EPTOn July 19 2011 07:22 zoLo wrote:
I dunno, I think it might be a close race between The Avengers.
I dunno, I think it might be a close race between The Avengers.
Marvel vs DC.
Warning Spoilers!
+ Show Spoiler +
DC wins!!!
[M] The Dark Knight Rises (SPOILERS) - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
Marvel vs DC. Warning Spoilers! + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
On July 19 2011 08:25 Ganfei2 wrote: What the fuck is a shallow philosophy? One that doesn't address every aspect of every thing inside whatever boundaries you've assigned? What the fuck are you even talking about? What's deep to you? Emotionally touching? Addressing a human concern? Confronting a real-life problem? The fact that you're angry that I called TDK "shallow, but as good as deeper movies" shows that you don't really understand it. By shallow philosophy I mean pop philosophy like utilitarian dilemmas (TDK, Spiderman 1 and 2), anti-corporatism/anarchism (Fight Club) or Plato's allegory of the cave (The Matrix). The use of philosophy that's familiar to an audience helps a movie sell compared to use of deeper themes and doesn't necessarily make it less good, although it will be less likely to win an Oscar. | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I'm not sure what "pop philosophy" means, but I think that basic philosophy is not pop philosophy, it is basic. Fundamental. Perhaps not enough heavy lifting for mental giants like Cassel, but the point of TDK was not that the story evolved into a utilitarian dilemma, it was the tension of all the players and their plans crashing into each other. Just because the characters have philosophies doesn't mean that the movie is being pseudo-intellectual. My God, characters that are motivated by more than sex/money/family/country/saving the world! And a guy is wearing a mask? It must be pseudo-intellectual pop philosophy. And shallow, did I mention that. You could feel Batman and the mob and the city losing control to the Joker as he outmaneuvered everyone again and again. This was a serious film that took its characters seriously. It was about as serious as a "superhero movie" can get. TDK had what Watchmen unfortunately lacked: the ability to get the audience to feel the undertone of events. I couldn't have cared one bit whether or not the USA and Russia were going to nuke the world 3/4 of the way through Watchmen (even though I already knew what was going to happen, still the movie's job is to make you give a damn), I cared about what the Joker was going to do next when he hacks the TV feeds in the city and tells everyone to GTFO. | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
On July 19 2011 09:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: story evolved into a utilitarian dilemma, it was the tension of all the players and their plans crashing into each other. And that's why it's good. Does that make it deep? No. Does it have to be deep? No. Why so angry? | ||
|
.Aar
2177 Posts
On July 19 2011 08:39 Cassel_Castle wrote: The fact that you're angry that I called TDK "shallow, but as good as deeper movies" shows that you don't really understand it. By shallow philosophy I mean pop philosophy like utilitarian dilemmas (TDK, Spiderman 1 and 2), anti-corporatism/anarchism (Fight Club) or Plato's allegory of the cave (The Matrix). The use of philosophy that's familiar to an audience helps a movie sell compared to use of deeper themes and doesn't necessarily make it less good, although it will be less likely to win an Oscar. Semantics, what's "deep." Just because they're philosophical ideas that have become mainstream doesn't mean they lack depth. It's possible that they've become mainstream because they're shallow and easy to understand, but you didn't make that claim; you merely went hipster. That is why he is mad. | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
On July 19 2011 09:58 .Aar wrote: Semantics, what's "deep." Just because they're philosophical ideas that have become mainstream doesn't mean they lack depth. It's possible that they've become mainstream because they're shallow and easy to understand, but you didn't make that claim; you merely went hipster. That is why he is mad. But in your perspective, everything's deep, because every action movie has some basic philosophical ideas. Does Voldemort saying, "There is no good or evil only power" make Harry Potter deep? Anyway, the only pseudo-intellectuals here are the ones who need to defend the "depth" of a movie to the death before they can enjoy it. On July 19 2011 10:06 DeepElemBlues wrote: Because you aren't as smart as you think you are, sitting there essentially accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having shallow taste. I like The Dark Knight, so I have shallow taste. But I'm the only one who admits it. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
And that's why it's good. Does that make it deep? No. Does it have to be deep? No. Semantics, what's "deep." I think that the tension between the characters got deep. Why so angry? Because you aren't as smart as you think you are, sitting there essentially accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having shallow taste. | ||
|
Artunit
Philippines399 Posts
| ||
|
A Wet Shamwow
United States1590 Posts
Galactus wins. | ||
|
DKo
United States187 Posts
| ||
|
Inquisitor
Canada253 Posts
Turns out the video was fake  | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On July 19 2011 12:53 Inquisitor wrote: Dont think was posted here. New trailer?? (I could be wrong, but i dont believe its fan made) If it is real.. Holy shit Batplane!! It's fake... the trailer AND the damn poster has been posted many times already. You can tell that the video is fake by the amount of thumbs down it got. | ||
|
Inquisitor
Canada253 Posts
| ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On July 19 2011 10:02 Cassel_Castle wrote: But in your perspective, everything's deep, because every action movie has some basic philosophical ideas. Does Voldemort saying, "There is no good or evil only power" make Harry Potter deep? Anyway, the only pseudo-intellectuals here are the ones who need to defend the "depth" of a movie to the death before they can enjoy it. I like The Dark Knight, so I have shallow taste. But I'm the only one who admits it. I think DeepElemBlues wins because his name actually has the word "Deep" in it. Just playin, but for real though Im not exactly sure what you would call "deep" then. Does it have to be a relatively unknown philosophical debate to be deep? You call those ideas "pop philosophy", but I dont think you do them justice by labeling everything like that. For example, you say TDK and Spiderman 1 both fall under "utilitarian dilemmas". Sure, in the most general terms. However, they approach them in very different ways. Spiderman has to face the dilemma of using his power selfishly or for the greater good. He also had to choose between his own love for MJ or a bunch of children (which he didnt have to choose between in the end). TDK, on the other hand, has the utilitarian dilemma in the form of Bruce choosing between remaining free to fight crime or to turn himself in to immediately stop the murders. He also has to choose between Rachel or Harvey. The civilians are given a choice between blowing up the convicts or respecting the value of human life regardless of criminal status. In the end, batman takes the hit to his reputation for the greater good. Basically what Im saying is, you can give a general description of anything and make it sound more shallow than it actually is. Sure, both Spiderman 1 and TDK deal with "utilitarian dilemmas", but they are so different and the specific challenges the characters face are so much (im gonna say it) deeper that it isn't right to lump them together like that. I mean, I could give a brief summary of the Matrix: A mild-mannered hacker joins forces with a band of renegades to fight the robots that are enslaving humanity. Based on that description, how is the Matrix any good at all? Because its deeper than that brief description just like TDK is deeper than the blanket term "utilitarian dilemma". And again, what would you consider "deep" then? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10716 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:22 zoLo wrote: I dunno, I think it might be a close race between The Avengers. I highly doubt that. The only other Superheroes thats are as famous as Batman (in Europe) is/are probably Superman and Spider Man AND Batman had 2 excellent prequels while The Avengers "prequels" varied between total trash (Fanta 4/Thor), "decent" (i liked the "new" Hulk) and not even revealed/not made for a eurpean/world marked in the first place (Captain America).. The Avengers? No one except "true" comic fans gives a rats ass about Hulk/Fanta 4/Thor and lolcaptainamericalol... Batman? EVERYONE knows Batman. | ||
|
Kojaimea
United Kingdom277 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
But this new batman trilogy is more like a set of film about a rich guy who decide to dress himself to fight bad guys, not a "superhero" in a different world. I think the success of Nolan's batman is not the pseudo intellectual shit that some people seems to see in the movie, but more that everything seems realist and fit with the actual vision we have of our planet : dark, more corrupted than ever, almost hopeless. | ||
|
pyro19
6575 Posts
| ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
On July 19 2011 16:04 Velr wrote: I highly doubt that. The only other Superheroes thats are as famous as Batman (in Europe) is/are probably Superman and Spider Man AND Batman had 2 excellent prequels while The Avengers "prequels" varied between total trash (Fanta 4/Thor), "decent" (i liked the "new" Hulk) and not even revealed/not made for a eurpean/world marked in the first place (Captain America).. The Avengers? No one except "true" comic fans gives a rats ass about Hulk/Fanta 4/Thor and lolcaptainamericalol... Batman? EVERYONE knows Batman. The Dark Knight would probably win on hype alone even if it managed to be worse than Batman & Robin in the end. But it might actually be closer than you think. Iron Man was very successful, Captain America has a lot of potential to be as well and don't forget that most of Whedon's fan base will watch it no matter what. | ||
| ||
