|
Klaxon posted:If I were to stay "hmmm that top sure was a powerful metaphor for racism" you'd think I was an idiot I probably would. But, after watching the film, if you really believed and felt like the totem was a powerful metaphor for racism (instead of just coming to a ridiculous conclusion to make a point), then that belief right there would make it true. Even as I called you an idiot for such a stupid reading, it would be valid. I can call your reading wrong all I want, but all that really means is it isn't the same as mine.
|
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 20:23 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 20:17 |
|
|
Rad Chad posted:The directors have a very unique style and the way they move the camera and cut shots together is always very creative and visually interesting. The way shots are framed and touches like split screens and empty, colored backgrounds really evoke the asthetic of a comic book exceptionally well. What movie did you watch? edit: Unless you're talking about the distorted, darkened shots when the douchey bad guy -- can't even remember his name right now -- used his decaying powers. But I thought that was just shorthand for, y'know, him using his powers, not particularly evocative of anything specifically comic-book related. Comics don't have any particular tendency to use empty colored backgrounds when people attack each other. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at Feb 21, 2012 around 20:39 |
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 20:31 |
|
|
Art is subjective. I kind of thought that was part of the point. No one can tell you that the you're experience watching a film was wrong. All you can really do is compare and contrast and be open to other people's experiences with the same piece of art. Now not all readings on film are equally interesting and if a film doesn't actually support your read, it's pretty useless. You can have whatever read you want but but if you want to convince other people that it's there you better be able to back it up. As much as I disagree with SMG he usually can figure out how any moment in a given film supports his readings of them.
|
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 20:35 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Nope, none of this is accurate. I'm not sure where to begin. Foucault does not believe in objective truth and in that quote you provided he's quite clear that the idea/truth of the Author has changed with time (which suggests that there is a truth of an Author at any given time). He is not saying the Author doesn't exist, he is saying there is no unalterable, timeless, Platonic Ideal of the Author. Barthes wasn't saying the old Enlightenment author had died, he was arguing for the necessity of the death of the author-God, ie. of ascribing objective meaning or Truth to a text: quote:In precisely this way literature (it would bebetter from now on to say writing), by refusing to assign a ‘secret’, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases-reason, science, law. In other words, he was arguing that we should kill the Author, not that the Author was already dead: quote:Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author ... we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author. He was claiming that it had to occur in order to rescue writing from the Author Cult of critics who are more interested in prescribing truth than anything else. He specifically attacks the the traditional idea of the Author as capitalistic, and indicates he wants to rescue writing from those forces and return (or otherwise give) it to the reader, an entity that seems very-much influenced by Walter Benjamin insofar as it is a locus of cultural memory moreso than a rational actor or totemic entity. You could take it one step further and suggest that according to Barthes the reader doesn't really have the power to do anything but exist, for the reader's only special skill is being "someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted." The Author is dead; the author is itself only a reader who writes. I suppose you're correct that even when we consider authorial intent we're still only hearing one voice among millions of others, but at the same time, I don't anyone in this thread is using "authorial intent" in quite the way Barthes meant it. When someone says we should consider the author/director's intent, they aren't ceding complete interpretive control to some authoritarian Author-God, they're merely stating that perhaps the author can offer some insight into what they intended to do with their work (whether or not they were successful (and I suppose "success" in that sense is impossible anyway)). It's a Historian's approach to analysis, not a Literary Theorist/Critic's. Now, you can say even that is flawed because the Author doesn't exist and the lower-case 'a' author/director is subsequently unimportant, but that's missing another point. You're clearly well-read and you know your Zizek and Lacan so I shouldn't have to go on a diatribe about ideology. The Death of the Author is ideology; it is neither True nor False. It simply is. Go ahead and challenge someone who subscribes to a more capitalistic or antiquated view of the author, but dismissing their analysis of a film because it does not sufficiently conform to the philosophical moorings of Barthes or Foucault isn't much different than a 19th C. Critic dictating the Objective Truth of a text. Ofc. Sex Robot BPD fucked around with this message at Feb 21, 2012 around 21:19 |
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 21:11 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Why would I care about box-office success if I'm not the one being paid? It's hard for me to reply with much depth on my phone, but I dont want to let this go. I feel you are letting your own political views dictate what you want IM to say, and because it isn't critical enough you fault it. I'm not disagreeing that the movie didn't take chances and tried to avoid any deep meanings within the war on Terror setting (which likely took more work to be neutral on than not). Commercial success isn't a great example, as marketing and star power is so important for box office revenue, but i dont know how else to say it resonated with the public than "my friends liked it.". I think its relative financial success despite it being an inferior movie to TDK and possibly Hancock (haven't seen it) is the most demonstrative example of its overall acceptance.
|
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 21:19 |
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I...what? One single scene -- when the Ghost Rider was being "exorcized" -- had a colored background. And there were no split screens in this film at all. What movie did YOU watch? The entire phone conversation between Blackout and the Devil was in split screen.
|
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 21:33 |
|
|
You guys talking poo poo about Death of the Author should watch Nightmare on Elm Street 2 then watch the director talk about how he had no idea there were gay overtones to his movie. The writer, the actors, the main set dude? They all knew. They were running full-tilt with it, in fact. Well, the writer meant for it to be sub-text but faaaailed at that.
|
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 21:43 |
|
|
Darko posted:And you'd be intellectually dishonest if you ignore that outside of the actual meaning of the term, that in common use, Death of the... is also often used as an excuse by many people who have no idea of the construction of a piece of art, whether it be film/painting/music/whatever to attempt to hide that ignorance behind a mask of subjectivity. If the work was ironic then surely there must have been a level on which it was racist (to form the basis of another level on which it subverted it) this guys reaction may not have been well argued, but it wasn't objectively wrong either. You can argue a different reading to him, you can bring in outside context and even background knowledge of the author to support that argument, what you can't do is use that context to form a brick of Objective Truth with which to beat out of him an admission that he is Ignorant and Knows Nothing. I mean you say the problem is people "having blinders on due to stuff they're already carrying in with them" but how is it possible to not carry in stuff with you? You carried in a bunch of stuff you knew about the work that made you see it differently to a guy who came to it cold. Its not a case of one of you having "blinders" on and the other one not. massive spider fucked around with this message at Feb 21, 2012 around 22:13 |
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 22:07 |
|
|
No one said anything about him being objectively wrong. What was said that I personally choose to ignore a reading done out of ignorance, because it only illuminates ignorance. Everyone may have a valid reading by the definition, but that doesn't mean that someone else will find it worth considering.
|
| # ? Feb 21, 2012 22:20 |
|
|
SpaceMost posted:I suppose you're correct that even when we consider authorial intent we're still only hearing one voice among millions of others, but at the same time, I don't anyone in this thread is using "authorial intent" in quite the way Barthes meant it. When someone says we should consider the author/director's intent, they aren't ceding complete interpretive control to some authoritarian Author-God, they're merely stating that perhaps the author can offer some insight into what they intended to do with their work (whether or not they were successful (and I suppose "success" in that sense is impossible anyway)). It's a Historian's approach to analysis, not a Literary Theorist/Critic's. The death of the author is like Nietzsche's death of god. Barthes isn't saying that there is a clear line between 'before' and 'after', where authorship exists but then doesn't exist. He's saying that authorship is a outmoded concept whose tenability is highly suspect. Like phlogiston in science, he's calling for a shift in the paradigm. "Writing is that neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body writing. [...] No doubt it has always been that way. As soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins." [my bolding] Zizek would call this a system that drags on, even though it is already dead: "And there is always a temporal gap between this awareness that “the game is up” and the actual loss of power—those in power can prolong their desperate hold on it; battles can go on, with lots of blood and corpses, even if the game is already up." [The Parallax View, p. 201] We see that in this very thread, when Klaxon writes about the importance of being mindful of contextualizing factors, multiple viewpoints, etc., but then declares unintentioned readings 'insane'. This is a weird logic where the reader has power only because (and insofar as) the author intended for them to have it. I think this is an encounter with the 'abyss of freedom'. There's this fear that, in recognizing that the reader had the power all along, nothing means anything. What this misses is that the catastrophe has already taken place. To paraphrase another part of The Parallax View, the text is "deprived of meaning" only if it is measured by (or, rather, from within the horizon of) the traditional notion of what a meaningful text is. Foucault is saying that the author 'doesn't exist' specifically in the sense that he is a construct, a character. Obviously this character has a function (be it for legal purposes or whatever) but that part I quoted makes clear that this it is the reader who chooses which parts of the text form the author and which are discounted. The author is a 'psychological projection'. I'm not speaking 'objectively' at all, but at the same time I refuse to be caught up in the nonsensical quagmire of 'postmodern relativism'. There obviously is a writer-person out there who can tell us (what he wishes us to believe was) his intent with some degree of accuracy. The symbolic universe hasn't totally broken down. I think we agree there. But you're being way too charitable when you say that this is what people are referring to in this thread, that the author provides context that can be examined as a part of the text. The main assertion is rather that DVD special features and talk-show interviews override the text, providing a 'deeper' truth. That doesn't fly. That's why I bring politics and economics into my readings. There's a 'truth' in the sense that there are real problems out there in the world, and I can call out certain readings as wrong based on that. I refuse the idea that Iron Man is good because it provides a gentle fantasy of American imperialism gone right. I have ideals. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2012 around 00:12 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 00:01 |
|
|
Now, it's been a while since I've seen Iron Man, so forgive me if I get any plot points wrong. But there's a scene I remember where Iron Man goes out to save the day and use terrorist-seeking missiles or whatever to free hostages. Very Team America. But then, two fighter jets see him, track him, and try to shoot him down. Now, these are American military aircraft, a product of the same MIC Iron Man comes from. They are piloted by Real American Military Heroes, just like Tony Stark is a Real American Capitalist Hero. But they're antagonists, and they have their requisite fight. What's important is, the fighter planes can't even begin to keep up. They manage to injure him, but only because he can't fight back honestly- he's too obligated to the troops to fight back. On one level, it shows that Iron Man is a much more technologically advanced weapon of war, but on another, it shows the inherent dissonance in modern conservative dialogue. The Government can't do anything right, yet, at the same time, we are the best country with the best (government run) military. "Hands off my Medicare", in a sense. SMG criticized how the government came off as incompetent, instead of complicit. I'm saying that the government is simultaneously both. And to contribute to the death of the author discussion, I think this is an accidental, and inevitable, result of America's political dissonance affecting film making. Tony reflects American values as a sort of Randian superman, who solves problems in the MIC by simply being more innovative and outcompeting the less ethical Obadiah Stane. The government has to be an antagonist, because it puts limits on him, but the military cannot be depicted as the enemy. Unfortunately, Iron Man isn't that useful critically. It doesn't provide any real commentary, just a snapshot of American political mores at the time of its release.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 00:17 |
|
|
Precambrian posted:SMG criticized how the government came off as incompetent, instead of complicit. I'm saying that the government is simultaneously both. I suppose the government is complicit in the sense that there's absolutely zero oversight over what's going on with Obidiah (invisible hand of the free market and all that). But you're 100% right-on that the film doesn't take or provoke any sort of critical stance towards this. It presents Stark's 'ethical' version of the same practice (working with the government towards the same ends) as somehow better; following the tropes of the genre, his killing of Obibiah is 'supposed to' represent him killing off his past self and maturing into a better person. Instead, it reads as a disavowal - him asserting his difference in the most superficial way, when in actuality they're not that different at all. It sugarcoats and conceals. It's very similar to how Iron Man 2 takes incredibly familiar plotting and then abruptly terminates each arc. Tony Stark is confronted with various challenges, and then they suddenly vanish. And I don't agree with Ian Pugh that the film is valuably cynical, that "Favreau presents Tony Stark, Iron Man, Iron Man, Marvel, and America as placatory icons destined to be exposed, challenged, and, inevitably, reinstated. In an age of corporate personhood, it's an important meta-text." Again, maybe if there were a coherence to the film's world that exposed Stark's inconsistencies and dysfunctions. Instead, Stark is extremely consistent and the narrative bends to cover his rear end - and not in overt ways that would trouble the audience (like, again, in the Crank films). The trouble with that the cynicism and irony of Pugh's approach of that the system thrives on it. "What if, on the contrary, the dominant attitude of the contemporary "postideological" universe is precisely the cynical distance toward public values?" [zizlink] And back to Crank and the authorship debate, I love citing Zizek's take on Laibach. "The ultimate expedient of Laibach is their deft manipulation of transference: their public (especially intellectuals) is obsessed with the "desire of the Other" -what is Laibach's actual position, are they truly totalitarians or not?- i.e., they address Laibach with a question and expect from them an answer, failing to notice that Laibach itself does not function as an answer but a question. By means of the elusive character of their desire, of the indecidability as to "where they actually stand," Laibach compels us to take up our position and decide upon our desire." With Crank, we have this question of is it a masterful parody or is it genuinely stupid? Is Bai Ling 'meant to be' a 'screaming retard'? What haters don't realize is that the question is already posed to you by her very appearance in the film. Bai Ling simply exists, and you react to her as you will. Are you capable of sympathizing with such a character? This is the same question posed by Jar Jar Binks, who is played as exaggeratedly 'black' by a black actor. Is George Lucas 'trolling' his fanbase, as the theory goes? In the prequel films, unlike Iron Man, the shadowy organization that recruits the troubled, metal-suited protagonist is blatantly behind it all. And Anakin isn't charming, despite his airs. We understand there's something wrong with him.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 08:29 |
|
|
Darko posted:No one said anything about him being objectively wrong. What was said that I personally choose to ignore a reading done out of ignorance, because it only illuminates ignorance. Everyone may have a valid reading by the definition, but that doesn't mean that someone else will find it worth considering. All we have of this guys interpretation is your characterisation of it, but you've described it variously as: ignorant, illogical, non researched, "random nonsense", unreasonable, "just plain adjectives", not knowing what he's talking about, having blinders on, and an attempt to disguise ignorance behind a mask of subjectivity. Really you could have just called him a drooling loving retard and saved yourself the wordcount. Now its possible I just feel complled to play advocate here because I find it weirdly distasteful to make a point this way, by bringing up an example of the time you won an argument against some no nothing jackass who isnt here to explain himself. But it seems like you go beyond making the (reasonable) point that DOTA doesent mean ignoring context and into a tirade about how much it sucks that Some People can't see how conclusively wrong they are. And remarking how lots of people don't get it because they have "blinders on from the things they carry in with them" is a massive alarm bell that you're not willing to approach what subjectivity entails in any case. It means everyone has blinders on. massive spider fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2012 around 09:36 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 09:05 |
|
|
Remember when this thread was about silly, enjoyable comic book movies? A place I might go to hear inconsequential news about my nerdy escapist fantasy movies? I don't.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 10:23 |
|
|
Yeah, how dare people have intellectual discussions about films! I quite like actually learning poo poo about film criticism and how to approach film with a mindset of more than just "that was loving cool!" or "that sucked!"
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 10:33 |
|
|
Bulging Nipples posted:Remember when this thread was about silly, enjoyable comic book movies? A place I might go to hear inconsequential news about my nerdy escapist fantasy movies?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 10:40 |
|
|
I just feel like there's room for a thread like that, and this particular one might not be it. I've been fairly interested in some of what's been said here, to be fair. But to date, this kind of discussion hasn't been the reason I've visited this thread. It's kind of gone off in a direction away from comic book movies. If the consensus dictates that this is the direction the thread wants to go in then I won't argue, In that case I'm in the minority but this thread has been in my favorites for ages cause I'm a goony nerd that wants to hear about casting news and rumors for superhero news, and as interesting as I really do find the debate over the death of the author is, I think this might not be the place. Hell, maybe the trailer/rave/rage/casting cycle has been exhausted and this is the natural extension but I've always viewed this thread as fairly carefree. I don't think the mods need to shut this down at all, it just either needs to be reeled back in or maybe placed in another thread. If people don't agree then I'll just deal with it and skip pasts the posts I'm not interested in.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 11:02 |
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:I had a feeling this was going to come up soon. I really hope the mods don't shut this down, this is genuinely an interesting discussion to have. I'd much rather read something like this instead of pages and pages of people complaining about how Captain Americas new costume is the wrong shade of blue or how they can't understand what Bane is saying. You see, Bane being completely incomprehensible is Nolan's statement about the current state of affairs in Eastern Europe. Bane, an Eastern European citizen, literally has no voice after the fall of communism, due to corruption and marginalization. The only way he can be heard is to start committing acts of "terrorism," which are really the acts of a freedom fighter. He is rebelling against the system that caused the fall of the former government, the capitalist millionaire masquerading as a beacon of justice, Bruce Wayne. Wayne of course was shown to be a stand in for the Bush administration in the last film, and the Bush administration is directly descended, politically, from the Reagan administration, who were responsible, at least in the eyes of a lot of people, for the fall of communism in the Eastern bloc. Also, he's Eastern European now instead of Brazilian because Christopher Nolan just happens to hate Hispanic people.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 11:04 |
|
|
Bulging Nipples posted:I just feel like there's room for a thread like that, and this particular one might not be it. I've been fairly interested in some of what's been said here, to be fair. But to date, this kind of discussion hasn't been the reason I've visited this thread.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 11:05 |
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:If you want a different conversation, start it. Fair enough
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 11:08 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:You see, Bane being completely incomprehensible is Nolan's statement about the current state of affairs in Eastern Europe. Bane, an Eastern European citizen, literally has no voice after the fall of communism, due to corruption and marginalization. The only way he can be heard is to start committing acts of "terrorism," which are really the acts of a freedom fighter. He is rebelling against the system that caused the fall of the former government, the capitalist millionaire masquerading as a beacon of justice, Bruce Wayne. Wayne of course was shown to be a stand in for the Bush administration in the last film, and the Bush administration is directly descended, politically, from the Reagan administration, who were responsible, at least in the eyes of a lot of people, for the fall of communism in the Eastern bloc. Why not? That might make for an interesting discussion. Certainly more interesting than arguing about how Bane eats, or brushes his teeth.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 13:16 |
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Why not? Most of that is barely surface reading (and is essentially the plot of Iron Man 2, interestingly), but there's definitely some significance to be found in the fact that Bane's mask has been changed from a luchador mask to what is essentially a muzzle. Both would restrict speech, so it's probably all the same to the tactical realism crowd, but look at that thing and tell me Bane isn't an expression of some form of repression, particularly of the voice/mouth. poo poo, the opening scenes has him tied up by the CIA with a bag over his head, this poo poo is brick-level subtlety. If that's something Nolan wants to make a Thing out of, I can understand that he'd want it to be reflected in the audio as well.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 13:25 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Also, he's Eastern European now instead of Brazilian because Christopher Nolan just happens to hate Hispanic people.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 13:37 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's very similar to how Iron Man 2 takes incredibly familiar plotting and then abruptly terminates each arc. Tony Stark is confronted with various challenges, and then they suddenly vanish. And I don't agree with Ian Pugh that the film is valuably cynical, that "Favreau presents Tony Stark, Iron Man, Iron Man, Marvel, and America as placatory icons destined to be exposed, challenged, and, inevitably, reinstated. In an age of corporate personhood, it's an important meta-text." Not just plot points. Iron Man himself is a symbolically loaded character that makes a massive Chekhov's gun for the films. He has an invincible suit of armor, but he has a heart condition. He's a paragon of industry, who is crippled by alcoholism. He wears a mask, like Spider-man and Batman, but Batman uses his mask as a representation of his idea war, and Spider-man uses his mask to conceal his identity. For Iron Man, the mask is his identity and his idea war. He's a superhero with nothing underneath but vulnerability. The logical end of Iron Man 2 should have engaged this fact. To Iron Man 2's credit, it looks like it was setting up Iron Man for a fall. Maybe studio interference terminated anything that might make him seem flawed? Iron Man 3 could have less scrutiny, and Tony's alcoholism is a major element to his comic character. There might be hope in that film.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 15:32 |
|
|
Honest Thief posted:Brazilian aren't Hispanic. Really? Huh. You really do learn something new every day.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 17:12 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Really? Huh. You really do learn something new every day. Yeap. Today, Hispanic almost exclusively refers to Spanish speaking people, cultures and such. Brazilians generally speak Portuguese. Honestly it is an easy mistake to make, especially in the US, where the legal definition seems completely messed. (Sometimes Brazilians are included, sometimes not. Spaniards and Portuguese generally aren't included, except when they are.)
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 18:14 |
|
|
I like that Bane isn't Brazillian or Hispanic. His heritage is rarely used as anything but a sterotype. I think The Animated Series is the only time I've seen it used well. Batman and Robin doesn't count because they don't even have him speak much.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 18:45 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:You see, Bane being completely incomprehensible is Nolan's statement about the current state of affairs in Eastern Europe.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 18:51 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Batman and Robin doesn't count because they don't even have him speak much. Really, that's why it doesn't count?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 19:41 |
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Really, that's why it doesn't count? Well, among many other things
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2012 20:35 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:I like that Bane isn't Brazillian or Hispanic. His heritage is rarely used as anything but a sterotype. I think The Animated Series is the only time I've seen it used well. So because other forms of media never used his race well, it's completely ok for him to be white washed? Got it.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 00:38 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:So because other forms of media never used his race well, it's completely ok for him to be white washed? Got it. No. Him being Brazilian or Hispanic is like the Joker being Permawhite in the comics. It's an aspect that is used sometimes. They are deciding to not use it in this film. Nothing wrong with that. It's a choice, not a racist dick move.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 00:56 |
|
|
He has SOME kind of thick accent in the prologue/trailer. His voice when he says "It doesn't matter who we are..." comes to mind especially. Either way he sounds regal and that's the Bane I wanted to see
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 01:05 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:No. Him being Brazilian or Hispanic is like the Joker being Permawhite in the comics. It's an aspect that is used sometimes. They are deciding to not use it in this film. Nothing wrong with that. It's a choice, not a racist dick move. It's "used sometimes" in that it has been his backstory since he was created and has never changed outside of crazy Elseworld stuff. Even the recent Arkham (x) games have him pretty clearly speaking with an accent. It's an out-and-out case of whitewashing here. I'm looking forward to the movie, but let's not be dishonest because it's Nolan. The fact that Nolan's version is "different" doesn't really excuse it because Nolan's the one who wrote it as different. It's nowhere near as egregious as The Last Airbender poo poo or anything but going "it's a choice! He chose to make him not a minority" isn't really a good excuse. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at Feb 23, 2012 around 03:31 |
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:23 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:No. Him being Brazilian or Hispanic is like the Joker being Permawhite in the comics. It's an aspect that is used sometimes. They are deciding to not use it in this film. Nothing wrong with that. It's a choice, not a racist dick move. Can I ask your opinion on Kingpin and Heimdall being black? If you had no problem with that, then it's fine you have no problem with this. I honestly have no personal problem with him not being Brazilian, cause it's really not very important to his character. And to be quite honest this version of Bane seems to be as true to anything from the comics as Halle Berry's Catwoman was to her comic book counterpart. But the insane hypocrisy I've seen (on other sites, not so much here) about people who freaked the gently caress OUT about those characters race being changed who are completely fine with Bane's being changed just reeks of thinly veiled racism to me.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:26 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It's "used sometimes" in that it has been his backstory since he was created and has never changed. Even the recent Arkham (x) games have him pretty clearly speaking with an accent. It's an out-and-out case of whitewashing here. I'm looking forward to the movie, but let's not be dishonest because it's Nolan. Every Joker appearance prior to The Dark Knight featured (1) permanent chemical scarring that turned his skin white and (2) smile-gas. Those were in his backstory since he was created and had never changed. Nolan picks and chooses poo poo. My guess isn't that he went with Tom Hardy because he hates Brazilians, but that he went with Tom Hardy because he liked working with him on Inception and thought he might fit the part. As a director, he's shown time and time again that if you work with him once and he likes you, he'll cast you over and over again. Christ, half the major players from Inception are in the new Batman.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Every Joker appearance prior to The Dark Knight featured (1) permanent chemical scarring that turned his skin white and (2) smile-gas. Those were in his backstory since he was created and had never changed. Equating it to the Joker is pretty dumb. There is no severe problem in Hollywood with permanently white-skinned clowns getting their roles changed so that other people can play them. There are for minority actors. When you whitewash a role, it's pretty different from even something like Kingpin or whatnot because you are exacerbating a problem and denying roles to people who already have trouble getting them. Nolan "picks and chooses poo poo" but he chose to make the character Eastern European because (at least according to you), he cast through favoritism. I mean, really. Imagine another director who went "Well, I know this character is historically a minority, but I really wanted Tom Cruise to play him." SpaceMost posted:As someone with no real familiarity with Bane besides Batman & Robin and fading memories of the TAS, I can honestly say I had no idea Bane was Brazilian. Like I said, it's not a massive egregious change. It's just a bit dishonest to say that it isn't whitewashing either. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at Feb 23, 2012 around 03:42 |
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:35 |
|
|
As someone with no real familiarity with Bane besides Batman & Robin and fading memories of the TAS, I can honestly say I had no idea Bane was Brazilian. All I know is he wears a mask and he broke Batman's back in the comics at some point, which is probably all anyone about Bane who don't read the comics. So I guess it's technically white washing, but it's not as though they switched the race of a beloved pop culture icon everyone is familiar with. Maybe Nolan has a good justification for it; maybe the execs didn't want the final villain of a blockbuster franchise to be "Latino"; maybe they thought an
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:39 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Equating it to the Joker is pretty dumb. There is no severe problem in Hollywood with permanently white-skinned clowns getting their roles changed so that other people can play them. I'll agree to this if you agree that appealing to canon for a character in a movie that you haven't seen yet in a franchise that's shown little concern for said canon is just as dumb. quote:Nolan "picks and chooses poo poo" but he chose to make the character Eastern European because (at least according to you), he cast through favortism.. Yeah, favoritism. Nolan is an unabashed favoratist with his actors. I just don't think that makes him racist. If he cast Ken Watanabe as Bane, would you be as upset?
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:41 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 20:17 |
|
|
Kingpin and Heimdall aren't great examples either way. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Heimdall's skin colour has never been important, nor has Heimdall ever been that big of a deal. And Kingpin was a perfect casting decision for the time. It's not often you get actors that size who have both star power and legit acting cred. He was better than any white actor choice.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:44 |
|
