• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Framing Snyder's Superman - Why people think he doesn't care

Veelk

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
16,922
0
0
He straight up tells the US Army that he is not beholden to them or their laws. He breaks the handcuffs they put him, walks to the one-way mirror in the interrogation room, throwing veiled threats at the General that he's merely playing along with them,

The senate hearing is just another instance of him merely goofing around with them. Had the hearing went on normally, he would've just told the senators where to shove it if he didn't like what they were saying.

How is that someone who wants to be seen as a citizen beholden to the laws of men?

To be completely fair, we don't know what he was going to say to the senate precisely. Which is kind of the problem. He's just sort of bumbling around and trying to help, but the framing is so focused on his uncertainty and insecurity that he comes off as more incompetent than anything else.

Like the interrogation. Yeah, he basically ended up saying "Imma do me, like it or not, and you can't stop me". He meant it in a positive way. He was trying to assure them that even though he won't be held accountable by them, he's also not a threat to them either. But it comes off otherwise because of how he's presented himself. That and it's hard to make "Nuh-uh, Imma do what I want" sound mature.
 

dragonyeuw

Member
Dec 18, 2014
4,677
1
445
To be completely fair, we don't know what he was going to say to the senate precisely. Which is kind of the problem. He's just sort of bumbling around and trying to help, but the framing is so focused on his uncertainty and insecurity that he comes off as more incompetent than anything else.

As I said in a prior post, I think that scene( and the movie) would have been better served by having the hearing play out allowing Superman to address the public. There's enough carnage at the end of the movie( and in general) where that may have been a better story device, especially considering the whole point of it was for Lex to frame him, but 10 mins later that plot point had blown over and given way to the rest of the film; ultimately it didn't really accomplish anything. It was really indicative of how muddled they made the Lex character in terms of his motivations and how he executed his plans.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
He straight up tells the US Army that he is not beholden to them or their laws. He breaks the handcuffs they put him, walks to the one-way mirror in the interrogation room, throwing veiled threats at the General that he's merely playing along with them,

The senate hearing is just another instance of him merely goofing around with them. Had the hearing went on normally, he would've just told the senators where to shove it if he didn't like what they were saying.

How is that someone who wants to be seen as a citizen beholden to the laws of men?

Oh wow, that's some impressive mental gymnastics. First off all he didn't tell the army to shove it He said they can't control him. As in they can't use him as a weapon

You're scared because you can't control me.
You don't, and you never will.
But that doesn' mean I'm your enemy.

But let's see what he says like 10s later when he is told to be handed to Zod

Army:...I've been given orders
to hand you over to him.
Superman: Do what you have to do, general.


Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=man-of-steel

Truly throwing veiled threats. "yeah I know you have like 100s of guns aimed at my head and want to offer me as a sacrifice to the kryptonian warlord, but it's not necessary I'll go and do whatever you want me to do". Truly fucking menacing The more i engage in these asinine arguments the more i am reminded people don't watch the movies they bitch about. There's shit that's open to interpretation and then there's just plain wrong. I spend too much time on this but someone is wrong on the internet and all that.

Also if he thinks he is so above the law why did he bother going to the senate hearing? I am really finding it hard how you can argue that he thinks he is above the law when everytime people criticise him he takes it personally and hopes to do what's right. The emergency staff tell him in everything but words to fuck off, he feels hurt and questions whether doing the right thing can lead to the worst outcomes; the senator asks him not to work unilaterally, he questions whether it's the right thing to do, he constantly asks his mother for advice, he dreams of his father who gives him advice, hell the only reason he spoke to the army was cos Zod threatened to destroy the world.

I truly don't see how people can claim this Superman doesn't care when he thinks about his actions constantly. He is not Captain America, a government official BTW, whom when he is reminded by people above his rank that his actions brought down helicarriers and resulted in the death of countless people he doesn't say dumb shit like "safest hands are still our own" and tells his boss, people he is accountable to, that their hypothetical method to reduce the likelihood of casualties isn't even worth being tried out. Superman in the Snyder films goes to answer to people who he doesn't have to get out of bed for, whilst the "best interpretation of Superman" thinks he is literally above criticism.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
As I said in a prior post, I think that scene( and the movie) would have been better served by having the hearing play out allowing Superman to address the public. There's enough carnage at the end of the movie( and in general) where that may have been a better story device, especially considering the whole point of it was for Lex to frame him, but 10 mins later that plot point had blown over and given way to the rest of the film; ultimately it didn't really accomplish anything. It was really indicative of how muddled they made the Lex character in terms of his motivations and how he executed his plans.


Are you genuinely surprised that Lex Luthor didn't give Superman the chance to defend himself and sway public opinion for him? Like I repeat, Lex Luthor, whose inciting incident was to besmirch Superman's reputation didn't allow Superman to defend his reputation and change the tide of public opinion in favour of him. #LexInNameOnly
 
Sep 19, 2015
3,801
0
0
OH please show me how i removed context from anything? Feel free to quote me. You were the one who said that there is nothing in the Snyder films where Superman is mocked for his kindness (even though Zod tells him he will kill everyone and finds his love for humans weak), I then show Superman recklessly punching a guy through populated buildings and you said that that's OK because someone brought an invading army to earth.

You focused specifically on the destruction in both MOS and JL and removed the frameworks leading up to the destruction as if they're the same exact thing, with the same exact purpose in their narrative. That is the definition of removing context.

Also, now you're making up arguments, because re-read my quote, I never said anything about there being "nothing in the Snyder films where Superman is mocked for his kindness." (Your exact words btw). Additionally, I never said that this is OK because of the army coming into Earth. I specifically said that the difference in the two comes down to how character development was handled. It makes sense in Justice League because Superman rarely ever goes unhinged to get rid of a threat vs. MOS where Clark's character arc is unfocused and immediately goes into doing what he did without fully solidifying his character. That's why people are disconnected when it comes to this portrayal of Superman and his battles.

This is despite the fact 1) that's what happened in MOS 2) Superman never punched Zod through any skyscrapers in MOS (petrol station yes, probably unpopulated power station columns, and into a railway yard sure but never a skyscraper).

So just because he didn't punch someone through a building, but punched them through a gas station, power stations, and a railway yard, that it means it's okay? Your logic is very weird.

Also there is this in Smallville:



And this in Metropolis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnAw3E_mLh8#t=3m20s (where he faceplants Zod on a building a destroys a portion of the front of the building)

So you can't even make the argument that Superman in MOS didn't have his reckless moments of faceplanting someone into a building, or throwing someone through one.

You're the one ignoring context, Superman couldn't take the fight elsewhere,each time he did he was brought back to a populated area, or how about scenes where Superman looks upset, it's because he doesn't want to be worshiped as a god, he isn't smiling because after he just killed someone because he doesn't like killing people and unlike Reeves he is not a sociopath who relishes in casual murder or premeditated acts of violence.

Oh i watched the show. I rewatched the scene to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoejLjTx8hQ

He might wanna stop cutting loose or at least do it in a less populated place because Snyder didn't have Superman punching foes through populated buildings or into the middle of congested streets. He at least had the good sense not to do that on the first day on his job the same can't be said for a much more seasoned Superman.

I'm not ignoring context, I specifically argued this side because of course you're going to bring up the MOS context (which I'm well aware of btw because I didn't argue against that, I'm arguing the fact that comparing and justifying MOS bc of JL animated series is a baseless comparison). At the same your entire argument comes down to forcing a similarity via JL scene while also disregarding the context leading up to it. Even on a comparison basis, you're comparing punching through buildings to ridiculous levels of destruction.

He didn't punch in the middle of congested streets?



You clearly see people running away, made even worse when Zod punches up that building and causes debris to fall over, directly hitting them. Not to mention, the entirety of Smallville consists of people locking themselves indoors as they're fighting, while they're throwing each other, they are bound to have hit at least one person, so you can't even rely on the "inexperience" argument.
 

Cassano

Member
Jul 30, 2004
49
0
0
I’m glad that we can agree on what the film is saying in these scenes, and perhaps I can go from there and explain why I have issues with self-interested Objectivist Superman. For the record, I feel comfortable calling him “Objectivist” because of a number of factors, including but not limited to the director’s own beliefs and previous films, the adapted source material, and Batman being similarly ego-driven and self-interested. So, leaving aside my personal issues with Objectivism as a philosophy, let me get just a little into why I don’t like this version of self-interested Superman.

Hang on, I'm not sure I'm following where you're getting Objectivist Superman from? The factors you listed are the director's own beliefs (I'm guessing you think he's an objectivist or something?), the director's previous films (which aren't these films), the adapted source material (which these films are only loosely based on), and Batman (?). None of those factors are actually based on the Superman character.

So what are these other factors that you didn't list that make you think that this Superman is an Objectivist? Do you have any examples from the way Superman is presented in these films?

I'm honestly curious. Because I've seen the 'Objectivist Superman' thing mentioned a number of times in this and other threads but it's never extrapolated on, and based on my understanding of Objectivism this Superman is anything but?
 

atr0cious

Member
Jan 15, 2014
8,712
0
0
SF Bay Area
www.twitch.tv
Hang on, I'm not sure I'm following where you're getting Objectivist Superman from? The factors you listed are the director's own beliefs (I'm guessing you think he's an objectivist or something?), the director's previous films (which aren't these films), the adapted source material (which these films are only loosely based on), and Batman (?). None of those factors are actually based on the Superman character.

So what are these other factors that you didn't list that make you think that this Superman is an Objectivist? Do you have any examples from the way Superman is presented in these films?

I'm honestly curious. Because I've seen the 'Objectivist Superman' thing mentioned a number of times in this and other threads but it's never extrapolated on, and based on my understanding of Objectivism this Superman is anything but?
Snyder said he'd like to do a fountainhead movie and film crit Hulk took that to mean he was an objectivist, then wrote a giant screed based on this speculation. And as this thread shows, if you use enough words, folks think it's legit.
 

JCHandsom

Member
Mar 22, 2017
2,081
3
0
Salt Lake City, Utah
Snyder said he'd like to do a fountainhead movie and film crit Hulk took that to mean he was an objectivist, then wrote a giant screed based on this speculation. And as this thread shows, if you use enough words, folks think it's legit.

That's a good article (like a lot of Hulk's stuff), but I actually took a lot from Wisecrack's "What Went Wrong With Batman v Superman?" Video. By "took a lot", I mean that it provided scenes and moments that helped me gather and put into words my own thoughts on the film, like the daddy Kent scene and "You're my world."

Also, if imma be frank, anyone who looks at "The Fountainhead" as material worthy of adaptation has gotta be looking to cash in on a conservative audience or is themselves a true believer.

And, if imma really be frank, me calling Superman an Objectivist is more of an ideological nitpick than anything else. I appreciate, even love, films that go against my beliefs all the time. The real issue I had was with selflessness vs. self-interest, which is why I spent most of my time talking about that.

That's why I said "leaving that aside", because that's just me reading the surrounding context and applying it to what I see in the film and making my own biased judgement. Just because I'm comfortable with calling it Objectivist doesn't mean that I'm going to knock the movie down points because it disagrees with my politics (well, that gets into a trickier discussion about the political, social, and cultural influence popular media on individuals and their beliefs, but that's a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say that there is a line that can be crossed, but it's not explicitly crossed here.)
 

Zabka

Member
Apr 7, 2006
10,108
1
0
That's a good article (like a lot of Hulk's stuff), but I actually took a lot from Wisecrack's "What Went Wrong With Batman v Superman?" Video. By "took a lot", I mean that it provided scenes and moments that helped me gather and put into words my own thoughts on the film, like the daddy Kent scene and "You're my world."

Also, if imma be frank, anyone who looks at "The Fountainhead" as material worthy of adaptation has gotta be looking to cash in on a conservative audience or is themselves a true believer.

And, if imma really be frank, me calling Superman an Objectivist is more of an ideological nitpick than anything else. I appreciate, even love, films that go against my beliefs all the time. The real issue I had was with selflessness vs. self-interest, which is why I spent most of my time talking about that.

It's too bad it's down now but this was very telling

 

Cassano

Member
Jul 30, 2004
49
0
0
Snyder said he'd like to do a fountainhead movie and film crit Hulk took that to mean he was an objectivist, then wrote a giant screed based on this speculation. And as this thread shows, if you use enough words, folks think it's legit.

Also, if imma be frank, anyone who looks at "The Fountainhead" as material worthy of adaptation has gotta be looking to cash in on a conservative audience or is themselves a true believer.

Here's an interview Snyder did with Ken Levine (of Bioshock fame) in 2010 (so after Watchmen, but before MoS), where they talk about Rand for a little bit @ 10:30 https://irrationalgames.ghoststorygames.com/insider/irrational-interviews-episode-5-zack-snyder/

Say's he had a meeting and was asked if he wanted to make Fountainhead into a movie: say's he's a fan of the book but doesn't know how to do it.

Also says that "there is a naivety to [Rand's] philosophy", which was his "first brush with the idea of a renaissance Superman".

So that, plus what we get to see of his actual personal/family life, makes it hard for me to believe that it points to him being a 'true believer' (or even remotely a 'believer' of any sorts). I mean, being a fan of or finding a piece of work interesting doesn't mean you subscribe to the author's personal philosophies, especially if you think those philosophies are naive.



And, if imma really be frank, me calling Superman an Objectivist is more of an ideological nitpick than anything else. I appreciate, even love, films that go against my beliefs all the time. The real issue I had was with selflessness vs. self-interest, which is why I spent most of my time talking about that.

That's why I said "leaving that aside", because that's just me reading the surrounding context and applying it to what I see in the film and making my own biased judgement.

But that's the thing I'm interested in: what do you see in the film that makes you think this Superman is an Objectivist, or as you say selflessness vs self-interest? Like I said, I've seen it brought up a number of times, but no-one has gone on to say why, or provided examples. I'm genuinely curious as to how people are seeing this Superman as an Objectivist/self-interested Superman. Like, what am I missing?

If you're not interested in answering, that's cool, but I figured I'd ask seeing as you seem willing to engage.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
Here's an interview Snyder did with Ken Levine (of Bioshock fame) in 2010 (so after Watchmen, but before MoS), where they talk about Rand for a little bit @ 10:30 https://irrationalgames.ghoststorygames.com/insider/irrational-interviews-episode-5-zack-snyder/

Say's he had a meeting and was asked if he wanted to make Fountainhead into a movie: say's he's a fan of the book but doesn't know how to do it.

Also says that "there is a naivety to [Rand's] philosophy", which was his "first brush with the idea of a renaissance Superman".

So that, plus what we get to see of his actual personal/family life, makes it hard for me to believe that it points to him being a 'true believer' (or even remotely a 'believer' of any sorts). I mean, being a fan of or finding a piece of work interesting doesn't mean you subscribe to the author's personal philosophies, especially if you think those philosophies are naive.





But that's the thing I'm interested in: what do you see in the film that makes you think this Superman is an Objectivist, or as you say selflessness vs self-interest? Like I said, I've seen it brought up a number of times, but no-one has gone on to say why, or provided examples. I'm genuinely curious as to how people are seeing this Superman as an Objectivist/self-interested Superman. Like, what am I missing?

If you're not interested in answering, that's cool, but I figured I'd ask seeing as you seem willing to engage.

I listened to a interview Snyder did with Levine
a while back, was the above the one where he said he found it disappointing people don't believe someone like Superman can exist because they have trouble believing someone so selfless could exist?
 

oneils

Member
Mar 2, 2011
7,923
2
830
Ottawa, Canada
steamcommunity.com
Superman is inherently the story of an immigrant who is told over and over "you are not one of us, you do not belong" but refuses to accept that and works to defend the home he has immigrated to, even in the face of relentless rejection.

By framing him as actually being an outsider who doesn't belong amongst the people of his chosen homeland and never will -- to frame that interpretation of him as the correct one that the audience should agree with -- misses the point of his story entirely.

I thought that was the whole point of the new super man. They didn’t miss the point, they changed it. Audiences don’t seem to like it.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
You focused specifically on the destruction in both MOS and JL and removed the frameworks leading up to the destruction as if they're the same exact thing, with the same exact purpose in their narrative. That is the definition of removing context.

What that there was a guy who promised to destroy everyone on earth?

Also, now you're making up arguments, because re-read my quote, I never said anything about there being "nothing in the Snyder films where Superman is mocked for his kindness." (Your exact words btw). Additionally, I never said that this is OK because of the army coming into Earth. I specifically said that the difference in the two comes down to how character development was handled. It makes sense in Justice League because Superman rarely ever goes unhinged to get rid of a threat vs. MOS where Clark's character arc is unfocused and immediately goes into doing what he did without fully solidifying his character. That's why people are disconnected when it comes to this portrayal of Superman and his battles.

What did I remove from context?.

  • You cited the animated series as how Superman should be done.
  • I presented examples where this animated Superman didn't show the ideals you espouse
  • You claim that within context Superman was forced to cause so much collateral damage
  • I then remind you that that is literally the plot of MOS, except i argue that Superman caused less direct intentional collateral damage to people
  • You then claim that I removed context because apparently Superman had shown a lot of restraint in the animated series, I disagree because I recall many times he was reckless in the series but whatever.
  • Also I will add MOS had Superman showing restraint throughout the film, whether it's the kids bullying him and him choosing not to fight back and even saving a bully's life, or people picking fights with him at diners and unlike Reeves didn't try to throw the first punch and chose to walk away and didn't engage in premeditated acts of violence. But note unlike you I don't use the restraint he showed in MOS as an excuse for the collateral damage in MOS nor do I ignore them to make my points. I'd also like to add you're comparing TV vs Film, how much more time are you given with TV to develop excuses as to why Superman would let go on Darkseid but not at any other point and even then I still think you're argument he let loose cos he was pushed to breaking point due to holding back is weak

But oh please do inform me of how I remove context


So just because he didn't punch someone through a building, but punched them through a gas station, power stations, and a railway yard, that it means it's okay? Your logic is very weird.

Also there is this in Smallville:



And this in Metropolis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnAw3E_mLh8#t=3m20s (where he faceplants Zod on a building a destroys a portion of the front of the building)

So you can't even make the argument that Superman in MOS didn't have his reckless moments of faceplanting someone into a building, or throwing someone through one.

I have always said the gas station one was legit, the power plant was probably unpopulated, the railway station was sparesly populated as an attempt to take the fight to a place with fewer people and punching the Kryptonian girl threw the probably empty shop I'll give you. Why you're shedding tears over the plains of glass I do not understand however.


I'm not ignoring context, I specifically argued this side because of course you're going to bring up the MOS context (which I'm well aware of btw because I didn't argue against that, I'm arguing the fact that comparing and justifying MOS bc of JL animated series is a baseless comparison). At the same your entire argument comes down to forcing a similarity via JL scene while also disregarding the context leading up to it. Even on a comparison basis, you're comparing punching through buildings to ridiculous levels of destruction.

He didn't punch in the middle of congested streets?



You clearly see people running away, made even worse when Zod punches up that building and causes debris to fall over, directly hitting them. Not to mention, the entirety of Smallville consists of people locking themselves indoors as they're fighting, while they're throwing each other, they are bound to have hit at least one person, so you can't even rely on the "inexperience" argument.[/QUOTE]

I said punch people through the middle of congested streets. Also, Zod had brought the fight there in that clip. I'd like to add, I have never felt the inexperienced argument is the strongest, I have always felt and said it was an unwinnable situation where he was not able to take the fight elsewhere and Zod was more than willing to use his fondness humans against him.

edit: it seems you got me on a point about you didn't say Superman was mocked for his kindness. That was another poster. My bad
 

SENPAIatLARGE

Banned
Nov 8, 2015
2,422
1
0
I would never feel safe around MoS Superman. My life is worthless if Lois Lane is in danger and his parental figures raised him to not save people and do whatever he wanted.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
8,115
8,230
805
Canada
And yet people wonder why this Superman isn't all gleeful. If Superman actually existed in our world, I guarantee you he wouldn't be anything like Reeve's.

Exactly. Ask Guy Fieri about how the world reacts to people trying to do something good. We have become a world of people who can second guess everything publicly from behind the comfort of our screens. While this would seem like a good thing that everyone's voice can be heard it just ends up being a shitshow of petty criticism by stupid people. It is the non comedic version of Idiocracy playing out on Twitter. If Superman did exist he would burn this world to ashes.
 

Veelk

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
16,922
0
0
People being the audience. People criticised both Kent parents speeches but Queen Antiope's trepidation is ignored.

That's not evidence of approval.

So, because you spotted two superficially similar sounding lines, you think you can strip them of the very distinct context and reasons the speakers were saying them (only one of these mothers was trying to instill a specific life philosophy in their child), while also completely lying (and you are lying when you say that they approve of it just because you haven't seen people speak against it) and making up an audience's reaction you can criticize.

And you wonder why everyone who talks to you throws up their hands in exasperation and gives up.

Edit: also, you need to stop trying to assign specific motives when dealing with generalizations. Even if your comparison was valid (and it's not):

It's unknown how much of the audience that liked Hippolyta's speech but disliked Martha's.
It's unknown how much of the audience disliked both speeches (and still liked Wonder Woman despite that)
It's unknown how much of the audience liked both speeches (and still disliked MoS/BvS despite that)
It's unknown how much of the audience didn't even care about either of the speeches and liked/disliked each movie for other reasons.
And more variations too numerous to type up.

Grasping is too small a word for how your trying to get a specific take from the very broad, generalized reaction of "Audience liked one movie, but not the other"
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
That's not evidence of approval.

So, because you spotted two superficially similar sounding lines, you think you can strip them of the very distinct context and reasons the speakers were saying them (only one of these mothers was trying to instill a specific life philosophy in their child), while also completely lying (and you are lying when you say that they approve of it just because you haven't seen people speak against it) and making up an audience's reaction you can criticize.

And you wonder why everyone who talks to you throws up their hands in exasperation and gives up.

Edit: also, you need to stop trying to assign specific motives when dealing with generalizations. Even if your comparison was valid (and it's not):

It's unknown how much of the audience that liked Hippolyta's speech but disliked Martha's.
It's unknown how much of the audience disliked both speeches (and still liked Wonder Woman despite that)
It's unknown how much of the audience liked both speeches (and still disliked MoS/BvS despite that)
It's unknown how much of the audience didn't even care about either of the speeches and liked/disliked each movie for other reasons.
And more variations too numerous to type up.

Grasping is too small a word for how your trying to get a specific take from the very broad, generalized reaction of "Audience liked one movie, but not the other"


Oh boy. I'l use very small words to make very large points. Audiences criticised Jonathan Kent's "maybe" line (that is if they didn't say he said he thought kids should die). People criticised him saying maybe because they constantly a)claim that Jonathan Kent was all sunshine, puppies and rainbows and taught Superman his good character and was never cynical (this isn't the case in the Donner films as I have explained many times b) people have a problem with the cynicism because they felt that how could Superman be the beacon of hope and optimism when his father was so cold and cynical. Now we get to Wonder Woman, people say that Wonder Woman is so hopeful. this is despite the fact she was reared with just as much cynicism as Snyder's Superman. If I am being honest whilst I did like the Wonder Woman I found her confusingly naive (she read all these books on lovemaking but didn't know where babies came from).

Also I can use clearly observable generalisations as much as i like, you playing dumb doesn't give your argument weight. How often do you hear criticisms of Antiope's cynicism? Next to never. How often do you hear criticism of Martha Kent saying basically it's up to you to do what you want. I can probably count at least a few times in this thread like this one where people chastised Martha's cynicism . You'd probably have trouble finding(m)any) mention of Antiope's cynicism in any Wonder Woman thread, or much mention online in general I could probably find literally 100 of articles/tweets/videos of Jonathan Kent's cynicism. But I am open to you trying and failing to prove me wrong. I am talking about how people viewed characters' reception even though both were brought up with a cynical view of the world. General reception of the films isn't the point I was making here despite you trying to move the goalpost.
 

Veelk

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
16,922
0
0
*throws up hands in exasperation and gives up*

I have little response I can see being worthwhile except to recommend that you pick up a book on critical thinking or take a class or something. It'll teach you how generalizations are meant to work in valid arguments, what goalpost moving actually is, and how context works, and how to avoid logical fallacies in general.

So that it's atleast somewhat on topic, I'll just respond to this part

Now we get to Wonder Woman, people say that Wonder Woman is so hopeful. this is despite the fact she was reared with just as much cynicism as Snyder's Superman.

Do you know why? Because when presented with the cynicism her mentors offered her, she threw it in their face. She said "Fuck that" and decided to be hopeful anyway. She went into Man's World where her mothers hid away from it. She saw the carnage and devastation of World War 1 and brought hope and joy and wonder into it anyway. And her moment of greatest doubt, when the god of war is trying to finally break her completely, she fights back and defies his claim that humanity isn't worth saving.

The cynicism of the amazons is taken differently because it is used by the movie differently. Superman wallows in the cynicism of his parents. Wonder Woman overcomes it. That
s not the only reason, because again, the context and motivations for Hippolyta saying that is starkly different for why Martha says what she does.

But yes, there is good reason that what Hippolyta says does not have the same effect as another, superficially similar, but actually very different thing that is used in a completely different way in the movie gets a different reaction from an audience, who you cannot generalize into a singular monolith for your convenience of your argument.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
*throws up hands in exasperation and gives up*

I have little response I can see being worthwhile except to recommend that you pick up a book on critical thinking or take a class or something. It'll teach you how generalizations are meant to work in valid arguments, what goalpost moving actually is, and how context works, and how to avoid logical fallacies in general.

So that it's atleast somewhat on topic, I'll just respond to this part



Do you know why? Because when presented with the cynicism her mentors offered her, she threw it in their face. She said "Fuck that" and decided to be hopeful anyway. She went into Man's World where her mothers hid away from it. She saw the carnage and devastation of World War 1 and brought hope and joy and wonder into it anyway. And her moment of greatest doubt, when the god of war is trying to finally break her completely, she fights back and defies his claim that humanity isn't worth saving.

The cynicism of the amazons is taken differently because it is used by the movie differently. Superman wallows in the cynicism of his parents. Wonder Woman overcomes it. That
s not the only reason, because again, the context and motivations for Hippolyta saying that is starkly different for why Martha says what she does.

But yes, there is good reason that what Hippolyta says does not have the same effect as another, superficially similar, but actually very different thing that is used in a completely different way in the movie gets a different reaction from an audience, who you cannot generalize into a singular monolith for your convenience of your argument.

You probably should give up cos your arguments don't hold water as Atrocious just showed. I can make generalisations I can provide objective evidence to pretty much all my claims. You playing dumb doesn't give your argument weight, so when I say a lot of audiences criticised Costner's maybe line don't start claiming you have never heard a criticism you know damn well you heard, but hey maybe you can prove my other generalisation about people not caring about WW's cynicism with articles, videos, tweets chastising her for it. Go on prove me wrong, you know you want to even if you know you'll have trouble finding much.

Oh and I like after briefly being hopeful in WW, BVS Informed the audience she had left man's world for 100 years! But hey whatever. I think Superman who spent all of BVS being shat upon yet still tries to help out, sacrificed his life for the world, made Murderman want to turn his life around after almost killing a guy trying to save his mum and reminded him that "men are still good" might have given the world hope.