|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 18:02:14 GMT
Why make it a Marvel vs DC thing? Because DC fans keep taking swipes at MCU movies for how they do things, while they keep going on about how "adult" and "dark" and "Mature" their movies are and how that's how you win awards. Gadot is basically skewering that whole line of thought. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 25, 2018 18:09:17 GMT
Why make it a Marvel vs DC thing? Because DC fans keep taking swipes at MCU movies for how they do things, while they keep going on about how "adult" and "dark" and "Mature" their movies are and how that's how you win awards. Gadot is basically skewering that whole line of thought. Uh huh. Still, with that in mind, it's a wonder they hadn't yet. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 18:14:46 GMT
Because DC fans keep taking swipes at MCU movies for how they do things, while they keep going on about how "adult" and "dark" and "Mature" their movies are and how that's how you win awards. Gadot is basically skewering that whole line of thought. Uh huh. Still, with that in mind, it's a wonder they hadn't yet. Unashamed, un-grounded CBMs only became respectable after years of the MCU's hard work. Which explains why SS was even considered for its' make-up award. They've gotten Noms though. Plus the whole "Shared Universe" thing is still something some people have trouble getting used to, which further complicates matters for the MCU. |
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jan 25, 2018 18:26:45 GMT
wait so.... is Logan a pretentious film then?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 25, 2018 18:30:38 GMT
Unashamed, un-grounded CBMs only became respectable after years of the MCU's hard work. You do know that they were making fantastical comic-book movies which earned positive reviews before the MCU right? And some even won Oscars long beforehand like Spider-Man 2 (2004). |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 25, 2018 18:32:33 GMT
Anything thats considers itself profound and deep, when really it's not = pretentious #mcufanlogic Fixed.
And the idea that something good can't be appreciated by both children and adults is a silly notion in and of itself.
CW Lewis put it best:
"Critics who treat ‘adult’ as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
Apologies for the pedantry, but it’s C. S. Lewis—“Clive Staples.” He has long been one of my favorite writers, so I just wanted to note that. By the by, the quotation—and it’s an excellent one—is from an essay in an excellent collection called On Other Worlds, which I’ve read and re-read many times. I should also note that Lewis didn’t intend it to be exhaustive, viz., he severely objected to the bowdlerization and juvenilization of literature, with some strident words even for Disney in Surprised by Joy. He had no time for what we may call human neoteny. What he was objecting to, here, was the knee-jerk reaction of chronological snobs who condemn youthful innocence and “childishness.” Lewis is not opposed to maturity; to the contrary, obtaining respect for children is the sign of real maturity. (This is backed by my own experiences: when I’ve worked with young children and immature adults, they clamor repeatedly to be more grown-up.) He’s criticizing intellectual immaturity. Just trying to put the quotation in context. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 25, 2018 18:57:54 GMT
But none of the DC movies are pretentious or trying to be deep. You think a movie like Suicide Squad or Justice League was trying to be a deep and serious movie with a thought provoking message? They aren't as light as the Marvel movies and are in general a bit darker and more serious like with Man of Steel but they aren't pretentious because of it. I probably shouldn’t respond here because I haven’t seen Suicide Squad or Justice League, though I have now seen Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Wonder Woman (the latter two which I liked very much). Nonetheless, I would like to make a few remarks on the concept of pretension, especially as it relates to art (and artisanship) generally and film specifically. Judging whether or not a work is pretentious is, of course, an individual call. Tristan's Journal makes the point (and I think it’s a fair one) that, were a monkey to reason, it would probably consider toilet-paper pretentious. With that said, if we have to try and find some principle of objectivity in defining pretension, I think it would be fair to state that (1) it must have lofty goals, such as to describe or characterize a philosophy or (more basically) point-of-view, and (2) it must fail in those goals. I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey to be unbearably pretentious and overblown; many viewers and critics do not. Both of us agree, however, that Kubrick is trying to showcase a particular, even if opaque, point of view, a certain meaning; where we disagree is in regard to the execution of said meaning. I think it fails because of Kubrick’s talentlessness and inability to unite medium and message; others will say that Kubrick was the most talented and able cinéaste of them all. De gustibus. Either way, though, it is not loftiness or depth (the celestial or the chthonic) that characterizes pretension; it is the way in which that loftiness or depth does not unite with story. I believe that Batman v Superman, with musings on concepts of (e.g.) divinity, political polarization, Nietzsche, the breakdown of the social order, and the Apollonian vs. the Dionysian, is undeniably “trying to be deep.” The question, however, is if it unites that philosophical depth with its narrative and purpose. The majority believe that it does not. I, as one of only a handful of dissenters, believe that it does. (I think—and he can correct me if I’m wrong—that Tristan's Journal is somewhere in the middle of these two positions.) Marvel’s movies, good as some of them are, do not often attempt to achieve the sublime—and that’s a fine, and defensible, position for popcorn flicks. (I’ve defended it myself around here.) But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: Marvel is rarely pretentious because it doesn’t risk pretension, which Batman v Superman (and even Man of Steel, much as I disliked it—and, in fact, the Casablanca-inspired climax of Wonder Woman) does. Whether or not BvS is pretentious is a personal call, again, but, whether or not you think it’s ultimately in the gutter, it’s undoubtedly looking up at the stars. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 19:06:23 GMT
Fixed.
And the idea that something good can't be appreciated by both children and adults is a silly notion in and of itself.
CW Lewis put it best:
"Critics who treat ‘adult’ as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
What he was objecting to, here, was the knee-jerk reaction of chronological snobs who condemn youthful innocence and “childishness.” Lewis is not opposed to maturity; to the contrary, obtaining respect for children is the sign of real maturity. (This is backed by my own experiences: when I’ve worked with young children and immature adults, they clamor repeatedly to be more grown-up.) He’s criticizing intellectual immaturity. Just trying to put the quotation in context. Exactly, "Growing up" and being "adult" doesn't mean rejecting everything you loved as a child just because you were a child when you came to love it, growing up means learning to love those things as an adult. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 19:07:43 GMT
Unashamed, un-grounded CBMs only became respectable after years of the MCU's hard work. You do know that they were making fantastical comic-book movies which earned positive reviews before the MCU right? And some even won Oscars long beforehand like Spider-Man 2 (2004). I wouldn't call the Raimi Spidey movies too fantastical, they still went for the "Grounded" approach most of the time and when they did try to go more full-on-fantastical with Spider-Man 3 it got a less-than-stellar reception. |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 25, 2018 20:13:28 GMT
wait so.... is Logan a pretentious film then? No, not at all. If the tone fits the character, then go with it, which they did. The X-Men films generally do a good job of not taking itself too seriously when it isn't necessary. There's a good balance of dealing with serious situations and issues within the story, but at the same time, when they throw on the uniforms at the end of the films, it still recognizes that it is a superhero film, and First Class even took that further. What works with BvS actually is Batman, because he's a more dark character. But it doesn't work with Superman, and to an extent, the entire Justice League. I like the design of Aquaman and everything, but you have to admit, his design is a response to trend of being dark and edgy to avoid the goofy cartoon version we know. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 25, 2018 20:15:41 GMT
You do know that they were making fantastical comic-book movies which earned positive reviews before the MCU right? And some even won Oscars long beforehand like Spider-Man 2 (2004). I wouldn't call the Raimi Spidey movies too fantastical, they still went for the "Grounded" approach most of the time and when they did try to go more full-on-fantastical with Spider-Man 3 it got a less-than-stellar reception. Yeah, mutated spiders is just keeping it real. Also critics seemed to love the two Hellboy movies which were beyond ott. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 25, 2018 20:16:33 GMT
But none of the DC movies are pretentious or trying to be deep. You think a movie like Suicide Squad or Justice League was trying to be a deep and serious movie with a thought provoking message? They aren't as light as the Marvel movies and are in general a bit darker and more serious like with Man of Steel but they aren't pretentious because of it. I probably shouldn’t respond here because I haven’t seen Suicide Squad or Justice League, though I have now seen Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Wonder Woman (the latter two which I liked very much). Nonetheless, I would like to make a few remarks on the concept of pretension, especially as it relates to art (and artisanship) generally and film specifically. Judging whether or not a work is pretentious is, of course, an individual call. Tristan's Journal makes the point (and I think it’s a fair one) that, were a monkey to reason, it would probably consider toilet-paper pretentious. With that said, if we have to try and find some principle of objectivity in defining pretension, I think it would be fair to state that (1) it must have lofty goals, such as to describe or characterize a philosophy or (more basically) point-of-view, and (2) it must fail in those goals. I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey to be unbearably pretentious and overblown; many viewers and critics do not. Both of us agree, however, that Kubrick is trying to showcase a particular, even if opaque, point of view, a certain meaning; where we disagree is in regard to the execution of said meaning. I think it fails because of Kubrick’s talentlessness and inability to unite medium and message; others will say that Kubrick was the most talented and able cinéaste of them all. De gustibus. Either way, though, it is not loftiness or depth (the celestial or the chthonic) that characterizes pretension; it is the way in which that loftiness or depth does not unite with story. I believe that Batman v Superman, with musings on concepts of (e.g.) divinity, political polarization, Nietzsche, the breakdown of the social order, and the Apollonian vs. the Dionysian, is undeniably “trying to be deep.” The question, however, is if it unites that philosophical depth with its narrative and purpose. The majority believe that it does not. I, as one only a handful of dissenters, believe that it does. (I think—and he can correct me if I’m wrong—that Tristan's Journal is somewhere in the middle of these two positions.) Marvel’s movies, good as they, do not often attempt to achieve the sublime—and that’s a fine, and defensible, position for popcorn flicks. (I’ve defended it myself around here.) But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: Marvel is rarely pretentious because it doesn’t risk pretension, which Batman v Superman (and even Man of Steel, much as I disliked it—and, in fact, the Casablanca-inspired climax of Wonder Woman) does. Whether or not BvS is pretentious is a personal call, again, but, whether or not you think it’s ultimately in the gutter, it’s undoubtedly looking up at the stars. yes, no question, we agree on the philosophical elements (mostly Nietsche), Übermensch and God Is Dead stuff. These themes are self evident but only will be picked up by somebody who actually is interested in that stuff. An interesting film for sure if you have the mind for it. But shocker, boy oh boy, are we far apart on 2001-ASO which I deem one of the Top 10 film masterworks of all time. I could endlessly go on the meaning of each of the Monoliths, discuss the epic cut from the thrown bone to the satellite weapon underscored by R Strauss composing Nietsche (again) and then shifting to J Strauß, or the evolutionary journey from ape to the space child. Masterwork. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 20:24:21 GMT
I probably shouldn’t respond here because I haven’t seen Suicide Squad or Justice League, though I have now seen Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Wonder Woman (the latter two which I liked very much). Nonetheless, I would like to make a few remarks on the concept of pretension, especially as it relates to art (and artisanship) generally and film specifically. Judging whether or not a work is pretentious is, of course, an individual call. Tristan's Journal makes the point (and I think it’s a fair one) that, were a monkey to reason, it would probably consider toilet-paper pretentious. With that said, if we have to try and find some principle of objectivity in defining pretension, I think it would be fair to state that (1) it must have lofty goals, such as to describe or characterize a philosophy or (more basically) point-of-view, and (2) it must fail in those goals. I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey to be unbearably pretentious and overblown; many viewers and critics do not. Both of us agree, however, that Kubrick is trying to showcase a particular, even if opaque, point of view, a certain meaning; where we disagree is in regard to the execution of said meaning. I think it fails because of Kubrick’s talentlessness and inability to unite medium and message; others will say that Kubrick was the most talented and able cinéaste of them all. De gustibus. Either way, though, it is not loftiness or depth (the celestial or the chthonic) that characterizes pretension; it is the way in which that loftiness or depth does not unite with story. I believe that Batman v Superman, with musings on concepts of (e.g.) divinity, political polarization, Nietzsche, the breakdown of the social order, and the Apollonian vs. the Dionysian, is undeniably “trying to be deep.” The question, however, is if it unites that philosophical depth with its narrative and purpose. The majority believe that it does not. I, as one only a handful of dissenters, believe that it does. (I think—and he can correct me if I’m wrong—that Tristan's Journal is somewhere in the middle of these two positions.) Marvel’s movies, good as they, do not often attempt to achieve the sublime—and that’s a fine, and defensible, position for popcorn flicks. (I’ve defended it myself around here.) But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: Marvel is rarely pretentious because it doesn’t risk pretension, which Batman v Superman (and even Man of Steel, much as I disliked it—and, in fact, the Casablanca-inspired climax of Wonder Woman) does. Whether or not BvS is pretentious is a personal call, again, but, whether or not you think it’s ultimately in the gutter, it’s undoubtedly looking up at the stars. An interesting film for sure if you have the mind for it. And a writer and director capable of executing the story right. Which didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 20:25:22 GMT
I wouldn't call the Raimi Spidey movies too fantastical, they still went for the "Grounded" approach most of the time and when they did try to go more full-on-fantastical with Spider-Man 3 it got a less-than-stellar reception. Yeah, mutated spiders is just keeping it real. Also critics seemed to love the two Hellboy movies which were beyond ott. Apparently they draw the line at space parasites and men made of Sand, given how SM3 went. The Mutant Spider stuff must've been them thinking "Eh, I can ignore that". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 20:36:45 GMT
I hate the word “pretentious”. Films like ‘Eraserhead’ are pretentious; MoS and BVS are not. Just because they have complex themes doesn’t make them “pretentious”.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Jan 25, 2018 22:37:10 GMT
Anything thats considers itself profound and deep, when really it's not = pretentious #mcufanlogic Fixed.
And the idea that something good can't be appreciated by both children and adults is a silly notion in and of itself.
CW Lewis put it best:
"Critics who treat ‘adult’ as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
One of the best quotes ever. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Jan 25, 2018 22:39:20 GMT
Those were the early versions of the character, just like every comic book character has. But we're talking mainstream Superman that everyone knows the guy claimed that SM was created for 8-10 year old children, my respons was to that. In fact the character was a symbol of optimism and national strength to uplift morale in depression & war times.
And this Wiki article shows that Superman always had an dark side, the current arc-version is closer to the original Superman than anything. Like with Batman there are many versions, from Lego Supes to the Man of Steel.
So that makes at least 2 attempts to make Superman "dark" and twice they had to change it because it didn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 23:14:05 GMT
the guy claimed that SM was created for 8-10 year old children, my respons was to that. In fact the character was a symbol of optimism and national strength to uplift morale in depression & war times.
And this Wiki article shows that Superman always had an dark side, the current arc-version is closer to the original Superman than anything. Like with Batman there are many versions, from Lego Supes to the Man of Steel.
So that makes at least 2 attempts to make Superman "dark" and twice they had to change it because it didn't work. Really, when taken as a whole...Superman has only ever had ONE good movie. The original Donner film. Superman II may be seen as good but it has way too many characterization issues from the main character. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Jan 25, 2018 23:53:33 GMT
So that makes at least 2 attempts to make Superman "dark" and twice they had to change it because it didn't work. Really, when taken as a whole...Superman has only ever had ONE good movie. The original Donner film. Superman II may be seen as good but it has way too many characterization issues from the main character. Supes II is my favorite. Still like Supes 1 a lot though. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 25, 2018 23:55:13 GMT
… But shocker, boy oh boy, are we far apart on 2001-ASO which I deem one of the Top 10 film masterworks of all time. I could endlessly go on the meaning of each of the Monoliths, discuss the epic cut from the thrown bone to the satellite weapon underscored by R Strauss composing Nietsche (again) and then shifting to J Strauß, or the evolutionary journey from ape to the space child. Masterwork. And, indeed, that’s the whole point of what I was trying to explain before: it is not the what, ultimately, in film; it is the how. We see the same thing but interpret it differently. We don’t disagree about the marriage of medium and message (I think); but, rather, we disagree about whether that marriage is present in a particular work. (On the whole, I’m just cold to everything Kubrick did in general.) When that marriage is not present, we deem it “pretentious”—which, I submit, is a fair judgment in such a case. People just disagree about what cases count for that judgment. My beliefs here undergird one of the reasons I strongly dislike (and dislike more and more every day) the concept of the shared cinematic universe: it replaces critical evaluation of a singular work with critical evaluation of a series of works, to the detriment of each individual piece. Art is made by the individual and not by the committee: thus we may truly call Batman v Superman “Snyder’s” and 2001 “Kubrick’s.” If a part of a cinematic universe in which the whole matters more than the parts, then we can’t disagree, and we can’t determine an ultimate critical judgment, because we’re not doing it case-by-case, we have to look at art-by-committee—which, again, is ultimately no art at all. (Somewhat circular reasoning there, for which I apologize; I’m not writing a full logical argument, simply trying to get some thoughts down.) But, to paraphrase Prufrock, “How I digress!”  |
|
