|
mr. unhsib posted:After Sucker Punch I'm really intrigued to see what Snyder does with this. Sucker Punch was a movie that came from a place of deep loathing of "fanboys" and their mindset and now he is literally making a movie about their jesus. Fortunately, Snyder isn't writing or producing this one. I think he really got in over his head with Sucker Punch in terms of what he wanted to do artistically and thematically, and wound up with kind of an incoherent mess. He needs that outside restraining influence.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:After Sucker Punch I'm really intrigued to see what Snyder does with this. Sucker Punch was a movie that came from a place of deep loathing of "fanboys" and their mindset and now he is literally making a movie about their jesus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:What about sucker punch was influced by dealing with "fanboys" There were thematic threads in that film that suggested the sexual fetishization of female protagonists was akin to their rape and lobotomy. It wasn't entirely coherent and was self-defeating in places, but it was kind of the point of the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
The best way to explain Sucker Punch is that I took a woman who loves the Whedon "strong rear end kicking woman" nonsense, who was excited about seeing it, and she got mad at Sucker Punch because that was displayed as just another level of fetishizing and was actually just as demeaning as other forms of sexualization (which was the point).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Fortunately, Snyder isn't writing or producing this one. I think he really got in over his head with Sucker Punch in terms of what he wanted to do artistically and thematically, and wound up with kind of an incoherent mess. He needs that outside restraining influence. You're right. I expect Man of Steel to be way better than Sucker Punch. But I do expect Snyder to explore similar themes - he's done it to a degree in all his movies (well I haven't seen that owl cartoon).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Darko posted:The best way to explain Sucker Punch is that I took a woman who loves the Whedon "strong rear end kicking woman" nonsense, who was excited about seeing it, and she got mad at Sucker Punch because that was displayed as just another level of fetishizing and was actually just as demeaning as other forms of sexualization (which was the point). People say "which was the point" about Sucker Punch's sexualiation but how is that a defense? I didn't even finish Sucker Punch because I thought it was so boring but from what I saw...what was the point? If we're going to have a movie that satirizes female roles in action movies why should it be done by a white dude? Furthermore, where was the satire? I felt like the movie took itself pretty seriously- were the parts where girls were being molested while one of the actresses sings a Smiths song supposed to be tongue-in-cheek?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Sucker Punch wasn't really a satire. The point wasn't to ridicule anything. The plot was an elaborate metaphor connecting "Hollywood grrl power" action movies, to a Nevada brothel, to a 60s-era sanatorium. The failure of the movie was, it wasn't particularly entertaining, whether you got the message or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:People say "which was the point" about Sucker Punch's sexualiation but how is that a defense? I didn't even finish Sucker Punch because I thought it was so boring but from what I saw...what was the point? If we're going to have a movie that satirizes female roles in action movies why should it be done by a white dude? Furthermore, where was the satire? I felt like the movie took itself pretty seriously- were the parts where girls were being molested while one of the actresses sings a Smiths song supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? It was more a deconstruction than a satire. I'm not really going to bat for the movie, I didn't think it was very good and was a noble failure at best, but it's possible for a film to be critical of other film without being satirical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:People say "which was the point" about Sucker Punch's sexualiation but how is that a defense? I didn't even finish Sucker Punch because I thought it was so boring but from what I saw...what was the point? If we're going to have a movie that satirizes female roles in action movies why should it be done by a white dude? Furthermore, where was the satire? I felt like the movie took itself pretty seriously- were the parts where girls were being molested while one of the actresses sings a Smiths song supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? There's no reason that a white dude can't make a movie about a woman or a minority or whatever. That gets into that stupid DandD/ E/N feminism thread "mansplaining" nonsense, where only the minority or gender in question can make a statement about their situation and a white male can never have more insight than a woman/minority about those issues. That's simply not true; insight isn't gender or race specific; only experience is. Sometimes a white male can be more right or have more insight about a specific issue than the minority in question, and said minority can easily be "wrong." I didn't see Sucker Punch as satire. It seemed to be straight up blatant text. Note that I'm not really saying I "liked" the film - it just seemed to straight up be equating fetishizing women as kick butt heroes as the same to other types of sexualization which is why there were multiple layers to the "imaginary" state, while in reality, they were all being marginalized and dehumanized. That was pretty much the straight-text of the film, didn't see any real satirization there at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
I'm excited because I really want there to be a compelling Superman story told. Most of my friends are thouroughly ambivalent about this film, primarily because so many Superman stories get boring/seem to ignore or revel in his general godliness. By that I mean I never buy into the threats because if Superman is as amazing as we know he should be then most of the issues he faces should be trivial and to make them not for the sake of the film/story can be frustrating. I'm basically banking on the fact that I think Nolan as a producer will have set this ship in the right direction, and that the script etc will be fitting. I don't need another film that's visually Nolan's but he's proven to me he can craft compelling characters and stories that you can get sucked into from a comic book world. Superman needs some actual depth to his character beyond being the all american boy scout he frequently ends up as. SR was not awful, but its biggest sin was being boring and treading on familiar ground again (no more Lex Luthor for a while please). So basically I'm hoping Nolan set the general vision and tone for this film and the rest will hopefully follow well enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:If we're going to have a movie that satirizes female roles in action movies why should it be done by a white dude? Out of curiosity, what's the relevance of Zach Snyder being white to him critiquing female exploitation in action movies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
The Notorious ZSB posted:I'm excited because I really want there to be a compelling Superman story told. Most of my friends are thouroughly ambivalent about this film, primarily because so many Superman stories get boring/seem to ignore or revel in his general godliness. By that I mean I never buy into the threats because if Superman is as amazing as we know he should be then most of the issues he faces should be trivial and to make them not for the sake of the film/story can be frustrating. They're just viewing the story wrong. Superman's trials are not feats of strength or great battles; his main goal is to prove to normal people that they have it in them to be good like him. He's a benevolent sun god with perhaps the greatest challenge of all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
The Notorious ZSB posted:(no more Lex Luthor for a while please). But we haven't even seen the real Lex Luthor. The only Luthor we got in the movies was the 70s land grab comedy relief Luthor which is loving horrible and a waste of Kevin Spacey. The best thing that came out of Superman Returns was the golf cart Kevin Spacey drove around the set edit: Hah my bad: imdb posted:During filming, Kevin Spacey would drive around in a golf cart ("Lex's Super Buster") dragging a stuffed Superman doll behind on a rope and yell "Superman Must Die" with a megaphone. Comfortador fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:They're just viewing the story wrong. Superman's trials are not feats of strength or great battles; his main goal is to prove to normal people that they have it in them to be good like him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:That's why Superman is boring and needs a rewrite. I gotta disagree. It's what makes him the most unique superhero there is, the superhero. It's masterful romanticism, a rare breed in today's culture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Comfortador posted:But we haven't even seen the real Lex Luthor. The only Luthor we got in the movies was the 70s land grab comedy relief Luthor which is loving horrible and a waste of Kevin Spacey. The best thing that came out of Superman Returns was the golf cart Kevin Spacey drove around the set My issue isn't inherently tied to Luthor as a character, but its hard to sell me on YET another Luthor storyline of any kind when there are so many other villains in Supe's rogue gallery that haven't gotten any screen time. Especially since as far as action set pieces go there are more exciting cinema moments to be had imo with a Braniac/Darkseid villain than there are with Lex. Lex is a great villain, but much like my issues with the thematic's of the films we've gotten I want something different. Kull the Conqueror posted:They're just viewing the story wrong. Superman's trials are not feats of strength or great battles; his main goal is to prove to normal people that they have it in them to be good like him. He's a benevolent sun god with perhaps the greatest challenge of all. Yes that's true, but it's not the only theme in Superman and not the only story that can be told with him. I'm sorry but part of a superhero movie is going to the actiony set pieces and all the ones we've gotten for a while with Supes are boring. That's an important theme in Superman stories, but come on its not the only one. We've had enough boring mental games where Lex thinks Supes is arrogant and Supes is just trying his best to fit in/be a good example for humanity. Superman can be a lot like Hercules as a story character, faced with immense and seemingly insurmountable physical challenges that exemplify his heroic nature. The story doesn't need to sacrifice excitement and action to get those things across. This is still a movie, there are a lot of "good stories" that are better served in other mediums. I'd love reading a cerberal Superman story focused on his struggle to help humanity see the better in themselves, but it's tiring as a film for the 3rd or 4th time. I do agree with you that Superman is deeper than his physical traits, but giving him such powers means as a viewer most folks want to see some actual payoff with that. The Notorious ZSB fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:I gotta disagree. It's what makes him the most unique superhero there is, the superhero. It's masterful romanticism, a rare breed in today's culture. Characters need flaws! Flawed characters are complex characters. Superman's main problem is that he's a walking deus ex machina, "oh no, giant island made of Superman's only weakness? that's okay, he's Superman, he'll just pick it up by making a kryptonite shield." There's nothing interesting about that, he's a great vehicle for sweet special effects but that's just about it. Good characters reflect the human condition, Superman is a perfect Jesus/god character so I suppose you could say his main weakness is being a bad character. There's plenty you can do with a character like that, but making him the protagonist has been done (every Sunday!) and no one wants to fund a Superman movie with Superman as a supporting character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:
His main problem is literally the same as Spiderman's. "With great power comes great responsibility."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
He's a flawless paragon of virtue, which makes him the loneliest goddamn individual on the planet. I think you're being disingenuous by calling him flat when in fact his dimensional nature as a character is just not exactly conventional.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:Characters need flaws! Not really. His 'flaw' is he's a decent person with the power of a god, and the conflict that comes with how to use that power. He could literally end all conflict, everywhere, forever. Just blast around the world physically holding apart everyone that tried to start poo poo, disarm every army. He could bring food and water to every starving child, reshape the land to make it easier for people to live on. He could do all sorts of things...but is it right for him to do them? Does he have the moral imperative to play God, to solve every possible problem he can? Does his ability trump free will, the right of people to make and live with their mistakes? Does he have the right to have a life of his own? How many thousands die every day he spends making googly eyes at Lois? Plenty of compelling stories have been written about a Superman that, quite honestly, doesn't really have anything wrong with him to speak of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
That's the problem. Conflicts don't need to be purely physical, even if a physical element is involved in solving them. Kryptonite is a bad plot device and Superman is better off without it. It has its origin in writers being lazy- it was made up to give an excuse for the actor voicing Superman to take time off from the radio show. To challenge Superman you have to present him a problem that he can't solve exclusively with his fists. The challenge for the man who can do anything is to figure out what to do and why. Trying to introduce tension through a physical challenge he may fail (a Kryptonite island, being in two places at once, whatever) isn't going to work because the audience knows he'll do it anyway, and they're right. The past Superman films, along with the majority of Superman media in general, fall for these traps. A man who can do anything should never be boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Not really. His 'flaw' is he's a decent person with the power of a god, and the conflict that comes with how to use that power. He could literally end all conflict, everywhere, forever. Just blast around the world physically holding apart everyone that tried to start poo poo, disarm every army. He could bring food and water to every starving child, reshape the land to make it easier for people to live on. He could do all sorts of things...but is it right for him to do them? Does he have the moral imperative to play God, to solve every possible problem he can? Does his ability trump free will, the right of people to make and live with their mistakes? Does he have the right to have a life of his own? How many thousands die every day he spends making googly eyes at Lois?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Two Kings posted:The second trailer is really giving me Superman Returns vibes. That's bad. I think the sheer reverence for the character is really hurting the franchise. It's like he's the superhero Jesus or something. Has WB learned anything from the success of The Avengers? Please just make a good action movie. And we don't need another Superman origin story. Everyone knows the Superman origin. Get right to the meat of the story from the get go and focus on making a thrilling superhero movie. If there's no reverence for superman it's not effective. There's a thousand old silly superman stories and superman knockoffs, but they don't really work for the reasons everyone who has not seen a good superman story complains about : He's too loving powerful for a straight action movie. Superman is only interesting if he is, in fact, a paragon and the questions are raised about how a paragon could actually work and how could someone with so much power actually BE a paragon, especially in a world where myths and legends don't hold power anymore. He's basically a hopeful ideal, "maybe someone COULD exist with awe-inspiring power and use it for good" He's a man like us who grows up to be a god. How do you live life as a god? Almost everyone would pretty much be terrible. Comfortador posted:But we haven't even seen the real Lex Luthor. The only Luthor we got in the movies was the 70s land grab comedy relief Luthor which is loving horrible and a waste of Kevin Spacey. The best thing that came out of Superman Returns was the golf cart Kevin Spacey drove around the set That's the thing here. Lex could be amazing in a thoughtful Superman movie, especially if there's a heavy action quotient to contrast with a Lex subplot - Lex cannot be stopped by violence, and has the means to make every way of stopping him a challenge to Superman's paragon nature. Kull the Conqueror posted:He's a flawless paragon of virtue, which makes him the loneliest goddamn individual on the planet. I think you're being disingenuous by calling him flat when in fact his dimensional nature as a character is just not exactly conventional. Every rule of writing can be broken, but only by good writers who know the rules. Most bad writers who read "characters have to be flawed" just make their characters childish dumb jerks and insert some obvious flaw and never let the character grow out of it. Like the horror movie character who makes stupid mistakes and gets eaten by the zombies, or a lot of 70's marvel characters who were normal superheros but with some glaring negative twist that was somehow revolutionary, or the immature junkie slacker who shits up his life through monumentally stupid decisions. All that's easy stuff to write. That's one reason Superman is hard to write. He does have flaws, but not obvious ones that you can immediately make up challenges for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:Those might be interesting ethical problems surrounding the concept of a Superman, but it doesn't make him a flawed or interesting character. Why not? How is an ethical struggle unworthy of your definition of interesting character?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:Furthermore, there's no reason for Superman to be perfect, there's no Superman dogma, and all the various problems you've discussed are ethical problems that a non-perfect character could confront in more interesting ways--like Hancock. No, they actually can't, because a flawed character's flaws excuse their inaction. Of course Hancock isn't out saving everyone and constantly making the world a better place, he's kind of a broken dick. What's Superman's excuse? He's not a broken dick, he fully understands what it means when he doesn't spend every waking second helping others. He's exactly the type of person you can apply that dilemma to. Someone flawed, not so much. Their flaws distance them from the scope of the problem. They aren't, as they say, Superman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:No, they actually can't, because a flawed character's flaws excuse their inaction. Of course Hancock isn't out saving everyone and constantly making the world a better place, he's kind of a broken dick. What's Superman's excuse? He's not a broken dick, he fully understands what it means when he doesn't spend every waking second helping others. He's exactly the type of person you can apply that dilemma to. Someone flawed, not so much. Their flaws distance them from the scope of the problem. They aren't, as they say, Superman. Kull the Conqueror posted:Why not? How is an ethical struggle unworthy of your definition of interesting character?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:What's with the 'tude? We're just chattin'.  Dolphin posted:--like when he turned back time to to save Lois Lane, or when he lifted the Kryptonite island into space. These are both definitely good examples, the first especially. The latter I would have been willing to defend on the basis that it's sacrifice, but then the movie reneges on that promise and kind of eliminates its power by bringing him back at the end. But outside of those, I think on the whole Superman II is an excellent exploration of character, both through Clark forsaking his powers for Lois and with General Zod as a counterpoint to his idealism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:A flawed character isn't infinitely flawed, so they can run into the same ethical dilemmas that a "perfect" character can. No they can't. Their flaws by nature make it so that they aren't in the same fictional space as the 'perfect' person. They will always, always be dealing with a different problem. Their flaws make them more of a person and less of an ideal. Having relatively no real flaws to speak of and that power removes the vast majority of cop outs Superman has. It's just the stark reality of playing God or not, and every single life lost is a conscious choice made by him not to save it. Because he *is* that good. If you are an alcoholic, an emotionless bastard, a cocky hotshot, if you are anything other than the platonic ideal of the boyscout? You simply do not have that same problem, because your flaws always get to be a buffer to your failure. Of course you can't save everyone, you can't even save yourself. Superman doesn't need saving. He doesn't need fixing. He doesn't need to be taught this human emotion you call love, he doesn't need to learn the value of a human life, he doesn't need to truly grasp the responsibility of his powers. His parents probably taught him that poo poo when he was like 5, he's good. Superman begins where the redemption arc of flawed characters end. They fix their problems, and then scene. Because most people have trouble conceiving of a world where the great sky daddy really does come down to save us all. And sometimes, Superman stories are about when he does exactly that. Or about why he doesn't. Best you can say is a flawed character can fix their flaws, become the boyscout, and then be faced with his problems....which, ok, why do I give a poo poo you can tell another story before telling his story?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Superman doesn't need saving. He doesn't need fixing. He doesn't need to be taught this human emotion you call love, he doesn't need to learn the value of a human life, he doesn't need to truly grasp the responsibility of his powers. His parents probably taught him that poo poo when he was like 5, he's good. Superman begins where the redemption arc of flawed characters end. They fix their problems, and then scene. Because most people have trouble conceiving of a world where the great sky daddy really does come down to save us all. Dolphin fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:Because his story relies on a poorly developed stock character to tell a trite (same as every other Superman or Jesus narrative since forever) story. As opposed to the entirely original and not at all played out flawed hero looking for redemption story, which is practically novel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:As opposed to the entirely original and not at all played out flawed hero looking for redemption story, which is practically novel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Superman's perfection is his flaw. It separates him from humanity. His real weakness isn't kryptonite or magic or Batman, it's the simple fact that he has the same emotional drives and failings as everyone else. There's an enormous amount of conflict and potential conflict there. He also must cope with everyone else being imperfect, which means there are very real limitations on what he can do. There are reasons why he can't just take over the world and force his point of view on everyone else. That's his challenge- getting everyone else to understand the way he sees the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:If you mean the story defined by the concept of "plot" since the dawn of history, then yes, as opposed to that story. That story is boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:That story is boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Out of curiosity, what's the relevance of Zach Snyder being white to him critiquing female exploitation in action movies? Because if you're white that means you've never had to face adversity and are therefore unqualified to criticize anything you silly goose!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:If you mean the story defined by the concept of "plot" since the dawn of history, then yes, as opposed to that story. You're looking at "character development" as if it was a list of iron clad rules from a robert mckee book or something. Character has Flaw>overcomes Flaw = developed character. Superman does have flaws, they just aren't obvious ones like being a drunk or a nerd or brooding or whatever. massive spider fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Why are people talking about Superman as "perfect." He's human because he grew up as a human - he just grew up with moral values via the right influences that made him turn out to use his godlike powers responsibly. He's in no way "perfect." He's a god that prefers to think of himself as a man because he grew up as one. He's an interesting character because, since he's fallible, he's always on a slippery slope regarding the usage of his powers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Darko posted:He's in no way "perfect." He's a god that prefers to think of himself as a man because he grew up as one. He's an interesting character because, since he's fallible, he's always on a slippery slope regarding the usage of his powers. Right, he has to struggle with being devoted to moral laws that developed to guide the behavior of people significantly less capable than him. It's a reflection of problems that real people have in determining how to handle power. It's more straight-forward (without saying that it's easier) to be a pacifist when you're not the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, or a cop dealing with an armed suspect, or Superman. The Man of Steel trailer reflects this by having Superman interacting with the military (a more pure expression of the moral complications of using force), while Batman mostly concerned himself with the police (as a character more relevant to the security state and maintaining order in a population of which you are a part). If The Dark Knight is partly about whether a government should wiretap its own citizens, a Superman movie could partly be about whether it's moral to use violence to end a genocide in a foreign country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Like a lot of people said, its not that Superman doesnt have flaws, he's just not obvious about it. There's a pretty awesome bit in Darwyn Cooke & Tim Sale's Kryptonite--Superman gets beaten up after his first exposure to it. He gets helped out of it by Jimmy Olsen who suggests they go to Lois Lane's to rest up and the flat out REFUSES. The guy doesnt want to look weak/beaten up in front of her. It always felt like a really cool wrinkle for his character to have. Theres always something new to dig out about the character if you look for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Nobody wants to see a  "Oh woe is me being so godlike" emotionless, pseudo-philosphical snooze-fest like Returns.I've always liked the Superman in S:TAS/JLA/JLU. He's at his best when he's humanised. Like when he gave Batman back the piece of Kryptonite and says he wouldn't trust anybody else more to take him down if he went too far. Or when he had to be restrained from killing Darkseid by Batman holding him back because the explosion would have killed all of them. Or when he cried at the death of Dick Turpin because he couldn't save him. Or when he was given the illusion of everything he ever wanted back on Krypton and had to painfully give it up to save his friend. Or "hold on, that future descendant of yours sort of looks like my dad"....err  ....Or that last battle with Darkseid with the speech. People like to watch a struggle and a character with realistic wants and desires. Emotions like friendship, trust, anger, happiness etc... Not Lt. Commander Data with godlike powers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 12:08
|
|