|
computer parts posted:TDK and Inception, I believe. I remember Inception not having any dialogue during the ending.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
The codex thing would have been difficult as everyone discovered that it's inside Clark's body. Why bother searching for a dead planet when there's a perfectly good one right there? The terraformer is in the back of the truck, ain't no problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Also, not every planet is suitable for terraforming. All the Kryptonian colonies failed, which shows that the terraforming machine usually doesn't work. Earth is demonstrably a viable candidate because it is in the Goldilocks zone and already has a biosphere of its own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Which Nolan movies are you referring to? All of them (edit: except Inception, which just spells everything out via imagery and dialogue like "welcome to America!"): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdzkp-fcH_e1KGL5WDAELEtoH-eFUGSyG
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Which possibly should have set up some red flags in general. If EVERY colony failed, that should have maybe suggested to Zod and company that terraforming was probably just a failed technology with only short term benefits. In a few generations they'd likely be faced with the same problems of decaying environments. Unless that was an intentional part of the overall theme of Krypton's reliance on thinking their control of genetically augmented life and globally terraformed planets were both equally as 'wrong'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Well, Jor El did say "Krypton is dumb and we should all die with the planet including myself and my wife." The height of Krypton intelligence engineering basically said "Kryton sucks, let it all blow up and start over a different way."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:I remember Inception not having any dialogue during the ending. It didn't during the ending but when he confronted Mal he basically did that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Which possibly should have set up some red flags in general. All speculation, of course. Maybe Zod chose Earth because he was already there and didn't give a flying gently caress about the humans living on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
The previous colonies failed because Kryptonians were dumb and fought, which is why, when they showed dead previous colonies, they were careful to show guns in the hands of the dead Kryptonians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It didn't during the ending but when he confronted Mal he basically did that. It's too late to edit, but DKR does the same thing. I guess post TDK Nolan got rid of the voiceover and just has people explain it right before. From Memento to TDK, he always used voiceover, while Following does dialogue to explain everything in the final scene. Wow, all of Following is on Youtube (was searching for the ending scene from that).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:I don't think liberal people would have an issue with getting rid of drones or limiting government surveillance. Their economic and social agendas essentially create the problems that they then give passive resistance to. Their neutered objections would stop short of anything that might actually disrupt the status quo, so Superman committing an act of war against the U.S. military is a bit uncomfortable as it is a radical political statement. Danger fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Danger posted:Art is always political, and every element of it is symbolic. It's inescapable. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Dumbledore Jut posted:Seriously, why did Zog want to terraform Earth instead of somewhere without people? The movie didn't address this, but one might assume Earth was particularly suited for Kryptonians since it's the planet Lara-El chose to send Kal to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Darko posted:All of them (edit: except Inception, which just spells everything out via imagery and dialogue like "welcome to America!"): I guess I'm not seeing the VO explaining the movie's theme to the audience over a montage with the music blasting trend that you saw. Going through the list: Following is a final dialogue scene and then a final shot. Memento is just the final scene. It has voice over but so does the rest of the movie. Batman Begins is the dialogue between Gordon and Batman with the Joker Card. Music at the end. Dark Knight has the VO, montage, and music. Inception has no dialogue for the final sequence. I don't think you can really count it as a montage either since it is a chronological sequence of events that shows us the final plot points of the movie. It does have music going. Dark Knight Rises has a series of scenes that play out and show us the final plot points. The music is going, but there's no voice over going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Toady posted:"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Dumbledore All the clips from the colony worlds showed the Kryptonians wearing space suits so we can probably assume the base elements needed to terraform a world into a Krypton-like environment were not present. Earth is probably ideal for all their needs in terraforming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Toady posted:The movie didn't address this, but one might assume Earth was particularly suited for Kryptonians since it's the planet Lara-El chose to send Kal to. Ugh. Her name is Lara Lor-Van. It's the 21st century, buddy. Women are allowed to keep their own names when they get married.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:I guess I'm not seeing the VO explaining the movie's theme to the audience over a montage with the music blasting trend that you saw. It's the crescendo of the music set to the crescendo of the film which is an audio of visual summation or explanation for the audience. Also, you forgot The Prestige, with another Michael Caine voiceover. - You're right about Following, he just explains the plot as Julyan's score swells. - Memento's "beginning" of the movie just happens to explain the whole plot completely, the whole point, and finally shows that he's lying to himself - in voiceover. I can't remember if one of those flashes that show he's actually the guy he tells the story about hidden in there - but my memory tells me one is. Julyan's score rises louder than it has in decibels gradually in film and goes to crescendo. Much of the movie is shot like a montage in general because of the non linear editing. - Insomnia also explains the whole movie to music, like Following. - Begins explains the inherent issues with Batman, his relationship to Gordon and the city, and the setup to the next film with swelling Zimmer music. No montage. - Prestige has a montage and the entire ending explained with Michael Caine narrating. Julyan again. - TDK has a montage and the entire ending explained with Michael Caine narrating. Zimmer again. - As explained before, here is where he stops having voiceover or dialogue explain his plots. The same thing is done, only with visual presentation only, in Inception with one of Zimmer's best hitting crescendo (with an inserted pause, as well). however, he has dialogue right before this explain everything. - TDKR has a montage with Zimmer music rising, but again, the dialogue sequence happens right before. So, it looks like he's slightly shifting how he does things. In each of these scores, these are generally the only moments with a gradually swelling track which is why they're singled out. He loves putting his visual + audio crescendos at the end. Not that this is a bad thing in any way. In fact, I love them. The issue is, these endings that end at a "height" like this, will subconsciously make the movie feel like a more complete tale, which is kind of what MoS was missing. Not that I think it -needs- it; just that it is missing the "Nolan crescendo."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Toady posted:"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Dumbledore
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Darko posted:
I think I get what you're saying, but I think your original statement over simplified it, especially since MoS attempts the same thing. Clark meets with his mom at his dad's grave. Music starts building. Mom voice over about Pa knowing he would be known by the world one day as we see shots of young Clark playing. Clark then tells her about his future plans to have a job where he can be there to help more people. His voice carries as VO as we see the edited sequence of Clark arriving at the Daily Planet and the music hits the crescendo as Clark "meets" Lois.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
There's nothing political and/or symbolic about a dude committing an act of domestic terrorism while wearing a big polical symbol and then issuing a statement to a representative from the US Military concerning his political motivations, nationality, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Destroying a drone is not "domestic terrorism". It's an action against a purely military target for strategic purposes - the very definition of an "act of war", albeit a very limited one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
What sort of strategic purposes? Was the drone going to follow Superman around between films, into whatever supradiegetic aether he inhabits? e: That was unnecessarily snarky. The salient point is that the film represents the end of a set of intentional choices by the filmmakers, so that what Superman is facing is not a 'merely strategic' choice. That this choice is presented at all, and the circumstances leading to it, are all open to inspection for meaning. Even if we take Superman to be committing an act of war, a work of (populist) art depicting an avatar of idealism committing this act of war against the American military (with all its symbolic baggage) is significant. 2e: I'm suddenly open to the idea that I've possibly burdened you with an intent you do not have. Yeah I hosed up. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Destroying a drone is not "domestic terrorism". It's an action against a purely military target for strategic purposes - the very definition of an "act of war", albeit a very limited one. I originally included the clarifying point that his attack will likely be perceived as terrorism to many, but omitted it because my focus isn't really on defining terrorism. However, I think the strategic value of the drone is questionable. That specific drone takedown was done for an audience and accompanied by a statement. It's more of a symbolic act than anything. I mean, Superman's Super-hideout is not in the generic desert somewhere. He's not really at risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Art can be apolitical if anything can. It obviously wasn't in this case, but it can be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
So I kinda loved this movie, though it was overly long, or rather it was overly long in the wrong places. Too often did character show up and talk about things the viewer already knows, Jor-El was most guilty of this. And tied into that, I feel it was a misstep to have the film open on Krypton, we should have gotten that when the ghost of Jor-El is talking to his son. The fights also went on for far too long, to the point where they were beating the audience over the head with what they were about. Faora-Ul: We're evolutionary superior to you! *Big gorilla man grunts and throws stuff for the next five minutes* The film could have used more character moments, because there was some really great chemistry, and the Malick-esqe reflection scenes of Clark and nature. It was interesting that the film has acts of terrors linked with acts of nature, some meteor falls in the ocean off of India and they're hit with a destructive tsunami. Time and time again we're reminded Clark is a god, a force of nature, the avalanches he creates when learning to fly. Pa Kent specifically getting taken by a tornado after getting in an argument with his son. My favourite part was the grey goo of Krypton, and how it relates to when they show up on Earth. When Zod chooses to reveal himself to mankind, it's through television static. We get a glimpse of a god, but it's not fully comprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I originally included the clarifying point that his attack will likely be perceived as terrorism to many, but omitted it because my focus isn't really on defining terrorism. From the dialogue, I assumed he had noticed a drone keeping tabs on him so he took it out in order to preserve some personal identity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
It depends what you define as political. Nikos Kazantzakis once wrote that literature inherently pushes a perspective on how the world should be either through creating a model of what can be great or an example of what is wrong. I think political is a bit of a loaded and tainted word, but I'd argue that all films have perspective and philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Darko posted:The previous colonies failed because Kryptonians were dumb and fought, which is why, when they showed dead previous colonies, they were careful to show guns in the hands of the dead Kryptonians. The specifics don't even really matter. It's just a thematic point that Krypton had grown corrupt and power-hungry, and that their entire sociopolitical ethos was poisonous. The colonies failed because they were Bad Guy fascists who were obsessed with Bad Things. You don't need specific plot-based explanations, just the understanding they deserved to die out for doing it all wrong, whatever "it" was. The aesthetic brutalism of Krypton is making the same point: the planet is devoid of plantlife or color, and all technology is the same black/steel grey biomechanical style that suggests function and austerity over any sense of humanity or emotion. It's meant to look like a scorched, lifeless wasteland to contrast it with the literal and thematic vitality of the Earth. That's really as deep as you need to go. Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:If the entire plot of the second film isn't Lex Luthor simultaneously stirring up anti-Superman sentiment while profiting massively from LexCorp contracts to rebuild Metropolis after the Supes/Zod showdown, then I'll eat my own hat. I'm sure that'd play into it, but in light of the emphasis in Man of Steel on ambition for power being destructive and the corrupting influence of amoral science, I imagine they'll take Lex Luthor into a Frankenstein direction. Where the revelation of Kryptonian technology on Earth becomes a Pandora's Box, which Lex Luthor intends to open for power and wealth. I could see a Luthor / Bizarro plotline unfolding, where eugenic uses of biotech and the presence of a literal Superman lead to LexCorp trying to reverse-engineer Superman to perfect Humanity. It also works because a hosed up Bizarro clone/monster would provide plausible action set-pieces. At least, more plausible ones than Superman being challenged by a CEO in a robo-suit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Lex creating Bizarro (by tracking down Kryptonian technology and getting his hands on part of the Codex) would be a brilliant direction for the sequel to take. Luthor thinks he would make a better Superman than Superman, so he literally creates what he thinks is a better Superman. It thematically echoes his traditional tendency to hoard Kryptonite, in a universe where fragments of Krypton aren't dangerous because they're radioactive but because everything besides Kal-El that didn't survive Krypton is a self-destructive failure. Luthor's anti-Superman propaganda progresses so far that he actually brings into being the callous and destructive alien menace that doesn't belong on Earth that he claims Superman is; Superman can disprove this characterization by saving the people Bizarro endangers. It means that Lex Luthor makes the opposite moral decision that Clark Kent did, namely that Krypton-as-it-was should be given a second chance. Lex Luthor, imitating the ways of Krypton: growing an unnatural Kryptonian designed to be powerful and obedient (Bizarro as a clone not of Kal-El but of Zod?), reverse-engineering Kryptonian technology, even toss in some environmental themes and have his short-sighted industrial practices echo the Kryptonians' decision to tap into their planet's core. A monumentally arrogant figure, he would believe he knows what's best for everybody, that he can assign them to particular roles rather than letting them choose; he does not believe in the people of earth as Clark Kent does. And his enforcer is a subservient Superman of his own - a twisted parody of power antithetical to wholesomeness, in the way that his own mind is a twisted parody of genius antithetical to goodness. The two characters who are the closest to being Superman's diametric opposites, playing off each other in traditional Nolanesque two-villain style, with one physical threat and one moral. It also gives us something that Superman can punch in the third act. I like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:It also gives us something that Superman can punch in the third act. I like it. Can we call it a Thanagarian Snare-Beast?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Nah, turns out the next movie is the Toy Man. On the bright side they get to use the "Tell me Toy Man do you know what radio waves look like?" *smashes through wall on other side of town into hideout* "I DO". On the bad side it's the weird fat pedophile version of Toy Man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Can we call it a Thanagarian Snare-Beast? Perfect. Since it's from Lex huge doors will open to reveal it, like King Kong! It'll be very spiritual, emotional and spiritual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Art can be apolitical if anything can. Danger fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Danger posted:This is a may be a (very important) tangent for another thread, but this is an absurdly naive opinion and believing that art is ever apolitical is part and parcel of some pretty insidious ideological positions. I'm down. Sounds interesting. Certainly all art can be (and eventually is) read politically, but that argument ties into the broader one of whether a valid political reading somehow supersedes an equally valid apolitical one. The act of creation itself has always been politically sensitive, so in that sense and several similar ones it's impossible to avoid making a political statement by making art. But I believe the salient point is more about what is properly considered "political," and whether a definition of it that includes all possible (or even just all existing) art would be meaninglessly broad. The term "political," used colloquially, might be more accurately rendered "partisan" or "governmental" - and it was in this narrow sense, not the philosophical one encompassing all social activity, that I interpreted its use in this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The two characters who are the closest to being Superman's diametric opposites, playing off each other in traditional Nolanesque two-villain style, with one physical threat and one moral. The term "Nolan-esque" is pretty on-point for why I see that happening. Dude can't get enough dark mirror and shadow archetype characters. Every Batman villain was one in some way or another*, and Zod already had elements of that for Superman. As long as Nolan has a hand in the story, that'll probably keep happening. Which I'm honestly fine with; it's efficient for characterization. Also, Lex Luthor & Bizarro sounds a little better than most other Superman villains. Who else is worth it? Darkseid? Brainiac? The Superman rogues gallery always felt weak to me. Vs. most Marvel characters, and definitely vs. Batman. (*except Scarecrow, but I literally believe his presence stemmed from a thematic interest in Jungian psychology, from which the notion of "shadow aspect" originates. Certainly, Ra's al Ghul, the Joker, and Bane all qualify as one of those.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Also, Lex Luthor & Bizarro sounds a little better than most other Superman villains. Who else is worth it? Darkseid? Brainiac? The Superman rogues gallery always felt weak to me. Vs. most Marvel characters, and definitely vs. Batman. Zod, Luthor, and Bizarro are the three most psychologically linked to the central idea. Brainiac has a strong connection to Krypton, but mostly remains popular because it's a versatile physical threat and because the Bottle City of Kandor is a very potent and versatile motif. There's not much interesting about the character, though I would like to see what kind of visual effects Zack Snyder would use to represent the pinnacle of autonomous Kryptonian technology that abducts entire cities. Mongul has even less of a connection, so while he and his Warworld would make excellent villain-of-the-week fodder, as a subject for "a movie about Superman" it would be pretty weak. Darkseid isn't "a Superman villain" per se; he's drifted into that role, but for him to make any sense cinematically would require giving him a backstory, which would mean a New Gods movie, and I don't think I've ever been good enough for Santa Claus to bring me one of those. Besides which, it's going to take a lot more Christ imagery before cinematic Superman feels ready to take on a literal god (any depiction of Darkseid that doesn't have at least a little bit of divine transcendence to his villainy is wasting the character). You could retreat deeper into his psyche and draw on the tradition of separating Clark from Kal-El. Unfortunately, the "For The Man Who Has Everything" plot device (making him choose between living on Krypton and saving Earth in a universe where Krypton has been destroyed) won't work with this version of Superman, who'd have been a pariah on Krypton because of his natural birth. Jimmy Olsen's weird transformations and Mxyzptlk's pranks are iconic, but they might be too goofy for this universe. For the former, the essential question is "What does Superman do when the monster is the one who needs saving?" and that could work very well, but it still needs to be attached to another antagonist. You could do something similar with Doomsday, whose entire purpose is to be a monster Superman can't handle, but you'd still need to give it an origin (which is why Grant Morrison cleverly had Jimmy Olsen transform into Doomsday in All-Star Superman). Superman could get involved in a war - but something that feels like WWII would be a contrived anachronism that audiences likely would not accept. A more contemporary-feeling conflict would be doable, but at that point you're not exactly drawing on Superman's rogues gallery. Likewise for less exciting real-world issues like, say, world hunger. That's interesting but there's no character that embodies it. Some of Superman's most memorable fights have been against other superheroes, but those would have to be established first - and they'd have to have enough staying power to be their own franchises, because the universe that currently exists isn't one where superheroes can just pop up and then be forgotten by the end of the movie. Xealot posted:(*except Scarecrow, but I literally believe his presence stemmed from a thematic interest in Jungian psychology, from which the notion of "shadow aspect" originates. Certainly, Ra's al Ghul, the Joker, and Bane all qualify as one of those.) There's even a little bit of that with him - Scarecrow and Batman both weaponize fear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I originally included the clarifying point that his attack will likely be perceived as terrorism to many, but omitted it because my focus isn't really on defining terrorism. I wish you had done this because I'm tired of seeing "terrorism" used as an all-purpose substitute for "attack".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Think of how vindicated the military dudes would feel if they found out that the target of their aerial campaign actually IS a radical posing as a reporter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Danger posted:Think of how vindicated the military dudes would feel if they found out that the target of their aerial campaign actually IS a radical posing as a reporter. Then how horrified they would be when they realized that they couldn't silence or threaten him even if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:There's even a little bit of that with him - Scarecrow and Batman both weaponize fear. On the subject of fear, in the comic books it's pretty clear that the world is actually more afraid of Superman than Batman (beyond the streets of Gotham, at least). But Batman is an artist at intimidation. He's a just an ordinary human so he has to use all sorts of tricks like theatricality and a scary costume to look nastier than he really is. Superman is an awesomely powerful being who scares everyone despite his attempts to come off as likeable. Batman wants to be feared more and Superman wants to be feared less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Superman is an awesomely powerful being who scares everyone despite his attempts to come off as likeable. Batman wants to be feared more and Superman wants to be I corrected your statement for you. We are indeed fortunate that the manipulative machinations of Kal-El have not ensnared our military nor the entirely of the masses of common men. If Kal-El was disciplined enough to overcome his own selfishness, even temporarily, he may have succeeded in crafting a flawless facade of genuine of heroism which may have well been the final fatal withdraw of our security. In a way, we are lucky that Kal-El possesses a boundless barbarism that plays counter to his goals. The person known as Batman I have a greater respect for, if no other reason than his honesty. Batman does not wish to conquer and be celebrated for his tyranny, he merely wishes to beat criminals senseless. In addition, he puts his life on the line for his city and his people, risking death and ruination. Batman may not be mentally stable, but he is in many ways a noble human being.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:55
|
|