|
R. Guyovich posted:kong skull island was the only answer someone gave to this question Big budgets in 2017? Kong is tops, but we also have Ghost In The Shell, Alien Covenant, and Dunkirk.
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
lmao it’s so mercenary. They’re putting all the popular new characters in temporary storage so that Stark and/or Rogers can sacrifice themselves in Avengers 4 to promote all those upcoming sequels.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I think this movie's take on Thanos is better than the comics version. If Thanos was out to impress Death with his slaughter, it would have been a hard motive for audiences to understand, and have been harder to empathize with Thanos because it's hard to empathize with a total lunatic. Here, Thanos thinks the universe is overpopulated -- everyone gets that. Well no; 'overpopulation' is a stupid concept even before we get into the magic glove that could just make the world bigger and fill it with food. On the other hand, the notion of 'courting death itself' in the comics is very unambiguous psychosexuality. Thanos' desire is literally to have a sexual relationship with the void, with nothingness, and thereby achieve nirvana - a state of equilibrium, the release of all tensions. And then he is continually frustrated by his failure to accomplish this. 'Killing half the universe' in the comics isn't very important; it's just another means to that end.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
The response to this film is rather impressively tepid.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I feel like expecting logic and sanity from the dude called "The Mad Titan" is kind of loving stupid. It's not like they call him "The Reasonable And Logical Titan That Has a Degree In Resource Management". He's a crazy, grief stricken dude that set his mind to saving the universe by doing the one thing he thinks would have saved his home from disaster. You can't logically disabuse him of this belief, because his home world tried that and they all loving died. To him you are just another person that can't act in the face of the manifest reality of suffering. The reason he's a villain is he can not take himself out of his own tragedy and loss to really consider the ramifications of his actions. He just sees Titan everywhere, and needs to stop it happening again. If he could pull back he'd be the hero, and he really would have saved everyone, everywhere, forever. Ask yourself why you are attempting to depoliticize a movie about holocaust.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Overpopulation is an ideological fantasy. Earth is already “post-scarcity”, but people starve while massive amounts of food are wasted in supermarkets. Thanatos’ goal already has a name: lebensraum. The only thing to set him apart from a generic Nazi is that his racism is of the ‘colourblind’ variety.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Doc Fission posted:I can't believe how many people think incel Thanos would in any universe have been better than what we got. Although given the fact that incels have actually been making the news lately perhaps making the big villain an angry loser virgin would've ultimately proved instructive? Thanos's plan in the film is so stupid that it would make infinitely more sense to merge everyone rear end-to-mouth, populating the universe with human centipedes of varying lengths. "The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior and non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter. The entire indigenous populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany." SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:07 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think you might have broke brain because that's not what that means. "During World War I, the British blockade of trade to Germany caused food shortages in Germany and resources from Germany's African colonies were unable to help; this caused support to rise during the war for a Lebensraum that would expand Germany eastward into Russia to gain control of resources to stop the food shortages. [...] To resolve German overpopulation, Ratzel said that Imperial Germany required overseas colonies to which surplus Germans ought to emigrate." Thano's goal is to depopulate the universe with a genocide, so that all the land and other resources will be open for exploitation by the survivors. Ghost Leviathan posted:I think that's supposed to be the point. He could literally snap his fingers and turn every sentient being into a needless superhuman, make chocolate rain from the sky, give everyone a copy of Das Kapital readable in their language, or personally appear before everyone in the universe and give them a hug and a lecture on the need for sharing and caring, but the gauntlet is ultimately just a means to an end for a fascist with no imagination who thinks the one idea he could come up with is the best and only one. Nobody is that stupid, though. He could literally snap his fingers and make himself smart enough to come up with a better plan.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Why? He didn't lie or deceive anyone throughout the movie. It's not about lying but about being stupid. Thanos is pulling an 'all lives matter'. Killing half the world's poor people and half the world's rich people is not equality, because you still have poverty. He's basically just giving the rich people a shitload of free resources in the hopes that those resources will 'trickle down'. And this is in a series where Tony Stark already invented free energy like twelve films ago. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:07 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Yeah he's the fuckin villain you goddamn idiot He's the villain and the protagonist, but so what? The issue is that he's extremely stupid. So we have a three-hour movie where the dude is like "i'm going to kill one thousand trillion people for no raisin" and the other guys are like "no don't." Like that's the main problem: that the heroes' only objection is like "It's bad to kill. You're... insane!" Real inspirational, cape people. It's almost as though Thanos is a nonsense person who shows up to make Stark appear to be not the villain. "There's only one possible timeline where Thanos is defeated, and it's conveniently the timeline where Tony Stark must absolutely stay alive!" Marvel's had smart villains before. See Vanko in Iron Man 2, for example. A sensible revenge plot executed well. Not only is Thanos stupid in this film, what was he doing hiring Loki to take over Earth in Avengers 1? Have people already forgotten about that? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:08 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
I’ve spent like 100 years doing the math, and I’ve calculated that killing 50% of life will give the survivors twice as much food. “Did you know food comes from life? Y’know, like, plants? Plants also create breathable air.”
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:You are easily the thirtieth person to point this out, and I just have to say a few things: first, be better than CinemaSins. Second, have you considered that he only killed the sentient life? And third, Thanos isn't doing the best plan that anybody could ever come up with because he isn't interested in the best plan. He had a plan to save his planet and they didn't do it and his planet burned. He doesn't want to save everybody. He's re-living his trauma, over and over, to prove that it would've worked. And he keeps being proven "right," on smaller planets, so gently caress it. We're doing the whole universe and then I'll be the rightest person of all. If he’s only killing sentient life, why doesn’t he say that? Hasn’t Thanos seen like a single Wishmaster movie? But more to the point: preserving nonsentient life means that those species will still be consuming all the resources. A planet that’s exclusively beset by rapacious cane toads is going to be hosed - and what if the sentient life on a planet is working to prevent takeover by some nonsentient robotic army? The robots win now, and can consume with impunity. Half the human biomass on Earth is roughly 250 million tons, according to a cursory google. That’s a lot of dust to pump into the atmosphere. If a planet has a high enough population, the snap would cause an extinction-level event. Same deal on a planet where the sentient species are endangered - the snap would put them beneath the threshold for genetic diversity. What about sentient species that are insanely large, like the ‘celestials’? It seems foolish to treat Ego The Living Planet the same as Rocket Racoon. There are like a billion movies about ‘trauma’ that don’t have these problems. Watch Upstream Color or something. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:"Thano" I’m referring to the lead Thanos, not all the other Thanos. That’s another issue: Thanos has followers. People agree with him. That sort of contradicts the whole “he’s just totally insane and random” thing. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
aBagorn posted:He wanted the Tesseract. Loki offered to get it for him. In exchange Loki wanted to take over Earth. Thanos wanted the cube in Avengers 1 so that he could attempt to conquer ‘greater worlds than Earth.’ The dialogue in that film repeatedly emphasized that Thanos loves battle, and attacks planets for the challenge of it. The entire post-credits thing is him grinning because he thinks he’s found a worthy adversary. Gumball Gumption posted:You know exactly who the loving president of the united states is right now. It pains me to say it, but Trump is actually smarter.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I'm going to say this one more time, but asking "why didn't the characters just do X" when the answer is "because emotions, you loving idiot" is an impulse I saw in film school a lot, and it was always from the insecure rear end in a top hat who needed to act like he was smarter than any filmmaker because he had clearly put more thought into it than the filmmakers did. Your approach to emotion is weirdly apsychological, based on the pretence of hidden depths. So Thanos kills a bajillion people because he’s just so sad because of grief and you just wouldn’t understand. It’s that weird Star Trek false dichotomy. Sadness is not a good explanation for why Thanos teams with the ‘rape-torturing people with shards of glass’ dude. The truth is that both Thanos’s stupid plan and his feels are a flimsy excuse for his true goal of abusing people in the hopes of ‘toughening them up’, dividing the world between passive children who stay in their place and tough grownups willing to ‘make the hard choices’. The plan itself is nonsense except that he can force people to accept this nonsense as proof of their submission to him. Basic cult stuff. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Why would he need to challenge someone’s belief if they might die regardless? This may be a surprise, but the point of these hero movies is that the characters (strive to) embody various concepts. You get America Man, Afrocentrism Man, and so-on. The characters’ conflicts can then illustrate broader ideological conflicts. In the satirical IM2, for example, Military Man and Industry Man team up - form a complex - to kill Justice Man. Thanos is basically Dr. Gene Ray made arbitrarily superstrong. So Nature’s Simultaneous 4-Day Timecube beats Afrocentrism... why? Why is Timecube depicted as being stronger than America? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:What Star Trek false dichotomy? Logic vs. Emotion. (And, even in Star Trek, ‘logic’ is more accurately legalism.)
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:“Thano” = “not muh Thanos” Yeah like anyone gives a poo poo about the purple character who appears for five seconds after the credits of Avengers 2. It’s just getting interesting that Thanos was, in Avengers 1, this guy who ‘flirts with death’ in the specific sense that he loves adventure. He specifically targets the most technologically advanced worlds and gains followers by giving them control of the lamer worlds - with the implicit point being that they will be next if they progress enough. Avengers 3 Thanos is just a gimmicky TV serial killer, obsessed with the concept of “50%” because he can only get a boner if there are two girls in the room and one dies. He’s like The fuckin Snowman. And then people marvel because he, like, feels emotions. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:What the gently caress is this Ouch; you really have forgotten, haven't you? Avengers 1 Thanos was trying to rule the entire universe, using greedy underlings to handle the individual planets: "The world will be [Loki's]. The universe will be yours." Thanos ignored Earth because he saw it as weak. He loves a good battle. When Earth survives various attempted takeovers, Thanos is intrigued. He loves glory: "I will lead [your army] into glorious battle." "Battle? Against the meager might of Earth? ... We look beyond the Earth to greater worlds the Tesseract will unveil." "[Humans] cannot be ruled. To challenge them is to court death." [Thanos smiles really big] "Fine, I'll do it myself." [Thanos smiles more.] You really should pay attention to these films; the only appeal is in following all the constant retconning and nonsensical character changes. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
A.I. Borgland Corp posted:Ok the To Court Death line is a character change sure (one I'm all for) "Fine, I'll do it myself" refers to Loki's failed attempt at ruling Earth. Thanos's motivation across the entire series was that he was bored. He already beat every worthy challenger he could find, so he sent underlings to nab the teleportation cube so that he could teleport around the universe waging more glorious battle. (That's why he doesn't care about giving Loki the mind-control stick: his only goal at this point is to visit 'greater worlds'.). After his army is defeated in Avengers 1, Thanos changes his plan and sends underlings to collect the power sphere. Again, the point is that he now sees Earth as a worthy rival and wants to battle it. He's obtaining the sphere for that purpose. In the context of Avengers 2, the stinger is a weird non-sequitur. But in the franchise plot, the point is that Thanos doesn't trust underlings like Loki and Ronan anymore. He'll conquer Earth himself. The thing to note here is that Thanos doesn't actually care about collecting all the pokemons and getting the whole gauntlet. He just wants enough power to beat Earth. If he becomes too powerful, defeating Earth won't be a challenge anymore, and he loses his entire motivation. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:This sounds about right. It's clear to me that Marvel wasn't sure what they were going to do with Thanos until they actually sat down and began writing IW in earnest. Nah; blockbusters are pretty predictably written. It's clear that Thanos was originally going to attack Earth for fun and then enjoy a prolonged conflict where Earth just refuses to lose. Thanos would be pushed to collect more and more gems, smiling all the time, until he finally won the game. But then he'd certainly realize the emptiness that comes with being able to just snap his fingers; what he really enjoyed was the struggle, etc. Ultimately, what he desired was to be beaten. He wished for death. If you've seen the show Westworld, Thanos was originally characterized the exact same way as The Man In Black. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:If they are so predictably written then why did it change? What you're describing is obviously not what happened in IW. Because, as others have noted, the current trend for the big studios is to begin with the structure of a standard narrative and then completely refashion the film with focus group testing and other modifications. The overall goal is marketing. In Jurassic World, for example, the narrative was originally about a bully who deliberately endangers his little brother in an effort to ‘toughen up him up’ (exactly the same motivation as Avengers 4 Thanos, as it happens). This narrative was cut from the film because it made the kid ‘too unlikeable’. The result is a film where the plot is the same, but everything happens for no reason. With the Marvel films, this is happening not only in the individual films, but across the entire franchise. If we are to approach MCU as an extremely expensive pay-per-view TV series, the narrative is entirely incoherent. Things set up in one episode are just dropped in the next, and so you have these hasty retcons. The first two Marvel films set up a narrative where Stark would help the US Army try to capture Hulk. The Leader was also going to show up. This narrative was abandoned, though elements were recycled in Avengers 2 (Iron Man randomly battling Hulk) and Civil War (Ross’ superhero prison). These aren’t narrative twists. They’re the product of a bizarre antinarrative algorithm. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Here’s what happened with Thanos: People in charge in 2008 like Whedon had a certain idea of what Thanos is about. In both the comics and creative people behind the movies, Thanos and what he is or represented or could be as a character changed, so did the intention. For shitbomb Whedon Thanos was a cartoony villain and they thought to have his motivation be to gently caress Death. By the time we get to the Russo’s in charge and Fiege can separate Marvel Studios management to be under Disney and itself, when they finally get to this movie, Thanos’ motivations and character changes. Also his look which is now more inspired by Starlin’s take of a complex but flawed character to sets himself up to fail. Not actually. Again, Avengers 1 already establishes that Thanos has a metaphorical death wish. He already sets himself up to fail because he enjoys risking his life. There is no sign of any literal skeleton lady. That’s from the comics, not any movie. Avengers 3 then departs from Avengers 1 and says its Thanos is a cult leader who worships the concept of “50% sentient life” as the ultimate equilibrium or something. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
A.I. Borgland Corp posted:Avengers 1 establishes he smiled wordlessly at one line of dialogue in a thirty second bonus scene, it didn't really lock anything into place. The after credits scenes are generally as non committal as possible so they don't have their hands tied No; the twist is that Thanos is behind all the events of Avengers 1. Those events are therefore characterization for Thanos. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
A.I. Borgland Corp posted:The events of Avengers 1 are that Loki tried to steal the tesseract in exchange for being given dominion over Earth. If successful this would have netted Thanks a stone. This being Thanks goal works for multiple motivations. That ignores narrative - i.e. why Thanos wants the teleportation cube. The filmmakers could have easily have made it a twist: a reveal that Thanos wants to defeat all the free planets of the universe in order to ‘win the game’ and rewrite the very fabric of reality and create a paradise. The heroes could then be tempted with this proposition. Instead, the execs went with a retcon. We ignore all the past films and Thanos now never tried to rule the universe. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
A.I. Borgland Corp posted:There main reason the hulk narrative was abandoned was because his movie wasn't that memorable or a big hit and there's rights issues with more standalone movies and Edward Norton is a dick, so they just moved on And that same logic applies to every film. Iron Man 2 was infamously changed to make Stark and his corporation ‘more likeable’. Infinity War is obviously incomprehensible to anyone jumping in for the first time, but it also makes no sense to anyone who’s been paying attention. It seems to have been deliberately targeted towards people who are passingly familiar with the loose concept of superheroes, and who have maybe seen three or four films.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Really? Because it was loving chilling as it was. Well yeah; that’s why Iron Man 2 is one of the two only good movies in the series. The narrative survived their attempts to eradicate it.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:It was also the programming and the assassining not just the sterilization (for the purpose of sex assassining) Yeah like killing is bad in these movies. Death is so casual and pointless in Avengers that they had to give Spiderman the Auschwitz treatment to provoke a reaction, like that My Little Pony photoshop.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
porfiria posted:He's sort of the ultimate utilitarian, so to me it really comes down to whether or not you buy that powerful people ever actually do awful things because they think it'll be for the best, or if in the end it's all rationalizing selfishness and moral compromise. I mean, is it fair to say Hitler genuinely wanted to help the people of Germany, and he just made the mistake of being racist and nationalist? That doesn't seem right. Thanos is portrayed as completely earnest and selfless--he's just objectively, insanely wrong. That’s not what utilitarianism is. Like, we’ve already had a utilitarian supervillain in Watchmen, with the character Ozymandias. Thanos’s plan is only utilitarian if he’s working off a shitload of bizarre premises. One premise is that the ‘solution’ has to be both instantaneous and immediate - that is to say that, despite having access to the omnipotence glove (with time travel!) this is his only chance to affect the fate of the universe. Like he’s taking it as a given that he must snap his fingers and must instantly kill X number of people. And given those premises, half is the best? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Aight so the thought experiment is that you have twelve cosmonauts stuck on mars, with plenty of food - but not infinite food. You also personally have remote access to their individual oxygen feeds, but only for the next two minutes. According to Bentham’s felicific calculus, many cosmonauts must you immediately asphyxiate in order to maximize their overall pleasure?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:I reiterate, loving WHAT? You have a truly broken brain to call anything with ash “the Auchwitz treatmeant”. It’s beyond insensitive. I thought you might at least have a halfassed defense. Are you upset that the movie depicts a genocide, or are you upset because you don’t believe it depicts a genocide? Because the issue is that the movie is about a genocide and people only care that Spiderman was temporarily saddened.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
A.I. Borgland Corp posted:It's upsetting because your are comparing a fictional genocide to a real one, a very specific part of a very specific one based on a special effect that is not at all evocative of it Well, now you’ve put yourself in the position of arguing that the imagery of trillions of people turned to ash as a result of genocide by a space nazi doesn’t mean anything. Of course my point was not quibbling over the definition of genocide, but that trillions die in this stupid movie and nobody cares - to which your response is, effectively, that you’re not supposed to care because it’s just a stupid movie. That is to say that you agree with me, that the movie is bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
If Thanos is correct that universe has finite resources, then he’s wasted around 3 Gigajoules of energy on each and every single disintegrated victim (enough to energy to run a typical house for a month). If we take a rather conservative estimate and say there are 25 million civilizations in each galaxy, 2 billion people per civilization, and 1 trillion galaxies in the universe, then Thanos has wasted over 50000000000000000000000000000 Gigajoules. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:16 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:
That gives the lie to the idea that these films are about heroism at all. They are actually just friendship simulators.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Yes it’s weird how people focus on the interaction and dialogue they found to be memorable and the characters they like. If you want to boil that down to Marvel just choosing what’s people pleasing then so be it, but you’re kind of dismissing the basic psychology of why people connect with characters and memorable moments in films. There’s a reason why one of the things people talk most about Indiana Jones is the part where he just shoots the sword guy or how in Star Wars the most memorable lines from Darth Vader are the gems like “I find your lack of faith disturbing” and not his general conversations about ordering to people to find droids (and even then that has people who can quote it from memory because the films have permeated the public consciousness so much.) So you remember Sam Jackson saying "rear end" in Avengers, therefore Avengers has tapped into the deepest recesses of not only your psyche but the entire public consciousness, pointing to a greater Reason behind everything? I think it's more accurate to say that you are ascribing intense spiritual significance to kitsch. "The problem with kitsch is that it is all too profound, manipulating deep libidinal and ideological forces, while true art knows how to remain at the surface, how to subtract it's subject from its deepest context of historical reality." -Zizek
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Pretty sure that's, like, your raison d'etre. No; because I know how to subtract the subject from its deepest context of historical reality. Did you not read what I wrote? For example: where Nodosaur believes that his reaction to the word "rear end" in Avengers points to an ability to channel his deepest inner meaning, the truth is that Avengers is simply a libertarian film and that ideology appeals to him.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
porfiria posted:What about non-Libertarians who enjoy the avengers? Who said anything about enjoyment? And who said anything about people who identify as libertarian? The point is simply that the ideology of Avengers 1 is libertarian, and that ideology is immensely attractive for a lot of people. Avengers taps into deep fantasies about the unrestricted free market. Nodasaur praises the scene where the minarchist hero played by human meme Sam Jackson defiantly says “rear end” to a literal illuminati shadow government as part of a shpeil about freedom. Then the Elon Musk tech CEO steps in and saves the day. That is not a conscious choice. People generally don’t know why they like things, which is why Nodasaur speculates about an unfathomable hidden depth that not even he can possibly understand. Mordiceius posted:Oh, I completely agree. I'm very appreciative for my studies in crit theory. It has taught me a lot about the films I enjoy and helped me enjoy a great deal of films I never would have approached. I guess I'm just a little prickly on the subject because there was definitely a trend in between some of my old classmates in grad school of dismissing enjoyment of mainstream blockbuster films and only wanting to ever discuss indie/art house films. The issue is that art is not an objectively-existing thing but a stance. Films 'become' art when read as art, when you search for the traces of authenticity in their texture. Of course some films are more conducive to this than others, more truthful than others - but you alone are making the choice to give yourself over to those aforementioned libidinal and ideological forces, out of fear that truth will cause you to 'lose your enjoyment'. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:27 on May 5, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:It's not unfathomable. That's why people use words like "snappy" and "blunt" to describe dialogue, and there's reasons why people attach value and preference to that kind of dialogue. You’re again referring to vague ‘reasons’ - in this case vague ‘rules of language’ that determine the ‘success’ of a given corporate franchise in even vaguer terms. Something about memes. When we look at your examples of memorable versus unmemorable language, those that you characterize as ‘memorable’ are invariably ‘badass’ pseudoethical behaviors - displays of unpunished violence. So Indy casually shooting a baddie, Sam Jackson cussing, and Vader threatening a subordinate are lumped together as memorable. Characters are confident, successful. Your example of unmemorable language is, of course, a character loving up - displaying vulnerability. This vulnerable characterization broke the rules of language and proves the superiority of Disney over WB. Do you see what I mean about these libidinal and ideological forces?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:These are action movies, dude. Those quotes involving violence that I brought up as memorable are violent owing to the fact because they are occurring in movies where violence is one of the main things that occur in an action movie. Or did you miss the post later when I compared Fury's standing up to the WSC Superman's own, similar act of defiance against a governing body and their militaristic inanimate object (a missile vs. a space satellite), in Man of Steel, another action movie? Me pointing out Darth Vader's most memorable lines and them turning out to be lines that are violent and about force is because he's a villain who does evil things to people, much in the same way that most of the memorable things done by a horror movie monster involve them killing people, or how most of the parts that involve dinosaurs in Jurassic Park that people remember involve them eating people. This is a lot of words to say that you like feeling 'in on a joke'. You like when people insult other people, but you don't like being insulted. You like feeling included. When Lex Luthor screwed up his speech, you did not know what you were supposed to feel. Is it a joke? Am I in on the joke?! That's understandable. The issue is that you are attempting to craft your own 'rules of language' that can help 'permeate the public consciousness' and 'unlock lasting esteem'. You're spontaneously developed the marketing language of a self-help guru, talking about the secret rules of memetic success that those ivory tower academics are trying to cover up. (Note: none of the people you are responding to are or claim to be academics). It seems like you're not aware that lots of people have actually been studying marketing techniques, for a very long time.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Yes, I suppose it is a lot of words to say that for a joke to work and land with the audience, they have to think it's funny. See, now we're back to the quasi-jungian stuff, mixed in with the Rottentomatoes logic of consensus. There's a lot wrong here, but I think the biggest is that you literally don't know what you're talking about. Like "critical theorists never took psychology or economics into account!" Which bring us back to your thesis that there are 'deep resonances' to Disney brand films that cannot be understood except through online score aggregation.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 00:38
|
|