This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Dagenspear
You're wrong again Dagen. The killing of Zod has a consequence. Have you seen a film called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice by any chance? It's the direct sequel to Man of Steel. In that film, Lex Luthor takes General Zod's body into his possession and creates Doomsday. The action of killing Zod doesn't have any consequence in Superman III. It's flat out ignored as they move onto a brand new story. Have a very great day!
That's not an actual consequence. That's a plot device. It means nothing for Clark's character. But I was talking about MOS, not BvS. What BvS means doesn't change MOS's story or character. Just like SMIII's situation would mean nothing to SMII if it dealt with Zod's death. This isn't a TV series. It's a single film. It enhances the experience of BvS, but it doesn't change MOS's. Just like revealing SHIELD is infiltrated by HYDRA in TWS doesn't make SHIELD having HYDRA weapons in Avengers brilliant. It changes nothing about the movie. The consequences belong to MOS. I'm also talking about character based consequences, not plot consequences.
Hm. So it looks like the takeaway lesson here is that it's okay for one fictional character to kill another fictional character. The key issues are to blast the Williams Superman theme in the background and instantly forget that the character just took someone else's life. After all, actions never have consequences (anybody who says otherwise is lying or selling something, eh?) so it's best to just do whatever and forget about it as quickly as possible.
I was talking about the top statement. The music doesn't matter. The tone being consistent in it and after it do. Actions not having consequences is the exact problem with MOS. The action of killing doesn't have a consequence in SMII either. But it doesn't pretend it will. It just isn't treated hugely. MOS is inconsistent. It wants to give the illusion of consequences. But it doesn't walk the walk in this situation. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
« on: Yesterday at 21:50 »
I didn't read that wall o' text, so thanks for trimming a more manageable quote from it, colors. Killing someone is a 'non violent way' is a most curious turn of phrase. I take it the person on the receiving end of the 'non violent' method still ends up dead?
Torturing someone by crushing his hand into powder, slamming him against a wall and allowing him to plummet to a likely grisly death isn't "violent"?
I guess if you blare the Williams hero theme loud enough, it's possible to overlook anything.
Honestly, yes. Not aggressive, heavy or dark. The tone is one of action hero placement. Like Batman in BR setting a bad guy on fire with his batmobile. Superman just defeated the bad guys and that's it. The movie doesn't treat it like something hugely awful, so the audience doesn't. MOS does and then ignores it. It trains the audience to feel horrified by the moment and then betrays them for it in the next scene by having Superman be happy go lucky. It's inconsistent. We never see Zod die in SMII so the audience doesn't feel like he did. It doesn't make the audience feel it. Call it cheap, call it a cop out, it likely is, but it's consistent with itself.
« on: Yesterday at 03:29 »
One thing that Man of Steel brought out was the idea that it's okay to dislike Superman II. A lot of Donnerphiles resent comparing Superman killing Zod in Superman II (which is what he did) and Superman killing Zod in MOS. And their counter-argument to that is actually really persuasive and articulate. "Shut up."
That's not true. As someone who isn't a fan, I state that the difference is tone, atmosphere and storytelling/character structure. SMII kills Zod, but the movie doesn't treat it like a death, nobody freaks out or has a breakdown. The movie doesn't treat it like something awful and then ignore it. It treats like an action hero moment. Not good Superman adapting, fine, but consistent with the character and story. Same with Burton's Batman. He's a homicidal vigilante. But the movie doesn't treat it like he's this huge awful thing, until he interferes with police. They don't care about anything else he does. He messes up, by getting Jack 'killed' and the police go after him because Gordon wanted to use him against Grissom. In parallel, BvS Batman is being hunted by Superman for branding people. The movie sets a precedent for the fact that Superman takes issue with this. And the movie expects us to look at Batman with some form of disdain I guess for this action. Hence the no brand at the end. But the movie also wants us to see this as a new thing for him. But no one treats it like it is. Alfred doesn't stop Bruce and try to talk some sense into his homicidal maniac of a supposed friend. He jumps on him for Superman. But not for anything else he does that's bad. Branding criminals is mean, but it's not bad really. Batman kills people here pointlessly and in contradiction to his goal and no one says a word. It doesn't matter. But we're supposed to care that he brands. Now, let's lay the one rule out here for everyone in BB, because that's important: Batman in this does not have an aversion to killing if there's no other options in a situation to save himself and/or someone else. He continues this into TDK. In a situation where he's outnumbered he sets off an explosion that could get people killed and does get at least 1 person killed. He pushed Harvey off the side. Now, in these situations, does he intend to kill them? There's nothing to suggest that. But he states his goal in BB and it's: I will not become an executioner. His actions here aren't that. They're actions in defense of someone else and/or himself. Same with the Ra's situation, if you'd count that as in the same vein, because factually Ra's stabbed the console and messed up the train himself. And in another connection the chase scene in TDKR. These are consistent rules for the character that line up. Same with Burton and even with Donner. Batman doesn't have a break down about getting those men killed and then is cool with it in the next scene and Alfred isn't about to get onto Bruce for branding and then never say a word about killing, in B's or N's. Now, this is the direct MOS connection: In D's Superman, he kills Zod in a non violent, vague way and an issue isn't created out of it and in the next scenes it's consistent with that. In MOS, he kills Zod in a violent, overly in your face way that's meant to be uncomfortable presumably, and Superman cries out in pain and Lois cradles him as he cries and then in the next scene everything is light and Superman is cool and smug and a woman calls him hot. It's the problem with the scene before that too. Superman saves Lois and lands in the middle of the crater and is surrounded by people being crushed by rubble and people in ash and Superman and Lois makeout, then crack a joke. Then Zod shows up and they fight and Superman is devestated and broken and then he's totes cool. That's the problem. Not to mention that the reason for having it done was nonsense.
At least Superman in MOS has excuses. He was either a rookie or else he was up against an existential threat and had to take life. Those experiences shaped him. He'll do better next time.
That's a issue it: It's not a reason. It's an excuse to have this happen. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
« on: Sun, 9 Apr 2017, 20:15 »
As I said before, I didn't find TDK's Joker's mannerisms to be any better than Lex. Regardless, Lex in BvS may not typically embody the Post Crisis image of the corrupt businessman in the comics, but he was still a corrupt businessman. Who was cunning to use people's fears by using them against each other (i.e. Batman and Superman, fueling media debate between the pro-Supes and anti-Supes camps).
I thought it was realistic how Lex abused his power as a businessman by manipulating and covering up his crimes; using his criminal connections and bypassing government authority to gain access to what he wanted. And when he couldn't get what he wanted, he eliminated those getting in his way (Nairomi witness, Senator Finch), and played people's fears of Superman by tainting him with every chance he got.
Corrupt businessman doesn't make Lex Luthor, no more than crazy clown makes Joker and no more than a ten rings associated man with dragon tattoos makes a Mandarin and a canary cry and fighting skills makes a Black Canary.
If you're going to have a manipulative psychopath, it makes much more sense to have the villain already in a position of power. Otherwise, how the hell is he going to realistically gather such resources if he's an established nobody?
That's the biggest problem I have with TDK's Joker. You can tell he looks WAY deranged only by looking at his physical appearance, which makes the mob's willingness to co-operate with this low leveled crazy thug even more unrealistic. Not to mention that he gathers these henchmen, despite killing them at the same time. That alone stretches credibility when it comes to realism. Seriously, TDK's Joker's plans make even less sense when you stop and think about it.
You prove more than anything that you haven't seen TDK, because that was the whole point of the Joker, that the mob co-operates with him only because Batman makes them desperate enough to try even a psychotic clown who says he can kill Batman. Alfred says that.
BvS Lex may have had his share of contrivances, but I don't think they're anywhere near as bad as TDK Joker's. Similar to how people mistakenly believe Batman and Superman settled their differences aside because their mothers have the same name...but think that idiotic Agent of Chaos speech spurred Two-Face getting revenge at those who betrayed him. A speech told by the same man who was DIRECTLY responsible for ruining his life...and yet, Two-Face let's him go before beginning is killing spree. Yeah, that makes so much sense.
These detractors seriously need to get a grip. Fast.
Harvey doesn't let Joker go. He lets his coin decide, same with everyone else after that. Insanity doesn't make sense often. Batman and Superman didn't settle their differences at all, because they didn't have differences. They didn't fight for any real reason. That's another reason why the Martha thing is dumb. You want to ignore that it shouldn't be the way they stop fighting. But yes, they stop fighting for that reason, because their mom having the same name is the reason Bruce sees him as person and, as far as I'm concerned recognizes God's plan in life, that his parents died for a reason and that the world does make sense. It shouldn't be and Bruce shouldn't need that to do so. A Batman who would murder a for all intents and purposes innocent man in cold blood and needs their mother's to have the same names to make him realize its wrong isn't the Batman character. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
« on: Thu, 9 Mar 2017, 05:35 »
Generally speaking, there is no left or right anymore. There's simply THE CORRECT WAY OF THINKING. And I don't care if you're homeless and sleeping under a bridge, or an esteemed and long respected comic writer living in a plush penthouse. If your opinion is stupid, I'll say so. No one is off limits. Batman is not the Punisher, but lives are still lost in his crusade. BvS made it painstakingly clear that Batman's methods had changed due to his sense of apathy and lost sense of control. But the facts don't matter for the anti BvS buffoons. May they suffer the same fate as BR's strongman.
Of course he's not Punisher, seemingly. The Punisher, as far as I know, has never tried to murder a for all intents and purposes innocent man. I don't see how the "why" of him killing people with no regard and trying to murder a for all intents and purposes innocent man in cold blood should matter to them. He still did it and the movie doesn't care that he did.
« on: Thu, 9 Mar 2017, 05:31 »
What's more pitiful to me is had Zack Snyder (or anyone else for that matter) directed TDKT and then said in an interview "Batman says he has one rule, but he winds up breaking it anyway" like Jonathan Nolan did, people would've tore him apart for having no regard for storytelling. The haters would say "OMG, Hack Snyder made a mistake and didn't bother to fix it, he clearly thinks the audience are idiots!" and "What was the point if the rule didn't really matter to Batman? Why didn't he kill the Joker then? WTF is wrong with you Snyder? Why did you waste two hours saying Batman won't kill but he actually does anyway? f*** you, Hack!". And they would've been justified in doing so.
I doubt it and no they wouldn't. Because having a rule doesn't mean it won't get broken. The rule does matter. The point is that personal issue of whether he can keep to it at all times. But that doesn't negate it. The context is key to how it's broken. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
« on: Thu, 9 Mar 2017, 05:15 »
It's amazing, isn't it? I remember for a long time how people described Bale being the darkest Batman, and people described that as a positive. But then comes Affleck and "dark" suddenly became a dirty word. Hmmm.
Despite how brutal Batman was in BvS, he's a guy who learns from his mistake for becoming this cynical beast and regains some faith and compassion once again in the end. That's quite a positive and redeemable trait. When has Bale ever learned from his mistakes?
That's the straight plot of TDKR. I think you miss the difference between 2 different kinds of dark. Heath Ledger's Joker is a dark character, but he's not Ben Affleck Batman dark or Christian Bale Batman dark. He's his own character version of dark. Christian Bale's Batman is a dark character in the nature of his character conflicts. Ben Affleck's Batman is, well, he's multiple purposeful killing dark. His character conflicts are really no darker than Baleman's. Batfleck's character is a purposeful killer with no remorse. Baleman is a troubled angry man who makes mistakes, big and small. Though Batfleck learning from his mistakes means nothing, because he still did them and will never be put in the position to face real consequences personally or legally as a character. The movie had his character be that way for no reason. And his character is still that. Baleman was never innocent as a character. But he was at least a character who tried to not be that. It was apart of his conflict as a character. Batfleck had no conflict like that and then the movie decided to throw it in at the last minute. He doesn't learn anything. He's just given the lesson at the end to excuse his character. It's cheap and poorly done. The movie doesn't care and no character cares that Batman kills people. MOS did something similar. This is why Beaton is generally accepted. His character was doing what he was doing and that's that. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
« on: Thu, 9 Mar 2017, 05:12 »
As a matter of fact, you can easily interpret the movie's message as if it's saying law and order won't ever work. After all, Alfred confesses to Bruce that he never wanted him to come back to Gotham because it was a place that brought him nothing but pain and tragedy, and Bruce leaves the city in the end. This gives me the impression that Bruce realises Gotham is irredeemable, and would rather give the keys to Batcave to Blake. As if he's saying "I quit. Good luck taking care of that sh*thole, it's your problem now". And let's not forget: the reason why Blake turns to vigilantism is because he lost all faith in law enforcement.
Bruce leaves because he understands that he can't be Batman anymore, not only is it bad for him emotionally, physically and mentally, he's not capable of being it. Alfred says it himself.
Seriously, this ending is far more cynical than people care to admit. But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending. No thanks. As far as modern cinematic interpretations go, give me an ending where Batman rises above his powerlessness and blind rage with newly found gratitude, and continues to search for redemption as he forms the Justice League.
If you don't care about Bruce's character, then I don't know why you'd watch a story about him. Gotham's inability to move forward doesn't inhibit Bruce's ability, if he simply can't continue to be Batman physically. Bruce's character is the focus. His journey is what we're following, not Gotham's. More than anything, it's your interpretation that's cynical, not the ending. Moving on with your life and not destroying yourself with something you're not capable of anymore isn't cynical. What you want isn't what you've gotten. You've gotten Batman stopping being a killer, apparently, because Superman died. His actions not motivated by decency, friendship, honor or empathy. But just because.
Of course, Nolan tries to hide this lapse in logic by coming up with this "anyone can be Batman" bullcrap, but as it's discussed many times before, it doesn't make sense because inspiring copycats wasn't what Batman wanted in TDK.
Blake is someone Bruce picked, not a copycat. This ignores the fact that Bruce realized that a hero with a face isn't necessarily going to work. And that statement referred to anyone being Batman symbolically.
I'd feel strange to ask for a superhero movie to promote against vigilantism and favour law and order instead, but it was Nolan who wanted to explore this theme. Not the audience. It's Nolan's fault if his approach and exectution is a muddled mess.
You haven't said why it's a muddled mess to you, factually. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
« on: Fri, 17 Feb 2017, 23:04 »
You are aware that Lex wasn't always like that in the comics, right? He was a mad scientist for a long period of time, and the respected businessman persona didn't really come into play until the Post-Crisis era. No, you don't have to like it, but there is a precedent in the character's history.
Mad scientist Lex isn't what this movie put out really. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!