|
Snowman_McK posted:What if the slaves are the ones building the speed boat? Excuse me, I think you mean prisoners with jobs
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Think about this for like three seconds, though. Nowhere is ‘safe’. The Russo Brothers said everyone came back like the tequila worm ghost in Poltergeist II.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
I’m sorry for starting this derail. Or...in this case, capsizing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Who’s ready for more non-answers from bored middle managers?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7wgC0-xOZE
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
emgeejay posted:Who’s ready for more non-answers from bored middle managers?? You know, they could save a buck by just having the Russons give a Q&A instead of making another movie. Just make the trailers that convey the general premise and have the Russos tour and explain poo poo they couldn't possibly explain in a 3 hour movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
I just realized that this Black Widow movie probably takes place between Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron, when Widow says that she's got business to attend to or whatever and then theoretically goes off back to Russia to deal with it. Forgot about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I suspect it may be hard to know even your own intentions in sufficient detail, like doing complicated mental math, without writing it down -- aside from all the things the glove would compensate for It’s actually very easy, apparently. Banner simply asks for all the dusted lifeforms to return ‘safely’ - and it works. The glove-puter automatically interpreted his intentions. From this, we can understand the reverse: whatever happens after a given snap is a direct illustration of what the snapper intended. It is a direct manifestation of their ideology. Everything that occurs in all upcoming MCU films will literally occur because Thanos, Banner, and Stark (collectively) intended for it to occur. Not in the sense that Strange orchestrated Stark’s assassination, mind, but in the sense that they all OK’d the systemic problems that led to the terror in Spiderman House 2. As an example of the glove-puter’s, automation: Thanos certainly didn’t specifically demand that half of all lifeforms disintegrate along with their clothes. But the glove nonetheless read his intentions, and disintegrated the clothing. What this means is that Thanos was lying about the ‘resources’ thing. If that was his intent, people would just drop dead and become fertilizer. He never actually intended it (duh, obviously) because he really just wanted to kill shitloads of people for the spectacle of it or whatever. And in that respect, the clothing decision was not totally stupid. Clothes are not just neutral decorations - they are a part of your body, as much of a prosthetic enhancement as a pair of glasses or a pacemaker. “[Daniel Dennett] insists that tools, the externalised ‘intelligence’ on which human beings rely, are an inherent part of human identity: it is meaningless to imagine a human being as a biological entity without the complex network of his/her tools – it would be like imagining a goose without its feathers.” -Zizek If the goal is to erase trillions of trillions of identities from existence, then you should destroy their clothes too. But this also betrays (part of) Thanos’ ideological failure. “[Dennett] opens up a path which should be followed much further. Since, to express it in good old Marxist terms, man is the totality of his/her social relations, Dennett should take the next logical step and analyse this network of social relations.” -Zizek As with Banner’s ideologically-limited definition of ‘safety’ that only accounts for immediate threats and not things like cancer or global warming, Thanos’ definition of a ‘lifeform’ includes clothing yet excludes all other tools. In actuality your clothes are a part of your body, and so is your house. So is your access to healthcare, the air you breathe, etc. People are the totality of their social relations. So if he truly intended to ‘balance the universe’ for rich and poor equally, why didn’t he start with, like, their wages? Yeah, he’s an idiot - but why didn’t anyone point this out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Oh rad we’ve moved into the quoting Zizek portion of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:What if you wished for a magic speedboat that could itself end all slavery everywhere Well that’s just ridiculous. Speedboats can’t draft legislature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Oh rad we’ve moved into the quoting Zizek portion of this thread. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I just realized that this Black Widow movie probably takes place between Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron, when Widow says that she's got business to attend to or whatever and then theoretically goes off back to Russia to deal with it. Forgot about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 03:52
|
|
galenanorth posted:I suspect it may be hard to know even your own intentions in sufficient detail, like doing complicated mental math, without writing it down -- aside from all the things the glove would compensate for no, you're thinking of the mischievous rules-lawyering genie kind of wish device i'm thinking about a magic intent-seeking glove emgeejay posted:Who’s ready for more non-answers from bored middle managers?? lol they mess up the answer to the very first question
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Oh rad we’ve moved into the quoting Zizek portion of this thread. Was Zizek snapped?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Oh rad we’ve moved into the quoting Zizek portion of this thread. If the glove’puter read Banner’s intentions and prevented all possible transporter accidents, then Thanos intended for his snap to cause car wrecks, helicopter crashes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Kaiju Cage Match posted:Was Zizek snapped? As long as dumpsters exist on this earth, the spirit of Zizek will live on
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Well now that spideys out of the MCU gently caress i was looking forward to Alex Jones JJJ
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Well now that spideys out of the MCU Why does Spider-Man leaving the MCU change whether or not they can do the JJJ teased at the end of Far From Home? He's not a loving Avenger; he was in the Raimi movies. I'm pretty sure Sony has the rights to him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Why does Spider-Man leaving the MCU change whether or not they can do the JJJ teased at the end of Far From Home? He's not a loving Avenger; he was in the Raimi movies. I'm pretty sure Sony has the rights to him. Depends if Sony wants to go that angle. Disney clearly did, we don't know if Sony wants to. The movie was jointly created. It's hard to say what they can even take from the film since parts of the film are reliant on the other franchise. If nothing else, this is going to destroy The Narrative of both movie series. Disney was trying to set up as Spider-Man as the news Tony Stark, the new face. And now they have to about face and do that with someone else, with films already in production. Sony now needs to change gears and make this entire thing work with just Spider-Man. I think this is just going to lead to both of them seeing a harsh dipping sales because both of the movies are going to become very confusing for the Casual moviegoer. They're not going to stand why the thing changed and they're going to get annoyed. This character is Central enough to both of the franchises that it can have a serious effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
I don't see how Sony would need to change gears. Far From Home tied a lot of stuff up enough that they'd only need a couple minor changes to be totally solo and still well within the "feel" of the previous two films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
I think it's perfectly possible for the MCU/Spiderman films to stop acknowledging each other's characters/events without necessarily being conflicting or contradictory. It takes some writing around, but I feel like I've seen movies write their way around bigger gaps than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I don't see how Sony would need to change gears. Far From Home tied a lot of stuff up enough that they'd only need a couple minor changes to be totally solo and still well within the "feel" of the previous two films. That might not work though. Disney may be able to legally say they can't use anything from the previous films because they were created during the joint agreement. As a matter of fact, they probably can do that. Disney can claim ownership in a lot of the ideas and they have enough money to wrestle them in court until they just do a full reboot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Covok posted:That might not work though. Disney may be able to legally say they can't use anything from the previous films because they were created during the joint agreement. As a matter of fact, they probably can do that. Disney can claim ownership in a lot of the ideas and they have enough money to wrestle them in court until they just do a full reboot. I mean, I don't think that's true at all. What is the "anything from the previous films" they couldn't use? Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man and all of his supporting cast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
as long as they keep tom holland 90% of people who go see the next live action spiderman film won't even know/care about any of this
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I mean, I don't think that's true at all. What is the "anything from the previous films" they couldn't use? Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man and all of his supporting cast. The main obstacle is that the next movie would have to exposit his backstory in a way that doesn't mention Stark, Fury, Thanos, or even Happy Hogan. So the choice is to either talk about all that stuff euphemistically, or just kind of avoid factoring Peter's previous adventures into the plot of the next one. Brother Entropy posted:as long as they keep tom holland 90% of people who go see the next live action spiderman film won't even know/care about any of this This is true, the X-Men movie continuity is absolute gibberish on every conceivable level and people go along with it just fine because the details aren't that memorable and hey the same actor is there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:or just kind of avoid factoring Peter's previous adventures into the plot of the next one. This seems really easy to do though. He doesn't have to constantly namecheck people he's met.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I mean, I don't think that's true at all. What is the "anything from the previous films" they couldn't use? Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man and all of his supporting cast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Disney walks in and goes Michelle/"MJ" is an original character Peter: Hey M- MJ: My name is Denise now. Parker: O-oh. Why? Denise: *shrugs*
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
You guys are really underestimating how easily Disney can tank any attempt to make a sequel in the same universe. Disney can literally mandate that nothing from the previous films can be there because they have a tiny sliver of ownership on this particular iteration of the character. Like, this is a Disney lawyer's playground. Disney has the capital to fight them on every little thing. What you forget is that it isn't about winning, its about making the cost of winning so high that its not worth it. Covok fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
lol, yeah, no way a little mom-and-pop operation like Sony could deal with a lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Covok posted:You guys are really underestimating how easily Disney can tank any attempt to make a sequel in the same universe. Disney can literally mandate that nothing from the previous films can be there because they have a tiny sliver of ownership on this particular iteration of the character. Like, this is a Disney lawyer's playground. Disney has the capital to fight them on every little thing. I suspect this would all have been hashed out in the original agreement
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Disney walks in and goes Michelle/"MJ" is an original character I think it would be pretty hard for them to argue that a character named MJ who has only been in Sony films counts as their property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I think it would be pretty hard for them to argue that a character named MJ who has only been in Sony films counts as their property. No no, it would be easy, because only Disney has good lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
I wont see a spiderman movie not set in the established MCU universe. I'm done with reboots. I didn't see the Andrew Garfield remakes, and I wouldn't even bother pirating Tom Holland sequels if they pull him out of the shared universe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I think it would be pretty hard for them to argue that a character named MJ who has only been in Sony films counts as their property. Hell, that's a good way to start tearing at Sony. I'm sure people would live Zendaya to be replaced by "the real MJ" (who is white).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
GORDON posted:I wont see a spiderman movie not set in the established MCU universe. I'm done with reboots. I didn't see the Andrew Garfield remakes, and I wouldn't even bother pirating Tom Holland sequels if they pull him out of the shared universe. Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Michelle Jones sounds like a pretty original character if you go by Spidercomics standards. I mean, that would be a weak as hell argument, but even if she was an "original character" I'm still not sure why one from a Sony movie would belong to Disney. Would Sony get to use Hiroyuki Sanada's or Joe Russ's character from Endgame just because the movie also features some Sony characters?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
Interesting fact I stumbled across. Apparently in 2011, Sony sold back the merchandising rights for Spider-Man. So Disney. In a way, Disney doesn't lose in this scenario because if the Sony Spider-Man movies are successful they get all the merchandising money generated by the film's. And if the movies suck, then they aren't putting cash up for it anymore and they aren't using it in their franchise. And they may even be able to buy it back at a better deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
So long as Sony keeps making Spiderman films, the rights never revert back to Marvel. So it was with the X-Men and Fantastic 4 until the fox buyout. Which means we'll be seeing a lot of lovely, lovely, lovely Spiderman films until we die if Disney doesn't get the rights back, because Spiderverse being good was a fluke. Sony is loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:21
|
|
LividLiquid posted:So long as Sony keeps making Spiderman films, the rights never revert back to Marvel. So it was with the X-Men and Fantastic 4 until the fox buyout. What, you didn't like Slender?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
LividLiquid posted:So long as Sony keeps making Spiderman films, the rights never revert back to Marvel. So it was with the X-Men and Fantastic 4 until the fox buyout. They're getting Robert Richardson to shoot Venom 2 and Andy Serkis to direct it, so they're on the right track with their solo films. With the MCU's help Sony has made two okay Spider-Man films and three bad ones over three years. I prefer their track record on their own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:34
|
|