Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Kick-Ass 2: Balls To The Wall
Comments
-
-
-
-
I thought it WAS one direction and the meaning was clear .
Hit girl - who's whole life was combat , creamed herself at her 1st attraction to boys ( in a boybands are a cynical manipulation of young girls aka south parks dig at the Jonas lads kinda way )
Don't tell me anyone took that seriously !
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 10361
constitutionus wrote: »the outrage over the attempted rape thing makes me smile.
seems people dont have a problem with a woman killing two cops with an airborne lawnmower .
That would probably because statistically, police officers don't face a 1-in-4 chance of being violently assaulted with an airborne lawnmower only for any subsequent investigation to involve them being accused of voluntarily agreeing to it and then changing their mind, with the probability of a case being taken to court lying somewhere in the low double digits as a percentage, and with sentences being far more lenient than other violent assaults. Nor do police officers exist in a culture that belittles or dismisses incidences of airborne lawnmower assaults against police officers.
In the comic, I thought that the scene with Katie was badly written - a lazy allusion to better-written comics (nicking a line from a nightmare sequence in Preacher, no less) combined with ultraviolence to show how villainous D'Amic has become , without considering that a non-fatal assault has serious repercussions that the comic then failed to even acknowledge, much less examine.
I can sort of see how, at a script level, trying to frame the scene as a joke at D'Amico's expense might have worked - but there's no indication it was successful in the film. And, well, you want to be damn sure you've nailed a joke like that before you unleash it on the world, otherwise you're just another pillock making jokes at the expense of the victim of a distressingly commonplace assault that contemporary societies seem all too happy to ignore.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Throughout the scene the camera stays transfixed on the attacker while all the time we have a terrified looking woman in the background. A few different camera positions or a close up on Night Bitch as her attacker was unable to get hard would have seriously helped the scene play as comedic.
No, it really wouldn't. Not trying to be patronising, but I'm guessing you've never directed or edited? Or done any comedy work, either? Because that's just confusing editing and not funny. Why do a close-up there? What does that achieve? What story are you trying to tell with that shot? Write it in prose for me, even, accounting for the close-up. I guarantee by the time you get to that part you realise you're wrong.
The way it's shot, with the prolonged shot of The Mother****er, shows how all eyes are him and underpins how he's failing to rise to the occasion.
Whereas your way people would watch it and think, "Ha! He's having a **** to get himself up! She's watching him. Is she enjoying it? Oh she's kind of repulsed. The point is because he's ugly and she'd never do it with consent. Right, I get it. No wait, it's back to him now. He's still ****. Back to her and she's still disgusted. Yeah he could never get Nightbitch in real life. Wait he's not going to do it after all? Okay. Fair enough so. Am I meant to laugh?"
See? Just confusing and unfunny. Even if you don't agree with the morality of that scene, it tells the story it's meant to tell and got a big laugh in the packed screening I was in, so the comedic beats worked. Comedy is simple with editing, you get instant feedback from it: if it gets a big laugh from audiences, it works. That reaction alone is proof that it was edited properly.
That's what I mean: your criticism is convoluted and doesn't get to the nub of what you actual problem is. Just settle for saying you didn't enjoy it instead of making poor alternative suggestions that don't work. That's fine, you're entitled to enjoy or not enjoy what you want. Leave the reviews to the critics and the suggestions to people who understand why they do what they do. Just saying you don't enjoy it is perfectly acceptable.
0 -
No, it really wouldn't. Not trying to be patronising, but I'm guessing you've never directed or edited? Or done any comedy work, either? Because that's just confusing editing and not funny. Why do a close-up there? What does that achieve? What story are you trying to tell with that shot? Write it in prose for me, even, accounting for the close-up. I guarantee by the time you get to that part you realise you're wrong.
The way it's shot, with the prolonged shot of The Mother****er, shows how all eyes are him and underpins how he's failing to rise to the occasion.
Whereas your way people would watch it and think, "Ha! He's having a **** to get himself up! She's watching him. Is she enjoying it? Oh she's kind of repulsed. The point is because he's ugly and she'd never do it with consent. Right, I get it. No wait, it's back to him now. He's still ****. Back to her and she's still disgusted. Yeah he could never get Nightbitch in real life. Wait he's not going to do it after all? Okay. Fair enough so. Am I meant to laugh?"
See? Just confusing and unfunny. Even if you don't agree with the morality of that scene, it tells the story it's meant to tell and got a big laugh in the packed screening I was in, so the comedic beats worked. Comedy is simple with editing, you get instant feedback from it: if it gets a big laugh from audiences, it works. That reaction alone is proof that it was edited properly.
That's what I mean: your criticism is convoluted and doesn't get to the nub of what you actual problem is. Just settle for saying you didn't enjoy it instead of making poor alternative suggestions that don't work. That's fine, you're entitled to enjoy or not enjoy what you want. Leave the reviews to the critics and the suggestions to people who understand why they do what they do. Just saying you don't enjoy it is perfectly acceptable.
Actually I've directed a number of short films, edited many more and have on more than one occasion performed stand up on stage including a number of support slots in the Roisin Dub in Galway. And to get to your later point, I've written a number of reviews for various publications and been paid for them so I think I'm in a position to judge a film.
There are a dozen ways to show that scene and make it funny. By interrupting the scene to show a shot of the victim realizing that she won't be raped and achieving the upper hand you would drastically alter how it plays out and add a little comedy to it. The way the scene plays out is that we have a wannabe villain trying to get hard all the while a panicked, terrified woman sits in the background fearing the worst. It's simply not funny and the odd thing is that after reading through a few reviews just now the majority of professional critics agree with me. They found the scene distasteful and some even suggested alternate ways in which the scene could have played out in order to make it funny. You say that reaction alone is proof that it worked, well I sat in an almost full theater last night and bar one group of drunk teenagers the scene didn't play well at all.
Also just because you don't agree with someones criticism of a film or any form of art does not make that person wrong. It's obvious you enjoyed the film and found the scene perfectly acceptable and funny and that's alright. You're entitled to your opinion but you can't try and say anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Maybe it's just me but when I see a film where rape is little more than a punch line I want to see a little wit involved or at the very least see the repercussions of the act upon those involved. Night Bitch nearly suffers the most degrading act a woman can suffer and when next we see her she is laying in a hospital bed and throwing in the towel so to speak. It's one of the few moments in the film where it get interesting and tries to deal with how heroes and the real world simply don't gel. Like the rest of the film this moment is soon forgotten and next time we see Night Bitch she's out there kicking ass as if nothing happened. It just doesn't gel and is just one example of how tonally the film is all over the place.
For a much better look at superheroes in the real world I cannot recommend Super enough. It's like Kick Ass only it's intelligent, witty, charming and rather moving.
0 -
See now for somebody disagreeing with the use of rape as "little more than a punchline" (it's not - if you're arguing that then you simply still don't get the joke), I find it odd how your suggestion suggests that the victim downplays the imminent threat of rape and undermines the seriousness of the whole scene (instead of the villain undermining it himself by being a bumbling fool, which handles the morality issue on the filmmakers' part: the joke is that rapists are idiots, not that women are so bad ass they shouldn't be afraid of rape - as you suggest yourself, perhaps without realising).
I'd suggest you're having a greater struggling handling the morality of the scene than the makers did and that both critics and feminists would be seething had they watched your representation of it.
Anyway I wish you the best of luck in your filmmaking, reviewing and stand-up comedy career, as well as your luck in doing the exact things, being in the exact circumstancial scenarios and reading the exact amount of reviews that refute any argument put your way and back up your half-cooked notions (instead of just admitting that your suggestion was a bit off the mark). It's truly remarkable and entirely plausible that you managed to tick every single box put your way, so while I wish you the best of luck, I doubt you'll need it.
P.S: I'm aware of Super and have it on my to-watch list. I'll be sure to see it and judge it on its merits and not for what points of it are or aren't like Kick-Ass (again going back to an earlier point...)0 -
See now for somebody disagreeing with the use of rape as "little more than a punchline" (it's not - if you're arguing that then you simply still don't get the joke), I find it odd how your suggestion suggests that the victim downplays the imminent threat of rape and undermines the seriousness of the whole scene (instead of the villain undermining it himself by being a bumbling fool, which handles the morality issue on the filmmakers' part: the joke is that rapists are idiots, not that women are so bad ass they shouldn't be afraid of rape - as you suggest yourself, perhaps without realising).
I got the joke, it's hard not to get it given how obvious it is. I never suggest that women are so bad ass that they shouldn't fear rape, really have no idea where you are getting that from. The scene as it plays out makes the villain the center point and yes it does belittle the fact that he can't get hard but through this chucklesom minute or so there is a terrified woman in the background waiting to be violated. It's simply not funny. My suggestion was not that the victim downplays the act, not at all but more so that a laugh could have been generated if we had shown that the victim was no longer terrified. I have no issue with the rape scene, just the manner in which it played out. It simply wasn't funny and it could so easily have been if a more talented filmmaker was involved.
If the joke is that rapists are idiots then what does that say about women who have been raped? Does that imply that they are idiots because they were raped by an idiot?I'd suggest you're having a greater struggling handling the morality of the scene than the makers did and that both critics and feminists would be seething had they watched your representation of it.
You say how my suggestion would have feminists and critics seething yet the way the scene plays out on screen as is has both groups seething. The scene has played horribly with most people, not because it's a rape joke but simply because of how unfunny it is. I have no problem with the morality of the scene and am a fan of films that tackle taboo subjects, I just don't enjoy the ones that aren't entertaining.Anyway I wish you the best of luck in your filmmaking, reviewing and stand-up comedy career, as well as your luck in doing the exact things, being in the exact circumstancial scenarios and reading the exact amount of reviews that refute any argument put your way and back up your half-cooked notions (instead of just admitting that your suggestion was a bit off the mark). It's truly remarkable and entirely plausible that you managed to tick every single box put your way, so while I wish you the best of luck, I doubt you'll need it.
Again you imply that I'm the one off the mark and refuse to even consider the fact that the scene is simply not the least bit funny and somewhat offensive. I think the fact that most of the reviews out there highlight the scene and it's failings goes some way to proving that the scene simply isn't funny and doesn't work. If the scene had been well handled and genuinely funny then I would have laughed, after all I found Dogtooth to be a work of genius and cannot recommend it enough. It tackles some serious taboo issues and does so in an intelligent and comedic manner.P.S: I'm aware of Super and have it on my to-watch list. I'll be sure to see it and judge it on its merits and not for what points of it are or aren't like Kick-Ass (again going back to an earlier point...)
I judged Kick Ass 2 on it's own merits, I merely found it lacking in all departments. It's a film in search of an identity and throughout it's run time tries to be a half dozen films and fails miserably at every one. I'm trying to see where I was unfair when judging Kick Ass 2 or found it lacking for how it stood up to other films, but even that said when you judge a film such as Kick Ass 2 you are entitled to see how it holds up against similar films. Super and Kick Ass 2 both tackle similar issues and topics, one does so in a realistic and intelligent manner and manages to be both moving and funny whereas the other is just generic, unfunny and not all that interesting.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctcURFb7XE4
Advertisement