|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 1, 2023 18:40:32 GMT 1
What bugs me is that I, as a non comic book reader, am already completely lost. I have no clear view of what is what and what belongs to what. And Im actually interested in DC and their movies. Can you imagine how someone who is just a casual movie go-er will be? Gunn and Saffran failed already in my book. I can understand that. It’s pretty blurry what properties will carry over. They’re clearly not ignoring Amanda Waller and Wonder Woman…but we get a new Superman and two versions of Batman. As of this moment I’m excited about individual titles enough to not worry about the semantics but it could wind up getting very confusing very quickly. Waller sounds like a replacement for Peacemaker Season 2. It would have been easy enough to say he was making Peacemaker Season 2 in addition to Waller if that were the case. After Waller, I imagine the Peacemakerverse quietly ending. There are now two Batmen, and that is not good. Still, it could be much worse; there could be up to four Batmen (if you count Affleck and Keaton). Two Batmen means one thing to me. One is outgoing, and the other is incoming. Reeves Batman has been declared Elseworlds, and the new DCU Batman will be the in-universe caped crusader. This approach is obviously meant to pacify Reeves fans (and capture their funds at the box office). If this is as confusing as it will ever be, I'll take it.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 1, 2023 20:09:09 GMT 1
I can understand that. It’s pretty blurry what properties will carry over. They’re clearly not ignoring Amanda Waller and Wonder Woman…but we get a new Superman and two versions of Batman. As of this moment I’m excited about individual titles enough to not worry about the semantics but it could wind up getting very confusing very quickly. Waller sounds like a replacement for Peacemaker Season 2. It would have been easy enough to say he was making Peacemaker Season 2 in addition to Waller if that were the case. After Waller, I imagine the Peacemakerverse quietly ending. There are now two Batmen, and that is not good. Still, it could be much worse; there could be up to four Batmen (if you count Affleck and Keaton). Two Batmen means one thing to me. One is outgoing, and the other is incoming. Reeves Batman has been declared Elseworlds, and the new DCU Batman will be the in-universe caped crusader. This approach is obviously meant to pacify Reeves fans (and capture their funds at the box office). If this is as confusing as it will ever be, I'll take it. And if it works out, maybe that'll finally show Marvel and DC that they can have more than one version of a character existing at a time and characters won't be removed from other continuities just because they have a movie coming anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 1, 2023 20:53:26 GMT 1
We're off to the races. James Mangold in Talks to Tackle ‘Swamp Thing’ Movie for James Gunn, Peter Safran’s DC Studios The movie is a key part of Gunn and Safran's first chapter of DC movies and TV shows. www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/swamp-thing-james-mangold-in-talks-dc-movie-1235315500/Honestly, this should be Black Orchid. They've tried Swamp Thing several times, and each attempt has only met with limited success. Black Orchid could be a more straightforward retelling of the Swamp Thing mythos. Susan Linden is a young female superhero who goes by the alias Black Orchid. As the Orchid, Linden has nominal super strength and the ability to disguise herself as others. The Black Orchid makes a name for herself by dealing with low-level crime. She is unceremoniously and brutally killed during her inaugural mission to infiltrate the mob. Upon disposing of her corpse, the villains discover she is nothing more than a plant-based duplicate of the hero they know as the Black orchid. Through the Green, Susan Linden has gained the power of resurrection and must use it, along with other unique abilities, to solve her own murder. Gunn, call me, bro.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 2, 2023 0:15:19 GMT 1
So, does this mean that Gal Gadot is still in the role in the modern-day Wonder Woman movies? This is the most confusing of all of his announcements.
But the idea is still intriguing to me, though, and let me tell you why.
Back when they first announced a Wonder Woman movie as a part of the DCEU, many thought, myself included, that any Wonder Woman origin should incorporate "the contest." The idea of a contest between Amazonians to become the Wonder Woman dates back to the 1970s TV show (surprisingly, I couldn't find any mention of it in the comics).
Diana competed in a contest against her sisters to earn the right to be the Amazon ambassador to the world of man. She was not born a demi-goddess who got the gig just because she was a beautiful and precocious princess.
Gifts from the gods are bestowed upon the winner - a common theme in ancient Greek myths, I might add. If this show goes in that direction, that would be a fascinating "modernization" of the character. I hate that Snyder's Wonder Woman is basically handed everything due to her divine heritage and beauty.
What if several Amazons wanted the job and were willing to compete? Yes, the contest would be brutal, and it would test the resolve, and the bonds between sisters suddenly turned competitors. This transitions Wonder Woman from a person to a title. In the TV show, Diana competed in disguise to hide her identity and gain fair consideration from her mother (the competition's judge).
Go there, and we may have something interesting.
Gunn, call me, bro.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 2, 2023 3:39:30 GMT 1
Don't forget to vote. Hee hee hee...
This is the beginning of a new age…
|
|
|
Post by AQUA KEN! on Feb 2, 2023 8:25:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 2, 2023 18:55:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Feb 2, 2023 19:27:29 GMT 1
Don't forget to vote. Hee hee hee... This is the beginning of a new age… Trunks or GTFO
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Feb 2, 2023 19:29:31 GMT 1
and, yes, i did vote on tweeter
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 2, 2023 20:11:05 GMT 1
Pop quiz; does Jimmy Two-Gunns know the difference between a cop and a detective? Cops patrol and detectives investigate.
I think it's better if the corps is made up of paired cops (as opposed to investigators). And his mystery should be more of a conspiracy. He's slurping down that True Detective mush when he should be sipping on a vintage Serpico wine.
Whatever this "mystery" or conspiracy is, it should reverberate throughout the halls of DC galactic power. The Guardians themselves should be implicated in the plot (ala Ganthet's Tale).
We need an IA division and corrupt patrolmen (who can eventually become Yellow Lanterns). The Guardians could make for a credible overarching gang of villains. You never see the little guy coming.
Jordan and Stewart can occupy opposite ends of the spectrum (see what I did there?). One could walk the thin Green line, loyal to the Guardians in all things, while the other plays the born conspiracy theorist.
Gunn, call me, bro.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Feb 3, 2023 4:43:55 GMT 1
No, not really. Morrison was more interested in breaking new ground with more obscure Batman adversaries. In live-action, we've seen Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Two-Face, Cat Woman, Ra's, Bane, Freeze, Ivy, and more. In some cases, more than once. Clay Face, Hugo Strange, and Killer Crock might be the only notable omissions from the classic rogues. As much as I'm sick of the caped crusader, I'm in favor of a new villain lineup, personally. I could go for some of the more obscure ones. I’d be lying though if I said I’m not hoping for better onscreen versions of Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy. I could see Gunn really doing some cool stuff with those two. And I don’t see either one working in the Reevesverse. it always surprises me when people say mr freeze wouldnt work in reeves, it could literally be a guy spraying liquid nitrogen on his victims, something both plausible and realistic, although obviously mr freeze would just be his serial killer nickname in the news media, and not his real name
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 5:16:47 GMT 1
I could go for some of the more obscure ones. I’d be lying though if I said I’m not hoping for better onscreen versions of Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy. I could see Gunn really doing some cool stuff with those two. And I don’t see either one working in the Reevesverse. it always surprises me when people say mr freeze wouldnt work in reeves, it could literally be a guy spraying liquid nitrogen on his victims, something both plausible and realistic, although obviously mr freeze would just be his serial killer nickname in the news media, and not his real name I actually love that idea! (I do need the RED GOGGLES and CRYOSUIT too though. )
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 3, 2023 6:14:33 GMT 1
She was not born a demi-goddess who got the gig just because she was a beautiful and precocious princess. ... I hate that Snyder's Wonder Woman is basically handed everything due to her divine heritage and beauty. That also encapsulates something I hated about Snyder's DCEU altogether. He was so in-love with the idea that his heroes were metaphorically Divine (in Diana's case, literally) and thus were OWED something by the cosmos via Divine right, because in his mind they're all Howard Roark or John Galt, "the elite few" who are inherently better than everyone else. His disregard for everyone who didn't fit into the Divine pantheon is evident by the way bystanders and other normal people are treated in his DC films: as nothing of note, interest, and certainly nothing worth saving. For all the lip-service we're given about Superman not being careful enough with civilians in BvS, those scared masses weren't treated sympathetically at all in the script, but as unwashed dullards who are just mean and stupid and smell bad for having ever doubted their better (Superman). And the self-chosen "defender" of those helpless masses, Batman, is a psychotic murderer who wants to brutally beat Superman to death because his sheer might made him feel small. And Diana just floats around not doing anything, and then comes out of retirement... because... for reasons, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 3, 2023 6:17:07 GMT 1
I could go for some of the more obscure ones. I’d be lying though if I said I’m not hoping for better onscreen versions of Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy. I could see Gunn really doing some cool stuff with those two. And I don’t see either one working in the Reevesverse. it always surprises me when people say mr freeze wouldnt work in reeves, it could literally be a guy spraying liquid nitrogen on his victims, something both plausible and realistic, although obviously mr freeze would just be his serial killer nickname in the news media, and not his real name You're in luck, Mr. Reeves agrees with you.Not to be negative… In my view, that all sounds incredibly boring and pedantic. It's basically a retread of Nolan. I hope Gunn doesn't go that way with his Batman. I'm holding out for a more gothic take that borders on the supernatural instead of all this rock em' sock em' "I'm vengeance" nonsense. I'd prefer freeze leave people in a freezer to die slowly rather than spraying them with nitrogen. That fits more with the grounded torture-porn aesthetic.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 3, 2023 6:38:52 GMT 1
She was not born a demi-goddess who got the gig just because she was a beautiful and precocious princess. ... I hate that Snyder's Wonder Woman is basically handed everything due to her divine heritage and beauty. That also encapsulates something I hated about Snyder's DCEU altogether. He was so in-love with the idea that his heroes were metaphorically Divine (in Diana's case, literally) and thus were OWED something by the cosmos via Divine right, because in his mind they're all Howard Roark or John Galt, "the elite few" who are inherently better than everyone else. His disregard for everyone who didn't fit into the Divine pantheon is evident by the way bystanders and other normal people are treated in his DC films: as nothing of note, interest, and certainly nothing worth saving. For all the lip-service we're given about Superman not being careful enough with civilians in BvS, those scared masses weren't treated sympathetically at all in the script, but as unwashed dullards who are just mean and stupid and smell bad for having ever doubted their better (Superman). And the self-chosen "defender" of those helpless masses, Batman, is a psychotic murderer who wants to brutally beat Superman to death because his sheer might made him feel small. And Diana just floats around not doing anything, and then comes out of retirement... because... for reasons, obviously. I agree - wholeheartedly. Not many have made the connection between Zack Snyder's DC and his objectivist philosophies. If I'm being fully transparent, I think it's that elitist interpretation of DC characters that will ultimately signal the true decline of the brand.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 3, 2023 7:31:17 GMT 1
That also encapsulates something I hated about Snyder's DCEU altogether. He was so in-love with the idea that his heroes were metaphorically Divine (in Diana's case, literally) and thus were OWED something by the cosmos via Divine right, because in his mind they're all Howard Roark or John Galt, "the elite few" who are inherently better than everyone else. His disregard for everyone who didn't fit into the Divine pantheon is evident by the way bystanders and other normal people are treated in his DC films: as nothing of note, interest, and certainly nothing worth saving. For all the lip-service we're given about Superman not being careful enough with civilians in BvS, those scared masses weren't treated sympathetically at all in the script, but as unwashed dullards who are just mean and stupid and smell bad for having ever doubted their better (Superman). And the self-chosen "defender" of those helpless masses, Batman, is a psychotic murderer who wants to brutally beat Superman to death because his sheer might made him feel small. And Diana just floats around not doing anything, and then comes out of retirement... because... for reasons, obviously. I agree - wholeheartedly. Not many have made the connection between Zack Snyder's DC and his objectivist philosophies. If I'm being fully transparent, I think it's that elitist interpretation of DC characters that will ultimately signal the true decline of the brand. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. I have the misfortunate of knowing more about Ayn Rand and her beliefs than I really want to, and I can say with full confidence that applying Randism to Superman is to fail right at the gate. The two philosophies are incompatible in every way. Superman is about the wise kind of optimism which sees the world as it is, but also sees what it can be. Superman is believing that with enough heartfelt, selfless kindness and understanding, one individual can make a difference that will genuinely change the world for better. It's about passing that kindness forward, and then expecting that person to take that kindness and understanding and pass it to the next person after them, and they do the same for the next person after them, in a chain which makes people better versions of themselves, one link at a time. Randism lands somewhere between realist and cynical ideals, but always selfish, because Rand believed in looking out for Number One, through and through, and believed everyone should just look after themselves. I'll grant Snyder that he DID have Superman trying to be a hero, but good Lord Almighty, somehow it always came off self-centered. Like, really bro, Doomsday is tearing up downtown Metropolis but Lois is the ONLY reason you're going to bother saving it, because she's "[your] world"? That's not Superman. Superman saves Metropolis because he likes people in general no matter how much they don't deserve it and hates seeing them hurt, because he's a decent guy. That's all there is to it. I find it hilarious and hilariously hypocritical that people will demonize Disney for "twisting and warping" Marvel to fit "woke" politics (not knowing that in many cases, the "soyness" came right from the source), but then in the same breath will celebrate Zack Snyder for twisting and warping DC to fit HIS politics. Sorry to pile that on you, some old frustrations came out and I ranted.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Feb 3, 2023 17:29:26 GMT 1
She was not born a demi-goddess who got the gig just because she was a beautiful and precocious princess. ... I hate that Snyder's Wonder Woman is basically handed everything due to her divine heritage and beauty. That also encapsulates something I hated about Snyder's DCEU altogether. He was so in-love with the idea that his heroes were metaphorically Divine (in Diana's case, literally) and thus were OWED something by the cosmos via Divine right, because in his mind they're all Howard Roark or John Galt, "the elite few" who are inherently better than everyone else. His disregard for everyone who didn't fit into the Divine pantheon is evident by the way bystanders and other normal people are treated in his DC films: as nothing of note, interest, and certainly nothing worth saving. For all the lip-service we're given about Superman not being careful enough with civilians in BvS, those scared masses weren't treated sympathetically at all in the script, but as unwashed dullards who are just mean and stupid and smell bad for having ever doubted their better (Superman). And the self-chosen "defender" of those helpless masses, Batman, is a psychotic murderer who wants to brutally beat Superman to death because his sheer might made him feel small. And Diana just floats around not doing anything, and then comes out of retirement... because... for reasons, obviously. It looks like Gunn will do the same thing just with more comedy.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA KEN! on Feb 3, 2023 18:26:27 GMT 1
I could go for some of the more obscure ones. I’d be lying though if I said I’m not hoping for better onscreen versions of Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy. I could see Gunn really doing some cool stuff with those two. And I don’t see either one working in the Reevesverse. it always surprises me when people say mr freeze wouldnt work in reeves, it could literally be a guy spraying liquid nitrogen on his victims, something both plausible and realistic, although obviously mr freeze would just be his serial killer nickname in the news media, and not his real name He made the name riddler work in his universe without sounding goofy. I still think that a Poston ivy reworked as an environmental terrorist using toxins from plants as a weapon would be perfect as well. The only downside is having to deal with assholes screaming about it being woke because of a social commentary or bitching about the actress not looking hot enough or whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 18:43:18 GMT 1
I agree - wholeheartedly. Not many have made the connection between Zack Snyder's DC and his objectivist philosophies. If I'm being fully transparent, I think it's that elitist interpretation of DC characters that will ultimately signal the true decline of the brand. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. I have the misfortunate of knowing more about Ayn Rand and her beliefs than I really want to, and I can say with full confidence that applying Randism to Superman is to fail right at the gate. The two philosophies are incompatible in every way. Superman is about the wise kind of optimism which sees the world as it is, but also sees what it can be. Superman is believing that with enough heartfelt, selfless kindness and understanding, one individual can make a difference that will genuinely change the world for better. It's about passing that kindness forward, and then expecting that person to take that kindness and understanding and pass it to the next person after them, and they do the same for the next person after them, in a chain which makes people better versions of themselves, one link at a time. Randism lands somewhere between realist and cynical ideals, but always selfish, because Rand believed in looking out for Number One, through and through, and believed everyone should just look after themselves. I'll grant Snyder that he DID have Superman trying to be a hero, but good Lord Almighty, somehow it always came off self-centered. Like, really bro, Doomsday is tearing up downtown Metropolis but Lois is the ONLY reason you're going to bother saving it, because she's "[your] world"? That's not Superman. Superman saves Metropolis because he likes people in general no matter how much they don't deserve it and hates seeing them hurt, because he's a decent guy. That's all there is to it. I find it hilarious and hilariously hypocritical that people will demonize Disney for "twisting and warping" Marvel to fit "woke" politics (not knowing that in many cases, the "soyness" came right from the source), but then in the same breath will celebrate Zack Snyder for twisting and warping DC to fit HIS politics. Sorry to pile that on you, some old frustrations came out and I ranted. I’m curious how you feel about The Incredibles. It’s one of my favorite Pixar movies, but I can’t deny that the obvious Randian subtext really makes me feel uncomfortable when I rewatch it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 18:45:10 GMT 1
That also encapsulates something I hated about Snyder's DCEU altogether. He was so in-love with the idea that his heroes were metaphorically Divine (in Diana's case, literally) and thus were OWED something by the cosmos via Divine right, because in his mind they're all Howard Roark or John Galt, "the elite few" who are inherently better than everyone else. His disregard for everyone who didn't fit into the Divine pantheon is evident by the way bystanders and other normal people are treated in his DC films: as nothing of note, interest, and certainly nothing worth saving. For all the lip-service we're given about Superman not being careful enough with civilians in BvS, those scared masses weren't treated sympathetically at all in the script, but as unwashed dullards who are just mean and stupid and smell bad for having ever doubted their better (Superman). And the self-chosen "defender" of those helpless masses, Batman, is a psychotic murderer who wants to brutally beat Superman to death because his sheer might made him feel small. And Diana just floats around not doing anything, and then comes out of retirement... because... for reasons, obviously. It looks like Gunn will do the same thing just with more comedy. How can you say this with such confidence based only on what we know so far?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 3, 2023 18:56:42 GMT 1
It looks like Gunn will do the same thing just with more comedy. How can you say this with such confidence based only on what we know so far? Yeah, taylorfirst1 , how can you say that?! Yer a monster! Hee hee hee... The only thing we can definitively say about Gunn's Batman is that he's skipping all the fluffy Robins to get to the cream feeling that is Damian Wayne. As much as I like Damian, I think it's a mistake to mess with the chronology and once again marginalize/fridge Dick, Carey, or Jason. That said, I'm not a huge Robin guy, so the table stakes are incredibly low for me. Damian will be the psychotic in this equation. Nothing is off the table for him - including murder. That, strangely enough, may fuel a resurgence of the Batman who is not a wanton killer and a sociopath. We may get back to a Batman who is staunchly against killing - my preferred brand, for what it's worth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 18:59:47 GMT 1
How can you say this with such confidence based only on what we know so far? Yeah, taylorfirst1 , how can you say that?! Yer a monster! Hee hee hee... The only thing we can definitively say about Gunn's Batman is that he's skipping all the fluffy Robins to get to the cream feeling that is Damian Wayne. As much as I like Damian, I think it's a mistake to mess with the chronology and once again marginalize/fridge Dick, Carey, or Jason. That said, I'm not a huge Robin guy, so the table stakes are incredibly low for me. Damian will be the psychotic in this equation. Nothing is off the table for him - including murder. That, strangely enough, may fuel a resurgence of the Batman who is not a wanton killer and a sociopath. We may get back to a Batman who is staunchly against killing - my preferred brand, for what it's worth. I did not mean it that way. I didn’t say “How can you say that?!”. I said “How can you say that so confidently based on what little we know.” A perfectly reasonable question since we know almost nothing about these projects. Certainly not enough to come to a conclusion about their philosophical subtext.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 3, 2023 19:11:44 GMT 1
Yeah, taylorfirst1 , how can you say that?! Yer a monster! Hee hee hee... The only thing we can definitively say about Gunn's Batman is that he's skipping all the fluffy Robins to get to the cream feeling that is Damian Wayne. As much as I like Damian, I think it's a mistake to mess with the chronology and once again marginalize/fridge Dick, Carey, or Jason. That said, I'm not a huge Robin guy, so the table stakes are incredibly low for me. Damian will be the psychotic in this equation. Nothing is off the table for him - including murder. That, strangely enough, may fuel a resurgence of the Batman who is not a wanton killer and a sociopath. We may get back to a Batman who is staunchly against killing - my preferred brand, for what it's worth. I did not mean it that way. I didn’t say “How can you say that?!”. I said “How can you say that so confidently based on what little we know.” A perfectly reasonable question since we know almost nothing about these projects. Certainly not enough to come to a conclusion about their philosophical subtext. I have to agree this fish man, Lord Death Man. While I will concede that LDM does have a point about starting with Damien being an indicator about tone at least for Batman, I think everyone, including Gunn, has heard the criticism loudly enough over at WB not to risk doing Man of Steel twice in a row with Superman. Besides, didn't Gunn say it was Supergirl they were going to make darker, instead?
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 3, 2023 19:12:10 GMT 1
That also encapsulates something I hated about Snyder's DCEU altogether. He was so in-love with the idea that his heroes were metaphorically Divine (in Diana's case, literally) and thus were OWED something by the cosmos via Divine right, because in his mind they're all Howard Roark or John Galt, "the elite few" who are inherently better than everyone else. His disregard for everyone who didn't fit into the Divine pantheon is evident by the way bystanders and other normal people are treated in his DC films: as nothing of note, interest, and certainly nothing worth saving. For all the lip-service we're given about Superman not being careful enough with civilians in BvS, those scared masses weren't treated sympathetically at all in the script, but as unwashed dullards who are just mean and stupid and smell bad for having ever doubted their better (Superman). And the self-chosen "defender" of those helpless masses, Batman, is a psychotic murderer who wants to brutally beat Superman to death because his sheer might made him feel small. And Diana just floats around not doing anything, and then comes out of retirement... because... for reasons, obviously. It looks like Gunn will do the same thing just with more comedy. I'm not certain where you're getting that. Could you elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 3, 2023 19:22:39 GMT 1
Yeah, taylorfirst1 , how can you say that?! Yer a monster! Hee hee hee... The only thing we can definitively say about Gunn's Batman is that he's skipping all the fluffy Robins to get to the cream feeling that is Damian Wayne. As much as I like Damian, I think it's a mistake to mess with the chronology and once again marginalize/fridge Dick, Carey, or Jason. That said, I'm not a huge Robin guy, so the table stakes are incredibly low for me. Damian will be the psychotic in this equation. Nothing is off the table for him - including murder. That, strangely enough, may fuel a resurgence of the Batman who is not a wanton killer and a sociopath. We may get back to a Batman who is staunchly against killing - my preferred brand, for what it's worth. I did not mean it that way. I didn’t say “How can you say that?!”. I said “How can you say that so confidently based on what little we know.” A perfectly reasonable question since we know almost nothing about these projects. Certainly not enough to come to a conclusion about their philosophical subtext. I know, I was soft trolling Taylor. My speculation on Gunn's approach stands, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 19:24:24 GMT 1
I did not mean it that way. I didn’t say “How can you say that?!”. I said “How can you say that so confidently based on what little we know.” A perfectly reasonable question since we know almost nothing about these projects. Certainly not enough to come to a conclusion about their philosophical subtext. I know, I was soft trolling, Taylor. My speculation on Gunn's approach stands, though. Ah okay. I misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 3, 2023 19:25:23 GMT 1
Once you see it, you can't unsee it. I have the misfortunate of knowing more about Ayn Rand and her beliefs than I really want to, and I can say with full confidence that applying Randism to Superman is to fail right at the gate. The two philosophies are incompatible in every way. Superman is about the wise kind of optimism which sees the world as it is, but also sees what it can be. Superman is believing that with enough heartfelt, selfless kindness and understanding, one individual can make a difference that will genuinely change the world for better. It's about passing that kindness forward, and then expecting that person to take that kindness and understanding and pass it to the next person after them, and they do the same for the next person after them, in a chain which makes people better versions of themselves, one link at a time. Randism lands somewhere between realist and cynical ideals, but always selfish, because Rand believed in looking out for Number One, through and through, and believed everyone should just look after themselves. I'll grant Snyder that he DID have Superman trying to be a hero, but good Lord Almighty, somehow it always came off self-centered. Like, really bro, Doomsday is tearing up downtown Metropolis but Lois is the ONLY reason you're going to bother saving it, because she's "[your] world"? That's not Superman. Superman saves Metropolis because he likes people in general no matter how much they don't deserve it and hates seeing them hurt, because he's a decent guy. That's all there is to it. I find it hilarious and hilariously hypocritical that people will demonize Disney for "twisting and warping" Marvel to fit "woke" politics (not knowing that in many cases, the "soyness" came right from the source), but then in the same breath will celebrate Zack Snyder for twisting and warping DC to fit HIS politics. Sorry to pile that on you, some old frustrations came out and I ranted. I’m curious how you feel about The Incredibles. It’s one of my favorite Pixar movies, but I can’t deny that the obvious Randian subtext really makes me feel uncomfortable when I rewatch it. Well, with The Incredibles, they're an original concept by Pixar. Their idea, their rules. If The Incredibles had actually been a Pixar adaptation of The Fantastic Four with Randian undertones, though, then yes, I'd have the same problems with it that I have with Man of Steel. While Marvel's first family might not quite be as optimistic a property as Superman, they come the second closest after Captain America within the Marvel Comics' ranks. Another thing that helps The Incredibles is that while, yes, you do have the Randian theme of the Tall Poppies being cut short as shown with Mr. Incredible and Frozone's inability to accept being forcefully retired and Dash being unhappy at having to hide his speed, there are also Altruistic themes mixed in. For one example, Mr. Incredible is treated as being in the wrong for lying to his family just to be a hero again. In fact, it is his irresponsible actions that put his whole family in danger and help Syndrome finish his masterpiece to menace innocent civilians to play at being a hero. Overall, dulling the Randisms in the film are healthy doses of the necessity ofpersonal sacrifice, responsibility, and the necessity of doing what's right. Plus, Pixar knew not to put the Incredibles on pedestals like Snyder did Superman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 19:30:37 GMT 1
I’m curious how you feel about The Incredibles. It’s one of my favorite Pixar movies, but I can’t deny that the obvious Randian subtext really makes me feel uncomfortable when I rewatch it. Well, with The Incredibles, they're an original concept by Pixar. Their idea, their rules. If The Incredibles had actually been a Pixar adaptation of The Fantastic Four with Randian undertones, though, then yes, I'd have the same problems with it that I have with Man of Steel. While Marvel's first family might not quite be as optimistic a property as Superman, they come the second closest after Captain America within the Marvel Comics' ranks. Another thing that helps The Incredibles is that while, yes, you do have the Randian theme of the Tall Poppies being cut short as shown with Mr. Incredible and Frozone's inability to accept being forcefully retired and Dash being unhappy at having to hide his speed, there are also Altruistic themes mixed in. For one example, Mr. Incredible is treated as being in the wrong for lying to his family just to be a hero again. In fact, it is his irresponsible actions that put his whole family in danger and help Syndrome finish his masterpiece to menace innocent civilians to play at being a hero. Overall, dulling the Randisms in the film are healthy doses of the necessity ofpersonal sacrifice, responsibility, and the necessity of doing what's right. Plus, Pixar knew not to put the Incredibles on pedestals like Snyder did Superman. Good points. The Randian values are not directly translated into the action or story and are indeed contradicted by the acts of altruism. It does still annoy me a bit though because it’s so clear that Bird is a Randian and is kind of using supers as a metaphor for that ideology. Like you I despise that ideology.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 3, 2023 19:54:50 GMT 1
Well, with The Incredibles, they're an original concept by Pixar. Their idea, their rules. If The Incredibles had actually been a Pixar adaptation of The Fantastic Four with Randian undertones, though, then yes, I'd have the same problems with it that I have with Man of Steel. While Marvel's first family might not quite be as optimistic a property as Superman, they come the second closest after Captain America within the Marvel Comics' ranks. Another thing that helps The Incredibles is that while, yes, you do have the Randian theme of the Tall Poppies being cut short as shown with Mr. Incredible and Frozone's inability to accept being forcefully retired and Dash being unhappy at having to hide his speed, there are also Altruistic themes mixed in. For one example, Mr. Incredible is treated as being in the wrong for lying to his family just to be a hero again. In fact, it is his irresponsible actions that put his whole family in danger and help Syndrome finish his masterpiece to menace innocent civilians to play at being a hero. Overall, dulling the Randisms in the film are healthy doses of the necessity of personal sacrifice, responsibility, and the necessity of doing what's right. Plus, Pixar knew not to put the Incredibles on pedestals like Snyder did Superman. Good points. The Randian values are not directly translated into the action or story and are indeed contradicted by the acts of altruism. It does still annoy me a bit though because it’s so clear that Bird is a Randian and is kind of using supers as a metaphor for that ideology. Like you I despise that ideology. Agreed. He's a Randist, but a smarter and more talented Randist than Snyder, who knows that the ideology won't be shared with many of his viewers, and cares enough about his career to put the necessary thought into delivering products for general audiences. Snyder on the other hand does not seem to care enough to even try and then wonders why everything he makes underperforms.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Feb 3, 2023 20:56:26 GMT 1
It looks like Gunn will do the same thing just with more comedy. How can you say this with such confidence based only on what we know so far? Decades of experience.
|
|