|
Criticism goes badly wrong when you look at things in terms of plot instead of in terms of narrative. The tornado scene is not only a flashback, but specifically Clark’s dreamlike memory. We are shown a close-up of Kent from Clark’s POV - but Clark was actually extremely far away, under the overpass. He could not have seen Kent’s expression from that distance, and certainly not any fuckin splinters. What we are shown is obviously Clark’s mythic, idealized version of Kent. I’m talking really basic film literacy here: an impossibly clear close-up in the middle of a dream sequence. We’re even shown earlier, more-naturalistic shots of Kent stumbling around like an awkward old man - as a direct contrast to this idealized vision.
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:I guess it's possible that Pa Kent died peacefully in his sleep and Clark has absurd nightmares about Pa Kent's dying wish that Clark never be helpful--but that certainly doesn't make it less bizarre or hilarious. Mock incredulity is septic. You are clowning to disguise illiteracy.  This shot establishes Clark’s objective relationship to the action.  This means that the above shot aligns with his ‘actual’ POV. Clark does not move at all during the sequence, yet we are zoomed in much closer every time we cut back to this perspective. Here are a few examples:   All Clark ‘actually’ sees is a tiny broken man - even tinier than in the above shot. Everything else is unambiguously Clark’s imagination, filling in the blanks after the most traumatic event in his life. The closer the shot, the more subjective it is. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I get it and I got the point of the scene. I just thought its execution sucked. And I liked MoS. Can you post anything about the execution, then? Yaws posted:I thought the Tornado scene in MoS was a rather touching moment outside of Pa Kent giving the worst advice irt a tornado approaching That’s a historical detail; the overpass safety myth began in the early 90s, and the tornado scene takes place ~1997.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
It’s interesting that spider-fans seem to genuinely hate the Uncle Ben character.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Top Gun posted:Where are we supposed to go to discuss Disney's Fox acquisition and talk about how excited we are that the X-Men and Fantastic Four are coming the MCU? THE GARBAGE CAN.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Cool. Movies are a cinematic language and the ability to properly communicate things to the view is part of that. “Movies are a movie language and part of movies is to communicate things to the view.” Lol sit down.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
The nerd hate makes a lot more sense when you find out they‘ve hallucinated entire scenes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:This is just insane to me. Absolutely insane. Are people not allowed to enjoy films that are not enjoyed by what seems like "most people"? If they all share similar problems, perhaps that, I dunno, maybe the film simply didn't connect with them in that way? And maybe that same film, connected with you on a personal level, and you were able to appreciate it in a way they did not? And maybe this isn't a loving bad thing? What you are writing is bizarre, and difficult to parse: "Are people not allowed to enjoy films that are not enjoyed by what seems like 'most people'?" I assume that you wrote the above phrase very quickly, and without stepping back to think about what you were doing. You are apparently asking forums poster Megaman's Jockstrap for his permission to enjoy film? Does he have power over you? Then we have the stuff about "opinions(rules)" and so-on. Megaman's Jockstrap simply wrote that post-hoc justifications are bad. I don't believe you like post-hoc justifications. So, what are you doing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Maybe they really like the Disney films and think they're wonderful? Ok, hang on. Slow down a second. This one sentence was really tripping me out: "Are people not allowed to enjoy films that are not enjoyed by what seems like 'most people'?" I had to read it over and over before I realized that, despite the punctuation, it's actually a fragment of a much larger run-on sentence. Here is your full sentence: "Are people not allowed to enjoy films that are not enjoyed by what seems like "most people" if they all share similar problems, perhaps that, I dunno, maybe the film simply didn't connect with them in that way and maybe that same film, connected with you on a personal level, and you were able to appreciate it in a way they did not?" That is a motherfucker of a sentence. That is borderline incomprehensible. I mean you straight-up can't read that without just chopping away at it and rebuilding the whole thing. And when you do break it down, what you are saying is not even a question but an assertion: "I have personal experiences!" Why are you telling us this? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 02:06
|
|
Manufactured products or not, they do elicit reactions out of people. It's just kind of baffling to me, despite the opinion side of things, why this thread, which applauds expressing your opinion in more lengthy and detailed manner, is so turned off by people doing just that, except for films they don't like.
|
CelticPredator posted:People want to connect with other people. That may be what you feel, but your actions (i.e. writings) demonstrate that you are interested in being left alone. You are spending an enormous amount of time insisting that it is impossible for you to be understood. The paradox is that you are attempting to be ‘alone in public’ - pushing for sort of mutual isolation, where people who ‘connect with The Avengers (or whatever franchise)’ are automatically grouped together without interacting. Like, when you press the upvote button on a youtube video, and it displays the number of anonymous people who also upvoted. That’s the ideal. But again, that raises the question of why you are desperately pleading for users of a forum to effectively stop using words, instead of just voting 1 and moving on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
WENTZ WAGON NUI posted:The fundamental difference is that the Snyder movies take the idea of a super-hero seriously. So like, there's this guy who can upend the whole world. How about that? Then the Marvel movies are essentially about these toothless characters who suffer. They have these Dallas-esque Soap Opera spats which have the age old Soap Opera contrivance of having the world wait on the characters----as if anyone should care what Discus Man thinks about a bill designed to restrain Iron Man and The Hulk. My fave example of this is in Avengers, when everyone is given a DHS folder that says “surprise! Aliens exist and here’s a bunch of footage of Thor, the Marvel version of Superman who is literally a god. BTW it turns out that Old Norse was the correct religion all along.” And then it just cuts to five minutes later and nobody gave a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
Oh, I get it. You’re Ernest Cline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
The elephant in the room, with all this talk of the nerd rapture, is that franchise crossover stories reach their apex of quality with, like, Alien Versus | Predator: Requiem and... BVS?!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Black Panther is a revolutionary superhero movie in that it has a black superhero who isn't a parody/joke character, a sidekick or a guy who is on the run from the law. After Earth, Spawn, xXx, Men In Black, Catwoman, Steel, The Last Witch Hunter, Alien Vs. Predator, Sleight, Captain Eo, Space Is The Place... Also: all three Star Wars prequels. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Black Panther isn't really revolutionary for being the first black superhero movie; as mentioned, there's been a shitload. It's noteworthy because it's being pushed exactly as hard as the superhero movies starring white people. The other examples mentioned are either very tenuously superhero movies or... weren't really taken seriously, to say the least. Right; the same was the case with Wonder Woman. The ‘revolutionary’ novelty is that the film is being promoted to white men.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
ungulateman posted:i suppose it falls under the 'on the run from the law' clause, but also Hancock Also The Matrix. And then we have, like, every X-Men film (or does Storm count as a sidekick?). The trouble is not only that the claim is inaccurate, but also that the criteria are weirdly over-specific.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 07:18
|
|