego. Clearly you haven’t seen the Lego flash movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Ironically, Plastic Man is a hero who wouldn't work at all in Lego. He's great in Lego Batman 3 and pops up in DC supervillains too. Same concept as Mr fantastic and Ms marvel in Lego marvel superheroes 1&2. They just cheat
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:This is a very specific plot point in The Batman. Ok, not Bruce but Thomas Wayne. They did in Rises, kinda, but only because they went into a Lazarus Pit just like him. And then it was still like "temporarily redeemed" b2cause it still ended with Robin tossing his badge because he was disgusted with police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 19:40
|
|
