As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[DCEU]: James Gunn saves THE SUICIDE SQUAD

1575860626366

Posts

  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Like don't get me wrong, greater diversity in film isn't a bad thing and I'd love to see characters of all ethnicities and genders up on screen, but pretending that the world was in desperate need of cyborg to be the first black superhero for the new millenium is a hell of a stretch, particularly when we've gotten other really good films After the initial release of JL in the form of Black panther and spiderverse.

    from the article
    The Justice League that Fisher had signed up for was a far cry from the film that Whedon ended up finishing. Snyder had Fisher talk at length with screenwriter Chris Terrio before there was even a script. "Zack and I always considered Cyborg's story to be the heart of the movie," Terrio tells THR. "He has the most pronounced character arc of any of the heroes," beginning from a place of despair and ending with a feeling that "he is whole and that he is loved." And Terrio says he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously," adding, "With a white writer and white director, we both thought having the perspective of an actor of color was really important. And Ray is really good with story and character, so he became a partner in creating Victor," referring to the character's given name.


    It says "he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously,"

    Like, that's it. "He took it very seriously"

    "pretending" and "desperate" is your choice of words.

    You're welcome to cite the point where I argue that it was fine that fisher got thrown under the bus.

    Why? I'm citing the point where you said he was false and hysterical.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Like don't get me wrong, greater diversity in film isn't a bad thing and I'd love to see characters of all ethnicities and genders up on screen, but pretending that the world was in desperate need of cyborg to be the first black superhero for the new millenium is a hell of a stretch, particularly when we've gotten other really good films After the initial release of JL in the form of Black panther and spiderverse.

    from the article
    The Justice League that Fisher had signed up for was a far cry from the film that Whedon ended up finishing. Snyder had Fisher talk at length with screenwriter Chris Terrio before there was even a script. "Zack and I always considered Cyborg's story to be the heart of the movie," Terrio tells THR. "He has the most pronounced character arc of any of the heroes," beginning from a place of despair and ending with a feeling that "he is whole and that he is loved." And Terrio says he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously," adding, "With a white writer and white director, we both thought having the perspective of an actor of color was really important. And Ray is really good with story and character, so he became a partner in creating Victor," referring to the character's given name.


    It says "he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously,"

    Like, that's it. "He took it very seriously"

    "pretending" and "desperate" is your choice of words.

    You're welcome to cite the point where I argue that it was fine that fisher got thrown under the bus.

    Why? I'm citing the point where you said he was false and hysterical.

    So you can't.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Like don't get me wrong, greater diversity in film isn't a bad thing and I'd love to see characters of all ethnicities and genders up on screen, but pretending that the world was in desperate need of cyborg to be the first black superhero for the new millenium is a hell of a stretch, particularly when we've gotten other really good films After the initial release of JL in the form of Black panther and spiderverse.

    from the article
    The Justice League that Fisher had signed up for was a far cry from the film that Whedon ended up finishing. Snyder had Fisher talk at length with screenwriter Chris Terrio before there was even a script. "Zack and I always considered Cyborg's story to be the heart of the movie," Terrio tells THR. "He has the most pronounced character arc of any of the heroes," beginning from a place of despair and ending with a feeling that "he is whole and that he is loved." And Terrio says he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously," adding, "With a white writer and white director, we both thought having the perspective of an actor of color was really important. And Ray is really good with story and character, so he became a partner in creating Victor," referring to the character's given name.


    It says "he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously,"

    Like, that's it. "He took it very seriously"

    "pretending" and "desperate" is your choice of words.

    You're welcome to cite the point where I argue that it was fine that fisher got thrown under the bus.

    Why? I'm citing the point where you said he was false and hysterical.

    So you can't.

    No, because that's not the assertion you made. You made a different, more subtle one.

    I'll be frank, you are doing this thing where you go "of course it's terrible all the stuff and Joss Whedon and the microaggressions and of course representation is good, of course, but...does Fisher have to be so angry about it?" and it just reads as tone policing.

    Snake GandhiLanlaorn
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Cyborgs character arc is centred around his relationship with his father and his adapting to his new post-human status. Maybe you would have liked something else but its there. (To me the interesting thing about the money scene isn't the fact that he does it, which is a no-brainer, it's the realization he can do it, a superhero whose power is manipulating the financial markets. But I digress.)

    And all those elements are explored in an extremely shallow way.

    Cyborg blames the death of his mom on the fact that his dad didn't attend his football games (?). But he's also sad when his dad dies later on. That's not a good example of depth.

    By contrast, look at last night's episode of the Flash, which also featured a black genius named Chester with an inattentive black genius father who's doomed to die. Chester spends his whole life believing his dad doesn't care for him, forcing him to be resourceful and learning to function without his help. But then he learns later on that his dad did this on purpose, pretending to be inattentive while planting clues, specifically so his Chester would believe he did everything on his own. That's an amazing level of depth, because it takes a situation that we used to interpret one way and completely flips it around.

    The "adapting to post-human status" is also incredibly shallow. Even the X-Men do a better job conveying their status as social outcasts, despite appearing as regular humans. One of the most memorable lines from the Avengers is when the Hulk says he tried to swallow a bullet and the other guy spit it out, which shows his self-hatred and self-destructive nature, and the fact that he's trapped in this form.

    Whereas Cyborg complains that his father made him a monster, and then immediately enjoys testing out his new abilities. Sure, Snyder might have intended to convey him as a character struggling with who he is, but he doesn't have the depth to really follow through.

    But thats beside the point, you're getting stuck on questions about 'depth' that are ultimately subjective. And the argument essentially sounds like, its cool that the black guys character gets cut out, because he isnt that 'deep' or 'relatable' anyway. Who defines deep and relatable? Oh you do. Ok.

    There's a crap ton of black superheroes with vastly more depth than "Cyborg" who get praised for their performances. So let's not pretend that Cyborg is only being criticized or gets cut because he's black. Could that be a part of it? Sure, Hollywood has a long history of racism. But pointing out that Hollywood can be racist doesn't fix the underlying one-dimensionality of the character.
    And also even within 'one dimensional' archetypes there is still the question of what those archetypes are. One notable disagreement was between 'frankenstein' archetype and 'quasimodo' archetype. One dimensional as these may be, they do not lack meaning.

    Snyder's version of Cyborg isn't anywhere even close to the level of Frankenstein.
    I mean for real, I'm trying not to be snide here but you're using Richard Pryors comic relief role in one of the worst Superman movies from 30 years ago as an example of black reprisentation? Really?

    Man... it's almost as if simply taking a black character and making him super good with technology doesn't automatically make the director some sort of progressive genius. Who knew?

    Fisher wants Snyder to be praised for depicting a black person as a genius. Lots of other DC movies have already done that as well. But you say those movies don't deserve praise, because those movies weren't very good. Except lots of people also think that the Snyder cut wasn't very good. So... why is this act only praiseworthy when it's Fisher doing the performance, but not when it's Richard Pryor or Shaq or Morgan Freeman?

    Schrodinger on
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Cyborgs character arc is centred around his relationship with his father and his adapting to his new post-human status. Maybe you would have liked something else but its there. (To me the interesting thing about the money scene isn't the fact that he does it, which is a no-brainer, it's the realization he can do it, a superhero whose power is manipulating the financial markets. But I digress.)

    And all those elements are explored in an extremely shallow way.

    Cyborg blames the death of his mom on the fact that his dad didn't attend his football games (?). But he's also sad when his dad dies later on. That's not a good example of depth.

    By contrast, look at last night's episode of the Flash, which also featured a black genius named Chester with an inattentive black genius father who's doomed to die. Chester spends his whole life believing his dad doesn't care for him, forcing him to be resourceful and learning to function without his help. But then he learns later on that his dad did this on purpose, pretending to be inattentive while planting clues, specifically so his Chester would believe he did everything on his own. That's an amazing level of depth, because it takes a situation that we used to interpret one way and completely flips it around.

    The "adapting to post-human status" is also incredibly shallow. Even the X-Men do a better job conveying their status as social outcasts, despite appearing as regular humans. One of the most memorable lines from the Avengers is when the Hulk says he tried to swallow a bullet and the other guy spit it out, which shows his self-hatred and self-destructive nature, and the fact that he's trapped in this form.

    Whereas Cyborg complains that his father made him a monster, and then immediately enjoys testing out his new abilities. Sure, Snyder might have intended to convey him as a character struggling with who he is, but he doesn't have the depth to really follow through.

    But thats beside the point, you're getting stuck on questions about 'depth' that are ultimately subjective. And the argument essentially sounds like, its cool that the black guys character gets cut out, because he isnt that 'deep' or 'relatable' anyway. Who defines deep and relatable? Oh you do. Ok.

    There's a crap ton of black superheroes with vastly more depth than "Cyborg" who get praised for their performances. So let's not pretend that Cyborg is only being criticized or gets cut because he's black. Could that be a part of it? Sure, Hollywood has a long history of racism. But pointing out that Hollywood can be racist doesn't fix the underlying one-dimensionality of the character.

    You keep returning to 'deep' 'shallow' and as I've said, whether or not you personally consider it deep is not the metric here.
    And also even within 'one dimensional' archetypes there is still the question of what those archetypes are. One notable disagreement was between 'frankenstein' archetype and 'quasimodo' archetype. One dimensional as these may be, they do not lack meaning.

    Snyder's version of Cyborg isn't anywhere even close to the level of Frankenstein.

    Frankenstein has a meaning as archetype separate from whether not the character is 'deep'.

    When two people are discussing 'frankenstein vs Quasimodo' in this context they are making a meaningful distinction. Yet they are not talking about like, the respective 'depth' of Mary Shelly vs Victor Hugos characters.

    I mean for real, I'm trying not to be snide here but you're using Richard Pryors comic relief role in one of the worst Superman movies from 30 years ago as an example of black reprisentation? Really?

    Man... it's almost as if simply taking a black character and making him super good with technology doesn't automatically make the director some sort of progressive genius. Who knew?

    Fisher wants Snyder to be praised for depicting a black person as a genius. Lots of other DC movies have already done that as well. But you say those movies don't deserve praise, because those movies weren't very good. Except lots of people also think that the Snyder cut wasn't very good. So... why is this act only praiseworthy when it's Fisher doing the performance, but not when it's Richard Pryor or Shaq or Morgan Freeman?

    A sidekick and a banner role are not the same thing.

    Jeedan on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Trying to keep up here but is the argument that it was fine for Whedon to cut Cyborg from JL because Cyborg was a dumb character and also we hate Zack Snyder?

    Wqdwp8l.png
    BloodySloth
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Death is an option over the violation of autonomy. I mean that's a staple in this kind of arc 'you should have let me die than end up less than human' ("I never asked for this") and so on. It doesn't need to be directly stated though.

    Again, Frankenstein is an archetype at this point, and hence "one dimensional", but being a basic archetype doesent mean devoid of meaning.

    That's... not what people mean when they say something is "one-dimensional." At all.

    When people say something is one-dimensional, what they mean is that it lacks depth (and also width, technically). it's all surface that you see it from one angle, and that's all there is. There's no underlying layers or broader meaning.

    Cyborg believes his dad should have let him die? Okay. So then what? How does he follow through on that beyond complaining? Oh, he doesn't? That's a sign of one-dimensionality.

    Harry Dresden
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Death is an option over the violation of autonomy. I mean that's a staple in this kind of arc 'you should have let me die than end up less than human' ("I never asked for this") and so on. It doesn't need to be directly stated though.

    Again, Frankenstein is an archetype at this point, and hence "one dimensional", but being a basic archetype doesent mean devoid of meaning.

    That's... not what people mean when they say something is "one-dimensional." At all.

    When people say something is one-dimensional, what they mean is that it lacks depth (and also width, technically). it's all surface that you see it from one angle, and that's all there is. There's no underlying layers or broader meaning.

    Cyborg believes his dad should have let him die? Okay. So then what? How does he follow through on that beyond complaining? Oh, he doesn't? That's a sign of one-dimensionality.

    As I've said talking about 'depth' is pointless. Depth is arbitrary. I mean I could easily say
    By contrast, look at last night's episode of the Flash, which also featured a black genius named Chester with an inattentive black genius father who's doomed to die. Chester spends his whole life believing his dad doesn't care for him, forcing him to be resourceful and learning to function without his help. But then he learns later on that his dad did this on purpose, pretending to be inattentive while planting clues, specifically so his Chester would believe he did everything on his own. That's an amazing level of depth, because it takes a situation that we used to interpret one way and completely flips it around.

    -Well thats not that deep, thats a A Boy Named Sue. Its a plot twist sure, but its not deep deep. You've literally described one aspect of the character (sad about his dad, dad loves him really, not sad about his dad)

    Or I could start looking for depth and maybe find it. Depth is in the eye of the beholder.


    Here's the thing: if you wrote a story in which a character had the line “oh my god, its like I'm some kind of Frankenstein or something” then that would be a terrible line, and would probably be made fun of.

    But just from someone saying that it's pretty clear what the themes of that story are because the Frankenstein archetype is full of meaning separate from any particular portrayal or the quality thereof. Any story with that line in it is very obviously about certain things. To pretend that meaning isn't there would be obtuse.

    I keep returning to Fisher and Johns discussion of “Frankenstein or Quasimodo?” because that question has a lot embedded in it, despite being able to be summed up in three words.

    Jeedan on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Like don't get me wrong, greater diversity in film isn't a bad thing and I'd love to see characters of all ethnicities and genders up on screen, but pretending that the world was in desperate need of cyborg to be the first black superhero for the new millenium is a hell of a stretch, particularly when we've gotten other really good films After the initial release of JL in the form of Black panther and spiderverse.

    from the article
    The Justice League that Fisher had signed up for was a far cry from the film that Whedon ended up finishing. Snyder had Fisher talk at length with screenwriter Chris Terrio before there was even a script. "Zack and I always considered Cyborg's story to be the heart of the movie," Terrio tells THR. "He has the most pronounced character arc of any of the heroes," beginning from a place of despair and ending with a feeling that "he is whole and that he is loved." And Terrio says he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously," adding, "With a white writer and white director, we both thought having the perspective of an actor of color was really important. And Ray is really good with story and character, so he became a partner in creating Victor," referring to the character's given name.


    It says "he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously,"

    Like, that's it. "He took it very seriously"

    "pretending" and "desperate" is your choice of words.

    You're welcome to cite the point where I argue that it was fine that fisher got thrown under the bus.

    Why? I'm citing the point where you said he was false and hysterical.

    So you can't.

    No, because that's not the assertion you made. You made a different, more subtle one.

    I'll be frank, you are doing this thing where you go "of course it's terrible all the stuff and Joss Whedon and the microaggressions and of course representation is good, of course, but...does Fisher have to be so angry about it?" and it just reads as tone policing.

    Please stop gaslighting.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Like don't get me wrong, greater diversity in film isn't a bad thing and I'd love to see characters of all ethnicities and genders up on screen, but pretending that the world was in desperate need of cyborg to be the first black superhero for the new millenium is a hell of a stretch, particularly when we've gotten other really good films After the initial release of JL in the form of Black panther and spiderverse.

    from the article
    The Justice League that Fisher had signed up for was a far cry from the film that Whedon ended up finishing. Snyder had Fisher talk at length with screenwriter Chris Terrio before there was even a script. "Zack and I always considered Cyborg's story to be the heart of the movie," Terrio tells THR. "He has the most pronounced character arc of any of the heroes," beginning from a place of despair and ending with a feeling that "he is whole and that he is loved." And Terrio says he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously," adding, "With a white writer and white director, we both thought having the perspective of an actor of color was really important. And Ray is really good with story and character, so he became a partner in creating Victor," referring to the character's given name.


    It says "he and Snyder took the portrayal of the first Black superhero in the DC film universe "very seriously,"

    Like, that's it. "He took it very seriously"

    "pretending" and "desperate" is your choice of words.

    You're welcome to cite the point where I argue that it was fine that fisher got thrown under the bus.

    Why? I'm citing the point where you said he was false and hysterical.

    So you can't.

    No, because that's not the assertion you made. You made a different, more subtle one.

    I'll be frank, you are doing this thing where you go "of course it's terrible all the stuff and Joss Whedon and the microaggressions and of course representation is good, of course, but...does Fisher have to be so angry about it?" and it just reads as tone policing.

    Please stop gaslighting.

    What do you believe gaslighting is?

    Lanlaorn
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    I think the quality of the film is irrelevant to the accusations being levied, which are about workplace culture and discrimination.

    That being said, I think it's very easy to conflate two allegations from Fisher: (1) Whedon fostered an abusive, toxic workplace culture, (2) the Whedon cut of the film did not properly consider issues around representations of race in the wider context of popular media. (There are even more problems around WB leadership and how they played a part in exacerbating or enabling those two issues.)

    These two things are related, in the sense that the former allowed them to more easily pursue the latter. But they aren't the same thing. This is probably where the disconnect is for some people - they think the emotional weight of the former is somehow being used to propel the argument for the latter, when they both stand well enough on their own as serious issues that need to be addressed (perhaps in the same way - by replacing the people in charge who allowed it to happen in the first place).

    Irond WillShadowen
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    Jeedan wrote: »
    You keep returning to 'deep' 'shallow' and as I've said, whether or not you personally consider it deep is not the metric here.
    A sidekick and a banner role are not the same thing.

    You're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, we shouldn't dismiss the significance of black characters in movies simply because they fail to meet someone's subjective standards. On the other hand, you doing exactly that same thing regarding Richard Pryor.

    Richard prior isn't a sidekick. He spends most of the movie with his own storyline and his own arc. He's starts off as a nobody deadbeat struggling to find a job, decides to better himself through classes, find an opportunity to cheat beat the system but is too native to stay hidden, gets blackmailed into helping the super villain in order to save his own skin, but eventually redeems himself when he decides to risk his own life by destroying his own creation when he realizes he's no longer a nobody and that his actions have consequences. He's the one who puts superman in danger, and the one who ultimately saves him.

    Not a great movie by any means. But if say it's at least better than one where Victor is simply a natural born genius who's naturally good at everything who hacks the school computer and gets caught and still doesn't suffer any consequences for his actions. It who's big character arc moment is when he decides he doesn't want to live in an imaginary burning hell scalpe.

    Sure, Victor has a lot more tragedy and raw power, but that tragedy alone doesn't make a character interesting. Tragedy is easy.
    -Well thats not that deep, thats a A Boy Named Sue. Its a plot twist sure, but its not deep deep. You've literally described one aspect of the character (sad about his dad, dad loves him really, not sad about his dad)

    The point isn't that the dad loves his son. That's not deep. The point is that he expresses his love in a way that his son never has a chance to understand until many years later. They're not simply adding additional details, they're forcing people to look at old information in a new way. It forces the son to question his previous assumptions.

    What assumptions does cyborg challenge that the audience wouldn't have already known from the trailer?

    Schrodinger on
    Harry Dresden
  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    It really scans like white people telling black people how to behave in a workplace and the entire Josstice League Defense squad is making me squirm.

    "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!
    JeedanSnake GandhiSatanIsMyMotorGnizmoShadowenLocal H JayOneAngryPossum
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    Jeedan wrote: »
    You keep returning to 'deep' 'shallow' and as I've said, whether or not you personally consider it deep is not the metric here.
    A sidekick and a banner role are not the same thing.

    You're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, we shouldn't dismiss the significance of black characters in movies simply because they fail to meet someone's subjective standards. On the other hand, you doing exactly that same thing regarding Richard Pryor.

    Richard prior isn't a sidekick. He spends most of the movie with his own storyline and his own arc. He's starts off as a nobody deadbeat struggling to find a job, decides to better himself through classes, find an opportunity to cheat beat the system but is too native to stay hidden, gets blackmailed into helping the super villain in order to save his own skin, but eventually redeems himself when he decides to risk his own life by destroying his own creation when he realizes he's no longer a nobody and that his actions have consequences. He's the one who puts superman in danger, and the one who ultimately saves him.

    Pictured, the poster for Superman 3. Pryors character standing proud alongside superman, a respected peer: https://i.imgur.com/Yb9WBVi.jpg

    Not a great movie by any means. But if say it's at least better than one where Victor is simply a natural born genius who's naturally good at everything who hacks the school computer and gets caught and still doesn't suffer any consequences for his actions. It who's big character arc moment is when he decides he doesn't want to live in an imaginary burning hell scalpe.

    Sure, Victor has a lot more tragedy and raw power, but that tragedy alone doesn't make a character interesting. Tragedy is easy.
    -Well thats not that deep, thats a A Boy Named Sue. Its a plot twist sure, but its not deep deep. You've literally described one aspect of the character (sad about his dad, dad loves him really, not sad about his dad)

    The point isn't that the dad loves his son. That's not deep. The point is that he expresses his love in a way that his son never has a chance to understand until many years later. They're not simply adding additional details, they're forcing people to look at old information in a new way. It forces the son to question his previous assumptions.

    Yeah... that's a Boy Named Sue. (You could make the case that A Boy Named Sue has an extra layer to it than that story, since it ends with the narrator saying that the story you just heard was kind of a dick move prank and he would never do it to his son.)
    What assumptions does cyborg challenge that the audience wouldn't have already known from the trailer?

    I dont know how many ways to say this. I'm not talking about "deep" vs "shallow" or "challenging assumptions" or similar.

    In Fisher and Johns Frankenstein and Quasimodo debate they are outlining two different approaches to the character. Both Frankenstein and Quasimodo are archetypes embodying social and physical abjection, however, they represent different approaches to that abjection, rage vs servile acceptance. Fisher is making a point in the racial implications of either approach. There is a point there regardless of whether you personally think its a story painted in crayon or oilpaint.


    Jeedan on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    It really scans like white people telling black people how to behave in a workplace and the entire Josstice League Defense squad is making me squirm.

    If a fry cook at McDonald's has some ideas on how to make the burgers better, he's going to get shut down, regardless of race. Because that's how corporations work. Even if we all agree that that their hamburgers are garbage, they're still going to shut you down. If you want to make better hamburgers, you're going to have to go somewhere else.

    That doesn't mean that racism didn't occur. DC has a history of being a toxic company. They printed an election special where pretty much all the heroes lean republican, including Lois Lane.

    Joss Whedon is a toxic director who apparently prides himself for shutting down actors -- the majority of whom are white. If you want to say his decision to work with mostly white actors is racist, that's probably true, just look at the lack of Asian people on Firefly. Ray happened to be the least experienced actor with the most complaints. Charisma Carpenter had more experience than he did before she played a recurring role on a network that ranked dead last in terms of ratings. It's not like there were equally experienced and famous white actors receieving better treatment.

    So yeah, there's lot to complain about Whedon and the DCU for both racist and non racist bad behavior. The entire network needs an overhaul. But that doesn't mean the cuts weren't justified in the context of trying to make a two hour movie.

    Schrodinger on
    GaddezHarry DresdenLordSolarMacharius
  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    It really scans like white people telling black people how to behave in a workplace and the entire Josstice League Defense squad is making me squirm.

    If a fry cook at McDonald's has some ideas on how to make the burgers better

    Wow I can pinpoint where I rolled my eyes and stopped reading.

    If you can't see why your comparison reeks of racism apologia I'm not going to point by point refute you because it's a fucking waste of time.

    Edit: Because all you're doing is describing circumstances. Which I already know. It's not like if you explain it just the right way, it won't come off as racist.

    This shit is tedious.

    MalReynolds on
    "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!
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    If you can't see why your comparison reeks of racism apologia I'm not going to point by point refute you because it's a fucking waste of time.

    It also seems like a waste of time to simply accuse other forumers of being racist but then more time to say you don't have time to explain it.

    I said Whedon and the studio were incredibly toxic for both racist and non racist reasons and needed a total overhaul. I also described Whedon's problematic history with works that were widely beloved rather than criticized. I'm not sure how that's apologizing for racism.

    Gaddez
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 7
    It really scans like white people telling black people how to behave in a workplace and the entire Josstice League Defense squad is making me squirm.

    If a fry cook at McDonald's has some ideas on how to make the burgers better

    Wow I can pinpoint where I rolled my eyes and stopped reading.

    If you can't see why your comparison reeks of racism apologia I'm not going to point by point refute you because it's a fucking waste of time.

    Edit: Because all you're doing is describing circumstances. Which I already know. It's not like if you explain it just the right way, it won't come off as racist.

    This shit is tedious.

    Of course racism is a part of this, but its no he only par worth asking about. The circumstances don; change what Fisher's role in production was and that wasn high in he food chain. LIke I said, he's not Tom Cruise so why are you making him to be That he is? Flash go his scenes cut, as well. IIRC in the Snyder Cut he supposedly
    saves he world by reversing time after the League are killed
    ye nobody's complaining about that.

    Schrodinger didn't create the circumstances Fisher's in, all he's doing is acknowledging all the facts in the situation and if we're not going to use about all he facts what are we doing?

    If you know his why are you trying to ignore it if makes Fisher look better than he already is? Isn't he on the low end of production? Does he have he power in Hollywood to order Whedon around then vice versa?

    How would you describe Fisher's situation ha won come of as racist? That reeks of moving he goal posts. Racism apologia is something else entirely, a personal attack to distract. If his was Miller being discussed we'd still be using these terms because racism isn't the sole defining element in Fisher's experience working in Hollywood.

    Hollywood's a system full of racism and it's shit for up and comers, both are true. Had Cyborg been white and he'd been played with a white actor with he same resume Cyborg would still be cut off of a League movie by those circumstances due to who the character is and how low on the totem pole the actor is.

    Harry Dresden on
    Gaddez
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    It really scans like white people telling black people how to behave in a workplace and the entire Josstice League Defense squad is making me squirm.

    If a fry cook at McDonald's has some ideas on how to make the burgers better

    Wow I can pinpoint where I rolled my eyes and stopped reading.

    If you can't see why your comparison reeks of racism apologia I'm not going to point by point refute you because it's a fucking waste of time.

    Edit: Because all you're doing is describing circumstances. Which I already know. It's not like if you explain it just the right way, it won't come off as racist.

    This shit is tedious.

    I'm curious if you think it's possible for two people of different races to have a toxic working relationship without racism being a factor.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    It really scans like white people telling black people how to behave in a workplace and the entire Josstice League Defense squad is making me squirm.

    If a fry cook at McDonald's has some ideas on how to make the burgers better

    Wow I can pinpoint where I rolled my eyes and stopped reading.

    If you can't see why your comparison reeks of racism apologia I'm not going to point by point refute you because it's a fucking waste of time.

    Edit: Because all you're doing is describing circumstances. Which I already know. It's not like if you explain it just the right way, it won't come off as racist.

    This shit is tedious.

    I'm curious if you think it's possible for two people of different races to have a toxic working relationship without racism being a factor.

    Or for in to be a factor in some interactions, but not in literally all of them.

    Gaddez
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Am I wrong in complaining that it's very clear that nobody involved in the discussion had read Victor Hugo?

    OneAngryPossum
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Am I wrong in complaining that it's very clear that nobody involved in the discussion had read Victor Hugo?

    I intentionally avoided comparisons to Quasimodo because I don't know the character at all.

    I can appreciate Ray's desire to create a deeper character struggling with trauma. Except that this was completely the wrong movie for that, and the storyline was never going to do that arc justice. Ray dealing with and overcoming trauma needs to be it's own movie. Or at the very least, they needed to find an appropriate villain, to tap into his fears and emotional pain, rather than a generic tough guy who uses raw physical power.

    And this is why it's a one-dimensional exploration. Because Snyder has a bunch of different ideas he wants to include in his movie, but there's no underlying foundation to hold it all together.

    Gaddez
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    It really scans like white people telling black people how to behave in a workplace and the entire Josstice League Defense squad is making me squirm.

    I am with you on this one for the most part. I think Whedon is the kind of asshole who would have punished any actor for trying to change his vision of the movie. He isn't shy about fighting with studio executives when he wants to (see Age of Ultron) so I don't buy the pressure from above him angle. I do think the story would have largely played out the same with a white actor, but that is the insidious nature of racism. It always seems like it would play out the same. Most of Whedon's shows have been super white which just ain't a good look in this situation and probably speaks to something else going on there. Especially the way certain black characters were treated in his shows.

    In the end we can't know what was in the heart of hearts of anyone who made the movie. We know Ray Fischer was pissed his role got cut down to nothing. That it probably needed to be done to get a coherent 2.5 hour cut does not change that. Whedon definitely would have punished him for daring to question his artistic genius. We have a lot of example of that by now. Does it matter if it wasn't pure racism? Can we just accept it was completely shitty, made someone feel marginalized based on race, and then yell at DC to do better? Cause they really need to do better regardless.

    Commander ZoomFencingsaxSnake Gandhi
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    I am with you on this one for the most part. I think Whedon is the kind of asshole who would have punished any actor for trying to change his vision of the movie. He isn't shy about fighting with studio executives when he wants to (see Age of Ultron) so I don't buy the pressure from above him angle. I do think the story would have largely played out the same with a white actor, but that is the insidious nature of racism. It always seems like it would play out the same. Most of Whedon's shows have been super white which just ain't a good look in this situation and probably speaks to something else going on there. Especially the way certain black characters were treated in his shows.

    In the end we can't know what was in the heart of hearts of anyone who made the movie. We know Ray Fischer was pissed his role got cut down to nothing. That it probably needed to be done to get a coherent 2.5 hour cut does not change that. Whedon definitely would have punished him for daring to question his artistic genius. We have a lot of example of that by now. Does it matter if it wasn't pure racism? Can we just accept it was completely shitty, made someone feel marginalized based on race, and then yell at DC to do better? Cause they really need to do better regardless.

    I seriously doubt that Whedon ever saw this as much more than a pay check. Sure, he might have cared enough about the job to cut the things that didn't work, but the film was 90% the vision of someone he didn't have any real respect for, so it was never even going to meet his idea of "good," much less his idea of "artistic genius." His only goal was to make something they could put in theaters that wasn't a total downer.

    That's why I used the analogy of the McDonalds manager. They might care enough about their job to not get people sick, but certainly not enough to elevate their cuisine to gourmet dining.

    Gaddez
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    As someone who has had to be something of a fixer at my job, I can completely understand the attitude of, "This isn't my mess, I'm just here to clean it up, either get with the program or get off." It puts you in this kind of mercenary mentality where you're just there to get the job done according to someone else's vision within whatever constraints they've laid out. Your own personal opinion matters less (outside of truly disastrous risks) because it's not your project, you didn't start it, and the ideation/design phase is very far behind in the rearview mirror.

    If you have 3 months to fix something that normally takes 2 years to do then you really can't afford to listen to everyone about everything, at least not to the extent you normally would. There is also the assumption that the only reason you are there is because everything that happened before was fucked, so you have very little inclination to care about "how things were done". If "how things were done" actually worked, then you wouldn't have to be there in the first place. And then there are always those people who are, frankly, a big part of the reason why things got fucked in the first place who end up sticking around and being a general pain in the ass, and at some point you have to cut them off and say, "I'm sorry, but this isn't how we do things anymore." I remember one guy who monopolized meetings for 2 weeks, argued every point, and then didn't actually follow through on any of his committed work. After 2 weeks of talking to the guy and trying to get him aligned, at some point I had to make the call that this isn't worth the effort and it's unfair to the 50 other people on the project, so we had to move on. I'm sure in his mind I'm the jackass who never listened to his ideas and eventually got him fired, but to me (and pretty much everyone else in the project) he was a big source of the problem in the first place and was condescending to everyone around him (and I didn't get him fired, I got him transferred - him getting fired was due to what he did on his next project after that).

    That being said, there's a pretty huge difference between being disciplined and getting everyone on the same page and being a gigantic asshole and treating people like shit. It seems apparent that Whedon is very much in the latter camp. Being right is never an excuse to be an asshole. It also sounds like Fisher's thoughts, particularly with regards to representation, should've been listened to more closely. That being said, the vast majority of his screen time being cut didn't really have much to do with anything related to race. The film itself was a giant mess and needed to be edited down, and Fisher's character (regardless of his own opinion) was deemed less important for a number of reasons I think we would all consider to be reasonable and not discriminatory in nature. When you have a film with Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and and Aquaman who already had his own hit film, the other characters are going to be considered more expendable by default.

    GaddezSchrodingerHarry DresdenGnizmo
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I think the one thing that needs to be considered here is that out of the 6 characters you have to work with (Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Wonder woman, Flash and Cyborg) the simple fact is that Cyborg and aquaman are the two characters with the least amount of cultural awareness and between Mamoa and Fisher one of these two is a more proven draw then the other so from a cold analytical standpoint cutting Cyborg made the most sense.

    If they had cast someone with comparable exposure to Fisher as booster gold instead I'd have made the same argument.

    I'm not saying it's ok or what not, just that this isn't neccesarily a case of racism being the determining factor.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Harry Dresden
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Analogy to the side, most McDonalds managers probably take their jobs seriously and take pride in their work. Most people do, and this metaphor feels a little classist.

    According to reports, Whedon did take the JL job personally and a lot of his purpose in his direction was informed by resentment he had to the poor critical and audience reception the Age of Ultron. Whedon thought Age of Ultron was tanked by bad marketing from marvel studios and JL was his opportunity to redeem himself and AoU by making the same sort of movie with better marketing support.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    I feel like Ultron had fine marketing. I have more fond memories of Age of Ultron's trailer than I do the actual movie.

    (I know you're just passing on Whedon's thoughts and not making that argument yourself, I just find it weird)

    OrcaDark Raven XFencingsaxcj iwakuraLou29
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    According to reports, Whedon did take the JL job personally and a lot of his purpose in his direction was informed by resentment he had to the poor critical and audience reception the Age of Ultron. Whedon thought Age of Ultron was tanked by bad marketing from marvel studios and JL was his opportunity to redeem himself and AoU by making the same sort of movie with better marketing support.

    If that's true, then that would makes a lot of sense. He probably had a massive chip on his shoulder and took it out on the next production.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    But yeah Whedon clearly cut out every nonessential character-building segment, quite a bit of the action and pretty much every bit of quiet or space in the movie. He kept a very minimal plot scaffolding, then added in as much jokey banter as he could while keeping it under 2 hours.

    Fisher is understandably angry and disappointed and probably Ezra Miller was too. The fact that on top of butchering the movie and dashing their expectations, Whedon was also an abusive dick of a boss added insult to injury.

    Im not sure I’d personally make “racism” the headline of this story, but I understand why Ray Fisher sees it that way and I’m not saying he’s wrong.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    GnizmoGaddezFencingsaxSnake GandhiGiantGeek2020
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Analogy to the side, most McDonalds managers probably take their jobs seriously and take pride in their work. Most people do, and this metaphor feels a little classist.

    Pointing out they're not elevating their burgers to gourmet cuisine isn't classist.

    Even people who enjoy McDonalds and eat there every day don't see it as gourmet cuisine.

    In "The Disaster Artist," everyone who Tommy hires takes their job seriously, but Tommy is the only one who's convinced that the movie will actually be good. And his lack of self-awareness is so unusual that the movie became a cult classic.
    According to reports, Whedon did take the JL job personally and a lot of his purpose in his direction was informed by resentment he had to the poor critical and audience reception the Age of Ultron. Whedon thought Age of Ultron was tanked by bad marketing from marvel studios and JL was his opportunity to redeem himself and AoU by making the same sort of movie with better marketing support.

    "Age of Ultron" rates 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. Zack Snyder's last movie received has a 29% rating, and the studio had even less faith in Justice League.

    One of the things I've heard from the reports on bullying is that Whedon constantly bashed Snyder's vision. I have a hard time believing that he would try to redeem himself by editing down source material and a story that he hated and making it a better movie than "Age of Ultron."

    I mean, I can get why he would say that in public for $$$. But it doesn't mesh with other reports.

    Schrodinger on
    Gaddez
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 8
    If you’ve seen both versions of the movie, Whedon clearly stripped the JL footage down to its story skeleton and added in some banter for levity, just like I described.

    I’m not just making it up that Whedon being sore about AoU’s poor reception informing his direction on JL - it’s widely reported, including by Ray Fisher

    https://io9.gizmodo.com/messing-up-age-of-ultron-helped-joss-whedon-mess-up-jus-1846470801

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    You can see it in some of the scenes that were produced. Flash falling on Wonder Woman’s [chest] is something that he yanked out of Age of Ultron and just copy-pasted here. In my first conversation creatively with him, he kept accidentally calling “Diana” “Natasha,” which is crazy stuff

    y i k e s

    Oh brilliant
    Local H JayBloodySloth
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    Irond Will wrote: »
    If you’ve seen both versions of the movie, Whedon clearly stripped the JL footage down to its story skeleton and added in some banter for levity, just like I described.

    Yes, because that's what he was hired for. To make the movie more audience friendly. Not to make it a great work of art -- which was outside of scope.

    We already know that DC did the same thing with Suicide Squad the previous year. They were worried that the dark tone would turn away audiences, so they brought in new editors and paid $22 million for reshoots to add more jokes. The end result was incoherent and critically panned, but it was a blockbuster hit financially, and that's all they really cared about.

    I’m not just making it up that Whedon being sore about AoU’s poor reception informing his direction on JL - it’s wifey reported, including by Ray Fisher

    https://io9.gizmodo.com/messing-up-age-of-ultron-helped-joss-whedon-mess-up-jus-1846470801

    There are two completely separate arguments here:

    1. Whedon being bitter that AoU didn't receive enough critical acclaim
    2. Whedon hoping that JL would be his redemption.

    The first does not automatically lead to the second. In my experience, it usually leads to an attitude of "Fuck it, nothing really matters, I don't care anymore."

    From the article:
    In my first conversation creatively with him, he kept accidentally calling “Diana” “Natasha,” which is crazy stuff.

    That's the sign of a man who has run out of fucks to give and is simply going through the motions. Not the sign of a man looking to redeem himself with a thoughtful masterpiece.

    Schrodinger on
    Harry Dresden
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 8
    Not defending Whedon because it's pretty clear he was and is a tool. Just want to make that clear, and I'm not calling Snyder's catalog on par with To Kill a Mockingbird, but I can't see why he (Whedon) even took the job looking back on things.

    I can say if I was called in the middle of the night because a community peer had a family tragedy in the middle of one of his biggest projects and the heads at Warner wanted me to come in and basically destroy his dream and make a lego replica of it I would check my bank account and assuming it's what I imagine Joss' looks like I'd turn down the offer.

    That alone kind of speaks to someone's character to me.

    amateurhour on

    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
    LordSolarMacharius
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    As a reminder, in the article Fisher said he was sad but ready to move on about his part being reduced. It wasn’t until Booyah and such that things started to be an issue.
    If you can't see why your comparison reeks of racism apologia I'm not going to point by point refute you because it's a fucking waste of time.

    It also seems like a waste of time to simply accuse other forumers of being racist but then more time to say you don't have time to explain it.

    I said Whedon and the studio were incredibly toxic for both racist and non racist reasons and needed a total overhaul. I also described Whedon's problematic history with works that were widely beloved rather than criticized. I'm not sure how that's apologizing for racism.

    You chose an example typically steeped in classist stigma to make a point about race and Fisher’s servile position. Which is kinda icky to begin with.

    And then the point being made seems to be essentially the liberal capitalist angle - racism is clearly bad but... the system compels blanket exploitation and degradation of ALL workers so...[shrug]

    Like there’s this compulsion to keep clarifying that ok maybe there’s some racism but let’s all agree there’s also other bad stuff too which is not racism. The push to add “...but it’s a dirty business wachyogonnado?” is its own kind of apologia.

    There’s no real upshot to this other than that once it’s been established that, yes not all the toxicity is necessarily racist toxicity then it can be reaffirmed that the race thing is overblown, an overreaction cause hey, it sucks what happened but no one has a good time in Hollywood right? It’s not like personal...
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Am I wrong in complaining that it's very clear that nobody involved in the discussion had read Victor Hugo?

    I intentionally avoided comparisons to Quasimodo because I don't know the character at all.

    I can appreciate Ray's desire to create a deeper character struggling with trauma. Except that this was completely the wrong movie for that, and the storyline was never going to do that arc justice. Ray dealing with and overcoming trauma needs to be it's own movie. Or at the very least, they needed to find an appropriate villain, to tap into his fears and emotional pain, rather than a generic tough guy who uses raw physical power.

    And this is why it's a one-dimensional exploration. Because Snyder has a bunch of different ideas he wants to include in his movie, but there's no underlying foundation to hold it all together.

    You do not need to have any understanding of who Quasimodo represents in popular culture beyond the Disney bastardisation to grasp what is being talked about in the Frankenstein v Quasimodo argument. Depth is not required.

    Jeedan on
    SatanIsMyMotorMalReynoldsOneAngryPossum
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular


    In writing, there are three main types of arcs: Positive arcs, flat arcs, and negative arcs. In a positive arc story, the character starts by believing in a certain lie, which they need to overcome in order to find a new truth. In a flat arc story, characters usually start by believing in a truth, and then they inspire other characters to do the same. Most fiction tends to focus on positive arcs. But comic series tend to focus on the flat arcs., because it makes them easier for new readers to jump in and out at any point, and because it's easier to write in the long run.

    In the movie, Victor defeats the bad guys, makes friends, and reconciles with his dad. All of those things could be the basis for an arc, but Snyder never fully fleshes them out into one. Cyborg is too much of a Gary Stu to be committed into any sort of lie for a positive arc, and he's too cynical and depressed for the flat arc.

    If you assume this was originally meant to be two movies, the the first movie is about Cyborg rescuing and reuniting with his dad. And the second movie is about him realizing that he's not broken and not alone. But the journey to get there is weak.

    Cyborg gives his dad the cold shoulder because he's mad his dad missed his football games and brought him back to life. But he never really reflects or changes his mind about those things later on. He never tells his dad that it was wrong to hold him responsible for a fluke car accident. He's upset when his dad gets kidnapped by parademons, but I would assume he would feel the same way if his dad had been kidnapped at the beginning of the movie. It's also not an Uncle Ben situation, where his reckless behavior causes his dad to be kidnapped and he learns to be less reckless in the future. So yes, in the end, he reunites with his dad. But he never actually has to grow in order to get there.

    The second half is even less developed. Like I said before, he has absolutely no reason to be tempted by the Unity. Sure, he's upset that he looks like a monster now, but he never referred to himself as "broken," and he was enjoying his new powers from the start. He hasn't been alone for the entirety of the second movie, and he didn't really have to overcome anything to make new friends.

    Asthariel
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    As I have said, I do not care about “depth” “weak” or “strong” “flat” or whatever.

    Do you understand the racial dynamics of striking a more servile pose in front of a black actor and going “maybe a little more like this? “

    Jeedan on
    OneAngryPossum
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    Jeedan wrote: »
    As I have said, I do not care about “depth” “weak” or “strong” “flat” or whatever.

    Do you understand the racial dynamics of striking a more servile pose in front of a black actor and going “maybe a little more like this? “

    Johns told Fisher he should play the character less like Frankenstein and more like the kindhearted Quasimodo. Fisher says that in order to demonstrate the look he wanted, Johns dipped his shoulder in what struck Fisher as a servile posture. To Fisher, there was a big difference between portraying a character who was born with a disability versus one who had been transformed by trauma. And he felt Cyborg was a kind of modern-day Frankenstein. "I didn't have any intention of playing him as a jovial, cathedral-cleaning individual," he says.

    Johns' representative responds: "Geoff gave a note using a fictional character as an example of a sympathetic man who is unhappy and has an inclination to hide from the world, but one whom the audience roots for because he has a courageous heart."


    It sounds like John's was describing a character posture who is ashamed of how he looks and slouches to avoid attention because he lacks confidence. Which is already consistent with how Snyder wrote the character. A person who sees himself as a monster, and refuses to go outside despite his father's pleading. One thing I found inconsistent about the Snyder cut is how Cyborg is obviously ashamed of how he looks, but makes very little attempt to hide it. He wants to stand tall and confident but he also wants to play his character as tortured and traumatized. Like the scene where he offers to meet Diana in person rather than on the phone, shows up in a way that's guaranteed to attention to himself, and then shouts "What part of this looks like a gift to you?"

    OTOH, Ray's interpretation that Johns wanted the character to be a "jovial, cathedral-cleaning individual" seem to be based on his own inferences, rather than direct statements. It's possible that this is what Johns actually meant, but I can't think of any scene in the movie where playing the character as a servant would actually fit, even with bad intentions. So where would that even come up?

    Schrodinger on
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    Which is why its good to have someone non-white make commentary on those kinds of decisions, because they may catch subtext another (even a well-intentioned other) may miss.

    ["]One thing I found inconsistent about the Snyder cut is how Cyborg is obviously ashamed of how he looks, but makes very little attempt to hide it. He wants to stand tall and confident but he also wants to play his character as tortured and traumatized. Like the scene where he offers to meet Diana in person rather than on the phone, shows up in a way that's guaranteed to attention to himself, and then shouts "What part of this looks like a gift to you?"


    Inconsistent to you maybe. Black peoples approaches to being perceived as abject may differ. The pride/shame dichotomy is something that touches very directly on the black experience.

    But that aside, a character who is in a previous scene said to hate his appearance appearing in a way that displays it, forces others to see them anyway, is a character choice. Instead of looking at what the character is doing in the text and using that to inform your reading of the character, youre hung up on what they would have done in your version.
    OTOH, Ray's interpretation that Johns wanted the character to be a "jovial, cathedral-cleaning individual" seem to be based on his own inferences, rather than direct statements. It's possible that this is what Johns actually meant, but I can't think of any scene in the movie where playing the character as a servant would actually fit, even with bad intentions. So where would that even come up?

    Saying 'well he didn't directly SAY it like DIRECTLY SAY he wanted him to clean cathedrals, there are no literal cathedrals in the movie' is kind of ignoring the whole idea of like, symbolic communication.

    Jeedan on
Sign In or Register to comment.