Random Thoughts

[Woah0]

They don't grow up. Mass media really really wants them not to.

The Batman TV show from the '60s was perfect when I was 5 years old. The constant efforts to make Batman more and more "dark and gritty" so that adults can still watch it without embarrassment are sad to see. 

Grownups should read grownup books.

Making Batman more dark and gritty is simply a reflection of the Batman from the comic books.

And since you seem to be under the misapprehension that comic books are just for kids, I refer you to the works of Frank Miller, Art Spiegelman, and Will Eisner (among others).

Boru

I will say one thing though. Batman 2022 is a good movie. Not because i like superheroes but because it is subtle. Think of Clockwork Orange, weird punks dress up weird and beats people up. So its the only superhero movie in that genre of a movie where i actually applaud one movie of actually making sense interms of believable realism of why this would work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So I've been coming to these forums for a year and one month, and when I first started posting, I cared about God a lot. But times have changed. I went through some shit in my life that made me not care about God so much, and maybe coming here also made me not care. But I really couldn't care less about God anymore, and honestly, I feel better. Although I will still claim to support certain ideological sensibilities on the grounds that doing so might earn me some power later in life.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I will say one thing though. Batman 2022 is a good movie. Not because i like superheroes but because it is subtle. Think of Clockwork Orange, weird punks dress up weird and beats people up. So its the only superhero movie in that genre of a movie where i actually applaud one movie of actually making sense interms of believable realism of why this would work.

I watched it! 

I agree that it's a well-made movie. The craft and techniques of movie-making and story-telling are well done. The music is effective. 

I thought they were wise to make him seem a little more vulnerable -- there's a kind of inflation in the movies where it seems like he can do anything and is in no danger at all, and this movie backs away from that.

That said, the subtext, the political message, the male fantasy element -- all of it is typical Hollywood corporate propaganda. It doesn't make us see ourselves better. It doesn't show us anything real about the world. It takes us away from real life and ultimately makes us stupider.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I will say one thing though. Batman 2022 is a good movie. Not because i like superheroes but because it is subtle. Think of Clockwork Orange, weird punks dress up weird and beats people up. So its the only superhero movie in that genre of a movie where i actually applaud one movie of actually making sense interms of believable realism of why this would work.

I watched it! 

I agree that it's a well-made movie. The craft and techniques of movie-making and story-telling are well done. The music is effective. 

I thought they were wise to make him seem a little more vulnerable -- there's a kind of inflation in the movies where it seems like he can do anything and is in no danger at all, and this movie backs away from that.

That said, the subtext, the political message, the male fantasy element -- all of it is typical Hollywood corporate propaganda. It doesn't make us see ourselves better. It doesn't show us anything real about the world. It takes us away from real life and ultimately makes us stupider.

All of which can be said about the vast majority of films. So what? The whole point of cinema is to ‘take us away from real life’. It’s the same reason people go to plays, go to the opera, or read books.

Calm down.

Boru

[Foxaèr]

The problem with the white man is he erroneously associates his skin color with the symbolism associated with the color, as though white is always good or somehow better.

[Woah0]

The problem with the white man is he erroneously associates his skin color with the symbolism associated with the color, as though white is always good or somehow better.

The problem is the American voter system. It has a very WWE feeling to it, it pans media to the opposition often for that business investement. Because a random person can just join by backers and become a president. If it was a representative of a political party, then politics in USA would be taken more seriously. So thats the problem with the whole, racism, supremacy or whatever. People just seems to be so full of themselves is the problem.

But if you mean Trump MAGA dorks, then i agree those are on the range of autocrats.

But mainly thinking of this South Park joke

[Belacqua]

I will say one thing though. Batman 2022 is a good movie. Not because i like superheroes but because it is subtle. Think of Clockwork Orange, weird punks dress up weird and beats people up. So its the only superhero movie in that genre of a movie where i actually applaud one movie of actually making sense interms of believable realism of why this would work.

I see what you mean about the Clockwork Orange connection. In the Batman movie at least one of the groups that Batman beats up appears to be a gang of thrill-seekers, who do violence because it's exciting and because there's no one to stop them -- similar to Alex's group of droogs. 

The difference of course is that in Clockwork Orange, both book and movie, the violence is presented as unambiguously bad. There is no good violence. Alex may be appealing in a stylish way, but he is certainly not a hero. There is also awareness (more in the book than in the movie) about what it is in society which creates and allows violent people like Alex. 

Imagine if Anthony Burgess had introduced an anti-Alex, who solves the problem of the droogs' violence through more violence. In other words, a superhero. This would be a very different kind of book. Burgess was far too intelligent to present us with a violent vigilante whom we could applaud, or to invite us to feel satisfaction and aesthetic pleasure by watching this superhero commit violence. This is what makes him superior to the superhero genre. 

Remember that attempts to treat Alex's violence are morally ambiguous. Burgess is aware that there is no simple solution. 

(In the British edition of the book there is a final chapter which was left out of the American edition and the movie. It shows Alex after his failed psychological indoctrination, returned as a free man to society. He says to himself, well, he's getting too old for the old ultra-violence, he's 16 now after all, and it's time to start thinking about settling down and getting a proper job. At least one of his former droogs has become a policeman.)

In contrast, Batman and the other superheroes, like so many Hollywood productions, solve problems through violence. We are invited to find this satisfying. We are shown that the only way to solve society's problems is through a small group of superior individuals -- a kind of master race -- who must violently quell our enemies through methods unencumbered by elected authority or the legal system. It's fascism, where we root for the fascists. Naturally the people on this forum are far too intelligent to be influenced by this message, which is constantly pounded into us by Hollywood. (And think of Jack Reacher and John Wick and all the other heroes who win by making more effective use of violence than the other guys.) But think of the January 6 types, and Trump-type militia types, who are eager to use their violence, and think that when the time comes they will be justified and satisfied to imitate their vigilante screen models.

The only TV example I know in contrast to this is the 2016 mini-series based on War and Peace. (I've only seen one episode so far, but it was wonderfully faithful to the book.) The way violence is presented in this novel is entirely different from the superhero genre. In fact the winning general is a tragic figure, already dying at the beginning of the book, who knows that Napoleon's army cannot be defeated through direct confrontation. He has to deal with the young soldiers who are eager to run off and waste their lives attacking, which would certainly lose the war in the end. 

This general, against widespread popular opinion, keeps the French occupied by constant tactical retreats, even allowing Napoleon to occupy Moscow at one point. He knows that direct violence will not work, that time, winter, and long distances are the only way to win, and this requires patience. He wins in the end, but it is not a glorious superhero-type moment. 

Interestingly, the actor who played the Riddler in the latest Batman plays Pierre Bezukhov in War and Peace. A fascinating, ambiguous, very human character, who learns a great deal about the violence of war. 

Anyway, this is what I mean about the difference between superhero movies, which are childishly simple, and real literature.

[Ahriman]

What if humans are all robots and we are advancing all the time but everyone evolves at a different rate and the more advanced robots get to determine the fate of the more primitive robots?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What if humans are all robots and we are advancing all the time but everyone evolves at a different rate and the more advanced robots get to determine the fate of the more primitive robots?

I vote we disassemble you to find out.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

What if humans are all robots and we are advancing all the time but everyone evolves at a different rate and the more advanced robots get to determine the fate of the more primitive robots?

I vote we disassemble you to find out.

Boru

You do it.  I don't want to touch it....even double-gloved.  Plz report back.