|
Judakel posted:Well, it is true that you did not know formal fallacies from informal ones, but it is not far-fetched to suggest that you have unreasonable standards. You've asked for "objective" examples of criticisms for this film before. An odd request" given that we are talking about art. Willy always puts a lot of effort into his posting, so you can't fault him there. Neither of these things are true or on topic. If you're that desperate to talk to me you need to find a better pretext.
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Neither of these things are true or on topic. If you're that desperate to talk to me you need to find a better pretext. In reference to arguing from ignorance, you PM'd me:  It is an informal fallacy. My point is that you're not taking Willy's posts in good faith and you do this often. All bitterness aside, he makes good points. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Publishing PM's is bad form.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
what hte hell is the cropping on that picture
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:what hte hell is the cropping on that picture Phoneposting.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
U can't turn your phone sideways?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Phoneposting. If all you can post is the left half of a conversation then better to post nothing at all.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:U can't turn your phone sideways? Looks terrible either way.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Looks terrible either way. Beyond how gauche it is to post a private conversation, I don't know what you think you're proving by posting the left half of it. We can't read the loving thing and understand what either of you are saying.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Can't you see how fu He could be making , however given the
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Judakel posted:In reference to arguing from ignorance, you PM'd me: He did the right thing, and you did the wrong thing by publicly continuing this conversation that no one else wants to read!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:He did the right thing, and you did the wrong thing by publicly continuing this conversation that no one else wants to read! [Ferrinus looks on in horror] If you destroy this conversation, you destroy Something Awful! [Judakel stares at the private messaging features] Something Awful had its chance! [Shittily crops a PM with his heat vision, destroying the forums]
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Judakel posted:In reference to arguing from ignorance, you PM'd me: I can't see that picture, but I do remember what I said. I meant formal in the sense of official or strict, not in the sense of P -> Q. I don't go in for that bowtie-spinning poo poo where you triumphantly spout Wikipedia article names like they're eldritch incantations. It's why I elected to informally - maybe you'd prefer colloquially or something - describe what I found objectionable about your conduct rather than dig for an official name ("from incredulity" would probably have been a better fit anyway). So seriously, cut this out already. Post something of substance or don't post.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
quote:I took it to a metallurgist... What do you guys think Pa Kent did to keep that metallurgist from announcing to the world that stupendous discovery and how he came across it? RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 00:31 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:[Ferrinus looks on in horror] "What would happen if I made that PM public?" "It would be extremely embarassing." "You're a-" "For you."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:What do you guys think Pa Kent did to keep that metallurgist from announcing to the world that stupendous discovery and how he came across it? Probably bought him a sixpack on the condition he kept it on the down low.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Pa Kent grows more than corn and barley on his farm if you're itching what I'm scratching.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
That metallurgist is going to turn out to be Doc Magnus who gets all sorts of crazy ideas from it that don't unfold until years later. But I think the junior novelizations around the time of MoS gave some excuse.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Can we focus on the most important thing in that screencap of the PM? 25 hottest celebs nobody wants to have sex with? And there's a picture of Scarlet Johansen? What even is happening here??
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Look at how much better this film does Pa Kent. Like, drat.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
I've never cared for the idea that Clark needed to be taught that he wasn't literally god, just way too unrelatable.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
That's actually the same interpretation, just with "...and then I changed my mind, for no reason at all".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Judakel posted:(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Can we all just pause to appreciate the reason given for the probation here
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:Can we all just pause to appreciate the reason given for the probation here Yeah, haha. You're finally free, Ferrinus! For a month, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I wasn't going to say anything, but yeah, that's one of the best reasons I've seen for CineD.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Like that sequence has a clear, focused emotional tone that it's delivering (it's sad) and through totally natural dialogue reinforces two separate points of growth for Superman's character and achieves it all in a three minute sequence. It's elegantly simple and natural. Man of Steel is noisy, messy, confused and heavy handed.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:Can we all just pause to appreciate the reason given for the probation here I think I'm misting up a little
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Like that sequence has a clear, focused emotional tone that it's delivering (it's sad) and through totally natural dialogue reinforces two separate points of growth for Superman's character and achieves it all in a three minute sequence. It's elegantly simple and natural. Man of Steel is noisy, messy, confused and heavy handed. Totally natural dialog: "I had worries, then I got over them".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
drat forgot how loving great the first superman movie is the only lesson kostner kent taught supes is to be paranoid maniac, guess it makes sense that he would become an evil dictator in the future dream
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Like that sequence has a clear, focused emotional tone that it's delivering (it's sad) and through totally natural dialogue reinforces two separate points of growth for Superman's character and achieves it all in a three minute sequence. It's elegantly simple and natural. Man of Steel is noisy, messy, confused and heavy handed. The tornado scene is definitely one of the clunkier parts of Man of Steel, and Superman: The Movie, in the scene you linked, is a lot cleaner in comparison. Though it isn't nearly as good as the post-bus scene in MoS, so it's sort of a wash. Ultimately, though, Man of Steel wins out for having a more interesting take on raising Clark. In the earlier movie, Clark's nearly an adult, and he's still having to be told that he shouldn't use his powers for self-aggrandizement. In the later movie, we get a Clark whose chafing against his father's good advice, because he wants to live up to his father's good example. Now that's an interesting conflict.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Totally natural dialog: "I had worries, then I got over them". The fact that you have to resort to beating strawmen says plenty.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Like that sequence has a clear, focused emotional tone that it's delivering (it's sad) and through totally natural dialogue reinforces two separate points of growth for Superman's character and achieves it all in a three minute sequence. It's elegantly simple and natural. Man of Steel is noisy, messy, confused and heavy handed. You're right, it only took the '78 version a few minutes to show us that Clark's casual disregard for the limitations and frailties of humans jeopardizes his secret, his family's security and finally his father's life as Jonathan Kent has a heart attack trying to keep up with his carelessly roughhousing son. This version has no problem controlling his super-senses but he couldn't hear the fibrillation, never x-rayed his parents for critical medical conditions? What a monster. He might as well have killed the old man himself! Get out with this grimdark poo poo, it ain't my Superman.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
I know it's because my soul is truly tainted and depraved, but honestly that heart attack doesn't come across all that much less comical to me than the tornado death. [gives heartwarming talk] "...Oh no  "[drops dead]
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:The fact that you have to resort to beating strawmen says plenty. I'm not sure how quoting dialogue is a strawman.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The tornado scene is definitely one of the clunkier parts of Man of Steel, and Superman: The Movie, in the scene you linked, is a lot cleaner in comparison. Though it isn't nearly as good as the post-bus scene in MoS, so it's sort of a wash. Ultimately, though, Man of Steel wins out for having a more interesting take on raising Clark. In the earlier movie, Clark's nearly an adult, and he's still having to be told that he shouldn't use his powers for self-aggrandizement. In the later movie, we get a Clark whose chafing against his father's good advice, because he wants to live up to his father's good example. Now that's an interesting conflict. That is actually interesting, but I don't remember there ever being a real resolution to it, other than it being implicit, which doesn't actually provide time to feel satisfaction over the resolution of that tension.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The tornado scene is definitely one of the clunkier parts of Man of Steel, and Superman: The Movie, in the scene you linked, is a lot cleaner in comparison. Though it isn't nearly as good as the post-bus scene in MoS, so it's sort of a wash. Ultimately, though, Man of Steel wins out for having a more interesting take on raising Clark. In the earlier movie, Clark's nearly an adult, and he's still having to be told that he shouldn't use his powers for self-aggrandizement. In the later movie, we get a Clark whose chafing against his father's good advice, because he wants to live up to his father's good example. Now that's an interesting conflict. The interesting thing about a Clark who has to be warned against hubris is that at the end of the movie he gets pissed and literally turns back time.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:That is actually interesting, but I don't remember there ever being a real resolution to it, other than it being implicit, which doesn't actually provide time to feel satisfaction over the resolution of that tension. I don't find fault with the resolution being expressed implicitly through the actions of the characters – you know, showing instead of telling – but I guess YMMV. Ferrinus posted:The interesting thing about a Clark who has to be warned against hubris is that at the end of the movie he gets pissed and literally turns back time. Yeah, it's definitely part of a setup and payoff. I'm just not that excited about a setup and payoff that is, "you're not literally god" and "whoops, guess you are."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I don't find fault with the resolution being expressed implicitly through the actions of the characters – you know, showing instead of telling – but I guess YMMV. There's a difference between you being able to intellectualize that x is implicit and having a scene or two where you explicitly are given time to feel the emotional weight of x. Especially when it's a tension that is set up so explicitly and repeatedly. I don't think that arc has a satisfying end.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, it's definitely part of a setup and payoff. I'm just not that excited about a setup and payoff that is, "you're not literally god" and "whoops, guess you are." I believe the overall plan Richard Donner had for the two films was a sort of Greek tragedy -- Superman defies his father's will to stop both missiles and save Lois, but in the process releases the Phantom Zone criminals and still loses as he gives up both his mortality and his relationship with Lois to regain his powers. This kinda-sorta comes across in the Donner Cut but since it still had to use a bunch of Lester material it's all a bit muddled. And Clark becomes an even bigger rear end in a top hat at the end when he beats up the diner bully for a reason that no longer happened after he turned back time, drat. lazorexplosion posted:There's a difference between you being able to intellectualize that x is implicit and having a scene or two where you explicitly are given time to feel the emotional weight of x. Especially when it's a tension that is set up so explicitly and repeatedly. I don't think that arc has a satisfying end. Jonathan doesn't have an arc, his role is to support Clark's development as a voice of moral guidance and caution. Just because the tornado scene is chronologically the last moment Clark and Jon share doesn't make it the end of the arc (for Clark), or else it'd be their last scene in the film. McSpanky fucked around with this message at 06:00 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:There's a difference between you being able to intellectualize that x is implicit and having a scene or two where you explicitly are given time to feel the emotional weight of x. Especially when it's a tension that is set up so explicitly and repeatedly. I don't think that arc has a satisfying end. For me that's the sequence where he talks with Lois about what his father wants from him, then talks to the priest, then shows up and turns himself over to the military. He tells Lois his father was worried about him revealing himself, he tells the priest he's not sure he can trust humanity, then decides this is his time to show some faith. But I appreciate that didn't work for you.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:56
|
|