|
This is the important part. It's not just a random cutaway and then Clark wins. He wins because he senses Lois nearby.
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'd have to rewatch to really feel certain but my first reaction is ehhhhhhhhhh no. Nah he’s right. The ‘problem’ with Sickerpunch is that the dance-action scenes are purposefully generic so that they operate on at least two levels at all times. For example: the dance-fight against killer robots on the train reads as simple fascist violence to the rapist nerd, whereas the women themselves perceive it as a message of liberation. The scene is literally about their struggle to unite and obtain weapons with which to defend themselves against such rapists. So the robots simultaneously represent subhuman Arabs/Jews and the patriarchy. Unless you take both these incompatible perspectives into account, the action comes across as nothing but idiotic spectacle. You miss that the stupid action has a kernel of truth to it, and you also miss out on the characterization. The dances are autobiographical. The robots have transparent dome heads, as a callback to the shattered lightbulb in the opening scene and so-on. Another example of the film’s (over)complexity working against it is the asylum setting. Most people conclude that the film is about women trapped in a mental institution. But in the Lacanian triad (of imaginary, symbolic, and real) the symbolic level is your ‘everyday’ reality. This means the film is actually about women working in a brothel, and the asylum is ‘just’ a collective nightmare. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Feb 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:It's still super-funny that the bonus material on my DVD has animated shorts that show that the robots where actually the good guys suicide bombing a human metropolis to liberate their robot brethren, or some such. Right - "whenever we encounter such a purely evil Outside, we should gather the courage to endorse the Hegelian lesson: in this pure Outside, we should recognize the distilled version of our own essence." Man Of Steel is Snyder's first (and currently only) unironic movie. Even the women in Sucker Punch have some ideological limitations - hence their preoccupation with the Matrix-style nightmare of a 'real reality' underneath the virtual universe of the brothel. "Even if the struggle takes place in the 'real reality', the key fight is to be won in the Matrix, which is why one should (re)enter its virtual fictional universe. If the struggle were to take place solely in the 'desert of the real,' it would have been another boring dystopia about the remnants of humanity fighting evil machines. [...] So, although economy is the real site and politics a theater of shadows, the main fight is to be fought in politics and ideology." -Zizek
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
McCloud posted:How do you reckon BvS is ironic? Because it’s a return to the style of Watchmen, with the trademark speed-ramping sneaking back in and whatnot . This stylistic return aligns with how Bruce Wayne takes altogether the wrong lesson from Superman and assembles a team of corporate-funded Avengers in the end - which is exactly what Luthor was doing before his suicidal meltdown and arrest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Batman has never had a personal no-killing rule or code. No-killing was a guideline for Robin, the literal child sidekick. Batman’s code is always specifically worded in ways like “I won’t carry a gun into battle”, or “I won’t be an executioner.” Folks like Nodosaur have literally never actually read the comics or paid attention to the films. So Batman and Robin have collapsed into a single character with the mind of a ten year old. And if you’ve never paid attention before, where does this investment come from?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:
Well, no; you’re not actually reading the things you’re posting. I’m the first image, Gordon is talking about his ‘code’, which is just loosely the kind of extrajudicial violence he’s willing to be complicit in. And you are again ignoring the specific wording: “being a killer” is NOT the same thing as killing. Cops like Gordon kill people all the time, but he doesn’t consider himself a killer. He’s telling Batman not to go crazy, not to be like the joker, not to become ‘distasteful’ to him. In Dark Knight Returns, Batman’s thing is guns being “the weapon of the enemy” (though he still uses them, he finds them distasteful and tells his followers to never touch them). Again, the wording is very specific, talking about dispassionately “press[ing] the trigger and blast[ing] him from the face of the Earth.” Nothing there about killing in general. Darth Vader doesn’t say “Luke, I am your father.” The meme has supplanted reality for you. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Oh my god. Correct. The police somewhat-arbitrarily choose to stop turning a blind eye to Bruce Wayne’s literal decades-long crime spree. Perhaps with Joker dead they feel they don’t ‘need’ Wayne anymore. Who knows? But a no-killing rule is nonsense for children. Literally for Robin, in this case. If we were to write out a no-killing rule in a way that (almost) makes sense, it would be like “if anyone ever dies as a result of my actions, either directly or indirectly, I will instantly cease to be Batman and maybe kill myself in shame”. No such rule has ever existed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
Like seriously: if one of the goons punched in the head just doesn’t get up again, Batsman’s not going to publish his secret identity, turn himself in to the cops, and then possibly hang himself in his jail cell. That’s idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 09:59
|
|
|
Martman posted:And I want to re-emphasize again, how much attention do other Batman stories pay to the countless mooks who Batman must undeniably have killed sometimes just by punching them too hard, dropping them off a building wrong, etc.? It’s here that Nolan’s The Dark Knight is fully comics accurate: Wayne and Gordon stand over the dead criminal, dropped off a building wrong, and they’re like “oh well. How can we take advantage of this?”
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:I mean, what do you want from me? The comics come with the built in pretense that none of them actually die, save for those early issues before they introduced it It’s never stated in any comic that nobody has ever died as a result of Wayne’s actions. As with the no-kill rule, it’s something you’ve invented based on bad misreadings and thirdhand information. Nobody in Casablanca says “play it again, Sam.” You’ve written thousands of words based on errors and misquotations. Why?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 11:15
|
|
|
josh04 posted:justify all kinds of horrible poo poo. Like, just go back to the comic Nodosaur himself posted. In it, Commissioner Gordon says in unambiguous terms that the line between a hero and a killer is that the hero does necessary violence in order to supplement the imperfect law, while the killer does violence for his own gratification or whatever. Gordon is saying that Batman shouldn’t assault/kill for fun, because he ultimately serves Gordon. Gordon is saying “I’m your boss. You work for me”. There’s absolutely nothing there about not-killing. Gordon is actually straightforwardly endorsing vigilantism, torture, murder, etc. “for the greater good”.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 12:00
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:"If Batman wanted to be a killer, he could have started long ago." ‘Being a killer’ and ‘killing’ are different things, in the same way ‘being a runner’ and ‘running’ are different things. Gordon begins the page by acknowledging that Batman thirsts for revenge, and that the law is imperfect, but then says that ultimately Batman must do his transgressive violence in service of the law.* Gordon is making a statement against vengeance, not against killing. You misread the page. You are going out of your way to decontextualize these lines because you are working backwards from the silly premise that nobody has ever died as a result of Wayne’s actions. You need to be careful. *In a rather chilling line, Gordon literally says ‘I AM THE LAW’ as in Judge Dredd.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Your premise is entirely absurd. There's no loving gun in Batman's hands. Gordon and the Gotham PD have looked the other way on all the murders Batman has supposedly committed over the years, of actual supervillains and literal nobodies - but now, in this one instance, between the two of them, in this alleyway, where any potential witnesses are unconscious, he'd object to Batman killing the Joker, whose death count is cartoonishly exceeds digits greater than two... why? Perhaps because, in the second panel, Gordon is confronted with the image of a blood-drenched goblin and - as he says - he allowed this to happen. You’re ignoring that context, ignoring that Gordon is written as rambling, improvising this speech, rationalizing things to himself. When he says that heroes believe in the law he suddenly stops, catches himself - because he realizes he doesn’t believe in the law - and instead says that heroes are those criminals that the law allows to exist. Gordon says “the law failed us”, then refers to himself as the law like two sentences later. He’s calling himself a failure, trying his best to fix this mess, so he leans on the sentimentality and puts a fatherly hand on Bruce’s shoulder. I mean this as non-pejoratively as possible but getting “Batman never kills anyone because he has a no-kill rule” from that page is how a child would interpret it. For an adult, Gordon is talking about the obscene underside of the law, trying to bullshit away his complicity in torture and such, trying desperately to convince himself that he is a good person despite his partnership with a literal supervillain. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
It’s English. It says “Deborah”, which is his wife’s name. It’s loving wild how people hallucinate with this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:I legitimately can’t tell if you actually believe this anymore. But I’m tired, have an ear infection, and I’ve had an exceedingly bad time trying to fall asleep so I’m taking the opportunity to bow out, because continuing to engage with this further is not gonna be good for my state of mind. It should be trivially easy to find a single line that clearly states that Batman has never killed anyone, or a panel where he explains what his no-kill rule is. You can’t find them because they don’t exist. They never existed. You’ve hallucinated it. It’s the Mandela effect. It’s those Berenstain Bears.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:In that video posted earlier and then basically every comic book panel posted as proof of Batman's no kill rule, the reason is pretty explicitly stated as: if he kills he "won't be able to come back". He'll become "like them" (i.e. insane supervillains) and will love killing so much that he won't be able to become human again. The thing is, though, that he is "like them". He is a criminal. And he doesn't actually have a no-kill rule. The things that Wayne believes make him "unlike them", depending on the version, are: -He doesn't carry a gun into battle. -He is not an executioner. -He believes in the law.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Here again, you can see the same misinterpretations at work.    He's specifically referring to vengeance / killing done to prevent future problems. The rule is directed at his child sidekick.  He's specifically referring to vengeance / killing done to prevent future problems. The phrase "you're not a killer" is used instead of more specific language (e.g. "you've never killed anyone"). He's talking about using guns.  1) He's referring to vengeance / killing done to prevent future problems. "I'm not an executioner." The rule is directed at his child sidekick. 2) He's talking about using guns. The rule is directed at his child sidekicks. This is consistent across every version/adaptation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Interpretations aside, you said there aren't frames where Batman elaborates on his no-kill rule. He does. I found those examples. Sorry they don't fit a specific undefined criteria you're now positing, but I'm not to comb 800+ Batman comics to chase your goal post. Those aren't elaborations on the no-kill rule; they aren't about a no-kill rule at all. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You'd have to show how - I definitely recall a big criticism of the film was that there were all these constant upskirt shots of the characters and cleavage popping out everywhere, and was surprised when I rewatched it that the film had neither! That was pretty funny. I remember this one guy talking about thousands of "panty-shots" and it's like huh? So I checked and there are none. The characters are even wearing black shorts under the skirts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I mean we do have to acknowledge he chose the short skirts specifically because of its role in sexualization of women characters The entire movie is about women working in a strip club.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I should clarify, I don't have a say in Snyder's male gaze for those specific movies, since I haven't seen Suckerpunch or BvS, but it's certainly present in Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen. Well no; in Watchmen, shots of SIlk Spectre 2 almost invariably emphasize her face. In action scenes, the cinematography emphasizes the swift motion of her punches and kicks. Her body is frequently obscured altogether. The same is true in Dawn Of The Dead and Watchmen. I think you may be getting male gaze confused with... nudity?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Not all of Watchmen's fight scenes are devoid of male gaze, whether or not it's intended: You are confused though, because male gaze is not when an rear end is technically visible. It refers to sexual objectification, which is not what's going on there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
The screenshot is also misleading because it's at the tail end of a tilt. All emphasis is on the prisoner dropping to the ground with a little bounce, plus a twist of the heel on his belly. Rule of thirds is not the only rule of cinematography. You have lighting, motion, etc. Here's the exact timestamp, if you'd like to check for yourself. https://youtu.be/BQc1C3170e0?t=63  Franchescanado posted:Okay, by that rubric,you’re confused. Male gaze refers to the gaze of the camera, not what the character is wearing. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:a woman reveals her exposed thigh and curvature of her buttocks as she twists her stilleto heel into a submissive man - not sexualized Male gaze refers to the gaze of the camera, not what the character is wearing. It also does not refer to what the character is doing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Her rear end is literally the fulcrum of the motion you claim the scene is focusing on. The male gaze does not refer to whether an rear end is visible. This shot from Vertigo, for example, is the most famous example of male gaze in cinema history:  'The gaze' is a term from Lacanian psychoanalysis, and 'the male gaze' is a variation of the term coined by leftist feminist Laura Mulvey in her essay Visual Pleasure And Narrative Cinema, which you can find online. It's only like six pages.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:This seems to validate my argument, thank you. Mulvey is a leftist. When Mulvey says “the women’s movement made a political point that women were exploited through the body and through images of the female body”, she is referring to women as workers exploited under capitalism. The entire Visual Pleasure essay is about ideological critique. Mulvey is (in part) against verisimilitude in cinema, against the naturalization of patriarchal ideology. Objectification is when you cease to see female characters as people under capitalism, and moreover as characters played by actors (who are also people under capitalism). Objectification is bad specifically because it is a barrier to class consciousness and solidarity between workers of all genders. The Silk Spectre character wearing a fetish outfit is not objectification. Objectification is when you dismiss the character as a sex object because she is wearing the outfit, without analyzing the material conditions that led her to wear the outfit (and the character's subjective experience of the outfit, etc.). The original Silk Spectre made a career as a performance artist selling erotic merchandise, and pushes her daughter to do the same. Laurie goes along with it because it's a job and she does enjoy the danger of it. From here we can analyze her relationship with her mother and father and so-on - all the fantasies that ultimately lead her to bow to liberal CEO Ozymandias. If you're not doing ideological critique, you're not actually talking about objectification or the male gaze. Talking about how the hip is a fulcrum of the leg or whatever is depoliticizing the issue and reducing this to a rhetorical game where we act shocked at the existence of bikinis or something. The entire hyperreal aesthetic of Watchmen is there to render the action offputting and unnatural. That's the satire. In this specific case, it's a satire of Whedon-esque 'third wave'/'postfeminist' empowerment that Snyder continued with Sucker Punch. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Because he was explicitly sexualizing male bodies in the way I accuse Snyder of sexualizing female ones Sexualization is a specific term that doesn't apply to any of these things you're talking about. It refers to when: -a person's value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or sexual behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics; -a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy; -a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others' sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making and/or -sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person That is not the case with any of the characters in the films you're talking about, except diegetically in some cases (e.g. Sucker Punch is a movie about women who work as strippers).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I am arguing from Mulveys foundation though, why do you feel I am not? Mulvey is a leftist and you haven't written anything about class struggle. You're writing about an unrelated rear end struggle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If that is your mistaken conclusion, I might point you to closest cliche syndrome which I think you are clearly suffering from Proving yourself is as easy as linking your complaint about Silk Spectre's rear end to the exploitation of the proletariat under capitalism. Failure to do so reveals you to be a fraud appropriating and depoliticizing egalitarian feminist literature for no clear reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Leslie Lee III is probably the only notable leftist person I follow that didn't lose his mind at Snyder. poo poo, just a month or so ago, a small left-leaning, Alex Jones focused podcast I listen to (it's better than you think, really!) were like, "yeah no poo poo Batman kills, he's a violent-rear end dude". Well I mean, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say people going wild defending Batman’s honour are not actually leftists. Like, the notion of a no-kill rule is just straight-up incompatible with leftist thought, as we’ve seen with the dude immediately posting the image of a cop justifying extrajudicial violence when called out in it. “We’re not killers; there’s a line between us and them.” No; cops are a gang. The leftist terminology, cops are grouped with other gangs under “lumpenproletariat”. It betrays a lack of understanding over what violence even is. ‘Batman’s actions can’t have resulted in a death; he hasn’t been charged with murder!’ There’s this credulousness towards the cops and the legal system that’s troubling. One of the basic concepts in leftist thought is that the capitalist system is on its own just incredibly violent. Bruce Wayne’s killing people just by owning factories in China or whatever. Even the comics writers know not to have Batman say “I’ve never killed anyone”, because that is just a bald-faced lie. That’s why they’re using this weird language instead: “being a vengeful killer is losing belief in the law!” So have Bruce Wayne‘s actions never resulted in a death? “Uhhh... we don’t use guns! The gun is the weapon of the enemy!” You can’t get a straight answer. With Mudkip and Fran more recently, you have a more straightforward liberal appropriation of leftist thought, so the words of a radical Marxist are taken and all the stuff about capitalism is carefully excised. And you can’t really blame ‘em because it’s almost guaranteed Mudkip was assigned the text in a college course without the tools necessary to interpret it (e.g. knowledge of anticapitalist politics, knowledge of ideological critique), so he only understood the part where men are jacking off and it’s bad for some reason. But as with the no-kill guy, you’re writing like thousands of words and drawing diagrams about stuff that you only have thirdhand knowledge of. Mulvey’s doing stuff like questioning whether an anticapitalist film is even possible under the then-current system, and speculating that something like Youtube could result in the widespread creation/popularization of leftist films (spoiler: it didn’t work). She’s not mad about, like, the existence of sexuality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
The trouble is basically that people are becoming increasingly aware that that they’re locked in an apocalyptic struggle just to survive, black people are being gunned down on the streets, etc. but they are also being taught that capitalism is great and the problem is bad people on social media. So there’s this endless spontaneous mass-mobilization of twitter shame.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Fart City posted:This is a really good point. One of the main fantasies regarding Batman is that the character is able to operate beyond the "limitations" of the law, but maintain a kind of core, ironclad morality that prevents them from ever abusing that power. He's the idealized enforcement agent, because although his crusade is personal, his actions are never presented as being personally driven, but rather always in service of the greater good. Batman never beats up someone because he takes joy in it; he does it because it's what is "best"for society. In practice the only thing that really separates Batman's actions from those of a violent, roving deviant is that it's never explicitly stated that he's got a rock-hard erection while he's throwing batarangs at Mr. Freeze. It’s more than that though; return to the earlier comics page posted, where Gordon calls himself the personification of LAW while simultaneously acting in an unambiguously paternal way towards Batty because “I failed you... I won’t let you hurt yourself...” The appeal of the Batman fantasy is that you can do anything you want, so long as you are ‘a good person’, and the police will understand. There are no consequences except that your parents might get mad at you. Pointing out that Batman has always killed is a political attack because it says not only that he’s actually causing massive harm (he’s not in control, there’s nothing safe about what he’s doing) but that the police are bad daddies. You might say that where Superman is often imagined as the ultimate daddy figure, the Batman fantasy is to be the child of the ultimate daddy figure. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:When confronted with an indiscriminately destructive force in an area full of civilians, he confronts that force head-on rather than mitigating the disaster. It’s not a disaster. It’s an attack on a small town by a band of Space Nazis. Punching Nazis doesn’t make you a soldier. This consistent trouble with basic definitions of words is like some newspeak poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:A more interesting director could make this scene about saving people from the disaster that is the Kryptonians fighting the military, rather than Superman Punch Fight Times. There is nothing wrong with the direction of the scene. You’re just rambling incoherently.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Climate change as a thing you can smash with a fist is the most superhero-as-supercop metaphor ever. The climate change caused by an automated facility extracting resources and generating pollution in India, placed there by colonists. You are having chronic difficulties.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Right before the gunship attack, Clark loses his temper and shoots his eye lasers, which clearly gently caress up (and can more than likely kill) both kryptonians. More the point, Clark is a civilian and this is absurd. Police and military are specific things, and there is like no way to get them mixed up here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
We’re at the point where dude is asking like “How can you punch the climate? Sounds like something a cop would do!” We are through the fuckin rubicon here. Language is just breaking down entirely as crazed fans increasingly sandwich new definition for shoe particles into the catapult.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Representing climate change as a thing a hero can punch to death is a very orthodox superhero-as-supercop story. It's Snyder mirroring conventional Superman stories. Superman isn’t a cop. Superman doesn’t punch climate change. Cops don’t punch climate change. Climate change isn’t a thing that can die. What happens in the film is that Superman destroys a third-world factory generating pollution. Police typically don’t destroy factories because a key part of the job is to protect private property. It’s difficult to believe that you don’t understand what a policeman is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
Cops enforce laws, not morality. Superman does not blow up the World Engine because it’s an illegal World Engine. American police officers do not have jurisdiction over the Indian Ocean. It’s simply incorrect (and bizarre) to use the term ‘cop’ to refer to anyone with morality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
There already is a term for a person with a superhuman dedication to some sort of ethical ideal. The term is ‘superhero’. (Or, depending on context, ‘supervillain’) Cease’s criticism is literally that Superman is a superhero. (‘Supercop’ is the term for a person with superhuman dedication to law enforcement, which is a different thing entirely.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 06:06
|
|