|
Personally, I'm excited for Avengers' release just so I can read SMG's loving annihilation of it.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 07:30 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 07:20 |
|
|
The biggest criticism people seem to have of Marvel's films so far is that they "Don't take any risks" Not being a dick, and really just out of curiosity but what does that even mean? I know that Ang Lee's Hulk is often held up as being some kind of deep character study but aside from the editing I recall it being exactly like any other superhero movie, "puny human" hallucination aside. I know this is bordering close to "switch off your brain" but how would you make something like Captain America any differently? What "risks" are you condemning them for not taking?
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 10:21 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The 'Black Heimdal' complainers have it right for the wrong reasons. It is bullshit that this Norse god would have a black sidekick, but not for the racist reason that the glorious white gods have been sullied, but that racial conflict (between the gods and giants) was an important part of Norse mythology and of the film. The film's seemingly 'progressive' choice whitewashes the racial conflict, turning it into yet another neutral, 'multicultural' force besieged by a monocultural enemy. The frost giants become the spectre of the "Islamic" ethnic invader who 'refuses to assimilate' and participate in the multiculture. I don't know. The movie portrays Thor's attack on the frost giants as negative and later Thor sacrifice his one shot at love to save them from genocide. The war conflict. It can be argued that Loki uses the spectre of the "Islamic" ethnic invader as a smoke screen to his own gain and that it shows that the "other" isn't the enemy. If anything the movie says that imperialism is bad and when the "other" is attacking you it's your own fault because you are an imperialistic rear end in a top hat. And it's not like the original mythology was any more progressive. The giants are also portrayed as a monocultural enemy out surprise sex our women (Trymskvida) while the gods are a multicultural force (the gods consists of aesir and vanir), In the original mythology we also learn that inter-racial relationships are doomed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ska%F0i
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 10:26 |
|
|
Alhazred posted:I don't know. The movie portrays Thor's attack on the frost giants as negative and later Thor sacrifice his one shot at love to save them from genocide. The war conflict. It can be argued that Loki uses the spectre of the "Islamic" ethnic invader as a smoke screen to his own gain and that it shows that the "other" isn't the enemy. If anything the movie says that imperialism is bad and when the "other" is attacking you it's your own fault because you are an imperialistic rear end in a top hat. Well that's the thing though: like Iron Man, they pay lip service to the concept of inequality by making the 'Islamic' villains secretly led by some insane traitor to both sides team who 'goes rogue' in the name of generic greed and jealousy. The films present the 'real villain' as some sort of glitch in an otherwise-healthy system, so that they can be disavowed. But this just serves to obfuscate the fact that the good guys are the ones responsible for the systemic problems that lead to these conflicts in the first place. And I don't mean that in the sense that Thor and Iron Man realizes the error of their ways and try to do good. I mean that their very attempts at 'doing good' are the source of the problems. Although I appreciate how making Thor a tolerant multicultural dude sticks it to the white supremacists, it's really only in a superficial way that lets people congratulate themselves for not being neonazis. Racism is solved! More tricky would be to make Thor a genuinely heroic, likeable racist character who dislikes the Frost giants because they're not-white, 'uncivilized' and all that. But then, explain his behavior not as a product of 'arrogance' or 'intolerance' (and what is his journey to Earth but a hippy-dippy lesson in humility and tolerance for others?), but of a product of social antagonism that he's scapegoating onto some tangible enemy. Isn't the kingdom(?) of Asgard conspicuously sterile and devoid of peasants? Why are they invisible? That's what should be asked by the film. Instead, Thor learns to protect his kingdom better, against the 'right' enemy that disturbs its 'normal' functioning. Why doesn't the film acknowledge that Odin's call for an end to all further conflict is bullshit? Again, like Iron Man, the film should acknowledge that the mere existence of s/h/e/i/l/d/ is highly problematic. Wouldn't a newly multicultural but still-racist Thor fit right in to the DHS and its ridiculous war on terror? Of course he does, but the films remove the "still-racist" and the "ridiculous" from that sentence. More radical would be to present not Odin, not Thor, not Loki but the frost-giants themselves as the protagonists. And not in a bullshit Avatar way, but as brutal, dirty, 'uncivilized' - even terrorists - who are nonetheless the more sympathetic group in spite of their deficiencies. I'm talking District 9-style. That's where you cast Idris Elba. CaptainApathyUK posted:The biggest criticism people seem to have of Marvel's films so far is that they "Don't take any risks" Not being a dick, and really just out of curiosity but what does that even mean? They're talking about the aesthetics, not the plotting. It's what people are talking about with the Avengers trailer. It's blandly inoffensive, which is precisely why some people are asking "what's the big deal?" to those who are vexed by the undeniable mediocrity. Hulk may have had the same basic plot as Iron Man, but it's audacious and surreal throughout. It does ballsy, ridiculous stuff with the material, like making the villain a sentient genetically-engineered mushroom cloud that literally feeds on dysfunction and repression, which Hulk fights in an abstract non-battle for catharsis. It's also why some dummkoffs persistently hate that film, and consider the forgettable Hulk 2 an improvement. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at Mar 17, 2012 around 12:39 |
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 12:33 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:They're talking about the aesthetics, not the plotting. It's what people are talking about with the Avengers trailer. It's blandly inoffensive, which is precisely why some people are asking "what's the big deal?" to those who are vexed by the undeniable mediocrity.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 12:58 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well that's the thing though: like Iron Man, they pay lip service to the concept of inequality by making the 'Islamic' villains secretly led by some insane traitor to both sides team who 'goes rogue' in the name of generic greed and jealousy. The films present the 'real villain' as some sort of glitch in an otherwise-healthy system, so that they can be disavowed. As much as I get this, and appreciate it, I can't say I get why it's a concern. The only way this interpretation is worrisome is if you assume the viewer has no context for the film. The viewer knows it's an action movie, not a commentary on society. Iron Man's weapons development creates a lot of the problems that Iron Man later tries to solve, if you really think about it -- but most people don't. Not because they aren't smart enough to get it, not because they've swallowed the Kool-Aid of militarism and imperialism, but because they sense it's only spectacle. We know, as we watch, that what we see onscreen is a drastically simplified take on real-world matters. We also know that it's drastically simplified for a reason: To serve the plot. You only have two or three hours to tell a story in a movie and that means you've got to keep it simple - here's the good guy, here's the bad guy, they have conflicts, the conflicts lead to the awesome stuff you see happening onscreen. The viewer accepts this because not accepting the basic premise makes it difficult, or even impossible, to enjoy the film - which is the whole reason we watch action movies in the first place, for enjoyment. When the viewer leaves the theater, he or she walks into a different context and doesn't bring that same mindset into the outside world. I suppose it's possible that some people are dumb enough to think the world is as simple as we see in action films. Maybe you could also argue that years of watching these movies might affect your ability to make deeper considerations on these kinds of things. But I'd need to see some research on that before I had any real opinion on the matter. picosecond fucked around with this message at Mar 17, 2012 around 15:11 |
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 15:09 |
|
|
picosecond posted:I suppose it's possible that some people are dumb enough to think the world is as simple as we see in action films. Maybe you could also argue that years of watching these movies might affect your ability to make deeper considerations on these kinds of things. But I'd need to see some research on the matter before I had any real opinion on the matter. How about the entire decade following 9/11? I don't think you need to hit up JSTOR to see examples of people whipped into a frenzy of bigotry and warmongering based on stereotypes and media whitewashing.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 15:12 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:How about the entire decade following 9/11? I don't think you need to hit up JSTOR to see examples of people whipped into a frenzy of bigotry and warmongering based on stereotypes and media whitewashing. I'm not sure the blame for that can be laid at the feet of action movies though since it pretty much exactly followed the pattern of the treatment of Japanese-American citizens following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the nations response to those attacks. The racist 'brown terrorist' characters that have appeared in media in this time period are no different from the 'yellow peril' racist Japanese caricatures that were all over the posters, comics, cartoons, etc. of the 40's. To keep this in the context of super-hero films in theaters, have this video of some WWII propaganda feature Superman and some hideously racist caricatures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okl9vSJCRNg Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at Mar 17, 2012 around 15:34 |
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 15:30 |
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I'm not sure the blame for that can be laid at the feet of action movies though since it pretty much exactly followed the pattern of the treatment of Japanese-American citizens following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the nations response to those attacks. I'm not singling out action movies, I'm blaming all mainstream media, of which action movies undoubtedly play a part.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 15:38 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm not singling out action movies, I'm blaming all mainstream media, of which action movies undoubtedly play a part. True, popular entertainment in pretty much every time period plays to (and in many cases shapes or outright creates) cultural stereotypes.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 15:47 |
|
|
I think thats getting off the point a little though, you dont need to claim "this movie is bad because it has a bad message and people might be INFLUENCED by it!". Its enough to just say "this movie has a bad message and that is why its a bad movie."
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 17:21 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Hulk may have had the same basic plot as Iron Man, but it's audacious and surreal throughout. It does ballsy, ridiculous stuff with the material, like making the villain a sentient genetically-engineered mushroom cloud that literally feeds on dysfunction and repression, which Hulk fights in an abstract non-battle for catharsis. David Banner is under-appreciated as a villain. His blending of transhumanism and anarcho-primitivism is both entertaining on its own, and provides an actual contrast to both Bruce Banner and the military-industrial complex he only opposes once he finds himself in the unfortunate position of becoming one of his own lab animals. This experience transforms Bruce into truly divorcing himself from the MIC and becoming a blend of the influences of his parents. Whereas in The Incredible Hulk, I'm not sure I even understand what Bruce Banner is fighting against. He talks about not wanting to let the military use Hulkiness as a weapon, but why exactly? He only became the Hulk because he was part of a project to engineer a better soldier. What changed his mind about the rightness of America's military agenda? The movie never tells us, and it should be important. Blonsky being a monster is, after all, the result of the flawed super soldier serum, not the Hulk stuff. As the end of the movie demonstrates: the power of the Hulk can be controlled and used for good. Alhazred posted:Thor sacrifice his one shot at love to save them from genocide. This is one of those things that might have been a little more meaningful if we hadn't already known he was going to be back on Earth in time for The Avengers. picosecond posted:We know, as we watch, that what we see onscreen is a drastically simplified take on real-world matters. It's not a simplification of real-world matters. It's a crude distortion of real-world matters. As SMG referenced, the Transformers 3 scene in which US consumer products attack an Iranian nuclear facility is an amusing simplification of real-world matters. There's no evidence that Avengers presenting a branch of the Department of Homeland Security as being Earth's Greatest Defenders is nearly as aware of what it's doing.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 19:17 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The banal building imagery would be excusable if they were doing Hitchcock's 'ledger' theme from North By Northwest, where a dynamic street scene is reflected in the grid of a skyscraper's windows and characters are caught up in prescribed roles. (Hitch camoes as a guy whose bus shuts its door in his face, ignoring him.) I'd say that might be exactly what the Avengers filmmakers are 'going for'. It's a fight against some impersonal and incomprehensible god-like bureaucracy that tells you that you're not who you are and may not even exist. Fantastic post, great read. Keep it up.
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2012 14:48 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:He only became the Hulk because he was part of a project to engineer a better soldier. What changed his mind about the rightness of America's military agenda? The movie never tells us, and it should be important. The movie actually does tell us - they told Banner he was working on radiation resistance treatments, and he never figured out otherwise until he tested it on himself.
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2012 16:23 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The tokenism behind Heimdal's casting should be rejected. Just so that I'm clear here. The tokenism of the casting (i.e. the ideology behind it) should be rejected but not the casting itself?
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 11:41 |
|
|
spikenigma posted:Just so that I'm clear here. Yes. Films absolutely should cast more black actors in more diverse roles. The problem of Heimdal's casting is twofold: 1) He turns what is ostensibly a racial conflict (blonde, white Asgardians versus Frost Giants) into a cultural conflict (multicultural human versus monocultural Frost Giants). A racial conflict would have been interesting, because there's usually (as SMG mentioned) a compelling political or economic reason behind the racism that emerges, and analyzing that in the context of the film would have been interesting and relevant (Thor looking at the real reasons why he's been brought up to dislike the Frost Giants). The multiculturalism of the Asgardians, however, creates a problem in the context of the film, since the prevailing liberal view is that multiculturalism is good, and monoculturalism is bad. Thus, the two sides get reduced to the good, inclusive Asgardians and the evil, exclusive other of the Frost Giants. 2) Heimdal is still just A Guy In The Film who helps out the white protagonist and is not the leading role. It's token minority casting at its finest, intended to make everyone feel a little better about the fact that the leads are all white. This also ties in with the multicultural thing, where white European society is still normative, and the other cultures that pass through are a sort of decorative bell that makes it look and sound better, but are still, ultimately, just decoration.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 14:44 |
|
|
Javid posted:The movie actually does tell us - they told Banner he was working on radiation resistance treatments, and he never figured out otherwise until he tested it on himself. Right, gamma radiation resistance treatments for the US Army in order to engineer a better soldier. It's not clear to me what changed his mind about that being a good idea. Because someone up the chain of command deceived him about the extent to which US soldiers would be enhanced? That seems a little petty.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 14:54 |
|
|
picosecond posted:As much as I get this, and appreciate it, I can't say I get why it's a concern. The only way this interpretation is worrisome is if you assume the viewer has no context for the film. The viewer knows it's an action movie, not a commentary on society. If everything you watch depicts Bad Guys as monolithic, homogeneous entities with cartoonish motivations, then that's how you begin to see your enemies. Our culture is obsessed with these narratives, and with the idea that our villains aren't particularly complex (and even when they're complicated, they remain objectively evil). For thousands of years we've relied on a strict good/evil binary. That's why it's still controversial to depict a 'terrorist' as sympathetic or to deign call them 'freedom fighters'. It's also why it was so easy to pivot from Afghanistan to Iraq, because They're All the Same and They're Out to Get Us. Vermain posted:The multiculturalism of the Asgardians, however, creates a problem in the context of the film, since the prevailing liberal view is that multiculturalism is good, and monoculturalism is bad. Thus, the two sides get reduced to the good, inclusive Asgardians and the evil, exclusive other of the Frost Giants. For example, a Western liberal may preach tolerance of Islam and rage against Islamophobia, but their stomach still lurches when they see a Muslim woman in full burqa. Suddenly "Islam" isn't so tolerable; suddenly we re-define what is "properly" Islamic and perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to legitimize our "That's not real Islam! You've been hoodwinked by charlatan muftis and liars!" A good example of this is the whole sharia law debate in Canada and the U.S., or the general sentiment that "immigrants are welcome as long as they learn our ways." Just this past week, Santorum said that mandating English as the official language should be a pre-requisite to Puerto Rico attaining statehood. In other words, Western liberal multiculturalism in practice is only tolerant of cultures that do not directly challenge the liberal status quo. We only tolerate cultures that are already compatible with ours, and in that sense we are far more monocultural than we care to admit. SMG correct me if I'm wrong.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 15:26 |
|
|
SpaceMost posted:A good example of this is the whole sharia law debate in Canada and the U.S., or the general sentiment that "immigrants are welcome as long as they learn our ways." Just this past week, Santorum said that mandating English as the official language should be a pre-requisite to Puerto Rico attaining statehood. Just pointing out that calling Santorum liberal anything is completly wrong. He wishes that we could go back to the 1850s.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 16:26 |
|
|
SpaceMost posted:In other words, Western liberal multiculturalism in practice is only tolerant of cultures that do not directly challenge the liberal status quo. We only tolerate cultures that are already compatible with ours, and in that sense we are far more monocultural than we care to admit.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 16:37 |
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Just pointing out that calling Santorum liberal anything is completly wrong. He wishes that we could go back to the 1850s. This sets him a part from the bona fide racists and imperialists of the past who wouldn't tolerate that stuff one iota.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 16:56 |
|
|
marktheando posted:Blade or Hellboy would fit and I liked them both a lot. Though every American comic book character who isn't Batman or Superman is a D-lister to me. So it's tough to rank them. Spiderman? X-Men? Even the Hulk. I wouldn't call any of those characters "D-List". edit: Javid posted:The movie actually does tell us - they told Banner he was working on radiation resistance treatments, and he never figured out otherwise until he tested it on himself. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at Mar 19, 2012 around 17:39 |
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 17:01 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Spiderman? X-Men? Even the Hulk. I wouldn't call any of those characters "D-List". He was being hyperbolic or just stupid. Superman and Batman are A+ list super heroes because they've been a part of our culture for almost seventy five years. Spider-Man and Wolverine are probably the next most popular, followed closely behind by the Hulk and Iron Man. Captain America, Thor, and Wonder Woman would be behind them, and maybe Green Lantern as well. There's so many comic book characters of varying popularity, you can't really call everyone besides Supes and Bats D-List. The best success is probably Blade who clawed his way up from a supporting role in the Tomb of Dracula series into the star of three movies. Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man are all great characters who were waiting for their big push.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:03 |
|
|
Michael Bay to produce new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie(s). And he's making them... ALIENS. http://www.superherohype.com/news/a...=home_multiline "When you see this movie, kids are going to believe, one day, that these turtles actually do exist when we are done with this movie. These turtles are from an alien race and they are going to be tough, edgy, funny and completely lovable." For gently caress's sake. I can't even think of something intelligent to say about this. So I won't. What do YOU guys think?
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:14 |
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:For gently caress's sake. I can't even think of something intelligent to say about this. So I won't. Micheal Bay makes poo poo movies. Transformers 1-3 are all lovely. There is no reason to believe he won't poo poo up anything he makes in the future. Changing the origin of the TMNT shouldn't be as concerning as the fact Michael Bay has a hand in making the movie.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:18 |
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:Michael Bay to produce new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie(s). And he's making them... ALIENS. I think he's getting his upcoming movies confused. This means the Transformers reboot/sequel is going to feature cars from an impound lot that transform into humanoids after being doused in radioactive waste.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:29 |
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:Michael Bay to produce new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie(s). And he's making them... ALIENS. Sounds like a fresh take on the franchise. That's all I got.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:30 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:Changing the origin of the TMNT shouldn't be as concerning as the fact Michael Bay has a hand in making the movie. Seriously. The origin is one thing, I'm more angered by the inevitable fact that the turtles will be secondary characters to some human protagonists with dopey parents. EDIT: the mature thing to do would be to keep an open mind and not be overly critical this early. Just a knee- jerk reaction 'cause the TMNT were an even BIGGER part of my childhood than the transformers, so....
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:30 |
|
|
Secret of the Ooze is already the perfect film, Bay can do whatever he wants with the Turtles as long as I have that to go back to.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:30 |
|
|
I don't understand how you can get the origin wrong when it's literally the 2nd word in the title of the franchise.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:36 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:I don't understand how you can get the origin wrong when it's literally the 2nd word in the title of the franchise. Who cares? It's not like their origin is exactly compelling or integral to the characters.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:38 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:Who cares? It's not like their origin is exactly compelling or integral to the characters. It kind of is, as there is a ton of stuff about the origin of the ooze, the Utroms, etc.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:40 |
|
|
Lobok posted:I think he's getting his upcoming movies confused. This means the Transformers reboot/sequel is going to feature cars from an impound lot that transform into humanoids after being doused in radioactive waste. Knowing Transformers, this may have actually happened at one point in some continuity or another.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:40 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:Who cares? It's not like their origin is exactly compelling or integral to the characters. It sort of WAS, though, because large story arcs in different mediums focused on the origin of the ooze that transformed them, let alone the story of their mentor Splinter the rat who's main motivation of revenge set up the main antagonist. I guess that they could mix that up, but... ah well who really gives a poo poo, ah ha ha
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:41 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:It kind of is, as there is a ton of stuff about the origin of the ooze, the Utroms, etc. No, that's backstory that's incidental to the characters. The history of the ooze that made them turtles is about as integral as the history of the spider that bit Peter Parker. Which is to say, not at all. If the movie version of them makes them aliens you can create story material about the history of the spaceship they came on but that doesn't make it important to the characters.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:48 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:No, that's backstory that's incidental to the characters. The history of the ooze that made them turtles is about as integral as the history of the spider that bit Peter Parker. What about their entire rivalry with the Shredder being based on Splinter's pre-mutant experiences with him? It's change for changes own sake.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 18:58 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Banner's motivation was also explicitly explained when Ross says "As far as I'm concerned, Bruce Banner is property of the U.S. Government." Banner was basically fighting against being enslaved. The line is specifically that his body is property of the U.S. Government, which implies that he's going to be mined for the secret of his transformation. A secret which, as evidenced by Stern's ability to duplicate the Hulk effect, only requires a small sample of his blood to extract. So why isn't Banner cooperating with this? Working on a project to understand his transformation, backed by the military, seems like a much more natural path to a cure than spending most of his time working at a bottling plant.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 19:03 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The line is specifically that his body is property of the U.S. Government, which implies that he's going to be mined for the secret of his transformation. A secret which, as evidenced by Stern's ability to duplicate the Hulk effect, only requires a small sample of his blood to extract. So why isn't Banner cooperating with this? Working on a project to understand his transformation, backed by the military, seems like a much more natural path to a cure than spending most of his time working at a bottling plant. Perhaps because a scientist who thought he was developing a potentially life-saving technology (radiation shielding, albeit for the military), may have problems with spending the rest of his life in isolation and medical testing so that the government can hulk out a bunch of teenagers who enlisted straight out of high school with the power to level buildings and crush armies single handedly?
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 19:07 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:No, that's backstory that's incidental to the characters. The history of the ooze that made them turtles is about as integral as the history of the spider that bit Peter Parker. Yeah it COULD work: them being aliens is just as plausible as their current origin. BUT because this idea comes from Michael Bay... Well, in my opinion it will be infinitely loving stupid... uh... stupider.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 19:10 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 07:20 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:No, that's backstory that's incidental to the characters. The history of the ooze that made them turtles is about as integral as the history of the spider that bit Peter Parker. (It does.)
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 19:14 |
|
