|
Alexander Hamilton posted:I often feel isolated and alone and I'm also loving jacked so this checks out. Love to lay face up in the ocean and watch families of whales swim over me, so that part really got to me.
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Well yeah I mean who hasn't had the old "sinking into a sea of skulls" dream
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Yeah I've already planned a few big trips this year and don't have the disposable income to get out to LA on that short notice (plus I think that's the weekend we are celebrating my wife's birthday which probably wouldn't go over well haha) but that is dope as hell and the people who are going need to ask good questions; like how his Randian beliefs influenced his take on Pa Kent
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:Can I ask Snyder fans ITT how in the gently caress do you admire a man who's an unapologetic Randian Objectivist shithead? Lol you're just a joy
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:What political part of Fountainhead do you think Snyder disagrees with? Literally nobody knows or can answer this because the entirety of his statement about it is "I think it's interesting and have been working on it". We're not the ones using that single quote to retrofit his entire political belief structure to fit our opinion on him as a, let's see, "unapologetic Randian Objectivist shithead" Like, do you agree with that assessment of him as a person?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is the creative thesis Snyder found exciting. Nowhere did he use the word "exciting"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I surmised it from the fact that he's been working on it for years and brought it up unprompted while still working on it as a script. A years-long thing like that is a passion project. He finds his personal project exciting certainly. This is not finding the thesis of the work that he is adapting "exciting". And furthermore it's not proof he ascribes to that philosophy. So do you think Snyder is a Randian Objectivist shithead, and if so, to whom does he need to apologize?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:That picture illustrates how Peterson is a loving idiot, much in the same way each successive post of yours does. Each successive Ferrinus posts proves Jordan Peterson is a loving idiot? Good job Ferrinus, keep posting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Why is it that the people who claim MoS’ portrayal of Superman is ill-conceived and tainted by the personality of the director never seem to have anything to say about Superman Returns, which features a stalking deadbeat dad Superman who abandons earth for like five years, and is directed by Bryan loving Singer. Nobody cares about Returns because it's boring and that's fine because Superman is supposed to be boring and rescue cats from trees while guys like Iron Man get a cool robot suit and gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:What if I like snyder movies but also think making fountainhead is loving stupid as hell? Slutitution and the poster they're quoting just want to call people names for liking a filmmaker they don't. They don't care what your actual politics or ethics are, they're going to use the opportunity to be an antagonistic prick to you, or if they're really feeling generous, reply that you're mostly fine but Snyder and the rest of his fans are still objectivist poo poo heads Alexander Hamilton posted:Just a quick note on this: Clark is the one unloading Lois's bags when she gets out of the helicopter, I believe. Yeah and then I don't think she sees him again until he's pulling the Kryptonian patrol bot or whatever off of her IIRC
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Still weird to see otherwise smart and progressive critics try to paint the man as the Worst Person in Hollywood over superhero movies, tho. I mean, let's be fair here... it's also over really bad faith readings of Sucker Punch and 300
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
The "it's probably no coincidence that chuds like DC and hate the MCU  " take was lukewarm poo poo, but most of the other points in the thread were at the very least cognizant of personal preference. They don't seem all that riled up. Also yeah is that Snyder rant from the BvS interview? Cause it's pretty rambling hahaa
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Beating homeless people to a bloody pulp and probably giving them chronic health problems that they can't afford to have treated is very good, but don't even think about killing someone even in the most extreme cases of self defense Also it's not the comics aren't constantly pushing the question of how complicit Batman is in his enemy's crimes because he refuses to kill him, putting him in contrived scenarios so he would have to break his rule but refuses to. So it's not like it's just a fun escapist fantasy where Batman gets to cartoon punch the bad guys then go out with glamorous women, the comics are constantly dumping on Batman and making him seem miserable and a drain on every one of his friends
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
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. And what does BvS depict? A version of Batman that has watched Robin murdered and who has become paranoid and vengeful and who has probably killed offscreen before we are shown that he kills onscreen, and who explicitly tries to kill Superman in the sequel to Superman's movie. He is a super villain in BvS. Except BvS shows that he can come back. Superman's appeal to his humanity brings him back from the brink and then Superman sacrifices himself and Batman becomes a full on good guy again. Not only is the Batman in BvS not at all inconsistent with Batman's modern characterization, it is arguably more hopeful. BvS argues that even if Batman broke his no killing rule and became a villain, he could still be redeemed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Again, the issue is not that he kills, it is that he kills the innocent How is what you are saying here inconsistent with my point that -- at the point we see him kill dudes in BvS -- he already is a super villain?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Because redemption requires atonement, not simply repentance. A man who has done great evil is not redeemed by the awareness of his evil, but instead by his actions he take to atone for it. In killing the innocent, Batman takes on a moral weight of tremendous significance that is forgiven by both the narrative and viewer by the simple virtue of "realizing he was wrong". This is wholly insufficient. Batman makes no personal sacrifice to atone for what he has taken, and instead merely accepts Superman's sacrifice on his behalf. If you want to accept this as a legitimate outcome, it only centers the "Superman is Christ" narrative that many of you vocally reject. The end of the movie depicts him deciding what to do in the wake of Superman's sacrifice. He hasn't fully been redeemed but he's on the path to redemption. I also don't know what this "many of you" poo poo is. I never vocally rejected anything, and we are all posting in CD right now. You might want to try "many of us".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Isn't this basically saying Snyder is correct? I think it's missing the context that the first tweet ("it's almost like he sucks") is quoting the Snyder "wake up" article. I think he is referring to Batman, not Syder. E: beaten
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
lol and literally yesterday was reading another thread saying "I don't understand why people just can't accept that someone might not like Snyder", as if there aren't opinions like this out there blaming him for the fall of western civilization
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Oh no you've been called out. Jesus what a cowardly twerp
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I even liked Dan's YouTube about suicide squads messy editing (and other videos) even if I was more forgiving about it than others because I enjoyed the characters. So to see him come up with some real bad takes then booking it out was weird. Then acting like a survivor of the terrible CD hivemind on gossip twitter. What a champion
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I do think one can simultaneously acknowledge that a film had a unique ambition and artistic vision while also failing to succeed on other elements of film making that ultimately weaken the experience. hang on slow down screen shotting this for my sick twitter burns
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:nobody seriously thinks you're all a hivemind, otherwise they wouldn't be able to fit you all in a one-thread posting ghetto. which is what this thread is and was pointed out to much agreement and laughter. if it makes you feel better you can pretend the same dozen people itt quote-replying to you are the same as RT+likes? lol I'm not the one running to twitter to literally talk about how cineD is too mean tho? Why would I need to feel better?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:it wasn't even about cineD they're just mocking this thread. though yes CD is generally just as bad everyone else just has broader interests and shorter attention spans. you're obviously shook can I get you some chamomile? Um the chain of replies I was responding to was talking about Dan Olson, the guy who came in with some hot takes in a previous thread, and was now responding to the other guy's tweet in solidarity I guess I am pretty shook right now because I'm confused why you singled me out from the literal line of posts talking about this, got the context wrong and now are trying to hit me with "u mad" burns? What the hell?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:I swear it's not a regular gimmick I just wanted to kick a hornet's nest and Guy is like one of those that you find under the porch already abuzz I'm real pissed and poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Okay. There's a difference between "look at this specific opinion about [X]" devoid of insulting commentary on how/where they shared it and "this entire thread/forum/website is garbage, let me cherry pick a few screen grabs for my followers" cmon
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:e: Another example of Superman-the-puncher instead of Clark-the-rescuer. Large Guy wrecks a bomber, which crashes into the street with a fireball engulfing several of the buildings we just saw all the civilians run into. Superman is nowhere to be seen. But when Faora is about to attack the other bomber, Superman dives in to counterattack her, leading immediately into ruddiger's clip. Snyder again frames Superman as the hero who fights, not the hero who saves. This whole point seems to be based around the idea that Superman should have appeared exactly where he was needed at the right time, even though he was in a chaotic fight and maybe -- unfortunately -- he couldn't arrive in time to save the first group of buildings. On the flip side tho, by attacking Faora when she is about to attack the other bomber, it by inference prevents a similar tragedy, certainly? This is an argument that gets used a lot: basically that if Superman doesn't miraculously save everyone, it's a reflection of him not caring. But he obviously saves multiple people during that fight and even occasionally gets clocked for it. He's just not the omnipotent Superman who can do everything. 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. Not to pick on you twice but I'm also curious in what way cops are opposed to climate change. I both agree that climate change can potentially be personified (or rather, you can create a villain that represents the usual causes of climate change) and that superheros are also usually cops. But I'm not getting the connection between the two, seems like a mixed metaphor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Remember, I'm criticizing Snyder, not Superman. It isn't that Superman is a failure for not saving those people, but rather Snyder's conception of Superman's heroism is Superman hitting Faora really hard to end the fight instead of saving bystanders from disaster that is the fight. Snyder could have had Superman heroically diving to save those people then punched into the IHOP by Faora, for example, but instead he's heroically tackling the fascist. Ok I can see this: the argument is that Snyder could write him in the right place/right time to save people but chose for him instead to be action punch man. I still think it's consistent with the themes of the movie being that Clark can't necessarily be everything at once and that things are messier than that. Also, again he's explicitly shown saving the pilot and gets clobbered for it. Him punching Faoras stops her from throwing a bomber into a building because that's the type of poo poo these guys are doing; fighting them is saving people. quote:I think another illustrative moment is earlier, in the interrogation room. He asserts himself as Superman by using his strength to intimidate the soldiers, rather than his ability to withstand their mistreatment. He breaks his cuffs and stares down the commander to make it clear they can't control him, rather than, say, letting the sedative syringe they're preparing break on his body. Superman forces people to do the right thing or else. Now this I think is a stretch. Clark is already being super meek by letting them cuff him and lead him into the interrogation room, him ripping the cuffs is done in the most nonchalant way possible, he basically just separates his hands. I don't think it would have been any less intimidating letting a syringe break on himself than just calmly standing up and addressing the commander directly. The message was basically "I'm willing to cooperate but your methods obviously can't truly work on me (and therefor won't work on the other Kryptonians)" and I think the syringe thing would have basically the same message. quote:Someone (Fart City I think?) was talking about superheroes as the fantasy of a moral cop. Climate change or colonialism as a thing that can be punched to death is two fantasies: the fantasy that such problems can easily be solved with violence, and the fantasy that someone with the power to fix them would fix them. Ah okay I missed this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:By that logic, Batman should be cool with all the carnage that Superman caused in his fight with Zoe, since Superman’s ultimate goal was to stop Xod, thus making collateral damage along the way acceptable. Even Batman would look the other way if Superman would stop the menace of Zoe Deschanel
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Why the hell isn't "we're talking about a class struggle, you'r talking about an unrelated rear end struggle" part of the thread title yet?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Looks like it was a storyline involving a villain named The Reaper. Explanation here: https://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-batman-year-two/ This is another trend that bothers me where "the hero was fully intending to commit an atrocity" is saved by the logic that "well they technically didn't do it/were stopped at the last second". My favorite example of this is Mark Waid, who self-reportedly walked out of Man of Steel when Superman snapped Zod's neck because "Superman never kills". Of course in one of his own comics, Kingdom Come, an older Superman was about to destroy the U.N. building in order to punish world leaders for nuking a large battle between super heroes. The fact that this would not only obviously murder them but also a bunch of innocent like, interns and janitors and poo poo gets glossed over because, again, despite the fact that Superman was totally about to commit mass slaughter, someone showed up to talk him out of it. The absolute fact of Superman and Batman never killing is more important than their actual morality and reasons for not killing. By this logic, a Batman who fully intends to kill everyone he fights but is foiled by dumb luck or quick responding paramedics would still technically be acceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:You know, it's possible to not like a killing Batman from the past just as much as a killing Batman in the present. The idea seems to be then to not get like, really loving pissed at a director for having a different take on the character, and call him stupid and say that he doesn't "get" the character, etc. Especially when the version we are discussing is already a kind of "elseworlds" take on the character to begin with (an older Batman, not in the prime of his career like you'd expect). Obviously you can have your own personal opinions on things, but we are talking about the former.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Martman posted:The argument regarding Batman killing, here and in many other places, started with claims that Snyder's Batman was wrong because not killing is central to Batman's character, so Snyder "missed the point" of Batman or whatever. The point of listing all the times Batman has killed wantonly isn't to show "see? Therefore BvS Batman is good," it's "that specific criticism of this being an invalid take on Batman is completely unreasonable based on the history of the character." I think a big problem is there's this huge disconnect between actual film theory and modern criticism which tends to focus on plot based issues. Trying to articulate why you found a movie bad/disappointing can actually be a tricky prospect, and people tend to fall back on easy criticisms. Which is why you get complaints like "this character did something dumb" even if it was in character for that to happen, or the "dumb" thing was relatively innocuous part of the movie. Basebf555 posted:The more I think about and rewatch Man of Steel the more I love it so I'm a Snyder fan just for that movie alone. Absolutely. I wasn't even planning to see the movie because I wasn't that in to Superman, but it has grown on me so much. I really only like MoS and BvS, I should give his other stuff a rewatch to see if it clicks with me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Mel and Cease: is your contention that Snyder at least attempted satire and just failed horribly? Or that he actually carries fascist beliefs/is a fascist (as well as an objectivist for his desire to adapt The Fountainhead)? Cause a whole lot of people believe the latter and I am pretty sure that's where this convo started (or at least historically the satire thing has been brought up repeatedly in reference to The Fountainhead, and how he certainly doesn't want to do it as a satire because none of his movies are satirical).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:then you understand what I mean by an essential viewing I don't think you're especially going to have that problem here fwiw
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:As I saw it, it was that the film never explicitly identifies its culture as fascist until he shows up literally dressed as nazi There's very obviously mandatory military service to be considered a citizen, which I thought was an inherently fascist idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:No idea and no, respectively. C'mon, I've said that I don't think Snyder is a fascist in about every other post I've made about 300. Sorry, I didn't mean that as a "this or this" trap or whatever, I was also hoping for you to elaborate on a third opinion (which you did). And I included the second part -- despite you clarifying that earlier -- because I was also including Mel in the question and wanted to cover my bases. I just wanted to clarify because, again, a lot of people do make the argument that Snyder is a fascist/objectivist, and I think there are people arguing against the two of you who are coming in with that historical context.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:you seem to spend a lot of time critiquing definitions while providing no evidence your definition is more accurate This is so easy: Movies I like but have uncomfortable themes and imagery are satire Movies I hate are actual poop from a fascists butt
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I mean, I know SMG is kind of a chronically belligerent force but I think it would be interesting to better understand the criteria he is using for his terms. Yeah I'm just being flippant and goofing around. I disagree with a lot of your conclusions but you are thinking through them much more than the average Twitterer calling Snyder a fascist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:That sounds so dour and joyless! The veteran should have told the protagonist that war is awesome. Then made an on-point quip
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
He also goes apeshit at vendors in the Temple
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 20:07
|
|