[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

now you're making me feel bad about myself, symbols. Thanks.

don't make it personal! we should feel bad about all of us.

or, alternatively, watch in detached amusement because there is no point doing otherwise

but seriously, maybe there is something about the post-industrial economy and its need for ongoing learning that puts selective pressure towards immaturity

know what i mean?

gotta stay flexible or we die, these days

--

but on that note, think about what's more important. truth or feelings?

[noisereductions]

I said "I feel bad about myself" with a half-grin.

I'm 36, and have in recent years sort of surrounded myself with things from the 90's. Comic books, music, movies, etc. So I guess to some degree I fit into your outline above. I mean that could be nostalgia, or a comfort in something familiar. A lot of this stuff feels like chicken soup, y'know? Or maybe I'm getting old and this is what happens. Don't know. I don't really feel bad about myself, though.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

sure superhero movies are generally dumb, but some are a decent spectacle for some reason or another, and it irks me to hear them discussed as art masterpieces which they clearly aren't. they're dumb, cheesy, ridiculous, and often intolerable. like rollercoasters and funnel cakes, they can be fun but make you wanna vomit.

The Dark Knight = Serious film and masterpiece, like, a-duuuhhh.

Nothing else qualifies. Unless you think Deadpool is a comedic masterpiece, or Superman: The Movie is a masterpiece in the way Stat Wars is sometimes considered a masterpiece.

But Dark Knight = masterpiece.

And it's not as if there's something inherent in comic book source material that makes "seriousness" impossible. That's not true at all. Road to Perdition is a great example of a comic-book based movie that is also dead fucking serious and really, really well made. Same with A History of Violence, to a lesser degree.

Also masterpieces don't have to be serious.

There have been maybe 100-125 major superhero movies made since Superman: The Movie. Many more if you count less major ones, and lower-budget comic book insoired adaptations. One of those films is a masterpiece (again, Dark Knight) — less than 1 percent. So I'd say they have the same success rate as movies in general. I'd definitely say that masterpieces account for less than 1 percent of ALL movies, so really ... it's just movies. Movies that are fall roughly within the parameters of a certain style. Just like horror, thrillers and spy movies, action movies, etc.

At this point I think it's a bit antiquated to act as though superhero movies aren't capable of hitting the same emotional notes as any other kind of movie.


Just my opinion though.

Except for the bit about Dark Knight being a masterpiece. That's actually a fact.

[evollove]

I was dragged to Dark Knight in the theater and hated it. Too loud.

[noisereductions]

I love Dark Knight. But we've already talked about this.

[Rob Instigator]

Dark Knight is not a masterpiece because Christian Bale's "bat-voice" sucks ass.

[!@#$%!]

lol dark knight zzzzzzz good joke tho

[LifeDistortion]

I worry too about the state of mid-budget character driven movies, but just because the new Wes Anderson movie or Sofia Coppola movie isn't playing in the same theatre as The Mummy or Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't mean its impossible for audiences to find them. If you live in a major city like Los Angeles or New York there is still a vibrant indie movie culture, and venues to see them. Outside of that fans have Netflix and iTunes and Amazon to find these movies as well. Yes, the indie boom of the 90's isn't as out there in theaters, but its still there, its just up to filmmakers and fans of those films to keep it alive.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by LifeDistortion

I worry too about the state of mid-budget character driven movies, but just because the new Wes Anderson movie or Sofia Coppola movie isn't playing in the same theatre as The Mummy or Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't mean its impossible for audiences to find them. If you live in a major city like Los Angeles or New York there is still a vibrant indie movie culture, and venues to see them. Outside of that fans have Netflix and iTunes and Amazon to find these movies as well. Yes, the indie boom of the 90's isn't as out there in theaters, but its still there, its just up to filmmakers and fans of those films to keep it alive.

funny that you'd mention wes anderson and sofia coppola. they're actually the perfect example of the infantilification i'm talking about

i really like wes anderson, but he's kinda like an overgrown kid. his movies are not really adult movies for adults-- they're all about the gen-xer imaginary childhood, and staying there-- from tenenbaums to zizou to moonrise kingdom to everything like that. wes anderson is a very imaginative kid. he's not a grown-ass man.

as for sofia coppola she's all about the teenager yes? virgin suicides and marie antoinette and the bling ring. the other one which was my favorite was about failed adulthood.

i'd like to see more grownup themes with grownup ideas-- sex/love. power. death. but with a mature approach, not the romantic goobledygook, or the power-as-evil, or the many shit ways movies approach death.

as ilducio said correctly, there are many other countries putting out great stuff. but america still rules the market in many ways, not just on the consumption front but also maybe more importantly for distribution.

dammit. where is the stuff. let me think. mad men. where is the mad men of movies? business. fucking. grownup morally ambiguous conflict instead of goodies vs. baddies. that sort of stuff.

it's on tv

[Rob Instigator]

here is the rub. Hollywood learned that character driven films can be made dirt cheap, a la the indie scene of the 80's 90's. But movies are first and foremost (hollywood studio movies I mean) investment properties. They are NOT creative acts first. They are the equivalent of the high art market, the high end auto market, etc. Sure, the "art" nees to be there but from the moment of inception, a hollywood film is seeking to make it's investors monie. That leads to movies pandering to a non-english speaking world audience that wants visual stimuli, since character acting really does not translate across societal cultures. Only the broad strokes. That is why the whole world loves Chaplin still. and mickey mouse.

[Rob Instigator]

mad men sucked shit. it was like eating hard candy. it has a specific type of pleasure, but it rots your teeth, gives you insulin issues, gets you fat, high blood pressure etc. Mad emn was this for tv storytelling. it told NO story. It was pure vacuous wankfest for old white folks to remember how good they had it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

mad men sucked shit. it was like eating hard candy. it has a specific type of pleasure, but it rots your teeth, gives you insulin issues, gets you fat, high blood pressure etc. Mad emn was this for tv storytelling. it told NO story. It was pure vacuous wankfest for old white folks to remember how good they had it.

wat. that's a totally myopic reading. missing the forest for the trees. that show wasn't a "nostalgia" show at all. have you actually watched it or did you just decide apriori not to like it?

if anything, mad men was... anthropological. it showed how behind the shiny facade there were layers and layers of rot and injustice and absurdity, and how the power of "the white man" was based on oppression and lies, and it showed many skeletons in many closets.

but see here's the thing-- while it showed all the rot underneath the glitter of madison avenue, and the exploitation, and the abuse, and the discrimination, and the manipulation, and the privilege and entitlement-- it wasn't about the goodies vs. the baddies as children's movies are.

on mad men you could root for any of the characters while at the same time seeing what utter assholes they were--to themselves, to each other, and to the world at large. it wasn't partisan or preachy-- it gave you complex characters and it left you to make your own judgments. that's what good writing does, as opposed to the simplistic morality of superhero tales.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

mad men sucked shit. it was like eating hard candy. it has a specific type of pleasure, but it rots your teeth, gives you insulin issues, gets you fat, high blood pressure etc. Mad emn was this for tv storytelling. it told NO story. It was pure vacuous wankfest for old white folks to remember how good they had it.

Wow, dude. You just hate everything that has been culturally deemed relevant in any way, don't you?

Fuck Mad Men! Dark Knight sucks! Breaking Bad my ass! The Beatles suck shit! Hey fuck you Daniel Day Lewis and Radiohead and David Mitchell and Louis C.K. and Steve Jobs and Jennifer Lawrence! Screw you Oscar winners! Nobel my balls! Short list this, bitch!

[Severian]

Dark Knight is a great movie in spite of Batvoice and you all goddamn well know it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

Dark Knight is a great movie in spite of Batvoice and you all goddamn well know it.

honestly not saying this to fuck with you or anything but no way

i understand that you particularly as a batman fan might have an inordinately strong liking for it, but from there to say "great movie' it does not necessarily follow.

i understand also that nolan did very good for superhero movies, "greatness" is a different standard to reach. though i liked avengers more because it didn't take itself so seriously and was very funny.

me i like this little movie from the 90s called "big night." it's an indie flick about food, and i like food a lot, and i've cooked since long before it was fashionable. but while i'm super-fond of the thing, and i really like the actors, and i love the whole thing, i can't in good conscience claim it's a great movie because... it's just not a great movie or the best of anything.

so hm yeah. taken out of the superhero context i can't see how it would be a "great" movie or why. it was the best of the three and it wasn't bad and had great technological fireworks but from there to great movie caliber it's a big leap.

this is not to say that you can't or shouldn't like it. just saying that it's very hard to universalize your particular.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

honestly not saying this to fuck with you or anything but no way

i understand that you particularly as a batman fan might have an inordinately strong liking for it, but from there to say "great movie' it does not necessarily follow.

i understand also that nolan did very good for superhero movies, "greatness" is a different standard to reach. though i liked avengers more because it didn't take itself so seriously and was very funny.

me i like this little movie from the 90s called "big night." it's an indie flick about food, and i like food a lot, and i've cooked since long before it was fashionable. but while i'm super-fond of the thing, and i really like the actors, and i love the whole thing, i can't in good conscience claim it's a great movie because... it's just not a great movie or the best of anything.

so hm yeah. taken out of the superhero context i can't see how it would be a "great" movie or why. it was the best of the three and it wasn't bad and had great technological fireworks but from there to great movie caliber it's a big leap.

this is not to say that you can't or shouldn't like it. just saying that it's very hard to universalize your particular.

Well, Roger Ebert (RIP) disagreed. Also it won an Oscar. Also, it not being nominated for a best picture Oscar was the reason the Academy re-assessed its rules for BP nominees. Also it's on all kind of list and stuff.

You think I like it because I like superhero movies, but I don't really like superhero movies that much. Sure, some are cool, but only one is truly a great movie, and that's Dark Knight.

Also it's not a superhero movie.

I'm actually really hard on superhero movies because I like comic books. So if anything, the fact that I think Dark Knight is legit great should work in its favor.

[Severian]

Also also also, I know you're not saying stuff to fuck with me. We're bros.

[noisereductions]

coincidentally I re-watched Deadpool over the weekend as well. I... love that movie. Mainly because it's rare that I comic book movie is so true to a comic book. Not a specific story or anything. I just mean they didn't say "well, we have to make Deadpool fit into a PG-13 box." They said "well, Deadpool in a movie should be like THIS" and just let it happen. As a big fan of the comics, I was super impressed w/ how accurate it felt. (So if you don't care for the movie, you certainly will hate the comics).

Ant-Man is an interesting entry in the MCU. It's basically a comedy, huh? I enjoyed it but mostly because I like Paul Rudd. I'm actually sort of amazed that they made a whole movie for Ant-Man. And that there will be a sequel. It almost seems like his part in Civil War could have been enough. So yeah. I liked it, but it's kind of unnecessary too. Shrug.

[ilduclo]

well, if anyone is looking for a movie with a real story line and excellent acting, I'd recco The Measure of a Man

"After his long and humiliating search for employment -- while scrambling to feed his family -- Thierry Taugourdeau lands a job at a megamarket catching shoplifters. But he faces a moral quandary as he begins to sympathize with those he apprehends."

[evollove]

^ That sounds really good. I have no idea how it would unfold, much less how it would end.

I think my problem with most superhero movies is either the bad guy is defeated at the end, or he's only temporarily disabled until it's time to make a sequel.

Here's the plot to the next Avengers movie: antagonist threatens humanity. The Avengers fight. The Avengers win or lose. Probably win. The end.