|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On April 05 2018 05:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 04:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2018 03:41 KwarK wrote:
They didn’t even bother to create an iconic Superman to tear down. You can’t have “holy shit Superman killed a guy” be a thing without either referencing existing popular understanding of the character, which they deliberately avoided doing, or establishing their Superman’s beliefs. Their Superman wasn’t dark, he was incoherent. It wasn’t clear what the hell he was meant to stand for before they started subverting our expectations. That is the worst part of the film though. That they didn’t even follow through with the promise of the trailer and the opening of that film. I would argue that the start of Man of Steel is great. Right up until he lets his father die in that dumb, dumb scene. Modern retellings of Superman use a Smallville narrative texture about a community who, completely unspoken to each other, helped raise the savior of mankind. A place where everyone knew that Clark was greater than all of mankind and were all humbled by the responsibility teaching him empathy. And Snyder throws that all out the window and just says “Let your dad die so you don’t freak out humanity, who will fear you.” nah this is all bullshit and what moviebob gets most wrong in his criticism. the smallville "how does superman be a good person" question is totally stupid. a god should act like a god. that is the question the BvS movie opens up. why is superman wasting so much time as clark kent, or getting involved in saving kittens from burning buildings when he's basically a god? why act like a humble midwesterner with small ambition, subject to ordinary human morality, and even worse, ordinary human financial constraints?
So basically you liked Batman vs Superman because it was Batman vs God?
Superman is a character, not a concept.
|
what is this character/concept distinction
|
On April 05 2018 05:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 04:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2018 03:41 KwarK wrote:
They didn’t even bother to create an iconic Superman to tear down. You can’t have “holy shit Superman killed a guy” be a thing without either referencing existing popular understanding of the character, which they deliberately avoided doing, or establishing their Superman’s beliefs. Their Superman wasn’t dark, he was incoherent. It wasn’t clear what the hell he was meant to stand for before they started subverting our expectations. That is the worst part of the film though. That they didn’t even follow through with the promise of the trailer and the opening of that film. I would argue that the start of Man of Steel is great. Right up until he lets his father die in that dumb, dumb scene. Modern retellings of Superman use a Smallville narrative texture about a community who, completely unspoken to each other, helped raise the savior of mankind. A place where everyone knew that Clark was greater than all of mankind and were all humbled by the responsibility teaching him empathy. And Snyder throws that all out the window and just says “Let your dad die so you don’t freak out humanity, who will fear you.” nah this is all bullshit and what moviebob gets most wrong in his criticism. the smallville "how does superman be a good person" question is totally stupid. a god should act like a god. that is the question the BvS movie opens up. why is superman wasting so much time as clark kent, or getting involved in saving kittens from burning buildings when he's basically a god? why act like a humble midwesterner with small ambition, subject to ordinary human morality, and even worse, ordinary human financial constraints?
I’m not talking about Movie Bob, my guy. I’m talking about Superman as depicted in All Star Superman, or Kingdom Come. Superman is not a god stand in, he is a Jesus/savior allegory, born in humble surroundings and tasked with shepherding a confused and unwilling mankind beyond the stars while outliving everyone he cares about. He is the best of humanity, not the most base. He saves kittens and people from themselves in the hopes we figure out how to be better. Superman stories center around humanity disappoint him and him giving up on them out of grief. Not childish mediation on being a god simply because he is powerful.
|
nah i don't buy it. this superman character you speak of, rescuing kittens and trying to inspire us with his midwestern values is the childish one, a god of accidental virtue, depending on what burning building he sees on the tv in the newsroom
Possessing even the tiniest bit of piety in the body, we should find a god who cures a cold at the right time or who bids us enter a coach at the very moment when a violent rainstorm begins, such an absurd god that we should have to abolish him if he existed. A god as servant, as mailman, as calendar man — at bottom, a word for the most stupid of all accidents. "Divine providence" of the kind in which approximately every third person in "educated Germany" still believes would be an objection to God so strong that one simply could not imagine a stronger one. And in any case, it is an objection to the Germans!
|
But the point is that hes not suppose to be Jesus to related to any real god in anyway. Superman fights the gods above while Jesus fights the money lenders and feeds the hungry. Green arrow is closer to a comparison to jesus then Superman. Thats whats so powerful about the scene where he confronts the girl whos about to jump off the building. She is insignificant compared to the gods that he fights to keep humanity safe but is wholly paramount to the symbol of hope he tries to bring to the people. In the movies he is portrayed as Jesus come to save the Jewish people on his white horse, when jesus rode in on a donkey and Superman never killed zod. Superman is suppose to greatly enjoy being a superhero and saving people in order to spread his message of hope and midwestern values.
|
An icon need no buy in, they exist due to collective understand of what they are. Superman is a piece of mythology, not just intellectual property for DC. He, like all iconic super heroes elemental in nature. He doesn’t need to be believable, that isn’t why he exist or the purpose of the stories he tells. He is a figure of hope and greater purpose. His stories represent the childish desire to solve problems though face punching. But his purpose as a character is to inspire those around him, not self flagellation on the meaning of unlimited power and how it would be used to repress. Some Superman stories touch on the fascism that he could represent, but those only serve as a diversion and accent to his primary ethos.
All super heroes are like this. Batman represents a mythos self rescue. Of being damaged and through sheer force of will to determination, to convert that damage into something that is useful to others. Of course, the story is filled with endless wealth and the means to bring justice through face punching and cool tools. But beyond the violence and childish desires to effect change through sheer force, the core of Batman is about someone devoted himself to endlessly fighting for justice. Not fighting crime, but for justice. A core that is as ridiculous as it is provocative.
The nihilism of Nietzsche is anathema to everything comic book super heroes bring to people. They are of no use to someone who thinks god is dead. And their mythological nature cannot be dragged down to base concerns of the nihilist, who is perplex and scorns people seek out hopeful figures to inspire them.
What I am saying is that Nietzsche would think Spawn was a cool super hero.
|
United States15275 Posts
Oh god, misinformed Niezsche discussion on top of questionable movie discussion? I foresee some spite bans in the near-future. 
On April 05 2018 07:09 Plansix wrote:
What I am saying is that Nietzsche would think Spawn was a cool super hero.
He'd dismiss Spawn as populist nonsense but love Lucifer Morningstar. He'd probably have a soft spot for Doctor Doom and Orion too, for different reasons of course.
On April 05 2018 07:06 Sermokala wrote:
But the point is that hes not suppose to be Jesus to related to any real god in anyway. Superman fights the gods above while Jesus fights the money lenders and feeds the hungry. Green arrow is closer to a comparison to jesus then Superman. Thats whats so powerful about the scene where he confronts the girl whos about to jump off the building. She is insignificant compared to the gods that he fights to keep humanity safe but is wholly paramount to the symbol of hope he tries to bring to the people. In the movies he is portrayed as Jesus come to save the Jewish people on his white horse, when jesus rode in on a donkey and Superman never killed zod. Superman is suppose to greatly enjoy being a superhero and saving people in order to spread his message of hope and midwestern values.
Originally Superman was overturning tables in the temple except his targets were common mobsters and greedy industrialists. His gradual ascension to uber-superhero status was the results of power creep and the loony antics of his 60's incarnation. The notion that Superman is some paragon of virtue is also a recent invention in his storylines (most notably to serve as a foil to Batman in their innumerable teamups post-TDKR). He was quite a dick prior to the 80's.
|
He will never beat 1960s Batman, cross reality space cop and disco king. Seriously, pre-1980s comics are lit as fuck.
+ Show Spoiler +
Man of Steel is the movie I watch like once a year just to dream about what could have been if they let someone who didn't want to direct The Fountain head direct it. I mean, just look at that trailer. Listen to that score. Dream of the hopefully, fun movie that could have been. A story about a god who just wants to be a man.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States15275 Posts
Why would you want that Superman movie when we could get the one where he traps his fiance in an indestructible bubble and wheels her around town simply to gloat?
|
God what a dumb movie. Superman hitchhiking? Hate it.
|
On April 05 2018 14:22 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Why would you want that Superman movie when we could get the one where he traps his fiance in an indestructible bubble and wheels her around town simply to gloat?
I’m a dreamer and hoped that the Nick Cage Superman movie would become real. Only then could we surpass such greatness.
|
So, saw Pacific Rim 2. Actually liked this a lot more than the first one. Doubled down on the silly popcorn fun, with just enough seriousness to keep the plot moving and keep the setting spinning.
Lots of action movies (*cough*Transformers*cough*) have terrible pacing of scenes, either back-loading everything or just throwing everything on screen rapid fire (or both). PR2 felt like one of the few big boomey blockbusters that had its big set pieces spread out with thought, and writing to coherently tie those moments into each other (instead of being the dumb filler).
|
Just watched the trailer for A Quiet Place. Looks very intense. The last horror film I watched was It Comes at Night and It. I'm more invested in characters doing believable things when trying to survive in a horror movie and "It Comes at Night" does this way better than "It".
|
Annihilation
Some interesting visuals and a couple of cool concepts but overall the movie is just boring. It drags along with plenty of pointless scenes and dialogues and ultimately it's about nothing really. Disappointing.
4/10
Post
This movie is seriously confused about its subject. The main theme is supposed to be government lying to its citizens for over 20 years and press fighting for their freedom. Unfortunately all of those are overshadowed through the course of the movie and are made insignificant in comparison to one woman's realization that she can make her own decisions and not always do what's expected of her. I wish this empowerment/emancipation wave was over because it's getting annoying.
+ Show Spoiler [subtle it is not] +
4/10
The Titan
An interesting take on space colonization. Why don't we change our bodies instead of terraforming other planets? A nice sci-fi flick, albeit a bit slow.
7/10
|
The Old Man's War sci-fi series takes an interesting look at modifying our bodies for their environment, too.
|
Ready Player One was awesome, it actually lived up to its hype for me. I'm impressed.
Full no spoiler review here if you'd like. + Show Spoiler +
|
On April 07 2018 15:06 polgas wrote:Just watched the trailer for A Quiet Place. Looks very intense. The last horror film I watched was It Comes at Night and It. I'm more invested in characters doing believable things when trying to survive in a horror movie and "It Comes at Night" does this way better than "It".
Just watched this yesterday night. I usually shit my pants with horror movies and I sure was shitting myself in some moments of the film. Really really enjoyed the movie. But it left me with many questions like
+ Show Spoiler +I am so so surprised people didn't find a way to eliminate these "alien" things. I mean the thing is blind and just moves to sound, just build a trap, go to a high level building and make noise at the trap and voila u got urself a trapped thing, oh and if they are killable with shotguns then just blast the shit out of em.
|
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/Thirstposter.jpg/220px-Thirstposter.jpg)
Thirst
This is a Park Chan-wook movie and he once again proves that he is a master filmmaker. This movie is about the priest Sang-hyun who volunteers in an experiment to find a treatment for the "Emmanuel Virus". He gets infected and should have died but a blood transfusion saves him in the end against all odds. Through circumstances (people flock to him, expecting him to heal) he meets his old childhood friend Kang-woo and his family. He is immediately attracted to Kang-woo's wife
Tae-ju and if that wouldn't be enough he also notices that his body is tranforming.
Yes this is a vampire movie, no it's not doing that genre like twilight. Ofc the themes are similar to a lot of other stories in the same genre, lust, desire, guilt, etc, but it's done masterfully here. Especially the chemistry between the two lead actors in combination with the thematic depth makes this film very special.
It also creates this peculiar atmosphere already known through other park chan-wook movies like oldboy, the handmaiden or sympathy for mr vengeance, but just like these it doesn't shy away from giving us humoristic elements if see fit. For me it just worked wonderfully. All the technical elements are obviously on the highest level.
I can only recommend this interpretation on the vampire genre, it doesn't get much better than this.
9+/10
|
Park has been a favorite director of mine and Thirst is on par with the rest of his post JSA work. i like how he never holds your hand or over-explains what is going on in his movies (which can make watching difficult because at times his films seem like they can go off in any direction all of a sudden).
his films always sound impressively icky and Thirst was no exception. i also like how, despite all the blood and uncomfortable sound design, Park is really a big romantic softy, which can be a refreshing counter to the post-modern detachment feel you sometimes get from a Tarantino or Coen brothers film.
also,
Ok-bin Kim
Ok-bin Kim
Ok-bin Kim
we need to get her into more movies immediately!
|
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/The_Tenenbaums.jpg)
The Royal Tenenbaums
This movie is about a highly dysfunctional family. We first get to see the early years, the three children are all borderline geniuses and get pushed very hard by their mother. A lot of success, a lot of expectations.
After this introduction we skip forward many years to a time when the children are adults and their past greatness is gone. The family has broken up and the father "Royal Tenenbaum" wants them to unite again and lies about having a terminal illness to do so. Chaos ensures.
It's a Wes Anderson work and if you are familiar with it you will know that it's a very unique style. Very quirky and playful both in visual style and writing. This one also deals with themes likes love, redemption, failed expectations, etc.
It's a very well done movie, i should have loved it but for some reason i couldn't really connect to it like i did with two of his other movies (grand budapest hotel and fantastic mr fox). I cannot really explain why, but it is how it is.
Still a good movie for sure and if you want to watch a movie with a very absurd humor which still has depth to it, i would recommend it. Watch other Wes Anderson movies as well btw, he is a treasure :D
7-7.5/10
On April 11 2018 21:52 seom wrote:
Park has been a favorite director of mine and Thirst is on par with the rest of his post JSA work. i like how he never holds your hand or over-explains what is going on in his movies (which can make watching difficult because at times his films seem like they can go off in any direction all of a sudden).
his films always sound impressively icky and Thirst was no exception. i also like how, despite all the blood and uncomfortable sound design, Park is really a big romantic softy, which can be a refreshing counter to the post-modern detachment feel you sometimes get from a Tarantino or Coen brothers film.
also,
Ok-bin Kim
Ok-bin Kim
Ok-bin Kim
we need to get her into more movies immediately!
I still have to watch JSA, why do you mention this in particular? I guess it was his breakout movie?
Definitely agree though, Park is a favorite director of mine as well and i wasn't disappointed by any of his movies yet, quite the contrary really. I even liked stoker, his directign made that movie worthwhile.
Kim Ok-bin plays the lead role in "the villainess", i didn't watch that one yet but it's on my watchlist  She was great in thirst, on par with Song Kang‑ho and that's pretty impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hQW3yZC.png)
