Crazedwraith wrote:I'm not intentionally lying or ignoring your points. I'm sorry you think so.
Well, then its truly baffling how you could have so badly misinterpreted me.
I feel I must repeat the question then because obviously I am unclear. What negative effects do you think this film's message will have? Because you obviously think there are some or you wouldn't be complaining.
Unless your sole complain is 'this film sounds republican and I dissapprove of republicanism"
Well, I do think it sounds somewhat Republican based on the title and premise, though obviously I can't say weather this is actually entirely the case for the film itself (I'll be seeing it tomorrow, maybe), and I don't particularly want to see more major movies that endorse ideas that I find extremely counterproductive, illogical, and dangerous.
And no, that's not me saying that it should be banned. I can disagree with something without thinking it should be prohibited. In fact, that ability to separate personal dislike from public policy positions is one of the key cornerstones of a Democracy, in my opinion.
Beyond that, as I've pretty much already said, I think that a movie titled "Captain America: Civil War", about a war hero and icon of American patriotism engaging in a principled revolt against (from ArmourPierce's description) government oversight, could be seen as supporting Right wing anti-government extremism.
Does that mean an ordinary person is going to see this movie and become a terrorist? Of course not. But it could give a push, shall we say; exert some influence on people who already have inclinations in that direction.
But I wish to be very clear that I am not accusing the filmmakers of intending such a message. Unfortunately, its very easy for a work to have unintended implications, and for unbalanced minds to take a film's conclusions to greater extremes than its creators intended.
Meaningless nitpickery. You used the term 'far right,' I admit i conflated this with republican based on your posts here and else where.
Its not meaningless nitpickery. While I certainly consider the mainstream Republican Party to have become "far Right", the two are not entirely synonymous, and in any case neither are synonymous with violent revolt/revolutionary sentiment (yet, anyway), which is my point here.
You've made no argument of substance to bother with, If I'm mocking it's because your position is laughable.
But by all means if we want to go all SDN debate. Let's go for 'burden of proof' It is you have made the claim. Please define it: What negative impact do you think making a Civil War film will have? And then offer some actual proof that it is having that effect.
See above.
Obviously, I cannot provide examples of someone being inspired by this film to become a terrorist or something, and sincerely hope that I will never be able to do so.
I've already explained the possible parallels I see between the film and far Right ideology (though I fully acknowledge that I do not have the entire picture and therefore will not make a final judgement on the film at this time). And I'm honestly surprised if you think the claim that media can have an affect on peoples' beliefs or actions needs to be proved, because you're essentially asking me to prove the history of propaganda. I don't think leaders and organizations would have poured millions into it over millennia if it had no effect.
It was mere rhetorical embellishment. Let me simplify: You have a problem with Civil War and it's message. What do you suggest is the solution to this? Should Civil War not have been shown? Not have been made? Please tell me.
For the last time: No, I don't think it should be censored. Weather it should have been made- I have no problem with that either, although I might have preferred it, personally, if it had been done differently.
Again if Dark Knight caused actual harm undoubtedly, unlike Civil War which you say merely has the potential to cause harm. Why are you praising one and decrying the other?
Because
The Dark Knight couldn't really be seen as endorsing violence, terrorism, revolt, far Right positions, etc. I doubt that Civil War is seriously intended to either, but I trust you will recognize the difference between a film that critiques something, and one that can be seen to be at least tacitly endorsing it?
At worst, you could accuse
The Dark Knight of glamourizing vigilantism, but no more than any typical superhero film inherently does. In fact, you could make a fairly strong case that its a deconstruction of the "heroic vigilante" mythos, as its clear that Batman only exists because Gotham is horribly dysfunctional, his ultimate goal is to make the city a place that no longer needs him, and there's that whole theme of "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
If not censorship, what do you want done about Civil War?
I don't want anything "done about" it beyond discussing and debating it like any other topic.
At most, if I found it really offensive, I would advise people not to see it, but I'm not prepared to go that far based on the information I have at this time. And if I'm being honest, I'd probably see it anyway for completenesses sake, because I've been following the MCU basically from the beginning, and I find it extremely interesting as a former film student, because I don't believe a shared world on this scale has ever been attempted before in film.
That article just says that other people compared him to the joker and Holmes is aware of it. Not that Holmes was inspired by The Dark Knight.
Here you go:
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-i ... 58016.html
So you make judgement on a film's content and message based on the tile and previews and when I try out that that's not the message the film has suddenly I'm the one who's being an idiot?
You can't judge a film on a message that you've imagine in your head and it doesn't fucking have.
I admit I may have jumped the gun a bit in response to ArmourPierce's post.
I have already said that while their are elements of the film I find concerning, I will not offer a final judgement on the film until I have seen it. I probably wouldn't even be continuing this debate at this point if you weren't basically demanding that I do so.
I take great offense at your describing me as being outraged in something that doesn't exist, when you're the guy claiming the film's a validation of far-right politics and is going to encourage... something. Not sure what because you sure as hell won't just spit it out.
Well, if you don't think I'm advocating censorship of the film, why the fuck do you keep harping on that point?
I'm sorry if you find my points unclear, but they're not particularly unclear to me, and I've repeatedly tried to explain them.
Bottom line: What negative effects do you think this film has/might have based on the concept? And can you in anyway prove it?
See above.
You can use the same word in different contexts with different meanings. My use of social is referring to society in general on a grander scale which is represented by their governing body. You remind me of people getting all huffy that people use 'in theory' in colloquial communication in one dimension rather than the academic scientific definition of a 'theory'.
