DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by dodge, Aug 5, 2018.

  1. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    That's not the implication at all, because the responsibility for the use of a tool lies with the wielder, not the tool itself. What it implies is that Thanos was too set in his ways to change. He'd been conquering planets and slaughtering half their population for a long time, and he only saw the Infinity Gauntlet as a way to do the same thing more efficiently, failing to consider that there was an alternative.

    Indeed, he was probably resistant to considering an alternative, because if he admitted that there was a more benevolent option than killing half of everybody, that would mean admitting that the many previous genocides he'd committed were not good and noble things after all, and he couldn't live with that on his conscience. He has to believe that he was in the right in the past, so he has to believe that doing the same thing all at once with the Gauntlet is also the right thing.
     
    SolarisOne, Anwar and Kai "the spy" like this.
  2. Anwar

    Anwar Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    Seniority.

    That still just makes it random nihilism. This is like how everyone keeps getting Nietzsche's Ubermensch idea wrong because they keep forgetting about the Last Man.

    He had that convergence thing happening that would boost its powers, and possibly he was more willing to do things with the Aether compared to Thanos.

    And we see that without the other Stones together, anytime he changed anything it always changed back if it was a living thing he affected. The only times he changed things for good was in destroying them (the Snap, turning Starlord's blasts into bubbles).

    I'd give the DCEU that level of thought if it were better written, but it's not so it's much more likely it's just bad inconsistent writing. If WW1984 explains this, I'll admit it.

    Because they all didn't care to ask him that question, they all decided he was a violent madman who had to be stopped and not talked down.
     
  3. JD

    JD Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    I'm not seeing what the problem is with the Joker in The Dark Knight, it's pretty consistent how he's been portrayed in pretty every other version. He's just not really a character who you can give a ton of depth, most of the stories about him are more about how he effects the people around him, both enemies and allies.
     
  4. Kai "the spy"

    Kai "the spy" Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    I'm not even supposed to be here today.
    :wtf:
    This is a shit argument in and of itself, and you should be ashamed to even think it was anything else. I mean, seriously, who is supposed to be convinced by that, me, other users, or you?

    And though it feels like beating a dead horse, I'm going to point out that, not only is it a shit argument, but the Joker isn't even the senior Batman villain. Catwoman debuted in the same issue as the Joker, and some villains that pre-date them both include Hugo Strange, Dr. Death, and Clayface.

    Are you trying to shift the debate? We're talking about the Joker, I'm not gonna debate Nietzsche. And just because you don't agree with a character's philosophy doesn't make the writing of that character lazy.

    And, btw, you keep referring to the Joker as nihilistic, though with the "random" disclaimer, but you keep overlooking the absurdist part of his philosophy. He's an Agent of Chaos.

    So?! He didn't change the Guardians into squares and shit like that to get rid of them, because according to you, he could have easily destroyed them. Seriously, @Christopher has done a way better job explaining Thanos' actions that you have even come close to. But I bet you won't admit that, because it would mean your explanation was not so obvious it should have occurred to me and all the other members of the critically thinking audience.

    So, it is partisanship, after all.

    Why didn't Tony, upon hearing about Thanos' plan, turn to Strange and ask him? He wouldn't necessarily have an answer, but he might have.

    Besides, why not try and talk to Thanos? The fighting clearly didn't work, so why not just shout "How about using that gauntlet to create more resources instead of killing countless beings" at him? I mean, Strange was capable of making a deal with Thanos to spare Tony's life, but he couldn't ask "How about creating instead of destroying"?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
    TREK_GOD_1 and fireproof78 like this.
  5. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Probably because he saw all the futures where he tried that tactic and it didn't work, for whatever reason. Although if your question is "Why didn't the writers think of putting that question on the table," then that's harder to justify.
     
    Anwar and Morpheus 02 like this.
  6. Kai "the spy"

    Kai "the spy" Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    I'm not even supposed to be here today.
    Yeah, I'm really arguing about the writers. I'm far from the first or only person to bring that particular plothole up, so the writers should have foreseen it and adressed it at some point.

    But to be clear, I very much enjoyed Infinity War, and my criticism is about this particular thing.
     
  7. Marsden

    Marsden Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Location:
    Thulcandra
    He could, but Thanos is a giant purple prick with a scrotum chin.
    Plus, he's got some serious issues with "loving death".
    Does not sound like a suggestion is going to fly with him. Could someone have said it anyway? Sure, but it would probably sound like stalling or begging for mercy. Again, that wouldn't stop a suggestion, but I don't know.
    Look at Gamora's past, those green people didn't look too advanced and he had an army, he could have had those guys cultivating a planet with a nice climate growing surplus food and used their ships to supply those people, but he had half of them shot. He's always planned this, in this way, so... Please Mr. psychopath please don't murder us doesn't sound very productive.
     
  8. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    ^No, it wouldn't have been effective at changing Thanos's mind, but it would've underlined for the audience how hypocritical he was being.
     
    Kai "the spy" likes this.
  9. Marsden

    Marsden Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Location:
    Thulcandra
    Not disagreeing with you, but that seemed abundantly clear.
     
    Anwar, grendelsbayne and Ovation like this.
  10. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Sure, but it would be satisfying to see someone call Thanos out on it to his face.
     
  11. theenglish

    theenglish Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Location:
    Cameroon
    I think the point of the story is one of conservation of matter/energy in the universe. It's an analogy for contemporary life on earth. Thanos could have always argued that the resources of the universe are finite. Killing half the sentient population and returning their core materials to their base parts is creating more resources for those that remain. By doubling the food and resources for life it is only taking away from something else. It would be similar to a dictator or national power here on earth deciding that the solution to global warming is simply wiping out half the population.
     
  12. Anwar

    Anwar Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    Why else would Joker keep getting brought back as a "Evil counter" to Batman when later characters who fit better (The Wraith, Ra's Al Ghul) aren't as prominent?

    And Catwoman is as important historically as Joker. Clayface made history as one of the first legacy villains too, and Hugo still is around but left less of an impact.

    That seems to be out back and forth here.

    Random chaos is as lazy as random nihilism.

    He could have, but he didn't want unnecessary death if he could avoid it. That's why he did temporary changes instead of just killing them.

    They've done a poor job with explanations before, and like I said if WW84 explains where her Godkiller powers went I'll own up. But I'm not holding my breath.

    Because Tony also didn't care about anything but stopping Thanos.
     
  13. Kai "the spy"

    Kai "the spy" Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    I'm not even supposed to be here today.
    The Wrath?! I actually had to look that one up, because that's how little of an impression he made. And from what I've read and seen online, deservedly so. He's too literal an anti-Batman, which means he was conceptualized as such and thus superficially too similar to the hero.

    And Ra's is actually a Bond villain, Denny O'Neil has said as much. He's designed to take Batman out of his usual environment (Gotham) and around the world in their battles, and Ra's al Ghul's goals are noble, as warped as they might be. If you like the MCU's Thanos' motivation so much, that's because it's actually Ra's al Ghul's motivation, but in that case it made more sense as Ra's is not all-powerful.

    In the end, both of them could not be the perfect counter-part to Batman, because their goals are too similar to Batman's. The so-called "anti-Batman" Wrath is really just Batman but on the other side of the law, with his goal being revenge. It's Batman taken too far. And Ra's goal is to save the world, it's the way he wants to accomplish that which makes him a villain.

    The Joker, on the other hand, has no goals other than to have fun, something Batman pretty much denies himself as he takes himself and his work so seriously, and the Joker sees fun in killing people, something Batman is not going to do even if the target were somebody he'd know would go on to try and kill innocent people in the future. And the Joker does all that without being conceptualized as the perfect counter to Batman, he just turned out to be quite naturally.

    Actually, there was a period of time when the Joker did not stand out among Batman's rogues gallery, the 50s and 60s, when he was turned into a gimmick-y small-time robber due to the Comics Code (just look at the Adam West show, Batman basically called each and every villain his "arch-nemesis"), and it wasn't until O'Neil and Adams brought him back to his homicidal and absurdist roots in the early 70s that the Joker once more became the most popular villain, so much so that DC actually gave him his own solo adventures (though they didn't turn out as well, as the Joker needs Batman to work).

    And if you really want a deeper analysis of the Joker, there is a popular fan theory (to which I actually ascribe, myself) that the Joker is actually aware that he's a fictional character, and that the people he kills aren't real people at all, which is why he treats it like a joke.
    Here's a video going into depth about why this theory makes sense:


    Yeah, she totally tops every list of most popular Batman villains.

    Actually, early on her popularity was mainly derived from her being a femme fatale to Batman, and since the 80s, she's grown more into an anti-hero and more often an ally than an adversary for Batman. She's historically important as a love interest, not as a villain.

    Again, they both were introduced before the Joker, they have seniority over the Joker, so you're idea that seniority is the reason why the Joker stands out among Batman's rogues gallery is wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's evidently, factually wrong.

    If you are referring to my own criticism of Thanos, you obviously haven't payed attention. I'm not criticizing that Thanos' philosophy contradicts my own, of course it does. As does the Joker's, by the way. What I'm criticizing is that Thanos' plan contradicts his own philosophy, and that that wasn't even acknowledged by anybody in the movie (or by anybody who worked on the movie).

    I feel like your argumentation is getting lazy.

    Look, even if the Joker's motivation were lazy, it still works. It works. As opposed to Thanos' motivation, which has to get more motivation in order to explain why his actions contradict his original motivation. Your argument falls flat because, while Thanos needs work, the Joker doesn't, and that's all that is behind your claim of the Joker's philosophy being lazy.

    Exactly. He meant the changes to be temporary, they were not temporary by themselves. Thank you for making my argument for me.

    You know, I could lay out how Thanos' actions in previous movies make no sense at all, in hindsight, but I think that has been done to death already, and you should know about it. And since you do, you choose to ignore the flaws of one studio, but not similar flaws by another studio. So, yeah, it's partisanship. Which is fine, like whatever you like. But don't pretend otherwise.

    Again, my criticism is against the makers of the movie, who should have known that that question would come up in the audience, but they still didn't adress it.
     
  14. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    He has more goals than that. The Joker is a malignant narcissist, the kind of guy who needs to feed his own ego and prove himself smarter and better and more powerful than others, which he achieved by abusing and tormenting others. He also has a powerful need to prove to others that he is right, that they're no better than he is. Both The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight are centered on this dynamic -- on the Joker's efforts to prove to other people (Batman and Commissioner Gordon in TKJ, the general population of Gotham City in TDK) that they would sink to his level and act the same way he has if they were pushed far enough. And on the Joker being defeated when others don't sink to his level of violence, when they remain true to higher principles, proving that "Maybe it's just you."
     
    fireproof78 and Kai "the spy" like this.
  15. Kai "the spy"

    Kai "the spy" Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    I'm not even supposed to be here today.
    ^You are right, of course. I should have said that the Joker shares no apparent goals with Batman, whereas the Wrath shares the motivation of revenge, and Ra's al Ghul shares the motivation of saving the world, with the hero.
     
  16. Anwar

    Anwar Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    He also came too late, if he'd been earlier like Joker he'd have stuck around more. Seniority.

    Again, he also came too late. The 70s.

    And coming too late, by that time Joker had already been around for decades.

    Exactly, flat and more plot device than anything else.

    Even then, he was still respected as one of the major baddies.

    Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been around as early as she was.

    Catwoman is very important, and Clayface went down as one of the first legacy villains. A new concept for comics.

    Just like how no one pointed out the holes in Joker's philosophies, or Dents' philosophies or Alfred's story about the Burmese Bandit?

    At being lazy.

    It's more that you just want the movie to stop so they can stand around debating things. He's their enemy, he's attacked their people, they're there to stop him. That's their motive and they aren't going to waste time trying to talk him down.

    That's why he used the Reality Stone (which causes temporary changes unless he's always concentrating) instead of the power stone to atomize them. Since that's Stone's destructive power isn't reversible.

    MCU's flaws are relatively minor compared to DCEU's. They earned that trust.

    Your criticism is that they didn't stop the movie to have an operatic monologue.
     
  17. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Posting partisan lies is not an argument, nor is your apparent hatred of anything even remotely adult in a fantasy film, hence your thin attempt to criticize the need for character motivations to make sense, instead of being so nonsensical that its easily picked apart for what they were: set pieces for flash no more sensible than an episode of Ben 10.

    Both the writers and their characters (who are speaking for them) should have challenged Thanos about use of the gauntlet, instead of jumping into a fight they had no reason or expectation to win. Ahh, but the film had to leap right into the hollow "reasoning," and CG fireworks that reduced 10 years of alleged character development of the heroes down to "me blast, you blast / biggest threat everrrr!" noise. You can swallow that crap as much as you desire, but that does not protect it from deserved analysis.
     
    crookeddy and fireproof78 like this.
  18. Anwar

    Anwar Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    It's not a lie, it's simple fact that the MCU isn't as full of flaws as the DCEU.

    Standing around giving operatic monologues to spoonfeed the audience everything isn't "adult". It's lazy.

    If you're ashamed of comics and only got in due to that temporary "grounded" fad, maybe.

    They did, just not with words. They aren't going to waste time on that, you think no one else tried that in the past?

    You're not supposed to think he's in the right, the movie never said he was right. This isn't like Dark Knight where they kept trying to make you think that Alfred, Dent and Joker's philosophies were correct when they were all full of holes.

    So yeah, you're ashamed of comics and want that "grounded" garbage.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  19. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    ^ ...now appearing at The Laugh Factory....

    Lazy and childish are films that use fireworks in place of having characters behave like real human beings.

    Your statement is the opposite of how individual relate to each other--even in conflict, as energy beams and bravado are not a substitution for talk. If the film actually addressed this glaring Thanos/use of the gauntlet matter, it would not be so easy to criticize what has to be among the most paper-thin, illogical villain plans (and response to it) in cinema history. Instead, the film jumped right to "Ohh! A new Iron Man and Spider-Man suit! Lookie at the colors! Lookie at the weapons!"

    Infinity War was an Avengers movie, not a "assume someone, somewhere once tried something off camera in some hypothetical past no one is aware of" movie, all because the filmmakers failed to make sense of their overblown plot and thin character motivations. Talk about lazy.
    The audience is there to see the Avengers in the here and now try to deal with the situation, and considering the gravity of the threat--in as many logical ways as possible, starting with trying to convince Thanos to use his power in a...hmm...sensible way. That demanded more than CG wrestling matches, "I'm trying to be a badass" moments and energy blasts.

    But its clear a few will try to justify glorified cartoon plotting, and try to repackage it as making any sort of sense.
     
    fireproof78 likes this.
  20. Samurai8472

    Samurai8472 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Christopher McQuarrie reportedly turned down several DC films in favor of two more "Impossible" movies

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...-direct-new-mission-impossible-movies-1176012