Фейсал

Members
  • Content count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Фейсал

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

242 profile views
  1. I disagree - I don't think it was much of an element in Daredevil Season 2. That was a pretty straight forward revenge story. Frank has a concise objective in mind, taking revenge on those directly responsible for the death of his family. It all feels entirely justified, none of it feels like he's going too far or fighting for the sake of fighting which is the case in The Punisher, and this the groundwork for his war on crime. The list of people he has to kill for revenge just gets bigger and bigger and it's ridiculous. The show's done great i'm pretty sure. If Iron Fist got a renewal I think The Punisher is safe; but they're stuffed with projects right now. Yeah I agree with that. We know she's important to Frank and we know what she meant to him which serves the purpose of the plot well enough. No particular scene stands out as being a retread of another, to be honest. If any in particular stand out i'd like to know. And I thought for a while that Sarah and Frank might actually fuck until the confrontation with Micro, and part of the reason why Frank/Micro is so compelling is how they legitimately hate each other until a change happens towards the end. The Sarah dynamic only added to that - Frank was being a genuine asshole out of spite. What do you envision as ''lasting consequences'' precisely? Frank's actual death? imprisonment for life? couldn't you paint the source material with the same brush? Frank commits plenty of violence, but that violence only makes him more miserable and pushes him further to the deep end. On the surface level these methods way ''work'' but I think the lasting consequence are in Frank's character and psyche. They all berate him for it, yes. They don't just show concern - Micro outright calls him a psychopath and pins the blame of his family's death on him. Karen tells him he'll just keep going and going with no return. Lewis is self explanatory. and point out time and time again how terrible his methods are. They go along with a lot of it out of mitigating reasons for the most part [Micro and Karen for instance are indebted to Frank] but my takeaway is the entire conflict of the show could have been solved in a different way if Frank wasn't so hell bent on killing everyone in sight.
  2. I don't recall an instance where he let an innocent die in favor of taking down a criminal. If anything he's let plenty of oppurtinities pass by because of the presence of innocent people. They def. don't chase him around or care much for him at all. In the 2000 Punisher series - a big plot point of the first run was that the police don't pursue the Punisher because he makes their lives easier. In The Slavers; the NY[D has to fabricate a story about him beating up a bunch of cops to get the officers to pursue him. Right or wrong officers like him and what he does. All interpretations [even the terrible ones like giving him super powers and making him an angel of death] maintain that he's an anti hero. He never takes a truly villainous role maybe outside of his first Spider-Man appearance and even then he was far more nuanced than your average villain. I'd also say Dredd is an anti hero. Goals one could qualify as noble with dubious means of accomplishing them - and yes the main takeaway from The Punisher should be that he's not in the correct moral standing and I certainly got that from the show. What i'm proposing is that the series doesn't throw away Frank's war on crime nor does it ignore the mentality behind it, which is what's improtant. He is not engaging in it yet - but the series explores why it happens in the first place. We're dragged from person to person who Frank justifies going after in the name of revenge until you kind of start asking when he's gonna stop, and then you realize he's just never going to stop and that's how you end up a 60 year old serial killer with a kill count in the literal thousands some 30 years later. That's what the finale really is about. The flashback with Billy and the carousel helps humanize her, I think. And we know she's important to Frank. As for Sarah - each scene speaks for an aspect of losing someone you love which is what draws her and Frank together in the first place. The loneliness, the responsibility, the desire for attention and physical contact, dealing with kids; and that helps keep it from being repetitive. All the scenes with Karen. The scenes with Micro, as you pointed out. Such as when he asks him why he wouldn't work with Madani, and the scene where he calls him a psychopath. Lewis berating him for his hypocrisy. A few scenes with Madani too towards the end. I listed avenging his family and ending crime for that reason. Both goals are goals one can understand/sympathize with, wouldn't you agree? I'm not talking about Lewis here, but the other veteran in Curtis's support group. The old grouchy white guy who takes Lewis to a demonstration - he's you're stereotypical gun nut and it turns out he was a liar, a coward and a manipulator politicizing what war veterans go through for his own political gain. Lewis himself is a right wing psychopath going on bombing and shooting sprees. That is certainly not a good light to put the pro-gun position in; Micro who is one of the good guys has an aversion to fire arms as well. I think the purpose of Lewis is to make you look at Frank from a different perspective. You are correct one thing that separates someone like Lewis from frank is the difference in their cause and what you could describe as a code of honor - but Lewis is just following what Frank did. Vigilantism is rubbish because it depends on a person prejudice and bias. Lewis is acting on what he thinks is right, just like Frank is.
  3. What?! when has the Punisher ever done that?! Frank goes to great pains to ensure no one gets caught in the cross fires. I can't really think of a single interpretation of the character in the adaptations or the comics where he carelessly puts civilian lives in danger as collateral damage. Why do you think the police force usually ignore him? because he makes their lives easier and he doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it. In the story arc The Slavers; Frank avoid attacking the places he knows have the information he needs to avoid casualties. In Garth Ennis' first run with the character, Frank chastises his copy cats for putting civilian lives at stake and opens fire on them because of that. I think your idea of what The Punisher is just paints an outright villain rather than an ambiguous character or anti hero; which is ultimately what he is. It's what gives him depth - he's not a Joker like sociopath but he's not righteous either. The take away should never be that he's a good guy, sure, but it shouldn't be ''this guy is a menace to society'' like supervillains. You're right in a certain way - this is really an origin story for The Punisher, in a sense. This and Daredevil part 2 - it shows us how that war on crime started. I think the point of the trippy sequences during Rawlins torture and the final scene of the entire series was to set up his quest gearing from revenge to a war on crime - and it's really an accumulation of everything the series has been doing. Frank's messed up moral compass is there, you can see it - but he doesn't yet; necessarily. and there have been story arcs in the comics that showed that. The Cell, for instance. Or Punisher Year One, they're not straying from the source material here. I think the lose of Maria is pretty central to his character, she's the one family member he talks about the most so I think more Sarah scenes make sense. Could Madani have found/seen Frank some other way? sure, maybe - but this way they can set up Frank for any weaponry they will need for any set pieces later on while moving the plot. Filler does not develop the story or move the plot in any way, the gun heist did. You can dislike the way they progressed the story - but I think calling it filler is unfair. There is the shotgun, too. I think it was good pay off, ultimately. It gave us the signature Punisher truck too. I think if I had to gripe about something is what did they do with the armory from Daredevil Season 2? How can you say it's glossed over when what feels like literally every character in the series berates Frank over and over for the things he does? when quite obviously affects him and those around him? Madani was pretty set on taking him down until Micro came in and pointed out that Frank loathes himself for the things he did [and is doing]. The Punisher is a violent character, but Frank's violence only makes him more miserable. Karen does owe him of a debt of life, if you'll remember. Micros goes behind his back several times. Frank's end goal is good/justifiable [wanting to see his family avenged, ending crime] but his methods are questionable. That's an anti hero. I disagree. You kind of know nothing about him wanting to pull himself out of poverty and his insecurities and all that before the scene with his mother - he does obviously have a sadistic streak but before that scene his betrayal just made very little sense to me. I'll actually concede with you on the ball scene - I thought that was very out of place but it doesn't really change what Frank did. An argument could be made for something akin to Stockholm - but I understand there is a limit to the benefit of the doubt one can give the creators. The senator is indeed made into a whimpering, spineless fool yes. But on the flip side - the 2nd amendment toting Vietnam ''veteran'' turns out to be a lying, opportunistic coward. It's balanced in that way.
  4. At what point does Frank wither in conviction? from the start he straight up goes everyone has to die. He doesn't have a change of heart or anything like that; he wants them all to die. When he films that reel for Madani it's only as a distraction to the plan Micro and Frank set up to take out Billy and Rawlins. Isn't your complaint in regards to Billy knowing who Agent Orange is while Frank does not? that's because Billy only figures it out after their wet work team is dissolved; but during the flashbacks he's in the dark as much as Frank. And since then they've never talked. All the scenes were meaningful in some way, and they all spoke to a different family member Frank lost in the tragedy that befell him in Central Park. I think that's the relevance of the ''Welcome home, Frank'' dream. The gun heist set up the Madani/Frank plot line which is integral to the story and it also solved any issue they would have with giving Frank the weapons he needs. How do you imagine the final set piece in Micro's office working without the heist? like sure we could just assume he just went ahead and bought a shit ton of guns but he'd be easy to track in that case and this is not year 30 Punisher or w/e; he's not taking money off of crooks yet. Jon Berenthal has stated in an interview that they set out to make Frank a dubious character. They did not intend for you to necessarily like him or root for him all the way like Daredevil. You can humanize a bad person - if we couldn't sympathize with the pain Frank has gone through then he would be a clear and cut villain rather than an anti hero or a tragedy. The show wants you to sympathize with the pain Frank goes through and understand his motivation, but it does not want you to think ''hey what this guy is doing is 100% right''. He absolutely is a morally dubious character; he killed innocent people in Kandahar. He was engaging in torture and death as if it was nothing, and his crusade for revenge is just a never ending body count which Karen highlights in the scenes where she meets up with Frank. It just goes on and on and on- Micro points this out often, too. The only way he deals with problems is by shooting them in the face. I think the final sequence with Rawlins is the ultimate condemnation. It is not about his family anymore. I think Billy without the scene involving his mother would be just like Rawlins - evil for the sake of. He's got a bunch of insecurities related to his youth which lead to his obsession with the material and superficial; and it justifies how someone like him could betray a brother in arms like Frank and his whole squad, really. There were plenty of scenes, though. It gave you all kinds of different perspectives from multiple characters in that group - from the vultures looking to politicize the tragedy of war [the fake Vietnam veteran] victims led astray [Lewis] and the people trying to move on [Curtis]. Any more and it would have dragged. Is it? the final scene in the show with Frank sitting in Curtis's support group makes it utterly explicit - Frank needs conflict. He says it in his own words, for the first time in a LONG time he feels like he has no war to fight and that scares him. It's an obvious getaway to the beginning of his war on crime. I mean, if you think that then the show did a sufficiently good job, no? death to the artist and all that. Even if the creators did not mean it that way, it clearly comes off that way and i'm not sure why you would rather assume it's a tonal mistake on their part rather than intentional considering the rest of the series and who it centers around. Micro's son breaks down when he's put at a knife's edge. If you're asking why he wouldn't tell someone; a strange man who he barely knows and is obviously very dangerous held a knife to his throat. That'd be enough to keep grown men shut.
  5. Yeah I agree. They've already introduced Tooley so they could do Kitchen Irish if the audience can buy him surviving a shotgun blast to the face; but after the first season I think they'd best draw focus on stories that look at Frank as a character rather than just really good, isolated stories with the mob and such. They've already done parts of the In Beginning but they've yet to introduce O'Brien who I think would be an amazing addition for the second or third season of the show. They could do both Up is Down and Baracuda in a single season if they condense events ever so slightly.
  6. Adrian Brody is a show stopper. First episode was one of the series' best, episode 2 is leading to something big I feel. Think we'll see Hardy in ep 3 since he's mentioned by Tommy.
  7. Read my mind. Up is Down, Black is White is begging for an adaptation. They could do a lot with that story alongside parts of Man of Stone, Long Cold Dark and maybe even Baracuda. Valley Forge, Valley Forge could be a neat way to tie it all up together to the military theme of the show's first season. They've already adapted bits of Welcome Back, Frank but I wouldn't mind seeing more of that. It's really a character study more than anything else. If you love Frank's character it will stick with you a lot more than most Marvel shows - i'v noticed it hooks you in by the third episode. Because Billy Russo was in on it all? Billy knew who Agent Orange was after the events with Frank punching his eye out; and they entered a mutually beneficial agreement. He was not aware of who Agent Orange was when they were part of the black ops team. As for the family sub plot that was honestly one of the best bits in relation to Frank dealing with the grief of losing his loved ones. It made the relationship he had with Micro more interesting, as well. Incorrect. The guns come in handy before that - when he tries to take out Rawlins for instance. I also think you're completely and utterly off the mark when it comes to Frank. The show works because it does not give him a free pass - he is not a likable person, he's not even necessarily relatable past a certain point. The violence in this show is not gratifying or cathartic - you just want Frank to stop. Several different characters are used as foils for his. Lewis shows us the dangers of vigilantism and taking things into your own hands. Rawlins is what happens when someone goes too deep into the far end and takes joy in violence and hurting others. Curtis shows us how soldiers can move on and put down their gun - all those elements are part of Frank's character and really the show is all around drawing contrast and confronting you with rooting for what is quintessentially a bad guy. Frank isn't just looking for revenge - he wants a war to fight because that's all he knows.
  8. Batman got completely and utterly character assassinated in JL. Ridiculous.
  9. It's doable, I guess, but not necessarily optimal. Unless you condense it on a massive scale, in which case it kind of loses it's luster in the first place - The Silm functions more as a sort of Middle Earth documentary/history book than a fluid, structured narrative. So many characters and places and things happening all at once it's ridiculous. That and the sheer magnitude and scale of some the events that happen in the story - along with things like the Silmarils being unadaptable by nature would make for a very complicated, rocky read ahead for the poor sod who theoretically helms this production. Hahah glad i'm not alone. I even liked the third one.
  10. I literally have no idea what this could be or how they could make it work. Anything that pulls on the Silm will quite simply be a mess and a major pain to adapt - the closest thing to a self contained story they could work with is the Children of Hurin or the Fall of Gondolin and even those draw heavily on other works.
  11. Not necessarily. They use that term in the first movie too to differentiate between N6 and N8 etc yet they're all different. Some ramblings about K and Joi:
  12. Not really. K is the lone detective, Joi is his femme fatale side kick. She's sensual and she's versatile and she's clever - but she's not particularly real either and just like K she's working within the trappings of her own existence. It's a very Blade Runner twist on a very antiquated genre. It's not just a traditional noir film, it's neo noir. But Deckard's life didn't really matter. Batty's life and his friends didn't really matter either, the stakes were incredibly low. On one hand you had an asshole cop who's forced to kill those runaway androids, and then you have those runaway androids who don't want to harm anyone and just want to live their life as normal people. Again, without any real stakes and that actually worked in the first movie's favor - but the second movie had much bigger implications. Deckard views it as love in the first movie, and Deckard maintains that there was love between the two of them in the second movie as well in his dialogue with K and Wallace. Hell, the movie actively points out that what Deckard considers love is pretty flimsy and is potentially just a Tyrell equation; the replicant seducing the blade runner who he himself is likely a replicant is pretty poetic, don't you think? and Tyrell sure was fond of poetic imagery. It's not circular reasoning you're just sort of ignoring the context of the child's existence. Him/her eisting proves that replicants can pro-create, can you not see how game changing that is? how that shatters replicant prejudice and how it changes what they are? It's not a random child we're told is important for no reason; who the child is doesn't particularly matter what matters is what they meant for the societal landscape of the world. Rachael and the miracle child were a vehicle to peer into K and Deckard as characters. They aren't present, but it really isn't their story. They're the back drop that sets things into motion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: Where is this identical replicant argument coming from? none of the replicants are identical to one another in the first movie. None of them are identical in the second movie, unless you consider Joi one. This is effectively a none argument and fan theory being presented as fact. This movie, like the first, trusts you to use your head and figure things out rather than being spoon fed all the information. The world is so alluring partially because of that, IMO. It didn't need any unnecessary padding to go into mundane specifics about how many Goslings are produced in the world or whatever.
  13. Are genre movies stuck to their trappings and cliche conventions with no way of innovating or giving them a unique twist? Blade Runner is a cyber punk sci fi and also a noir. It gives its noir elements a sci fi twist - the love interest being a digital AI in this case. It's also interesting that you knock on this movie for having low stakes when the first movie had literally none. Nothing would have changed/happened if Deckard failed just as nothing really changed or happened when he succeeded - the four replicants on the loose just wanted to live normal, regular lives and would have bled in to normal society. Joi and K's relationship is interesting because both of them aren't human or ''real'' yet it comes off as the most humane in the story. Giving K a human, or physical love interest just to go ''haha see we're noir!'' betrays the essence of the film. The child's existence in itself makes it important. Replicants can produce - they top being objects made at a factory/lab and became an actual species/living organism of sorts. It breaks down the prejudice against them. I agree with you on Rachael/Deckard - what happened in the first movie was just kind of flat out rape but Wallace points out Rachael was engineered to seduce Deckard. Deckard sees it as grandiose love, and we get things from his perspective here but really it was Tyrell playing god and playing his last ace in the hole. How is it lazy? I thought the point of the bit in the theater was to show that K could have snapped him in two if he wanted to but he wasn't there to fight. That's kind of the point though, isn't it? K's boss points out how easy it is to forget that K is in the end a machine and not a man. Ultimately the lines between human and inhuman are blurred as we see countless replicants showcasing actual humanity and aspirations. You can't wipe that away with code. He found some bees there, didn't he? and if you assume Deckard's a replicant it makes sense as to why he'd survive the radiation.
  14. there shouldn't be a sequel at all. i want more of the world since it's so compelling but it's perfect as is
  15. The messianic undertones were present in the first movie? biblical imagery is an often present undertone to cyber punk and dystopian sci-fi.