A while ago, I was about to write a few choice criticisms about the movie...
Jeremy Irons, who was in the movie as Alfred, actually sums up one of my criticisms about the movie here:
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/29/batman-v-superman-jeremy-irons-criticism
The movie, in and of itself, was actually a rush and literal mish-mosh of several plot lines in one movie, which was disappointing to say the least.
Some people actually hit on it, but let me go over some of the issues I had with it.
First... Lex Luthor.
The casting of Jesse Eisenberg, was, in my opinion, not a reasonable one for the movie. Not so much for his looks, but the acting or what he was directed to act for Lex Luthor in the movie.
Over all, Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey's version of Lex Luthor was much more adequate for the person, even in the really bad Superman II and IV movies for Gene Hackman.
The Eisenberg version seemed more like he was trying to mix a little of The Joker with Lex Luthor. While his Lex Luthor was condescending genius, sort of way, his sociopath take on him read a bit too much like the Joker.
Even the Animated version of Superman, voice acted by Clancy Brown and the Justice League, the Lex Luthor in that series was much more composed, even near the end of that series where he is shown to be less than sane.
Next... Plot points...
Suffice it to say, the original intent of Batman versus Superman is a plot point from one comic, "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller... Where an old Bruce Wayne becomes Batman once again, to the point he has to face off against Superman... The movie also decided to throw a few too many other things to it to 'make it exciting'.
One of those plot points is 'Injustice - Gods among men'. A scene plays out where Superman is seen as an Overlord, dispensing Justice in a nightmare that Batman has. This is literally from not only "Injustice" but also one of the Justice League stories, where the Justice League becomes Justice Lords...
Another plot point shoved into our face is the formation of the Justice League, in this case, the joining of forces with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman against a powerful foe.
Another plot point is the introduction of Doomsday and the death of Superman... Again, this is another plot point from one of the more significant events in the Superman storyline around the early 2000s.
Batman's Origin being another plot point sort of shoved in there, and tying the name of Martha Wayne to Martha Kent was a bit of a reach.
A reference to Crisis of the Infinite Earths is also included in there, where you see a brief showing of the Flash trying to tell Batman something, which made Batman almost dismiss it as being a hallucination.
Basically, too many different plot points crammed into one movie to make it exciting, but even in how it was structured, it was almost nonsensical to me, on some of the jumps in logic made on certain information.
Overall, the movie was rushed and tried too many things at once. The logic behind it all could only be masked by the action, but I think the action itself can't make the movie seem confusing and rather not as good as "Man of Steel".
Monday, May 30, 2016
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Obama's Hiroshima Apology and Social Media
So, someone posted the following:
http://www.youngcons.com/obama-says-dropping-bomb-on-hiroshima-was-evil-fiery-tweet-responds-we-owe-no-apology/
What sets me off is the fact that this is actually... INCORRECT.
The original text of Obama's speech is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html
No where in there does Obama state that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was evil.
What makes me even more annoyed... Is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
A country that is still apologizing to this day for what has happened 70+ years later, and quite possibly will still do so for years to come.
Another argument made was why should we apologize for a bomb that has killed over 100 thousand people killed between the two bombs alone in retaliation for an attack that got us into a war we were partially taking part in and killing 2,403 men, wounding 1,178. This argument grated at me where they ignored the fact that between the two nuclear bombs dropped, the number of dead is an 'equivalent' retaliation.
This is the problem with Social Media and also Social Engineering...
Social Media, and perhaps media itself, is a way to define a narrative without presenting facts.
That the use of a nuclear bomb on a city is justifiable retaliation for being attacked. That our retribution is justifiable at any cost. That we have no reason to be sorry to do what we want because our cause is right.
Sadly, this is what a terrorist or a jihadist would rationalize their belief. They should not feel sorry for doing whatever it takes, as it is retribution for hindering their agenda.
You say we don't have an agenda? You are sorely mistaken. We want our gas prices to be low, our involvement in Kuwait was part of our agenda to keep the oil from the Mid-east flowing to keep oil prices reasonable. We tolerate some of the social injustices in Saudi Arabia because it suits our agenda for Oil once again.
We still deal with China, a Communist country, and some of its social issues because said electronics you buy, are, made in China...
We all have agendas that is about our immediate comforts, but when it comes to Social Media, we all try to play out that we are 'high and mighty'. But in the end of it all, it is still following an agenda people want.
Young Conservatives hate Obama, so they spin up a Social Media snafu using people who cite information with only a one side of the coin, not the full side and misquoting a speech to suit their agenda...
In the end of it all, people should take the time to read the actual 'apology' to Japan about Hiroshima...
My take on this, while I don't believe an apology was fully necessary, is that Obama believes that we (Not just the Americans, but everyone in the world) need to remember Hiroshima for the one thing it does point to that some of us who lived our young and teenage years of the 80s feared as well as those who lived through the 50s, 60s and 70s, the fear of a nuclear war... The potential of a nuclear war is STILL there... And with other countries now developing Nuclear or Dirty Nuclear weapons, the horrors of what we have learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only cities to be have been intentionally nuked by a country.
What has been repeatedly stated, time and time again, is if we do not learn from the use of Nuclear weapons on our two only know uses of a Nuclear Weapon on actual cities and the moral implications... How are we, as human race, be able to survive when we don't accept the consequences for our actions, regardless of the reason for those actions?
http://www.youngcons.com/obama-says-dropping-bomb-on-hiroshima-was-evil-fiery-tweet-responds-we-owe-no-apology/
What sets me off is the fact that this is actually... INCORRECT.
The original text of Obama's speech is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html
No where in there does Obama state that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was evil.
What makes me even more annoyed... Is this:
Said group didn't look up the following:Hiroshima? Bataan Death March, Bangka Island Massacre, Sandakan Death March, The Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor. We owe no apology.— WeirdReport (@WeirdReport) May 26, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
A country that is still apologizing to this day for what has happened 70+ years later, and quite possibly will still do so for years to come.
Another argument made was why should we apologize for a bomb that has killed over 100 thousand people killed between the two bombs alone in retaliation for an attack that got us into a war we were partially taking part in and killing 2,403 men, wounding 1,178. This argument grated at me where they ignored the fact that between the two nuclear bombs dropped, the number of dead is an 'equivalent' retaliation.
This is the problem with Social Media and also Social Engineering...
Social Media, and perhaps media itself, is a way to define a narrative without presenting facts.
That the use of a nuclear bomb on a city is justifiable retaliation for being attacked. That our retribution is justifiable at any cost. That we have no reason to be sorry to do what we want because our cause is right.
Sadly, this is what a terrorist or a jihadist would rationalize their belief. They should not feel sorry for doing whatever it takes, as it is retribution for hindering their agenda.
You say we don't have an agenda? You are sorely mistaken. We want our gas prices to be low, our involvement in Kuwait was part of our agenda to keep the oil from the Mid-east flowing to keep oil prices reasonable. We tolerate some of the social injustices in Saudi Arabia because it suits our agenda for Oil once again.
We still deal with China, a Communist country, and some of its social issues because said electronics you buy, are, made in China...
We all have agendas that is about our immediate comforts, but when it comes to Social Media, we all try to play out that we are 'high and mighty'. But in the end of it all, it is still following an agenda people want.
Young Conservatives hate Obama, so they spin up a Social Media snafu using people who cite information with only a one side of the coin, not the full side and misquoting a speech to suit their agenda...
In the end of it all, people should take the time to read the actual 'apology' to Japan about Hiroshima...
My take on this, while I don't believe an apology was fully necessary, is that Obama believes that we (Not just the Americans, but everyone in the world) need to remember Hiroshima for the one thing it does point to that some of us who lived our young and teenage years of the 80s feared as well as those who lived through the 50s, 60s and 70s, the fear of a nuclear war... The potential of a nuclear war is STILL there... And with other countries now developing Nuclear or Dirty Nuclear weapons, the horrors of what we have learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only cities to be have been intentionally nuked by a country.
What has been repeatedly stated, time and time again, is if we do not learn from the use of Nuclear weapons on our two only know uses of a Nuclear Weapon on actual cities and the moral implications... How are we, as human race, be able to survive when we don't accept the consequences for our actions, regardless of the reason for those actions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)