I've started to suspect that I just don't like superheroes myself, but if that was true, I wouldn't like BTAS.
I am really not sure what to think here.
The Incredibles is one of my favorite movies ever. But a lot of what people take for granted about the superhero concept is either baffling outside its original historical context (Why do superpowered crime fighters still dress like circus performers in this day and age?) or just plain dumb. You just have to accept the stupidity to enjoy the show, I guess; I won't blame anyone who doesn't want to accept that.
also, to be honest, Age of Ultron feels like the exact moment that the MCU ran out of steam to me
I haven't watched Ant-Man, not yet at least
I've seen MCU fans claim that Age of Ultron was the movie that Man of Steel should have been. And I find that rather telling, because in terms of actual writing and character's motivations actually making sense, both films were equal offenders. But Age of Ultron had constant wisecracking and a blatant deus ex machina to save the heroes from having to make a truly hard choice in the big ending battle. And in some folks' minds, that makes it the better movie.
Remember how Tony Stark and Bruce Banner tried to create an AI, which wound up going insane and trying to destroy the world? Remember how, two-thirds of a movie later, Stark and Banner tried to do it again, only this time their AI baby turned into a superhero? And the movie didn't bother to explain why?
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
that sounds dumb put that way
what I remember most is the definite feeling of boredom, the "have we reminded you that Marvel is part of the Disney Universe™ today" inclusion of Pinocchio singing, and Black Widow calling herself a monster in part because she cannot bear children
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Nobody's stronger than the Hulk. There was no point that Stark could engineer something that could actually withstand or overpower the Hulk, and that's why Veronica was a modular set of replacement parts.
Also the reason why the Vision AI was a superhero was because he was JARVIS first. Not a good reason, but that's the reason.
I enjoyed it, mainly because of its commitment to showing heroes actually caring about saving bystanders' lives.
I also agree with Film Crit Hulk that it will probably be the thing that let's the air out of the MCU.
And I don't see plot quibbles like two AIs created in different contexts in different ways behaving differently to be that big of a deal, the biggest problem was probably just an overall feeling of aimlessness.
But honestly I'd WANT TO BE avidly for most of the Marvel movies because I find their critics going after all the wrong things and being super obnoxious about it.
oh and the Hulk overpowering Iron Man's bigger, stronger, bulkier suit
Eh, that one's not Age of Ultron's fault. From what I understand, Hulk in the comics can literally break physics if he gets angry enough. His schtick is that he can overpower anything... if he gets angry enough. Call it dumb if you like, but the dumbness is from the source material.
Although I'm really not very concerned with "power rankings" one way or another, so that sorta thing just doesn't bother me as much.
also, to be honest, Age of Ultron feels like the exact moment that the MCU ran out of steam to me
I haven't watched Ant-Man, not yet at least
I've seen MCU fans claim that Age of Ultron was the movie that Man of Steel should have been. And I find that rather telling, because in terms of actual writing and character's motivations actually making sense, both films were equal offenders. But Age of Ultron had constant wisecracking and a blatant deus ex machina to save the heroes from having to make a truly hard choice in the big ending battle. And in some folks' minds, that makes it the better movie.
This just makes me wonder if Disney purposefully make the films inoffensive and hard-to-take-seriously to deflect criticism.
also, to be honest, Age of Ultron feels like the exact moment that the MCU ran out of steam to me
I haven't watched Ant-Man, not yet at least
I've seen MCU fans claim that Age of Ultron was the movie that Man of Steel should have been. And I find that rather telling, because in terms of actual writing and character's motivations actually making sense, both films were equal offenders. But Age of Ultron had constant wisecracking and a blatant deus ex machina to save the heroes from having to make a truly hard choice in the big ending battle. And in some folks' minds, that makes it the better movie.
That's kind of reductive, though, innit? I seriously doubt anyone thought "this movie is better because it had a deus ex machina, Man of Steel was bad because it didn't have a deus ex machina."
I have a number of issues with the MCU but the focus is seemingly aaaaalways on complaining about the fans and it makes it fucking. impossible. to have a reasonable critical dialogue about it. Like, I don't want to be forced into the position of defending a series of twelve movies of which I've seen five, and which I only mildly like. I want to be able to take a more nuanced position on it than roundly positive but when it turns into this weird combatative thing I can't do that.
I've started to suspect that I just don't like superheroes myself, but if that was true, I wouldn't like BTAS.
I am really not sure what to think here.
The Incredibles is one of my favorite movies ever. But a lot of what people take for granted about the superhero concept is either baffling outside its original historical context (Why do superpowered crime fighters still dress like circus performers in this day and age?) or just plain dumb. You just have to accept the stupidity to enjoy the show, I guess; I won't blame anyone who doesn't want to accept that.
I love The Incredibles, too, so again, I don't think I hate superheroes as a concept.
I have to wonder if it's the way superhero films always try to make the concept work in the real world, despite the obvious fact that it really can't.
People like to pretend it's a response to Man of Steel, but it's clearly not, it's just the same bowl of colorful cereal Marvel has been serving for years and content consumers were just happy Papa Marvel/Disney was here to save them from unpleasant and unfamiliar textures.
See, that's a *really interesting* read of the movie's politics. But you make it so infuriatingly fucking personal and I can't actually engage with that reading and I have to argue with the pretense that people who enjoy movies you don't like deserve to be lined up and shot, or eaten by pterodactyls or something.
really i think we could boil down much of the complaint to "action movies tend to be jingoistic in particular and morally conservative in general" which is absolutely true.
the MCU is just that expressed in perhaps the most corporate form possible
Like okay in The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, Slavoj Zizek posits that The Dark Knight is a film advocating a government that actively hides information from the public "for their own good." And I love that movie. And I can provide reasons why I think it's a legitimately good one, even though the point he presents is... essentially inarguable. And most importantly, I don't mind that Zizek finds the movie actively contemptible for important political reasons because he isn't moralizing and ( even ironically or hyperbolically) saying people should die for liking it. It's detached. And I can engage without having to assume a strictly defensive position.
Disney is one of a few companies whose very existence makes me uncomfortable.
Like, people still stand up for it? As though it's something that needs defending and is somehow an underdog in....any situation?
Like there are Disney fans. Hardcore Disney fans, and I don't understand how.
Their properties have next to nothing in common, it's just a random selection of stuff. Some of it good, some of it bad, and people look at this and go "yeah this is something that is worth my time arguing for on the internet."
Even if AoU is a comment on MoS, it feels less like an honest takedown and more like cross-company ribbing. I mean, this isn't the manic pixie dream girl screwing with the boring dude. This is Sony raggging on Microsoft after a bad E3 showing, or Democrats joking about 'binders fulla women' back in the '12 election. It's a good joke for those on the 'right' side, but it doesn't really address the underlying issues. The videogame example ignores that the console industry is generally at a loss of what to do with itself. The election one ignores the actual political arguments (whatever their worth may be). And this specific superhero example ignores one of the biggest lessons one should take from Man of Steel: even the biggest brand can fall if it doesn't have enough artistic power to them. And Age of Ultron is all about cutting artistic power for the sake of crossover building.
Like okay in The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, Slavoj Zizek posits that The Dark Knight is a film advocating a government that actively hides information from the public "for their own good." And I love that movie. And I can provide reasons why I think it's a legitimately good one, even though the point he presents is... essentially inarguable. And most importantly, I don't mind that Zizek finds the movie actively contemptible for important political reasons because he isn't moralizing and ( even ironically or hyperbolically) saying people should die for liking it. It's detached. And I can engage without having to assume a strictly defensive position.
i do find it easier to engage with criticism in an academic context, somehow
Disney is one of a few companies whose very existence makes me uncomfortable.
Like, people still stand up for it? As though it's something that needs defending and is somehow an underdog in....any situation?
Like there are Disney fans. Hardcore Disney fans, and I don't understand how.
Their properties have next to nothing in common, it's just a random selection of stuff. Some of it good, some of it bad, and people look at this and go "yeah this is something that is worth my time arguing for on the internet."
people do it with Nintendo too idgi.
when i was a kid Nintendo felt like an underdog because everyone at my school said the games were bad and for babies because they weren't GTA
it kinda took finding the internet and growing up a little bit for me to develop some perspective on that
i think various branches of Disney do have something of a coherent house style - the Disney Animated Canon, for instance, has a very characteristic approach although it's been imitated a lot
and i guess i am broadly a fan of animation, fantasy and musicals, so that house style has some appeal to me
Disney is one of a few companies whose very existence makes me uncomfortable.
Like, people still stand up for it? As though it's something that needs defending and is somehow an underdog in....any situation?
Like there are Disney fans. Hardcore Disney fans, and I don't understand how.
Their properties have next to nothing in common, it's just a random selection of stuff. Some of it good, some of it bad, and people look at this and go "yeah this is something that is worth my time arguing for on the internet."
people do it with Nintendo too idgi.
when i was a kid Nintendo felt like an underdog because everyone at my school said the games were bad and for babies because they weren't GTA
it kinda took finding the internet and growing up a little bit for me to develop some perspective on that
i think various branches of Disney do have something of a coherent house style - the Disney Animated Canon, for instance, has a very characteristic approach although it's been imitated a lot
and i guess i am broadly a fan of animation, fantasy and musicals, so that house style has some appeal to me
sure, that's fine, I'm not talking about their actual works, I'm talking about the company itself.
I think Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a great and very underrated movie, but I don't see a need to defend Disney on the whole because I like it.
Nintendo also doesn't essentially monopolize an entire section of its industry.
Besides, it's not like hardcore Disney fans are, say, also huge ESPN fans. They are attached to Disney films, which, as much as I hate brand loyalty and cynical corporate bullshit I would say that an attachment to "comfort food" media like Disney and Nintendo is the most benign possible manifestation of that. If said fans try to come to a mature understanding of why that media appeals to them it stops being simply benign and starts being actively beneficial.
but like the thing is there's a huge gulf between "I really like Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/whatever" and "I will literally eat off a spoon anything with the Nintendo logo on it".
Change those names around and replace Nintendo with Disney, it's the same point.
Some companies are large enough that you should be inherently suspicious of anything they do--you lose nothing by making them prove themselves to you as a consumer--and it is very concerning to me when I see things like those "welcome to the next three years of your life" posters with all of the upcoming Marvel/Disney movie titles on them.
That's weird! We're not talking about episodes in a TV show, something like that is several interlocking franchises, and there absolutely are people--and I know several personally--who unfailingly go out and watch these films and are often not satisfied with them, but then go to see the next one anyway, because if you miss one, you're suddenly out of the loop on the fan conversation.
It's exploitative, these companies are very well aware of what they're doing.
Comments
People who worry too much about their interests seeming childish tend to be preoccupied with maturity as they perceive it.
The Incredibles is one of my favorite movies ever. But a lot of what people take for granted about the superhero concept is either baffling outside its original historical context (Why do superpowered crime fighters still dress like circus performers in this day and age?) or just plain dumb. You just have to accept the stupidity to enjoy the show, I guess; I won't blame anyone who doesn't want to accept that.
I've seen MCU fans claim that Age of Ultron was the movie that Man of Steel should have been. And I find that rather telling, because in terms of actual writing and character's motivations actually making sense, both films were equal offenders. But Age of Ultron had constant wisecracking and a blatant deus ex machina to save the heroes from having to make a truly hard choice in the big ending battle. And in some folks' minds, that makes it the better movie.
Also the reason why the Vision AI was a superhero was because he was JARVIS first. Not a good reason, but that's the reason.
I also agree with Film Crit Hulk that it will probably be the thing that let's the air out of the MCU.
And I don't see plot quibbles like two AIs created in different contexts in different ways behaving differently to be that big of a deal, the biggest problem was probably just an overall feeling of aimlessness.
But honestly I'd WANT TO BE avidly for most of the Marvel movies because I find their critics going after all the wrong things and being super obnoxious about it.
Eh, that one's not Age of Ultron's fault. From what I understand, Hulk in the comics can literally break physics if he gets angry enough. His schtick is that he can overpower anything... if he gets angry enough. Call it dumb if you like, but the dumbness is from the source material.
Except the people who hate superhero movies for being superhero movies. Fuck those people.
You don't have to like it. You just need to not wish it was something else. Because it never will be.
That seems like the kind of thing they'd do.
Ant-Man had "It's a Small World"
I have to wonder if it's the way superhero films always try to make the concept work in the real world, despite the obvious fact that it really can't.
relative to the politics of the time, at any rate
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
so i think i agree with this
Then again, I have a somewhat unorthodox attitude towards the NSA, so maybe that's why.
it kinda took finding the internet and growing up a little bit for me to develop some perspective on that
i think various branches of Disney do have something of a coherent house style - the Disney Animated Canon, for instance, has a very characteristic approach although it's been imitated a lot
and i guess i am broadly a fan of animation, fantasy and musicals, so that house style has some appeal to me
It's probably for the same reason Tach likes the Disney Animated Canon.
Besides, it's not like hardcore Disney fans are, say, also huge ESPN fans. They are attached to Disney films, which, as much as I hate brand loyalty and cynical corporate bullshit I would say that an attachment to "comfort food" media like Disney and Nintendo is the most benign possible manifestation of that. If said fans try to come to a mature understanding of why that media appeals to them it stops being simply benign and starts being actively beneficial.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead