[noisereductions]

I see you've read Infinity War

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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.

I watched all of it. The whitewashing was IMMENSE and the token references to the civil rights movements were pathetic in a Trump-deluded white rich man's world kind of way. fucking shit shit shit show. sick of tv shows that are essentially rich white people problems, easily solved by vast amounts of money and the good white looks.

[Rob Instigator]

all films are unnecessary.

[noisereductions]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

all films are unnecessary.

you know what I meant. Ant-Man (the standalone movie) was unnecessary in progressing the overall MCU series of films.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yup. It's not my favorite, but I think Ryan Reynolds' depiction of Wade/Deadpool was one of the best ever for a comic book character. Maybe THE best.

It nailed Deadpool so well that now when I read Deadpool comics, I just plain hear Ryan Reynolds' voice. Seriously. And I don't dislike it, in fact, it feels like I finally know exactly how to read Deadpool so he doesn't sound like crazy Spider-Man! If that's not the mark of a great superhero performance, I'm not sure what is.

When I read the Joker after seeing Heath's version, I'm sad that the version in the comics is so much less textured and less genuinely threatening than Heath's undeniably god-fan-damn-tactic and definitive Joker. That was an example of the performance possibly being so unique that it kinda messes with the way you read the story, even though it was so fucking good.

Reynolds just nailed it. Nailed the hell out of it. You can tell he really loves the character, and you can tell he has read the fuck out of some Deadpool.

[noisereductions]

dude - yes. 100%. Since the movie came out, I have done the same thing when reading the comics. Deadpool totally has Reynolds' voice in my head. But yeah, that really means something about how well RR understood that character.

Regardless if someone likes the movie (or its source material), Deadpool was a labor of love and it really shows. Everyone involved really CARED about that character.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Yes hence the enjoyment. In not into super heroes or comics at all. I tend to associate these things with childhood memories like other simple things such as minced meat, Nirvana, and rap music....

If I wrote off everything I liked as I child as being "childish" I'd only listen to high brow minimalist electronic compositions and read theorhetcial physics books or something.
I'd never watch Blade Runner (or read PKD), and I'd watch documentaries all the time and sniff my own farts.
I didn't even fully know why Nirvana was great until I was probably 20 years old. Rap music? That was really a later development with the exception of a handful of artists.
My appreciation of comic books inspired my academic interest in religion, philosophy, anthropology, mythology and sociology. Oh, and history.
If your maturation has made Nirvana sound worse to you, I think you might be doing it wrong.

[noisereductions]

*popcorn.gif*

[Rob Instigator]

I thought ant man was an awesome flick because it kept the true spirit of a monthly superhero comic book alive. It told a story that was not earth-shattering, aliens/gods will destroy all of existence. It was awesome because of that. I hate that whole "the world is threatened by a huge insurmountable monster" nonsense that, in the comics, happened maybe once a year, if that. In the films, every hero seems described in mythic status. that is bullshit. only superman is a mythic hero. batman is a HUMAN being with no powers. The Flash is a scientist who got powers to be very fast. aquaman is a merman. the xmen are mutations, some cool, some not. the movies all try to posit each and every superhero as some sort of demigod entity, when they are NOT.

of all the recent DC/Marvel films, the ones that most got the character right were antman, dr. strange, OG Iron Man.

[ilduclo]

Another good non-comic book movie, Wild Tales, it's really great

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Nicholson>Heath

I mean Heath was just angry where as Nicholson had Panache.

Here, Morrissey will emphasise my point. "It's so easy to hate. It takes guts to be gentle and kind". - all the traits Nicholson portrays.

You missed the point of the performance, dude. Heath's Joker isn't angry. Nicholson's Joker is just campy. Panache my ass.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Look, it's not my fault your brain hasn't developed past 3 chord melodic structure.

That doesn't even make sense. I barely listen to any rock music, as you probably well know. I don't even listen to Nirvana, but their awesomeness does not diminish with my age. If it does for you, well, it's not my fault your face is a butt that shits stupid words.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Time diminishes everything...apart from whiskey.

Nuh-uh. What about intangibles? Does time diminish age or decay?

Totally staying on point this thread.

[!@#$%!]

dammit, i wanted to say that liver damage, like compound interest, is cummulative, but "intangibles" took me out of the race

[Rob Instigator]

time diminishes the hacks, and aggrandizes the true artists.

Sonic Youth never had a gold record. I used to dream that something like SY would become so awesome that the mainstream would have to recognize, but it never happened with them. It DID happen with Nirvana, although I attribute that to the appeal of Kurt. If he looked and acted like Gene Simmons, but with all of Kurt's guitar, vocals, etc., Nirvana would not have been the pop darlings they became.

everyone loves the brooding star who is burdened by their stardom. it makes you feel like they are one of "us." but they are most definitely NOT.

[Rob Instigator]

more films are made and released now than anytime since the heyday of the studio system in hollywood, yet most do not get any distribution.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

dammit, i wanted to say that liver damage, like compound interest, is cummulative, but "intangibles" took me out of the race

Hahah.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I watched all of it. The whitewashing was IMMENSE and the token references to the civil rights movements were pathetic in a Trump-deluded white rich man's world kind of way. fucking shit shit shit show. sick of tv shows that are essentially rich white people problems, easily solved by vast amounts of money and the good white looks.

this wasn't the autobiography of malcolm x. of course it was a story about "the white man"-- that's who ran madison avenue (and still does).

one of the main points the show made (see the washington post's alyssa rosenberg's columns on it) was how in spite of all the upheavals etc only few people benefitted from social changes and how slowly things percolated through the world at large. shit that was rampant and damnable in the 60s *still happens today*.

to me, that's exactly why the show was compelling-- it wasn't really saying "look at them". it was saying "look at us". yesterday's tobacco is today's sugar. racism, sexism and consumerism live on. people are more than ever manipulated by advertising, which has become more pervasive, subtle, and omnipresent.

i get from your comment that the existence of "rich white people" fills you with hate and rage and it ultimately distorts your reading of the whole story. i would venture that you'd rather see them portrayed as one-note nazi supervillains rather than as complicated people with some good qualities and some terrible defects who operate embedded in a dysfunctional social system that no one person can control.

and that's exactly the problem with the superhero comic book morality you seem to enjoy instead-- it operates as a simplistic black-or-white system of individual choices to indoctrinate children. but while children need a clearly defined moral code, real life in the adult world is messy, difficult, ambiguous and rife with tradeoffs, where cultures and classes clash, and always with more questions than clear answers. this is exactly what good writing for adults illustrates, and what i'm referring to when i complain about a lack of adult subjects in fiction. to read about fictional complexity and social systems helps us to grapple with real complexity and social systems.

to read only simplicities... i think it makes us simple, and not in a good way. too much simplicity gives us puritans and torquemadas and all manner of absolutists, #MAGAs, science-as-religionists, creationists and bible literalists, and reduces all judgments to "this rules" and "this sucks". nature doesn't work that way. nature is an explosion of complexity-- and that goes for ecosystems and social systems and individual lives--and we have to learn to deal with it.

[noisereductions]

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

this wasn't the autobiography of malcolm x. of course it was a story about "the white man"-- that's who ran madison avenue (and still does).

one of the main points the show made (see the washington post's alyssa rosenberg's columns on it) was how in spite of all the upheavals etc only few people benefitted from social changes and how slowly things percolated through the world at large. shit that was rampant and damnable in the 60s *still happens today*.

to me, that's exactly why the show was compelling-- it wasn't really saying "look at them". it was saying "look at us". yesterday's tobacco is today's sugar. racism, sexism and consumerism live on. people are more than ever manipulated by advertising, which has become more pervasive, subtle, and omnipresent.

i get from your comment that the existence of "rich white people" fills you with hate and rage and it ultimately distorts your reading of the whole story. i would venture that you'd rather see them portrayed as one-note nazi supervillains rather than as complicated people with some good qualities and some terrible defects who operate embedded in a dysfunctional social system that no one person can control.

and that's exactly the problem with the superhero comic book morality you seem to enjoy instead-- it operates as a simplistic black-or-white system of individual choices to indoctrinate children. but while children need a clearly defined moral code, real life in the adult world is messy, difficult, ambiguous and rife with tradeoffs, where cultures and classes clash, and always with more questions than clear answers. this is exactly what good writing for adults illustrates, and what i'm referring to when i complain about a lack of adult subjects in fiction. to read about fictional complexity and social systems helps us to grapple with real complexity and social systems.

to read only simplicities... i think it makes us simple, and not in a good way. too much simplicity gives us puritans and torquemadas and all manner of absolutists, #MAGAs, science-as-religionists, creationists and bible literalists, and reduces all judgments to "this rules" and "this sucks". nature doesn't work that way. nature is an explosion of complexity-- and that goes for ecosystems and social systems and individual lives--and we have to learn to deal with it.

Great post!