How do the dominant cultural narratives in art and mass media affect our politics?

Oh I got that just fine. It’s how it allowed him to win that is the issue. Namely by physically beating down the Elite when the movie was supposed to be about a battle of philosophies. A better movie would have actually showed the consequences of the Elite’s actions that were more severe than Superman overhearing a bunch of kids playing harmless games.

And then the movie hands Superman a deus ex machina because it can’t write its way out of the corner it put itself in. Seriously, where was this depowering technology all this time? Why didn’t Superman ever use it on Atomic Skull in their previous encounters? The movie wants Superman to win the debate but cares nothing for the logic it uses to give him that victory.

And that’s not even getting into the fight with the Elite being an unintentional validation of “might makes right” or the racial tone deafness of the Elite’s designs. Did no one really look at Coldcast and not see how offensive his look came across?

The movie doesn’t seem to know the difference between the two.

@Hodor Yeah the movie makes a pretty piss poor defense of Superman’s rule. Which is why writers should either remove it or just stop bringing it up.

Technical Pacifist has a few negative implications IMO, namely:

-It implies that fully non-lethal force...exists. There's no way to stop a determined target that does not present a non-trivial risk of killing them.

-It also has a risk of making certain tactics look more plausible than they would in real life, such as shooting guns out of people's hands. While most people know fiction from reality, it can still effect their perception somewhat.

-Moreover, it presents a moral dichotomy that simply does not reflect that actual human condition. It absolutely can be necessary to kill people, and we really aren't doing ourselves any favors pretending otherwise. As sad as it is, it's sometimes even ethical to kill children. This sucks, but anyone who is unwilling to accept it is not qualified to be a police officer, soldier, spy, or any fictional variants such as a superhero.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Or remener creating a thread about how much of pacifist chararter relies in them overwhelming the bad guys with power in order to give up.

Avatar is a good example of this, by presenting a pacifict dilema(killing the fire lord, the main villian of the series) Anag didnt really come with any solution until is back was hit and he got the avatar state, crushing Ozai like he was nothing, and when the time comes.....

he just got a power out of is ass, just like that, the narrative prove him right.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

This is another point I've made several times in the past and a point Joe Kelly brings up in the commentary. Superman's beatdown of the elite is meant to demonstrate the Elite's worldview (superheroes as sole arbiters of justice) applied to Superman and how you really don't want a unstoppable deity with no barriers judging people around the world. If it was a simple might makes right bout Superman wouldn't need the whole threatics of acting like a unhinged psychopath. He's taking the Elite's worldview to its logical conclusion and showing how the result isn't pretty.

It's a 1h and 16 minutes animated film, which comes with some natural limitations when it comes to what it can portray or not. The two most noticeable instances are the Elite and Superman's falling out being rather quick (though not proportionally to the film's screentime) and the lack of global reactions to the Elite's actions. Joe Kelly comments he wanted to add some further scenes but he just couldn't with the screentime and budget they had.

Instead, the film chooses to portray the impact of the Elite and Supes's philosophical bout through midiatic perceptions of them as a battle of hearts and minds. We see people cheering for the Elite's vigilante executions being broadcast on live tv, we see a young traumatized boy begging the Elite to outright murder a man, we see the kids drifting towards the Elite's further thoughts, we see a right wing loon tv reporter being empowered by their actions and the UN's increasing doubt about Superman. For me, that is serviceable.

I'm fairly sure it does, going by Joe Kelly's comments.

That is the nature of a one-shot story largely unconnected with the universe, stuff comes up that writers didn't use before and will never use again (though they definitely should). The depowering of the Elite comes from that. It's a shame writers didn't use it afterwards.

As for why it wasn't used on the Atomic Skull: Superman has no idea how. The only reason he is able to connoct a cure for the Elite is because he is handed the files detailing the exact nature of their anomalies earlier in the film. Without those detailed files he'd have no idea where to even start (somehting he verbally points out).

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

I was going to make a rebuttal but I feel this would just be going in circles. As you stated, this argument has been had before so maybe just agree to disagree.

So this was prompted by a conversation I had in the comic boards and it's a little awkward but here it goes; has media evolved in it's depiction of sex? Is it more positive now or is solely used in a negative sense?

Good People Have Good Sex seems to be the more common representation.

edited 30th Apr '18 9:00:01 AM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

“because by blind coincidence“

Oh, booooo!

Huh?

I use Luke Skywalker as a general sense of how I should behave as a religious person.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

. Gaon said blind coincidence in reference to Matt Murdock.

edited 1st May '18 4:06:00 AM by thatindiantroper

Pre TLJ Luke, I assume.

Disgusted, but not surprised

So I've seen debate about whether Japanese using Christian mythology in their stories is offensive thing they shouldn't do or not(I do think it has to be hard for Christian minority over there at least), but here is something else I'm wondering about:

Is using Gnostic themes offensive or not? Gnostic beliefs aren't really Christian beliefs and they are for most part dead, but they do over lap a lot with Christianity.

Gnostic beliefs are probably safer in that there are no noteworthy populations that follow it.

Personally I see nothing wrong with using it or for that matter using Christianity.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Which franchise by the way.

Notice my current profile pic while I ask it

edited 1st May '18 9:15:51 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

Well, last time I entered this thread you were discussing Wendigo and someone who is posting on this page did mention SMT But uh, let's say Neon Genesis Evangelion and every series with nun fetish, militant nuns or other religious imagery from Christianity used for whatever fictional religion

^^Mandaeism still exists. But yeah, while most of Gnostic beliefs are dead, thing is, Demiurge/Yaldabaoth and Achons have lot of overlap with Old Testament God and Angels/Demons so wouldn't any Gnostism based work be as offensive to Christians as Japanese work taking "Christian God is Evil" approach?

And on that note, is it okay for Christian or European/American write a story where demons/devils are good and angels are evil? Like, on that subject, is it more important whether writer is practicer of religion or not or whether writer is from culture where those religions are practiced when it comes to "Okay, is it okay you are writing this"

I doubt it, those concepts are separate enough from the common understanding of Christianity that i highly doubt anyone would be bothered by it.

Almost certainly, sure there might whining from the usual suspects (I.e Fundies and Moral Guardians) but I just don't think that's something that would cause undue public outcry.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

But is it really okay to ignore Fundamentalists and Moral Guardians? I mean, isn't that same as saying "We should ignore Native Americans' complaints, they are too much in minority that there isn't real public outrage", sure Christians aren't minority in America and Europe, but I'm not sure if its really okay to step on any currently living real life belief even if they are majority?

Then again, I'm not really sure why it seems people sometimes think offensive humor is okay and other times its not. I don't like South Park myself, but most people seem to think its okay for it to exist. As far as I know, shouldn't offensive stuff never exist by definition? Why it is sometimes okay to be offensive and sometimes not?

(BTW on that Wendigo debate, ye guys never really had conclusion on what is right thing to do if one person you consult tells you "You shouldn't use our beliefs" while other one tells "Yeah, thats cool, please use them". Like is right thing to do just not do anything where at least one person tells you not to?)

I do have to say that I'm happy that for most parts my fiction ideas are xeno-fiction and/or fantasy so I only have to wonder if its okay to use themes similar to real life culture stuff instead of outright real life culture stuff if I bothered to actually write my ideas down

edited 1st May '18 9:46:20 PM by SpookyMask

You probably shouldn't be trying to draw an equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and Native Americans.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Well, I was a V:TM player (a game about God creating vampires) and got all manner of shit from my fundamentalist region.

That was before I played Demon: The Fallen.

Notably, I was at the time a fundamentalist and still am theistic. There's a certain point that one has to accept even cherished beliefs can be subject to mockery or criticism or even use in storytelling.

I remember a friend of mine burned all his Changeling books.

I was like, "Is our faith so weak it's threatened by pagan fiction?"

edited 1st May '18 9:48:31 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

I'm a fan of things like Shin Megami Tensei, American Gods, Scion, Chronicles of Darkness, and The Sandman, so I lean towards "Yes, it's okay to write about religion that you aren't a part of."

Whether said writing turns out to be good or non-offensive is, of course, a different story (pun intended).

Of course it is, Religious Fundamentalism is a cancer that collectively seeks to stifle society in the name of the supremacy of its irrational beliefs. It cares nothing for diversity or progress and desires to crush anything that uses the concepts it's mindlessly built around.

It is an extremely bad idea to equivocate them with oppressed minorities like Native Americans.

Exactly this, religion is interesting and to never use religious concepts because someone is going to be offended would be a tragic waste of fascinating setting/plot potential. It simply needs to be handed carefully.

edited 1st May '18 10:09:40 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

@M84: Hmm, good point, I didn't do that on purpose, do you have an idea what would be better way to word it that carries same point I was wondering about?("Why its okay to offend certain people practicing the real life culture or religion?")

@Charles & Fourth Spartan: I'm personally more of apatheist, but personally I find fundamentalism silly(when I don't find them horrifying as they are horribly bigoted and anti-intellectual) because I don't believe most of fundamentalists actually have read through bible(or if they have, certainly not most accurate translation) even tough they claim it should be followed as close as possible <_<

Like, if I get off philosophical debate mode, I believe that if any variation of Christianity is out right wrong, its the fundamentalist variety as they treat other people really horribly which definitely isn't part of Christian teachings. I don't however know whether I have any more right to offend them and their beliefs just because I think they are in wrong. Still, even though I don't personally care if I offend fundamentalists, I don't know if I'm anymore in right about that. I didn't mean to equivocate them with Native Americans, I have general problem with articulation x-x;

edited 1st May '18 10:04:20 PM by SpookyMask

Can we maybe not call people "cancer", no matter how vile or obnoxious they might be?

edited 1st May '18 10:03:17 PM by DrunkenNordmann

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

I edited my post to attack the concept instead of the people.

Though I will point out that they're much worse then just being vile or obnoxious, they pose a very real danger that is strongly apparent when they're close to any significant amounts of power.

edited 1st May '18 10:09:20 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn