If anti-life is fascism (an explanation I find interesting) then mind control doesn't fit. It's more like free will killing itself. Mind control is an external force. Anti-life is you willingly, joyously submitting. There is a part of us that want it. It's difficult to fight because you can't give a victim of it their freedom back by first taking it away, but if they keep their freedom they will fight even harder against your effort to save them.
One of the DC animated shows had this by superman physically defeating Darkseid and telling the Apokolipsians they were free. They responded by carefully carrying Darkseid off to tend to him.
Nobeard on
+4
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Anti Life sounds like a placeholder name that got left in in a coke filled stupor
Right next to Boom Tubes.
Boom tubes are one of my favorite little things about DC. Interstellar transportation, with only the mild downside of an earsplitting BOOM when you use them. Gives it character, and the fact that it's a teleportation tech that isn't just downside-free zapping from one place to another makes it somehow more... acceptable, I guess?
+1
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Anti Life sounds like a placeholder name that got left in in a coke filled stupor
Right next to Boom Tubes.
Boom tubes are one of my favorite little things about DC. Interstellar transportation, with only the mild downside of an earsplitting BOOM when you use them. Gives it character, and the fact that it's a teleportation tech that isn't just downside-free zapping from one place to another makes it somehow more... acceptable, I guess?
It also changes their size.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
GotG worked in part becaus while the setting seems fantastic on the surface, it's really not. Roguish and charming thief, femme fatal assasin, smart ass bounty hunter with a quirky, gentle giant partner, these are all immediately recognizable archetypes. Galactic civilization is a concept we've marinated in for decades.
What are the archetypes of the New Gods? I've read and watched media with Darkside for years and I can't tell you what his motivation is or what the anti-life equation is.
I've always said the GotG had the same kind of adventure vibe I used to get when I watched movies like Indiana Jones. It feels like those older family movies even if it looks fantastical.
If anti-life is fascism (an explanation I find interesting) then mind control doesn't fit. It's more like free will killing itself. Mind control is an external force. Anti-life is you willingly, joyously submitting. There is a part of us that want it. It's difficult to fight because you can't give a victim of it their freedom back by first taking it away, but if they keep their freedom they will fight even harder against your effort to save them.
One of the DC animated shows had this by superman physically defeating Darkseid and telling the Apokolipsians they were free. They responded by carefully carrying Darkseid off to tend to him.
Isn't anti-life just the loss of free will? (Darksied wants that so he can force everyone to be subservient to himself)
Yeah but it's explained in the most convoluted and obtuse way mostly because the writers have never really been clear on what it's supposed to actually be or how it is that the victims aren't able to just turn around and say "man fuck off."
By comparison if you asked me "what does the inifinity stone of power do" my answer would be that it allows the user to control all energy that has existed, can exist and will ever exist, whether that's from a nine volt battery or the thermal energy of a star or the kinetic energy of bodily movement.
Its Evil. The anti-life equation is evil.
As soon as it starts being too explicable it's no longer interesting. Its like when cthulu is explained too much and stops being a mind bending horror and becomes just a big squid monster.
I'd argue the opposite; by clarifying what a power is and how it works we as an audience can understand and theorize it's potential.
A great example of this principle is presented in the JoJo's Bizzare Adventures, series wherein characters all have powers that are clearly defined in terms of what they can do (IE restore things to their original form, view the past, stop time, alter bullet trajectory etc.) and the crux of combat is about figuring out how someone else's powers work and how to mitigate them before they are able to do it to you; very rarely are fights won through sheer brute force.
Which is why I find the anti-life equation so meh; it's mind control but with a giant pretentious explanation stacked onto it.
counterpoint- the excessive explaining of every passing moment in a JoJo fight is fucking stupid and that's what makes it magical. I love JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, but if I wanted to produce something intended to be taken even halfway seriously I would not be using it as a model.
Edit: Like, they'll be very clear on what a person's abilities are, sure, but then in the next scene they'll be like "oh it turns out strawberry jam is an amazing conductor of Hamon" or whatever they need to say to get whatever they want to have happen on screen
I'll take surfing or skiing through space any day over Orion's ridiculous flying leg braces contraption.
+3
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”
“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”
But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
This seems pretty anti-life to me. The only tricky bit is how to convey that in a movie in order to make it distinctly a different thing than just the MCU mind stone scepter on steroids.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
For some reason it irritates me that the Pattinson Batman is officially Earth 2 Batman. I think, please, just stop trying to make it fit into canon I do not care.
e; about where it is in the multiverse, I do wanna see the movie.
GotG worked in part becaus while the setting seems fantastic on the surface, it's really not. Roguish and charming thief, femme fatal assasin, smart ass bounty hunter with a quirky, gentle giant partner, these are all immediately recognizable archetypes. Galactic civilization is a concept we've marinated in for decades.
What are the archetypes of the New Gods? I've read and watched media with Darkside for years and I can't tell you what his motivation is or what the anti-life equation is.
I've always said the GotG had the same kind of adventure vibe I used to get when I watched movies like Indiana Jones. It feels like those older family movies even if it looks fantastical.
The idea that GotG was some sort of ‘risky’ film was always overblown, imo; ‘charismatic misfits thrown together by circumstance go on a caper’ isn’t exactly new ground in film. The weirdest part is/was the hokey title
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+4
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Yeah there's a lot to unpack... To be frank it's hard to separate out how much of this is driven by Joss Whedon being an asshole (and the subsequent assholeness of everyone in the WB). It feels like that's the primary driving force behind a lot of the animus, while the rest is a lack of racial sensitivity and representation in decision-making.
Fisher definitely has a case here but I'm not sure it's as strong as he seems to thinks it is. He seems to operate under the mistaken assumption that actors have a lot of say in productions. Unless you are established and make a lot of money, that's very much not the case. You can have an opinion about stuff but the director or powers-that-be don't have to take them into consideration or even care about them.
Yeah there's a lot to unpack... To be frank it's hard to separate out how much of this is driven by Joss Whedon being an asshole (and the subsequent assholeness of everyone in the WB). It feels like that's the primary driving force behind a lot of the animus, while the rest is a lack of racial sensitivity and representation in decision-making.
Fisher definitely has a case here but I'm not sure it's as strong as he seems to thinks it is. He seems to operate under the mistaken assumption that actors have a lot of say in productions. Unless you are established and make a lot of money, that's very much not the case. You can have an opinion about stuff but the director or powers-that-be don't have to take them into consideration or even care about them.
Thing is, even "big name" actors do a lot of kowtowing due to the fact that the studio and the director are the kings of the hill and what they say goes.
Because nobody wants to deal with an Eric norton.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Reading that article, particularly the Frankenstein/Quasimodo and booyah talk, it just really comes across as creative differences that feels a bit like a bunch of hindsight has been dropped into it as well (and not getting a solo Cyborg movie like planned). Whedon's an asshole but trying to do what the executives want him to do in happying the film, Fisher thinks he's got more pull than an actor does even as he tries to keep what Snyder wanted, Geoff Johns is coming at it from the comics world where he does have a fair claim that he gets Vic's character out of everyone involved in the movie, these are all valid, defensible frames of reference for all involved. And ultimately Cyborg gets his due in the Snyder cut, bad CGI aside.
Prior to Justice League, Ray Fisher's only non-stage acting role was a bit part in "The Astronaut's Wives Club." So he was basically in a position where he had all his eggs in this one basket. It's weird for WB to take such a risk on such an unknown actor, and it puts a lot of pressure on him to see this role as something that can make or break him. George Clooney would have a much harder time bouncing back from "Batman and Robin" if that was the first role that anyone ever knew him for.
I think a lot of this boils down to the idea of sunk cost. Ray was emotionally invested in the role as Snyder envisioned it, and devastated when that was taken away from him. But DC had their own sunk cost. They were financially invested in Zack Snyder's vision in the hopes of creating their own cinematic universe, only to realize that his movie was unworkable for a theatrical release, not to mention a huge turnoff for critics and audiences. The studio tried to recoup their financial investment by bringing Whedon on board to make the movie "fun." Which doesn't really work after the movie was already almost finished, because by then it's too late and your movie is pretty much guaranteed to be garbage. Ray tried to recoup his emotional investment by butting heads with the director. The director who was acting under the orders of the studio.
I think Ray also put a lot of pressure on himself to be the most quintessential and definitive black superhero ever, and cared more about making his character ground breaking than actually interesting. Which is why he needs to hype his character up as the most powerful entity in the entire DCU, or why he resisted saying the catch phrase that his character is most known for. Unfortunately, It's entirely possible for Cyborg to be the emotional heart of Zack Snyder's vision, but still not very interesting on his own.
For comparison, let's look at the Hulk: Super smart guy who's cursed to be scene as a powerful monster, but who ends up accepting who he is and fight for good. He's not the main protagonist or the heart of the first "Avengers" movie, but he's a lot more memorable in a much shorter amount of time.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Li version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Cyborg's entire arc boils down to "I'm not broken. And I'm not alone," where he rejects the lotus eater machine of the Mother Box. Which I guess is super deep by Snyder standards, but which comes across as incredibly shallow even compared to the "be careful what you wish for" message of WW1984. Because at least in that movie, you can understand why people were attached to their wish, and why it was so hard for them to renounce them. Cyborg is supposed to be tempted by fake parents standing by a fake version of himself in front of a post-apocalyptic hell scape that is literally on fire, which isn't believable in the least. It's just lazy storytelling.
Anyway, Whedon's bullying is bad, and I'm glad he's been blacklisted. But I think that Fisher is trying way too hard to promote Snyder as the greatest visionary of all time, for self-indulgent reasons. Just because the new boss is a piece of shit doesn't mean that the old boss was a once-in-a-lifetime genius.
Prior to Justice League, Ray Fisher's only non-stage acting role was a bit part in "The Astronaut's Wives Club." So he was basically in a position where he had all his eggs in this one basket. It's weird for WB to take such a risk on such an unknown actor, and it puts a lot of pressure on him to see this role as something that can make or break him. George Clooney would have a much harder time bouncing back from "Batman and Robin" if that was the first role that anyone ever knew him for.
It's not that weird, Hollywood casts obscure and unknown actors in supporting casts regularly but they are also more expendable then the big draw roles so they're the first to be cut when it gets to editing. I'm baffled how Fisher is so naive about how movies are made, despite having a significant role when Snyder was in the seat.
I think a lot of this boils down to the idea of sunk cost. Ray was emotionally invested in the role as Snyder envisioned it, and devastated when that was taken away from him. But DC had their own sunk cost. They were financially invested in Zack Snyder's vision in the hopes of creating their own cinematic universe, only to realize that his movie was unworkable for a theatrical release, not to mention a huge turnoff for critics and audiences. The studio tried to recoup their financial investment by bringing Whedon on board to make the movie "fun." Which doesn't really work after the movie was already almost finished, because by then it's too late and your movie is pretty much guaranteed to be garbage. Ray tried to recoup his emotional investment by butting heads with the director. The director who was acting under the orders of the studio.
I think Ray also put a lot of pressure on himself to be the most quintessential and definitive black superhero ever, and cared more about making his character ground breaking than actually interesting. Which is why he needs to hype his character up as the most powerful entity in the entire DCU, or why he resisted saying the catch phrase that his character is most known for. Unfortunately, It's entirely possible for Cyborg to be the emotional heart of Zack Snyder's vision, but still not very interesting on his own.
Agreed.
For comparison, let's look at the Hulk: Super smart guy who's cursed to be scene as a powerful monster, but who ends up accepting who he is and fight for good. He's not the main protagonist or the heart of the first "Avengers" movie, but he's a lot more memorable in a much shorter amount of time.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Li version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
I don't think Hulk is the right example for Cyborg, considering his footprint on pop culture going back to the tv show. Everyone might not know the specifics but they understand the basics of the character who was the only Avenger rivalling Spider-man in popularity before the MCU hit the scene. Cyborg's Black Widow - without the movie set up she had in Iron Man 2.
Cyborg's entire arc boils down to "I'm not broken. And I'm not alone," where he rejects the lotus eater machine of the Mother Box. Which I guess is super deep by Snyder standards, but which comes across as incredibly shallow even compared to the "be careful what you wish for" message of WW1984. Because at least in that movie, you can understand why people were attached to their wish, and why it was so hard for them to renounce them. Cyborg is supposed to be tempted by fake parents standing by a fake version of himself in front of a post-apocalyptic hell scape that is literally on fire, which isn't believable in the least. It's just lazy storytelling.
Cyborg's supposed to be a big example of why Whedon's movie failed to stick the landing, the fact he somehow made a proper arc for Cyborg must be a bigger event beach it becomes less so when acknowledging the circumstances which lead to Cyborg's status in '17. Which has compounded by Fisher's accusations making it a symbolic and moral victory for the Pro-Snyder contingent.
Anyway, Whedon's bullying is bad, and I'm glad he's been blacklisted. But I think that Fisher is trying way too hard to promote Snyder as the greatest visionary of all time, for self-indulgent reasons. Just because the new boss is a piece of shit doesn't mean that the old boss was a once-in-a-lifetime genius.
Snyder and Fisher are connected through the Snyder Cut, who they both view as being their magnum opus and a chance for better things, they need each other to thrive. This is why we never hear what Fisher has to say about Snyder's problematic movies and how Snyder waiting until after is released to denounce Nazis isn't a problem or other nasty shit Snyder's said about anyone who dislikes his movies. Fisher's on the Shut Up and Fuck You train.
Henry Cavill didnt have to say 'up up and away', Affleck didnt have to do any Adam West lines, Fischer is right, its weird that the only character who is bound to a catchphrase is the black guy.
I think Ray also put a lot of pressure on himself to be the most quintessential and definitive black superhero ever, and cared more about making his character ground breaking than actually interesting. Which is why he needs to hype his character up as the most powerful entity in the entire DCU, or why he resisted saying the catch phrase that his character is most known for. Unfortunately, It's entirely possible for Cyborg to be the emotional heart of Zack Snyder's vision, but still not very interesting on his own.
For comparison, let's look at the Hulk: Super smart guy who's cursed to be scene as a powerful monster, but who ends up accepting who he is and fight for good. He's not the main protagonist or the heart of the first "Avengers" movie, but he's a lot more memorable in a much shorter amount of time.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Li version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Cyborg's entire arc boils down to "I'm not broken. And I'm not alone," where he rejects the lotus eater machine of the Mother Box. Which I guess is super deep by Snyder standards, but which comes across as incredibly shallow even compared to the "be careful what you wish for" message of WW1984. Because at least in that movie, you can understand why people were attached to their wish, and why it was so hard for them to renounce them. Cyborg is supposed to be tempted by fake parents standing by a fake version of himself in front of a post-apocalyptic hell scape that is literally on fire, which isn't believable in the least. It's just lazy storytelling.
Anyway, Whedon's bullying is bad, and I'm glad he's been blacklisted. But I think that Fisher is trying way too hard to promote Snyder as the greatest visionary of all time, for self-indulgent reasons. Just because the new boss is a piece of shit doesn't mean that the old boss was a once-in-a-lifetime genius.
Regardless of whether or not you find his arc 'interesting' or not, having an arc is still better than not having one.
I mean his criticism is basically that as the one black character his role got reduced from an actual character to a one-dimensional catchphrase. Going "well, the finished version wasn't that DEEP anyway" misses the point. it just turns the conversation back to Snyder good director/Snyder bad director. (I don't see where the claim is that Snyder is a once in a lifetime genius, just that he treated the character and cast BETTER)
Claiming 'Self-indulgence' there is really problematic because that's an issue the one black person in a group of white people often faces by default - that they are the sole black person in a group of white people so they face the burden of being representative. But any complaints they have can be written off as them being 'difficult'.
Snyder and Fisher are connected through the Snyder Cut, who they both view as being their magnum opus and a chance for better things, they need each other to thrive. This is why we never hear what Fisher has to say about Snyder's problematic movies and how Snyder waiting until after is released to denounce Nazis isn't a problem or other nasty shit Snyder's said about anyone who dislikes his movies. Fisher's on the Shut Up and Fuck You train.
Its really baffling how Fishers issues with JWs behavior, which the rest of the cast have backed him up on, have become about how much you dislike Snyders movies.
Jeedan on
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Sorry, the DC superheroes have catchphrases? The current MCU ones certainly don't, and nothing from the modern versions of the DC heroes strikes me as catchphrasey.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Henry Cavill didnt have to say 'up up and away', Affleck didnt have to do any Adam West lines, Fischer is right, its weird that the only character who is bound to a catchphrase is the black guy.
Sure. Cavill had a bigger problem, in that people hated his Superman completely because he wasn't recognisable. West hasn't been relevant for generations, it'd be something from Nolan's films or Batman TAS.
Regardless of whether or not you find his arc 'interesting' or not, having an arc is still better than not having one.
I mean his criticism is basically that as the one black character his role got reduced from an actual character to a one dimensional catchphase. Going "well few, the finished version wasnt THAT great anyway" misses the point.
I don' think anyone's disagreeing about that, that's a privilege Snyder had Whedon didn't which was cut this film to 2 hours or we replace out without someone else who will. Except his role wasn't reduced to that catchphrase in Whedon's movie, its not like Cyborg didn't have a personality or arc there.
Its really baffling how Fishers issues with JWs behavior, which the rest of the cast have backed him up on, have become about how much you dislike Snyders movies.
I wasn't talking about my opinions on Snyder's movies there it was about Snyder and Fisher's behaviour around them. Moving the goal posts to be about me rather than what I was saying is a distraction. Whedon was a dick and Fisher got short changed but I detest conflating the horrible conditions behind the scenes with he movies themselves - which is what I was asking about. Fisher's revelations didn't pan out as he'd been suggesting for months, Gal Gadot and Charisma Carpenter did more to kill Whedon's career than Fisher did. It's baffling how Snyder's movies being liked is being made to be a moral set of character and anyone who is on the wrong side is a bad person. People weren't this defensive over Sucker Punch.
Henry Cavill didnt have to say 'up up and away', Affleck didnt have to do any Adam West lines, Fischer is right, its weird that the only character who is bound to a catchphrase is the black guy.
Sure. Cavill had a bigger problem, in that people hated his Superman completely because he wasn't recognisable.
Again, there is a racial aspect here you are ignoring to turn the conversation back to disliking Snyders movie. Whether or not you hate Cavills superman is not relevent.
I don' think anyone's disagreeing about that, that's a privilege Snyder had Whedon didn't which was cut this film to 2 hours or we replace out without someone else who will. Except his role wasn't reduced to that catchphrase in Whedon's movie, its not like Cyborg didn't have a personality or arc there.
The catchphrase was a major point of contention and the dynamics around it are grotty as hell.
But he shot the take. As he arrived on set, he says, Whedon stretched out his arms and said a line from Hamlet in a mocking tone: "Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you." Fisher replied, "Joss — don't. I'm not in the mood." As he left the set after saying just that one phrase for the cameras, he says, Whedon called out, "Nice work, Ray."
It's baffling how Snyder's movies being liked is being made to be a moral set of character and anyone who is on the wrong side is a bad person. People weren't this defensive over Sucker Punch.
What are you talking about?
Fischer raised issues with the JL set under Whedon.
It was you that brought up:
Snyder and Fisher are connected through the Snyder Cut, who they both view as being their magnum opus and a chance for better things, they need each other to thrive. This is why we never hear what Fisher has to say about Snyder's problematic movies and how Snyder waiting until after is released to denounce Nazis isn't a problem or other nasty shit Snyder's said about anyone who dislikes his movies. Fisher's on the Shut Up and Fuck You train.
What relevance does that have? What does Fischer's opinion on say, 300 have to do with anything? Who said you have to like Snyders movies or youre a bad person? It seems like the opposite, that youre suggesting Fishcer is somehow being dishonest or unscrupulous because he doesn't vocally DISLIKE Snyders movies?
Jeedan on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I get it with Fischer. Imagine being that young and talented, and Zach Snyder recruits you to basically spearhead his movie when you're a relatively unknown talent. I mean really make you front and center, and then 80% of the way through production a new director you've never met who has been working for the competition the last decade shows up and cuts 3/4 of your scenes and dialogue outright.
It's just cool cause normally a story like this would be public hearsay and a dark secret amongst a few dozen industry insiders and now we got to see both directors versions and it seems clear Whedon came in day one and said "I don't have time for your Ray Fischer"
I agree with most of the sentiment here that Whedon is an old asshole and Fischer is a young asshole and I think Fischer will have the opportunity to grow and learn or maybe he'll be the next Shia Lebouf, who knows?
Henry Cavill didnt have to say 'up up and away', Affleck didnt have to do any Adam West lines, Fischer is right, its weird that the only character who is bound to a catchphrase is the black guy.
Sure. Cavill had a bigger problem, in that people hated his Superman completely because he wasn't recognisable.
Again, there is a racial aspect here you are ignoring to turn the conversation back to disliking Snyders movie. Whether or not you hate Cavills superman is not relevent.
True, but the problems he was facing weren't all because of race and he didn't act like it was micro-aggressions he wanted careers ended over his. His superiors were insensitive and being dicks, he never produced smoking guns appropriate for the heat he was bringing, and with problematic actions like throwing he investigator under he bus who was on his side. It is when discussion is about characters being written in a DC movie and my opinion about Superman is far from being a minority, that's been happening since Man of Steel.
I don' think anyone's disagreeing about that, that's a privilege Snyder had Whedon didn't which was cut this film to 2 hours or we replace out without someone else who will. Except his role wasn't reduced to that catchphrase in Whedon's movie, its not like Cyborg didn't have a personality or arc there.
The catchphrase was a major point of contention and the dynamics around it are grotty as hell. [/quote[
True.
But he shot the take. As he arrived on set, he says, Whedon stretched out his arms and said a line from Hamlet in a mocking tone: "Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you." Fisher replied, "Joss — don't. I'm not in the mood." As he left the set after saying just that one phrase for the cameras, he says, Whedon called out, "Nice work, Ray."
Nobody's defending Whedon's behaviour. He was a dick, it was a toxic work environment but that specific incident wasn't something to burn a career over.
It's baffling how Snyder's movies being liked is being made to be a moral set of character and anyone who is on the wrong side is a bad person. People weren't this defensive over Sucker Punch.
What are you talking about?[/quote]
I can't say one word about disliking Snyder or his movies without that being used against me as though I did something wrong for having that opinion.
Fischer raised issues with the JL set under Whedon.
This is a huge understatement about how hard Fisher went after WB and anyone who he had troubles with. And it wasn't just Whedon, it was Warner Media, Berg, Johns, the investigator, Hamada. Fisher was done dirty but he overreacted, he's not Tom Cruise.
It was you that brought up:
Snyder and Fisher are connected through the Snyder Cut, who they both view as being their magnum opus and a chance for better things, they need each other to thrive. This is why we never hear what Fisher has to say about Snyder's problematic movies and how Snyder waiting until after is released to denounce Nazis isn't a problem or other nasty shit Snyder's said about anyone who dislikes his movies. Fisher's on the Shut Up and Fuck You train.
What relevance does that have? What does Fischer's opinion on say, 300 have to do with anything? Who said you have to like Snyders movies or youre a bad person? It seems like the opposite, that youre suggesting Fishcer is somehow being dishonest or unscrupulous because he doesn't vocally DISLIKE Snyders movies?
This isn't occurring in a vacuum. Because Snyder is his meal ticket and Snyder didn't just appear on Earth the day he started directing JL and vanish afterward leaving nothing behind. Who Snyder is and his works matter, since Fisher is working on his movie and he's a big supporter of Snyder. It's not exactly controversial to say actors keep he company line when their careers rely on being on good terms with heir directors and other industry insiders, Hugh Jackman did this with numerous bad X-men movies - it's common in Hollywood. It does look dishonest when he looks the over way while Snyder does problematic actions, speaking of - is it true Iris only got a tiny cameo in the Snyder Cut? Shouldn' he be pushing for her to have a bigger role in the movie than wha she got? I said he's supporting Snyder because it helps his career, that's got nothing to do with my opinion on Snyder's movies. Snyder is a person who exists inside our universe affecting it, he's not someone who doesn't impact pop culture or Hollywood. It's possible to like Snyder's movies and find parts of them problematic. I liked his Watchmen. And why are we avoiding what terrible things Snyder's said off-set? We don't ignore what Whedon's done off-set or outside JL for good reason.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Lee version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Best Hulk movie to date in my opinion. In general, it did the best job of portraying the importance of anger when it comes to the Hulk. I especially liked how the Hulk physically changed size with his anger level. I had never thought of it being portrayed that way but I think it works perfectly on film.
True, but the problems he was facing weren't all because of race and he didn't act like it was micro-aggressions he wanted careers ended over his. His superiors were insensitive and being dicks, he never produced smoking guns appropriate for the heat he was bringing, and with problematic actions like throwing he investigator under he bus who was on his side. It is when discussion is about characters being written in a DC movie and my opinion about Superman is far from being a minority, that's been happening since Man of Steel.
He laid out the allegations clearly. Other people backed him up on it. In the article posted he specifically says he does not want careers ended.
"I don't believe some of these people are fit for positions of leadership," says Fisher, who explains he's not looking for anyone to be fired. "I don't want them excommunicated from Hollywood, but I don't think they should be in charge of the hiring and firing of other people." Fisher knows he's not going to win that battle, but he feels a point has been made. "If I can't get accountability," he says, "at least I can make people aware of who they're dealing with."
You're accusing him of 'overreacting' over things that are only 'micro aggressions'.
I don't know how to put this more plainly. The "just" microaggressions are the problem. When a POC complains about microaggressions people say 'you're just over reacting'. thats what makes micro aggressions problematic and hostile. That they're subtle and passive-aggressive and plausibly deniable. They make a hositile and toxic environment where when the POC complains people can go 'woah woah lighten up! No need to be angry about it!"
Fischer is talking directly about his experiences on the set, without exaggeration and you are saying: That he's just overreacting, being difficult, being a diva, doing it for selfish reasons, stop being so angry about it, all the other stuff people say whenever a POC dares to complain about something.
This is a huge understatement about how hard Fisher went after WB and anyone who he had troubles with. And it wasn't just Whedon, it was Warner Media, Berg, Johns, the investigator, Hamada. Fisher was done dirty but he overreacted, he's not Tom Cruise.
I have very little sympathy for defending the hollywood machine against the opinions of a young black actor tbh.
Nobody's defending Whedon's behaviour. He was a dick, it was a toxic work environment but that specific incident wasn't something to burn a career over.
Why not? Why isn't being a dick to your actors to the point where they hate you and dont want to work with you (and recall, it isnt just fischer who had the issues here) enough to burn a career over?
Also I want to keep in mind the 'one bad apple' thing, where people disavow the individual but defend the structure that enables them. Disavow Whedon himself (which is easy now the tide has turned against him) but in the same breath go "but c'mon is what they did really that bad though that you gotta make a big deal about it?'
I can't say one word about disliking Snyder or his movies without that being used against me as though I did something wrong for having that opinion.
Ok. But, thats not what happened. You said:
Snyder and Fisher are connected through the Snyder Cut, who they both view as being their magnum opus and a chance for better things, they need each other to thrive. This is why we never hear what Fisher has to say about Snyder's problematic movies and how Snyder waiting until after is released to denounce Nazis isn't a problem or other nasty shit Snyder's said about anyone who dislikes his movies. Fisher's on the Shut Up and Fuck You train.
Which sounds a lot like questioning Fischers character and his honesty because of his opinions on Snyder or his movies.
I said he's supporting Snyder because it helps his career,
Going against half the WB top brass as a new actor isn't exactly great for his career.
And why are we avoiding what terrible things Snyder's said off-set? We don't ignore what Whedon's done off-set or outside JL for good reason.
What things? What are you talking about? What relevance does it have to Fischer?
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Lee version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Best Hulk movie to date in my opinion. In general, it did the best job of portraying the importance of anger when it comes to the Hulk. I especially liked how the Hulk physically changed size with his anger level. I had never thought of it being portrayed that way but I think it works perfectly on film.
I'm one of those odd ducks who likes both hulk movies because I find that they examine the character from different perspectives, with ang's being about "why is the hulk" versus norton's which was "what is the hulk?"
But because people are morons all they talk about are the gamma dogs as though the movie was all about bruce being a jolly green micahael vick.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Lee version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Best Hulk movie to date in my opinion. In general, it did the best job of portraying the importance of anger when it comes to the Hulk. I especially liked how the Hulk physically changed size with his anger level. I had never thought of it being portrayed that way but I think it works perfectly on film.
I'm one of those odd ducks who likes both hulk movies because I find that they examine the character from different perspectives, with ang's being about "why is the hulk" versus norton's which was "what is the hulk?"
But because people are morons all they talk about are the gamma dogs as though the movie was all about bruce being a jolly green micahael vick.
I really appreciate about the Ang Lee Hulk that it shoes you can make a great superhero movie (and I consider it one of the all-time best) without following the MCU formula. I think WB should have a hard look at Lee for future DC movies that don't ape Marvel's approach.
Unfortunately WB only seems capable of reacting to not meeting their goals by ordering "be more like Marvel!". Hulk -> Incredible Hulk. ZSJL -> Whedon JL.
It's like the sonar software in Hunt for the Red October. If it doesn't understand, it says "seismic anomaly".
It's actually embarrassing how many times in that article it's reported that WB tried to play the "RACIST?! My best friend is black/chinese/fillipino!" card without actually dealing with any of Fischer's specific complaints.
+2
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I think there's a pretty wide swath of behavior being accounted for here, not all of which would rise to the level of racial microaggression. Again, without knowing the full scope of what actually occurred (we are really only getting Fisher's side of the story), even assuming the article is presenting everything as factually true as possible, a lot of what Fisher is complaining about is just people being assholes, not people being racist assholes.
The, "Booyah!" thing, for example, is an example of the type of racist caricaturing, particularly in the context of the film, that should just not happen anymore. People should've listened to Fisher when he expressed dismay at the line. But lumping that in with everyone hating their lines and being pissed off about how Whedon treated them is unfair both to that particular issue and to the more general concern about how the film was being managed (e.g., whether it rose to the level of abuse).
An actor has every right to not like their lines. But they are being paid to do a job. And as much as we might think that creative endeavors are somehow exempt from normal workplace dynamics, the fact of the matter is that they are not. In an ideal world, everyone has a say in how they do their job, regardless of whether it's a creative or collaborative work. But the people paying the bill also have a right to set expectations with regards to the final product. To me, this reads a lot like a perfect storm situation, where you have a studio that is paying a shit ton of money to make something, they aren't happy with the final product, and they are paying even more money in an attempt to fix it, and where the person brought in is already a giant asshole and is now being put under pressure to fix something with a limited amount of time and a limited amount of money.
The collaborative process necessarily require some give-and-take, and it's not at all clear to me that the article is aware of or cares to acknowledge the reality of the forces on the ground. If it weren't Whedon, it would've been someone else. And that person would still have been under enough pressure to not be able to cater to the whims of everyone on set, because even just having the conversation takes time that you don't have. And this may have been a drastic departure from the previous working dynamics, where everyone's thoughts were welcome and included.
On the other hand, Whedon definitely didn't do his job properly if everyone walked away from the whole experience pissed off. And he very much didn't do his job properly and potentially abused people if he was taking everyone to task and berating them publicly and privately. That kind of behavior is unacceptable, period, regardless of whether it's racially motivated (which, if so, would only make it worse).
In many ways it's impossible and unfair to separate out everything into neat little buckets, but I think it's worth pointing out that not all things are motivated by the same forces, and there can be a lot of things in play that complicate the issue. Simply saying, "Everyone is racist! This whole thing would've been avoided if we didn't have racists!" is an oversimplification. There are definitely issues here where people weren't listened to where they should've been, particularly around representation and caricature. But that's not the same thing as Jeremy Irons hating his lines. And it's not the same thing, although it is definitely exacerbated by, Joss Whedon being an unrepentant asshole.
My takeaways:
Whedon is deservedly getting shit on for being an asshole and now has a well-earned black mark on his career, which hopefully means he can't find a big job until he proves he has changed
Johns comes across as a well-meaning but ignorant person who feels a lot of ownership over a black character whose experience he may not fully understand, and this ignorance needs to be addressed.
WB clearly have issues with a lack of representation in their executive suite and a lack of racial awareness all around, and need to be much more sensitive when these questions arise in their productions. They need to install people in leadership positions who are better-equipped to make decisions on these issues rather than just depending upon the existing old guard who are clearly out of their depth and/or don't care about those issues. They are also shit at their jobs in general, so that's par for the course I guess.
Henry Cavill didnt have to say 'up up and away', Affleck didnt have to do any Adam West lines, Fischer is right, its weird that the only character who is bound to a catchphrase is the black guy.
"Up, up, and away" is a throwback to a radio series used to indicate to an audience that Superman was flying because they couldn't actually see him flying. I grew up watching the Adam West series, and I have no idea what you're referring to. Most younger people have never watched that series at all. Your examples are more representative of the era they were created, rather than the character itself. That's very different from cartoon Cyborg, which is not only a modern example, but also the single most famous depiction of the character.
Batman's most notable catch phrase is "I'm Batman." Which Nolan has no issue incorporating in his movies.
Regardless of whether or not you find his arc 'interesting' or not, having an arc is still better than not having one.
That's might sound like conventional screenwriter wisdom, but it's not actually true. Lots of stories are better off with a flat arc than no arc rather than a lazy or hamfisted arc. Especially in the superhero genre, where characters who've been featured in literally thousands of comic books can't be expected to undergo a meaningful character arc in every single issue. Look at the Star Wars prequel. They decided to give Darth Vader a character arc he didn't have before, and the general consensus is that it ruined his character, because the execution was really weak.
I mean his criticism is basically that as the one black character his role got reduced from an actual character to a one-dimensional catchphrase. Going "well, the finished version wasn't that DEEP anyway" misses the point. it just turns the conversation back to Snyder good director/Snyder bad director. (I don't see where the claim is that Snyder is a once in a lifetime genius, just that he treated the character and cast BETTER)
The problem you're missing is that the Snyder version is also a one-dimensional character, he's just a one-dimensional character with more scenes and backstory. His additional scenes in the Snyder cut reveal his character along a one-dimensional axis. He gives a struggling mom $100,000, but since he can simply conjure money from thin air, it doesn't reveal anything interesting about him on it's own. All we learn is that he has tech powers and he likes to help people, something that most people could have already assumed from learning that this is a superhero movie with a cyborg.
We also get a scene that shows he hacked the college to help out a classmate. In the hands of a more competent director, that could have revealed something interesting about his character: Victor is a rule breaker and reckless even if it means jeopardizing his own future! But instead, Snyder handwaves that away. His mom fights his battle for him, Victor has a smug grin on his face, and he suffers no consequences from it. He's not even pulled from the football team, which is the absolute least they should have done in response. Since he suffers no consequences from his actions, his actions really don't mean anything.
Victor being a super genius who's also a star athlete is something that could have been the basis for character development, but not in the hands of Snyder. Instead of having to choose between science or sports and seeing him prioritize one over the other, Victor achieves both things effortlessly. Instead of adding to his character, it instead does the opposite. Fisher wants to showcase a powerful black hero who's good at everything he does, but he does so in a way that makes him completely unrelatable. It's the same way Wonder Woman comes across as being incredibly hollow when she says that any young girl can grow up to be like her, and glosses over the fact that she's basically a God from a magical fantasy land.
Claiming 'Self-indulgence' there is really problematic because that's an issue the one black person in a group of white people often faces by default - that they are the sole black person in a group of white people so they face the burden of being representative. But any complaints they have can be written off as them being 'difficult'.
Making the story longer but not more interesting simply to show off is self-indulgent, period. Zack Snyder is a very white dude who's often faced the exact same criticism ever since he discovered slow mo effects.
Fisher holding himself up as the definitive representative for all black superheroes in general is extremely presumptuous, because I'm pretty sure the black community never asked him to do that. "Blade" is a black superhero who pretty much proved that superhero movies didn't need to be campy. Every other superhero movie since then owes a lot to Blade. "Spawn" was a relatively big budget movie for a lesser known black superhero that tried to do the same. "Meteor Man" and "Blankman" were both original creations designed to reinvent the genre with black actors in mind. For more modern examples, you already had War Machine and Black Panther in the MCU. Luke Cage had a critically acclaimed Netflix series.
Even in the context of DC, "Steel" and "Catwoman" pre-date Cyborg by several decades. Terrible movies, sure, but that was true for most superhero movies in general. He makes a big deal about how Snyder depicts black people as geniuses, but DC already had Steel, Lucius Fox, Richard Pryor's character in Superman III, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
Prior to his first BvS, the Snyderverse consisted of only one movie with one superhero. So pointing out that all the other superheroes were white before he came along isn't aas big of a deal as he makes it out to be. And technically not true, because we learn that one of the black characters in "Man of Steel" was Martian Manhunter all along. Cyborg isn't even the only person of color on the Justice League, since Jason Momoa identifies as native Hawaiian and Polynesian.
The problem you're missing is that the Snyder version is also a one-dimensional character, he's just a one-dimensional character with more scenes and backstory. His additional scenes in the Snyder cut reveal his character along a one-dimensional axis. He gives a struggling mom $100,000, but since he can simply conjure money from thin air, it doesn't reveal anything interesting about him on it's own. All we learn is that he has tech powers and he likes to help people, something that most people could have already assumed from learning that this is a superhero movie with a cyborg.
We also get a scene that shows he hacked the college to help out a classmate. In the hands of a more competent director, that could have revealed something interesting about his character: Victor is a rule breaker and reckless even if it means jeopardizing his own future! But instead, Snyder handwaves that away. His mom fights his battle for him, Victor has a smug grin on his face, and he suffers no consequences from it. He's not even pulled from the football team, which is the absolute least they should have done in response. Since he suffers no consequences from his actions, his actions really don't mean anything.
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.)
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.
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.
Fisher holding himself up as the definitive representative for all black superheroes in general is extremely presumptuous, because I'm pretty sure the black community never asked him to do that. "Blade" is a black superhero who pretty much proved that superhero movies didn't need to be campy. Every other superhero movie since then owes a lot to Blade. "Spawn" was a relatively big budget movie for a lesser known black superhero that tried to do the same. "Meteor Man" and "Blankman" were both original creations designed to reinvent the genre with black actors in mind. For more modern examples, you already had War Machine and Black Panther in the MCU. Luke Cage had a critically acclaimed Netflix series.
There is no black hivemind that asks for anything, that's not how representation works. When you're the only black person in the room or in big letters on the poster the burden to be representative is something that arrives with it.
Even in the context of DC, "Steel" and "Catwoman" pre-date Cyborg by several decades. Terrible movies, sure, but that was true for most superhero movies in general. He makes a big deal about how Snyder depicts black people as geniuses, but DC already had Steel, Lucius Fox, Richard Pryor's character in Superman III, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
Black kids don't run out to buy Richard Pryor in superman III toys.
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?
Schrodinger, I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions and unwarranted conclusions in some of your comments. For one, I wouldn't call Fischer's role 1-dimensional - especially relative to the other characters in the film. Also at no point did Fischer or anybody here hold him up as "the definitive representation for all black superheroes".
Blade came out in 1998 - 23 years ago. Spawn was 1997 (also wasn't really a lesser known black hero as the comic was regularly in the top 5 sales) - the world is more than ready for a positive representation of a black hero on screen.
Schrodinger, I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions and unwarranted conclusions in some of your comments. For one, I wouldn't call Fischer's role 1-dimensional - especially relative to the other characters in the film. Also at no point did Fischer or anybody here hold him up as "the definitive representation for all black superheroes".
Blade came out in 1998 - 23 years ago. Spawn was 1997 (also wasn't really a lesser known black hero as the comic was regularly in the top 5 sales) - the world is more than ready for a positive representation of a black hero on screen.
They got that on april 4th 2014 with Captain america and the winter soldier. and how it gave us the falcon. Falcon was also in the sequel in 2016 along with black panther (who would go on to have his own film).
Before that there was War Machine in Iron man 2 released in 2010. Also Iron man 3 had him in it.
And if marvel doesn't count: DC had catwoman in 2004.
Gaddez on
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
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.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Lee version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Best Hulk movie to date in my opinion. In general, it did the best job of portraying the importance of anger when it comes to the Hulk. I especially liked how the Hulk physically changed size with his anger level. I had never thought of it being portrayed that way but I think it works perfectly on film.
I'm one of those odd ducks who likes both hulk movies because I find that they examine the character from different perspectives, with ang's being about "why is the hulk" versus norton's which was "what is the hulk?"
But because people are morons all they talk about are the gamma dogs as though the movie was all about bruce being a jolly green micahael vick.
I really appreciate about the Ang Lee Hulk that it shoes you can make a great superhero movie (and I consider it one of the all-time best) without following the MCU formula. I think WB should have a hard look at Lee for future DC movies that don't ape Marvel's approach.
Unfortunately WB only seems capable of reacting to not meeting their goals by ordering "be more like Marvel!". Hulk -> Incredible Hulk. ZSJL -> Whedon JL.
It's like the sonar software in Hunt for the Red October. If it doesn't understand, it says "seismic anomaly".
Ang Lee's Hulk probably had one of the memorable teaser trailers ever.
The character understands the rush he gets from losing control, but also knows how incredibly destructive it can be. That gives his character a lot of depth that Cyborg doesn't have. Cyborg's response is basically, "My mom died into a car accident because daddy didn't love me enough." Like... what? Even if his father attended every football game ever, that doesn't magically make you immune from car accidents.
Part of the problem is that Cyborg's specific tragedy isn't based on any type of real world commentary. Batman is about crime. Spider-Man is about apathy. The Hulk is about emotional trauma and domestic violence. But Cyborg's tragedy boils down to random chance. Accident's happen. And that isn't really followed up on in any meaningful way. It doesn't even have the start of an arc, much less a complete one. The fact that we also see a truck accident for the Flash and a boating accident for Aquaman makes this almost a recurring theme that can be developed further, except for the fact that it never actually is.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Lee version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Best Hulk movie to date in my opinion. In general, it did the best job of portraying the importance of anger when it comes to the Hulk. I especially liked how the Hulk physically changed size with his anger level. I had never thought of it being portrayed that way but I think it works perfectly on film.
I'm one of those odd ducks who likes both hulk movies because I find that they examine the character from different perspectives, with ang's being about "why is the hulk" versus norton's which was "what is the hulk?"
But because people are morons all they talk about are the gamma dogs as though the movie was all about bruce being a jolly green micahael vick.
I really appreciate about the Ang Lee Hulk that it shoes you can make a great superhero movie (and I consider it one of the all-time best) without following the MCU formula. I think WB should have a hard look at Lee for future DC movies that don't ape Marvel's approach.
Unfortunately WB only seems capable of reacting to not meeting their goals by ordering "be more like Marvel!". Hulk -> Incredible Hulk. ZSJL -> Whedon JL.
It's like the sonar software in Hunt for the Red October. If it doesn't understand, it says "seismic anomaly".
Ang Lee's Hulk probably had one of the memorable teaser trailers ever.
The character understands the rush he gets from losing control, but also knows how incredibly destructive it can be. That gives his character a lot of depth that Cyborg doesn't have. Cyborg's response is basically, "My mom died into a car accident because daddy didn't love me enough." Like... what? Even if his father attended every football game ever, that doesn't magically make you immune from car accidents.
Part of the problem is that Cyborg's specific tragedy isn't based on any type of real world commentary. Batman is about crime. Spider-Man is about apathy. The Hulk is about emotional trauma and domestic violence. But Cyborg's tragedy boils down to random chance. Accident's happen. And that isn't really followed up on in any meaningful way. It doesn't even have the start of an arc, much less a complete one. The fact that we also see a truck accident for the Flash and a boating accident for Aquaman makes this almost a recurring theme that can be developed further, except for the fact that it never actually is.
I mean, an argument could be made that cyborg's tragedy is that a decision was made for him without his consent, but it kind of falls apart when you consider that the alternative was death.
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.
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.
Schrodinger, I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions and unwarranted conclusions in some of your comments. For one, I wouldn't call Fischer's role 1-dimensional - especially relative to the other characters in the film. Also at no point did Fischer or anybody here hold him up as "the definitive representation for all black superheroes".
Blade came out in 1998 - 23 years ago. Spawn was 1997 (also wasn't really a lesser known black hero as the comic was regularly in the top 5 sales) - the world is more than ready for a positive representation of a black hero on screen.
They got that on april 4th 2014 with Captain america and the winter soldier. and how it gave us the falcon. Falcon was also in the sequel in 2016 along with black panther (who would go on to have his own film).
Before that there was War Machine in Iron man 2 released in 2010. Also Iron man 3 had him in it.
And if marvel doesn't count: DC had catwoman in 2004.
My comment wasn't about filling any kind of quota and I don't think listing off a bunch of sidekick characters that appeared minimally on film really amounts to much in the way of representation. Black Panther is about the only case I can think of in recent memory where a studio said "Yes. We are going to put effort and a lot of fucking money behind this character".
Cyborg's arc in the Snyder cut isn't exactly nuanced and deep but it's notable in that it was dependent on a black actor being the emotional center of the film. These kind of things are important to tackle if we're ever going to approach any form of equity wrt to representation in media.
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.
Posts
One of the DC animated shows had this by superman physically defeating Darkseid and telling the Apokolipsians they were free. They responded by carefully carrying Darkseid off to tend to him.
Boom tubes are one of my favorite little things about DC. Interstellar transportation, with only the mild downside of an earsplitting BOOM when you use them. Gives it character, and the fact that it's a teleportation tech that isn't just downside-free zapping from one place to another makes it somehow more... acceptable, I guess?
It also changes their size.
I've always said the GotG had the same kind of adventure vibe I used to get when I watched movies like Indiana Jones. It feels like those older family movies even if it looks fantastical.
Steam: adamjnet
This little exchange in Kingdom Come furthers that.
https://panels-of-interest.tumblr.com/post/173237733253/orion-vs-superman-from-kingdom-come-1996-2
counterpoint- the excessive explaining of every passing moment in a JoJo fight is fucking stupid and that's what makes it magical. I love JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, but if I wanted to produce something intended to be taken even halfway seriously I would not be using it as a model.
Edit: Like, they'll be very clear on what a person's abilities are, sure, but then in the next scene they'll be like "oh it turns out strawberry jam is an amazing conductor of Hamon" or whatever they need to say to get whatever they want to have happen on screen
This seems pretty anti-life to me. The only tricky bit is how to convey that in a movie in order to make it distinctly a different thing than just the MCU mind stone scepter on steroids.
e; about where it is in the multiverse, I do wanna see the movie.
The idea that GotG was some sort of ‘risky’ film was always overblown, imo; ‘charismatic misfits thrown together by circumstance go on a caper’ isn’t exactly new ground in film. The weirdest part is/was the hokey title
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yeah there's a lot to unpack... To be frank it's hard to separate out how much of this is driven by Joss Whedon being an asshole (and the subsequent assholeness of everyone in the WB). It feels like that's the primary driving force behind a lot of the animus, while the rest is a lack of racial sensitivity and representation in decision-making.
Fisher definitely has a case here but I'm not sure it's as strong as he seems to thinks it is. He seems to operate under the mistaken assumption that actors have a lot of say in productions. Unless you are established and make a lot of money, that's very much not the case. You can have an opinion about stuff but the director or powers-that-be don't have to take them into consideration or even care about them.
Thing is, even "big name" actors do a lot of kowtowing due to the fact that the studio and the director are the kings of the hill and what they say goes.
Because nobody wants to deal with an Eric norton.
I think a lot of this boils down to the idea of sunk cost. Ray was emotionally invested in the role as Snyder envisioned it, and devastated when that was taken away from him. But DC had their own sunk cost. They were financially invested in Zack Snyder's vision in the hopes of creating their own cinematic universe, only to realize that his movie was unworkable for a theatrical release, not to mention a huge turnoff for critics and audiences. The studio tried to recoup their financial investment by bringing Whedon on board to make the movie "fun." Which doesn't really work after the movie was already almost finished, because by then it's too late and your movie is pretty much guaranteed to be garbage. Ray tried to recoup his emotional investment by butting heads with the director. The director who was acting under the orders of the studio.
I think Ray also put a lot of pressure on himself to be the most quintessential and definitive black superhero ever, and cared more about making his character ground breaking than actually interesting. Which is why he needs to hype his character up as the most powerful entity in the entire DCU, or why he resisted saying the catch phrase that his character is most known for. Unfortunately, It's entirely possible for Cyborg to be the emotional heart of Zack Snyder's vision, but still not very interesting on his own.
For comparison, let's look at the Hulk: Super smart guy who's cursed to be scene as a powerful monster, but who ends up accepting who he is and fight for good. He's not the main protagonist or the heart of the first "Avengers" movie, but he's a lot more memorable in a much shorter amount of time.
In the comics, the Hulk has an incredibly tragic backstory: His father assumed he was a mutant freak because of his abnormal intelligence and tried to murder him, then murdered his wife when she tried to stop him. Bruce vows to keep his emotions bottled up in order to avoid becoming a monster like his father, only to end up becoming the most scariest monster of all. The only movie that really explored that backstory was Ang Li version. Which most people hated. The rest of the movie series presents Bruce as an out of control rage machine, but they don't bother explaining why. Because his backstory isn't actually that important. What's important is how he reacts and deals with it. Cyborg giving $100,000 to a struggling mom shows that he's a nice guy, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting about character, because the action doesn't actually cost him anything.
Cyborg's entire arc boils down to "I'm not broken. And I'm not alone," where he rejects the lotus eater machine of the Mother Box. Which I guess is super deep by Snyder standards, but which comes across as incredibly shallow even compared to the "be careful what you wish for" message of WW1984. Because at least in that movie, you can understand why people were attached to their wish, and why it was so hard for them to renounce them. Cyborg is supposed to be tempted by fake parents standing by a fake version of himself in front of a post-apocalyptic hell scape that is literally on fire, which isn't believable in the least. It's just lazy storytelling.
Anyway, Whedon's bullying is bad, and I'm glad he's been blacklisted. But I think that Fisher is trying way too hard to promote Snyder as the greatest visionary of all time, for self-indulgent reasons. Just because the new boss is a piece of shit doesn't mean that the old boss was a once-in-a-lifetime genius.
It's not that weird, Hollywood casts obscure and unknown actors in supporting casts regularly but they are also more expendable then the big draw roles so they're the first to be cut when it gets to editing. I'm baffled how Fisher is so naive about how movies are made, despite having a significant role when Snyder was in the seat.
Agreed.
I don't think Hulk is the right example for Cyborg, considering his footprint on pop culture going back to the tv show. Everyone might not know the specifics but they understand the basics of the character who was the only Avenger rivalling Spider-man in popularity before the MCU hit the scene. Cyborg's Black Widow - without the movie set up she had in Iron Man 2.
Cyborg's supposed to be a big example of why Whedon's movie failed to stick the landing, the fact he somehow made a proper arc for Cyborg must be a bigger event beach it becomes less so when acknowledging the circumstances which lead to Cyborg's status in '17. Which has compounded by Fisher's accusations making it a symbolic and moral victory for the Pro-Snyder contingent.
Snyder and Fisher are connected through the Snyder Cut, who they both view as being their magnum opus and a chance for better things, they need each other to thrive. This is why we never hear what Fisher has to say about Snyder's problematic movies and how Snyder waiting until after is released to denounce Nazis isn't a problem or other nasty shit Snyder's said about anyone who dislikes his movies. Fisher's on the Shut Up and Fuck You train.
Regardless of whether or not you find his arc 'interesting' or not, having an arc is still better than not having one.
I mean his criticism is basically that as the one black character his role got reduced from an actual character to a one-dimensional catchphrase. Going "well, the finished version wasn't that DEEP anyway" misses the point. it just turns the conversation back to Snyder good director/Snyder bad director. (I don't see where the claim is that Snyder is a once in a lifetime genius, just that he treated the character and cast BETTER)
Claiming 'Self-indulgence' there is really problematic because that's an issue the one black person in a group of white people often faces by default - that they are the sole black person in a group of white people so they face the burden of being representative. But any complaints they have can be written off as them being 'difficult'.
Its really baffling how Fishers issues with JWs behavior, which the rest of the cast have backed him up on, have become about how much you dislike Snyders movies.
Sure. Cavill had a bigger problem, in that people hated his Superman completely because he wasn't recognisable. West hasn't been relevant for generations, it'd be something from Nolan's films or Batman TAS.
I don' think anyone's disagreeing about that, that's a privilege Snyder had Whedon didn't which was cut this film to 2 hours or we replace out without someone else who will. Except his role wasn't reduced to that catchphrase in Whedon's movie, its not like Cyborg didn't have a personality or arc there.
I wasn't talking about my opinions on Snyder's movies there it was about Snyder and Fisher's behaviour around them. Moving the goal posts to be about me rather than what I was saying is a distraction. Whedon was a dick and Fisher got short changed but I detest conflating the horrible conditions behind the scenes with he movies themselves - which is what I was asking about. Fisher's revelations didn't pan out as he'd been suggesting for months, Gal Gadot and Charisma Carpenter did more to kill Whedon's career than Fisher did. It's baffling how Snyder's movies being liked is being made to be a moral set of character and anyone who is on the wrong side is a bad person. People weren't this defensive over Sucker Punch.
Again, there is a racial aspect here you are ignoring to turn the conversation back to disliking Snyders movie. Whether or not you hate Cavills superman is not relevent.
The catchphrase was a major point of contention and the dynamics around it are grotty as hell.
What are you talking about?
Fischer raised issues with the JL set under Whedon.
It was you that brought up:
What relevance does that have? What does Fischer's opinion on say, 300 have to do with anything? Who said you have to like Snyders movies or youre a bad person? It seems like the opposite, that youre suggesting Fishcer is somehow being dishonest or unscrupulous because he doesn't vocally DISLIKE Snyders movies?
It's just cool cause normally a story like this would be public hearsay and a dark secret amongst a few dozen industry insiders and now we got to see both directors versions and it seems clear Whedon came in day one and said "I don't have time for your Ray Fischer"
I agree with most of the sentiment here that Whedon is an old asshole and Fischer is a young asshole and I think Fischer will have the opportunity to grow and learn or maybe he'll be the next Shia Lebouf, who knows?
True, but the problems he was facing weren't all because of race and he didn't act like it was micro-aggressions he wanted careers ended over his. His superiors were insensitive and being dicks, he never produced smoking guns appropriate for the heat he was bringing, and with problematic actions like throwing he investigator under he bus who was on his side. It is when discussion is about characters being written in a DC movie and my opinion about Superman is far from being a minority, that's been happening since Man of Steel.
The catchphrase was a major point of contention and the dynamics around it are grotty as hell. [/quote[
True.
Nobody's defending Whedon's behaviour. He was a dick, it was a toxic work environment but that specific incident wasn't something to burn a career over.
What are you talking about?[/quote]
I can't say one word about disliking Snyder or his movies without that being used against me as though I did something wrong for having that opinion.
This is a huge understatement about how hard Fisher went after WB and anyone who he had troubles with. And it wasn't just Whedon, it was Warner Media, Berg, Johns, the investigator, Hamada. Fisher was done dirty but he overreacted, he's not Tom Cruise.
This isn't occurring in a vacuum. Because Snyder is his meal ticket and Snyder didn't just appear on Earth the day he started directing JL and vanish afterward leaving nothing behind. Who Snyder is and his works matter, since Fisher is working on his movie and he's a big supporter of Snyder. It's not exactly controversial to say actors keep he company line when their careers rely on being on good terms with heir directors and other industry insiders, Hugh Jackman did this with numerous bad X-men movies - it's common in Hollywood. It does look dishonest when he looks the over way while Snyder does problematic actions, speaking of - is it true Iris only got a tiny cameo in the Snyder Cut? Shouldn' he be pushing for her to have a bigger role in the movie than wha she got? I said he's supporting Snyder because it helps his career, that's got nothing to do with my opinion on Snyder's movies. Snyder is a person who exists inside our universe affecting it, he's not someone who doesn't impact pop culture or Hollywood. It's possible to like Snyder's movies and find parts of them problematic. I liked his Watchmen. And why are we avoiding what terrible things Snyder's said off-set? We don't ignore what Whedon's done off-set or outside JL for good reason.
Best Hulk movie to date in my opinion. In general, it did the best job of portraying the importance of anger when it comes to the Hulk. I especially liked how the Hulk physically changed size with his anger level. I had never thought of it being portrayed that way but I think it works perfectly on film.
He laid out the allegations clearly. Other people backed him up on it. In the article posted he specifically says he does not want careers ended.
You're accusing him of 'overreacting' over things that are only 'micro aggressions'.
I don't know how to put this more plainly. The "just" microaggressions are the problem. When a POC complains about microaggressions people say 'you're just over reacting'. thats what makes micro aggressions problematic and hostile. That they're subtle and passive-aggressive and plausibly deniable. They make a hositile and toxic environment where when the POC complains people can go 'woah woah lighten up! No need to be angry about it!"
Fischer is talking directly about his experiences on the set, without exaggeration and you are saying: That he's just overreacting, being difficult, being a diva, doing it for selfish reasons, stop being so angry about it, all the other stuff people say whenever a POC dares to complain about something.
I have very little sympathy for defending the hollywood machine against the opinions of a young black actor tbh.
Why not? Why isn't being a dick to your actors to the point where they hate you and dont want to work with you (and recall, it isnt just fischer who had the issues here) enough to burn a career over?
Also I want to keep in mind the 'one bad apple' thing, where people disavow the individual but defend the structure that enables them. Disavow Whedon himself (which is easy now the tide has turned against him) but in the same breath go "but c'mon is what they did really that bad though that you gotta make a big deal about it?'
Ok. But, thats not what happened. You said:
Which sounds a lot like questioning Fischers character and his honesty because of his opinions on Snyder or his movies.
Going against half the WB top brass as a new actor isn't exactly great for his career.
What things? What are you talking about? What relevance does it have to Fischer?
I'm one of those odd ducks who likes both hulk movies because I find that they examine the character from different perspectives, with ang's being about "why is the hulk" versus norton's which was "what is the hulk?"
But because people are morons all they talk about are the gamma dogs as though the movie was all about bruce being a jolly green micahael vick.
I really appreciate about the Ang Lee Hulk that it shoes you can make a great superhero movie (and I consider it one of the all-time best) without following the MCU formula. I think WB should have a hard look at Lee for future DC movies that don't ape Marvel's approach.
Unfortunately WB only seems capable of reacting to not meeting their goals by ordering "be more like Marvel!". Hulk -> Incredible Hulk. ZSJL -> Whedon JL.
It's like the sonar software in Hunt for the Red October. If it doesn't understand, it says "seismic anomaly".
The, "Booyah!" thing, for example, is an example of the type of racist caricaturing, particularly in the context of the film, that should just not happen anymore. People should've listened to Fisher when he expressed dismay at the line. But lumping that in with everyone hating their lines and being pissed off about how Whedon treated them is unfair both to that particular issue and to the more general concern about how the film was being managed (e.g., whether it rose to the level of abuse).
An actor has every right to not like their lines. But they are being paid to do a job. And as much as we might think that creative endeavors are somehow exempt from normal workplace dynamics, the fact of the matter is that they are not. In an ideal world, everyone has a say in how they do their job, regardless of whether it's a creative or collaborative work. But the people paying the bill also have a right to set expectations with regards to the final product. To me, this reads a lot like a perfect storm situation, where you have a studio that is paying a shit ton of money to make something, they aren't happy with the final product, and they are paying even more money in an attempt to fix it, and where the person brought in is already a giant asshole and is now being put under pressure to fix something with a limited amount of time and a limited amount of money.
The collaborative process necessarily require some give-and-take, and it's not at all clear to me that the article is aware of or cares to acknowledge the reality of the forces on the ground. If it weren't Whedon, it would've been someone else. And that person would still have been under enough pressure to not be able to cater to the whims of everyone on set, because even just having the conversation takes time that you don't have. And this may have been a drastic departure from the previous working dynamics, where everyone's thoughts were welcome and included.
On the other hand, Whedon definitely didn't do his job properly if everyone walked away from the whole experience pissed off. And he very much didn't do his job properly and potentially abused people if he was taking everyone to task and berating them publicly and privately. That kind of behavior is unacceptable, period, regardless of whether it's racially motivated (which, if so, would only make it worse).
In many ways it's impossible and unfair to separate out everything into neat little buckets, but I think it's worth pointing out that not all things are motivated by the same forces, and there can be a lot of things in play that complicate the issue. Simply saying, "Everyone is racist! This whole thing would've been avoided if we didn't have racists!" is an oversimplification. There are definitely issues here where people weren't listened to where they should've been, particularly around representation and caricature. But that's not the same thing as Jeremy Irons hating his lines. And it's not the same thing, although it is definitely exacerbated by, Joss Whedon being an unrepentant asshole.
My takeaways:
"Up, up, and away" is a throwback to a radio series used to indicate to an audience that Superman was flying because they couldn't actually see him flying. I grew up watching the Adam West series, and I have no idea what you're referring to. Most younger people have never watched that series at all. Your examples are more representative of the era they were created, rather than the character itself. That's very different from cartoon Cyborg, which is not only a modern example, but also the single most famous depiction of the character.
Batman's most notable catch phrase is "I'm Batman." Which Nolan has no issue incorporating in his movies.
That's might sound like conventional screenwriter wisdom, but it's not actually true. Lots of stories are better off with a flat arc than no arc rather than a lazy or hamfisted arc. Especially in the superhero genre, where characters who've been featured in literally thousands of comic books can't be expected to undergo a meaningful character arc in every single issue. Look at the Star Wars prequel. They decided to give Darth Vader a character arc he didn't have before, and the general consensus is that it ruined his character, because the execution was really weak.
The problem you're missing is that the Snyder version is also a one-dimensional character, he's just a one-dimensional character with more scenes and backstory. His additional scenes in the Snyder cut reveal his character along a one-dimensional axis. He gives a struggling mom $100,000, but since he can simply conjure money from thin air, it doesn't reveal anything interesting about him on it's own. All we learn is that he has tech powers and he likes to help people, something that most people could have already assumed from learning that this is a superhero movie with a cyborg.
We also get a scene that shows he hacked the college to help out a classmate. In the hands of a more competent director, that could have revealed something interesting about his character: Victor is a rule breaker and reckless even if it means jeopardizing his own future! But instead, Snyder handwaves that away. His mom fights his battle for him, Victor has a smug grin on his face, and he suffers no consequences from it. He's not even pulled from the football team, which is the absolute least they should have done in response. Since he suffers no consequences from his actions, his actions really don't mean anything.
Victor being a super genius who's also a star athlete is something that could have been the basis for character development, but not in the hands of Snyder. Instead of having to choose between science or sports and seeing him prioritize one over the other, Victor achieves both things effortlessly. Instead of adding to his character, it instead does the opposite. Fisher wants to showcase a powerful black hero who's good at everything he does, but he does so in a way that makes him completely unrelatable. It's the same way Wonder Woman comes across as being incredibly hollow when she says that any young girl can grow up to be like her, and glosses over the fact that she's basically a God from a magical fantasy land.
Making the story longer but not more interesting simply to show off is self-indulgent, period. Zack Snyder is a very white dude who's often faced the exact same criticism ever since he discovered slow mo effects.
Fisher holding himself up as the definitive representative for all black superheroes in general is extremely presumptuous, because I'm pretty sure the black community never asked him to do that. "Blade" is a black superhero who pretty much proved that superhero movies didn't need to be campy. Every other superhero movie since then owes a lot to Blade. "Spawn" was a relatively big budget movie for a lesser known black superhero that tried to do the same. "Meteor Man" and "Blankman" were both original creations designed to reinvent the genre with black actors in mind. For more modern examples, you already had War Machine and Black Panther in the MCU. Luke Cage had a critically acclaimed Netflix series.
Even in the context of DC, "Steel" and "Catwoman" pre-date Cyborg by several decades. Terrible movies, sure, but that was true for most superhero movies in general. He makes a big deal about how Snyder depicts black people as geniuses, but DC already had Steel, Lucius Fox, Richard Pryor's character in Superman III, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
Prior to his first BvS, the Snyderverse consisted of only one movie with one superhero. So pointing out that all the other superheroes were white before he came along isn't aas big of a deal as he makes it out to be. And technically not true, because we learn that one of the black characters in "Man of Steel" was Martian Manhunter all along. Cyborg isn't even the only person of color on the Justice League, since Jason Momoa identifies as native Hawaiian and Polynesian.
Loved most of his work on Green Lantern comics though! The rest of this, not so much.
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.)
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.
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.
There is no black hivemind that asks for anything, that's not how representation works. When you're the only black person in the room or in big letters on the poster the burden to be representative is something that arrives with it.
Black kids don't run out to buy Richard Pryor in superman III toys.
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?
Blade came out in 1998 - 23 years ago. Spawn was 1997 (also wasn't really a lesser known black hero as the comic was regularly in the top 5 sales) - the world is more than ready for a positive representation of a black hero on screen.
They got that on april 4th 2014 with Captain america and the winter soldier. and how it gave us the falcon. Falcon was also in the sequel in 2016 along with black panther (who would go on to have his own film).
Before that there was War Machine in Iron man 2 released in 2010. Also Iron man 3 had him in it.
And if marvel doesn't count: DC had catwoman in 2004.
Ang Lee's Hulk probably had one of the memorable teaser trailers ever.
The character understands the rush he gets from losing control, but also knows how incredibly destructive it can be. That gives his character a lot of depth that Cyborg doesn't have. Cyborg's response is basically, "My mom died into a car accident because daddy didn't love me enough." Like... what? Even if his father attended every football game ever, that doesn't magically make you immune from car accidents.
Part of the problem is that Cyborg's specific tragedy isn't based on any type of real world commentary. Batman is about crime. Spider-Man is about apathy. The Hulk is about emotional trauma and domestic violence. But Cyborg's tragedy boils down to random chance. Accident's happen. And that isn't really followed up on in any meaningful way. It doesn't even have the start of an arc, much less a complete one. The fact that we also see a truck accident for the Flash and a boating accident for Aquaman makes this almost a recurring theme that can be developed further, except for the fact that it never actually is.
I mean, an argument could be made that cyborg's tragedy is that a decision was made for him without his consent, but it kind of falls apart when you consider that the alternative was death.
Again, Frankenstein is an archetype at this point, and hence "one dimensional", but being a basic archetype doesent mean devoid of meaning.
from the article
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.
My comment wasn't about filling any kind of quota and I don't think listing off a bunch of sidekick characters that appeared minimally on film really amounts to much in the way of representation. Black Panther is about the only case I can think of in recent memory where a studio said "Yes. We are going to put effort and a lot of fucking money behind this character".
Cyborg's arc in the Snyder cut isn't exactly nuanced and deep but it's notable in that it was dependent on a black actor being the emotional center of the film. These kind of things are important to tackle if we're ever going to approach any form of equity wrt to representation in media.
You're welcome to cite the point where I argue that it was fine that fisher got thrown under the bus.