Watch, Watched, Watching: Watching Severance and working for Lumon

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

55 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Also Tim Burton, like Zack Snyder., didn't give a crap that Batman's not supposed to kill.

Nolan's Batman kills as well. 

Honestly young Bats is the best version of him when he's figuring shit out and not completely cynical. That's why I've always said Batman Beyond would be a great thing for a studio to try.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Nah, he's just easy for writers to be lazy about. 

Well that's why I referenced Superman For All Seasons. That's a really touching story. But you're right in that they often write him in a very lazy way. Like with Bats, a complicated coming of age Superman story is far more interesting than a CGI porn movie. 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Nolan's Batman kills as well. 

I think we've had this discussion on here before (or at least I have), and while yes you can nitpick in certain instances, Nolan takes great pains in all three movies to demonstrate Batman at least tries not to "break his one rule."  That's fundamentally different than Burton's Batman.

[polishgenius]

43 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Well that's why I referenced Superman For All Seasons. That's a really touching story.

Yeah I only read it recently somehow. It rocks.

Have you ever read Superman: Red and Blue? From a few years ago, an anthology collection. The gimmick is the art, which is dominated by, well, red and blue, but there's some really great stories in there. A bunch of writers basically given free reign to write mostly character-led shorts about him. None of them are long, and a lot are fairly puffy, but a few gems in there. 

 

 

I like the more mythical Supermen like All-Star or Kingdom Come, too, though. I mean, All-Star Supes isn't deep, but he sparks joy. Whereas Kingdom Come is the example of Superman driven over a line, but, unlike most attempts at that (Injustice cough cough), without turning him into some edgelord and still keeping him actually Superman underneath it. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I think we've had this discussion on here before (or at least I have), and while yes you can nitpick in certain instances, Nolan takes great pains in all three movies to demonstrate Batman at least tries not to "break his one rule."  That's fundamentally different than Burton's Batman.

Sure, but not long after the Joker taunts him he does break his rule and at times he lets people die instead of saving them. IIRC from the handful of comics I've read he does that a number of times as a loophole.

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

Yeah I only read it recently somehow. It rocks.

Have you ever read Superman: Red and Blue? From a few years ago, an anthology collection. The gimmick is the art, which is dominated by, well, red and blue, but there's some really great stories in there. A bunch of writers basically given free reign to write mostly character-led shorts about him. None of them are long, and a lot are fairly puffy, but a few gems in there. 

I like the more mythical Supermen like All-Star or Kingdom Come, too, though. I mean, All-Star Supes isn't deep, but he sparks joy. Whereas Kingdom Come is the example of Superman driven over a line, but, unlike most attempts at that (Injustice cough cough), without turning him into some edgelord and still keeping him actually Superman underneath it. 

I did read All-Star, but that's the only other Superman comic I've checked out. Like I said before I just don't find him to be that interesting of a character. He just comes off as not having much of an arc. That's why I used the DBZ comparison. Goku is the same from beginning to end whereas Vegeta is a rollercoaster. The latter is more impressive and entertaining. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Sure, but not long after the Joker taunts him he does break his rule

I mean, if you're referring to Dent he does that to save a kid.  I think that's a reasonable exception.  But sure, he lets Ra's die.

[Kalbear]

Superman doesn't need an arc. As stated elsewhere, Superman is a crazy fantasy about a person who has virtually unlimited power and is not corrupted by it. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, if you're referring to Dent he does that to save a kid.  I think that's a reasonable exception.  But sure, he lets Ra's die.

He also more or less kills Bane. Obviously he's no Deadpool, but in each film he does basically kill someone. Nolan's films just do a much better job of limiting the body count while looking into his philosophy. 

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Superman doesn't need an arc. As stated elsewhere, Superman is a crazy fantasy about a person who has virtually unlimited power and is not corrupted by it. 

Which is why he's boring IMO. 

[Jace, Extat]

So there's this cartoon on Prime Video called Hazbin Hotel. 

I firmly recommend. 

It's about the princess of hell, Lucifer's daughter. She's started a hotel where she attempts to rehabilitate sinners and get them into heaven, to help with hell's overcrowding problem. 

It's just delightful! It's like a Disney cartoon, lots of singing and looking for the good in people... But in hell.

The concept alone, bravo I say. And the execution is delightful. Y'all should check it out.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Which is why he's boring IMO. 

I tend to agree, but that's pretty much a big part of his story. You need to show him be tempted by things and turn them down, and the drama is his heart wanting to go against his duties and morals. The morals always win, but it should always be hard as hell for us to see that.

Conversely there's also value in Superman having to deal with threats he can't actually punch through. That makes the power level a lot more like Goku and whatnot, but Superman being clever is also kind of cool at times. 

I mean, Batman doesn't really have any arcs or changes either. He is unyielding and unchanging. I don't see why he's particularly more interesting other than he has better villains. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I tend to agree, but that's pretty much a big part of his story. You need to show him be tempted by things and turn them down, and the drama is his heart wanting to go against his duties and morals. The morals always win, but it should always be hard as hell for us to see that.

Conversely there's also value in Superman having to deal with threats he can't actually punch through. That makes the power level a lot more like Goku and whatnot, but Superman being clever is also kind of cool at times. 

This is why younger Superman is more interesting. He still ends up sticking to his morals, but still has youthful flaws. As an adult he's almost always true to his moral center unless someone can control his mind.

Honestly for me the best depiction of Superman on screen isn't even in a Superman movie, it's in Kill Bill 2 when Bill says Superman is his favorite character and uses his mythology as an analogy and contrasts him with other superheroes, and even in his story he says it's not a great comic. 

Quote

I mean, Batman doesn't really have any arcs or changes either. He is unyielding and unchanging. I don't see why he's particularly more interesting other than he has better villains. 

Eh, Lex Luther is on par with The Joker and Two Face. Batman just has so many more good B level villains. 

And Batman does have more of an arc. It's not the biggest one depending on which version of his story is told, but it's not basically a flat line which is largely what Superman is. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

He also more or less kills Bane.

Selina kills Bane.

[TheLastWolf]

The only realistic depiction of Superman is Homelander and probably OmniMan too

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Selina kills Bane.

You're right, but Batman does break his mask which I thought effectively means he's dead and tells Bane he has his permission to die. 

IIRC the no killing policy was more tied to the older comics and I do believe he would let people die, unlike say how he saved The Joker. I could be wrong though. 

Superman kills a fuck ton of people in the movies lol, so he's no saint either. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[Argonath Diver]

13 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

 

Were any of you goofy kids actually old enough to remember 1989? 

Yeah, it's not a modern CBM. The world is a bit penny arcade; the action is a bit stiff by modern standards; it doesn't really take its world seriously (in later films at least). but trust me, that thing went off like an atom bomb back in the day. 

I'll tell ya this for nothing: Everything I just wrote could easily apply to Donner's Superman. But Burton's Batman ages a hell of a lot better than Donner's Superman does. And I loved that film.

First of all I adore Road House as I mentioned several pages ago! I don't mind DMC hating on it, I just wanted to point out that it's just as corny and stupid as its literal contemporary, Tim Burton's first Batman. Which I also adore. I have an atrocious memory, but I was 8 when Batman came out and I absolutely remember my buddy Rick's mom taking us to that in the theater (my own mom would not have approved) and it was fucking awesome. 

[Heartofice]

I must have been about 10 when Burton Batman came out. It’s hard to really capture just how much hype there was for that movie. I had all the T-shirts and merch. The Batman tshirt was maybe THE clothing item to own as a boy back then.

But then I watched the movie. 
 

Even then I knew something was off. The script is really wierd, i just remember it being very disjointed, people talking in soundbytes rather than sentences. I came out feeling pretty disappointed and never felt the need to watch it again, which is weird given how often I would rewatch movies. 
 

Probably doesn’t help that I read The Killing Joke before I saw the movie, and a similar story where the Burton take comes off much worse. 
 

I appreciate the Burton style a lot nowadays and what he did was really interesting and noteworthy. I probably before Batman returns these days but I will never love those movies.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Wasn’t that Batman film responsible for kick starting the whole dark, gritty superhero film tone? I can admire that of the film atleast. 

[Veltigar]

Needed some diversion yesterday and made the faithful decision to go watch Anyone but you. I was not expecting much, so I was genuinely surprised by how good this film was. I had a truly awesome time watching it and it just made me wish Hollywood was still making this type of midbudget romcom at the same pace as they did in the 1990s. 

There was so much I liked, that it's kind of hard to determine where to begin. First, I thought the film was really cleverly plotted. It's loosely based on Much Ado About Nothing, which I did not know going in, and like other great modern updates of Shakespeare (Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, She's All That) it just works.

It's a testament to the Bard's skills that his story can still feel this fresh after all those centuries. That being said, of course the screenwriters themselves deserve a lot of credit. They really did an excellent job crafting great jokes, weaving in references to Shakespeare and their plotting was also superb. Really effective set-ups and very satisfying pay-offs, sometimes even when I was not expecting it, which is rare. 

Second, the cast was terrific. They were all having so much fun. I was particularly taken in by their acting-within-acting fake performances, which just made me crackle with joy. The chemistry between the two leads was also off the chart. You really need that in a good romcom, it is not enough for both of them to look great individually, you really need to be rooting for the couple-to-be for a film like this to work. 

Of course, that's not to say that our two leads didn't also look great individually. I said it before, when Glen Powell first caught my attention in Top Gun: Maverick, but that guy has movie star written all over him. Sydney Sweeney on the other hand is quite a discovery. I have a friend who's a great admirer of hers, but I never saw her act in anything before. Based on this film alone I frankly get the appeal. She's not only stunning, but her acting was legitimately great here. Definitely someone to watch out for in the future!

Third, I loved the setting. I have a great fondness for Sydney, Australia and Australians, so it was really lovely to see a film set there. The writers lovingly took the piss out of the place (the obsession with their coffee, the exaggerated lingo), but it definitely came from a place of real warmth, so full marks on that front.

Fourth, I thought all the non-Shakespearean references were great as well. Lots of call-backs to the 1990s, early 2000s and all deftly employed to poke fun at the genre:

Spoiler

I loved how Bea's father was Dermot Mulroney, who is romcom royalty after starring 1997s My Best Friend's Wedding. That casting was definitely deliberate and I wish they'd do that more often.

The jokes on behalf of how cringy Titanic is and how only people who are really in love could get over the stupidity of re-enacting it. Such a great observation. We've all been there.

The use of Unwritten, which is one of those basic white girl songs everyone adores and that was long overdue a spoof.

There is probably a lot more. Like Gata wearing a cap that makes me think of Ash Ketchum from Pokémon, which I think was also deliberate.

There were also two minor points of criticism to be levelled at the film, although I do think these two points are a bit endemic to the genre and this film handled them better than most:

Spoiler

1. As per the usual, if they had just talked everything out as adults, none of the conflict in this film would have happened. Still, this is pretty much always the case, so you can't blame the film for not doing a massive paradigm shift there.

2. One obvious reference for this film, which is perhaps even stronger than its links with other Shakespeare updates, are the great string of British romcom films by Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Nothing Hill and About Time).

Just like in those films, it seems that romance can only be an upper class pursuit. Everyone in this film is loaded (big mansions and apartments, no worries about tuition fees, expensive wardrobes, yachts and a destination wedding at the other side of the world), which I can accept, but it does sometimes make me wonder whether there is not a director out there who could make a more working class version of this story.

Still, it's not as egregious as a Richard Curtis film, mainly due to two reasons. One, not everyone is pasty white. If you are going to give us an unrealistic wealth fantasy, than the least it can do is reflect the diversity in today's society. Particularly because on the level of the super rich, I think there is genuinely a lot more racial equality than we would think (see for example the Ambani wedding in India recently). Second, at least the film jokes about it. Glen Powell's Ben cracks a few jokes about Goldman and the endemic drug use there which I thought were particularly funny. I know enough finance bros to appreciate the skewering.

All in all, this film was definitely something I would recommend, and will surely watch again in the future.

Edited March 28 by Veltigar

[Darryk]

12 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Eh, Lex Luther is on par with The Joker and Two Face. Batman just has so many more good B level villains. 

I don't think anyone's on par with the Joker.

And no one's ever portrayed Lex Luthor as well as Heath Ledger portrays the Joker in The Dark Knight.