Spoiler free reaction to Zack Snyder's JL: I wish the man who made this movie had made "Man of Steel" and "BvS". Maybe Snyder took to heart some of the criticism of those two movies, because tonally this is a different piece-- a paean to the power of hope and healing.
I also understand why Ray Fisher was so upset by the "restructuring" of the film (aside from his reports of abusive behavior): The major human emotional arc of this film belongs to Victor Stone, and its loss in the theatrical JL cuts the heart out of the story.
I don't know whether it was because of WB's demand for a much shorter film, and the necessity that created for reshoots to elipsize chunks of plot, which in turn rushed the CGI work, but, boy, does this "rebuilt" cut kick ass visually.
I still feel Snyder should have created a wide-screen cut but the square format didn't bother me as much as I thought it might -- I stopped noticing it fairly quickly. If @wbpictures doesn't release this to IMAX they're missing an easy money bet. This deserves a big screen.
The film *is* over-long, but given Snyder's purpose with this cut, that's simple to forgive. I imagine his preferred theatrical cut would have clocked in at 3 hours. WB's apparent insistence on a two-hour cut would have been (and was) butchery.
Overall, I can't see what WB's issues with this take could have been. It's got humor, the tone isn't as dark as either previous film, it has heart, and it's epically triumphant. If this is what Snyder was giving them they were idiots not to see what they had.
To conclude, this is the movie I wish MoS and BvS would have been. Bravo.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’ve heard some on the left worry @JoeBiden won’t be progressive enough, won’t fight back against #GOP perfidy, etc., because he’s always been a moderate. Hey. Who a President was, politically, before he becomes President, and what he “stood for”, is historically irrelevant.
Lincoln wasn’t in favor of abolition when he ran for President; he ran as a “moderate” against slavery’s expansion, not its elimination. He fought against emancipation for months until he finally came around. His opponents in the South forced him to change.
FDR ran as a fiscal, social *conservative* in 1932, promising a balanced budget and no deficits. His political party had other ideas— most New Deal legislation was a result of FDR watering down those ideas, not pushing them forward. He took bold action because he *had* to.
Comic book thread. Talking with @johnwordballoon on YouTube live yesterday, we had a “what I would do if I ran the world” conversation about the future of comic book publishing that I think is worthy of expansion. So here we go.
Background: To state the obvious, comic book publishing is in serious trouble, with a business model that almost literally has no future. Yet comic books are a source of intellectual property for exploitation in all sorts of popular media and have never have greater potential.
So, why is this? Why do comics as a storytelling form (superhero and otherwise) have such an enormous impact on popular culture but comic book publishers are struggling to survive? Why are publishers almost universally failing to succeed at actual publishing?
Even an unbiased reader of Woodward’s “Rage” would have to conclude from Trump’s verbatim interviews that the President is a complete and total moron. He’s even stupider and less coherent in private than in public. It isn’t so much shocking as deeply annoying.
Trump is often compared to the angry uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. That’s unfair to most angry uncles. Trump’s verbal tics and incessant digressions to self-aggrandizement come off like the stream of consciousness babbling of a three year old on an ice cream high.
Seriously, the term “unfit” to describe the Trump portrayed in “Rage” is generous. He isn’t just unfit to be President, he’s unfit for human society. Woodward deserves a Pulitzer just for subjecting himself to nine hours of “conversation” with this idiot.
The sins of 1920 will continue to ripple through Irish history until the country is whole again. Every self-serving move Britain makes regarding Northern Ireland comes at a high cost to the Irish people. washingtonpost.com/world/europe/b…
As an entity, Northern Ireland is a political myth, created with the same Big Power cynicism and self-interest that created Iraq, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and, later, North and South Vietnam. Outsiders created a ”reality” that didn't exist, for political purposes.
To ”protect” Northern Irish Protestants from the imaginary threat of an ”Irish Catholic” Republic of Ireland, Britain created the equally imaginary entity of Northern Ireland-- and to prevent an imaginary disenfranchisement of Protestants, de facto disenfranchised Catholics.
On a superhero comics-related note, free of political controversy, I’ve been thinking about the modern trope of first person captions replacing thought balloons and how that may undermine the narrative immediacy of story. Bear with me.
Sometime in the last couple of decades, comic book writers (and editors?j seem to have made a collective aesthetic decision to abandon thought balloons in favor of first person captions. At first glance these seem to be equal in narrative effect...but they aren’t.
A thought balloon takes place *within* the narrative action— because of its visual similarity to a speech balloon, the reader unconsciously associates the thought with the visual action, interpreting thought and action as happening simultaneously.
I haven't read the Lensmen books by E.E. "Doc" Smith since I was in my early 20s. Like, 40 years ago. Rereading then now because here we are in an actual potential fascist future and it seems about right to check out a happy-go-lucky '30s science fiction fascist version.
If you haven't read these books, I recommend you do. They're poorly written and a slog, but you'll gain a deep insight into the roots of American science fiction-- sexist, fascist, racist, and ridiculously optimistic about the potential of Engineering and Technology.
It's long been my opinion you can learn more about a cultural era by examining its low culture (pop culture) than by studying its works of "cultural significance." High culture presents what a society wants to believe; low culture shows what it actually believes.