|
Escobarbarian posted:What do you lads think about this quote People who can appreciate BvS are not just more intellectual, but more importantly, far more good looking and hang out with the hottest guys.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:I think that while ultimate cut ain’t too bad calling it layered or a movie you really have to think about to “get” is pretty laughable This is a totally meaningless statement. Not layered at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:Some cool posts up in here! I definitely get what you all are going for now. I still don’t agree that it’s why the movie was considered a failure and I will always have major qualms with that way of thinking but I can happily admit the comparisons and metaphors go deeper than I was aware of. I think you are focusing too much on the “too layered for you simpletons” aspect of the outrageous quote. We all agree that art being complex or making a bunch of historical/political/etc. references doesn’t make it inherently good nor worthy of admiration, as what matters is how cohesively it comes together, in this case as a deconstruction of two massive IPs. The central conflict of the film, the hyped-up fight night built right into the title, is predicated on Superman’s radical love for a woman trafficking criminal. In this aspect, the theatrical cut is even more extreme than the Ultimate Cut in following Freud’s ethical critique of the “Love thy Neighbor” injunction, in eliding any attempts to humanize the totally noxious individual. This kind of thing is what Snyder is referring to when he ponders whether his approach was a possible reason for the polarized reception (Note here that he’s not talking about box office success). As far as the Dark Knight trilogy goes, how challenging were they to the superhero/Batman mythology really? I’d say the only one that really does so is the third one which is, coincidentally, the one with the most mixed reception, with people wondering whether its too fascist, etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
No Dignity posted:Audiences need a shonen peanut gallery to exclaim stuff like 'he's trying to avoid damaging the city but Zod so powerful he can barely keep up!' apparently Also known as the Christopher Nolan style of story-telling. EDIT: Okay poster Alexander Hamilton beat me to this dumb joke.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
YggdrasilTM posted:Mostly because they don't. They looks like comic books splash pages, yes, but as if the comic books were adaptations of movies. It's honestly quite jarring, at least for me. They look too much movies to feel like real comic books, and too much comic books to feel like real movies. This made sense in your head, but what you wrote is gibberish.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 12:03
|
|
|
Another member with an axe to grind actually wields two flaming swords. South Korean actor Doona Bae plays Nemesis, a swordmaster who is partly mechanical. “These swords are powered by the gauntlets that she holds. The gauntlets are these ancient [artifacts] from her home world, and part of the rite of passage of being a warrior in her world is you have to cut your arm off, and then you put these kind of robot arms on. That allows you to wield these molten-metal blades,” Snyder says. She inhabits a mining world that’s ruled by the Imperium, which extracts everything useful while leaving little for the planet’s inhabitants. “Nemesis is able to navigate the alleys and nooks and crannies, and she’s been sort of protecting the exploited workers of that world,” :O
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
A cyborg wonder woman of the proletariat, and that dastard turns Ray Fisher into a terrorist. The filmmaker reunited with Ray Fisher, his Cyborg actor from the DC films, by casting him alongside Cleopatra Coleman (The Last Man on Earth, Dopesick); the two play Darrian and Devra, a brother-and-sister team known as the Bloodaxes. They are galactic insurgents who have been angering the Mother World with a hit-and-run spree of attacks against the Imperium, without being especially effective at stopping its reign of abuse and terror. “They fight and hide. They don’t have the resources to have a pitched battle in the wide open,” Snyder says. “They’re kind of just loving with supply lines and blowing up train tracks. That’s their kind of thing.”  teagone posted:Eagerly anticipating Doona Bae fire sword fight scenes. She’s literally ‘Bae’. McCloud posted:I think it's also noteworthy that not only is there a nonbinary actor in the ensemble cast, the character they're playing is also nonbinary, which is rather refreshingly straightforward instead of just hinting at it or queerbaiting I’m still looking forward to the takes that the film is crypto-fascist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2023 12:40
|
|
|
Timby posted:Bruce Wayne literally fucks Talia on a bearskin rug in front of a fire in Rises. CelticPredator posted:Go watch a Batman porno if Batman not fuckin bothers you lmao It’s more than just the physical act of sex; like In the Mood for Love is one of the sexiest films ever, but the leads never even kiss, let alone gently caress. In the sense of Freud being derided for having sex be everywhere, a lot of these superhero films are precisely the opposite. That is to say, one of the best things about BvS’s narrative is the psychosexuality pulsating throughout the film, with stuff like Luthor’s red jolly rancher scene and Batman’s vampire-monster mommy. The REAL Goobusters posted:People thought Zuckerburg was actually normal and that the casting and performance of Jesse was not accurate at the time. Putting him as Lex showcased that Zack was ahead of the curve since people didn't really get it at the time. It’s also how Snyder integrates the Zuck aspect into his interpretation of Luthor as an acerbic critique of Watchmen’s Ozymandias (He draws a parallel with Ozymandias’ obsession with Alexander the Great in the Gordian Knot sequence). KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Come now SMG, you of all people now canon is an illusion Sorry, but you’re wrong!  https://i.ibb.co/3hRwxvK/canon.jpg Xealot posted:Yeah, I actually do think Nolan is pretty sexless in most of his output, but every Batman evokes some reading of his sublimated, unrealized sexuality. It’s kind of an elephant in the room: this handsome billionaire playboy never fucks, but is really primed for psychosexual interpretation over why... I agree that the majority of the MCU is the most “neutered”, but I’m not quite ready to let the Nolan-Bats off the hook. As you say, the basic premise of Batman has sexual repression built in, but my beef is that this aspect isn’t meaningfully conveyed in the narrative of the films themselves. Like, his films are by far the most neutered out of the live action Batmans (Though I haven’t seen the Matt Reeves one). Nolan aims for a kind of beautiful clockwork of filmmaking, but also produces a recurring bloodlessness. To go back to BvS’s narrative: Grendels Dad posted:It was either here or in the old Justice League thread that it was pointed out that even Superman's posture is one of "constant erection" or suchlike, I need to find that post again. The Wayne employee who gets paralyzed in Zod’s invasion goes to the monument of lives lost and places a photograph of his family in a vigil, and then proceeds to go punk-rock on the Superman statue. Later, there’s a twist that his family is still alive, and actually that his wife left him: it’s Superman’s fault that he becomes “less than a man”. Meanwhile, billionaire philanthropist Luthor is intimately monitoring Superman, and sees in his journalism the continual development of class consciousness. He uses the emasculation engendered by Clark’s super-vigor to produce an attack on the Capitol, symbolizing to a wild-eyed & similarly emasculated Batman the total breakdown of society. Since the film was released, the reactionary struggle has gained tremendous ground against women/gay/trans rights, in service of righting a society in decline. In conclusion, I wrote all of this to say that Sucker Punch is the good/interesting version of Inception.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Assepoester posted:"First The Flash and Gunn bury the Snyderverse, now Barbie comes to piss on The Prophet Zack Snyder's grave, oh is nothing sacred anymore, woe unto me" I don't really like Gerwig's films, but apparently, from the review, this is what White perceived as pissing on Snyder's grave: "Worst yet: One of the man-hating Barbies sneers, 'Like, I was really invested in the Zack Snyder cut of Justice League!' How could any decent industry professional attack another filmmaker this way?"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
McCloud posted:The joke is that one barbie is brainwashed to love patriarchy and toxic masculinity in the newly created "ken land" and when she comes out of brainwashing she's like "omg i imagined i was someone extremely invested in zsjl" Oh word? So Gerwig really is a cornball.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Y’all deserved the stupid Barbie joke I did not follow the particulars, so it's possible I'm missing the remarkably misogynist aspect of the Snyder Cut movement, but it feels like an easy cheap-shot to hop on the "toxic masculine" discourse surrounding Snyder's work. The Snyder duo have made a concerted effort to not only push women's stories and characters in front of the camera, but also behind the camera in the productive process. That is to say, given the structure of the joke, a million other things could have been slotted in. In the same Armond White review, there's a note that the titular hero repudiates "Sexualized capitalism". The logical question to ask is what un-sexualized capitalism is. Violator posted:IIRC in the making of book they show close ups of the Doomsday model and it had a human sized penis. This is a natural connection to Snyder getting away with Dr. Manhattan hanging dong, with the manipulative relation of Ozymandias > Dr. Manhattan, to Lex Luthor > Superman; the monstrosity of Doomsday stares directly at and beats Superman with the Superman monument itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I gotta say I appreciate the approach of just being like “whhaaattttt I don’t even know what this joke means lol how’d that get in there?” since it’s guaranteed to infuriate anyone who cares The thing is that even if the object of the joke is to purely function as a signifier, then why act surprised that it would take a "thorough understanding of the ins and outs" of a group's raison d'être to appreciate why they would be salty about being framed as misogynists? Wouldn't it be more of an indictment of them in Gerwig's own ideology if they didn't push back at all?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Am I down bad enough to watch both cuts of this rebellious moon? uhh probably.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Watching a movie in chunks sucks, really kills the momentum or energy of it for me How do you handle reading books?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:One page at a time They might be different mediums, but the art of storytelling has existed forever. As far as movies, I'd argue the intentionality of one entire swallow, as inherent to it is a multi-act structure. Furthermore, most of its existence included interludes, until the profit motive deemed it a nuisance; the other part of the medium's history is home media, which divides it into chapters. Maybe it's because I didn't get to watch movies in the theaters growing up, but I'm not at all precious about seeing them in one sitting. Maybe I would have actually enjoyed seeing "Everything Everywhere all at Once", if I didn't have to power through such an internet brain poisoned movie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Be honest, would setting aside three different evenings really have made you think "oh boy! I get to watch this for a third night in a row!"? Yes? I'm not sure I understand what's supposed to be unpleasant about that scenario. This applies even if it's for a film I've seen before, as the most painful part by far is settling on something to watch in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Personally, when I'm not enjoying something I stop watching it instead of planning how it could take up more of my life. What does that have to do with the current conversation?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
My bad, I misunderstood that your prior post was referring to my example of viewing EEAO. Sometimes I watch movies because other people want to. And in that situation, I'm saying I'm open to the possibility that breaking it up into chunks might have made the ADHD style storytelling less overbearing. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Aug 29, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I tried watching the B+W version, and it didn't seem worth the effort. I feel the same way about the Black & Chrome version of Fury Road...it's fine, at best, but not preferable. Especially for Fury Road, the color treatment is a huge part of the appeal, a post-apocalyptic wasteland that's actually really vibrant and colorful. I agree. Snyder's usage of color is one of my favorite things about his work, and I think he uses it to great effect to, among other things, delineate between the different worlds explored.  I also agree with teagone that Justice is Grey is worth watching, that seeing these modern epic works in black/white is worth seeing in its rarity, but that the colored version is superior. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Sep 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
The media figures are to be read in conjunction with the Clark Kent as reporter storyline, where he gets increasingly frustrated with private capital’s capture on what constitutes news. So the talking heads are not to convey an array of esteemed figures — that harmful idiot Andrew Sullivan gets a take!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
Aquaman: What are we, some kinda Zack Snyder's Justice League: Justice is Gray Edition?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Academic work has issues but imo the things being griped about ITT aren't really the point. It's not supposed to be a venue for the most entertaining writing or the most comprehensive encyclopedia of trivia or even the most widely-read reviewers: the point of academic work is to have a particular degree of rigor and review such that each piece of work situates itself in an intellectual tradition. That work might still be total rear end, or the entire branch of thinking it situates itself in might turn out to be discredited nonsense, but it's fundamentally different to even the most erudite opinion piece in the AV Club. Postmodern xenoBarbie might be useless nonsense or it might incredibly fertile ground for the next thirty years of work - what a general public make of it as a review is largely irrelevant. Well said. As you wrote, it’s not on the writer to ensure their work has as much commercial appeal as the matter they are dealing with, so what’s totally left out of this is any responsibility of the reader. I’d add that it’s far more important for the writer to have some historical/formal grasp of the medium itself, rather than a weighing scale between “whether their primary expertise is relevant” vs. “how familiar they are with the IP’s empire”. I don’t see unfamiliarity of the latter as a roadblock, but familiarity a possible detriment. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Sep 21, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Though comes to mind Ursula Le Guin's whole essay about how genre snobbery means that critics get some really stupid reads on media- like Harry Potter being thought of as original and groundbreaking when it really wasn't, and critics come off as incredibly juvenile and silly when they're surprised by what are standard genre tropes to people who actually read those books. It basically comes off as 'guy who's only seen Boss Baby'. If an analysis is worthless because of unfamiliarity with the tropes of a genre, then that belies much bigger problems. Besides, there are many classic works that are (retroactively) trope laden. For the topic at hand, do people believe it's better to consume all of the spidermans media in order to grasp the essence of those multiverse spider man movies? KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Sep 22, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2023 13:09
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:A functional understanding of genre is media literacy and not the same thing as expecting an encyclopedic dissection of a comic book character's publication history. Certainly, but does TV Tropes have a functional grasp of media literacy? Or at least, better than stuffy film academics? Sir Kodiak posted:If you read the quotes above, she didn't claim that critics couldn't understand Harry Potter because of their unfamility with genre fiction or that their analysis is worthless. It was specifically a response to critics praising Harry Potter's originality. And it is absolutely fair to say that, if you don't generally read genre fiction, then you shouldn't be judging whether a piece of genre fiction is original. I remember having a similar conversation about Cormac McCarthy's The Road, which is a good book from a hell of a writer, but was similarly praised for the originality of its genre elements by people who only read literary fiction. “Genre” isn’t a value category, but neither is it mere classification. I’m sympathetic to writers not receiving their proper credit, and the “ghetto-ization” of their work, but that’s the domain of marketing and how it shapes consumers habits; and it’s there where the writer/consumer relation shapes genre fiction as such. Say what you will about literary fiction snobs, but they don't have the kind of consumer expectations like genre-only fans do. So what are we even talking about when it comes to the originality unfairly bequeathed on Rowling? New tropes? The question is not about whether one wants to write about the relationship between the multiverse spider-mans movies and the comic books it references, but whether it’s necessary to directly read the references to have a relevant analysis of the films-in-themselves. We don’t have to go too far in the other direction of pretentious film academics to find people too immersed in the content of a sub-genre — people gobble up tons of super hero fiction and become almost entirely detached from the basic "realism" (As Le Guin derisively refers to) of vigilantism as a serious & violent crime. Our lord and savior Snyder is seen as an imbecilic demon for implementing this basic critique in his work, while other directors are praised for staying faithful with U.S. police/military apologia. Shazam! throws a couple mooks robbing a convenience store through a window, and it's a delightful joke that gets the vibes. Snyder has a reformed, "I see the light", Batman killing a few PMCs to save an innocent woman from being burned alive, and everyone loses their poo poo. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Sep 26, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
McCloud posted:Reminder that Rebel Moon part one cost less than 90 million to make I think it's very funny that Netflix was initially hesitant to release a 3+ hour film, so the Snyders negotiated a 2 part release, and within that negotiated a 3 hour R-rated cut of the first part. Blockbuster Cinema is back on the menu, and I'm gonna get fat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2023 17:37
|
|