Remove ads

Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2

ZerbanDaGreat said:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So have you sworn some vow to treat discussion of art using the language of art with hostility, or...?

LGear said:
And what is at the center of that Walkman? The mixtape. I imagine they simply had the Walkman shown off as the thing being crushed because it better meshed with the scene in question, instead of having to zoom in directly to the mixtape which would then seem quite heavy-handed. Unlike still art, movies can have entirely different ways of focusing on something.



The unfortunate thing is that this happens all the time in real life, since love is not immutable nor unchanging, and nor is it a binary state where you either have it or you don't. As mentioned earlier, you can love someone deeply and still hurt them, in ways physical or emotional. He felt love, but the moment it clashed with his goal, he set that aside so he can proceed with his calling and proceeded to take the necessary steps to prevent the things that stop him from reaching his goal. This is hardly romanticizing the torturer/murderer, it just frames the motivation in an unfortunate human failing, something that Ego unfortunately cannot see.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Under this sort of interpretation, the transmission of the Bluesmobile is the central focus of every scene in a car in Blues Brothers.

This is, in fact, romanticizing physical abuse and murder. Describing torturing someone to death over a period of seven or eight years as "set that aside so he can proceed with his calling and proceeded to take the necessary steps" is romanticizing the torture and murder.

The Imperator said:
I can love someone and still have a part of me that tries to think "logically", if you want to call it that, that thinks the emotional response that I am feeling is not the correct one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Torturing someone to death over a period of seven or eight years is loving them?
 
Bakustra said:
You seem to have real difficulties with concepts like "symbolism". A hint: when you put something as the focus of an artwork, you are making a claim about its importance.



This is the famous Velazquez painting Las Meninas. The titular characters are the focus of the painting, the ceiling fixture in the upper center is not. The Walkman is the focus of the shot where it gets crushed, the mixtape is not.



That doesn't follow. Someone doesn't have to be capable of venomous snakebites to be frightened of being bitten by a snake.

I am deeply worried about you making that description and saying "this is a person that loves and is capable of love."



"In cold blood" means premeditated. Ego killed Meredith through a means that would take years and would leave her in extreme pain and suffering throughout. I would suggest that this fits both definitions!

I think there's something very bad about stretching the definition of love to included torturing someone to death out of the possibility that they might mildly inconvenience you, or romanticizing the torturer/murderer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1. The audience understands that crushing a Walkman will crush the tape inside it. They are not idiots like you seem to think. The audience understands that the mixtape is inside the fucking Walkman.
2. No, "In Cold Blood" does not mean Premeditated. It means, and I quote, "In a ruthless and unfeeling manner." Since Ego did not kill Meredith in an unfeeling manner, and in fact was deeply saddened by the act, He did not murder her in cold blood
 
Jcogginsa said:
1. The audience understands that crushing a Walkman will crush the tape inside it. They are not idiots like you seem to think. The audience understands that the mixtape is inside the fucking Walkman.
2. No, "In Cold Blood" does not mean Premeditated. It means, and I quote, "In a ruthless and unfeeling manner." Since Ego did not kill Meredith in an unfeeling manner, and in fact was deeply saddened by the act, He did not murder her in cold blood
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're arguing against something that has never been said.

Cold Blood - FindLaw
 
Who the fuck doesn't understand a container being crushed crushes the stuff inside the container? That's what I'm trying to figure out. In a children's' movie do they have to explicitly show a villain's splattered corpse after they fall off a cliff?
 
Guys guys guys, can't we all just stop this foolish argument and just agree that we are all groot? Or at the very least that Yondu shall always remain in our hearts as the greatest Mary Poppins of all time?
 
Bakustra said:
Are you aware that the movie Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is, in fact, a movie, and that they could, if they so chose, have emphasized the mixtape instead of the player in that shot, such as by having Ego crushing the tape outside of the player, or having the player be torn apart so that we could see the tape get crushed directly, or having the perspective of the shot be from within the Walkman itself, or any number of ways to put the emphasis on the tape and not the tape player?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

oh my god who the hell cares
 
If Ego loved her so much why didn't he just take her with him?

If I, a human being, were to horribly murder an intimate partner in a slow and painful way for briefly delaying my life plans, would anyone reasonably accept my claims of having loved my victim, much less accept that my love spurred my murderous intent?

The man had options for dealing with Meredith that weren't horrifically lethal, and he jumped straight to murdering her slowly in front of their child.

That's not really the behaviour of someone who loves someone else. To be clear, I don't actually accept the idea that abusive individuals who badly hurt or kill their victims love them. Doubly so if the abuser decides to murder because their victim because said victim inconvenienced them
for a brief span of time.

This isn't touchingly tragic. This is the sort of thing done by totally unsympathetic douchecanoes who, were they human, would at minimum need to be contained away from society and more potential victims.

Instead, the perpetrator is an ageless space cancer who wants to kill the universe, so blowing him away is possibly one of the least controversial decisions ever made by a character in the medium of film.
 
Last edited:
I feel Ego..."loved" her. Like, heavy emphasis on the quotations. I feel that he was starting to feel something resembling genuine emotion and affection towards her, to the point that if he continued seeing her he probably would have given up his ambitions...but he's an Assasaurus Rex so he went "Oh no, genuine emotion? Screw that, kill it at the source before it gets annoying!" He recognized the patterns of falling in love and ceased it before he could fall for it. I think he technically had the potential to grow out of being complete scum, but he didn't, so here we are with him being complete scum. The potential for "love" maaay have been there, but he made the decision that he did, and...well, clearly it didn't work out for him in the long run.

Also since I never gave thoughts on this here, loved the movie. Debating which I prefer between this and the original, they're both very close for me and both among my favorite Marvel films. Ego being an actually pretty good villain helps a LOT, and even if he's not the best ever, having a solid antagonist really does go a long way in making the conflicts more interesting here. A side-by-side between him and Ronan really shows the importance of a solid antagonist, I think. But yeah, really great movie, enjoyed the heck out of it.
 
Is it weird that I felt some sympathy for the Sovereign?
Sure they're a bit thin-skinned but they sure got poked pretty hard!

Also, as a Person of Interest fan, I'm compelled to ask, if we are all Groot, does that mean Root is Groot?
 
I don't really see a problem with the idea that Ego truly loved Meredith, but believed his supposed duty was more important.

It's not justifying his actions (even apart from the fact that his "duty" was killing everyone in the universe) to say that he loved her.

He's still a horrible murderous bastard. It does add something of a tragic component to it, that he could have walked away from his duty and found happiness another way, but abandoned that in favor of his goal. But. even though it's tragic, it almost makes him even worse than if he'd just seduced her to impregnate her and use her child to end the world. He was willing to throw away genuine happiness and kill someone he truly cared for all for the goal of... murdering everyone and creating more of himself, even when his reasons for embracing that goal (loneliness) had already been made invalid if he had just thought it through a bit more.

He loved Meredith, but he's an immature creature who found a purpose in life, and then refused to abandon it.

It's okay to acknowledge that his choice was unfortunate, that he might have been redeemed if he moved along the other path and embraced that growing love in his heart instead of destroying it. But he didn't, and he murdered a good person for the sake of an even worse objective.

By the time of the movie's timeline, (or even the moment he first blasted her with cancer) killing him was very much the right thing to do, no ambiguity about it, he made his choice.
 
Sir Bill said:
I don't really see a problem with the idea that Ego truly loved Meredith, but believed his supposed duty was more important.

It's not justifying his actions (even apart from the fact that his "duty" was killing everyone in the universe) to say that he loved her.

He's still a horrible murderous bastard. It does add something of a tragic component to it, that he could have walked away from his duty and found happiness another way, but abandoned that in favor of his goal. But. even though it's tragic, it almost makes him even worse than if he'd just seduced her to impregnate her and use her child to end the world. He was willing to throw away genuine happiness and kill someone he truly cared for all for the goal of... murdering everyone and creating more of himself, even when his reasons for embracing that goal (loneliness) had already been made invalid if he had just thought it through a bit more.

He loved Meredith, but he's an immature creature who found a purpose in life, and then refused to abandon it.

It's okay to acknowledge that his choice was unfortunate, that he might have been redeemed if he moved along the other path and embraced that growing love in his heart instead of destroying it. But he didn't, and he murdered a good person for the sake of an even worse objective.

By the time of the movie's timeline, (or even the moment he first blasted her with cancer) killing him was very much the right thing to do, no ambiguity about it, he made his choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
100% agree.
 
Is it a bad sign that I have no trouble reconciling "I loved her more than any other being in this world" and "So therefore I had to kill her"?

Have I seen too many yandere and other similar characters over the years?
 
I wished the final fight had been written to feel more a team effort then feeling Quill being solo.

Developing Kraglin and Nebula was cool.

Making Ayesha a villain and not a flying a brick instead of a hero was interesting. I wonder if she might be portrayed more heroically later considering GOTG1 Nebula is more heroic this film. She and the Sovereign have legit reasons to dislike the Guardians and Rocket, and though they are arrogant and immature, they never really do anything wrong or unprovoked.

Overall I liked it.

Also, Gamora in the comics has stats like the Hulk along with skill.

In this film she shows off durability, strong, and healing sometimes.
Like lifting and firing a massive cannon.

Though in this film and other times, MCU Gamora seems to have issues, like issues lifting the relatively light Peter Quill instead of just being able to toss him onto the extraction ship.

The meta explanation is probably because the actor IRL cannot lift Quill's actor that easily, and they didn't want to spend effects money and time making Gamora seem to be more strongly effortlessly lifting Peter.
 
sapphirenebula said:
I wished the final fight had been written to feel more a team effort then feeling Quill being solo.

Developing Kraglin and Nebula was cool.

Making Ayesha a villain and not a flying a brick instead of a hero was interesting. I wonder if she might be portrayed more heroically later considering GOTG1 Nebula is more heroic this film. She and the Sovereign have legit reasons to dislike the Guardians and Rocket, and though they are arrogant and immature, they never really do anything wrong or unprovoked.

Overall I liked it.

Also, Gamora in the comics has stats like the Hulk along with skill.

In this film she shows off durability, strong, and healing sometimes.
Like lifting and firing a massive cannon.

Though in this film and other times, MCU Gamora seems to have issues, like issues lifting the relatively light Peter Quill instead of just being able to toss him onto the extraction ship.

The meta explanation is probably because the actor IRL cannot lift Quill's actor that easily, and they didn't want to spend effects money and time making Gamora seem to be more strongly effortlessly lifting Peter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's also the problem that super strength doesn't always translate well into reality.

Here's an example - let's say that you drop something and it rolls under your car. You, having super strength and not really paying attention, grab part of the car's frame and lift to get at whatever it was you dropped. The catch is that the car's frame isn't designed to take force applied that way. It is supposed to be resting on the ground through gravity. It is not supposed to be having the weight of the car being lifted by a relatively small area. Depending on the car your actions could warp the frame, tear whatever piece you just grabbed off the car entirely, crack the paint, or leave unsightly fingerprints on the paint job. (Go wash your hands!)

End result is that you have to be careful with super strength - and Gamora cannot use her full strength for fear of injuring Quill on accident. So how much of the effort is actual effort and how much of it is Gamora trying to remember how not to break Quill?
 
That's why when people DO bring this up a lot of the time its hand-waved as 0-range Telekinetic lifting. I remember an example was brought up ages ago about Superman picking up a Oil Supertanker with one hand after it was sinking and flying off with it. As you said, its not designed to have hundreds of thousands of tons lifted by a single human sized hand. It would snap in half if Superman's hand didn't go straight through the hull. So the hand-wave is 'Superman isn't really picking it up with one hand, he has telekinetic powers that spread the load over the entire tanker'. How well that works and if its just bullshit so you can have cool things like Superman catching Jumbo Jets and oil tankers and not get bogged down with 'why doesn't superman snap that plane in half when he catches it by the tail'.
 
Bel said:
That's why when people DO bring this up a lot of the time its hand-waved as 0-range Telekinetic lifting. I remember an example was brought up ages ago about Superman picking up a Oil Supertanker with one hand after it was sinking and flying off with it. As you said, its not designed to have hundreds of thousands of tons lifted by a single human sized hand. It would snap in half if Superman's hand didn't go straight through the hull. So the hand-wave is 'Superman isn't really picking it up with one hand, he has telekinetic powers that spread the load over the entire tanker'. How well that works and if its just bullshit so you can have cool things like Superman catching Jumbo Jets and oil tankers and not get bogged down with 'why doesn't superman snap that plane in half when he catches it by the tail'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'course, that can't apply to the scene in Pacific Rim...

 
So, I just saw this.

Verdict: It could be a terrible film, and I would forgive it everything for making the climax resonate with Fleetwood Mac. I'm not prepared to invest any deep analysis in it right now, because the film moved me, consistently, constantly. I can't call it good. I can't call it bad. I can't judge anything right now, I'm still riding the high from seeing it. The bottom of my hands are tingling from thumping the arms of my seat to the beat of The Chain.

I suppose that's the best recommendation I can give it.
 
Nicholai said:
There's also the problem that super strength doesn't always translate well into reality.

Here's an example - let's say that you drop something and it rolls under your car. You, having super strength and not really paying attention, grab part of the car's frame and lift to get at whatever it was you dropped. The catch is that the car's frame isn't designed to take force applied that way. It is supposed to be resting on the ground through gravity. It is not supposed to be having the weight of the car being lifted by a relatively small area. Depending on the car your actions could warp the frame, tear whatever piece you just grabbed off the car entirely, crack the paint, or leave unsightly fingerprints on the paint job. (Go wash your hands!)

End result is that you have to be careful with super strength - and Gamora cannot use her full strength for fear of injuring Quill on accident. So how much of the effort is actual effort and how much of it is Gamora trying to remember how not to break Quill?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I suppose. Though this is true for a lot of series also during serious fights as well. Especially when someone with super strength fights someone else who the audience is invested in and cannot die yet, like the main villain or main hero fighting someone with super strength, speed, or other stats while being normal. It's hard to portray.

For example, in comic Terminator, a Terminator has no problem mowing through people and killing people with bare hands fast if needed.

But in main characters fight the Terminator, the Terminator picks them up and ... throws them. Doesn't kill them with a punch or rip them in half, throws them far away to give them more distance to run away. And the person is somehow fine after being thrown through a wall and healthy enough to sprint away.
Or a book series I read where a villain with normal human stats fought someone with super strength, and won due to villain determination despite being repeatedly punched in the face and said super strong person before shown snapping steel in half and crushing it, and being described as causing craters with punches.

Or super speed. X Men Days of Future Past shows Quicksilver outrun sound waves and super sonic bullets, and yet gets hit and disabled by a sonic stun weapon.

The narrative needs somethings to happen some ways, sometimes.
 
I spent the entire scene where Gamora was shooting that giant gun wondering why she didn't fall over. I'll buy being strong enough to pick it up, I don't buy her being dense enough for her CoG to still be over her feet afterwards :V
 
foamy said:
I spent the entire scene where Gamora was shooting that giant gun wondering why she didn't fall over. I'll buy being strong enough to pick it up, I don't buy her being dense enough for her CoG to still be over her feet afterwards :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"It's just a really good comic book movie. I really should relax."
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top