Jesus.
(Also, a person can't be fully measured and critical about something without actually evaluating it on its own merits.)
Last edited:
Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Jesus.
(Also, a person can't be fully measured and critical about something without actually evaluating it on its own merits.)
No, I merely happen to be a member of the class you are casting blanket aspersions against. That's the problem with ascribing a single motive to a whole group -- it's bound to be unfair to a great many individuals within that group.
One, a joke that you're taking way too seriously. Two, an evaluation directed at a work rather than a person. That is what "ad hominem" means -- "toward the man (person)." It's perfectly valid to critique a statement, a position, or a work; ad hominem argument is wrong because it skips all that and attacks the person behind it, which sidesteps any actual argument about the statement, position, or work. Since "Murderverse" is a humorous characterization of the work, it is by definition not ad hominem.
And that is exactly what is wrong with your commentary -- the fact that it is based in blanket generalizations, that people in general dislike changes in general because they're afraid of change. And that's wrong because each individual case is different. It's not about all changes, it's about whether each individual one is good or bad. My use of myself as an example was not about me, it was about the works. The fact that I, a single individual, responded differently to each of the distinct works in that category means that you cannot assume the response to those works is about what category they belong to -- it is, rather, about whether each individual one is successful or not.
The great thing about generalizations. You can make any comment you want about *blank*, and when someone argues against it, you can just say: "The statement wasn't about you, it was about *blanks* in general."
You do realize that the experiences of one single individual within a group don't necessarily invalidate statements about trends that are common within said group in general, right?
Just like the fact that Obama became president wasn't evidence that racism has disappeared in the US.
Generalizations are often a bad idea but to claim you can't make any statements about a group (while acknowledging that the statement doesn't apply to every single member of the group) doesn't convince me either.
Last edited:
Tough. If you are seriously arguing that no trends, in the aggregate, of group behaviour can be identified within groups numbering in the thousands or more, you need to re-examine your understanding of a great many things.
What condescending bullshit. Seriously, do you simply presume everyone else but you has the IQ of an avocado? Did you really think I didn't know the meaning of "ad hominem"? My point (one I'm sure was easily understood by most people reading the post) is that "alarmist" is no more an "attack" (nor any less) than "Murderverse". Besides, I said the comment was alarmist (the statement), not you (the person). So, which "logical fallacy" did you commit? (Don't bother--it's a rhetorical question--you know, the kind of question one asks, often to express exasperation, and for which no response is expected or desired. Just want to be clear the term "rhetorical" is properly understood.)
My statement on the reaction to changes to the characters was not without qualification ("in many ways" does NOT equal "in ALL ways"), so your charge of "blanket generalizations" is invalid. Furthermore, you are making the same error--presuming an individual exception within a group of thousands or more is sufficient to refute general observations about demonstrable trends about aggregate behaviours by the group. If this were true, a considerable number of academic disciplines would be untenable. Perhaps academia should fold up its tents now and surrender to the "proof" you've offered that clearly refutes their methods and purposes. (This last statement, to be clear, is not intended to be taken literally. Again, I wouldn't want there to be any confusion over meanings.)
And with that, I'm done. Point out any "logical fallacies" you wish. Deconstruct my points and show me how "wrong" I am. Whatever floats your boat. Bye-bye.
It looks like WB might be moving executive producer Charles Roven into a less active role in the production of their DC movies.
It will be interesting to see if any of these changes actually effect the reaction to the movies.
I really think the majority of people's issues with BvS can be laid pretty much at Snyder's feet, and I have to wonder if just getting rid of him would be enough to start to move things into a direction that might get a better reaction.
It will be interesting to see if any of these changes actually effect the reaction to the movies.
I really think the majority of people's issues with BvS can be laid pretty much at Snyder's feet, and I have to wonder if just getting rid of him would be enough to start to move things into a direction that might get a better reaction.
They would have to market the next batch of movies to reflect the behind the scenes changes that are basically unnoticed by the general public.
Yeah, they'll need to find a way to convince the people who didn't like BvS that the next few movies won't be like that.
I think they've done a pretty good job with Suicide Squad by showcasing the humor, which is something a lot of people thought BvS lacked.
Right now I'm very curious to see what the approach to Wonder Woman will be like. It does sound like it'll be a much more positive and optimistic movie that BvS was, so if they were smart they would try to show that in the marketing.
I think they've done a pretty good job with Suicide Squad by showcasing the humor, which is something a lot of people thought BvS lacked.
Right now I'm very curious to see what the approach to Wonder Woman will be like. It does sound like it'll be a much more positive and optimistic movie that BvS was, so if they were smart they would try to show that in the marketing.
Good word of mouth could probably do that when the time comes.
The Flash gets a director:
http://deadline.com/2016/06/the-flash-rick-famuyiwa-dope-dc-comics-warner-bros-1201766332/
Sounds like a good choice to me.
http://deadline.com/2016/06/the-flash-rick-famuyiwa-dope-dc-comics-warner-bros-1201766332/
Sounds like a good choice to me.
There were some who though he'd be a good choice for the Cyborg film. Saying that, Cyborg is supposed to be in the Flash film, so if it works out maybe they'll ask him to direct that movie too.
His body of work is a little thin. I just hope this isn't a case of giving an up and coming auteur too large a film too soon. See Josh Trank and Chronicle to FFour reboot.The Flash gets a director:
http://deadline.com/2016/06/the-flash-rick-famuyiwa-dope-dc-comics-warner-bros-1201766332/
Sounds like a good choice to me.
