|
porfiria posted:Do you guys think Zack Snyder voted for Hillary? If so, was he reluctant or enthusiastic? I think he's a Johnson man
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I love that you didn't deny it. Enjoy renting out your opinions to manchild idiots who chose writing articles like "30 REASONS WHY CAPTAIN MARVEL IS A FEMINIST DREAM" as a career. I'm not denying anything; he wants to adapt a book about objectivism to film, which would undoubtedly empower that reprehensible ideology in a time where reactionary bullshit is already ascending globally. You and a few other idiots ITT keep regurgitating the same, tired dodge of, "Uhhh... bbb-but he identifies with Rand because no studio will let him have 100% control over his bad movies!" Like, that is your loving excuse for allowing an idiot to empower Objectivism on a visual medium to an already impressionable - and borderline illiterate - society and world? Slutitution fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Do you guys think Zack Snyder voted for Hillary? If so, was he reluctant or enthusiastic? I heard he wrote in Ralph Nader. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
"Evil Zack Snyder is smuggling in Objectivism to our stupid society!" says a guy who hasn't noticed Tony "I'm a great man and I'm keeping the armor and the energy system for myself and my team - gently caress off if you think otherwise" Stark hanging around the MCU for the last 11 years. Absolutely brainless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Brother, I have some bad news about CineD... Hey, I have a STEM degree. And I didn't wash out, I just washed around a bit and kept at it and eventually they gave me some qualifications..
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:"Evil Zack Snyder is smuggling in Objectivism to our stupid society!" says a guy who hasn't noticed Tony "I'm a great man and I'm keeping the armor and the energy system for myself and my team - gently caress off if you think otherwise" Stark hanging around the MCU for the last 11 years. Absolutely brainless. I'm absolutely brainless because I don't want Objectivism to be spread by a manchild you admire? I can't handle this ownage here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Fair enough. But you essentially agree his work isn't objektivist, right? Yeah, I said so a couple times already. quote:MOS chat Clark doesn't struggle with how to help people in the movie I saw. He always does exactly what is necessary to save everyone he can in every scene, except for the tornado, where he doesn't go back in for no clear reason despite the fact that he obviously could at little risk. The tornado is a big problem for any theory where Clark supposedly struggles with any alternative but inaction. There's no reason at all for him to not choose to go back for the dog himself in the first place, and no clear reason for him not to go back for his father. The former doesn't risk exposure at all, the latter doesn't clearly risk exposure. (If exposure is the problem, why not at least take a moment to point out all the gawking onlookers?) The one time he doesn't choose to dive straight into the fray, he simply chooses to stand stock still and do nothing and help no one. What is he struggling with here? This isn't a movie where Clark struggles to do the right thing in the right way because, when he acts, it's never a struggle against himself. He rarely makes any decision that isn't already forced on him by circumstances, and even when he does there are no consequences. The deeply strange truck crucifixion doesn't risk any blowback, for example. It very easily could've been a Raimi Spider-Man, where the hero has to weigh his goals against the limitations of his abilities and the limitations of the life he has created for himself, but it definitely isn't. I want to pick this out, in particular. Ferrinus posted:MoS isn't an ironic or satirical movie, but I think it's an uncontroversial statement to claim that what Snyder found compelling about Superman was not the same as what many contemporary comic/comic book movie fans found compelling about Superman. I don't think this is true. I don't think people fail to relate with Clark in MOS because of Snyder's radically different and darker vision of what Superman should be; that's more a product of the later films. I think people fail to relate with Clark in MOS because he's a sad sack struggling with a non-conflict and he does not have any character arc. We feel his angst (IMO effectively! angst gets a bad rap) but are never made to understand the struggle that would need to underlie it. Angst with no clear underlying conflict and no character arcs to speak of are common problems of comic book characters, though! Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:I'm not denying anything; he wants to adapt a book about objectivism to film, which would undoubtedly empower that reprehensible ideology in a time where reactionary bullshit is already ascending globally. You and a few other idiots ITT keep regurgitating the same, tired dodge of, "Uhhh... bbb-but he identifies with Rand because no studio will let him have 100% control over his bad movies!" Like, that is your loving excuse for allowing an idiot to empower Objectivism on a visual medium to an already impressionable - and borderline illiterate - society and world? This is the same style of thinking as poo poo like, "I wasn't a racist until an SJW made fun of me." Objectivism isn't some evil spirit. It doesn't magically become stronger whenever someone foolishly says it's name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Clark doesn't struggle with how to help people in the movie I saw. He always does exactly what is necessary to save everyone he can in every scene, except for the tornado, where he doesn't go back in for no clear reason despite the fact that he obviously could at little risk. He doesn't save his dad specifically because hes told not to, by his dad, because of his dad's fear what people will think of Clark. It's very clear in the movie. The gap between childhood Clark saving the bus to "almost" adult Clark not using his powers in the tornado scene is distinct for a reason. Hes internalized that fear his dad is constantly displaying. His adult power uses are shown as something he tries to hide from. It is very much a personal struggle for him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
I don't see why you'd have much faith in Snyder to make a Fountainhead that wasn't a screed, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:I'm absolutely brainless because I don't want Objectivism to be spread by a manchild you admire? I can't handle this ownage here. You're absolutely brainless because you let dumbasses on AV Club and Youtube tell you how to think, and you parrot their arguments without every applying any critical thought. Zack Snyder's most personal movie, Sucker Punch, ends with the main character allowing herself to be destroyed in order to help another. It's anti-Objectivism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The deeply strange truck crucifixion doesn't risk any blowback, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I don't see why you'd have much faith in Snyder to make a Fountainhead that wasn't a screed, though. Probably the same reason why people didn't immediately think Kubrick was making an ode to Vietnam when he adapted Full Metal Jacket. There's this thing called "context," you should look it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Yeah, I said so a couple times already. Clark absolutely struggles versus inaction. Inaction is often easy, gives fair results, and won't repeatedly destroy your life. Action is unclear, can have wildly unpredictable consequences, and may not make anything better in the long run. Clark rescues a busload of school-kids and the film has Pa Kent, the designated moral guide, refuses to unconditionally endorse that path of action. Most superhero films conspire against moral ambiguity by avoiding the portrayal of scenarios where inaction might, in fact, be best, or scenarios where action has ambiguous consequences. Iron Man does not take pause to consider whether the President's drone program might make it a better idea to let Killian kill him in Iron Man 3. Man of Steel does not flinch from these scenarios; the guy in the bar is an unqualified rear end in a top hat, but Clark's righteous loving-up of his truck is in no way good. What should he have done, let him harass the waitress? Maybe. Cease to Hope posted:the struggle that would need to underlie it. Quite a struggle, to snap a neck with your bare hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:He doesn't save his dad specifically because hes told not to, by his dad, because of his dad's fear what people will think of Clark. It's very clear in the movie. This is an argument that Clark struggles with inaction, not the argument other people were making about about how Clark struggles with how to help people. However, the problem with inaction struggle theories is not this scene, but the fact that we already know Clark has rejected inaction, from the beginning of the movie. He never acts fearfully and we never get the feeling that he has anything to fear. His father's argument isn't very effective to me. I don't get a good idea of what it is he's afraid of. I can see how you'd take that Clark's inactions reflects his father's fear, but what that fear is seems underdeveloped, and is also noticeably undermined the by the fact that we already know Clark can (and will!) save people without being found because he already has, repeatedly, in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:"Evil Zack Snyder is smuggling in Objectivism to our stupid society!" says a guy who hasn't noticed Tony "I'm a great man and I'm keeping the armor and the energy system for myself and my team - gently caress off if you think otherwise" Stark hanging around the MCU for the last 11 years. Absolutely brainless. Zack Snyder's adaptation of a real piece of poo poo can only be considered good if like the shithead in the book, Zack Snyder blows up the DC movie studios and films it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:I'm not denying anything; he wants to adapt a book about objectivism to film, which would undoubtedly empower that reprehensible ideology in a time where reactionary bullshit is already ascending globally. You and a few other idiots ITT keep regurgitating the same, tired dodge of, "Uhhh... bbb-but he identifies with Rand because no studio will let him have 100% control over his bad movies!" Like, that is your loving excuse for allowing an idiot to empower Objectivism on a visual medium to an already impressionable - and borderline illiterate - society and world? But you yourself are clearly a reactionary manchild, both in the sense of political conservatism and in the sense of thoughtlessly recoiling against random stimuli based on tummy rumblings. Who is this supposed to fool?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Do you guys think Zack Snyder voted for Hillary? If so, was he reluctant or enthusiastic? Wait, lemme watch 300 and I'll get back at ya. ... Okay, done. It's obvious that he enthusiastically voted for Hillary, as evidenced by his endorsement of baby murder at the beginning of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:His father's argument isn't very effective to me. I don't get a good idea of what it is he's afraid of. He's afraid of people reacting as they do in the sequel, wherein the knowledge of who and what Clark is leads to rash action that endangers a great many people and ultimately kills Clark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Thoughtlessly recoiling based on tummy rumblings? You said you'd read Fountainhead, c'mon now.Schwarzwald posted:He's afraid of the events of the sequel, wherein people learning who and what Clark is leads to rash action that endangers a great many people and ultimately kills Clark. I'd walk into a tornado for fear of BvS too  Jokes aside, it means MOS is an incomplete film as a result. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is an argument that Clark struggles with inaction, not the argument other people were making about about how Clark struggles with how to help people. I thought his father's argument was fleshed out just fine, given the conversation he has with Clark following the bus scene. If it didnt work for you, it didnt work for you, but his father's fear is made perfectly clear in the movie. Imo, the question of the movie is not "will Clark/Superman save people?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:But you yourself are clearly a reactionary manchild, both in the sense of political conservatism and in the sense of thoughtlessly recoiling against random stimuli based on tummy rumblings. Who is this supposed to fool? lol Pack your poo poo, folks. Opposition to Objectivist propaganda is tummy rumblings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Imo, the question of the movie is not "will Clark/Superman save people?" What do you think it is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
You Will Believe A Neck Can Snap Moss is a pretty good movie actually
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:lol I don’t believe that you actually are in opposition, owing to your reactionary tendencies. Rather I think that you are just looking for an easy culture war win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I don’t believe that you actually are in opposition, owing to your reactionary tendencies. Rather I think that you are just looking for an easy culture war win. Oh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:Opposition to Objectivist propaganda is tummy rumblings. It's really funny that you've managed to convince yourself there's a moral dimension to hating art that you don't understand. Very reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's really funny that you've managed to convince yourself there's a moral dimension to hating art that you don't understand. Very reactionary. Oh. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Steps to being a poo poo-tier poster: 1) Stir poo poo with stuff like "this guy is garbage" and "you people are the worst" and "gently caress off" 2) Post total debunked screeds like "Objectivist Snyder is foisting his propganda on the unsuspecting public" 3) Start basically empty-quoting people when you get owned 4) ???? 5) Threadban
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Starship Troopers is responsible for post 9-11 society, thanks Paul for adapting that poo poo book to screen in a political climate that was just waiting for jingoistic fascism to take over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Steps to being a poo poo-tier poster: The point is none of these happened, kiddo; The only potential film I'm worried about as "foisting propaganda" on the public is an adaptation of The Fountainhead Grimoire, which the acolyte Snyder adheres to. I never said he was spreading Objectivist bullshit through his other films (in part because barely knows how to communicate anything in his films). You just seem to have this weird fixture on criticism of Snyder's ideology or ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:The point is none of these happened, kiddo; The only potential film I'm worried about as "foisting propaganda" on the public is an adaptation of The Fountainhead Grimoire, which the acolyte Snyder adheres to. I never said he was spreading it through his other films (in part because barely knows how to communicate anything in his films). You just seem to have this weird fixture on criticism of Snyder's ideology or ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Darko posted:Starship Troopers is responsible for post 9-11 society, thanks Paul for adapting that poo poo book to screen in a political climate that was just waiting for jingoistic fascism to take over. Verhoeven famously hated the book and was up front about how terrible it was and how little of a poo poo he gave about it. (You still get actual reactionaries latching onto "Would you like to know more?" and "I'm from [X] and I say kill 'em all!" too, even though it's about the most effective parody I could possibly imagine. I wonder if it's even possible to avoid that.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:The point is none of these happened, kiddo; The only potential film I'm worried about as "foisting propaganda" on the public is an adaptation of The Fountainhead Grimoire, which the acolyte Snyder adheres to. I never said he was spreading Objectivist bullshit through his other films (in part because barely knows how to communicate anything in his films). You just seem to have this weird fixture on criticism of Snyder's ideology or ignorance. "I'm extremely worried that Zack Snyder, a weird cultist who can't communicate anything in his films, is going to brainwash the public with an adaptation of a bad book that's already been adapted once and also had Oliver Stone, noted fascist and maniac, and Brad Pitt, another complete Objectivist psycho, attached to it" Woweeeeeee
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:The point is none of these happened, kiddo; The only potential film I'm worried about as "foisting propaganda" on the public is an adaptation of The Fountainhead Grimoire, which the acolyte Snyder adheres to. I never said he was spreading Objectivist bullshit through his other films (in part because barely knows how to communicate anything in his films). You just seem to have this weird fixture on criticism of Snyder's ideology or ignorance. Oh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
The the only thing he knows how to communicate is visually. It's a shame everything else about his films suck majorly. That is being charitable though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:The the only thing he knows how to communicate is visually. Could you elaborate on this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Zack Snyder's most personal movie, Sucker Punch, ends with the main character allowing herself to be destroyed in order to help another. It's anti-Objectivism. I'm no Objectivist and I don't know Zack's leanings, but I have hate-read Atlas Shrugged (as well as hate-watched the movie trilogy) and therefore feel entitled to sound off here in the Snyderdome. Objectivism is not anti-selflessness, but anti-mob. If the main character in Sucker Punch died for the sake of someone else because everyone agreed that she must, that would be anti-Objectivist. As it stands, she makes the choice herself. This opens up a circular logic in Objectivism where one could greedily give to others because they personally feel like doing so, "what is self-interest, really" and all that. Someone posted earlier in the thread about Rand's logic being a pro-union argument, which makes sense to me but she turned out to be anti-union? There are non-wealthy characters throughout Atlas Shrugged who work for the geniuses and are well-compensated and regarded for their time and talents. I find it odd she wants employers to have all the bargaining power, given how she writes against looting politicians and mediocre leadership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Slutitution posted:The the only thing he knows how to communicate is visually. It's a shame everything else about his films suck majorly. That is being charitable though. Oh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:30
|
|