1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 08, 2025, 01:29:52 AM »
That phrasing came from Elon, and it was clearly delivered in a hostile spirit, so presumably he meant that Trump was mentioned in the files in a bad way.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: June 07, 2025, 10:44:10 PM »
It's time to talk about Justice League, both the theatrical version and the Snyder cut. I more or less stand by what I said about both versions, with the one major exception being that I no longer think the theatrical cut is better than BvS. So I'm really just going to talk a bit about the history behind both cuts of the movie based on my own experiences at the time. It's very easy to fall for the revisionist history that Snyder fans have been spreading about this movie. Many film critics have bought into the fiction, and at this point, I think Snyder fans have convinced even themselves of their alternate history.
When JL first hit theaters, Snyder fans stood firmly behind it. I was there, on both reddit and Twitter. Nobody was protesting the movie or Joss Whedon's involvement, nobody was threatening to boycott it, and nobody was talking about Snyder's vision being destroyed. At the time, Whedon was popular and respected, best known as the guy who had given us two very well-liked Avengers movies. The story that WB had put out was that Snyder had taken some time off because of the horrific tragedy he and his family had just suffered, and that Whedon was just doing some pinch-hitting in his place. Backing this up was the fact that Snyder ended up being the sole credited director. I'm sure Snyder fans would preferred their guy to do the whole movie, but of course nobody was going to begrudge him leaving the movie so he could grieve. That was the situation when the movie first dropped. The narrative was set in stone - this was a Snyder movie that just had some help from Whedon. Snyder fans rallied around the movie and claimed it as their guy's, and it flopped. It didn't simply underperform or not do so well, by the way, it outright bombed. It wasn't until years later that Ray Fisher led the charge of the film's cast railing against Whedon and what he did to the movie, and it also wasn't until much later that Snyder and one or two other people behind the scenes began openly speaking out about the changes. I'm dwelling on this point a lot because I really do think Snyder fans want people to believe that all these things were happening at the same time and that's why JL flopped in theaters. The timeline shows that's not the case. Snyder had tarnished the brand with BvS, and so there was little interest in JL.
Incidentally, I also noticed in the months after the theatrical cut's release, when Snyder fans really did start complaining about how Whedon had ruined what they were sure was a great movie, they didn't always correctly recognize what was Snyder's work and what was Whedon's. It wasn't too hard to tell them apart when the characters of Batman and Superman were on screen, given that Whedon's Batman looked noticeably bloated and exhausted and Whedon's Superman had a CGI upper lip, but they struggled other times. I distinctly remember at least once on reddit seeing a bunch of Snyder fans agree that Diana's introductory scene must have been entirely Whedon's work, what with the silly shot of Diana on Lady Justice's arm, her awkward expositing of what her lasso does, and the weird group of well-dressed terrorists who wanted to kill people because of reasons. It wasn't until the Snyder cut came out that it was confirmed that nope, it was a Snyder scene to begin with, and had simply been edited for time and to tone down the violence in the theatrical cut. That's just an anecdote, of course, and shouldn't really be treated as serious evidence of any broad trends or anything, but I still think it's funny enough to be worth mentioning.
That being said, though, I'm not going to claim that Snyder fans' intuition that something was wrong was entirely off-base. Even though the DGA didn't give Whedon a director's credit, his shadow looms heavily over the theatrical cut. The existing footage was heavily edited, recolored, and in general reworked to fit with Whedon's aesthetic rather than Snyder's, Whedon reshot a number of scenes so he could insert a quip or joke into them (more on these jokes in a moment), and of course, there were the additional scenes that Whedon wrote and shot himself. Again, I don't believe this had any real impact on the movie's commercial performance, as I don't believe that Snyder is particularly well-known to general audiences, but Snyder fans - along with weirdos like me who aren't fans but still follow his career for some inexplicable reason - could see that the movie had been broadly Whedonized, so to speak, even if they weren't always right about what was originally Whedon's work and what had simply been distorted by Whedon. A Snyder fan hoping for a Snyder movie would be disappointed by the theatrical cut.
Whedon's reputation and legacy have been severely damaged over the last several years by both allegations of abuse and predatory behavior going back decades and a broader, more general backlash against the quippy style of writing he pioneered that quickly became the dominant "voice" of the MCU and has since spread all over the entertainment industry. But setting that aside, I can honestly say that I stand by the opinion I had of Whedon's contributions to the movie back when I first saw the theatrical cut - they are garbage. I strongly disagree with Crudblud's assertion that "a good many of the quips one might have expected to drip from the pen of Joss Whedon were Snyder’s own." Sure, there were some dumb jokes in the Snyder cut, but the worst, most infuriating ones were absolutely Whedon's, especially every line that comes out Barry Allen's mouth. It's incredible how Whedon was able to magnify Ezra Miller's natural obnoxiousness many times over through his writing. The quips he wrote for Batman, while less obnoxious than the ones he wrote for Barry, suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of Batman as a character. No version of Batman in the world, not even the two (one?) from the Schumacher movies, is this much of a fucking cornball. Outside of the quips, there are a few scenes that Whedon came up with entirely on his own, like a waste of time focusing on some random-ass Russian family, an unfunny scene where Barry and Cyborg slowly dig up Superman's body, a pointless scene where Batman fights a random burglar, and another useless scene where Bruce confronts Diana and makes himself look like a giant asshole. Whedon is capable of much better writing than this, and for whatever reason, he half-assed this movie. It's arguably the lowest creative point of his entire career.
Okay, so I agree that Whedon's contributions to the movie were dogshit and that the theatrical cut wasn't a proper representation of Snyder's artistic vision. Does this mean I count this as a victory of art over commerce, an example of the good guys winning for once? It's tough for me to give a straight answer to this question, because I can't separate this movie from Snyder's career as a whole. Snyder has been treated for his entire career as though he has the golden touch. Every single movie that he's directed has been a blockbuster with a huge budget that he's been more or less entirely free to filter through his own very distinctive directorial style. And the last time he had a unqualified commercial success with no reservations (he's never had a critical success, needless to say) was the movie 300, released all the way back in 2006. I'm willing to accept that he earned himself some wiggle room with Hollywood for that one. But how many failures was that one big success really worth? Watchmen flopped. That weird owl movie did okay at best. Sucker Punch flopped. And as a result of this misplaced faith in his ability to deliver, Snyder's career naturally suffered. No, wait, that's not what happened. Snyder actually got a promotion of sorts. He was given the even more valuable IP of Superman and continued to enjoy his usual full artistic freedom. How did that happen?
My theory, which of course I can't prove, is that Snyder's good buddy Christopher Nolan went to bat for him and convinced WB (who had originally wanted him to direct MoS) to trust Snyder with the IP. It makes sense, given Nolan's hands-on involvement with MoS and close friendship with Snyder, and I can't think of any other reason why WB would let a director with two recent, expensive box-office bombs to his name take control of the one of the biggest names in capeshit than a powerful friend intervening on his behalf. As they say, it's not what you know, but who you know. As for the movie itself, while a commercial success, MoS didn't do as well as the higher-ups in WB had hoped, and was extremely polarizing, getting mixed reviews at best. I wouldn't have considered it a good start for a new shared universe to compete with the MCU, nor as a successful test run for its director to prove that he could be trusted to take charge of their entire universe, including their most valuable IP of all, Batman himself. But WB evidently disagreed, and so we got BvS. And I've already spent plenty of time talking about this, but while there were signs of competing interests and producer notes with MoS (although it was still recognizably its director's movie in a way that relatively few blockbusters are, both then and now), BvS was 100% an auteur movie. This was Snyder's vision. No board of directors or producers ordered him to make that movie the way he did. So when BvS bombed critically, failed to crack a billion at the box office, and worst of all, severely tarnished the brand for years to come, Snyder was absolutely to blame.
I want to make it clear that this Snyder's rock-star treatment is not the norm when it comes to Hollywood. There are very, very few "blockbuster auteurs," or directors who are more or less given an entirely free hand and allowed to do whatever they want with big-budget tentpole movies. Nolan is certainly one of them. Denis Villeneuve is another. There's also Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, and James Gunn. Two fairly recent additions to this list would be Matt Reeves and Greta Gerwig, who interestingly have come at it from opposite directions - Reeves was a journeyman blockbuster director who's now become an auteur, while Gerwig was an auteur who's now moved on to blockbusters. I can't really think of anyone else, and bear in mind that I'm not simply listing famous directors who are known for making blockbusters. There are plenty of famous directors with successful blockbusters to their name - Sam Raimi and Tim Burton are two examples that come to mind - who don't get the same kind of carte blanche that Snyder and the other directors listed above do. And the big difference between those directors and Snyder is that their movies consistently do well at the box office, and even when they don't, at least usually get good reviews.
The reason I've spent this time summarizing Snyder's career successes, or lack thereof, is to establish context for what was going on when JL was filming. Everyone loves a story of art triumphing over commerce, but there's a parallel narrative to the release of the Snyder cut that I would say features in it even more strongly - the vindication of Snyder. The proof that he was right and WB was wrong, and by extension, the proof that WB stifled his creative vision. And this narrative is complete bullshit, as I think I've shown by now. Snyder has been treated as if he's a successful blockbuster auteur on par with Nolan and the others for his entire career. JL was the first (and so far, only) time a studio ever interfered with his vision to a major degree. We got to see his unfiltered creative vision many, many times, and it was one that critics and audiences rejected on every single occasion, or at least since 300. Why, ethically speaking, did WB somehow "owe" Snyder yet another opportunity to burn their money and tarnish their brand at the box office? There are a hundred thousand directors in Hollywood right now who'd love a chance to make a big-budget movie their own way for once, and yet they're never part of this discussion about artists' rights. Why is Snyder so special?
I'm convinced that all this historical revisionism and myth-making about Snyder being a poor starving artist instead of a privileged, well-connected guy with several major failures to his name played a huge role in the Snyder cut's eventual critical reception. I don't like to read ulterior motives or insincerity into reviews that I disagree with, but that really does seem like the most likely scenario. Reviewers pulled their punches, perhaps unconsciously, because they were so eager to celebrate the victory of art over commerce. But the Snyder cut is still a Snyder movie. Nothing has changed about the way he makes movies. It's more competently put together than MoS. BvS, and the theatrical cut (which I also think contributed to its positive reviews, in much the same way that Revenge of the Sith, despite being a terrible movie, got good reviews because it made improvements on the previous two SW prequels and almost looked good in comparison), but I don't believe for a second that the same critics who disliked most of Snyder's previous movies genuinely liked this one. If Snyder had never stepped down from directing JL and this was the movie (presumably trimmed for length) that appeared in theaters instead of Whedon's cut, it would have been critically panned, and it would have bombed just as spectacularly at the box office, because BvS had tarnished the brand and destroyed audience interest in these characters - at least these versions of these characters.
Perhaps the worst thing the release-the-Snyder-cut movement has done is rejuvenate Snyder's career. Shortly after the release of the Snyder cut, Netflix, which had presumably been tricked by the movement into thinking that Snyder was widely popular and universally beloved, gave him a generous deal where he would once again get to make enormous, expensive blockbusters with full creative control. The results speak for themselves - the Rebel Moon movies were complete disasters, among the worst of Snyder's filmography, and despite all their talk of building an expansive universe, we've heard nothing about the series' continuation. I bet Netflix almost certainly regrets making this deal with Snyder now, but regardless of whether or not they continue to work together, I don't think that Snyder's career is at an end. He'll probably pick up another lucrative deal to yet again make blockbusters with a free hand at another studio, and sure enough, it'll be yet another shitty movie that doesn't make money. Maybe it'll take Nolan asking for favors for his good buddy again, or maybe Snyder's weirdo fanbase will once again trick studios into thinking that he's totally in demand, but either way, I'm sorry to say that I think Snyder will continue to make awful movies that don't do well until either he dies or he willingly retires. If he hasn't been blackballed by the industry by now, he never will be.
As I've said before, it might seem awfully mean-spirited of me to wish ill upon the career of a man who by all accounts is a really nice guy and isn't doing anyone any harm. If film studios want to keep giving Snyder chance after chance to make movies, who am I to complain? I don't work for any of these companies or hold stock in them, so it's really none of my business, right? To this, I would say that, first of all, I'm interested as someone who watches movies. I would like to see good directors make more movies and bad directors make fewer movies. But in a broader sense - and I'm aware of how pretentious this sounds - I feel like I'm standing up for the people who work in or would one day like to work in Hollywood who don't have the privilege or connections of people like Snyder. As I've said before, we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited resources, and only a select few people are able to make high-profile movies at any given time. The opportunities that Snyder gets must come at the expense of other people. How many better directors than Snyder, with better track records and better ideas for movies, have been turned down by studios even as Snyder, a man whose (very expensive) movies consistently fail both critically and commercially, continues to be given chance after chance? You would think that the most important thing to studios would be money, right? But apparently it isn't, because otherwise they wouldn't keep squandering huge budgets and valuable IP on someone whom any disinterested observer can tell is a losing horse.
When JL first hit theaters, Snyder fans stood firmly behind it. I was there, on both reddit and Twitter. Nobody was protesting the movie or Joss Whedon's involvement, nobody was threatening to boycott it, and nobody was talking about Snyder's vision being destroyed. At the time, Whedon was popular and respected, best known as the guy who had given us two very well-liked Avengers movies. The story that WB had put out was that Snyder had taken some time off because of the horrific tragedy he and his family had just suffered, and that Whedon was just doing some pinch-hitting in his place. Backing this up was the fact that Snyder ended up being the sole credited director. I'm sure Snyder fans would preferred their guy to do the whole movie, but of course nobody was going to begrudge him leaving the movie so he could grieve. That was the situation when the movie first dropped. The narrative was set in stone - this was a Snyder movie that just had some help from Whedon. Snyder fans rallied around the movie and claimed it as their guy's, and it flopped. It didn't simply underperform or not do so well, by the way, it outright bombed. It wasn't until years later that Ray Fisher led the charge of the film's cast railing against Whedon and what he did to the movie, and it also wasn't until much later that Snyder and one or two other people behind the scenes began openly speaking out about the changes. I'm dwelling on this point a lot because I really do think Snyder fans want people to believe that all these things were happening at the same time and that's why JL flopped in theaters. The timeline shows that's not the case. Snyder had tarnished the brand with BvS, and so there was little interest in JL.
Incidentally, I also noticed in the months after the theatrical cut's release, when Snyder fans really did start complaining about how Whedon had ruined what they were sure was a great movie, they didn't always correctly recognize what was Snyder's work and what was Whedon's. It wasn't too hard to tell them apart when the characters of Batman and Superman were on screen, given that Whedon's Batman looked noticeably bloated and exhausted and Whedon's Superman had a CGI upper lip, but they struggled other times. I distinctly remember at least once on reddit seeing a bunch of Snyder fans agree that Diana's introductory scene must have been entirely Whedon's work, what with the silly shot of Diana on Lady Justice's arm, her awkward expositing of what her lasso does, and the weird group of well-dressed terrorists who wanted to kill people because of reasons. It wasn't until the Snyder cut came out that it was confirmed that nope, it was a Snyder scene to begin with, and had simply been edited for time and to tone down the violence in the theatrical cut. That's just an anecdote, of course, and shouldn't really be treated as serious evidence of any broad trends or anything, but I still think it's funny enough to be worth mentioning.
That being said, though, I'm not going to claim that Snyder fans' intuition that something was wrong was entirely off-base. Even though the DGA didn't give Whedon a director's credit, his shadow looms heavily over the theatrical cut. The existing footage was heavily edited, recolored, and in general reworked to fit with Whedon's aesthetic rather than Snyder's, Whedon reshot a number of scenes so he could insert a quip or joke into them (more on these jokes in a moment), and of course, there were the additional scenes that Whedon wrote and shot himself. Again, I don't believe this had any real impact on the movie's commercial performance, as I don't believe that Snyder is particularly well-known to general audiences, but Snyder fans - along with weirdos like me who aren't fans but still follow his career for some inexplicable reason - could see that the movie had been broadly Whedonized, so to speak, even if they weren't always right about what was originally Whedon's work and what had simply been distorted by Whedon. A Snyder fan hoping for a Snyder movie would be disappointed by the theatrical cut.
Whedon's reputation and legacy have been severely damaged over the last several years by both allegations of abuse and predatory behavior going back decades and a broader, more general backlash against the quippy style of writing he pioneered that quickly became the dominant "voice" of the MCU and has since spread all over the entertainment industry. But setting that aside, I can honestly say that I stand by the opinion I had of Whedon's contributions to the movie back when I first saw the theatrical cut - they are garbage. I strongly disagree with Crudblud's assertion that "a good many of the quips one might have expected to drip from the pen of Joss Whedon were Snyder’s own." Sure, there were some dumb jokes in the Snyder cut, but the worst, most infuriating ones were absolutely Whedon's, especially every line that comes out Barry Allen's mouth. It's incredible how Whedon was able to magnify Ezra Miller's natural obnoxiousness many times over through his writing. The quips he wrote for Batman, while less obnoxious than the ones he wrote for Barry, suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of Batman as a character. No version of Batman in the world, not even the two (one?) from the Schumacher movies, is this much of a fucking cornball. Outside of the quips, there are a few scenes that Whedon came up with entirely on his own, like a waste of time focusing on some random-ass Russian family, an unfunny scene where Barry and Cyborg slowly dig up Superman's body, a pointless scene where Batman fights a random burglar, and another useless scene where Bruce confronts Diana and makes himself look like a giant asshole. Whedon is capable of much better writing than this, and for whatever reason, he half-assed this movie. It's arguably the lowest creative point of his entire career.
Okay, so I agree that Whedon's contributions to the movie were dogshit and that the theatrical cut wasn't a proper representation of Snyder's artistic vision. Does this mean I count this as a victory of art over commerce, an example of the good guys winning for once? It's tough for me to give a straight answer to this question, because I can't separate this movie from Snyder's career as a whole. Snyder has been treated for his entire career as though he has the golden touch. Every single movie that he's directed has been a blockbuster with a huge budget that he's been more or less entirely free to filter through his own very distinctive directorial style. And the last time he had a unqualified commercial success with no reservations (he's never had a critical success, needless to say) was the movie 300, released all the way back in 2006. I'm willing to accept that he earned himself some wiggle room with Hollywood for that one. But how many failures was that one big success really worth? Watchmen flopped. That weird owl movie did okay at best. Sucker Punch flopped. And as a result of this misplaced faith in his ability to deliver, Snyder's career naturally suffered. No, wait, that's not what happened. Snyder actually got a promotion of sorts. He was given the even more valuable IP of Superman and continued to enjoy his usual full artistic freedom. How did that happen?
My theory, which of course I can't prove, is that Snyder's good buddy Christopher Nolan went to bat for him and convinced WB (who had originally wanted him to direct MoS) to trust Snyder with the IP. It makes sense, given Nolan's hands-on involvement with MoS and close friendship with Snyder, and I can't think of any other reason why WB would let a director with two recent, expensive box-office bombs to his name take control of the one of the biggest names in capeshit than a powerful friend intervening on his behalf. As they say, it's not what you know, but who you know. As for the movie itself, while a commercial success, MoS didn't do as well as the higher-ups in WB had hoped, and was extremely polarizing, getting mixed reviews at best. I wouldn't have considered it a good start for a new shared universe to compete with the MCU, nor as a successful test run for its director to prove that he could be trusted to take charge of their entire universe, including their most valuable IP of all, Batman himself. But WB evidently disagreed, and so we got BvS. And I've already spent plenty of time talking about this, but while there were signs of competing interests and producer notes with MoS (although it was still recognizably its director's movie in a way that relatively few blockbusters are, both then and now), BvS was 100% an auteur movie. This was Snyder's vision. No board of directors or producers ordered him to make that movie the way he did. So when BvS bombed critically, failed to crack a billion at the box office, and worst of all, severely tarnished the brand for years to come, Snyder was absolutely to blame.
I want to make it clear that this Snyder's rock-star treatment is not the norm when it comes to Hollywood. There are very, very few "blockbuster auteurs," or directors who are more or less given an entirely free hand and allowed to do whatever they want with big-budget tentpole movies. Nolan is certainly one of them. Denis Villeneuve is another. There's also Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, and James Gunn. Two fairly recent additions to this list would be Matt Reeves and Greta Gerwig, who interestingly have come at it from opposite directions - Reeves was a journeyman blockbuster director who's now become an auteur, while Gerwig was an auteur who's now moved on to blockbusters. I can't really think of anyone else, and bear in mind that I'm not simply listing famous directors who are known for making blockbusters. There are plenty of famous directors with successful blockbusters to their name - Sam Raimi and Tim Burton are two examples that come to mind - who don't get the same kind of carte blanche that Snyder and the other directors listed above do. And the big difference between those directors and Snyder is that their movies consistently do well at the box office, and even when they don't, at least usually get good reviews.
The reason I've spent this time summarizing Snyder's career successes, or lack thereof, is to establish context for what was going on when JL was filming. Everyone loves a story of art triumphing over commerce, but there's a parallel narrative to the release of the Snyder cut that I would say features in it even more strongly - the vindication of Snyder. The proof that he was right and WB was wrong, and by extension, the proof that WB stifled his creative vision. And this narrative is complete bullshit, as I think I've shown by now. Snyder has been treated as if he's a successful blockbuster auteur on par with Nolan and the others for his entire career. JL was the first (and so far, only) time a studio ever interfered with his vision to a major degree. We got to see his unfiltered creative vision many, many times, and it was one that critics and audiences rejected on every single occasion, or at least since 300. Why, ethically speaking, did WB somehow "owe" Snyder yet another opportunity to burn their money and tarnish their brand at the box office? There are a hundred thousand directors in Hollywood right now who'd love a chance to make a big-budget movie their own way for once, and yet they're never part of this discussion about artists' rights. Why is Snyder so special?
I'm convinced that all this historical revisionism and myth-making about Snyder being a poor starving artist instead of a privileged, well-connected guy with several major failures to his name played a huge role in the Snyder cut's eventual critical reception. I don't like to read ulterior motives or insincerity into reviews that I disagree with, but that really does seem like the most likely scenario. Reviewers pulled their punches, perhaps unconsciously, because they were so eager to celebrate the victory of art over commerce. But the Snyder cut is still a Snyder movie. Nothing has changed about the way he makes movies. It's more competently put together than MoS. BvS, and the theatrical cut (which I also think contributed to its positive reviews, in much the same way that Revenge of the Sith, despite being a terrible movie, got good reviews because it made improvements on the previous two SW prequels and almost looked good in comparison), but I don't believe for a second that the same critics who disliked most of Snyder's previous movies genuinely liked this one. If Snyder had never stepped down from directing JL and this was the movie (presumably trimmed for length) that appeared in theaters instead of Whedon's cut, it would have been critically panned, and it would have bombed just as spectacularly at the box office, because BvS had tarnished the brand and destroyed audience interest in these characters - at least these versions of these characters.
Perhaps the worst thing the release-the-Snyder-cut movement has done is rejuvenate Snyder's career. Shortly after the release of the Snyder cut, Netflix, which had presumably been tricked by the movement into thinking that Snyder was widely popular and universally beloved, gave him a generous deal where he would once again get to make enormous, expensive blockbusters with full creative control. The results speak for themselves - the Rebel Moon movies were complete disasters, among the worst of Snyder's filmography, and despite all their talk of building an expansive universe, we've heard nothing about the series' continuation. I bet Netflix almost certainly regrets making this deal with Snyder now, but regardless of whether or not they continue to work together, I don't think that Snyder's career is at an end. He'll probably pick up another lucrative deal to yet again make blockbusters with a free hand at another studio, and sure enough, it'll be yet another shitty movie that doesn't make money. Maybe it'll take Nolan asking for favors for his good buddy again, or maybe Snyder's weirdo fanbase will once again trick studios into thinking that he's totally in demand, but either way, I'm sorry to say that I think Snyder will continue to make awful movies that don't do well until either he dies or he willingly retires. If he hasn't been blackballed by the industry by now, he never will be.
As I've said before, it might seem awfully mean-spirited of me to wish ill upon the career of a man who by all accounts is a really nice guy and isn't doing anyone any harm. If film studios want to keep giving Snyder chance after chance to make movies, who am I to complain? I don't work for any of these companies or hold stock in them, so it's really none of my business, right? To this, I would say that, first of all, I'm interested as someone who watches movies. I would like to see good directors make more movies and bad directors make fewer movies. But in a broader sense - and I'm aware of how pretentious this sounds - I feel like I'm standing up for the people who work in or would one day like to work in Hollywood who don't have the privilege or connections of people like Snyder. As I've said before, we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited resources, and only a select few people are able to make high-profile movies at any given time. The opportunities that Snyder gets must come at the expense of other people. How many better directors than Snyder, with better track records and better ideas for movies, have been turned down by studios even as Snyder, a man whose (very expensive) movies consistently fail both critically and commercially, continues to be given chance after chance? You would think that the most important thing to studios would be money, right? But apparently it isn't, because otherwise they wouldn't keep squandering huge budgets and valuable IP on someone whom any disinterested observer can tell is a losing horse.
3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 07, 2025, 03:55:49 AM »Quote
A lawyer for one of Epstein's victims reveals that, when asked if the pedophile had been "expelled" after "trying to take home a member's 15-year-old daughter," Trump said that "something along those lines happened."
...
This led Edwards to ask about the Mar-a-Lago rumor involving a 15-year-old girl.
"He paused before saying that something along those lines happened but he could not recall the exact details and instead referred me to his Mar-a-Lago manager, Bernd Lembcke," Edwards writes in the book.
Lembcke would not confirm or deny the story, states Edwards.
Okay, so the actual story here is that Trump claims that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for being a pedophile. It's interesting how often this story is repeated without the very important qualifier that the only person vouching for it being true is Trump himself. And even if the story is true, which it almost certainly isn't, it doesn't really make Trump look like a hero to say "Not in my backyard" and wash his hands of the matter. If he had actually taken decisive action, like going to the police, I'd be impressed. Frankly, I don't believe that anyone who hung around with Epstein for years wouldn't have known about his preference for underage women.
It looks like you and the Democrats have foolishly taken the bait in this manufactured feud. Previously Democrats were putting up roadblocks to getting the Epstein information out to the public, with Biden notably refraining from releasing the files.
Elon seems to have found the key to convincing the entrenched establishment to throw their celebrities and donor elite under the bus. The key is the prospect of getting Trump. Democrat Reps are now putting pressure on the FBI to get the full unredacted Epstein files.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5337155-democrats-ask-bondi-for-epstein-files-after-musks-trump-allegation/
Notice Elon's purposely vague statement on this that Trump is "in the Epstein files". We already knew this. The fact that no further details or accusations are made, only inferences, is evidence that this is a trick.
Biden isn't the president, Trump is, and all three branches of the government are firmly under Republican control. Trump doesn't need Democrats or "the entrenched establishment" to ask for the Epstein files to be released. He can do it any time he wants. He doesn't want to (recall him backing out when he had already promised to release them earlier in the year) because he'll be implicated by them.
If Elon knew that Trump did bad things to children, why would he "apologise profusely" to Trump once the files were released showing this? This does not make much sense, and further suggests that this is manufactured.
The obvious inference is that he'll apologize if he's wrong. This is common phrasing in arguments. "You're cheating on me! Show me your texts!" "How dare you! Apologize right now!" "I'll apologize once I've seen your texts!" Besides, we can easily turn your logic around here - if what Elon said is so obviously nonsensical, then why did he say it at all? Surely he doesn't want people to know that this is all staged, so why would this being staged apparently make it more likely for him to say nonsensical things than if it were real?
4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 06, 2025, 04:44:30 PM »
There was no need to infer anything. We've known about Trump and Epstein's close connection for decades. Trump fans usually just refuse to accept that fact, or even more amusingly, concoct elaborate theories about how Trump was secretly "undercover" the whole time in preparation for his eventual war against the Deep State.
5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 24, 2025, 07:19:26 PM »The campaign promises are directly related to the office, amirite? Fails at that, according to you.
You can't keep your story straight.
I didn't even mention campaign promises, but regardless, it doesn't change anything. Corruption and incompetence are not mutually exclusive.
6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 24, 2025, 04:53:23 AM »
No, Trump being a lousy businessman who inherited his wealth and only ever had a positive reputation because of a reality TV show isn't really relevant to the power Trump wields as the president.
7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 23, 2025, 09:11:24 PM »
How is he not capable of delivering? He's the president, Congress is refusing to hold him to account, and the courts are powerless to enforce their rulings against him. Tom comparing him to a king wasn't too far off after all.
8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 23, 2025, 01:00:13 PM »
Trump is the president and so has the power to deliver on favors, regardless of how divisive he is and the shakiness of his business career.
9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 23, 2025, 03:38:45 AM »Wrong. When you pay a business for a product or service you get something in return. It is a stretch to say that a business owner owes something more to someone who already bought a good or a service from him.
The overwhelming majority of businesspeople would strongly disagree with the notion that the relationship between a business and a customer immediately ends once the purchase is made. Businesses spend a lot of time and money trying to make sure their customers become returning customers. And depending on the caliber of the business or their customer, patronizing a business could absolutely be seen as doing them a favor. Obviously most large businesses won't really care if you or I spend twenty dollars or so there, but a very wealthy client, such as a foreign government, that's willing to throw millions of dollars at Donald Trump, a very divisive public figure who's publicly burned most of his bridges in the world of big business, might reasonably conclude that Trump owes them a favor now.
It's also worth pointing out that a conflict of interest doesn't have to involve another party. Something much simpler is going on in this particular case. Trump is now deeply involved in the cryptocurrency business, a new, evolving industry that's subject to numerous laws, regulations, and restrictions, and will very likely be facing more in the years to come. Trump's involvement in the business entirely compromises him on this subject. Whenever a possible new law or executive order regarding cryptocurrency crosses his desk, Trump will act in the interests of Trump the businessman who's trying to make money, not Trump the president who's (ostensibly) trying to do what's best for the nation. We deserve a president who can be impartial on these subjects, not one who's strongly incentivized by their own financial interests to act one way or the other.
Quote
In contrast to owning and operating a business, politicians regularly solicit and receive millions of dollars through donations. Politician like Obama were asking for large sums of money from donators, even in his last term. Why should we believe that a business owner is more likely to be corrupt than a politician who is handed a wad of cash by a corporation for vague reasons through donation companies?
I'm also not a fan of enormous financial contributions, but at least those are highly regulated by the government. There are limitations on who can donate how much money and how often, foreigners are prohibited from taking part, and perhaps most importantly, donations must be disclosed. That's how we knew that Trump was in Musk's pocket from the beginning of this term. I'm not going to say that it's a perfect system or that there aren't loopholes, because it's not and there are, but there is at least a regulated, transparent system, which is preferable to a secretive free-for-all.
Quote
What you believe should happen is also irrelevant to the fact that Trump's voters knew that he would be running his businesses once elected, especially when he was elected for his second term. Trump made that very clear, and people supported him for it, especially in light of the malicious prosecution against Trump and his companies. The voters wanted this. That is called democracy, and supersedes your small leftist complaint.
No, I don't believe that an appeal to popularity supersedes my ethical concerns, and even if I did, a vote for Trump doesn't automatically indicate approval of or agreement with every single specific thing that Trump has said or done. Trump was found liable for sexual abuse, but presumably most of his voters don't "support" sexual abuse as a matter of principle. Same for Trump's criminal conviction. People can vote for a candidate despite a certain issue just as easily as they can vote for a candidate because of a certain issue. And because you'll probably say here that Trump's voters didn't believe that the right decisions were made in those cases, I'll add that we can just as easily suppose that Trump's voters didn't believe he'd be in business for himself while serving as president. "He's just trolling," and "Take him seriously, not literally," are, after all, common refrains among Trump supporters.
Quote
Quote from: honkWe were doing just fine with the expectation that the president should not be making money on the side before Trump came along, and we'll continue to do just fine by taking the next step of codifying it into law.
Laws which are codified through Congress are the result of democracy and representative democracy. Congress votes on the matter, and people vote for congress members. In this case, the people have already voted on this.
The fact that businesses have existed long before the creation of the country and neither the founders of the United States, its many congresses, or its courts up to present have had an issue with this also shows that you are on the losing side of this and do not have a supportable argument. You would be better off with a list of examples of corruption which have harmed the country through this mechanism, rather than handwaving a potential one in contrived scenarios where people owe strangers favors from unsolicited money and without agreement that a favor is owed.
No, a law that was never proposed or voted on not existing does not automatically mean that "the people" oppose it. There's no law prohibiting me from calling you a big dumb poo-poo head. That doesn't mean that the public therefore oppose the creation of any such law and are therefore in support of me calling you a big dumb poo-poo head. The only reason why a law requiring the president to divest from their business interests hasn't existed historically is because it was believed to be unnecessary. Every president in the modern era has understood that it would be wildly unethical to be in business for themselves while also serving as president - there do seem to have been a few issues with the "blind trust" that Carter set up for his peanut business, but he at least made a solid effort to distance himself from it. Nobody expected Trump to shamelessly flout precedent. If you're right that Trump voters support Trump's right to enrich himself through business while also serving as president, then we need to at least add a major caveat that their support of this right is conditional on their support of Trump. They support Trump, therefore they support Trump's right to make money in office. It's not a sincere opinion of the actual issue in general terms; it's a reaction to what they see as an attempted check on Trump. If you had asked people ten years ago, before Trump muddied the waters, what they thought of presidents enriching themselves in office, the overwhelming majority of them would have been firmly opposed to it.
10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 18, 2025, 12:00:00 AM »That's not the issue in conflict of interest. Conflict of interest issues deal with workplace ethics and responsibilities. It doesn't matter if a bank is giving bigger loans to CEOs. It doesn't matter if celebrities are using their celebrity to get last minute tables at high profile restaurants. The issue arises when that CEO or celebrity utilizes their workplace to give favor to that entity. As long as they are not doing that then they are free to receive benefits and make as much money as they want, and so is Trump.
The difference is that CEOs and celebrities aren't public servants. It absolutely matters if people are spending money on the president's businesses to try and curry favor with Trump. And rather than allow the president to dabble in business and take it on faith that they can resist the temptation to use their awesome power to benefit their own business interests, I think it's much simpler and safer if we legally require the president to divest from all business interests before they take office and prohibit them from taking new ones, and then we don't need to worry about this kind of thing. If you really want to be president, then you should be willing to make the sacrifice of forgoing your business aspirations. Bear in mind that this is only a problem because Trump made it one. It's not like there's a long history of presidents in the modern era running side gigs. We were doing just fine with the expectation that the president should not be making money on the side before Trump came along, and we'll continue to do just fine by taking the next step of codifying it into law.
11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 15, 2025, 03:11:10 AM »Trump is not going to be storing the plane in a nonexistent structure when he leaves office. He is going to be keeping it, and the cowards whose job it is to hold him to account will once again just mumble about how much they disapprove.
Really? Why would he keep it when it can be a main feature of a major tourist destination dedicated to the Trump Presidency and further immortalize him? The museum would be a grander use for it. It is being given to the federally administered Trump library after his term because it will become a part of the Trump library. It's not too hard to understand.
Again, there is no tourist destination. There is no museum. There is no physical library. There's just a website. It's up to each former president to pay for the design and construction of their presidential center, and while I'm sure that Trump's ego would enjoy having a hagiographic monument to his greatness, he clearly doesn't want to pay for it. If he did, he would have begun four years ago, when he first left office - he had no way of knowing that he'd be elected again four years later, and even if he did, that was no reason to put the whole thing off, especially for a man of Trump's age. If I were to make a reasonable guess as to why he's reluctant to build a presidential center, I'd say that it's because he wouldn't be able to afford it without a dramatic change of lifestyle. Remember that Trump lives very extravagantly, his brand took a major hit when he began running and burned so many bridges, he lost the privilege of ushering foreign and government business his way when he left office - and this was all even as he continued to aggressively solicit donations from his supporters and find other ways to take their money with every passing day, so it's not like he could count on a fresh surge of income from them. Trump is rich, but that doesn't mean that he's made of money.
My musings on Trump's finances aside, the fact remains that there is no real physical presidential center and no plans to build one. There is nowhere "official" to store the plane. So Trump will simply keep it, say something like "I'll hang onto it until the presidential center is built!" and every Trump supporter will continue to parrot this for the rest of his life as Trump continues to jet around in his luxurious airborne throne and every donation meant for the presidential center will be immediately blown on Trump's usual schmoozing.
12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 13, 2025, 07:13:26 PM »
It is beyond pedantic to conflate a website with a physical building that every other president has built, especially when the subject under discussion is an airplane, a physical object that needs a physical structure to be stored in. Trump is not going to be storing the plane in a nonexistent structure when he leaves office. He is going to be keeping it, and the cowards whose job it is to hold him to account will once again just mumble about how much they disapprove.
13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 12, 2025, 09:11:30 PM »Given how long it takes to upgrade a 747 to Air Force One standards, I seriously doubt that it will ever be legitimately used as Air Force One. They might just as well hand it over to the Trump library off the bat.
It's far more likely that they won't bother upgrading or modifying it at all, and Trump will just use it as-is. Who's going to stop him?
14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 12, 2025, 06:14:34 PM »Is the plane a direct gift to the man or the office?
To the man, like I said. Future presidents will not be using this plane. After Trump's term of office, it will be given to Trump's nonexistent "presidential library," which means that it will go straight to Trump himself, like all donations to the supposed library. If you don't have a problem with this, then I question what you would hypothetically have a problem with, because corruption doesn't get much more blatant than this.
15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 12, 2025, 03:19:08 PM »Quote
The luxury plane, which would be one of the most valuable gifts ever received by the U.S. government, would eventually be donated to Trump's presidential library after he leaves office, the source said.
Like I've said before, there is no Trump presidential library. This plane is a gift to Donald Trump himself, not to the office of the president or the federal government. It's a $400 million bribe in plain (plane?) sight, a luxurious throne for the king to sit on as he condescendingly lectures the people about needing to tighten their belts.
16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 11, 2025, 08:00:26 PM »
You guys, Trump isn't selling his meme coins to anyone; people are buying his meme coins from him. Completely different.
17
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: May 11, 2025, 03:42:20 PM »
The Last of Us Part II
(spoiler warning for an infamous early-game twist, along with hopefully-vague spoilers of other story details)
This game is bigger and better than the first one in pretty much every way. The stealth and combat are tighter and more fluid, there are more cool weapons to use, and perhaps most importantly of all, each level is so wide-open that it feels like there are a dozen different ways to clear them of enemies. Whether you're keeping in stealth, engaged in combat, or attempting to flee combat so that you can slip back into stealth, there are always several different routes you can take. Smash a window and vault into a building. Squeeze through a crack into another building. Go prone and crawl under a vehicle. I also really love the animations for the hand-to-hand combat and how many different variations for finishing off enemies there are, depending on your environment. The attempts at guilting the player by having enemies cry out the names of their dead friends or beg for mercy if they're badly wounded are transparently manipulative, but I still enjoyed them for their added realism. Some of my minor issues with the first game have been addressed, too - shotguns now feel as powerful as they should be, and the hundred or so instances of grab-the-nearby-pallet-so-you-can-climb-the-fence have been pared down to only two or three. I will say that there's a new type of infected that's a bit too much of a bullet sponge for my liking, and there are some brute-type human enemies that can withstand headshots, which doesn't at all make sense, but those are quibbles in comparison to what the game gets right.
Of course, the most controversial part of the game is the story. I'm certain that without the infamous leak of the scene of Joel's death (there was more in the leak, but everyone's attention was focused almost entirely on just that scene), there never would have been the ridiculous shitstorm from the capital-G Gamers and the obligatory review bombing once the game came out. Because the reality is that the people angry about the game weren't really angry about the actual story. What they were really angry about were the narratives they formed in their heads after the leak. They imagined that Neil Druckmann and Naughty Dog hated the first game, that they hated the fans of the first game, and that most of all, they hated Joel. They imagined that the story would be all about demonizing Joel and talking at the player about how he was a bad person and deserved what he got. And they imagined that Joel's death would be framed as a triumphant, heroic moment for his killer, a victory of feminism over toxic masculinity. None of this was true, of course, and as far as I can tell, precisely zero of the gamers who bought into these ridiculous conspiracy theories have admitted they were wrong about the conclusions they leaped to. Bear in mind that these are all largely the same people who have regularly insisted for years that gameplay and graphics are the only "objective" measures of a game's quality, and that details like story and theme are of very limited importance.
In the interests of fairness, I will address one argument that's frequently put forward by the they-hate-Joel theorists, which I can respect for at least being an actual argument and not just a gut feeling fueled by reactionary tendencies. It's summarized here - basically, the Fireflies' hospital from the climax of the first game is shown to be more sterile and professional-looking in this game's flashbacks, thus manipulating us into thinking that the Fireflies were the undisputed "good guys" and knew what they were doing. It may be true that the devs tried to make the Fireflies look better in this game and gloss over their deficiencies and moral faults. But as far as Joel's decision to save Ellie goes - it doesn't matter. It never mattered. Joel didn't sit down and calculate the moral weight of saving Ellie's life versus the likelihood of the Fireflies being trustworthy and competent enough to produce a vaccine and factor in elements like the shabbiness of their hospital and their willingness to kill a child without even asking for her consent. Those details might help you feel that Joel's decision was morally justified, but they're not why Joel did what he did. Joel saved Ellie's life because he wasn't willing to let her die. God himself could have come down from heaven and told Joel that the vaccine was a guaranteed success that would save millions of lives, and it wouldn't have changed anything. That's also why Joel doesn't raise any of these arguments when Ellie finally confronts him. They didn't matter to Joel's decision, and both he and Ellie knew that.
That isn't to say that there's no room to criticize the story, of course. Personally, I take issue with the scene of Joel's death. Not because it shouldn't have happened, or because Joel needed to have a "heroic" death, but because it plays out in a very unrealistic way that seems to be entirely for the benefit of the player. The slow, protracted torture of Joel, the lack of an explanation (wouldn't you expect someone seeking revenge to tell their victim why they're killing them?) the grotesque use of a golf club, and the enthusiastic participation of everyone present all point to deeply malicious cruelty rather than righteous anger. The scene is calculated first and foremost to make the player hate Abby and her friends, and this is clearly done so that the transition to playing as Abby is harsher and the player's journey from hating Abby and her friends to eventually liking and sympathizing with them becomes all the more dramatic. But this comes at the cost of having their killing of Joel feel entirely out of character. Based on what we learn about her in her playable sections, I feel like Abby might beat her father's killer to death in a fit of passion, but she wouldn't coldly torture him to death slowly without turning a hair or even telling him why she's doing this. And Abby's friends might very well back her up if she told them she was trying to get revenge on her father's killer, but they wouldn't eagerly participate in such a grotesque scene of torture without anyone voicing a single qualm. The characters you get to know in Abby's playable sections are so unlike the people who killed Joel that they might as well be entirely different characters.
As far as the rest of the story goes, I think it's good, but not great. Killing Joel off is a sensible decision that not only helps pass the torch to Ellie, so to speak, but also helps distinguish the franchise from the many, many other games with a similar "badass loner hero becomes a protector of a special child/young woman" premise. Unfortunately, they replace that premise with one that's no less well-worn - the cycle of revenge. From the start of the game, you can already tell where the story is going to go, at least thematically if not in terms of plot. It's not a spoiler if I tell you that Ellie's quest for revenge costs her many of her friends, she's deeply scarred physically and emotionally by her experiences, and the final scene of the game is a bleak, moody one where the player is primed to think, Wow, I don't think that Ellie is any better off by trying to seek revenge. None of this was worth it. By contrast, there's a reason why games keep revisiting the concept of a tough loner who learns to love again through the influence of a child or young woman - it's very well-suited to video games, and it's an inherently hopeful story that feels good to experience. Still, the gloomy story is executed well for what it is, there are some very stark, powerful moments throughout, and there's something fittingly tragic in how Ellie and Abby never find out about each other's struggle over the past three days and how thoroughly they've ruined each other's lives. I also really like stories where we follow different characters' perspectives over the same period of time, and I think that more video games should do that kind of thing. It's a very interesting storytelling technique.
That's pretty much my take. Better game, weaker story, and the chuds who flipped their shit over this are morons. I can now get back to watching the show, which I had been putting off. I already have some very strong opinions about it.
(spoiler warning for an infamous early-game twist, along with hopefully-vague spoilers of other story details)
This game is bigger and better than the first one in pretty much every way. The stealth and combat are tighter and more fluid, there are more cool weapons to use, and perhaps most importantly of all, each level is so wide-open that it feels like there are a dozen different ways to clear them of enemies. Whether you're keeping in stealth, engaged in combat, or attempting to flee combat so that you can slip back into stealth, there are always several different routes you can take. Smash a window and vault into a building. Squeeze through a crack into another building. Go prone and crawl under a vehicle. I also really love the animations for the hand-to-hand combat and how many different variations for finishing off enemies there are, depending on your environment. The attempts at guilting the player by having enemies cry out the names of their dead friends or beg for mercy if they're badly wounded are transparently manipulative, but I still enjoyed them for their added realism. Some of my minor issues with the first game have been addressed, too - shotguns now feel as powerful as they should be, and the hundred or so instances of grab-the-nearby-pallet-so-you-can-climb-the-fence have been pared down to only two or three. I will say that there's a new type of infected that's a bit too much of a bullet sponge for my liking, and there are some brute-type human enemies that can withstand headshots, which doesn't at all make sense, but those are quibbles in comparison to what the game gets right.
Of course, the most controversial part of the game is the story. I'm certain that without the infamous leak of the scene of Joel's death (there was more in the leak, but everyone's attention was focused almost entirely on just that scene), there never would have been the ridiculous shitstorm from the capital-G Gamers and the obligatory review bombing once the game came out. Because the reality is that the people angry about the game weren't really angry about the actual story. What they were really angry about were the narratives they formed in their heads after the leak. They imagined that Neil Druckmann and Naughty Dog hated the first game, that they hated the fans of the first game, and that most of all, they hated Joel. They imagined that the story would be all about demonizing Joel and talking at the player about how he was a bad person and deserved what he got. And they imagined that Joel's death would be framed as a triumphant, heroic moment for his killer, a victory of feminism over toxic masculinity. None of this was true, of course, and as far as I can tell, precisely zero of the gamers who bought into these ridiculous conspiracy theories have admitted they were wrong about the conclusions they leaped to. Bear in mind that these are all largely the same people who have regularly insisted for years that gameplay and graphics are the only "objective" measures of a game's quality, and that details like story and theme are of very limited importance.
In the interests of fairness, I will address one argument that's frequently put forward by the they-hate-Joel theorists, which I can respect for at least being an actual argument and not just a gut feeling fueled by reactionary tendencies. It's summarized here - basically, the Fireflies' hospital from the climax of the first game is shown to be more sterile and professional-looking in this game's flashbacks, thus manipulating us into thinking that the Fireflies were the undisputed "good guys" and knew what they were doing. It may be true that the devs tried to make the Fireflies look better in this game and gloss over their deficiencies and moral faults. But as far as Joel's decision to save Ellie goes - it doesn't matter. It never mattered. Joel didn't sit down and calculate the moral weight of saving Ellie's life versus the likelihood of the Fireflies being trustworthy and competent enough to produce a vaccine and factor in elements like the shabbiness of their hospital and their willingness to kill a child without even asking for her consent. Those details might help you feel that Joel's decision was morally justified, but they're not why Joel did what he did. Joel saved Ellie's life because he wasn't willing to let her die. God himself could have come down from heaven and told Joel that the vaccine was a guaranteed success that would save millions of lives, and it wouldn't have changed anything. That's also why Joel doesn't raise any of these arguments when Ellie finally confronts him. They didn't matter to Joel's decision, and both he and Ellie knew that.
That isn't to say that there's no room to criticize the story, of course. Personally, I take issue with the scene of Joel's death. Not because it shouldn't have happened, or because Joel needed to have a "heroic" death, but because it plays out in a very unrealistic way that seems to be entirely for the benefit of the player. The slow, protracted torture of Joel, the lack of an explanation (wouldn't you expect someone seeking revenge to tell their victim why they're killing them?) the grotesque use of a golf club, and the enthusiastic participation of everyone present all point to deeply malicious cruelty rather than righteous anger. The scene is calculated first and foremost to make the player hate Abby and her friends, and this is clearly done so that the transition to playing as Abby is harsher and the player's journey from hating Abby and her friends to eventually liking and sympathizing with them becomes all the more dramatic. But this comes at the cost of having their killing of Joel feel entirely out of character. Based on what we learn about her in her playable sections, I feel like Abby might beat her father's killer to death in a fit of passion, but she wouldn't coldly torture him to death slowly without turning a hair or even telling him why she's doing this. And Abby's friends might very well back her up if she told them she was trying to get revenge on her father's killer, but they wouldn't eagerly participate in such a grotesque scene of torture without anyone voicing a single qualm. The characters you get to know in Abby's playable sections are so unlike the people who killed Joel that they might as well be entirely different characters.
As far as the rest of the story goes, I think it's good, but not great. Killing Joel off is a sensible decision that not only helps pass the torch to Ellie, so to speak, but also helps distinguish the franchise from the many, many other games with a similar "badass loner hero becomes a protector of a special child/young woman" premise. Unfortunately, they replace that premise with one that's no less well-worn - the cycle of revenge. From the start of the game, you can already tell where the story is going to go, at least thematically if not in terms of plot. It's not a spoiler if I tell you that Ellie's quest for revenge costs her many of her friends, she's deeply scarred physically and emotionally by her experiences, and the final scene of the game is a bleak, moody one where the player is primed to think, Wow, I don't think that Ellie is any better off by trying to seek revenge. None of this was worth it. By contrast, there's a reason why games keep revisiting the concept of a tough loner who learns to love again through the influence of a child or young woman - it's very well-suited to video games, and it's an inherently hopeful story that feels good to experience. Still, the gloomy story is executed well for what it is, there are some very stark, powerful moments throughout, and there's something fittingly tragic in how Ellie and Abby never find out about each other's struggle over the past three days and how thoroughly they've ruined each other's lives. I also really like stories where we follow different characters' perspectives over the same period of time, and I think that more video games should do that kind of thing. It's a very interesting storytelling technique.
That's pretty much my take. Better game, weaker story, and the chuds who flipped their shit over this are morons. I can now get back to watching the show, which I had been putting off. I already have some very strong opinions about it.
18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 08, 2025, 11:02:16 PM »No politician should
Again, this is the issue. He's not a traditional politician, so he doesn't play by those rules. He is a television star and world famous comedic personality whose running theme is that he runs businesses and makes money, so he can get rich off of his crypto business and meme coins if he wants to.
You may as well argue that if Elvis were elected President that he shouldn't continue to sing in concerts, but those arguments will obviously not go far in the realm of public opinion if President Elvis Presley wanted to lead in a concert. Your social expectations of a traditional president would mean nothing, and they mean nothing here with Trump.
It's an ethical expectation, not a social one. The president's first priority should be making decisions that are in their country's best interests. A businessman's first priority is making decisions that are in their own best interests, financially speaking. Those are two entirely different goals. Two entirely different masters to serve, so to speak. As citizens, I think we deserve a president whose undivided loyalty is to the country and not their wallet. A businessman who's elected president ethically should put their business career on hold while they're in office. I also don't think that your Elvis analogy changes anything. If a famous singer were elected president, then they too ethically should put their singing career on hold while in office, regardless of how popular they are as a singer.
19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 08, 2025, 02:56:18 AM »
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-crypto-dinner-ethics-b2745231.html
The president should not be in business for themselves while in office. No politician should, really, but especially not the president. This should not be a controversial opinion.
The president should not be in business for themselves while in office. No politician should, really, but especially not the president. This should not be a controversial opinion.
20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 03, 2025, 06:42:39 PM »In these times of austere cost-cutting and a rapidly plummeting economy, it's nice to know that Trump is revisiting his plans for an extravagant military parade to shore up his manhood:
https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/761814/trump-parade-military-dc/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/07/politics/trump-plans-military-parade-washington/index.html
We now have confirmation:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/7000-troops-tanks-parachute-jumps-military-parade-coinciding/story?id=121410722
However expensive you think this will be - it will be more expensive. City streets aren't built to endure tanks. They're going to cause lots and lots of damage that taxpayers will have to pay to repair. And this is all for the sake of Trump's ego and insecurity. This is not about celebrating the Army on its anniversary. This nation does not have a history of throwing huge parades to celebrate branches of the military on key anniversaries. This is about making Trump feel like a big strong man. You do not benefit from that. Only Trump himself benefits from that in a very narrow, superficial way. This is not in your interests.