There’s a scene in one of the DC movies where a german sniper is hiding ontop of a church in a french village
Ever the pillar of restraint and decorum, Wonder Woman takes down the entire fucking church to kill this one soldier.
It’s a scene so over the top with needless destruction of a beautiful historical landmark, and you wonder what the filmmakers were trying to say with it.
This is pretty silly. Superhero movies constantly feature superheroes and supervillains causing mass property damage. Superman will be thrown through buildings. Cars will be used as throwing weapons, etc.
It’s a deliberate cinematic choice. Superheroes just flying in the sky punching each other doesn’t convey the power involved in these characters. No, if you want to portray superheroes in a way that actually feels real to people, you need to show them interacting with our ordinary world. You show them treating things we experience as solid, indestructible, and immobile as mere tissue paper.
This is just “show, don’t tell.” Sure, you could have some character verbally explain that “Superman has the strength of a million men!”, but if all you saw was Superman fighting in a cloud or an empty field, that wouldn’t really mean much. You can’t feel it. Watch Superman casually pick up a skyscraper, and suddenly your mind can actually grasp the scale of his power.
I hear you whilst defending superman in the sense that, he’s either chucked through a populated building against his will to highlight the monstrosity of his assailants, or he chucks buildings with the implication that they’re empty.
In this WW scene, it’s shown to be a populated church. It just rings odd for me w.r.t to these unwritten rules of hollywood destruction that Im hyperfixated on
Christopher Reeves’s Superman was quite upstanding tbh.
Also the Actor was quite upstanding on it’s own right, he did a lot of activism for my country (chile) to be free, he fought against Pinochet in multiple occasions, like when the regime death threatened the actors guild, he came here so all the worlds eyes would point here and shield them, and he also gave his endorsement to the Chilean democratic opposition who ended up defeating Pinochet and bringing democracy back.
In a sence, Superman defeated Pinochet and brought democracy back to chile.
she’s an immortal goddess, who shouldn’t relish in the destruction of mortals who were handed a gun at a young age and pushed to a front line for a creed they likely don’t give two actual shits about
Hollywood is fully integrated into the military-industrial complex. Inflicting disproportional damage on the population of whoever the enemy is is how The Great US Empire wages war. So that is what the population at home is meant to support. So that is what is shown to the young, easy to influence generations.
I know. It is indeed a wonder when a film like Parasite slips under their radar, and they suddenly have to scramble to make sure the director doesn’t get too direct with their messaging in their next film
They make one movie with easy to digest anti-elite themes for every dozen that promotes competition between the working class, has libertarian undertones, or otherwise reinforces the status quo. How many Hollywood heroes promote the status quo vs challenge the status quo?
Also, Parasite is a South Korean movie, which makes it even weirder. SK is way deeper in late stage capitalism than the US if you can believe it. When Samsung alone accounts for 23% of their gdp, something’s wrong.
They already had that scene three minutes earlier into the movie, and unfortunately execs think that if you repeat something then you lose interest from your audience and thus can lose shekels.
Curiously enough, “repeating plot points and previous information that can be inferred without being told” is exempted from this issue, so there we go, characters re-explaining obvious plot points at every turn.
I mean, the easy answer is all Hollywood action movies contain gratuitous destruction for the sake of visual interest.
It was honestly my first thought as a kid: “Oh my god! That guy’s food stall was completely destroyed by that car! What will he do now? Is there anyone he can call to get it replaced?”
The simpler answer is to accept cinema violence is a childish thoughtless moment anyway, and we shouldn’t compare it too much to real life. But in Gadot’s case, I suppose gratuitous destruction fits very much with her home country’s philosophy.
I think that’s the one thing they got right unfortunately, in real life armies (usually) don’t risk soldiers trying to locate and kill a sniper, they just use things like artillery, missiles, or tanks.
It’s perfect dialect, which surprises me, but after this it seems to devolve into gibberish. I can’t make too much out of it, besides French being thrown in, which for our country is, again, spot on, since we are divided bilingually.
“Veld” also means “field”. it’s such a generic name to give a town, but plausible.
I watched it just now and it’s just generic action movie slop? Do you get your panties in a twist when they destroy NYC landmarks in Avengers movies? It was just Nazis shooting at the good guys and them beating them in a fight.
This is so funny and emblematic of the way you people think. In this dumb movie, they are being shot at, and you wanted the character to not fight back because she needs to preserve the architecture? In the exact same way, you think real Jewish people should lay down and die if Palestinians get mad at them. Stunning
There’s a scene in one of the DC movies where a german sniper is hiding ontop of a church in a french village
Ever the pillar of restraint and decorum, Wonder Woman takes down the entire fucking church to kill this one soldier.
It’s a scene so over the top with needless destruction of a beautiful historical landmark, and you wonder what the filmmakers were trying to say with it.
Edit: https://youtu.be/BWuafJtMrBE&t=195
This is pretty silly. Superhero movies constantly feature superheroes and supervillains causing mass property damage. Superman will be thrown through buildings. Cars will be used as throwing weapons, etc.
It’s a deliberate cinematic choice. Superheroes just flying in the sky punching each other doesn’t convey the power involved in these characters. No, if you want to portray superheroes in a way that actually feels real to people, you need to show them interacting with our ordinary world. You show them treating things we experience as solid, indestructible, and immobile as mere tissue paper.
This is just “show, don’t tell.” Sure, you could have some character verbally explain that “Superman has the strength of a million men!”, but if all you saw was Superman fighting in a cloud or an empty field, that wouldn’t really mean much. You can’t feel it. Watch Superman casually pick up a skyscraper, and suddenly your mind can actually grasp the scale of his power.
I hear you whilst defending superman in the sense that, he’s either chucked through a populated building against his will to highlight the monstrosity of his assailants, or he chucks buildings with the implication that they’re empty.
In this WW scene, it’s shown to be a populated church. It just rings odd for me w.r.t to these unwritten rules of hollywood destruction that Im hyperfixated on
Christopher Reeves’s Superman was quite upstanding tbh.
Also the Actor was quite upstanding on it’s own right, he did a lot of activism for my country (chile) to be free, he fought against Pinochet in multiple occasions, like when the regime death threatened the actors guild, he came here so all the worlds eyes would point here and shield them, and he also gave his endorsement to the Chilean democratic opposition who ended up defeating Pinochet and bringing democracy back.
In a sence, Superman defeated Pinochet and brought democracy back to chile.
Populated by a soldier, in a war zone. This wasn’t a puppy and kitten caretaker nunnery on cute orphans visiting day.
she’s an immortal goddess, who shouldn’t relish in the destruction of mortals who were handed a gun at a young age and pushed to a front line for a creed they likely don’t give two actual shits about
Something she didn’t know at the time. Also, rather a lot of her training was in how to wage war.
Hollywood is fully integrated into the military-industrial complex. Inflicting disproportional damage on the population of whoever the enemy is is how The Great US Empire wages war. So that is what the population at home is meant to support. So that is what is shown to the young, easy to influence generations.
i mean they are the copaganda/militaryganda arm of the MIC. Transformers is pretty much all militaryganda and very little actual robots action.
it’s also one percent robot testicles
I know. It is indeed a wonder when a film like Parasite slips under their radar, and they suddenly have to scramble to make sure the director doesn’t get too direct with their messaging in their next film
They make one movie with easy to digest anti-elite themes for every dozen that promotes competition between the working class, has libertarian undertones, or otherwise reinforces the status quo. How many Hollywood heroes promote the status quo vs challenge the status quo?
Also, Parasite is a South Korean movie, which makes it even weirder. SK is way deeper in late stage capitalism than the US if you can believe it. When Samsung alone accounts for 23% of their gdp, something’s wrong.
Indeed, Hollywood make the directors of the “Wochenschau” (june 1940 to March 1945) look like kindergartners and they learned from them too.
No deeper meaning, just action.
Then put a whole battalion up there or something, make it clear that she cleared out a whole sniper nest, not just one guy
I doubt much more thought was put into this other than “hey, you know what would look cool?”
They already had that scene three minutes earlier into the movie, and unfortunately execs think that if you repeat something then you lose interest from your audience and thus can lose shekels.
Curiously enough, “repeating plot points and previous information that can be inferred without being told” is exempted from this issue, so there we go, characters re-explaining obvious plot points at every turn.
I mean, the easy answer is all Hollywood action movies contain gratuitous destruction for the sake of visual interest.
It was honestly my first thought as a kid: “Oh my god! That guy’s food stall was completely destroyed by that car! What will he do now? Is there anyone he can call to get it replaced?”
The simpler answer is to accept cinema violence is a childish thoughtless moment anyway, and we shouldn’t compare it too much to real life. But in Gadot’s case, I suppose gratuitous destruction fits very much with her home country’s philosophy.
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
But as I’m learning lately as I get settled in on Lemmy, some people here will take any opportunity to stretch things to their soapbox.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to defend myself against the accusation from a mod that I’m anti-socialist because I said the USSR wasn’t perfect.
I think that’s the one thing they got right unfortunately, in real life armies (usually) don’t risk soldiers trying to locate and kill a sniper, they just use things like artillery, missiles, or tanks.
One should not ever wonder what the writers of Wonder Woman movies were thinking.
If that one is what bothering you, consider yourself lucky and move on.
lmao the Flemish at the end caught me off guard 😂
“Edde da gezien?”
I thought it was hochdeutsch – “Hast du dass gesehen?”
If you enable the subtitles, it says Flemish.
Took another listen:
“Hebde da gezien”
“Wa is er gebeurd?”
“Hebde da gezien, wa zij gedaan heeft?”
It’s perfect dialect, which surprises me, but after this it seems to devolve into gibberish. I can’t make too much out of it, besides French being thrown in, which for our country is, again, spot on, since we are divided bilingually.
“Veld” also means “field”. it’s such a generic name to give a town, but plausible.
I watched it just now and it’s just generic action movie slop? Do you get your panties in a twist when they destroy NYC landmarks in Avengers movies? It was just Nazis shooting at the good guys and them beating them in a fight.
This is so funny and emblematic of the way you people think. In this dumb movie, they are being shot at, and you wanted the character to not fight back because she needs to preserve the architecture? In the exact same way, you think real Jewish people should lay down and die if Palestinians get mad at them. Stunning
That is a fictional movie! Hope this helps <3
Almost all movies are fictional
that’s crazy wow
“dyaaa jeee fanks bosss.”
what that mean