Posts by sd-7

9

From Slate.com: Blood transfusions

by pixel in

just to share.

how i treat patients who refuse blood transfusions.

sd-7

I posted a comment on there. Interesting article.

--sd-7

39

Anyone who's seen 'Man of Steel', can we talk about SPOILER-related stuff?

by sd-7 in

if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .

okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.

so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?

Of course, the more I think about Superman killing Zod, the more I accept it as part of doing what needed to be done. I'm hopeful that maybe even in this series (and I assume there'll be sequels) that Superman will be haunted by that decision. I mean, really, Zod had it coming by that point. Obviously even this iteration of Superman doesn't kill indiscriminately. If he did, he would've led with that and arguably saved a lot more people... My understanding is that Superman usually pulls his punches, otherwise...

Wow, sounds like I've got some graphic novels to catch up on. I read mostly Batman stuff, so I'd like to read some classic Superman stories sometime, too. If I ever have money for it, that is...

But even with my significant disagreements with certain plot points, at least from the novel, I felt a sense of a really satisfying story that comes at you from interesting angles. Of course, reading the novel is different--usually movies suffer from 'the novel effect' as I like to call it, when I read the novelization before I see the movie. I always expect the cast to deliver lines a certain way, and they rarely ever do. Or the dialogue is different in a way that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I mean, I don't really want to give up 'S'--I mean 'hope'. I'll give it a chance. I think the second film should be much better. Hopefully.

Also, I'm pleased to see this thread still going. Thanks for your thoughts!

--sd-7

39

Anyone who's seen 'Man of Steel', can we talk about SPOILER-related stuff?

by sd-7 in

if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .

okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.

so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?

sd-7

"Superman and Batman" Public Enemies

Now THAT is one of my favorite comic series ever. That was back when I was reading comics regularly. I like the animated movie they did, but the comics had so many more characters in it. I always dreamed they'd make that into a movie one day, but not a 75-minute movie like what it actually turned out to be...

I did watch the 'Superman Unbound' movie recently. I wasn't all that thrilled with it, but it was okay. I'll have to watch it again, I suppose. I think my favorite of the animated movies they're doing these days (as far as Superman goes, at least) is definitely 'Superman Vs. the Elite'. Although...'Superman Doomsday', and...'Superman/Batman Apocalypse' were pretty good movies, too. (I had to go back and reread the 'Superman/Batman Apocalypse' issues after that movie--man did they make Wonder Woman and Supergirl look hot!)

Ah...now this is a fun topic. I'm glad I started it.

--sd-7

39

Anyone who's seen 'Man of Steel', can we talk about SPOILER-related stuff?

by sd-7 in

if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .

okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.

so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?

sd-7

I don't remember them showing the family surviving and I was waiting to see the camera pan back to them having survived, but... my son says that the camera did pan back, and I must have missed it. So now I am confused, lol. Perhaps someone else can weigh in on that.

Oh. (sigh) Well that's a relief. It would've been kinda stupid and pointless if Zod had killed that family anyway. I mean, then again, if you didn't want to kill Zod after all the other people he surely killed during the whole terraforming of Metropolis stuff...well, what would be the point of doing it now, really?

--sd-7

39

Anyone who's seen 'Man of Steel', can we talk about SPOILER-related stuff?

by sd-7 in

if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .

okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.

so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?

sd-7

The entire history and technology of Planet Kryptom is stored in Superman's D.N.A. of all Kryton, human beings are learning their supposed junk dna is not junk, it all has a purpose!

I wondered if maybe Brainiac was connected to that part of the plot. I do still think it's a good story, but the ending is kind of my main issue with it. I'm willing to forgive most everything else. I actually liked the suit, personally. I mean, red underwear is nice and all, but...why not try something different after 75 years, eh?

--sd-7

85

Rich people don't create jobs

by slimboyfat in

just when i was thinking i don't like ted talks, this is an excellent take on job creation and wealth distribution.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcvf8e7v1g.

sd-7

Why should poor workers pay a tax rate of 35% on their labour for example, while rich people only pay 15% on their capital gains?

Mitt Romney explained that capital gains are already taxed at corporate level, so to tax them at 35% on a personal level is to tax them twice. Not sure how that would be fair taxation. Not that I think Mitt Romney has a bit of sense, but he probably did have a point there.

--sd-7

39

Anyone who's seen 'Man of Steel', can we talk about SPOILER-related stuff?

by sd-7 in

if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .

okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.

so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?

sd-7

superman never killed indiscriminately but he killed doomsday in 93.

Now, I never read the original story there, so maybe the Super Nintendo game altered the story--I thought the Cyborg hurled Doomsday's body into deep space, because there was always a chance that Doomsday could reawaken. I mean, if Superman came back, Doomsday probably wasn't dead, either. But I guess I should read the actual comic rather than relying on a Super Nintendo game, no matter how much I may have enjoyed said game.

--sd-7

39

Anyone who's seen 'Man of Steel', can we talk about SPOILER-related stuff?

by sd-7 in

if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .

okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.

so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?

sd-7

Zod would have killed them anyway, but still... I kept waiting for the camera to pan back and show us the family still standing there, but it never did.

Wait, what?? You mean they didn't show the family surviving that???? Wow, the novel left me with the belief that he killed Zod before Zod's heat vision could reach the family. I'm just gettin' more messed up the more I hear about it...

--sd-7

39

Anyone who's seen 'Man of Steel', can we talk about SPOILER-related stuff?

by sd-7 in

if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .

okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.

so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?

sd-7

Okage--thanks for that insight. I've read some Superman comics, but not enough to be an expert. I was left disturbed by the ending. I thought he was supposed to inspire hope. How does he do that by snapping Zod's neck?

Instead of the staple of Pa Kent dying of a heart attack/not dying at all, he goes out in a pathetic attempt at plot advancement. And when he tells Clark not to use his abilities or he'd be viewed as a freak, it slandered the character of Pa Kent.

Yeah--this was a major point for me that was like...my first thought was, There is no way in hell that Clark Kent would've stood there and let his father die rather than reveal his powers. Even people who've watched 'Smallville' would've known that Clark Kent would have found a way. (As many laughably absurd, teen-soap moments as 'Smallville' had, I absolutely love the show, used to have marathons of watching it all the time.) That was a huge point where I said, whoa, this isn't like the Superman that I know.

Pa Kent would NEVER have suggested Clark let a bunch of kids die rather than reveal his powers, either. If there's one thing Jonathan Kent instilled in Clark, it's that you've got to help people if you can. You've got to do the right thing. The world's beliefs would've had to be worked out later. Of course he didn't want Clark to be a show-off about it, but saving a life was what really mattered. Jonathan would've been proud of Clark for doing that. Save a life--yes. Use super-speed to score a touchdown for the football team? No.

Man, I guess I didn't even notice that "Jenny" was--WHAT THE--a FEMALE JIMMY OLSEN????? Huh??? So that's who that was? Oh my Zod. I almost don't want to see the movie now... They could've made it Penny White and cast Angela Bassett. Why not? She can be Amanda Waller AND Perry White in the DC Movie Universe! Okay, also, it was pretty insulting, I think, to cast a British guy for SUPERMAN, THE All-American hero. I can't think of anything more illogical--wait, I can. They could've cast Samuel L. Jackson in a bad wig as Superman. "Stop, motherf-----! Or I'll snap your motherf---ing neck! STOP!" Random? Yes. Sorry.

When Superman Returns came around, I was excited. It was the first Superman movie to come out since I was born (because nobody counts Quest For Peace) and when that kid threw a piano, my heart sank and I felt like Hollywood betrayed Superman's mythos. And then Superman blatantly allowed some other guy to keep raising his bastard child and I felt so very betrayed. Other than that, it was still a good Superman movie.

What? Nobody counts Quest for Peace? Who doesn't love Nuclear Man, ha ha ha! Superman Returns gave me a headache the first time I saw it, but certainly the kid was kind of a uh...what? moment. I did enjoy Kevin Spacey's turn as Lex Luthor, and I thought Superman picking up the huge land mass was a pretty classic scene (as was him landing the airplane in the baseball field at the beginning). There were good moments there, but Superman-as-deadbeat-dad was not such a good moment. Also, after watching Superman II again, I realized how stupid 'Returns' was--Superman had just finished being away, and reassured the President at the end of Superman II that he wouldn't go away again, and then he goes away. For five years.

When the next movie comes out, there won't be a word about how killing someone was going too far. Because, you know, he'll kill the badguy in THAT movie too.

And therein lies the deathstroke to the movie's future. Just a simple change in the ending would've saved it for me, even allowing the other glaring deviations from Superman mythology. I can't see them doing another film and just ignoring this, but the fact that they did it really messes up the entire DC cosmos if they were planning to expand into Justice League or bring Batman in league with Superman. I may not know Superman, but I definitely know Batman comics. And there is no way in hell Batman will team up with a Superman who will kill. Batman would be trying to find a way to stop Superman the moment he heard the news.

...Which means....

....If they reboot Batman, he's going to kill the bad guy, too. It's the next logical step. Wonder if Tim Burton's busy...

By the way, I wouldn't say Superman in 'Man of Steel' has no code--rather, he has a code that applies only to him, apparently. Maybe they'll end the film series with him joining Darkseid and turning Earth into a New Apokolips or something, ha ha ha...

--sd-7

7

More lies and clever duplicitousness from JW.org...

by Muddy Waters in

at jw.org, on their faq page, they try to respond to this question: "do you ban certain movies, books, or songs?".

their first word: "no".. they then go on to briefly answer this question.

their final statement says: "outside the family, however, no one is authorized to ban specific films, songs, or artists as being unacceptable for members of the congregation.

sd-7

No, they don't specifically review movies, books, or songs. But they will put pictures of movies that may be similar to current popular entertainment (remember that Harry Potter-like photo years back?). For them to say that "no one is authorized to ban" stuff? Ah, but again, what's important here is what is NOT said. They may not say it's banned, but they will say 'A wise Christian does not entertain himself with films that depict violence, immorality, or spiritism.' The difference between that and banning it is very thin indeed.

Also, this sort of ignores the whole Sparlock video, doesn't it? Clearly Caleb was shown, uh, oh wait, no scriptural principle at all to explain why his toy made Jehovah sad. Only that "magic is bad and that's why Jehovah hates it." But toys can't practice magic, they're inanimate objects. The toy wasn't actually magical, unless you consider the manufacture of plastic toys to be a form of magic, what with it being beyond your accepted use of technology if it's not serving 'Kingdom interests'.

Again, it suggests that individual JWs are making their own decisions, completely autonomous of Watchtower influence or statements. It's a pattern that repeats itself often in Watchtower literature--they give you the rules and innuendos that form unstated rules, and then divorce themselves from any responsibility for it (publicly), while privately going into your bedroom and sorting through your stuff, both metaphorically and literally in some cases.

--sd-7