I'm not nessicaryly talking about the creators themsevles, more about where a way something is framed comflicts with how YOU the veiwer sees it, its unintentional on their partbriankoontz said:It's very difficult to read into authorial intent from fictional content. An artist creates a world and expresses the worldview of *that world*, not his own worldview.
the movie makes it clear that Tyler is by no means somone to be idolized/followedAvalanche91 said:I am really fond of the Fight Club movie, but anyone who has seen it can agree that the messages and themes are a bit morally iffy.
oh yeah, that is trueCasual Shinji said:The message of that movie was 'Don't let your talents go to waste for fear of not fitting in.' Rather a good one actually. The "Don't try and be special CAUSE YOU AIN'T!" was its criticism against the 'everyone's a winner/attendance award' mentality.
Why haven't I bought Weird Al's new album yet?! This is, yet, another parody song I want on my Ipod right now!!SacremPyrobolum said:
And contrary to Fleming's profession that Bond's characteristics were largely based upon his own. Fleming even went so far as to start humanising the character after a single book. The idea might work if his premise of Bond as a colder, unsympathetic character wasn't abandoned pretty much immediately.briankoontz said:I don't know anything about Ian Fleming's personal life, but there's no reason to believe that he was a globetrotting womanizing egomaniacal sociopath just because James Bond is. There's also no reason to believe that James Bond is Ian Fleming's ideal self - it's more likely that Ian Fleming was responding to the cold war paranoia-fueled McCarthy-era world in which he lived and wanted to show through fiction what the world of the rich and powerful was like, but even that is speculative.
That's not necessary unless the author doesn't trust his audience to think for themselves. The best thing an author can do is to be true to the fictional world he creates.thaluikhain said:Not so sure about that.
While it's true that authors often depict things that they don't personally approve of, surely their disapproval should come through in their work?
yeah thats not quite the same thing, they are products of their time as you saidDiddy_Mao said:I enjoy watching these cartoons. Both from an entertainment and academic standpoint. But I won't sit here and deny that these cartoons weren't frequently super Racist.
.
Zachary Amaranth said:Wikipedia says - "Fleming based his creation on a number of individuals he met during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division, and admitted that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war"." The footnotes say this is taken from a Ben Macintyre article in The Times of London.briankoontz said:And contrary to Fleming's profession that Bond's characteristics were largely based upon his own. Fleming even went so far as to start humanising the character after a single book. The idea might work if his premise of Bond as a colder, unsympathetic character wasn't abandoned pretty much immediately.
James Bond might actually be one of the worst examples one could use.
So regardless of what either we or Fleming might think of Bond, he was at least familiar with him (as an amalgamation of a lot of people he knew) and he, at least, was sympathetic to him. This sympathy is likely based in part on Bond being at permanent war - people in war say and do things that they don't say and do in a more comfortable peaceful setting. People who took the Cold War seriously were at continual war for decades.
All real understanding of Bond is lost when one has contempt for him, like all real understanding of American soldiers is lost when we condemn them for being racist toward the people whose job theirs is to dominate and control.
As Dante Alighieri might say - I will reach heaven not by slaying the demons I meet in hell, but by talking to them and having compassion for them. For I am them only until I am no longer.
Paladins, like RPG heroes, only save the world within the dark recesses of their own minds. They demonize the world and then carve their way through it, producing many corpses but no truth. "Saving the world, one corpse at a time" results in a lifeless meaningless world and one very self-satisfied "hero" who has forever proven to himself his bravery, valor, and righteousness.
Paladins and RPG heroes begin with the idea that they have nothing left to learn except how to kill more proficiently. They know what the monsters are, they know they are better than that and deserve to kill the monsters, they know they are saving the world BY killing the monsters. But when questioned, they can't give good reasons for why they are so awesome, so much greater than all the human-loving people throughout history. DUH, it's just self-evident that monsters are monsters and humans need to kill monsters to preserve humanity. DUH, don't you know that, dumbass? So get out your shotgun and blow some heads off zombies - get out your sword and hack 'n' slash - it's time to save the world, one corpse at a time.
Oddly enough I just finished Soldiers live today. Great stuff. Not sure I can really agree with you about Cook trivializing rape though. (Also I don't remember what you're talking about unless it happened in the silver spike, or are you referring to Arkana? Because that def gets addressed and those soldiers are punished)Elfgore said:Not the American Average by Asking Alexandria is all about a guy having a one-night stand with a woman. When she fails to satisfy him, I'm pretty sure he either starts to beat her, verbally abuse her, or murder her. I'm not really sure. The last fifteen seconds of the song is nothing but him screaming "You stupid fucking *****!"
Carnival of Souls by Nightmares is another song with either eh lyrics or really bad. I've been debating myself on it. One side isn't bad, the song's about a guy who was friends with a girl who started being flirty and stuff to get things from him. Causing him to leave. The other is about a guy who's angry about being in the friendzone, granted she did mislead him, and he leaves. Both are a little neck-beardy.
The Black Company books by Glen Cook kinda trivialize rape. Like a prisoner breakout happens and two girls get raped. It may just be Glen Cook's style of writing, but he just mentions this in two lines. "During the breakout, two of the girls were raped." and then he never brings it up again. No soldier is punished and we never see the victims complain about it.
That's just more the context of the universe. Being born a superhero there is similar to being born with a talent for music, writing, or art. And it's simplified for the sake of not having to come up with a an origins story for Bob, Helen, Violet, Dash, and Frozone.Vault101 said:oh yeah, that is trueCasual Shinji said:The message of that movie was 'Don't let your talents go to waste for fear of not fitting in.' Rather a good one actually. The "Don't try and be special CAUSE YOU AIN'T!" was its criticism against the 'everyone's a winner/attendance award' mentality.
its just to me the latter comes across more strongly, because supers are born with such powers, and while its true people are more inatley "better" than others the "supers/normals" makes the divide even more obvious "youre eather born special or youre not"
But that's all his own doing though with his obsession over being "the real thing", when really he was just as much a superhero. Syndrome was also born with basically a super power, but because he felt rejected as a kid (not because he was a "norm" but because he was a little kid and an obsessive fanboy) he decided to get revenge and show how much better he was than the Supers by killing them all.funny though...the one charachter who reaches their level through of his own will and effort is deamonized
While I absolutely love the movie, I never really cared for the epilogue with Dash at the track and everyone being a one big happy family. For me Dash's moment of fulfilment was on the island against Syndrome's henchmen, and ultimately him as well as the rest of the family being allowed to just be superheroes again.and then theres the whole thing with Dash...what exactly was the point of letting him compete with sports? he holding back on purpose which is EXACTLY the kind of thing the movie rails against and ultimatly all it is is an exercise in him deciding weather or not he's going to win, he's not being fulfilled and the "norms" don't stand a fucking chance...it just comes across as "everyone in their propper place" type thing
I can understand the message and mabye theres something to be said since its a slightly different/ambitious one...I just dont know if it was handles all that wel
Where in the movie did that happen? All we saw was a little kid who was fanboying over a superhero who didn't want him hanging around.Jim_Callahan said:Um... he actually did try to play to his strengths by becoming a gadget hero and then by playing tech support for things like rescue workers and so on.Casual Shinji said:That's the thing with Syndrome... Instead of seeing the qualities he actually has, he wastes all his talent (and the lives of others) to be something he's not.
You mean, apart from murdering dozens of superheroes as well as Bob's family and the kidnapping of his son? And Bob saved more people as an insurance agent, which was one old lady, than he did as a cape, which were the suicide guy and the people on the train? Maybe I'm remembering things wrong, but the math doesn't seem to add up here.Pretty much the only non-heroic thing Syndrome does in the whole movie is be kind of a dick to the one guy he should have had an outright murderous blood-feud with instead. Meanwhile, the primary protagonist literally saved more lives ON SCREEN as an insurance salesman than as a cape.
Well, there were all those superheroes he deceived and murdered just to make his killer robot stronger, the fact that he didn't even attempt to call off the missiles he had sent to destroy the airplane after learning that children were on board and taunted Mr. Incredible for his grief, toyed with Mirage's life just to make a point, caused a ton of property damage and endangered a bunch of lives by unleashing his killer robot on the city just so he could look good defeating it, and tried to kidnap his nemesis' s infant son for no other reason than petty revenge. Hell, even his furthering humanity goal was directly stated to be motivated by wanting payback against the supers instead of actually wanting yo do good. Guy may have been a genius who made a lot from his talents, but there is no denying that he was an unrepentant sociopath.Jim_Callahan said:Pretty much the only non-heroic thing Syndrome does in the whole movie is be kind of a dick to the one guy he should have had an outright murderous blood-feud with instead. Meanwhile, the primary prt literally saved more lives ON SCREEN as an insurance salesman than as a cape.
To call the movie's message 'mixed' does it a disservice, it was actively, outright subversive.
I don't think so, I just remember that Morgan Freeman resigns after totally helping Batman do what he asked of himSacremPyrobolum said:Didn't either Batman or Morgan Freeman actually end up destroying the device that hacked everyones phones at the end of the movie?maxben said:Any movie by Christopher Nolan. What Batman? To save the city you have to hack into everyone's cellphones? Gee whiz that sounds like a good idea! All for national, I mean municipal, security. All of his movies have these weird undertones of politics that I really don't like, but I mean we all have to deal with that at a point.
They did. That does not undermine the underlying message that the hack was justified in that it worked and was the only way to beat Bane. Whether intended or not the use of that tech in that way justified a degradation of civil liberties Americans have (not) enjoyed since the patriot act was passed and upheld by both parties. I don't even want to get into how Bane was essentially a shot at the whole "Occupy" movement and a reclusive weird billionaire was the answer to the problem. I will grant that it's possible given Nolan's real world politics that it may be a very subtle satire, but big government and control of the masses through questionable means abounds through that series.SacremPyrobolum said:Didn't either Batman or Morgan Freeman actually end up destroying the device that hacked everyones phones at the end of the movie?maxben said:Any movie by Christopher Nolan. What Batman? To save the city you have to hack into everyone's cellphones? Gee whiz that sounds like a good idea! All for national, I mean municipal, security. All of his movies have these weird undertones of politics that I really don't like, but I mean we all have to deal with that at a point.
Morgan Freeman had a tantrum after Batman showed him the device and said "after this I quit", Batman said, "okay then, press this button when you're finished" and left. Once it was all over Morgan Freeman pressed the button and the device self destructed as originally planned by Batman.maxben said:I don't think so, I just remember that Morgan Freeman resigns after totally helping Batman do what he asked of himSacremPyrobolum said:Didn't either Batman or Morgan Freeman actually end up destroying the device that hacked everyones phones at the end of the movie?maxben said:Any movie by Christopher Nolan. What Batman? To save the city you have to hack into everyone's cellphones? Gee whiz that sounds like a good idea! All for national, I mean municipal, security. All of his movies have these weird undertones of politics that I really don't like, but I mean we all have to deal with that at a point.
You're thinking of the wrong movie, the phone hack was in the Dark Knight, Bane was in the Dark Knight Rises.jklinders said:They did. That does not undermine the underlying message that the hack was justified in that it worked and was the only way to beat Bane. Whether intended or not the use of that tech in that way justified a degradation of civil liberties Americans have (not) enjoyed since the patriot act was passed and upheld by both parties. I don't even want to get into how Bane was essentially a shot at the whole "Occupy" movement and a reclusive weird billionaire was the answer to the problem. I will grant that it's possible given Nolan's real world politics that it may be a very subtle satire, but big government and control of the masses through questionable means abounds through that series.SacremPyrobolum said:Didn't either Batman or Morgan Freeman actually end up destroying the device that hacked everyones phones at the end of the movie?maxben said:Any movie by Christopher Nolan. What Batman? To save the city you have to hack into everyone's cellphones? Gee whiz that sounds like a good idea! All for national, I mean municipal, security. All of his movies have these weird undertones of politics that I really don't like, but I mean we all have to deal with that at a point.
No politics in The Prestige, but some creepy creepy ethics presented there as well. I won't spoil it even in a spoiler block because damn that movie is good, but creepy as all hell. If you haven't watched it, stop reading this and watch it...now.
Then the movie has chosen an extremely unfortunate context for itself. It's not like the writers NEEDED to tell their rant against attendance awards specifically in the form of a superhero story.Casual Shinji said:That's just more the context of the universe. Being born a superhero there is similar to being born with a talent for music, writing, or art. And it's simplified for the sake of not having to come up with a an origins story for Bob, Helen, Violet, Dash, and Frozone.
Yes, his evil apocalyptic vision is what the rest of us call utopia: The disabled will walk, the weak will be made strong, everyone will fly. And the film wants us to root against that, because that would be unfair to all of the people born with extraordinary abilities right now. If everyone can have what the genetically gifted and powerful have, well, shit, we might as well just burn the whole thing to the ground.
And thus we spend the movie rooting for the hero and his family to stop Syndrome, each of them using the superhuman physical abilities they were born with due to genetics. Lots of critics pointed out that the movie contains several references to Ayn Rand's philosophy ("They're constantly finding ways to celebrate mediocrity!" laments Mr. Incredible, almost staring directly into the camera to say it to the audience), but that's not really fair -- Rand would never have advocated against innovation because it might be used by genetic inferiors. Shit, I don't even think the Nazis were against that.
I take it this must be your first experience with Cook. All of his books try and depict dark medieval fantasy, not the D&D one with Sir Goody Two Shoes and his army of goodness. You shouldn't like half the characters in his books, their all either assholes, murders, or rapist. He's method of magic has always made me happy as well. He much rather have magic be actually mysterious rather than "oh, yeah Magic? I can do that!" being said by every peasantAzure23 said:snip