MovieChat Forums > Abed303 > Replies
Abed303's Replies
NitroHangover's post was just an attack on the OP. What did they expect the OP to respond with?
I have to agree with the OP here. While I don't quite agree with their characterization of this film's target audience I see their point. It would be nice to get more films like Joker. DCEU failed because it tried to just copy what MCU was doing. Even worse WB thought they could just skip all of the work that was put into MCU's earlier phases. It didn't work. Instead of a batman trilogy, why not three very different stand-alone batman movies? Batman '89 was so good because it was so different. Superhero movies feel more and more the same lately, regardless of what movie or studio. It would be refreshing to see a batman movie that had more investigation than action. Would it make as much money as Endgame? of course not. Would it be profitable? of course it would
I don't use the term woke, so I wouldn't know.
What you quoted from me about Training Day isn't even a question. It's a statement. There was a question right after it in my post: "What agenda is this group of artists pushing exactly?". That question was most definitely not hypothetical and went unanswered.
I'd argue that any individual upset by the diversity in films like this one isn't "exactly with the times".
At first, I immediately agreed. If someone's actively trying to kill another the victim shouldn't let any concern for their attacker affect their chances of survival. Where it gets tricky is stunning and disabling spells are shown to be just as effective without taking life. Harry and the gang do fairly well against full-grown death eaters without killing any of them.
It's not revealed until the next installment, but it states that committing murder tears the soul. Perhaps too much of it has some negative consequence for caster.
The discussion started with a post on what woke was. Asking if other films are woke and how is absolutely on topic.
I'd add determination and luck to that.
Before this movie if you heard Batman you thought of Adam West. When this movie came out it completely upended the public's expectations and showed that batman could be more than children's entertainment. It showed that he could be a serious character. Bruce Wayne was a fully fleshed out character that adult audiences could appreciate. Adam West's batman was just some super rich guy that dressed up with his best friend having a blast stopping crime. We went from shark repellent to lighting criminals on fire and blowing them up.
Objectively, the discussion grew quite a bit. You've been invested enough in it to continue it. I'm not trying to expose anybody for anything. If you see a double standard to how you assume those questions would be answered that's on you. I assume that you have an opinion on those topics that is not a double standard. For example, you responded to Training Day by mentioning it predated the woke movement. I respect that opinion, didn't argue that, even though I disagree with it. I don't see a double standard there, just an opinion I don't agree with. It's irrational to assume that you can comment on someone's post, but they cannot reply, weather it's in agreement or disagreement.
We've already seen in Wandavision how easy it can be to nullify magic. It could the same thing happening here.
You're so right, perhaps this monologue was why the director went after Wilson for the role. It seems written for him.
Ravonna, whatever her real intentions might be, is clearly lonely, likely being the only one who knows everyone's manipulated. She's not really friends with Mobius (because she's lying to him too), but she distracts herself with this pseudo-friendship and it's important to her. That's why she was asking him silly questions about where he'd want to go in time, just a distraction to deal with what's she's taking part in.
Mobius answers her older question honestly in a way that Ravonna knows that he feels betrayed, and that's the point. It's a big middle finger and a reminder she's alone, but filtered trough a playful, upbeat, speech about jet skiing. Mobius knew just how to twist the knife on his way out.
With respect to characters' inconsistencies in powers, I agree. All of these characters have base power levels as well as the ability to temporarily surpass them through feats. Furthermore, characters' capabilities will fluctuate to accommodate a story. I accept that.
There are other inconsistencies that seem like mistakes, not conscious adjustments to make a better story.
No clue what you mean by that. Inconsistencies are going to bother some viewers while others will gloss right over them and enjoy the show. It's just personal preference.
Agreed.
I'm still hoping the last two episodes will clean it up.
I'm thinking that this isn't the TVA at all, but rather something created by a Loki/Sylvie. The sacred timeline is fake and just a way to keep things the way Loki/Sylvie want it. The shovel from the first episode means she's been that far into the future and has access to future tech. Maybe the shovel has more significance than just a reference to Kang. Maybe that's where the pruning batons come from (they might not do what we've been led to believe).
There's no moving of the goal posts, this is a discussion and you progressed it. The release schedule and the writing are two different aspects of the show. I brought up how the format of the show can affect the writing because you mentioned several shows that were incredibly popular, but also widely criticized for sloppy writing at the end of their runs. The writing gets sloppy because the're just making it up as they go, for as long as they can. While changes might have been made during production, Loki had a complete script before production began. I'd expect the writing to be tighter. Again I brought that up because you mentioned other shows. Discussions progress; it's irrational to assume that you can comment on someone's post, but they cannot reply. My reply was a direct response to what you wrote.
There were multiple theories surrounding the Evan Peter's role in the show. What we got was Ralph Bohner. So no, no mention of Mephiso. I mentioned what made it into the show, not what didn't.
There was absolutely nothing he could have said. Vito was dead as soon as he was recognized like that.
Even if he had a good excuse it was just a matter of time before word got around to Phil. Phil's the reason Tony didn't ultimately take Vito back. Given how everyone in the entire organization felt about homosexuality it would have made Tony look weak to accept Vito back with Phil screaming about it.
Also, that social relevance in Get out is really front ant center. and because of that the film takes itself pretty seriously. There's a little comic relief at the beginning and end with the Chris' friend Rod, but that's just a comedic foil because the rest is so creepy. Ready or Not doesn't take itself too seriously at all. I spent much of the movie laughing. It looks like it must have been a blast for the actors.
I'm holding judgement on Loki until the end. I'm enjoying it as well. I'm excited for Grant, but I was also excited to see Evan Peters in WandaVision. There are parts of the series that I think are awesome, and others that I can't understand. For example, such emphasis on the water rings on the table in that meeting but Mobius had some form of liquor without ice. Water rings wouldn't be possible. How did nobody notice that on set? It's so glaring it makes me question if there's some significance to it.
The superhero fatigue was in reference to what I see is an increase in those type of moments in the MCU as a whole. I feel like these types of details were cared about more in earlier phases. Maybe not, it's been ages since I've seen any of the older movies.
I must say that's a great point. When you put it like that, perhaps the speculation is more valuable than the quality of the content. After all once the show finishes airing it's just sitting there for late-comers to binge.
I don't expect things to change. I just realize that it's losing my interest, and those are the reasons. Maybe its just superhero fatigue, but I was hoping that Disney would offer some variation in tone. FAWS started to offer something different with Bucky's mental health but it was sanitized for younger audiences. What a blown opportunity at the end of the series when Bucky confessed to that old man. It was basically lifted from The Bourne Supremacy, but stripped of any emotion. What a waste of Sebastian Stan there. It didn't need to be explicit, but Bucky didn't have to just say "I didn't have a choice". No payoff at all to that buildup with that man, Bucky torturing himself by befriending him and learning how hollow his life is without his son. This was a moment that has been building since CAWS, he finally accepts what happened and is ready to start living again.
Here is a list of quotes from the post I responded to that were each opened up for discussion (which was a response in a discussion about weather woke was derogatory or not):
In movies it refers to a picture that is intended to push an agenda
"Woke" is casting an African actress as Anne Boelyn.
"Woke" is also throwing a shit-fit if a white actor plays an Arab or a Native American.
"Woke" is hypocrisy and attempting to right perceived wrongs by inflicting the same wrongs on the group you perceive has "oppressed" you.
"Woke" means that the movie is attempting to indoctrinate you first, entertain you second
Like I said discussions grow. Every response has a reply option, by design. In other words, a growing discussion is an intended possibility of every post and reply.
Again, the goal of a publicly-traded company is to generate profit for investors. It's a open market, people do not invest in companies that lose them money. CSR and purpose-washing only exist because consumers' purchases matter and profit is the goal.