|
Phylodox posted:He realizes the error of his past life and attitudes and tries, in his own way, to make amends and fix things. He's fallible and human, though, just like Superman (so to speak). This assertion that Stark is a fallible human means that he, is by definition, not ethical - and therefore not a superhero. He's a costumed vigilante. And no, Stark Industries is not an ethical corporation. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. josh04 posted:SMG, if you've got a moment, what's your read on why Bane is subordinate to Miranda Tate? The whole film becomes about Batman's burning need to hold back social progress in any form, but I don't get why Bane (who never really ceases to attempt to blow Batman's brains out) is part of the the al Ghul death/revenge cult, which always seems borderline aristocratic. The Dark Knight Rises plays with the idea that a revolutionary needs love. Bane constantly professes his love for the citizens of Gotham in the abstract, and so Bane the superhero stands for a universal, political love. This is what makes him an ethical, revolutionary figure: the citizens of Gotham control the nuke, collectively. The reveal is, of course, that the 'citizen of Gotham" is a particular person. "And though I'm not ordinary, I am a citizen." At this exact point, Bane the superhero dies. Talia kills Bane, and he regresses into a mere anonymous human - the man before the Bane mask. ("No one cared who I was, until I put in the mask.") This anonymous man is a broken wreck. He's lost the spirit. And so, when Kyle finally shoots him, it's gratuitous; Bane was already dead. She was merely disposing of a poo poo residue. It's Superman logic. Love for Lois is the both the source of his power and his greatest weakness. If his love loses its universal dimension, Superman regresses into Clark Kent. The entirety of BVS is about this conflict: "I don't know if it's possible... for you to love me and be you." SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Aug 26, 2017 |
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
When fans say the Watchmen comic is 'realistic', they are referring to a specific form of liberal-pragmatic realism. (The time for idealism is over. We need to be realistic, because we are already at the end of history. It's either capitalism or the apocalypse. So now it's just a matter of administrating the system so that we maximize security and minimize loss of life....) Consequently, fans celebrate the 'moral ambiguity' of heroes-without-ethics as they fight to defend liberal capitalism against its symptoms. It's decaf superheroism, without the 'super' part (e.g. the Stark Industries Avengers). In other words, fans took the 'moral ambiguity' - over whether the holocaust was good - as a sign of these new heroes' intelligence and maturity. These new heroes are willing to ask the tough questions that Superman is afraid to ask - like "maybe this antichrist has some good ideas?" Like murdering that homeless guy to cover up the truth that capitalism is what killed all those people. That's a pretty 'morally ambiguous' idea, because we do it and then feel slightly bad about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Farg posted:is it possible people like movie set a less than movie set b because the latter is more enjoyable to more people and not because they have horrible flaws that prevent them from seeing the true genius of movie set a It's not only possible; it's exactly the case. You are not a horrible monster. You are a boring person who perceives your enjoyment as being under threat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
porfiria posted:No guys the Marvel movies are good, they're making fun of (whatever it is you don't like about Marvel movies). RBA Starblade posted:They were purposely made bad as a joke! They are making fun of people who use fake phrases like 'bad on purpose' and/or 'trolling' instead of accurate terms like 'camp', 'overidentification', and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Watching This Is Spinal Tap, struggling to articulate the experience: "It's evil, but... deliberately evil?!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
porfiria posted:300 isn't very funny, although it has some okay memes. I did not write anything about 'levels of funniness'. People are never specific, for some reason. You need to be careful. Let's be specific: Sucker Punch has a sequence where the protagonists act out a quasi-fascist Joss Whedon empowerment fantasy, in which they enter a videogame universe and slaughter dozens of robot drones. The women put on this act specifically in order to placate and distract a horrifically disgusting nerd caricature. When the Joss Whedon nerd realizes that he is the actual bad guy - that, from the perspective of the women, the drones represent his sexism and they might be achieving a quantum of actual empowerment - he becomes enraged that his videogames are being taken away, and murders one of them. Now, explain how this means Joss Whedon's sexism is actually good.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Um, it specifically helped him bang Eliza Dushku? Well, exactly: even an idiot can understand that Sucker Punch depicts a triad of imaginary, symbolic and real. And the imaginary fantasy sequences are blatantly ideological fantasies: you have the 'Strong Female Characters' cutting down hordes of faceless drones that stand for a generic totalitarianism. These 'propaganda' sequences are the ones that obviously look like 300. But this is not fascist propaganda at all; Sucker Punch's women are creating liberal propaganda. They are multicultural time-travellers from 20XX, wielding present-day spec ops weaponry to fight the failed ideologies of the past. This is exactly Black Widow in the Avengers: inexplicably fighting Egyptian mummies using wire-fu, tasers and dual-wielded handguns. Predicting his work on Wonder Woman, Snyder puts these propaganda heroes in a WWI setting weirdly mixed with WWII and Lord Of The Rings fantasy. The message of the propaganda is plainly that WWI was not the result of industrial capitalism, but simply caused by the evil Nazis. Let's get some strong liberal feminists to refight those Nazis, and we'll maintain world peace. But again, as you point out, there are two more levels. Beneath the Buffy/Avengers fantasy level, we have the symbolic level - the level of everyday reality where 'Buffy' is actually the actress Sarah Michelle Gellar and 'Black Widow' is actually the actress Scarlett Johannson. On this level, the actresses have some formal freedom, get money, but are still working in a sexist industry - being pressured to gently caress director Joss Whedon and so-on. Finally, beneath everything, you have 'the desert of the real' from The Matrix, where the capitalist exploitation is laid bare. The heroes 'put on the sunglasses' and are fully aware of the ghouls and their messages. "They Live, We Sleep", etc. Sucker Punch is branded sexist because it is not a liberal feminist film. It is not Joss Whedon feminism; it is a left-wing feminist film.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nah, it was actually the opposite. Snyder wanted Crimea. That's an oversimplification. “Really early on, before Patty came on the project, we put our toe in the water with two writers. They took completely different approaches on the material—one was the Crimean War and one was World War I, but a completely different World War I experience. We had quite a Writers Guild arbitration with a number of writers because we had a lot of writers, and then there were the preceding writers and the other incarnations of the development of Wonder Woman. But for our Wonder Woman we didn’t like the ultimate take on those scripts, even though they’re talented guys, and Zack [Snyder] and Allan Heinberg then collaborated on a story." -Charles Roven The version of WWI shown in the final film is borne of a collaboration between, and specifically credited to, Snyder and Allan Heinberg. Snyder may have 'pushed for' a Crimean war setting, but he ultimately worked on the film's WWI narrative. Remember: you were claiming Snyder did no actual work. But even if it weren't factually incorrect, that would not invalidate everything I just wrote about WWI, capitalism, and ideological critique. [Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad both contain numerous Snyder references (e.g. The Watchmen smiley in the latter), and Snyder's own films feature a great deal of intertextuality. The propane bomb from Dawn Of The Dead reappears in a Sucker Punch propaganda sequence, and is then abstracted into a recurring image in both Man Of Steel and Dawn Of Justice.]
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:But can SuperMechaGodzilla see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Well, yeah: it's advertised to them. Martman posted:The kids obviously have been brainwashed to believe that their jouissance has been taken from them and hidden in the cinnamon swirls. Objet petit a, actually. "What is to you just an ordinary object, is for me the focus of my libidinal investment, and this shift is caused by some unfathomable x, a je ne sais quoi in the object which cannot ever be pinned down to any of its particular properties. Objet a is therefore close to the Kantian transcendental object, since it stands for the unknown x, the noumenal core of the object beyond appearances, for what is 'in you more than yourself.'"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:You have lost the outer layer: (leave it to Snyder to make a masterwork of self flagellation) it is that this criticism serves as not only a fig leaf for enjoyment of the gratuitous layer, but as a scourge to be held in the mind to whip yourself with while protestantly recognizing your base enjoyment and, with the recognition and shame, enjoying it all the more. Ok so, in place of straightforward anticapitalism, you are anti-masturbation. Sucker Punch plainly expresses that, even though films like The Avengers are enjoyable and it's great see women punching Nazis and so-on, we must remain critical of these films - their formal qualities, the conditions under which they are produced, etc. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. To this, you reply that it doesn't matter because hundreds of men on the internet are (probably?) jacking off and having orgasms while watching Sucker Punch. They are doing this right now. And, worst of all, there's nothing we can do to stop them except to prevent these immoral films from being made in the first place (by complaining to the studios that make the films for us). It is easier to imagine the end of film, end of cinema, than to imagine a much more modest radical change in capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:You are projecting. Nothing in my observation of how these conflicts are present says that they are a bad thing that must be banned. Rather they are exactly the right thing for maximal masturbatory enjoyment (in the same way as the madonna/whore motif) by a cenrtain audience that is themselves steeped in these contradictions of Protestantism and Liberalism (as Snyder certainly is). To assert that simply by making these observations I am expressing opposition is to presume that there is something intrinsically wrong with either masturbation (not likely) or contradiction (an excusable mistake for a Marxist). I did not write anything about banning. I wrote the opposite: that you cannot ban the film, leaving your only recourse mere complaint about morality/'taste'. The trouble with your 'observation' is that your "cenrtain audience" of orthodox masturbators does not exist. It is a fictive other - a subject supposed to enjoy. When you observe something that doesn't actually exist, that's called fantasy. Again, instead of an basic ideological critique of the film, you are concerned solely with the mysterious figure of Zack Snyder - imagining his deep inner feelings, imagining his erect penis, imagining that he is 'trolling you', etc. So even though the film is not liberal, is a straightforward satire of liberalism, you can imagine that Snyder is secretly a liberal 'deep inside', beneath his actions. This is all very familiar. By the same operation, the Snyder-figure can be a secret fascist, a secret objectivist, a secret 'jock', secret 'goth', and so-on. Superman let those people die because he secretly wanted to.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I think even known communist SMG agrees that Cap is a True Hero in Captain America: The First Avenger. Almost. In Captain America, Steve Rogers is a hardcore socialist - but the point of the twist ending is that even this is not enough. Captain America 'wins', but awakens into a world where Stark Industries has created a dystopian neoliberal hell. Captian America is about Cap's moment of triumph is also where his ideological limitations are most apparent. He only cut off the head, and HYDRA survived as Stark. From there, you would expect that Captain America would continue on to fight Stark industries - but the subsequent films are Rogers just accepting liberalism with minor 'cultural-conservative' gripes, before ultimately deciding to become a full-on libertarian when he sees how Winter Soldier is treated (his journey to Wakanda is basically seasteading - Bioshock nonsense). The problem with the comics fans is that they are determining victory by, like, whether you can have a beer with the character, or whether they can kill the monster of the week. This is what leads to silly declarations like 'Cap is never wrong', when of course he is. He served Stark Industries and/or SHEILD for, like, five years - and is still open to working with Stark in the future!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
[quote="“Uncle Wemus”" post="“477121485”"] Oh wow marvels teaming up with a military contractor https://mobile.twitter.com/Marvel/status/916317209017937920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [/quote] Not Surprising
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
I'm actually sad they cancelled this, because now it's just back to being
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
[quote="“HUNDU THE BEAST GflipsidecofOD”" post="“477159255”"] This is incredible because it’s literally what Tony Stark does in Civil War to recruit Spiderman. [/quote] It's not too surprising that this happened; the entire MCU ideology is "focussing on technology in a positive sense." The flipside of saying "Stark Industries is good because it stopped selling weapons" is the implicit assertion that Stark Industries was always good simply corrupted by the existence of guns. Disney x Northrop's message is consequentky that, while they might sell guns now, this is simply a pragmatic means of gradually phasing out guns in the faraway Star Trek future of moneyless capitalism. Hence, "Imagination / Reality": Northrop Grumman is the pragmatic-realistic version of the ostensibly utopian MCU movies. Of course, the MCU movies were already pragmatic-realistic bullshit, but I guess those in charge didn't really realize it. Someone saw Iron Man Civil War and said "this is how things ought to be!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
McCloud posted:I kinda like the red filter, as it gives it this ominous Hellish atmosphere. But the drawback is obviously that it drowns out all the other colors. The first clip you see the blue and orange hues, while the second one is just a red mist. You lose a fair bit of contrast, don't you? The second gif also shows off a Whedon trademark(?): little blindingly-bright flashing lights scattered throughout the combat scenes, used to indicate where you are supposed to look at any given second.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
“Darkness” refers to literal darkness of the image, while “grimness” refers to the degree to which the audience-identification character enjoys what they do. That’s why Tony Stark can commit technicolor genocide on a regular basis, and you can have a movie literally called Thor The Dark World - both without complaint.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Whoa Mr. Big Brain over here figured out "grimdark" is a tonal thing! Neither of those things refer to the tone of a film. Even in terms of color theory, the level of darkness is shade, not tone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The song is cool, but it does seem weird to use a mashup promoting revolutionary behavior when the person attempting a revolution in the movie is the villain. Well, not weird, given Marvel, but a disconnect. They mean it in the sense of ‘the iPod revolution’.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
BVS is world-shattering.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:And oh dear god he did one of these "Really That Good" for The Avengers and does anyone want to suffer through that for the sake of the thread It’s impressive that he’s called his series Confirmation Bias.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Btw Snyder picked Joss so it's all his fault. Period. You’re missing the context. Snyder, exasperated from being constantly pushed to include more quips and references, said “if you want to make some Avengers garbage, why don’t you just call up Joss Whedon?” The executive’s eyes lit up like “eureka!”, and history was made.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
“I want Superman to be more like Iron Man,” say the comic fan, as the fully-clenched monkey’s paw now extends its middle finger.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
sleep with the vicious posted:looking forward to secret anti-capitalist critique in justice league and cined's extensive breakdown, focused mostly on misunderstood scenes that were clearly explained elsewhere in the movie Weird thoughts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Blazing’s stance is merely that there wasn’t enough exposition to know, objectively, what happened in the plot. Specifically, he was unable to objectively know what fictional character Lex Luthor character was thinking - even though the entire film, beginning to end, depicts Lex Luthor’s actions. That’s three hours of characterization for this specific character. In this sense, he is correct: he will never know what objectively took place inside Luthor’s mind, because Luthor is a fictional character and does not actually have a mind. The problem is that complaint about this fact means Blazing is illiterate. Like, in a very straightforward way, Blazing failed to produce film criticism because he does not fully understand that he is watching a movie. CityMidnightJunky posted:Just catching up on the last few pages, and basically everything Blazing Ownager says is spot on. And even if you disagree, watching him work everyone into a state of frenzy, not by trolling, but by simply stating his opinion and backing it up, is top quality entertainment. He's a better Lex Luthor than Lex Luthor was. If that is your priority, then this being bad at writing will come across as a success. Failure to write about a movie in the movie forum is easily rationalized using sour grapes logic: “I never actually wanted to communicate anything with these dozens upon dozens of paragraphs.”
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Where the gently caress did you get that from? I LIKE weird, challenging movies. Probably even more than most people. Not liking EWS or Mullholland Drive doesn't make me stupid or imply any of the things you're inferring at all. The trouble is that you are thinking about art purely in terms of whether you like it or not, and then getting offended when people note that the things you consequently write are factually incorrect or outright false.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'd honestly never heard of Alejandro Jodorowsky so I assumed he was a film maker based on the context of the post. Note how, instead of describing any sort of formal flaw in Mulholland Drive that might render it incomprehensible, you continue to insist that you are ‘smart’ and others are ‘smug’. This demonstrates that your priorities are hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
The theatrical cut of DOJ says that the liberal(!) congress is racist because they see this woman as an avatar of victimhood instead of as a person. As a result, they miss that she is blatantly wrong: what we saw was a proxy war between Lexcorp and the CIA. Her insistence that ‘Superman should answer to someone’ misses that that was precisely the problem: that Superman was in fact holding back, trying to minimize his impact, and consequently failed to fight the actual villains. The Extended Edition changes things by making Lex deliberately take advantage of that same liberal racism, and I think it’s best not to lose the scenes depicting the woman as a person instead a soundbite - riding the bus, trying to make a living.... Lex’s conspiracy is rather brazen in its sloppiness - should have been easily exposed if people were paying attention. “I'm afraid I didn't see it because I wasn't looking..." The part to remove is not the woman’s complicity, but the part where the entire African conflict was staged to annoy Superman. Better to have Lex use paid shills to spin his failed takeover of the nation to his advantage. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Read the earlier posts. Hundu was waving away why I, as a black person, connect to BP. What people are waving away is this bizarrely apolitical talk of “vibrancy, caring and... strength!” Regardless of your optimism/excitement and connection, there is nothing particularly antiracist in the presentation of a given culture as ‘vibrant’ and so-on. That’s bog-standard multiculturalism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Can you elaborate on this a bit more? Of the 17+ Iron Man movies, only 2 or 3 are ideologically left of centre - and those are among the earliest, before the formula was firmly established. The series is overwhelmingly libertarian, and its various takes on race relations are no exception. In The Winter Soldier, Samuel L. Jackson’ Nick Fury has an encounter with ‘racist’ cops, but this is presented as the conflict between a black minarchist hero and the Jewish plot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Yaws posted:What Marvel movies are leftist? The first Captain America maybe and...? ...Hulk 2 (which presents Stark as an unambiguous villain) and Iron Man 2 (which retains elements of that mindset despite executive meddling, and functions as a really bleak satire). Iron Man 3 is absolutely not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:https://io9.gizmodo.com/chadwick-boseman-chose-his-black-panther-accent-to-make-1820258023 What you're talking about here is anti-colonialism divorced from anti-capitalism, so what we have in Black Panther is just a racially and culturally homogeneous society where the black people are exclusively exploited by other black people. The 'advancement' of the nation is described solely in technological terms, and you can note the adjectives like "tainting", "poisoning" and "disrupting" are used in contrast to this. In other words: were it not for racists, a given African nation would have experienced unhindered progress to become... a paradoxically 'North Korean' version of a first-world nation? (Or is it a 'first-world' version of North Korea?) Besides the general strangeness, none of this is far off from eurocentric Modernization and Development Theories that appeared during the cold war in order to combat marxist thought. You have, for example, influential thinkers like Talcott Parsons: "[Parsons] believed that modern civilization, with its technology and its constantly evolving institutions, was ultimately strong, vibrant, and essentially progressive." (My bolding.) But also you're sort-of making the mistake of mixing up the character and the actor when reading that quote; note Boseman's emphasis on how Wakanda is supposedly unconquered, supposedly the most advanced. The character apparently makes a conscious point of covering up his 'natural' European accent in order to galvanize his subjects against the colonial/globalist enemy that would 'poison' the ethnostate. Things are... bad.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:I liked how Ant-Man was in basically every scene in that trailer. You've just gotta squint to see him. Most characters are only onscreen for a minute or two in any movie. The only difference here is that ‘Waitress #2’ and ‘Bus Driver’ are international brand identities, complete with logos.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
could someone quickly explain music to me because I don’t get the appeal and also I’m not familiar with the concept of music thanks [briefly listens to music] humm so it’s mostly audio
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
I have an intense appreciation for how Lex Luthor’s madness takes the form of an increasingly uncontrollable quippiness, until - near the end of the film - he’s dropping references to Elmer Fudd, “Trix are for kids”, and Alice In Wonderland over the course of five seconds on a ‘Superman’s like Bugs Bunny” tangent that only he fully understands.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
Timby posted:This feels like fan-fiction from AICN. Most people doing postmortems on Justice League are attempting to decipher Hollywood horseshit by adopting a fanboy mindset (Zack Snyder is an objectivist!! Everyone hates WB! And we have to get rid of the grimdark!), which is entirely the wrong kind of moronic. You need to think like an executive. Justice League happened because, where Snyder was making a trilogy/tetralogy of Man Of Steel films that featured the emergence of an ambiguous Superman cult, WB executives began to increasingly view ‘Justice League’ as its own distinct IP. In other words, partway through the production, executives decided that this was not Man Of Steel 5, but the first of a series of thematically distinct Justice League films guest-starring Henry Cavill as Superman. Everything that happened stemmed from this decision. You can easily tell nerds are doing BTS fanfiction when they talk about ‘universes’. There is no such thing as a universe., and executives are well aware of this. The notion of a universe is a product of advertisement; there is zero continuity between Captain America 1 and its sequel The Avengers. Steve Rogers is randomly given a folder that that says aliens exist and he’s like “i don’t believe in aliens i believe in GOD” and so he starts fighting aliens for half an hour. This is not the same narrative, or even really the same plot. These are two films featuring the same actor, that were successfully advertised in concert. WB likewise never had a universe; it had only a series of films. The only real difference was that, instead of the Disney tactic of putting Avengers advertisements at the end of their films, WB actually made half of Dawn Of Justice‘s narrative about the decision to start a Superman cult. Suicide Squad was then a sequel about the failure of a rival cult, and Wonder Woman was a prequel about the moral ambiguity of the cult’s cofounder. Again, this is not a ‘universe’; these are sequels. The notion of a universe was created as a means of advertising sequels. In reality, there are 17 Iron Man films and 5 Man Of Steel films (or, even, 8 Dark Knight films) Executives understand this, while nerds do not. The simple disastrous choice with Justice League - and this is where the executives were attempting to copy Disney - was to gradually eliminate narrative continuity from these sequels, retaining only a very rudimentary plot continuity. This would theoretically allow them to modify things on the fly - like changing Wonder Woman from an anticapitalist film to a liberal film about the power of love triumphing over a vague imperialism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Foldable is doing the familiar thing where he is working backwards from his conclusion using technical-sounding terms that he doesn’t understand. His conclusion is that the characters are supposed to feel really really bad about Diablo, but don’t. Therefore, the film is not what it is supposed to be. Therefore the editing must be bad. Nothing in his post actually has anything to do with editing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
bad day posted:But the plot of Suicide Squad IS incoherent. Waller puts together a team of bad guys to stop Superman level threats. Except all of them are jailed individually and never meet. They’re just in some sort of file. The only one with any real superpowers goes nuclear and Waller is trapped so she puts together the team to come rescue her from the other team member. That’s not even a story. She put together a super team to stop the problem caused by putting together a super team. It’s like some recursive algebra problem. Others have pointed this out, but you’re just confused. Part 1: Waller enslaves a Superwoman to serve as an experimental weapon for the US government. This experiment is deemed successful, so Waller is cleared to create an army of weaker slaves. A handful of these slaves are pulled out of storage and sent into a disaster area on a makeshift rescue mission. Part 2: The slaves are confused and disoriented, but gradually realize that this is not a official mission. Waller is using them to cover up her involvement in the disaster: the Superwoman escaped and is causing havoc, brainwashing followers, transforming Earth into a hell-world. Part 3: Waller is captured by the Superwoman, and the slaves contemplate whether to just let the Superwoman win. The Superwoman herself even offers them a place beneath her, in her kingdom, but the slaves ultimately decide to ‘do the right thing’ and kill her. They are all sent back to jail, but they feel moderately better about themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 05:52
|
|