tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2862170131521435894.post1898615483970012442..comments2023-11-02T07:39:02.009-07:00Comments on Post-Modern Enlightenment: Batman, Aliens, and HollywoodUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2862170131521435894.post-67936589867000323732011-12-21T11:27:10.888-08:002011-12-21T11:27:10.888-08:00"Think about what all we know about most fant..."Think about what all we know about most fantasy. Magic is intuitive. It can't be studied. It's "beyond our understanding" (I have always, always, always hated this line, and others like it. Why? Why is it beyond studying? Because you, as an author, are too fucking lazy to sit down some ground rules and try to figure it out?) Superheroes rely on a few chosen individuals to save the world repeatedly, or to protect the status quo - somebody say Superman? These powers are isolated. They "can't be understood" in the terms of the fictional world that the author creates"<br /><br />Eh, I think you miss the mark on this one.<br /><br />While a lot of stories and authors do take this approach, just as many (if not more) present magic as something that can be taught, learned, and perfected through study. Everything from classic D&D to Harry Potter - which is all about a SCHOOL - presents magic as a hermetic tradition, with strict rules and management. There are certain others where magic is more of a plot device for something else and there's a lot of handwaving about how/why it works (Buffy/Angel take this approach), but that's mostly because it's not the critical story element.<br /><br />And as for superheroes... How a hero's powers work is a central, deep issue in pretty much every story. There's nothing hand-wavey about Superman's powers - light from a yellow sun interacts with alien cells to supercharge him. Sure, it't silly from a science standpoint, but there's no "We don't know how he does it!" about Superman, or really any notable hero I can think of.<br /><br />On the actual important point of Dark Knight Rises: I doubt it will be a cheap way to demonize the poor and the Occupy movement, for several reasons. First, I trust Nolan more than that. Second, the Occupy movement didn't exist when the script was being written. Third, the social conflict of haves and have-nots already exists in Nolan's Batman movies, and it certainly isn't directed at demonizing the poor and powerless. Ra's as a villain in the first movie was all about demonizing the poor, and was thwarted by attempts to equalize things for their world. I have a hard time seeing Nolan take such a massive turnaround.<br /><br />And, finally, while I too started with TAS and agree on the Joker, Bane was rather weakly portrayed. In the comics, Bane is far more a brilliant mastermind on top of the physical. Most other portrayals leave him as not much more than a bruiser with an off switch; I'm looking forward to seeing how Nolan/Hardy brings him to life.Buhallinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16511930871965708245noreply@blogger.com