Eric Rosenfield's Tumblings RSS

I write stuff.

My homepage is http://www.ericrosenfield.com

May
25th
Sun
permalink
May
21st
Wed
permalink

ericrosenfield said: Alright, it's done. You owe me 1 blog post explaining why the critics are wrong and Sucker Punch isn't just a beautiful train wreck.

philsandifer:

You shall get it, good sir. (Though darn, I was hoping you’d pick The Fountain, which I’ve never really written about at any length.)

Maybe next Kickstarter. Unless by “already written about at length” you’ve already written an essay defending Sucker Punch that makes the essay I want unnecessary.

I picked Sucker Punch mostly because I can see the outline of a defense of the Fountain more easily. Sucker Punch, on the other hand, I think suffers from a lot of the same problems as Watchmen did but without that film’s source for underlying quality. In that it’s big and noisy and pretty and about as subtle as a bag of hammers and seems more interested in throwing cool things at its audience than telling a convincing story.

You have an essay to prove me wrong.

permalink
I think She-Hulk is the chick that you could fuck if you were Hulk, you know what I’m saying? … She-Hulk was the extension of the male power fantasy. So it’s like if I’m going to be this geek who becomes the Hulk then let’s create a giant green porn star that only the Hulk could fuck.

David S. Goyer, screenwriter for Man of Steel, the Dark Knight trilogy, and the upcoming Superman vs. Batman film.

Goyer’s disgusting comments say way more about him as a person than they do about She-Hulk — who is not only a lawyer but the Hulk’s cousin, for god’s sake — or about anything else.

Dudes need to stop seeing female characters as extensions of their male power fantasies.

(via superdames)

(Source: superdames, via donnerpartyofone)

permalink

ericrosenfield said: I have a hard time understanding why you love broken movies so much, meaning Sucker Punch and The Fountain. Both of them I think of as interesting but overwrought failures that don't succeed at what they set out to do and ultimately trade making very much sense for a lot of pretty flash and imagery. What am I not getting?

philsandifer:

I’m not sure that’s an answerable question as phrased. I mean, what aspects of these two movies do you find broken? Where do you find them not to succeed? What don’t you understand about them?

In rereading what I wrote I think I came off a lot more aggressive and hostile than I intended and for that I apologize. I really, really like your criticism, and I saw both those movies and didn’t like them and I’m completely in earnest trying to understand why you do.

permalink

ericrosenfield said: I have a hard time understanding why you love broken movies so much, meaning Sucker Punch and The Fountain. Both of them I think of as interesting but overwrought failures that don't succeed at what they set out to do and ultimately trade making very much sense for a lot of pretty flash and imagery. What am I not getting?

philsandifer:

I’m not sure that’s an answerable question as phrased. I mean, what aspects of these two movies do you find broken? Where do you find them not to succeed? What don’t you understand about them?

My question is a little unfair because it begs to go into a lengthy discussion of those two movies. But there’s a critical consensus of both those movies that I tend to agree with which is that they’re basically a lot of flash without enough substance. Ex: Rotten Tomatoes summary for both movies. I also remember finding both movies very confusing and not making a lot of rational sense, but seeming like they were SUPPOSED to make some kind of rational sense (that is, not simply surrealist).

And easy example: in the Fountain, Jackman’s character’s wedding ring disappears for no explainable reason. Then it reappears, again for no explainable reason, when he’s ascending up to Enlightenment or whatever that Nebula is supposed to be, that’s not really clear either. And, to me, there’s a difference between intentional ambiguity, where you’re not sure if something is one thing or another thing, and simple lack of meaning, where there’s just no real explanation for what a thing is or why it works the way it does.

As someone whose opinion I highly respect, I don’t understand why you think these movies are great and not simply broken, meaning that they’re full of parts that are intended to do a certain thing but fail to do it, works that are constructed with the seeming intention of producing some kind of meaning (that you’d come away with with a particular kind of understanding) and instead of meaning, only produce not ambiguity but confusion.

permalink

comixology:

A comiXologist Recommends:
Eric Rosenfield recommends MediaEntity #06

One of the great things about digital comics is that it gives access to works deserving of a larger audience, including works from outside the United States. MediaEntity is originally a French webcomic now available in both English and French on comiXology. Like Thrillbent, MediaEntity is created specifically for the digital medium and takes full advantage of the elliptical, filmic effects of comiXology’s Guided View Native format.

The story is about a man who is framed for making an outrageous stock trade that ruins the large financial conglomerate he works for to the tune of billions of dollars. On the run from the law, he seeks to unravel the mystery of who framed him, and encounters an underground world of shadow economies and people on the fringes of society, including a homeless man with a magical affinity for pigeons. In this latest installment, our hero has found himself kidnapped to a trailer park full of people who know more than they’re letting on, led by their mysterious ‘guide’ Camille. Meanwhile, a newspaper man desperate for a lead witnessed his abduction and thinks he can find out where he is. Somewhere between a taught crime-thriller and Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere, MediaEntity is a Guided View Native exploration of what digital comics are capable of.

[Pick up MediaEntity #06 here!]

For fans of: actionsuspense

Eric Rosenfield is an associate product manager at comiXology and has worked there since digital comics were read on tin cans and string.

I review a fascinating digital comic over at the comiXology blog.

May
15th
Thu
permalink
May
11th
Sun
permalink
May
6th
Tue
permalink

neveratendermoment:

HEY!!!

Don’t have enough guilt in your life??

You can buy some offa me or snakebomb in his store for 3 big ones! Come see what some sort of fuss might be about!

Comic for you to be buying!

May
3rd
Sat
permalink

philsandifer:

wackd:

lm-mage:

This isn’t idealism this is stupidity in the extreme.

Thinking that humanity will ever reach a period where all of our problems are magically solved simply because we have done the most basic thing of advancing forward in time or technology is idiotic. Utopia is a false dream that is made impossible by the human nature and heart- people who are cruel mean selfish and greedy will never stop existing- and as long as those people exist problems will persist in the human condition- poverty and suffering will continue.

And that’s a good thing- not to sound callous- but a utopia would be a boring world devoid of variation. Without problems to solve and battle to fight humanity would loose it’s essence of existence- life would loose it’s draw. You can’t have joy if you don’t know what sadness means, and you can’t have pleasure without an understanding of pain. A supposed world that eliminates all conflict eliminates all the things that make life interesting.

In short: Fuck anything that says Utopia is a desirable or possible state of existence.

Given that “utopia” means “an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect”, I’d postulate that if the world you’ve described doesn’t sound perfect to you, it is not a utopia.

I’d also like to point out that what you’ve just described sounds nothing like the Trek universe, which

  • actually has a fuckload of wars and atomic fallout in its backstory, thus disproving the idea that the passage of time inherently solves things,
  • solved the poverty problem through access to resources via technology rather than technology as an end in itself,
  • does still have people that are cruel mean selfish and greedy,
  • often has its characters in emotional states that are not happiness,
  • and has built its entire premise on finding new challenges for humanity to face and is often shown to still have a ways to go in medicine, technology, and exploration. 

When people argue things like “Without problems to solve and battle to fight humanity would loose it’s essence of existence- life would loose it’s draw. You can’t have joy if you don’t know what sadness means, and you can’t have pleasure without an understanding of pain. A supposed world that eliminates all conflict eliminates all the things that make life interesting,” I think it’s important to pause for a moment and take a step back.

An overwhelming majority of conflict, sadness, pain, and battle exists for the sake of creating power imbalances whereby one group of people gain at the expense of another. So it’s worth being skeptical whenever someone advocates for these things as inherent goods and asking what, exactly, they want them for. Is it because their sadness and pain are going to cause them pleasure and joy? Or is it because other people’s are?

This is not only a fair question to ask, it’s an essential one that should be asked of anybody who is arguing for the necessity of suffering: what precisely do I get out of my suffering? 

Seriously. I flat-out reject the idea that anyone should take their suffering as a default condition not to be questioned. What a horrible thing to say.

(Source: universalequalityisinevitable)