181

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 30, 2023, 11:55:29 PM »

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa

what a cuck

182

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: March 25, 2023, 01:33:33 AM »

I never watched that show, maybe because it's been so long since I read the comic that I might want to refresh myself on it first. More importantly, though, what about the movies? The continuity? The Batman?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/james-gunn-to-direct-superman-legacy-movie-1235347753/

Interesting, but I really hope Gunn is a lot more sincere in this movie than he has been with, well, pretty much his entire career up to now. Superman needs a wholesome touch.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/tom-cruise-has-seen-the-flash-movie-1235355326/

Look, I hope the movie is great. I hope every movie I see is great. But I know desperation when I see it, and the fact that they're now wheeling out Tom Cruise, of all people, to add to the chorus of WBD executives jumping up and down yelling, "The Flash is awesome, it's fantastic, it's the best movie ever! (No, really, it's incredible! [I mean it, it's outstanding!])!!!" does not bode well. This is not how studios typically promote movies that they're genuinely very confident in. I suspect that it's critical for the franchise going forward that The Flash be a huge hit and very well-received, and that's why WBD are pulling out all the stops in their attempts to essentially "control the narrative" before its release.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/zachary-levi-blames-dwayne-johnson-post-credit-scene-shazam-1235357847/

In the wake of the sequel to Shazam! doing poorly both critically and commercially, Zachary Levi is now picking a fight with Dwayne Johnson. To be fair, yes, it does seem clear now that Johnson never actually gave a shit about Black Adam or DC except as a way to further his own brand; but on the other hand, it makes for a very funny story.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/ben-affleck-air-production-company-grammys-memes-justice-league-1235353301/

The capeshit-relevant stuff here is basically that Affleck hated his experience with Justice League, thinks he's perfected his performance as Batman for The Flash, isn't interested in directing anything for the franchise in the future, and feels gratified by the rapturous response to the Snyder cut.

183

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 10:55:06 PM »

Is there something about being a porn star that indicates a lack of credibility? It's a perfectly honest profession. I'd argue that Daniels is far more credible than a notorious liar than Trump.

But again, this is all of very limited relevance given that Trump is facing charges over his payment to Daniels, not his alleged affair with her.

184

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 06:58:10 PM »

Unfortunately for Trump, he's being charged over the payoff to Daniels, not the alleged affair with her.

185

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 24, 2023, 05:42:00 AM »

A couple of people mentioned removing words like "gay" and "queer" as a more acceptable example of something to revise, but I have to say that I don't agree with even that. I think it's good to teach kids that language changes over time and that words have meant different things at different times. If this is something that really needs to be spelled out to them, then new versions of older children's books could include annotations or footnotes explaining what unfamiliar words mean. There's something that strikes me as almost anti-intellectual about supposing that if kids are faced with something that they may not entirely understand, then we should just remove it entirely rather than help them understand it. Kids aren't stupid. If they're old enough to read by themselves, then they're old enough to understand context, and they're old enough to interpret the media they consume critically, even if they don't realize that's what they're doing.

186

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 04:29:50 PM »

There's no hope of ever editing Roald Dahl's works into becoming something pleasant or politically correct by today's standards. Dahl's nastiness is baked right into his books, and that's a big part of why kids have always loved them. You can't go through them line by line and edit everything problematic out without the end result feeling nothing like Dahl at all. If they want to keep publishing him, the best solution is probably just to include a preface in each book that warns parents about the language and encourages them to discuss with their children what is or isn't considered appropriate nowadays. The usual suspects would probably still throw a fit about "cancel culture," but there's no helping that.

187

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: February 13, 2023, 06:10:18 AM »

It just seems like a waste of a slot to me. Waller is by design an extraordinarily unlikable character, and one that we've already seen a lot of. I'd much rather see something new instead. Anyway, here's the trailer for the latest big upcoming capeshit movie:



Everyone seems to be praising this, but I can't really say that I like it. For one thing, in stark contrast to how Patty Jenkins reinterpreted how Diana would move and fight in her solo movies, this portrayal of the Flash and his powers still feels beholden to Zack Snyder's effects-heavy depiction of him as a walking pyrotechnics show. The constant visual chaos whenever the Flash was moving in JL was ugly and incoherent, and it's a real disappointment to see that apparently nothing about it has been changed. Hell, they've even included another (at least one!) slow-motion scene so we can see a close-up of Miller once more spazzing out while trying and failing to imitate running. I also don't care for the suit, which is way too busy, but that's a minor point.

It looks like a big part of the movie is going to involve revisiting the climax of MoS. Do people really want to see this? Is there really that much nostalgia for MoS? I know it was nowhere near as hated as BvS, and does have its fans, but it was still a very divisive movie that a lot of people really disliked. And, yeah, I'm one of them. I'm not keen on seeing more of MoS, and I'm definitely not looking forward to seeing more of Michael Shannon's Zod. He was a one-dimensional blowhard, and in my view Shannon simply didn't have the charisma or gravitas to make his role resonate more. Maybe this all ties into the semi-reboot of the DCEU that this movie will herald? We obviously see Supergirl here, so maybe what happens is that she shows up instead of Superman and then the timeline dramatically changes. It's just a guess at this point.

But the elephant in the room is of course the return of Michael Keaton's Batman. It's great to see him back, but his delivery of "Yeah...I'm Batman" sounds kind of snarky, like he's exasperated that Barry is pointing out the obvious. Granted, I have no idea what the relationship between him and Barry is going to be, but I feel like such an iconic line should have been delivered sincerely, even if nothing else he said was. He is Batman, and he takes that seriously. A more serious problem I have is the fact that he then promptly turns into CGI Rubber Man and begins engaging in generic CGI capeshit action that not only looks fake as hell, but is also completely unlike how this version of Batman moves and fights. I don't think any version of Batman should be moving and fighting like that, frankly. Batman is for all intents and purposes a normal man. He can't fly or break the laws of physics, and my view of how Batman movies should handle action beats is that if you can't bring a scene to life with actors and stunt work and need to rely on CGI, then you shouldn't be doing that scene to begin with. If they couldn't give Keaton's Batman any action scenes without turning him into a blob of CGI, then I'd much prefer him not to have any action scenes at all.

188

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: February 01, 2023, 05:45:21 AM »

Capeshit news! Capeshit news!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/james-gunn-unveils-dc-slate-batman-superman-1235314176/

And there are a few more details in this interview:

https://gizmodo.com/james-gunn-dc-slate-info-flash-aquaman-justice-league-1850051467

There are a few head-scratchers here (Does anyone really want a show all about Amanda Waller?), but on the whole, this looks interesting. We've got more Batman, guys! And they're basing it on something other than Frank Miller's work!

The Brave and the Bold: “This is the introduction of the DCU Batman,” said Gunn, “of Bruce Wayne, and also introduces our favorite Robin, Damian Wayne, who is a little son of a bitch.” The movie will take inspiration from the now-classic Batman run written by Grant Morrison that introduced Batman to a son he never knew existed: a murderous tween raised by assassins. “It’s a very strange father-and-son story.”

I hope the mention of possibly letting Ezra Miller return as the Flash was just PR for the upcoming movie's release, but unfortunately, this isn't the first we're hearing about that possibility, as you can see in this article. Of course I'm hopelessly biased on this subject because of how obnoxious I found Miller in JL, but they're being awfully optimistic if they really think that there won't be any more violence or criminal activity in Miller's future. And speaking of The Flash, that movie had better be as good as everyone involved with WBD has been hyping it up to be.

189

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: January 05, 2023, 06:24:45 PM »

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Rian Johnson, 2022)

While it's still an enjoyable watch due to Daniel Craig's delightfully goofy performance, this is nowhere near as good as Knives Out. I don't like how it's structured. About halfway through the movie, we're presented with a major twist and treated to a lengthy flashback and an exposition dump that tells us what's really going on. It's meant to recontextualize what we've seen in the first half, but to me, it felt more like the movie was awkwardly restarting and trying to cram a whole new story into its remaining runtime. I also feel like Johnson's eagerness to bash Elon Musk comes at the expense of the movie's story, although it's hard to go into details without spoilers. Very briefly, the movie emphasizes that the villainous Musk stand-in is dumb as well as sleazy, and so the crimes he commits are stupid and poorly thought-out. Unfortunately, because this is a mystery film, that essentially means that the plot of the movie itself is stupid and poorly thought-out. I have no love for Musk, but the story of the film is what should always take precedence, not the accuracy of the parallels to real life. I would much rather have a more satisfying story with a character who's less like Musk than a less satisfying story with a character who's more like Musk.

190

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 30, 2022, 09:29:53 PM »

"This is not what serious oversight looks like," a GOP aide told reporters, adding, "We're worried about a cycle of political retribution that might come from this and one that will make our politics even more divisive. We think folks will come to regret this. We think Democrats will come to regret this, and I think they may regret it sooner than they think."

Right, so they're going to point to this as "justification" for whatever stupid punitive thing they next come up with when they're in power, and I'm sure we'll see plenty of people smugly echoing this in agreement. "This is all the Democrats' fault for insisting that Trump's tax returns be public!" Never mind that if it wasn't this that Republicans used as justification, it would be something else, and if they couldn't find anything to use at all, they'd do it anyway and insist that having the power to do something is its own justification. Requiring presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns is not unreasonable. If someone wants to be the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, then yes, they should be financially transparent. It's simply not a big ask for someone who expects to be trusted with that kind of incredible power. Nobody is forcing anyone to run for president. If revealing their tax returns is something that a candidate is unwilling to do, then the very simple solution of not running for president is always open to them.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. People of all political stripes should agree that requiring financial transparency from the president of the United States is a very good thing and should be the law. It's ludicrous that the Republicans' tribalism and blind loyalty to a former president is leading them to come down so hard on the clearly wrong side of a very, very simple issue.

191

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 27, 2022, 04:03:58 PM »

I was just kidding earlier, but it seems as though Tom's position genuinely is that we can only go by Hannity outright declaring bluntly that it is his belief that the election was stolen. We can't interpret his words and actions in a reasonable manner. Only an outright declaration on his part is sufficient evidence.

192

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: December 24, 2022, 11:52:07 PM »

inb4they cast some foppish pansy like Timothée Chalamet as the next "Superman"

Nonsense, Chalamet will be playing the next DCEU Batman. Also, Dwayne Johnson commented on the DCEU shakeup a few days ago. While he seems to leave it open to possibility that we might be seeing his Black Adam in the future, I personally doubt it. Johnson clearly wanted to be the top banana of the DCEU, to the degree that he was already planning a Black Adam vs. Superman movie, and it's very unlikely that he'll want to come back in a supporting role after years of effectively being shelved.

193

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 23, 2022, 05:56:59 AM »

Initially after the November 2020 election, Hannity appeared to be all in with Trump’s false election claims. On November 29, he texted Meadows saying he had his team trying to prove election fraud: “I’ve had my team digging into the numbers. There is no way Biden got these numbers. Just mathematically impossible. It’s so sad for this country they can pull this off in 2020. We need a major breakthrough, a video, something.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-messages-meadows-trump-white-house/index.html

This certainly doesn't sound like someone who doubts Trump's claims of fraud.  It sounds exactly like the opposite.

Yes, but Hannity never said precisely, "I, Sean Hannity, wish to state on the record that I believe that Biden stole the election from Trump," and therefore you can't really say that he claimed that he believed the election was stolen. That's how it works, you know. You can't interpret his words the way a reasonable person would and make a reasonable conclusion about what he meant; you can only go by him outright saying it as bluntly and unambiguously as humanly possible. That's the same reason why if you point a gun at someone and demand their money, you can't get charged with robbery unless you outright say "I will shoot you unless you give me your money." If he just hands you his money without you bluntly spelling out first that you'll shoot him unless he gives you his money, then he's just making assumptions and has no one to blame but himself for losing his money. Pretty cool, right?

194

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Speech Warrior Elon Musk

« on: December 23, 2022, 05:42:53 AM »

No one actually believes in free speech. It's a made up idealistic gibberish concept, like communism or a perfect circle. It's not real. It doesn't exist in reality. Everyone has some "I believe in free speech... but". Pointing out that people don't believe it (like Musk) makes for plain boring intellectual circlejerking.

People do believe in free speech, but free speech doesn’t mean you can literally say anything you like...

While I understand where you're coming from, you're making an entirely unnecessary concession here. There is no conflict between freedom of speech as a general concept and privately-owned websites having and enforcing rules about what you can or can't say on their platforms. Twitter has never needed to "justify" how enforcing its rules fits into the broader scope of free speech any more than you would need to justify your decision to walk away from a random asshole bothering you on the street. For that matter, no reputable website relying on user-generated content, let alone a for-profit one, would ever limit its rules to simply be no more than the scope of the law. That's how you end up with another /b/. It was ludicrous that Musk would ever think it was a good idea for Twitter, and it's even more ridiculous that so many people agreed with him.

195

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Speech Warrior Elon Musk

« on: December 22, 2022, 05:30:24 AM »

People who manipulate media organizations usually aren't so brazen about it.

...then how do you know that Roth used to unilaterally control Twitter similar to how Musk does now?

My problem is that people who are upset about the "hypocrite" meme aren't actually believers in free speech. They don't care about the core issue one way or another. In other words, why does it matter that Elon is a hypocrite if the outcome is the same either way? Why bother complaining about it at all and take up space on this forum?

As far as this discussion on this forum goes, I don't have a problem with regarding the subject as settled and moving on. I just don't think that it's irrelevant or unimportant that Musk's supposed big justification for what he's doing is a lie. I think he'd lose a lot of support if he admitted that his primary motivation is personal rather than ideological, and that he just wants to be able to remove posts and ban people that he doesn't like.

If Musk was really the popularity desperate guy you make him out to be, he'd be a generic liberal (like all the other celebrities seeking nothing but popularity). Any person with access to google would know that demographically, the West is mostly left-leaning. Why pander to the right if he's so desperate to be popular? Your line of thinking doesn't make much sense.

Musk panders to the right for the same reason that Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, James O'Keefe, Jordan Peterson, Mike Cernovich, Tim Pool, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, Michael Knowles, and pretty much any other high-profile political grifter panders to the right - there's no market for transparent grifting posing as political commentary on the left. If Shapiro had tried to cater to the left, he would have been quickly exposed as an idiot and broadly rejected - only an audience of conservatives would see him as an intellectual and idolize him. If Cernovich had tried to cater to the left, he would have been quickly exposed as a boorish creep and broadly rejected - only an audience of conservatives would see him as a manly stud and idolize him. Likewise, Musk had no hope of ever being a progressive hero, as his long record of deliberately flouting corporate regulations and mistreating his workers would have told against him all too clearly. Only conservatives would idolize an exploitative billionaire like him. I also suspect that only conservatives would be gullible enough to buy into Musk's carefully cultivated myth of how he's a modern-day Thomas Edison, a brilliant scientist-inventor who's personally paving the way to a golden future through his keen scientific mind and many wonderful inventions, rather than the more mundane reality of Musk not really being a scientist or an inventor at all, but a businessman who made a fortune (with the advantage of starting out with a sizable inheritance) through making the right corporate investments and acquisitions. The only thing Musk has in common with Edison is his habit of taking credit for other people's work.

196

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: December 18, 2022, 01:18:27 AM »

More drama!

Cavill also shot a cameo in The Flash, one of four DC movies set to release in 2023, but sources say that cameo, along with that of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, is now being cut given that the studio chose to not go forward with director Patty Jenkins’ version of Wonder Woman 3.

Safe to say that Gal Gadot is out as Diana, then.

Cavill found himself in a confluence of different headwinds at the studio. Dwayne Johnson pushed for his return via the much-hyped cameo in Black Adam and a potential linchpin for Johnson’s own DC universe franchise. But Black Adam has grossed $389 million worldwide, its soft performance calling into question Johnson’s much-touted plans for a sequel and an eventual Adam vs. Superman movie even before Gunn’s decision.

...

“In the end, he was a pawn in Dwayne’s failed attempt to control a piece of DC,” one insider observers.

Heh. I feel bad for Cavill getting jerked around by the studio like this, but I can't really say the same for Dwayne Johnson. I think he could do with having his ego deflated a little. Oh, and like the article says at the end, Cavill has a new gig already lined up, so I guess he's landing on his feet.

In related news, Gunn said on Twitter that Batman will be a big part of the universe going forward, not something just reserved to the Reeves movies. I've talked before about how I think that audiences could easily accept two different versions of Batman simultaneously appearing in separate continuities before, but I didn't think the studio would be confident enough to actually let it happen. Assuming that we won't be seeing Batfleck again outside of his supporting roles in The Flash and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, that must mean they'll be recasting the Dark Knight once again. And then what? Will the DCEU Batman only appear in team-ups, or could he get his own movie? Of course I'd be delighted if he did, but I don't know how far WBD wants to push the Batman brand, so to speak. Just imagine, two separate Batmen in their own concurrent film series. Truly a Batman fan's dream come true.

197

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Speech Warrior Elon Musk

« on: December 18, 2022, 12:19:06 AM »

It literally did and his name was Yoel.

There is no evidence of that. Even Musk's much-hyped "Twitter Files" supposedly bringing Twitter's terrible corruption and liberal bias to light showed Yoel Roth participating in discussions with other Twitter employees where they eventually decided how to handle certain situations. Completely different from Musk's unilateral decision-making.

No one actually believes in free speech. It's a made up idealistic gibberish concept, like communism or a perfect circle. It's not real. It doesn't exist in reality. Everyone has some "I believe in free speech... but". Pointing out that people don't believe it (like Musk) makes for plain boring intellectual circlejerking.

Right, so you agree with me on this subject, and yet your issue lies not with the person falsely claiming to be a free speech purist and using that as the justification for what he's doing, but with the people (correctly) pointing out that he's a lying hypocrite. Interesting take, I guess.

How about you respond to things I say and not the things you prefer I say.

I am. You saying that he's "falling into the trap" implies that it's something that hasn't happened yet or is only just beginning to happen, rather than something that already happened years ago. This isn't a deep psychological dive on my part. Musk wears his insecurities and his desperate need to be praised and seen as cool on his sleeve, and anyone can confirm it for themselves by looking at Musk's Twitter feed, which is mostly him sharing high-fives with bottom-feeding right-wing grifters.

198

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Speech Warrior Elon Musk

« on: December 17, 2022, 03:34:32 AM »

And yet, Twitter randomly banning people It Doesn't Like wasn't really a problem when Musk wasn't the one doing it. It's only now that it generates headlines on other sites.

You're taking a lot for granted here, and you'll have to be more specific if you're trying to make a tu quoque argument. It's safe to say, however, that pre-Musk Twitter did not have an similar figure at the top regularly making unilateral decisions about who to ban and what new rules to suddenly invent, and therefore can't meaningfully be seen as equivalent.

Musk being a hypocrite is only tangential to the actual problem people are having with Twitter. More importantly, had he not become a hypocrite and Twitter turned into a pool of slurs, people like yourself and Roundy would be crying about it anyway, so what's the point? Either he keeps free speech (and he gets hate for it) or he changes his mind and walks it back (and he gets hate for it).

Sorry, are you conceding that Musk doesn't actually care about free speech, and that his big justification for what he's doing to Twitter is complete bullshit? That's what this post seems to imply. I mean, it's fantastic if you are, because it'll save us some time. Musk himself and his thousands of devoted fans are still pretending that he's being totally neutral and objective.

My only concern is that Musk is falling into the trap of actually caring what people on Twitter think, which is made all the worse by the fact that he owns the website.

You clearly don't know anything about Musk if you think that this is anything new for him. He's been desperate for popularity for years.

199

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Speech Warrior Elon Musk

« on: December 16, 2022, 07:34:02 PM »

If you don't like it, start your own social network, sweaty.

There is no conflict between recognizing that Musk has the legal right to ban anyone he wants to and also that he's a huge hypocrite for disregarding his previous assertions that only outright illegal speech would be banned.

200

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: December 14, 2022, 06:02:10 AM »

Batfleck

Never say never, I guess, but Batfleck making a comeback looks extraordinarily unlikely. Affleck has spoken numerous times over the past couple of years about how miserable and stressed he felt during that part of his life, leading to him putting on weight and relapsing into his old drinking problem. Since leaving the cowl behind, he's cleaned himself up, gotten his career onto a track that he seems to be more satisfied with, and even reunited with and finally married Jennifer Lopez. He's clearly far happier and more fulfilled now, and I can't imagine why he'd suddenly want to put himself back into the stressful position that caused all his recent problems.

Also, Jason is much more fitting as Lobo.

Agreed. Momoa's usual laid-back swagger would be a perfect fit for Lobo.