I'm not sure using an appeal to wealth is a useful stance to take to prove BvS is good (or at least better than people think). It's a goddamned superhero movie. It was going to make an assload of money if it had been a spiritual sequel to The Room.
Box office results aren't a good measure of quality. Not on their own, anyway.
I'm not sure using an appeal to wealth is a useful stance to take to prove BvS is good (or at least better than people think). It's a goddamned superhero movie. It was going to make an assload of money if it had been a spiritual sequel to The Room.
Box office results aren't a good measure of quality. Not on their own, anyway.
So at this point:
- Reviews aren't a good measure of quality of a movie
- Box office results aren't a good measure of quality.
- Fong hates Step Brothers and 40 Year Old Virgin
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm not sure using an appeal to wealth is a useful stance to take to prove BvS is good (or at least better than people think). It's a goddamned superhero movie. It was going to make an assload of money if it had been a spiritual sequel to The Room.
Box office results aren't a good measure of quality. Not on their own, anyway.
So at this point:
- Reviews aren't a good measure of quality of a movie
- Box office results aren't a good measure of quality.
- Fong hates Step Brothers and 40 Year Old Virgin
information needs to be look at critically, is what people are getting at.
I suppose at this point all that can be said is that if you enjoyed the movie, good for you!
there seem to be a lot of people out there that didn't though!
I'm not sure using an appeal to wealth is a useful stance to take to prove BvS is good (or at least better than people think). It's a goddamned superhero movie. It was going to make an assload of money if it had been a spiritual sequel to The Room.
Box office results aren't a good measure of quality. Not on their own, anyway.
So at this point: - Reviews aren't a good measure of quality of a movie
- Box office results aren't a good measure of quality. - Fong hates Step Brothers and 40 Year Old Virgin
I'm not sure using an appeal to wealth is a useful stance to take to prove BvS is good (or at least better than people think). It's a goddamned superhero movie. It was going to make an assload of money if it had been a spiritual sequel to The Room.
Box office results aren't a good measure of quality. Not on their own, anyway.
So at this point:
- Reviews aren't a good measure of quality of a movie
- Box office results aren't a good measure of quality.
- Fong hates Step Brothers and 40 Year Old Virgin
Varies on the reviewer, and the critical reception from the audience. But it's information, despite being subjective, that's vastly greater use than numbers at the end of a dollar sign. How much a movie made don't tell anyone shit except that people bought tickets to x movie. You can't get anything substantial about what they thought from that. Bay's Transformers made a shit load of money at the box office, are you going to say with a straight face they're high quality movies?
"Sources say" that WB needed 800 milly to make the film profitable.
The usual math is to at least break even, you take the movie's budget times two, since an equal amount is often spent on marketing and actual prints of the movie. By that rough equation the film is already fine, but not up in the top of recent blockbusters.
Which is bad news for WB execs, who want those dollars. Especially for a movie where Batman and Superman meet for the first time.
Several sources say Warner Bros. executives were convinced they had the goods with BvS and were shocked when negative reviews began pouring in. Now, with DC movies dated through 2020, the outcome has led to a flurry of rumors that the studio will make adjustments — maybe add a new producer? — rather than allow BvS director Zack Snyder to proceed with the two-part Justice League. But sources with firsthand knowledge of the situation say the studio has no such plans. One says the filmmakers naturally will evaluate what went wrong with BvS, but when it comes to Justice League, "we're not going to take a movie that's supposed to be one thing and turn it into a copycat of something else."
Sounds like the WB execs really did buy into the "DC is inherently darker than Marvel" crap.
Several sources say Warner Bros. executives were convinced they had the goods with BvS and were shocked when negative reviews began pouring in. Now, with DC movies dated through 2020, the outcome has led to a flurry of rumors that the studio will make adjustments — maybe add a new producer? — rather than allow BvS director Zack Snyder to proceed with the two-part Justice League. But sources with firsthand knowledge of the situation say the studio has no such plans. One says the filmmakers naturally will evaluate what went wrong with BvS, but when it comes to Justice League, "we're not going to take a movie that's supposed to be one thing and turn it into a copycat of something else."
Sounds like the WB execs really did buy into the "DC is inherently darker than Marvel" crap.
I wouldn't call it crap.
the film would have sucked had it gone for a happy-go-rampagey vibe as well.
I can't think of a genre where "MARTHAAAAAA!" would have been fine.
Several sources say Warner Bros. executives were convinced they had the goods with BvS and were shocked when negative reviews began pouring in. Now, with DC movies dated through 2020, the outcome has led to a flurry of rumors that the studio will make adjustments — maybe add a new producer? — rather than allow BvS director Zack Snyder to proceed with the two-part Justice League. But sources with firsthand knowledge of the situation say the studio has no such plans. One says the filmmakers naturally will evaluate what went wrong with BvS, but when it comes to Justice League, "we're not going to take a movie that's supposed to be one thing and turn it into a copycat of something else."
Sounds like the WB execs really did buy into the "DC is inherently darker than Marvel" crap.
I wouldn't call it crap.
the film would have sucked had it gone for a happy-go-rampagey vibe as well.
I can't think of a genre where "MARTHAAAAAA!" would have been fine.
The budget was 250 million? Where did folks get that 800 number from?
On movies more than $50 million, the amount of money spent on advertising tend to be at least half the production budget. So $250 million budget means at least $125 million on advertising. But rumors say that it's more like $150 million.
The movie studio does not get to keep the entire box office, it's split between the theaters and the studio. In the US, it's about 50/50. The deal is different in other countries. In China for example, the studio only gets to keep around 30% of the box office. That means for a movie to break even in the US, the box office has to be twice the production plus advertising budget. For BvS, that's at least $800 million since the production cost was $250 million and advertising was $150 million.
Deadpool had a budget of $58 million. It already broke even by the second Friday.
Avengers had a 50% drop and there was competition in the second week with Dark Shadows, a $150 million movie. BvS had no major competition in the second week.
Several sources say Warner Bros. executives were convinced they had the goods with BvS and were shocked when negative reviews began pouring in. Now, with DC movies dated through 2020, the outcome has led to a flurry of rumors that the studio will make adjustments — maybe add a new producer? — rather than allow BvS director Zack Snyder to proceed with the two-part Justice League. But sources with firsthand knowledge of the situation say the studio has no such plans. One says the filmmakers naturally will evaluate what went wrong with BvS, but when it comes to Justice League, "we're not going to take a movie that's supposed to be one thing and turn it into a copycat of something else."
Sounds like the WB execs really did buy into the "DC is inherently darker than Marvel" crap.
I wouldn't call it crap.
the film would have sucked had it gone for a happy-go-rampagey vibe as well.
I can't think of a genre where "MARTHAAAAAA!" would have been fine.
Comedy? Satire? College Humor Batman would be perfect for this.
In basketball terms, they needed a slam dunk, somehow didn't quite nail it, and now the ball has bounced off the net and they're setting up for the rebound.
I'm not sure you understand basketball enough to make this analogy
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
You know, Jai Courtney gets a lot of crap but I think he's pretty alright.
I'm not just saying that because he's hot, neither.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
edited April 2016
He makes for a great background goon or redshirt. Give him two lines, then he gets blown up? Isgud. I remember him as that one guy Tom Cruise had an awesome car chase with in Jack Reacher.
He makes for a great background goon or redshirt. Give him two lines, then he gets blown up? Isgud. I remember him as that one guy Tom Cruise had an awesome car chase with in Jack Reacher.
Making him John McClane's son was... ill advised.
The whole movie was terrible. He is a good actor, he was amazing on Spartacus. That fizzled when he moved onto movies.
0
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
He makes for a great background goon or redshirt. Give him two lines, then he gets blown up? Isgud. I remember him as that one guy Tom Cruise had an awesome car chase with in Jack Reacher.
Making him John McClane's son was... ill advised.
The problems with A Good Day to Die Hard can not be lain at the feet of Jai Courtney.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
While true, it seems like his Superman is who's getting the worse of it through implication and being a selfish asshole. Then again, he's not written to be very bright in these movies.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
Objectivists generally aren't big on self sacrifice
which is how both his and Clarks arc end.
.
Whats happening is people don't like the film, so they're looking for explanations why, and "because Zack Snyder is an objectivist" is an attractive one. But its not really supported by the films.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
Objectivists generally aren't big on self sacrifice
which is how both his and Clarks arc end.
.
Whats happening is people don't like the film, so they're looking for explanations why, and "because Zack Snyder is an objectivist" is an attractive one. But its not really supported by the films.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
And why Clark hates being a super-hero. Batman's cheerier about it, and this version is a jaded killer.
Again, using objectivism as a shorthand for "stuff I didn't like"
If Clark is unhappy in these films its generally because he's shown to be perpetually guilty and overburdened by his duties. Not really objectivist.
You must have missed the part in the first film where he suggests to his son he shouldn't save people if it means putting himself at risk. Which is very objectivist.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
Objectivists generally aren't big on self sacrifice
which is how both his and Clarks arc end.
.
Objectivists not really understanding self sacrifice is also an explanation for why it was handled so poorly in the movie. Once you think something is silly it's easy to just skip out on justifying it in the narrative.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
Objectivists generally aren't big on self sacrifice
which is how both his and Clarks arc end.
.
Whats happening is people don't like the film, so they're looking for explanations why, and "because Zack Snyder is an objectivist" is an attractive one. But its not really supported by the films.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
And why Clark hates being a super-hero. Batman's cheerier about it, and this version is a jaded killer.
Again objectivism isn't a shorthand for "stuff I didn't like".
If Clark is unhappy in these films its generally because he's shown to be perpetually guilty and overburdened by his duties. Not really objectivist.
That's what he's supposed to do, unfortunately Snyder isn't a good enough director to get it on screen. Instead he looks and acts like he hates being a hero. Both his parents both told him he owes the world nothing, and it's an option not to get involved on that level. I didn't say Superman is being an Objectivist in the DCEU, merely that Snyder's ideology (if he is one) is rubbing off on the characters negatively anyway.
I mean, the Kents clearly love their son. Objectivists can love their families and do things for them. Dying for someone you personally care about doesn't have to be altruistic in the way Objectivists reject.
Telling Clark he should maybe let a bus full of kids die because he owes them nothing is far more revealing.
I mean, the Kents clearly love their son. Objectivists can love their families and do things for them. Dying to save someone you personally care about doesn't have to be altruistic in the way Objectivists reject.
Telling Clark he should maybe let a bus full of kids die because he owes them nothing is far more revealing.
B vs S spoilers
The one time we finally see Superman being Superman by reusing people etc in that montage and he either come off as a pompous god that is being worshipped (the flood scene*) or sad/depressed about doing this shit. He doesn't even bother pretending to care about saving these people. Yet according to the movie he's an inspiring figure equally traditional Superman? Not buying it.
edit: Ok, he was great in the Doomsday fight. But before that all we got was terrible stuff on the subject.
* when he's being worshipped by that crowd in Latin America, or where ever, he looks uncomfortable by it yet he never explains to them to not do it because he's not a god or uncomfortable with the implications.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
Objectivists generally aren't big on self sacrifice
which is how both his and Clarks arc end.
.
Whats happening is people don't like the film, so they're looking for explanations why, and "because Zack Snyder is an objectivist" is an attractive one. But its not really supported by the films.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
And why Clark hates being a super-hero. Batman's cheerier about it, and this version is a jaded killer.
Again, using objectivism as a shorthand for "stuff I didn't like"
If Clark is unhappy in these films its generally because he's shown to be perpetually guilty and overburdened by his duties. Not really objectivist.
You must have missed the part in the first film where he suggests to his son he shouldn't save people if it means putting himself at risk. Which is very objectivist.
That interpretation of the line doesen't really line up. 1. It's delivered with a weary "I don't have the answers here, maybe" tone, its not some kind of Galt statement of purpose 2. If the lesson is "never help people", Clark goes on to totally ignore that 3. its not really in line with Pa Kents later actions, or his remarks when Clark is bullied. or indeed ...4 the "twist" at the end in the form of the final flashback ("...oh he knew" the one with Clark standing heroically in the cape and pa kent looking on happily) shedding more light on his motivations.
Kents afraid. His fears are partly for clark, and partly for the world as a whole once Superman (whatever that might be) is revealed. He is (presciently) aware that the moment that happens, people are going to fear him, worship him whatever. He wants him to grow up as "normal" a kid as possible until that happens. Essentially he's trying to stop Clark from turning into a Dr Manhattan.
Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
Objectivists generally aren't big on self sacrifice
which is how both his and Clarks arc end.
.
Objectivists not really understanding self sacrifice is also an explanation for why it was handled so poorly in the movie. Once you think something is silly it's easy to just skip out on justifying it in the narrative.
This explanation only makes sense if you start from the (unsupported) premise that Kent and therefore the movie is objectivist, and then work backwards to also assume that because thats not whats actually happening it must also be misunderstanding objectivism.
@Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
@Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
I mean, the Kents clearly love their son. Objectivists can love their families and do things for them. Dying to save someone you personally care about doesn't have to be altruistic in the way Objectivists reject.
Telling Clark he should maybe let a bus full of kids die because he owes them nothing is far more revealing.
B vs S spoilers
The one time we finally see Superman being Superman by reusing people etc in that montage and he either come off as a pompous god that is being worshipped (the flood scene*) or sad/depressed about doing this shit. He doesn't even bother pretending to care about saving these people. Yet according to the movie he's an inspiring figure equally traditional Superman? Not buying it.
edit: Ok, he was great in the Doomsday fight. But before that all we got was terrible stuff on the subject.
* when he's being worshipped by that crowd in Latin America, or where ever, he looks uncomfortable by it yet he never explains to them to not do it because he's not a god or uncomfortable with the implications.
That might be for the best. With all the bad decisions, I could see Snyder having Superman speak loudly at the Mexicans because he doesn't speak Spanish.
Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
Ma Kent is a different character, and objectivism typically isn't "subtle".
The infamous bridge scene comes straight after Lois confronts Clark with the prospect that if he wants to continue to stay under the radar he'd have to stop helping people "...and I get the sense that just isnt an option for him". So obviously Pa Kents objectivist brainwashing hasn't sunk in. Clark explains his dads fears that the world would reject him.
Cut to, Clark in the car with his dad. Clark argues with his dad that he just wants to be useful, Kent rebukes him that being a farmer and feeding people IS useful.
Kent's position is " be just like everyone else" which is highly un-objectivist.
Post Kent's death cut back to Clark who explicitly explains the point in case it wasn't clear, Kent was always holding him back by telling him he "wasn't ready yet".
I get that people don't like these movies but the objectivism charge requires a lot of tying in knots to work.
@Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I wonder what this movie would've looked like with Cranston as Luthor, and Eisenberg as Olsen. It's hard to imagine Walt as a manic clown* or Eisenberg getting shot in the face in the intro. Maybe Luthor's plan would have revolved entirely around a sensible setup of Batman, and then unleashing Doomsday would be an accident rather than some profoundly huge lapse of judgement.
*as I was typing this I remembered Bryan Cranston's rollerskating dance in Malcom In The Middle, so I guess he totally could have just played it the same as Jesse. :tell_me_more:
@Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
It is night and day, but I suspect we have different outlooks on those 2 characters.
Or they liked it because they're there for enjoyment rather than critical analysis of a piece of art. Which is ultimately the end goal of a movie.
Sure, but I don't take the advice of my friends like that as any indication of if it will be an enjoyable movie.
I give movie critics even less leeway than that so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you have friends who have very similar taste to you that's one thing.
But, for example, if I were to take my friends at their word I would end up seeing shitty zombie movies and terrible Judd Apatow comedies that I would most likely avoid if I had read a real review instead.
Guess I have it pretty easy most of my circle of friends are ex-blockbuster video employees. I personally have seen probably seen over 2 thousand movies of various quality and genres, we may not all like the same sort of films but we tend to be pretty spot on in regards to determining what each other may like.
Just got back from seeing this. I. How the fuck did they let it get this bad? I am absolutely convinced Snyder and Goyer don't have a fucking clue who these characters are. Like at all. Warner sure as hell doesn't know who they are and they have no interest in finding people who do. Maybe if Suicide Squad does well commercially and critically they'll recognize that there are people who can actually get shit done, but I doubt it. The train has way left the station on some of those movies.
Posts
Box office results aren't a good measure of quality. Not on their own, anyway.
So at this point:
- Reviews aren't a good measure of quality of a movie
- Box office results aren't a good measure of quality.
- Fong hates Step Brothers and 40 Year Old Virgin
information needs to be look at critically, is what people are getting at.
I suppose at this point all that can be said is that if you enjoyed the movie, good for you!
there seem to be a lot of people out there that didn't though!
The bolded is absolutely correct, yes.
Varies on the reviewer, and the critical reception from the audience. But it's information, despite being subjective, that's vastly greater use than numbers at the end of a dollar sign. How much a movie made don't tell anyone shit except that people bought tickets to x movie. You can't get anything substantial about what they thought from that. Bay's Transformers made a shit load of money at the box office, are you going to say with a straight face they're high quality movies?
Which is bad news for WB execs, who want those dollars. Especially for a movie where Batman and Superman meet for the first time.
Sounds like the WB execs really did buy into the "DC is inherently darker than Marvel" crap.
I wouldn't call it crap.
the film would have sucked had it gone for a happy-go-rampagey vibe as well.
I can't think of a genre where "MARTHAAAAAA!" would have been fine.
2:25.
On movies more than $50 million, the amount of money spent on advertising tend to be at least half the production budget. So $250 million budget means at least $125 million on advertising. But rumors say that it's more like $150 million.
The movie studio does not get to keep the entire box office, it's split between the theaters and the studio. In the US, it's about 50/50. The deal is different in other countries. In China for example, the studio only gets to keep around 30% of the box office. That means for a movie to break even in the US, the box office has to be twice the production plus advertising budget. For BvS, that's at least $800 million since the production cost was $250 million and advertising was $150 million.
Deadpool had a budget of $58 million. It already broke even by the second Friday.
Avengers had a 50% drop and there was competition in the second week with Dark Shadows, a $150 million movie. BvS had no major competition in the second week.
Comedy? Satire? College Humor Batman would be perfect for this.
I'm not sure you understand basketball enough to make this analogy
I'm not just saying that because he's hot, neither.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Making him John McClane's son was... ill advised.
The whole movie was terrible. He is a good actor, he was amazing on Spartacus. That fizzled when he moved onto movies.
The problems with A Good Day to Die Hard can not be lain at the feet of Jai Courtney.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
These movies aren't really objectivist unless you use objectivist as shorthand for "things I don't like".
While true, it seems like his Superman is who's getting the worse of it through implication and being a selfish asshole. Then again, he's not written to be very bright in these movies.
It would go a long way towards explaining why the kents keep telling clark not to give a shit about others...
And why Clark hates being a super-hero. Batman's cheerier about it, and this version is a jaded killer.
Objectivists generally aren't big on self sacrifice
Whats happening is people don't like the film, so they're looking for explanations why, and "because Zack Snyder is an objectivist" is an attractive one. But its not really supported by the films.
Again objectivism isn't a shorthand for "stuff I didn't like".
If Clark is unhappy in these films its generally because he's shown to be perpetually guilty and overburdened by his duties. Not really objectivist.
You must have missed the part in the first film where he suggests to his son he shouldn't save people if it means putting himself at risk. Which is very objectivist.
Objectivists not really understanding self sacrifice is also an explanation for why it was handled so poorly in the movie. Once you think something is silly it's easy to just skip out on justifying it in the narrative.
That's what he's supposed to do, unfortunately Snyder isn't a good enough director to get it on screen. Instead he looks and acts like he hates being a hero. Both his parents both told him he owes the world nothing, and it's an option not to get involved on that level. I didn't say Superman is being an Objectivist in the DCEU, merely that Snyder's ideology (if he is one) is rubbing off on the characters negatively anyway.
Telling Clark he should maybe let a bus full of kids die because he owes them nothing is far more revealing.
B vs S spoilers
edit: Ok, he was great in the Doomsday fight. But before that all we got was terrible stuff on the subject.
* when he's being worshipped by that crowd in Latin America, or where ever, he looks uncomfortable by it yet he never explains to them to not do it because he's not a god or uncomfortable with the implications.
That interpretation of the line doesen't really line up. 1. It's delivered with a weary "I don't have the answers here, maybe" tone, its not some kind of Galt statement of purpose 2. If the lesson is "never help people", Clark goes on to totally ignore that 3. its not really in line with Pa Kents later actions, or his remarks when Clark is bullied. or indeed ...4 the "twist" at the end in the form of the final flashback ("...oh he knew" the one with Clark standing heroically in the cape and pa kent looking on happily) shedding more light on his motivations.
Kents afraid. His fears are partly for clark, and partly for the world as a whole once Superman (whatever that might be) is revealed. He is (presciently) aware that the moment that happens, people are going to fear him, worship him whatever. He wants him to grow up as "normal" a kid as possible until that happens. Essentially he's trying to stop Clark from turning into a Dr Manhattan.
This explanation only makes sense if you start from the (unsupported) premise that Kent and therefore the movie is objectivist, and then work backwards to also assume that because thats not whats actually happening it must also be misunderstanding objectivism.
Hmm. Superman being raised by two ghosts. That'd explain a lot.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
Ghost Martha wayne divorced her husband to raise ghost chickens with a ghost farmer.
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
That might be for the best. With all the bad decisions, I could see Snyder having Superman speak loudly at the Mexicans because he doesn't speak Spanish.
Ma Kent is a different character, and objectivism typically isn't "subtle".
The infamous bridge scene comes straight after Lois confronts Clark with the prospect that if he wants to continue to stay under the radar he'd have to stop helping people "...and I get the sense that just isnt an option for him". So obviously Pa Kents objectivist brainwashing hasn't sunk in. Clark explains his dads fears that the world would reject him.
Cut to, Clark in the car with his dad. Clark argues with his dad that he just wants to be useful, Kent rebukes him that being a farmer and feeding people IS useful.
Kent's position is " be just like everyone else" which is highly un-objectivist.
Post Kent's death cut back to Clark who explicitly explains the point in case it wasn't clear, Kent was always holding him back by telling him he "wasn't ready yet".
I get that people don't like these movies but the objectivism charge requires a lot of tying in knots to work.
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
*as I was typing this I remembered Bryan Cranston's rollerskating dance in Malcom In The Middle, so I guess he totally could have just played it the same as Jesse. :tell_me_more:
It is night and day, but I suspect we have different outlooks on those 2 characters.
Guess I have it pretty easy most of my circle of friends are ex-blockbuster video employees. I personally have seen probably seen over 2 thousand movies of various quality and genres, we may not all like the same sort of films but we tend to be pretty spot on in regards to determining what each other may like.