• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

Don't you find it odd that Snyder seems to draw such criticism and discussion, even though he's not presently in the news. I mean, someone at the AV Club wrote the aforementioned piece, submitted to their editor and the editor decided it was worth publishing. The timing of it's release coinciding with the recent protest and tragedy in Charllottesville VA. Somehow, someway, this is Zack Snyder's fault.

One more time: Frank Miller created 300. Zack Snyder merely made a slavish, beat-for-beat adaptation of it. Every word, every image, every idea in the movie comes from Miller. The actual AV Club article makes that clear:

This wasn’t the first time someone so slavishly recreated one of Miller’s comics; Robert Rodriguez had done the same thing with Sin City in 2005, even giving Miller a co-directing credit. But 300 was even more striking in its fealty, partly because it’s a more sweeping, immersive cinematic vision and partly because it more closely mirrors Miller’s worldview. And Frank Miller happens to be fucking crazy.

Miller was a comics hero, the guy who’d turned Daredevil into a noir fever dream and helped inaugurate a new era of grimly sophisticated storytelling with 1986’s The Dark Knight Returns. Once upon a time, the darkness and misanthropy of his work made him a fascinating, transformative figure. These days, every time he writes a bitterly disgusted blog post about Occupy Wall Street or whatever, it becomes increasingly obvious that the darkness isn’t a put-on. He really lives it: He really is a paranoid reactionary with an active imagination. That helped produce some great art, and it also led him to tell the nakedly fascistic story he told in 300, a story that became all the more jarring when Snyder rendered it as blockbuster entertainment.

Despite the headline, it's overtly the opinion of the article's writer that Miller is the main one responsible for the film's problematical attitudes, and Snyder's culpability lies mainly in deeming Miller's work worthy of faithful emulation, and in making a film so visually striking that it vastly increased the exposure of Miller's fascistic work. If Miller is the "Hitler" in this analogy, Snyder is merely the Leni Riefenstahl. Or the D.W. Griffith -- the article specifically likens 300 to The Birth of a Nation, a superbly made film popularizing a toxic ideology. So your assumption that this is some kind of personal vendetta against Snyder specifically is badly off the mark.
 
Snyder basically copied 300's comic panels and put it on the movie screen.

Any and all blame on it should be on the actual author, Frank Miller.
 
Last edited:
Also 300 is clearly a fantasy piece of work, it's fill with crazy ideas and balls to the walls over the top action.

The only audience that would likely be fooled into thinking it was any way real would be small children.

Racism? People take these movies way too seriously.
 
I think the big problem with DC may be that its characters are generally iconic and very idealized (only Batman is allowed to be more dark and bada** and even then only somewhat). Marvel comics fans prefer the characters and storylines to be a lot more edgy as in Marvel while DC comics fans are displeased that the film versions of the characters are made more edgy than in the comics.
 
Also 300 is clearly a fantasy piece of work, it's fill with crazy ideas and balls to the walls over the top action.
Are you saying that fantasy can't be racist? Fantasy, by dealing with various sentient races, can be more literally racist than non-fantasy. Lord of the Rings is transparently, overtyly racist in making elves genetically superior in every way to humans, who are genetically superior in every way to orcs. Aragorn deserves a throne while Denethor and his line don't because he's part-Elvish by genetics.

Racism? People take these movies way too seriously.
Ah, yes, the classic complaint made against obvious truths one finds uncomfortable, now in wide use by white supremacists. "This statue of Robert E. Lee isn't a racist glorification of the slave-holding Confederacy; it just happens to depict a person who fought battles! It's part of our local history. You're taking this way too seriously!"

To be clear, I'm not calling you a white supremacist here. But you're not entitled to shut down discussion of art, even fantasy art, on a fantasy discussion board just because you don't like said discussion.
 
Also 300 is clearly a fantasy piece of work, it's fill with crazy ideas and balls to the walls over the top action.

The only audience that would likely be fooled into thinking it was any way real would be small children.

Racism? People take these movies way too seriously.

That's a nonsensical argument. You don't have to believe a work of fiction literally happened in order to be influenced by the ideologies and values it expresses. Good grief, the whole point of fiction is to use imaginary situations to talk about real ideas and principles. For instance, many people have been inspired by Star Trek's message of tolerance and inclusion and tried to live up to it in their own lives, even fully aware that it's not an actual broadcast from the future. Heck, the early Superman comics portrayed blatantly fanciful situations but used them for commentary on real social issues like war profiteering, economic injustice, organized crime, and even reckless driving. H.G. Wells used the fanciful situations he wrote about to proselytize his socialist beliefs. Heck, the use of SF and fantasy for social critique goes back to Gulliver's Travels.
 
I'm not saying movies or books can't be racist, just that for me personally 300 is too much of a cartoon to take even 1 minute of it seriously.

300 has real flaws. Like the poorly developed characters. The constant use of slow motion. The very fact that they fight without chest armor doesn't makes a lick of sense, since they cleanly have armored helmets.

I'm tired of people acting offended at every piece of fiction. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

Writers shouldn't have to run their works though a Political Correctness machine just because it might offend someone.

But, we are starting to get way off topic here...
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying movies or books can't be racist, just that for me personally 300 is too much of a cartoon to take even 1 minute of it seriously.

And you are not the only person on the planet. Other people can have reactions different from your own -- as this very thread indicates. So your personal reaction to the work has absolutely no bearing on the fact that other people do take its pro-fascist message seriously. Yes, they're idiots, but that's why they're fascists and bigots.


I'm tired of people acting offended at every piece of fiction. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

And sometimes it isn't. Frank Miller makes no secret of his extreme political views.

Besides, the creators of a work don't have to intend a certain message in order for audiences to read something into it. For instance, a lot of "Men's Rights Activist" types have embraced the film and book Fight Club as their bible, an embodiment of the type of masculinity they aspire to, even though the intent of the book's author was to indict and tear down the very attitudes they believe it glorifies.
 
Besides, the creators of a work don't have to intend a certain message in order for audiences to read something into it. For instance, a lot of "Men's Rights Activist" types have embraced the film and book Fight Club as their bible, an embodiment of the type of masculinity they aspire to, even though the intent of the book's author was to indict and tear down the very attitudes they believe it glorifies.
I find the MRA thing to be funny as hell, considering men already rule the world.:lol:
 
I find the MRA thing to be funny as hell, considering men already rule the world.:lol:
Indeed. But, weren't you just saying "we are starting to get way off topic here"? It's almost as if you're willing to go off-topic when it suits your fancy, but also willing to try to shut down a possibly off-topic discussion when it "tires" you... ;)
 
Did you read the piece? The literal demonizing of brown-skinned peoples, plus slandering them as gay pedophiles while completely omitting the Spartan history of doing that very thing, seems to me a pretty direct correlation to the hatreds of white supremacists. (Though I do ding the article for not discussing the fact that the Iraq War was at its height when the movie was made, and modern-day Persia, Iran, was part of W.'s "Axis of Evil", so there were obvious contemporary political undertones to the movie, also.)

The orientalist narrative in the Persian Wars with the free Greeks vs the despotic Persians and enslaved subjects ironically date back to Herodotus himself.
 
Are you saying that fantasy can't be racist? Fantasy, by dealing with various sentient races, can be more literally racist than non-fantasy. Lord of the Rings is transparently, overtyly racist in making elves genetically superior in every way to humans, who are genetically superior in every way to orcs. Aragorn deserves a throne while Denethor and his line don't because he's part-Elvish by genetics.
I only read half of it years ago, but I believe there is also a point where Sauron's human followers are described as either dark men or black men, and they are the only dark skinned characters in the series (at least up to that point).
I'm not saying movies or books can't be racist, just that for me personally 300 is too much of a cartoon to take even 1 minute of it seriously.
Except cartoons have also been incredibly racist at times, there are old cartoons where the whole thing is based around nothing but horribly offensive racist caricatures. Just because something can't be taken seriously doesn't mean it can't be offensive, if anything comedic racism is probably more offensive than more serious stuff, since it tends to be focused entirely around making fun of the targeted group.
 
Except cartoons have also been incredibly racist at times, there are old cartoons where the whole thing is based around nothing but horribly offensive racist caricatures. Just because something can't be taken seriously doesn't mean it can't be offensive, if anything comedic racism is probably more offensive than more serious stuff, since it tends to be focused entirely around making fun of the targeted group.

Well, some of that was more innocent, just people unquestioningly accepting the stereotypes they'd been raised with, or seeing them as divorced from their racial roots. Sometimes characters presented as extreme racial stereotypes were quite beloved by (white) audiences, such as the radio sitcom couple Fibber McGee & Molly's wisecracking maid Beulah (who was played by a white man), or were portrayed as positive characters by their creators, such as The Spirit's sidekick Ebony White. There was definitely unconscious racism involved, but the white creators and audiences didn't see it and didn't have any malicious intent. (Kinda like how I used to feel about The Dukes of Hazzard. I always found it very wholesome and fun and harmless at the time, but now I can't get past the fact that the heroes' car had a flag of hate emblazoned on its roof, or that the guy who played Cooter is now leading pro-Confederate flag rallies down South.)

Heck, even Mickey Mouse is basically a caricature of the standard makeup and costuming of minstrel show blackface performers, as were other early cartoon stars like Warner Bros.' Bosko and Honey. It was just seen as a standard clown makeup at the time, and so white creators and audiences didn't even necessarily think of it in racial terms (although there is obvious racial condescension in the idea of equating black people with objects of laughter and ridicule). Indeed, there were cartoons and comic strips that coded Mickey Mouse as essentially white when he interacted with characters such as native tribesmen who were blatantly racist caricatures.

On the other hand, some people at the time were more enlightened. Jack Benny, for instance, adamantly refused to let his fictional valet Rochester (played by a genuine black actor, Eddie Anderson) ever be written as the butt of racial humor or stereotypes, and when traveling in the South would refuse to stay in hotels that wouldn't admit Anderson. Rochester was in a traditionally subservient role, since there were few opportunities at the time for anything more, but he was always written as smart, funny, and dignified in his way, and Benny was usually the butt of his jokes rather than the other way around. It's hard for me to watch Eddie Anderson in movies where he wasn't playing Rochester, because in those he was the butt of traditional racial stereotype humor (for instance, being portrayed as comically cowardly in Topper Returns), and it's sad to see the contrast.
 
Besides, the creators of a work don't have to intend a certain message in order for audiences to read something into it. For instance, a lot of "Men's Rights Activist" types have embraced the film and book Fight Club as their bible, an embodiment of the type of masculinity they aspire to, even though the intent of the book's author was to indict and tear down the very attitudes they believe it glorifies.

What is the solution to this? Like, in order to critique something, some element of it has to be portrayed. Mad Men is a critique of toxic masculinity, but lots of people watch it and are seduced by Don's cool life. Game of Thrones is a critique of patriarchy, but some people get off on the brutality of the patriarchy it (initially) depicts. The Handmaid's Tale, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, Jessica Jones, any show you care to name that is trying to say something, usually does so by looking at the thing it is trying to say something about. I say this as someone who gets upset when people somehow completely ignore the key messages of Star Trek and somehow manage to be fans and people actively against social justice. Like... what can be done?
 
What is the solution to this?

Writers have no control over how people might misinterpret our work. All we can do is get the message out there and hope that most people understand it.

The thing is, generally people need to have open minds to start with in order to learn something from a work of fiction. People who are attracted to the more abusive or violent or fascistic ideas in a work of fiction, even one that's denouncing them, are already predisposed to like that stuff and to be closed to messages they don't want to hear. They only notice the parts that reaffirm their prejudices. There's not much you can do to get through to people like that. You can just try to get to the ones whose minds are still flexible enough to change.
 
Snyder basically copied 300's comic panels and put it on the movie screen.

Any and all blame on it should be on the actual author, Frank Miller.


A lot of people don't like Snyder's take on the DCEU films. Worse, they don't like his ambiguous portrayal of the DC Comics characters (which is why the media and many people tend to turn a blind eye to Wonder Woman's own ambiguity) and especially society in the movies. It's been nearly a year-and-a-half since "Batman v. Superman" was released. And yet, people are still bitching and moaning about it. They're still trying to find ways to condemn Snyder . . . not only for that movie but for a lot of things.

And I expect that this condemnation is going to last a long, long, long time. Why? Human nature.
 
I know you're joking, but I could actually see that working if they went back to a younger Batman just starting out.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top