Movie Reactions and What's New · 7:16am Aug 22nd, 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy is AWESOME! Go watch it! It's funny, action-packed awesomeness. Awesome shit! It's just awesome!
Balanced character group, mild and not so sickening 'People Aren't Bastard' message, cool villain, funny lines and sick action. Best film I've seen since CA: Winter Soldier. Marvel's on a fucking roll.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is... okay. I probably would have enjoyed it as a kid, but now it feels like they were trying too hard to make them cool again. Also, a good friend once reminded me that they are targeting Raphael again in making him do the lone angsty turtle bit. Wonder if there's a 'Raphael Always a Loner' trope around here somewhere.
I just recently watched Rorouni Kenshin: Kyoto Inferno. It's awesome to see my favorite Manga/Anime getting a respectful Live Action treatment, and it's a solid film that sets up the final Shishio Arc (which was one of the best things in the Manga and Anime series). The action scenes were great, with good comedy spaced in between (mostly by now-butt-monkey Sanosuke), and actually quite balanced with its no-kill morality.
Now, I'm not like Saito, whose morality is basically 'Evil must Die'. I'm not going to call the idea that killing people will be the right thing to do. Actually, I do not think it's the wrong thing to do either. I believe that killing a person is going to fall under burden. Morals have been taught to us as we are young, mostly to enforce societal norms of harmony between us. In an odd way, what drove people to war before is almost the same thing that is making us try and work things out in a grander scale. Countries now negotiate, allow other cultures to check on theirs, allow people to interact with each other. The idea of exposing each other to the differences will create understanding that prevents future wars pretty much shows how well we're growing as a species.
Granted, World Economy is still our surest way to prevent wars. Anyway, back to topic.
Why do I think killing is just that, a burden? Because of the complex nature of humanity. I have a very good respect for soldiers. Their job is to defend their countries from external and, at times, internal conflicts. However, there's a truth that we can't deny. Their job is to kill.
Killing, as we're taught, is a sin. In fact, it's a very bad sin. Part of the Ten Commandments, yo. A lot of cultures and religions will view killing as a bad thing as well. Yet, apparently, with Government authority, it's not. But for good reason. They are tasked to defend us.
Even an idiot can see paradox here.
I've realized long ago that the world is not simply black and white. What was taught to me as a kid will always be part of my view in life, but I realized that some acts do not fall simply on whether or not it's right or wrong. Some will argue that it's all about circumstances which will determine whether the act of killing was in the right or wrong. And you know what, I agree. A murderer who kills people he robs is an asshole that deserves punishment. A man who kills to defend his home is not, and even then, he'll be scrutinized in the circumstances, and if people think he overstepped his bounds, he'll be put to jail.
Sometimes they actually deserves it. Sometimes, no good deed goes unpunished. Society is funny like that.
Here, when you hit a kid playing on the road, and you try to call for help, the neighbors will beat your ass, and you are sent to jail. Those that beat you? They can beat you some more there. If you use a gun or a weapon (most likely the latter) to defend yourself, you'll be charged for more jail time. Even if it's the parent's fault for allowing a kid to play in the busy street.
In fact, one day, I'll comment on all the stupid traffic laws we have here. But again, I'm digressing.
Whether it was for the right reasons or not, killing will always burden a person. Some of them ignore the burden. Some of them shoulder it for the rest of their lives. The burden will always there. It's caused by our morality taught as a kid, or the realization of ending a life. Either way, if a person kills, they don't come out unscathed.
Why am I talking about this? Probably as a character study for Kenshin.
Kenshin adopts a no-kill policy after the Meiji Restoration, a policy that I think was born through his morality. I felt it was naivety. After reading the manga again, I realize he wasn't naive. He understood perfectly what the way of the sword stood for, what killing was for. He was more fearful in returning to what he was, a killer, in a more peaceful time. The burden of those he killed weighed heavily upon him, so heavy that the only way he could actually contemplate on killing someone was when they threatened to kill a baby, which he described as a miracle and a blessing of the Era.
In fact, if it wasn't for his sword, his idea of not killing would have fallen flat on his face. Of all the supernatural and fictional things of that world, it's the now-indestructible reverse-edged blade that allows him to continue his journey. Not his speed, skills, but his sword. I guess that's deliberate. He lived with the sword on one era, and is living peacefully on the next with a sword as well.
You can take out the... uh, forgot the saying.
Anyways, I think it's a good movie, and I'm glad I was able to watch it.
I'm making some progress on Changeling Roun. Not a lot to go on, as I'm kinda busy trying to put out a lot of fires. Right now, it's gas for the car. -.-. I am trying to get a job, but come on. I can't be expected to do everything.
Ah well.
Stop throwing the gas on those fires and you'll have some for the car
At its most basic level everything is black and white, but those little pieces are so mixed together it becomes gray at a distance.
2390507
But I only take 97 octane. I can't put low-quality gas on my car!
2390539
I disagree. On a basic level, there's no black and white. It's only when we started putting morality on our lives did we start distinguishing color contrasts, and the more we put, the more they blended.
But even if it's true, I believe we cannot break down everything to black and white for we cannot even define what makes something truly black or white. A limit for not being omniscient.
2390555 Truly the universe poses no alignment, has it is not human, but we has humans can not look at the universe in a way that is not human. Everything will illicit a response either good (white) or bad (black). Nothing can provoke a reaction that is not either black or white, however an event can have individual components that provoke both black, and white responses. Grey is not the absence of black and white, but the balance between them.
Yes nothing we understand is defiant, because it is limited to our understanding. If all you had to live on was a desert you couldn't build a home for fear the sands would shift. You must chose to believe the ground is solid, and then adapt when you find it is not.
I've always believed there is no grey area, but there is certainly varying degrees of black and white, possibly to an infinite amount. I believe this because every action has a consequence, and a consequence is always both good and bad in some way even if it's minuscule.
2390588
I disagree again. While it's true anything can ellicit a response, it's never black or white because good and bad are fictional aspects we invented. We will always resolve with two basic instincts : run or fight, and I can tell you, a lot of the 'good and bad' responses will fall into any of those categories. Even by responding to nonviolence will fall into those two categories (speaking out or doing gandhi is fight, not speaking out and ignore is run).
Also, is viewing the universe in a 'human way', while true, isn't the only way we view things. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to take all the different cultures of different races, or even behaviors of non humans with detached perspective. In fact, our morals have been expanded, philosophies explored because we didn't fall back on what we viewed on what was right or wrong, but went neutral to try and understand each other.
In short, we can't view things in a human (though I think sapient here works better) way because we are still unsure what that way actually is.
2390690
Odd. If it's both good or bad, that's grey, both black and white. In fact, varying degrees of both black and white fall under grey. Almost all colors fall under that actually.
Just my thoughts.
Rurouni Kenshin has been, and will always be one of my favorite series. I honestly like the manga version better than the anime that I just recently finished yesterday. It just kind of irks me that they never touched base on who Kenshin was paying respects to in that graveyard after the Shishio battle in the anime. Anyway, I like the idea of how he tries to repent his sins of killing other people for the Imperialists by saving people the same way without killing, and with a unique sword at that. I'm not sure if any other author can come up with a better way for protagonists to walk out of a battlefield without killing anyone than what the artist did for Kenshin's story.
I have to agree that it's definitely confusing and hypocrite that the government thinks they can overrule the morals of 'killing people is wrong' that we were all taught as kids because they think they're doing it 'for the right reasons.'
If that's the kind of logic they're going for, then what Hitler did during WWII can fall into that category, along with Osama Bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-Il as well.
What shocked me the most with Osama's end of terrorism from his death, is that the majority of our country cheered for it. Yes, while I do agree that what he did that caused millions of casualties is unforgivable, are we any better for resorting to the same method he used to kill so many to end him once and for all? As far I recall for what we do for someone's death in our country, we usually hold a funeral, bury or incinerate their corpses, and pay our respects to them as they move on to the afterlife. It's a very serious, sad, and quiet moment for everyone. Osama's dead? Fuck yeah! Let's get wasted! See the paradox here?
This is one of the cases where I think morals can be a big pile of bullshit.
I mean if we looked back to the early 1900s and past that, we saw same sex couples as wrong, we saw women, and african americans having the right to vote is wrong. From where we stand today, not only are we making good progress giving those rights to certain minorities, but there are so many other issues with questionable moralities, but I'm going off topic here.
Going back to the killing thing, I don't exactly agree that Saito from RK thinks killing evil people is the right thing to do, but there was something he said in the anime that was probably the same in the manga that stood out to me. I can't remember the exact words, but it was something about the government not being the one that shaped the country, but the warriors/killers doing all the dirty work that helped them pursue that goal. When you think about it, that can STILL apply with us today. The government thinks they have power over us, but WE have the power to go against it because we were the ones who practically GAVE them the authority. We went against them to gain women's and minorities' rights to vote, we're currently fighting to give same-sex couples the right to marry, and there are PLENTY of other things we can still fight for, whether we use violence or not.
In the end, I think morals were created to benefit the lives of many instead of the few, and it's constantly changing to this day. With that in mind, you could say there never was a black and white side to begin with, or different shades of them. In the end, it's just one big gray blob.
2391161
While the Anime was lacking, they did try and explore Kenshin's past with the OAV, even making another for Kenshin fighting against Enishi.
As for the whole killing thing, I agree on some of your points, but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I do not think it's hypocritical that as long as the it's government approved, killing is alright. I think it's paradoxical in a way that our society is teaching morality of killing, while soldiers or recruits will be trained to ignore it.
Killing, if we're going to put it simply, is both (by our moral standards) right and wrong depending on the circumstances surrounding it. However, I believe it's always a burden, hence why I look at it that way. For me, it would be a less of a paradox (and ultimately better) if the culture and the government established the whole 'burden' fact instead of creating moral dilemmas out of it, maybe ensure that it's something that should only be done at a last resort.
Coincidentally, I believe war is a last resort as well, so you can accuse me of just covering my bases.
The problem is, no side of the war or conflict is ever clean. America's Greatest Generation wasn't a bunch of white knights either, but they were committed to a cause, so much that it was all forgiven and they have been almost vindicated by history. If the Nazis won, we'd have a different view point.
There will be a point in time when you'll stand out against something and pick a side, because not picking one is considered morally wrong.
While you think it's off, I actually understood. Osama wasn't a soldier, or a government. It's pretty much understood, on both sides of the conflict, that soldiers will kill each other because it's their jobs. When it's over, bad blood should be minimum because there's that understanding between them. Granted, it's not perfect, but that's how it goes. It's a job, a profession.
However, this wasn't the case here. Osama deliberately targeted a civilian place, using civilian transportation no less, to cause chaos, distrust, and death. When the hunt for him came on, his tactics were to place his freedom-fighters near civilians, have them wear civilian clothing. That actually caused a lot of problems for the US Military on how to engage. Who do you target? Was this village in cahoots, or were they coerced into allowing them to use it as a place to drop bombs over their troops? Is that a spotter or a curious civilian in a truck? That in itself made the fighting longer and worse than it should have been.
Which is another fact of why the reaction was that way. The man just hid and allowed others to fight for him, only showing up when interest of him has gone down, prolonging the war/hunt. I don't understand what you mean by same methods though. The operation of killing him was cleaner than using planes to crash on top of the city he was hiding.
I've been exploring what the Founding Fathers have been saying that concerns about Democracy. They weren't too much of believers of it, actually. They were more focused on giving people power, and trying to preach that out. Democracy, hell, any type of government, will see abuse of power. It's always up to the people to stand up for whether they'll allow it or not.
It explains the way the US Constitution was lovingly written, really. It's not about government, it's about people.
2390694
We have not simply invented good and bad, these concepts have evolved with us. Our attraction to fire and aversion to snakes is instinctual. Even our language is filled with words that carry a good or bad meaning regardless of what there actual definition is. Whenever we evaluate anything we brake it down to individual elements that are good or bad, then try to strike a balance.
"Different cultures of different races" you mean human races? We have yet to encounter a culture that is not human to test our flexibility, but we often have trouble with human culture. Acceptance is not understanding. Has an example, me and my family recently watched 47 Ronin, which is based of a popular Japanese legend. In there actions the 47 Ronin disobey the emperor, and are ordered to commit ritual suicide. They do so. My mother was rather upset at that, saying they should of fled. I tried to explain to her that for the Japanese losing ones honor is worse then death, but she would not except it.
So we human beings can not view the world in a human way? I think that statement is a little flawed.
2390555 well I guess you'll just have to drown your sorrows in a molotov cocktail then
2391665
True, morals are not just simple fictions, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fiction. Good or bad, these are taught to us as young, and it's not something that has come up to us naturally.
... uh, not really. Put a baby near a fire or a snake and you'll see different reactions. Especially before the fire burns or the snake bites the poor kid. You learn to appreciate and be wary of fire. Same thing with snakes.
That's why I have try to have a dictionary. I know people sometimes use words improperly. I don't think it's good or bad, but wrong usage. Whether it's taken as good or bad depends on the person, which lends to further truth that the perception of good and bad is nothing more than preferential. In fact, it's been said that avoidance of bad words is almost the same as superstition. What is really bad about a sequence of sounds that are used to describe the world around us? Depends on the speaker and the listener.
Good and bad will depend on your view and culture. You cannot simply break down everything to two of those because, as I said, they are fictions we created. What makes something good? What makes something bad? Those are questions of preference, something that can't be measured. How can you strike a balance with something that nebulous?
Alien culture doesn't necessarily mean non-human. Globalization has widened our awareness enough that it is testing our flexibility. If we see alien cultures, I'm pretty sure you're going to see some similarity to ours.
Also, your example is wrong. Your mom didn't accept what happened, because she didn't understand it. She followed the opposite of what you just said: Acceptance is not understanding. And that's normal. Different cultures will give you different meanings of right or wrong. Thus goes back to your statement that we can break down anything as black and white. Your mom is just an example why this is not feasible.
Maybe. A more accurate statement would be that we cannot rely on viewing things in a human (sapient) way, because we have a limited understanding what makes something human (sapient). We're only aware of parts of it. As we expand and grow, we learn more about other people, other philosophies, and other moralities—what is right or wrong for them. It's a statement more on making aware that we aren't omniscient.
And there's also the fact that we're not the only living beings in the world. Can we put a human view and morality on ducks, who are considered Nature's very own rapist race? Maybe. But would the ducks care? I think not.
2391885
Yeah.
Fuck, I no money for a moltov cocktail. 
2391988 really? You can't even afford to fill an empty beer/wine bottle with gas?
That's sad, I'd hug you but I only seem to get hugged by strange people and drunks.
2391951 I thank you for having this discussion with me, it was fun and challenging, but I fear we have nothing more to gain from continuing it. I think our opines may not be to divergent (I agree with everything you said to Dudeler) and most of it was do to my frailer to clearly give my view point.
In closure I feel we differ in that you devalue individual opinion has limited and faulty, and believe in sum absolute truth beyond all of us. I however value individual opinion for it is all we truly have, and believe in a world full of contradictions and questions with no definitive answer.
2392041
Ah, it's okay. I only get hugged by cats. And it's kinda painful. Coz of claws. And some teeth. Tongue is also weird.
2392066
No worries. It's always fun discussing stuff, especially when it ends amicably. Also, I'm being in a weird mood lately, so if I offended you, I just want to make sure it wasn't done maliciously.
To close off, I don't really devalue individual opinion, but do realize that it's not always correct. Hence why it's an opinion, and why we all have it. And while I'd love to say what I say is truth, I have no real way of knowing. It's just an opinion.
2392099 My cat loved being held but didn't want others to know... just like she certainly never played with the dog.
2392111
Bah. A likely story.