ipsifendus.bsky.social
Comic book fan, theoretical ttrpg enthusiast, half-assed hobbyist: bird watching, bicycling, local history
205 posts
61 followers
135 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Sabrina Carpenter album cover kerfuffle.
comment in response to
post
DC. Not Marvel. But you're right, Trump sucks.
comment in response to
post
You think it's *possible* she believes the subway to be an act of God?
comment in response to
post
Pretty sure you're responding to a joke.
comment in response to
post
Get a room, you two.
comment in response to
post
You do know The Onion is a satirical paper, right?
comment in response to
post
Can't think of one, huh?
comment in response to
post
One example, if you please. One example of a non-fan of Snyder telling someone who liked his films that they had to stop.
comment in response to
post
Yeah but Snyder is a shitty director.
comment in response to
post
And you call that a "mystery"? It's not. It's either a lie, or, if true, a horror story, a universe ruled by a being with limitless power and the moral nature of an 11 year sociopath torturing animals for fun. Fuck your God, and fuck you for kissing it's ass.
comment in response to
post
Instead created lesser beings who he forces to live under a set of rules that means a majority of them, hundreds upon hundreds of millions, spend an eternity, a literal infinity of time, in unimaginable pain and anguish. (2/?)
comment in response to
post
So your God, who is omnipotent and whose choices cannot be constrained by any other considerations than his own will, who COULD have created a world free of the potential for suffering...(1/?)
comment in response to
post
Loving and generous dude who will condemn you to an eternity of horrific torture if you don't have "faith". Loving and generous God who lets children die of leukemia.
comment in response to
post
You literally did not say it looks dumb. You asked if it was satire. If you're not looking to open a discussion, that's a weird way to show it. And I've no idea where you got "offended" from. I've been nothing but polite in trying to figure out what you meant. Be well!
comment in response to
post
You're complaining about a Superman movie looking very much like a Superman comic. There's no rule saying you have to like it, but it seems like you don't like it because you don't like the genre, not because it looks like a bad example *of* the genre, or any kind of "satire*.
comment in response to
post
The flying dog? Straight out of the source material. So that's not "satirical", that's just an part of the stories being adapted. I don't know what you mean by "graphic cut". And cheesy dialogue is, again, par for the course with this genre (1/2)
comment in response to
post
Be specific. What seems satirical?
comment in response to
post
No. What makes you think so?
comment in response to
post
"It feels like he’s surrounding him with toy commercials and ‘spin-off’ bait."
Or, you know, just adapting the actual source material, they way things have been in the comic books for literal decades now. Maybe you just don't actually like the genre that's in play here?
comment in response to
post
Yeah, and it was a mistake there as well.
comment in response to
post
I think that seems like the case when you're dealing with films because they've all been just that, except for Snyder's stuff, which was just bad. But in comics and animation he's surrounded by other supers more often than not, and it works perfectly well. That's what Gunn is adapting.
comment in response to
post
I didn't say that. The character has been around 80 years and there have been revisions and inconsistencies the whole time. But a Superman who kills is wildly out of step with almost his modern depictions in comics, animation, TV, film...are you claiming with a straight face that it isn't?
comment in response to
post
Well, we could start with having Supes snap an opponent's neck, but that's almost too obvious. How about the fact that Superman barely ever cracks a smile? Cavill could've been great at playing the role, but Snyder had him playing Alan Moore's version of Miracleman instead.
comment in response to
post
There was less "characterization" going on than character assassination. Snyder is great with visuals but he doesn't get Superman at all.
comment in response to
post
You think people won't be able to decipher what's happening on screen?
comment in response to
post
Semantically empty blather.
comment in response to
post
This is exactly why the character matters.
comment in response to
post
I don't get it. What is the guy's basic complaint? I'm only asking because I watched three minutes of one of his videos and he seems way way too angry about a movie he hasn't seen.
comment in response to
post
Nah. He's the world's hero, not the USA's.
comment in response to
post
Because they're cool?
comment in response to
post
There have been robots in the Fortress since the 1950s at least.
comment in response to
post
Who is this guy? Yours is the second mention I've seen of him today so I googled him and found his YouTube channel. Did James Gunn turn him down for a part or something?
comment in response to
post
What's "the point" of any movie? What movies do we "need"?
comment in response to
post
Do you make this complaint every time a character is reused?
comment in response to
post
No they are not that's ridiculous.
comment in response to
post
Stupid take. It's the inevitable result of two narcissists colliding, not any kind of a plan. Neither of them has the smarts to formulate a long term strategy, nor a personality that allows for following someone else's.
comment in response to
post
If Gunn has done his job properly nobody in the audience should need to have had prior exposure to Superman to enjoy the movie. Any previous experience a person HAS had is all to the good, it could enrich the experience, but it shouldn't be ^necessary^.
comment in response to
post
"Oh, no doubt. Still I insist that everyone refrain from enjoying things I perceive as trivial until such time as the World Is Finally Fixed."
comment in response to
post
If I want to read about a guns-blazing action hero, and choose to read a Sherlock Holmes story, it isn't Conan Arthur Doyle's fault that I didn't get what I wanted. (2/2)
comment in response to
post
You claim you're a fan of this super-hero comic book character and then gripe about every standard trope of super-hero comics. (1/2)
comment in response to
post
If you're not prepared to accept silly shit like dogs with super powers, you shouldn't even bother with comic book adaptations.
comment in response to
post
Why should it?
comment in response to
post
It literally, factually, is not. That's the point you're insisting on not understanding. Hope it's a strategy that serves you well, but I doubt it