|
selec posted:The ending of Black Panther was the most cynical deployment of identity politics in a long time in a movie. If you wanted to take a diegetic approach, Wakanda's pledge to help black communities with capital investment and educational outreach took place less than a year before the Infinity War and the Snap. Falcon and the Winter Soldier explores the fact that during the snap things changed dramatically in socio-economic terms for a lot of people, and we know that T'challa was one of the people snapped away. While we're not privy to Wakanda's internal political issues and economic problems specifically in the Snap's wake, its reasonable to assume that like many countries they suffered massively from labor shortages and similar problems that made keeping T'challa's policy going untenable. That show ALSO digs into the fact that when the Snap was undone there was a concerted effort by the monied interests and politicians to restore as much of the old order as possible at the expense of what was made during the Snap years. The famous "Falcon applies for a loan," scene illustrates how systemic racism in America seems to have been actively shorn up as a way of clawing back gains made during the Snap years in the interest of "fairness," to those who were gone. Access to capital and power are being even more tightly controlled to exclude the Other as if to make up for lost time when the Other had some actual leverage. We even see Wakandans in FATWS, and they're... doing a covert ops military intervention in Europe, where the leader gives a speech that Wakanda has jurisdiction wherever they want to CAPTAIN AMERICA (who is currently Captain America because the US government lied to a black man to get the shield so they could make a white man with strong government loyalty their new Cap of choice). The irony of the situation aside, it implies a political shift in Wakanda and its goals after the undoing of the SNAP (not the mention the possible in-universe death of Black Panther to co-incide with the actor's real death) that is commiserate with a stronger push toward racist policy in America. The maintenance of the Status Quo in the Marvel Universe can thus be read as not laziness on the part of the writers or an effort to force the Current Day aesthetic, but rather something that is being actively perpetuated by the Powers That Be to spite the efforts of the heroes to improve society. Hence the value of Sam Wilson becoming Captain America, and his arc wrestling with the nature of supremacism and the best ways to change society. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 2, 2021 |
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Dune(2021) is nearly unwatchable in terms of the blatantly obvious middle-eastern appropriation while casting it to be superficially "race-blind" but very much not. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of that is intentional text. The Empire to which House Atreides belongs is explicitly imperialist occupiers of Arrakis there to extract their space oil while giving no benefit to he native population. Paul is almost literally Lawrence of Arabia plus Jesus, and part of the overall message of the franchise is "Messiahs aren't always good even when they're trying to be." I haven't actually seen the new movie yet, but I do know in the book that while Duke Leeto is a friendly guy and does care about his men and even ostensibly the Fremen population's welfare, he's also looking to exploit them not just for the spice, but for their prowess as warriors so his House can potentially counter the Emperor's elite military power, the Sartocar. He's still there to exploit Arrakis, just in a Velvet Glove Over The Iron Fist sort of way. He's only "good," in comparison to House Harkonen, who were literally butchering the Fremen like animals for fun. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah, that's just Dune. Not to be a dick but have you read the original source material or are you attempting to make a reading on something that's only half of the text? To be fair, judging the material as presented rather than in the context of its original source is reasonable. And like I said I haven't seen the new version. But I do feel like if you're saying things like "The Fremen are appropriating Arab culture," or "Paul is a bog standard White Savior," or talking about the problematic treatment of women in this neo-feudal society, you might be failing to grasp the fullness of the text, because that is all very much 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Also I'd wager most of the people who are loving the movie haven't read the book and don't know what happens in Part 2, so they're taking the Paul story straight instead of as a subversion. That's how my partner is, because they haven't read the book and don't know what is happening in part 2. I think the goal of the director, at least its been my theory since I heard the movie was split into 2 parts, is to sell the first half of the book as Space Game Of Thrones, all gripping space politics and coming-of-age young hero strait out of a Hunger Games-like, and then when the Prophecy stuff kicks in to reframe a lot of what we saw with a fuller understanding. We will grow into figuring out what's really happening as Paul himself does. At least, that's what I might do in the modern media zeitgeist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:My point is that dark souls as a series don't really spend much time portraying a society or even interpersonal relations, and as such any ideological messaging is going to be several steps removed from the text. In dark souls 2's case, the main character's journey is fundamentally personal journey to escape their personal samsara. There's some tidbits of social commentary here and there but it's not really a focus of the narrative. I don't know about that. I think the Dark Souls story is pretty explicitly ideological, it's literally all about kings and god-kings doing atrocities and how they justify them, all learned after the fact in a world that has gone to poo poo as a direct result of their actions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:It's been a while but as I remember dark souls 2 the kings' downfalls are either the result of literal temptress demons manipulating them or because their kingdom happened to be on top of demon spawning hell portal. Like allegory and all that, given the overarching themes of self-destruction, but I feel like this interpretation is at least a little fraught, especially given that, again to my memory, the cycles of fire and dark are referred to an inescapable inevitably, rather than any given individual or group of individuals faults. Yeah, but the whole impetus for the story is that Gwynn doesn't accept that inevitability. Almost every bad thing in the Dark Souls universe traces back to Gwynn and the Gods fearing the Age of Dark and enacting a increasingly horrific series of schemes and deceits to prevent it. And for that matter to prevent alternative to their own rule, as seen in the story of the Demons. Heck, there's some implication that the war against the Stone Dragons Gwynn led in the first place was unjust and that's why his son (probably) fled to help their kind rebuild. The Undead Curse mark which is the franchise's icon is indeed a mark of humanity being enslaved by Fire to keep the Dark at bay, when Dark was actually their own birthright. This was The First Sin. Dark Souls III DLC reveals that this even goes back to when they first waged that Dragon War. Gwynn's "reward," to the Furtive Pygmy was to deny him and all his descendents future through the "gift," of his daughter and their city.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I admit that the connections between Dark Souls 1 and 3 are kind of lost on me, because I played DS1 a very long time ago and never revisited it because I didn't really enjoy it the way I did later games, so I'll tkae your word on the narrative here but I have to ask: what is the commentary here? That the powerful will sacrifice themselves and others to maintain their grip on power? Sure, but is that particularly interesting commentary? That's why I said the games have tidbits of social commentary; those themes are referred to in the worldbuilding but not really examined, again to my memory. I guess that's fair to a point. But for my two cents the game, when you break it down to its core, is about you learning the world's secrets (or not) and deciding what you're going to do about it. In all three games you're the Chosen One, and when you get to the end you decide if you want to link the flame or let it die. In DS3 you get even more choices if you take certain paths. In fact, Dark Souls 2's ending not having a choice I think really underscores that the other two do. When the DS2 protag learns the full truth of his circumstances, he's left with the inevitable understanding that there is nothing to be done about it, but the DS1 and 3 protagonists are in different circumstances and learn different truths, and thus have the power to act on what they've discovered. If that's no a game about fundamentally about ideology, what is?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I think there's something interesting here actually: an interpretation of the games as an individual's interaction with the fallout of the ambitions of powerful people. Dark Souls 2 does actually have a choice with the DLC, though it's more of a true ending: the player character learns about the downfall of all four kings and, via their interactions with the scholar of the first sin, realizes that taking the throne for themselves will inevitably lead to their downfall, and thus sets out on an uncertain path to find another way. The game is somewhat dour on the possibility that another way even exists, but the ending narration still refers to this action as heroic. It's been a hell of a long time since I looked at DS2 lore, but I have a vague recollection that there's a lot more to the Four King's downfalls than simply seduction by dark forces. Who those forces are, what motivated them, I remember it carrying a fair bit of intrigue. I should go back to Vaati's channel and look for some of those vids. I do remember really clearly that at least one of the King's Sins was basically rooted in learning about his queen's true nature as a dark being, and through her learning about all the corruption that was going on in other kingdoms, and thereby deciding to just try and protect her and his people as long as possible until they all fell because the situation was hopeless. Reminiscent of the original ending and the hero walking into the kiln for lack of other possibilities. I never actually played Scholar, so I didn't know about the alt ending where the hero just walks away from fate and determines to try and find a better way despite everything screaming that there isn't one. That's pretty neat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The FROM games really do work better when you look at them as allegory or myth. They're not really creation myths, though the series deals with them a lot, and they're not really apocalyptic stories. I guess they're myths about decline, stories about the entropic forces that will bring us to an end if allowed. At least Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro. Eh, Sekiro is more about conflict and power, what it takes to hold it and what endless conflict does to people and how they will go to seek it out. I prefer to think of the FROM games more as Legend than Myth or Allegory. The corruption of the king and the despoilment of the land stuff is very Arthurian, think Green Knight and Fisher King type stories, but still rooted in recognizable humanity and society.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So what I'm getting from this is "white savior on a small scale is wrong, white savior on a cosmic scale is right". I mean, if you take "things got so bad once the Cosmic White Savior was in charge long enough that humanity purged itself of all ills," as an endorsement of Cosmic White Savior I guess. I feel like the actual message is the opposite. Or an endorsement of accelerationism. Is it still accelerationism when its on a millennia scale by comparison to all human existence?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:As I've not read the series, it sounds like the Paul/Paul's son is a despot in order to force the galaxy to rise against him/them. So like the ultimate white saviorism. Which doesn't make it right. Yeah. But American History X is still a really good movie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
Fill Baptismal posted:Something that I increasingly dislike is that sci-fi or fantasy fiction that wants to make some kind of social statement will use mutants/vampires/cyborgs as a stand-ins for real life minorities despite them being categorically different from and dangerous to regular people in a way that people with different skin tones obviously are not. I'm not going to lie, I really hate when people make this criticism of X-Men and similar "non-human as allegory for race," stories. Like, Magneto is a threat to humanity because he's a Holocaust Survivor and he's seen what bigotry does when it thinks its righteous. Him just happening to have a power that could theoretically destroy the world isn't why he's dangerous. Like Professor X he could, should and HAS been one of Earth's greatest heroes. He's not because his lived experience tells him humanity can't ever be trusted. There are tons of mutants out there with virtually no powers, and they get the exact same treatment as the ones that are actually threatening. THAT'S the racism metaphor. You don't need to, as the first X-Men movie has Jean Grey point out to Senator Kelly "license people to live," to deal with dangerous mutants. People want to do it because they're afraid and hateful of the IDEA of mutants, much like they're hateful and afraid of the ideas created by bigoted stereotypes. "Oh, I'm a racist just because I crossed the street when I saw that mutant coming? He might have had a [dangerous power here]!" Governments wanting/having the means to combat superheroes isn't a bad thing. The danger comes when their methods of acquiring them and motivations for using them aren't rational because they're rooted in bigotry. That not only leaves those defenses inevitably pointed at innocent targets, but also serves as an exploitable weakness by bad actors. Watch the Cadmus arc of Justice League Unlimited sometime, it digs into this from a ton of different angles over the course of the story.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Oh hey, everyone should read Miracleman (aka Marvelman) if you like social critique in comic book form. Short version, it's basically "what if Superman [but even more powerful] tried to actually fix the world rather than just fight crime". Superfella has the power but isn't infallible, and there's the inevitable thing where ordinary people have a problem with the power dynamic of it even when he's unambiguously helping, and it's all a beautiful dark clusterfuck. Injustice would be a fun version of this if it didn't weirdly and kind-of-misogynistically character assassinate Wonder Woman to facilitate it's plot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The MCU Civil War isn't the Comics version of Civil War I think. To be fair, Steve's most explicit objection to the accords is specifically his worry about governmental interests binding the Avengers to act, or not act, against the objective good. It being the US or the UN doesn't really matter for the point. Steve's feelings about this are certainly informed by the revelations about Hydra controlling SHIELD and through it the US government, to the point that they almost enacted a plan to take over the world with those Insight Helicarriers. He's lost the ability to trust higher authorities and sees it as an abrogation of his personal responsibility to use the power he has for good ends. He has a point, in that Tony wants to sign up for the Accords because he wants to abrogate his personal responsibility. His baggage is Ultron. Iron Man was created so Tony could take personal responsibility for his failures by destroying his weapons with his own hands while he was also stopping those weapons from existing by changing Stark Industries away from Arms Manufacture. Ultron was the last stop of the road that started there, the notion that he could invent something that could protect the world in perpetuity. It backfired to the greatest degree possible, and he lost faith in his own decision making abilities to the point he was ready to let other people call his shots for him. The irony of Cap's position, of course, is that it mirrors American Exceptionalism/Interventionism perfectly, and is flawed for the same reason. Cap has power, and he doesn't trust anyone else to limit that power, and thus refuses to relinquish his power to act unilaterally and without international consent. This is the flip side of the coin, and where Tony's faction has a perfectly reasonable point - them acting unilaterally has saved the world, but it hasn't necessarily made the world safer. Vision is correct when he points out their existence invites challenge, and the less restrained they are the more those that see them as a threat must escalate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I find the DC movies can sometimes be surprising subversive. Like in Red Son you have Soviet Supes killing Stalin to end the gulags; this presents interesting questions and implications about the main timeline Supes and the US prison system. At the risk of inviting ire for invoking the name of Moviebob, his video essay series on Batman v Superman's failures is particularly harsh on the movie for acting like it was going to go in this direction and cowarding out incredibly hard. In the time since Man of Steel, Superman has become a borderline messianic figure for the poor and downtrodden in many nations, saving them from natural disasters and the like without asking anything in return. Then he intervenes in an African conflict zone to rescue Lois and just leaves without thought for the fallout of his actions. A woman testifies before the US Congress about the atrocities done by the militants in reprisal for his actions. "I ask, how does he decide who to save? He answers to no one, not even I think to God." At the same time, Clark Kent has taken on a personal crusade against Batman, as his return has involved horrific violations of civil rights and intentional efforts to get the criminals he captures killed in prison. When Bruce Wayne confronts him at a fancy gala he's covering for the Planet over his anti-Batman article, Clark is pretty self-righteous about Batman being dangerous and harmful to people he purports to protect. Bruce scarcely conceals his contempt for what he perceives as idiotic naivety from a kid at least 10 years his junior if not more. The movie could have been about both parts of this divide, Bob argues. Confronting Superman as an allegorical reflection of American Interventionist policy and the myth of its objective goodness, and having the ideological conflict between Batman and Superman informed by their generational divide and how that influences their world view. Don't just give this Populist Millennial Superman a problem with Batman, give him a problem with all police power abuse. Have him stand between an unarmed black man and a cop's bullet, or a refugee caravan and ICE agents. Don't just chide him for leaving countries to fend for themselves in his wake, have him learn something from it, and expect the same from the US military to the point he starts getting in their way. Have him stop a Predator Drone from taking out an ISIS commander because of the collateral damage even as he brings the guy in himself (Injustice used this one!). Use this to fuel both his conflict with the US Government ("Must there be a Superman?" "There is.") AND his conflict with an Authoritarian Gen-X Batman who's always been on the Gotham PD's side and see's a being liken unto a God dictating right and wrong to a world that can't do anything about it. Instead it fled from the very issues it invoked because it didn't want them as any more than window dressing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
Fill Baptismal posted:This is where the metaphor breaks down though. Black people, gay people, etc. don't actually have some kind superhuman powers that could potentially threaten you. But in the fictional worlds that do this kind of thing, they often give the minority group stand-in abilities that do in fact make them objectively more dangerous or at least different. Accepting the metaphor requires you to make some pretty weird moral leaps. Sure, it's usually helped by the narrative dice being loaded by the anti-mutants being written as obviously odious/evil/etc. But the overall metaphor still doesn't hold that much water when you think about it. Yeah, but the issue in X-Men isn't the guy who doesn't want to do a business deal with a mind-reading mutant, its the guy who doesn't want to do a business deal with ANY mutant because hey, he might be able to read my mind, that's a thing mutants can do. That's the reason I specifically used the example of the "He might have a gun!" racist trope. The stereotypical person saying they wouldn't want to be near the black man in a dark alley because he might be armed and dangerous is implying that if the person had been white, they wouldn't have needed the worry. Like, people have often said over the years that X-Men is hurt by it not making sense for people to be bigoted against mutants in a Superhero World like Marvel, but it's actually a strength. Business Man should be on guard for LITERALLY ANYONE to be able to read his mind because literally anyone might have that power. But its only a concern for him when he finds out his potential partner is a mutant. As I said, THAT'S the racism metaphor. People equate mutant with dangerous when, in the context of the world they live in, it's not reasonable even if you can technically rationalize it. "Black people statistically commit more violent crime in my city than white people, ergo its rational for me to be on guard more around them and that surely won't lead to any systemic racist outcomes in society." "Mutants have a statistical chance to have a power that is dangerous to me rather than one that isn't, ergo its rational to make them register with the government and that surely won't lead to them being put into camps." Admittedly it gets a little weirder in the X-men solo movies, but I still don't think the metaphor breaks down entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
The fun thing about Animal Farm is how its one of the major sources for western lionization of Trotsky.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:I feel like that woulda happened regardless, it's a narrative that writes itself You're not wrong, but it is funny how a cute widdle piggy did so much lifting on it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Sci-fi: Hypothetically It Would Be Okay To Have Sex With A Robot Dog Personally I prefer to think of the Warcraft franchise's message as being "Hypothetically it would NOT be OK to wage a racial holy war," because in real life for almost all of history it's been presumed that it's a reasonable thing to do, where as warcraft at least occasionally questions the veracity of that assumption.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Warcraft is kinda weird in that it views racial holy war as "Bad" but also seems to view it as an inevitable course of nature whenever there's "Us" and "Them" One could argue, as I often have as one of the regular heavy-posters in the Warcraft Lore Thread, that that's not really the intent of the story. I've always thought that Warcraft is about leadership, how societies shape leaders and in turn are shaped by them. The grand racially-coded conflicts between the Alliance and the Horde, and the atrocities that those factions commit against each other within those conflicts, can almost universally be traced back to acts of manipulation by individuals who just want to use conflict while the victims of that manipulation need to try and defuse that conflict even while they're caught in it, or failures by those with authority to take moral action and thereby leave power in the hands of bad actors. Sometimes that failure of morality is a product of a bad person, sometimes its a product of social structures or circumstances that the person feels powerless to go against, and sometimes its just because they themselves screw up because they're not perfect. The implication of the larger themes of the universe, to me, have always been that these problems could be solved and are not inevitable. It is the failures of the principle characters that lead to all this Craft of War continuing, and it is their successes and growth which brings the occasional reprieve. In fact, there's a fair bit of evidence in recent expansions that the writer's intent is to explore this in a more direct way, spotlighting talk about "breaking the cycle," what it would actually take to bridge the gulf of hatred between the Alliance and Horde, discussions of characters who've screwed up in the past recognizing their mistakes and finding the strength to try again, and putting the characters who've made the fewest mistakes in positions where they will either have power, or need to keep power away from more flawed people. The only issue with all this is that the writers are also really bad at their jobs and have hosed it all up at every step for the last 6 years, and that's being generous. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:WC2 definite had a good vs evil theme, it wasn't until 3 that they changed the orcs into noble savages which is a bit Part of being a warcraft fan is having to try and push past the noble savage tropes and their lovely implications (while hopefully also lobbying for some effort to do better, which there has been some progress on over the years) and try to focus on the intent behind that shift in Warcraft 3, which was to take the Always Evil Fantasy Races and make them into ordinary people not fundamentally any different from the Humans, Dwarves and Elves. When WC3 happened that was pretty novel, at least in mainstream fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2021 21:13
|
|
but whatcha gonna do with 2000's media.
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Again, you can diagnose the ideological contradictions and lacunae in a text, but that’s not the same thing as saying that the author arranged a specific irony for you to discover. Who cares about authorial intent? (I care, actually, I'm not a 100% death of the author believer, but art becomes evergreen when we can understand it and apply it outside of what the author was attempting to do and the time it was written)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think the idea is once half of life is gone the remainder will gain a new sense of respect for the limited resources of the universe; and of what they now have and will work better to better conserve the (allegedly) limited resources going forward; which is what I think is what Thanos alludes to when he says that he will be able to "finally rest, and watch the sun rise on a grateful universe". Its this. The whole argument Thanos makes is that when he's done this experiment manually on various planets the long-term result was a glorious success that proves him right. The fact that his logic doesn't hold up just makes him like every other Malthusian. He cherry picks the data that supports his proposition because he's an arrogant narcissist who couldn't possibly be wrong. You know, like Tony did with Ultron. That's why they're foils for each other in Infinity War and Tony's journey through the whole Saga parallels Thanos' own implied journey when he shares his backstory. EDIT: Also in Endgame he says this time he'll just rewrite the entire universe to fit in his exact perfection vision, so it's not like that wasn't on the table. It just would have been a less satisfying victory than the "grateful universe," fixing itself because of his one action. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:There's a lot going on in Shin Godzilla and not all of it is fashy, in short it's the third glorious return to Godzilla As Metaphor which are all the best ones. It's been forever since I've seen it or pondered it but I'll write something up about it. It's a wonderful series because it flits wildly between serious, schlock, insane, and campy. Everything from serious musings about nuclear war and proliferation to "what if your best friend was a robot who could grow huge/flying turtle?" This describes exactly why I really like Godzilla King of the Monsters (2017) and didn't get why it was so mercilessly lashed by a lot of critics and fans. It's not a perfect movie but it captures a modern blockbuster version of everything great about godzilla, from the schlock to the serious metaphorical musings. A lightyear improvement over the 2014 launch film. King Kong vs Godzilla is similarly good but as a story is a lot more about the crazy goofy SciFi "lore," and trying to be character driven than it is about any kind of deeper meaning, even a dumb deeper meaning like KotM, so it's really a Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi situation with those two films for me. Kong Skull Island remains the untouchable god-emperor of the Monsterverse, natch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 05:57
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I'll confess I haven't actually seen KSI, but if you say it surpasses the likes of 1954 and Godzilla vs Hedora I'm going to check it out right now to add to my analysis. Just for the record I did NOT mean to say that it's BETTER than those films! When I said the Monsterverse I was exclusively referring the the rebooted universe. That said, I do think KSI is excellent and does merit serious consideration, both as a Kaiju film and a film in general, so I hope you enjoy it! I think it does a really swell job of delivering on the premise of "Take the thematics of the King Kong story and mix them with cinematic traditions about Vietnam malaise and the general shittiness of the 60s" quote:I enjoyed KotM but my critique of Legendary is more or less unchanged in that they focus too much on the humans without giving them the sort of metaphorical depth or narrative purpose that they got in Shin Godzilla or similar titles of the type. Stupidly unlikely technology spurring hubris that results in doom that otherwise wouldn't have happened, monsters from space, tremendous peril, etc, all the good stuff I can agree that the humans get a little too much juice in KOTM, although again it's a big improvement from Godzilla '14 on that front. If anything I would have enjoyed more from Charles Dance and the eco-super-terrorists who are happy to see Ghidora wipe out humanity and learn to live on an Alien Planet once he's done terraforming it, and less from the Team Godzilla Bridge Crew. At least Ken Watanabe and the main character family trio did a solid job, but I can see the criticism that they got too much at Big G's expense. Mothra and Rodan got their chance to shine though, and drat did the tag fight at the end make me happy. I agree 1962 KK v Godzilla is a classic, it was actually my very first Godzilla movie way back when I was like 8 years old, but I was actually referring to the last movie of the Reboot Series that came out last year. Its a fun popcorn movie with some good stuff in it, IMO, and I think you'd like it, but it was a step down from KOTM in my mind. I think the Neflix Godzilla animes are pretty enjoyable and I really love the reimagined Godzilla Universe they create. I wouldn't call them favorites or anything, and they certainly have big plot and character problems, but I never hated any of them. I'm glad the trailer for the one with Ghidora caught my eye and got me to check it out. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Watched Kong Skull Island and I enjoyed it....was sort of baseline pablum and blahblah the sort of thing you expect, but genre subversion in regards to the existing Kong mythos was there and made a lot of sense, after a fashion. My takes as a kaiju guy: Glad you liked it, and some interesting comments I hadn't heard before. Its hard to find anything but gushing praise for KSI so I appreciate the more critical eye. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts about Kong vs Godzilla. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2022 19:07
|
|