• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Rate the last movie you saw

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Damage said:
A-BISCOTTO.jpg
Click to expand...
Would you prefer drunk-Gour?

Stfu bitch! Mofo asked for a answer and got one. Get off my dick!









Is that better, Damage? :chuckles:
 
Finally watched Man of Steel.

Actually thought it was pretty good, but did have some troubles with it.

Didn't like how Lois Lane figured him out and tracked him down to id superman. I guess that is more reasonable than the hey Clark looks like Superman if he would just take off those glasses, and why does Clark always disappear whenever Superman is around? It seems more plausible, just not based on the comics I remember.

I couldn't care less about the whole Superman breaking the guys neck thing that everyone else was bitching about. Seemed reasonable and conflicting to him.

About to watch Die Hard 5, I kind of hope he kicks it in this one. Why do terrorists that have nothing to do with each other all hate this guy so much? How many cousins do these guys have?
 
Purple Vein said:
Finally watched Man of Steel.

Actually thought it was pretty good, but did have some troubles with it.

Didn't like how Lois Lane figured him out and tracked him down to id superman. I guess that is more reasonable than the hey Clark looks like Superman if he would just take off those glasses, and why does Clark always disappear whenever Superman is around? It seems more plausible, just not based on the comics I remember.

I couldn't care less about the whole Superman breaking the guys neck thing that everyone else was bitching about. Seemed reasonable and conflicting to him.
Click to expand...

Lots of folks used the bolded statement to complain about Superman killing Zod.. But I've seen 1940's era Superman who wasn't a demigod, kill plenty of people. The later incarnation of Superman did in fact purposely kill Zod and Faora. So while I do understand how it conflicts with the more recent view of Superman as a Christlike figure, I can kinda understand why Nolan/Snyder did it as it holds to their darker portrayal.

The problem is that they just didn't do it well (was hastily setup), and that left many to say "he didn't have to kill him." Superman was in control of the situation, had Zod by the neck. If he could break is neck, surely he could've turned it away from those people.

Also, the massive amount of destruction in Metropolis really begs the question, how many people really died in this movie? Seemed like thousands.

But yeah, I loved the movie, regardless. This version of Superman who is a savior of mankind should not have killed Zod, but it's still a great movie.

p.s.
AFAIK, Batman in Nolan's Dark Knight specifically avoids killing, but Superman doesn't... Which I find strange. To me, Batman would certainly kill before Superman would, and has substantially greater reasons to do so. Killing for Batman might not only be justifiable but necessary for his survival; whereas you'd be hard pressed indeed to find a similar situation (outside of Doomsday) where Superman would need to resort to killing.
 
Just to chime in on the ScarJo hate-train... It hurt me, spiritually, when I read how cunty she was on the previous page..

esq-scarlett-johansson-SWA07-xln.jpg


Guys saying ScarJo isn't hot just might be gay. No offense...


And let's just keep it real for a bit. Has she had plastic surgery? Sure, plenty. Boobs, nose, face, lips, the nine. Is she a bitch? I totally believe it. Is she hot? Very fucking much so, yes...

Would I fuck? No doubt.
 
WGAF about Spiderman and Batman?

When are they going to make Captain Planet into a movie?
 
gourimoko said:
Lots of folks used the bolded statement to complain about Superman killing Zod.. But I've seen 1940's era Superman who wasn't a demigod, kill plenty of people. The later incarnation of Superman did in fact purposely kill Zod and Faora. So while I do understand how it conflicts with the more recent view of Superman as a Christlike figure, I can kinda understand why Nolan/Snyder did it as it holds to their darker portrayal.

The problem is that they just didn't do it well (was hastily setup), and that left many to say "he didn't have to kill him." Superman was in control of the situation, had Zod by the neck. If he could break is neck, surely he could've turned it away from those people.

Also, the massive amount of destruction in Metropolis really begs the question, how many people really died in this movie? Seemed like thousands.

But yeah, I loved the movie, regardless. This version of Superman who is a savior of mankind should not have killed Zod, but it's still a great movie.

p.s.
AFAIK, Batman in Nolan's Dark Knight specifically avoids killing, but Superman doesn't... Which I find strange. To me, Batman would certainly kill before Superman would, and has substantially greater reasons to do so. Killing for Batman might not only be justifiable but necessary for his survival; whereas you'd be hard pressed indeed to find a similar situation (outside of Doomsday) where Superman would need to resort to killing.
Click to expand...

I read a lot of comics as a kid. (Personal favorite I'd the Onslaught series).

And I wholeheartedly agree with you. Superman did kill people. If anything Batman was the guy who wouldn't kill anyone due to a higher moral code.

I really don't see this 'Christ like' figure people made him out to be in the film. He just wanted to be normal and helpful. His dad also kept reiterating that there were things more important than others lives (his secret identity for instance). So his 'moral code' to me stems from the regret of not saving his father. All Kal wanted to do was save people. But the only thing endangering people were 1) aaccidents/natural disasters/etc or 2) bad criminals. The criminals of earth were human so he never had to kill anyone to protect others.

In that final scene he had to. The problem I had was that they never really centered on why he was disturbed. Was he upset he killed the last of his species? Was he sad that he could no longer revive his lost race with the codex? Was he sad because he had to knowingly kill someone? Was he sad because he felt that he was abusing his power being judge/jury/exocutioner?

My guess is the latter. He knows with his power killing is a slippery slope. The idea of being Christ like isn't his goal... His goal is to not become like Zod. And for that to happen, there can be no chinks in the armor persay. But this is more of Batman's ideal than Superman's, so I wasn't sure where they were going with it.
 
cafemerald said:
I read a lot of comics as a kid. (Personal favorite I'd the Onslaught series).

And I wholeheartedly agree with you. Superman did kill people. If anything Batman was the guy who wouldn't kill anyone due to a higher moral code.

I really don't see this 'Christ like' figure people made him out to be in the film. He just wanted to be normal and helpful. His dad also kept reiterating that there were things more important than others lives (his secret identity for instance). So his 'moral code' to me stems from the regret of not saving his father. All Kal wanted to do was save people. But the only thing endangering people were 1) aaccidents/natural disasters/etc or 2) bad criminals. The criminals of earth were human so he never had to kill anyone to protect others.

In that final scene he had to. The problem I had was that they never really centered on why he was disturbed. Was he upset he killed the last of his species? Was he sad that he could no longer revive his lost race with the codex? Was he sad because he had to knowingly kill someone? Was he sad because he felt that he was abusing his power being judge/jury/exocutioner?

My guess is the latter. He knows with his power killing is a slippery slope. The idea of being Christ like isn't his goal... His goal is to not become like Zod. And for that to happen, there can be no chinks in the armor persay. But this is more of Batman's ideal than Superman's, so I wasn't sure where they were going with it.
Click to expand...

The ties with him being projected as a messiah were more visually provided than being integrated into the dialogue, at least in my opinion. When he was talking to the priest in the church, there was a prolonged shot of him 'confessing' while his background was a stained-glass portrait of Jesus. I thought it was too obvious the first time I saw the movie. He corrected the people of his age (33, same age as Christ when he 'sacrificed' himself on the cross) when he was being interrogated by Lois Lane prior to surrendering himself to Zod. The awesome shot -floating in air - when he was about to turn himself in was 'glorious' if I were to describe it. I may have missed a few though.
 
Yeah. I can see that. I just don't see how that fits in with the DC universe. Superman is known to go rouge quite a bit. That's why he gave Batman Kryptonite. He trusts Batman's morality more than his. He may not agree with Batman, but he understands his human perspective is more representative of the ideals of man than he could ever understand being alien. There are numerous accounts of Superman being falible. Almost too many to count to be honest.

It's just so weird that they chose that perspective. I really liked the movie, but it doesn't fit well with the DC universe. It fits more with public perception I guess...
 
cafemerald said:
Yeah. I can see that. I just don't see how that fits in with the DC universe. Superman is known to go rouge quite a bit. There are numerous accounts of Superman being falible. Almost too many to count to be honest.

It's just so weird that they chose that perspective. I really liked the movie, but it doesn't fit well with the DC universe. It fits more with public perception I guess...
Click to expand...

Cafemerald, if you go back and look at Superman's 1940's comics, we find that Superman was originally designed as a messianic figure who was based on Samson of the Torah. In fact, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster designed Superman to be the savior of the Jews being persecuted in Nazi Germany. This was the original intent of Superman. But his origins are based on a hoshposh of New and Old Testament mythology; just think about it.

He is the only begotten son of someone who lives in stars, his parents are (were) named Mary and Joseph, and he has superhuman qualities, including an impeccable sense of right and wrong. At least, at the time he was purity incarnate, but at the same time, he was vulnerable to the machinations of man. Taking Trinitarianism out of the equation, it makes perfect sense that Jesus could resemble a Jewish (and gnostic Christian) Messiah.

However, after the Code of Comics era began, World War II ended bringing with it an end to the Golden Age of Comics; Superman's qualities changed with the times. The parallels between the audiences messiah, Christ, and Superman were undeniable. Writers began to mold Superman along those lines, making him not only Christlike, but godlike.

The final culmination of this transition from man to God was probably with the Richard Donner Superman movie. His take on Superman was admittedly based on Jesus Christ; in fact, you could argue that Superman is the Messiah. From top to bottom the Donner movies tell a religious, spiritual story about both the virtue and depravity of man, through the lens of Christianity and Superman mythos.

Afterwards, and for the last 36 years, Superman has been an analogy of Christ in most of the public view as well as canonically. Bryan Singer, Christopher Nolan, and Zach Snyder all directly drew from this, making it even more pronounced as Lionheart has pointed out.

That's why so many people took exception to him not only killing Zod, but letting so many people seemingly die. It doesn't fit with the entire Superman image.

cafemerald said:
That's why he gave Batman Kryptonite. He trusts Batman's morality more than his. He may not agree with Batman, but he understands his human perspective is more representative of the ideals of man than he could ever understand being alien.
Click to expand...

But that isn't how it happens in the comics. In the late 1980's, Superman gave Batman a Kryptonite ring that Lex Luthor had been keeping because he knew that he could be brainwashed and manipulated. It wasn't a question of morality as much as a question of checks and balances. Superman giving Batman the means to destroy him was a complete act of selflessness, a demonstration of a willingness to end his own life for the sake of a people that aren't even his own. A sacrifice he would make again and again. It seems almost obvious that Batman would have never made the same exchange preferring his judgement of right and wrong over anyone elses.

In fact, I don't think Batman has superior morality to Superman, or even close to it. Batman is a clinically insane individual who has a warped sense of justice based around his own personal demons. He is psychologically no different than the villains he puts away in Arkham. So there is a fundamental difference here.

But I think what causes confusion are the many instances where DC has allowed writers to take creative license with the characters and storylines for a particular miniseries. This has resulted in characters like Superman, who may have simply run out of stories to tell, being used in ways that his original creators would never have intended. Superman going nuts and wreaking havoc, while canon, doesn't really fit his personality and it's almost always explained away as some form of exterior manipulation outside of his control.
 
Thanks for the info. Most of my DC background comes from the animated series. The only superman comics I read were after Superman's death and resurrection (ha, another Jesus parallel). I stopped shortly after because superman was electricity. He literally changed to electricity.

I'm a marvel man for sure, specifically x-men with a focus on gambit and wolverine. So my DC history is splotchey at best. The animated series definitely put a twist on things culminating in the Batman/Superman full length feature with Brainiac as the protagonist. The justice league was pretty solid, but that seems to be another different facet of the universe. Batman Beyond is by far my favorite DC production with the Batman Animated series extremely close behind.
 
So I just watched Battleship again. I enjoyed it. It's got some pretty good comedy scenes. Awesome action scenes. The lead actor (the guy who played John Carter) is pretty good in that reluctant hero/ unlikely hero role.
Peter Berg probably should have chose a better name for the movie besides Battleship. Naming it after a board game was a terrible idea. Beacon would have been better IMO. the name of the program that called the aliens to Hawaii.
The movie comes across as a Navy recruitment film. Which is fine. It's original and it was cool seeing the destroyers and modern technology compared to the battleship.

Like I said. I enjoyed it. It was fun and entertaining. If you haven't seen it before give it a shot. Based off of my expectations and enjoyment of the film I'll give it a solid 9. The movie was great at what they wanted to do. Fun action movie with Navy ties and comedic relief.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Y0oX0xiwOv8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top