"I didn't say it in anger, merely irritation."

You're gonna have to forgive us for reading what is said, not what isn't said; particularly if you're gonna go off on anyone who tries to put words in your mouth.

"You've dismissed plenty of people's views and opinions with a flick of your wrist, so don't be a hypocrite. I just happen to be more straightforward about it than you are."

Nope. That's not gonna play.

You can either argue that you were upset and said something you didn't mean that doesn't reflect your state of mind. Or you can argue that you speak your state of mind more honestly.

But just as with the "robot" accusation; you try to turn "easily irritated" into proof of sincerity, or worse yet, virtue.

"And David Cronenberg is a pretentious asshole."

"For dismissing an entire genre in one breath? Yes. Yes, he is."

Nope, not a genre. A sub-sub-sub-genre at best.

The clue is in all the plot elements required to recognize the genre.

Romance? Any time any place so long as its a love story. The unspoken requirement; the strong guy, irritating at first, leads the woman to where she needed to go but didn't know.

Sub-genres; Horror-romance, time-travel romance....

Sub-sub-genres; Vampire horror-romance. Celtic-history-time-travel-romance.

Mystery? If there's a crime to be solved and its solution is the story.

Sub-genres; amateur-detective, police-procedural, PI....

Sub-sub-genres; Little-old-lady-amateur-detective. PI-who-is-a-criminal.

The question wasn't whether Superhero movies can be entertaining, but whether they're capable of being great art.

Artists are attracted by open-ended opportunities. When formal restrictions are present ( sonet structure or cinematic/visual storytelling ) they must be loose enough to allow the content to be driven by the artist's theme and vision. When a film rises above the genre elements which make so many Westerns seem repetitive, its because the genre elements are loose enough that they can be turned into a metaphor for something relevant or meaningful.

Crime films can be. But I seriously doubt that we will see a great art film about a little old lady whose puttering about puts the murderer off-guard and allows her to collect clues that the police can't see. Its fun TV; which is why this sub-sub-genre has dozens in film and telly, and more like hundreds in the books. But the requirements are too constraining for art to be make rather than craft.

Supers are a sub-genre ( at least one generation removed ) of Sci-Fi which posits the following; Super-powers exist whose explanations have a fantasy or SF rationale. AND the people using these powers run around in idiosyncratic themed costumes which reveal their muscles. AND they feel a need to also disguise themselves as ordinary citizens if they're good and not if they're bad. AND the good and bad will be recognized as such with no moral shading in between; ( enough so that a switch in ethics requires a new name, costume &tc. ) AND the super-identity is a truer reflection of their authentic self that the civilian. AND society accepts that this is normal. AND...........

When a comix writer loosens up even one restrictive element it is remarkable enough to be THE drawing feature ( the FF don't have secret-identities, the X-Men are good guys who are feared by those they protect. )

Take away all the restrictions hobbling the artist from making art and you no longer have a recognizable superhero movie.

Restrictions are another reason why novelizations of film scripts cannot be great literature. But I suppose that there too, anyone is an *sshole for claiming that what can be a fun read cannot be art.

"Your crimes are more on the order of just being an insufferable know-it-all and a condescending prick to anyone who questions your idealistic Randian bullshit."

Meh. I don't suppose you've read much Rand.

I've tried, but for the life of me I cannot see the appeal. I've seen the interviews and have come to the conclusion that she's more of a reactionary against Russian Communism's ruination of her youth than an advocate of anything useful. In her personal life she encouraged sycophants; which doesn't speak well of her ego-security. And her "objectivism" is not a philosophy I use or cite.

But since all who are Right-anything, are conservative, are Tea-party; then I suppose its not much of a stretch to see anyone who even remotely agrees with a libertarian thought as being a Randroid. ( Which, BTW, was the slur I learned from another anti-Rand libertarian. )

The main issue I have with Rand ( and Heinlein for that matter ) is the notion that lesser people have a duty to step aside when great men enter the room. I've seen that one spouted by many; not one of whom believed that they are the lesser. It appeals to the snob who believes that others are holding them back or not recognizing genius when they see it. But its reactionary and plays into the hands of the Galileo gambit fallacy ( which is just argumentum ad populum flipped on its head. )

I've got no room for elitism or any double-standard which cannot conceive of extending to all the same ethic that one is willing to live under onesself. If that is idealism, so be it. If it attacks ageism the same way it attacks sexism and racism, so be it.

"No vast plots. That's not my bag. You know that."

And here I thought you liked Alan Moore. ;p

Dante







• ( http link ) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
[Anonymouse]