|
ImpAtom posted:He absolutely is though. That's part of the interesting thing about the character. Jonathan Kent is a tremendous coward about his own personal life but can still display empathy for others when push comes to shove. It informs almost all the way that Clark acts in the start and middle of MoS. ImpAtom posted:Almost every single thing he does. He's terrifed. He spends the entirety of his screentime in MoS terrified. Terrified FOR his son and terrified of his son and terrified of the world and in general just scared. The infamous bus scene isn't him saying "let children die," it's him saying "gently caress, I don't know, I can't deal with this, maybe!!" He pushes his son towards doing the safe thing for himself because he's scared of the consequences and what will happen. Saying he isn't scared and selfish makes no sense to me because of course he is. He's human. MoS assumes the default state of humanity is selfish and cowardly and Superman's power is making them something more. Please take a chill pill.
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
BrianWilly posted:"Be their hero, Clark. Be their angel, be their monument, be anything they need you to be...or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." I don't think you know what objectivism means.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:The problem is that this position does harm to Clark in a different way. Above, Ferrinus scoffs at the idea that Jonathan Kent made Clark unhappy and repressed, and I guess the version of the film he watched just didn't contain those scenes where Clark was unhappy and repressed because he absolutely was. He was an unhappy, depressed child who grew into an unhappy, depressed man, and who can really blame him for handling his eventual role the way he does? By hiding away, by being secretive, by holding himself apart from the world? That was the correct choice. You're not evaluating the situation rationally, and are focusing on the characters "feeling bad".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:An emotionally-healthy Superman is better-equipped to save the world. We see the ramifications of an emotionally-unhealthy Superman in both MoS and BvS. Superman is an emotionally healthy Clark Kent. By the point he's become Superman, he's able to balance his desire to act and his father's lessons. The problem is that you're equating "feeling bad" with emotional abuse. This is essentially a position of privilege, because your argument basically revolves around inhibition being violence against personhood. This is ironically an objectivist principle. The movie takes a working-class position, where facing hardship is a part of life and not its antithesis. Nerds hate this. BrianWilly posted:I've never said that he deliberately traumatized Clark. You should engage with my argument better. He's always wanted the best for his son, but his idea of what's "best" is far from it and instead merely resembles self-interest for the both of them. Their self-interest is in protecting their lives in a hostile world until it's possible to act fully. This is a good thing. You're not evaluating it rationally, which is why you also keep contradicting your argument that Pa Kent is objectivist. How can they be objectivist if they're acting out of fear and self-repression? The movie presets its own answer: it's a hostile world, and you have to take blows as they come. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
They're nerds. They're going to argue like that for years to come. It's the clearest proof that these aren't actually bad movies. Nobody argues about bad movies for years, they just move onto something else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:This isn't even necessarily true in the comics (see: every Elseworlds idea ever), and BvS refutes this position quite soundly anyway. Clark's entire arc in the sequel is about him being unable to balance his desire to act with his father's lessons, as -- lo and behold -- those lessons have not prepared him for the reality of life as a heroic figure. Superman saves the world in MoS and in BvS. He was pretty prepared. He has his successes and failures, but Pa Kent's teachings made it possible. quote:but not what Pa Kent has been teaching him to do. And if the idea is to hide away until the world "is ready" for him, well, that just belies your point of the world being intrinsically hostile in the first place. "It's a hostile world...until you hide out for a bit and maybe someday it won't be. Or maybe you'll be prepared to withstand its hostility at that point thanks to all that hiding you've been doing!" He hid until he was fully aware of who he was and what he had to do. It's a reasonable choice. quote:"It's a hostile world...until you hide out for a bit and maybe someday it won't be. Or maybe you'll be prepared to withstand its hostility at that point thanks to all that hiding you've been doing!" Again, that is the correct thing to do. That this is in the "Snyderverse" has nothing to do with it - being set in a fictional universe doesn't change the moral argument in anyway, as fiction comments on reality. Snyder is making a commentary on the real world. People who unsettle the status quo will have the whole world against. With the alien invasion, Clark has a chance to act with humanity. Hiding from danger is not a particularly objectivist position. And he's still able to help people while hiding, although it is difficult - becoming Superman is accepting both his father's lessons and the need to help others. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
It's actually perfectly normal for people that they don't mourn a fictional character. Especially when the movie makes clear that he's not really dead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Actually, it's normal they do. Considering how much people lose their poo poo every time a character dies in The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones. That is their problem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Yeah ok it's not like I expect to weep openly, wailing and gnashing my teeth while building a funeral pyre out of seat cushions alongside my fellow viewers when a character dies. There's a whole range of emotions that a good film can bring about with a big climactic death scene. Movies don't need to make people feel sad. All the "emotional" range they need is tension and release. Superman's death is cathartic, so it fulfills that purpose. Reserve your sentimentality for real people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The Walking Dead sucks, but people freak out over fictional death. That is their problem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:"So to cap off our two and a half hour Christ allegory, we'll of course end with the savior's sacrifice. What kind of mood do most people associate with the death of Jesus?" Detached ambivalence is actually the right way to react to the death of Jesus. He is just a man, and his death is both glorious yet disgraceful. Hence "detached ambivalence".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Lol if you cry at the Bible
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Cinema Discusso: the only film discussion place on the internet where you have to actively defend the idea that films might make you feel things. No, it's defending the idea that films need to make you feel sad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
A True Jar Jar Fan posted:That's really not what "reserve your sentimentality for real people" implies. Hmmm, thinking about it, I should correct myself. Abandon sentimentality. Follow the ways of the Stoics, and armour yourself in self-control. Emotions are a distraction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:the infamous Martha line: narrative cheats used to preempt the title characters from having to put forward any kind of philosophical argument on their stances. That line is a philosophical argument.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
 I just can't get a handle on this character!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
quote:Superman: Civil liberties are being trampled on in your city. Good people living in fear. i don't get it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:So did the film establish that Superman cares about civil liberties? Do people not live in fear of the crazy poo poo superman brought upon the earth? *Superman destroys US military surveillance drone* What does it mean?! He must be selfish. lazorexplosion posted:Do people not live in fear of the crazy poo poo superman brought upon the earth? That was Zod. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Superman destroys government property, rejecting it's oversight upon him, and his beef with Batman is that Batman considers himself above the law. Yeah OK, I really feel the ideological difference. You have successfully dodged the question of whether or nor Superman cares about civil liberties (the answer is still yes). Superman cares about civil liberties because they help and protect people. Batman holds himself above civil liberties because they're obstacles to enforcing justice. Remember Dark Knight? lazorexplosion posted:Zod is only on earth because of Superman So? lazorexplosion posted:Zod and Superman settling their differences destroys a city and almost gets the earth destroyed. BvS flat out has an introduction that shows why people fear Superman. Superman did not "bring crazy poo poo" on Earth. Superman was reacting to that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Where in the film does it show Superman caring about civil liberties. Where. He tries to stop a vigilante who mutilates people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:Tell that to Zod's snaped neck!  Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Sure, Superman is concerned with Batman's extrajudicial, violent trampling of criminal's civil liberties. He even trashes the Batmobile, so we know he means business! Superman thinks the law is there to help and protect people. This is the idea behind civil liberties. Batman thinks that the law is there to enforce punishment, so that trumps civil liberties. Once Superman realises he can't persuade Batman to help people (save Martha), he tries to stop him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:What does the Flash turning up add to the film? What does Lois and her investigation add to the film? What does Lois loving around with the spear add to the film? What does Wonder Woman add to the film? If Lex's plan is to get Batman to kill Superman, what's the deal with Doomsday? What's Lex's plan with Doomsday after Superman is dead? What does Doomsday add to the film, other than be shoehorned in for a punchy punchy climax? I am glad that we've established that the characters have different ideologies that lead them to conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Batman is totally down with helping and protecting people, as shown in Metropolis and rescuing the trafficking victims. He just also punishes criminals while doing so. Batman mutilates people. He is very much concerned with being a nocturnal avenger. Superman acts half-heartedly because he's being merciful. lazorexplosion posted:Is that where we ended up on that? Last I heard, the ideological difference is that Batman has scenes where he acts above the law and that Superman has scenes where he acts above the law. I remember now, there are two scenes where people condemn Superman for acting above the law. There was a black lady character that literally says "he answers no one" of Superman. Again, they're acting above the law for diametrically opposed reasons, as established. Superman acts above the law to protect it, Batman acts above the law to enforce to the point of brutality. The conclusion is to save people, brutally. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:To summarize, Lex knows Superman will turn up to save Lois but has a bunch of men right there right at the time and place where he knows Superman will turn up, men who will incriminate him if they talk and will incriminate even if they don't talk because he gave them traceable equipment for no reason, who will be captured if Superman does turn up, unless Superman turns up slightly too late, doesn't notice the men leaving on motorcycles and doesn't round up and capture them after saving Lois. Lex has the script I guess. This scene is contrived and intensely stupid, it's in an already overstuffed film and the script could easily have been re-written to take it out of the film, but there it is on the screen in all its time-wasting stupid glory. The film is bad. But when Dark Knight does it it's good
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Eyeroll. I do in fact criticize the contrived poo poo in that film, and many other people do. But at the very least, that films contrivances are required for moving plot and characterization along, so they're just a bit stupid. In BvS you could cut out the Africa scene, have the hearings be about the damage caused by the end of MoS and say, have Lois be investigating what happened to the Kryptonian ship leading her towards Lex. So it's stupid AND pointless, which makes it double stupid and then it's triple stupid because it's a stupid, pointless scene in a film with too many scenes. Also, Lex isn't afraid of being caught.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
I knew it would come to this, people denouncing violence as problematic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:I'm not taking that position, I'm simply arguing that Superman's position in regards to Batman is poorly conveyed at best, and inconsistent or arguably supportive at worst. Twisting the content of the movie to be "problematic" is dumb. "Man of Steel is about Superman fighting foreigners!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:I didn't bring Christianity into it, my response was addressing the idea that Batman does not need to face any real repercussions for his crimes due to the Christian concept of forgiveness. This rings false, for it is the duty of Christians to follow the laws of man when they do not conflict with God's law. He said in the thread about a superhero movie
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Like no comic book has ever had a thing made by dark weird experiments turn out to be good or neutral or independent of its origins. What the gently caress kind of meta-argument is this
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:The meta argument that Superman, as a character, would not tend to instantly jump in both fists swinging at something that he doesn't really know. The meta argument that a good writer would not send Superman in both fists swinging, they would have Superman try to reason with the monster, try to avoid violence and destruction, and then only have him resort to that when the former approach fails. Instead BvS just sends Superman in swinging straight of the bat because it's time to start the destruction porn fight sequence. - A lot of superhero origins are based on lab accidents - Doomsday was born of a lab accident - Superman would therefore consider the possibility that Doomsday is a fellow superhero (Doomsday indeed looks a bit like a NInja Turtle if you squint your eyes) Your problem is that Superman recognizes danger. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Superman can both recognize danger and attempt to defuse it without going straight to punch it to death mode. poo poo, fighting is more dangerous, for him and for the bystanders and surrounding area. It's like he learned nothing from the events of Man of Steel. Was that the intention? You're not really thinking this through. Negotiation would have been equally dangerous for him, the bystanders, and the surrounding area. Your problem is that there was no empty diplomatic gesture. If there was one, the movie would simply state that diplomacy was impossible. As it is, the movie simply says that there is no room for diplomacy in this situation lazorexplosion posted:He understand it's dangerous. So why jump to immediately starting a fight with it? Because they have evaluated the situation accurately.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Why didn't Saint George negotiate with the dragon
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Hmmm, the dragon had already killed a bunch of people and caused a bunch of destruction and St George knows dragons are of that nature. Doomsday is, at that point, completely unknown to Superman and all it's done is take a swipe at Lex, who is a person who thinks Doomsday is his slave creature which is a pretty good reason for it to want to take a shot at him. The previous movie was about Doomsday trying to destroy the world. Superman understands the threat. Symbolically, Doomsday is an evil Superman, which is why Superman also ends up dying. He destroys himself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Really? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:What the gently caress kind of meta argument is that? Superman recognizes his worse nature, so he recognizes a threat. Pretty simple.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:A common thread between many bad films is that the characters don't consistently try to act in accordance with their characterization, they do stuff because the plot demands that they do it or because the shoehorned in symbolism demands that they do it. This is evident in many places in BvS. Haven't you just been saying that Superman resorting to violence is in line with his characterization?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:I think the intent was not to characterize Superman that way but the execution Neither jumps to conclusions. They act rather deliberately based on what they've come to know. Also, punching Zod was the right thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Superman is a fighter.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Superman killing doesn't impact the quality of the film, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Doomsday, as an extension of Lex, is the physical manifestation of the destructive capitalism that is unleashed upon the working class. Superman the Christ figure, in his sacrifice, symbolically frees us from the shackles of soulless consumer culture. Star Wars, Disney movies, the MCU, the entire comics industry, and anything else with promotional products should never be taken seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 19:27
|
|