44 KiB
[SPOILERS] Doctor Strange is the anti-rational movie (and I hate it)
-
Author: u/CouteauBleu We are the Empire.*
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/5as909/spoilers_doctor_strange_is_the_antirational_movie/
-
Score: 71
-
Created: 2016-11-02T20:13:43
Post:
The good guys win at the end, the bad guys lose, the Obi-Wan figure dies, the Earth isn't actually destroyed, and the guy with blood coming out of his eyes is, to everyone's surprise, actually evil. There, I spoiled the movie, now you can read this critique.
I think we can all think of tons of irrational tropes, and movies with tons of those, at the top of our heads. Doctor Strange is more than that. Doctor Strange is what would happen if you took a director, told them too make the least rational movie possible (which is prooooobably not unrelated to what happened), and then gave them all the special effects. Like, all of them. So, what we have is a gorgeous movie, using 3D to its fullest, and a nice Marvel movie plot with good action and funny jokes... and I sort of hate it.
Let's start with our protagonist, Doctor Stephen Strange. Two years ago (holy shit time flies) our fine Mr Yudkowsky wrote a guide to writing non-clichéd intelligent characters. Dr Strange feels like someone read this guide, and decided to make a character by doing everything the guide tells you to avoid. The man travels all over the world, spends his every last dollar to find the only organization that has a chance of healing his hands... and blows them off almost immediately when he finds them because he doesn't believe their methods. He knows that they have already cured one guy whose injuries where supposed to be beyond medecine's ability to fix, and yet he instantly dismisses them. I wouldn't have done that, Harry JPEV wouldn't have done that. We would have shut our big mouths, and tried to understand what was going on. Ask at least a few questions before insulting and shoving around the only people in the world who might save our hands.
Doctor Strange is clearly not Level 1 smart. He is Level Hollywood smart: he knows lots of science, he's quirky and arrogant, people call him "Doctor", he learns magic really fast off-screen, so clearly we must infer that he's smart. Except we never see him do anything smart. He uses a forbidden spell without even checking the chapter for potential warnings, he has a chat with the trapped bad guy even though he knows his minions might come back at any time, etc.
Which is really symptomatic of how science is treated in the whole movie: as one of several bags of tricks you can draw from when you feel like it. First you draw from the bag "acupuncture", then the bag "herbal medicine", then the bag "radiography, Hollywood defibrillator and internet connection" (but not "guns", for some reason). You never see anyone using something resembling epistemology the whole movie. Doctor Strange never stops to wonder why he previously thought acupuncture was a pseudo-science, when it apparently gives consistently good results. The moral 'dilemma' between the Ancient One and Evil Guy is essentially a matter of "do you side with the Monks tribe or the Evil ex-monks tribe?", and the characters never wonder "Hmm, I wonder what would be the probable consequences of either decisions", or ask Evil Guy "What makes you think Dormammu is actually going to follow through his promises if you feed him the entire world?". I could go on for a while, but at this point it feels like I'm going through a checklist; basically every irrational trope is in this movie.
In conclusion, I'm kind of waiting for EY to write a witty, absurd, irreverent one-chapter fanfic deconstructing this movie now. :p But REALLY THIS MOVIE IS THE WORST.
EDIT: As comments pointed out, I'm being very mean to a decent Marvel movie. I'm aware of that: this post was mostly me venting out of frustration. Again, the movie is pretty good, with amazing visual effects and okay movie stuff (dialogues/acting/sets/whatever). The writing is still annoys me a bit: it's not dumb by action movie standards, but it feels anti-rational and anti-epistemological in a way that irks me.
import std::disclaimer::this_is_my_opinion_and_nothing_more
Comments:
u/Terkala [+89] (an hour later)
Many of your problems with dr strange come from the fact that his backstory was locked in stone back in 1963. He isn't supposed to be a rational or believable character. He is supposed to represent a complex relationship between ability and hubris.
He is a talented character, brought low by his hubris. He travels the world, seeking to fix his problem without atoning for his sins. Only when he is truly humble does the world allow him to live up to his real potential. And whenever he becomes overly full of himself, he loses his powers and aids chaos, as a way of the universe punishing him for hubris.
It's an Aesop's fable. Not a modern, rational piece of fiction.
u/RMcD94 [+3] (3 months later)
Didn't ever really seem that humble though
u/Terkala [+2] (3 months later)
I'm using the definition of the word "to have a low estimate of his personal importance". He doesn't ever think he has no important skills, but his transformation moment comes when he stops thinking of himself as intrinsically "better" than other people. Such as going out of his way to help those most in need, without regarding them as beneath him.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (3 months later)
When exactly, I host watched the movie and I don't remember feeling any change of personality. I guess the only change was his treatment of the girl
u/Terkala [+1] (3 months later)
The movie was trying to be gradual about it. First tracking down the kid with the watch. Then helping out the beggar on the street. Then helping the girl. Then learning with the kung-fu-sorceress.
u/RMcD94 [+3] (3 months later)
Wait what? What kid with a watch what beggar?
u/Terkala [+1] (3 months later)
The kid he helps in the tent, who is blind and he helps him see. He gives him his $5 watch and forgets about him. And that kid later leads him to go back to tibet.
And the beggar on the steps outside of the temple, who he shoes off at first, but later humbles himself by becoming a beggar himself in the same spot.
It's a pretty subtle thing, the movie doesn't really beat you over the head about it. It's just present as a running theme over the first 50% of the movie.
u/RMcD94 [+5] (3 months later)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Neither of those scenes were in the movie I watched
There's no kids on imbd either
He never goes to Tibet either
u/LordSwedish [+27] Q Continuum (18 hours later)
Personally I liked the movie and while there were some annoying things I mainly thought it was rational enough for a hollywood movie.
and blows them off almost immediately when he finds them because he doesn't believe their methods.
He came there because it was the only lead he had left and it was the only thing he cared about. He accepts whatever mysticism bullshit they have going on and figures it's a cover for an experimental procedure because the idea that it's actually mysticism is highly unlikely. They then get patronising and start showing him random things (it really should be noted that they never say what parts of acupuncture or whatever work, just that they are based on something that actually does work) and tell him that this guy who had severe nerve damage basically learned to walk with a placebo.
This is like someone trying to save their company from financial collapse and then their colleague comes in and says they can get a bailout if they squeeze a rubber duck and jump in a circle. Sure, if Strange wasn't so arrogant he probably would have said something like "well can you prove it?" but he would have been expecting them not to.
Anyway, Swinton shunts his astral body because she's probably used to people having the perfectly logical reaction of disbelieving her and his first thought isn't "oh clearly this proves everything" but instead he assumes he was drugged because that's how these things are typically done. Here is where it's completely proven that magic is actually real and everything he ever knew was a lie and as soon as it happens he accepts it and asks to be taught like a rational person would.
As for him learning to use magic we skip past him learning all the minutia where he reads thousands of pages learning to focus his mind because the movie would have been awful if that wasn't the case.
His character is shown to be arrogant and headstrong time and time again and that's fine because as long as their flaw isn't "stupidity" any flaw can be present in a basically rational character. This is why he just tries out the awesome time manipulation that he just saw because he didn't see any warnings as they come in the end.
He chats with the guy who was completely trapped because he assumes that the minions would already be back if they could. It turns out that he dropped his gate-maker-thing in the desert without noticing so one of the minions finds it after a while.
The defib thing was annoying, the "death is good" was annoying, and how they brushed past some of the "you were born for magic" stuff was annoying. With that said, the evil ex-monks, Swinton, and Mordo all had good points as to why the others were untrustworthy or wrong. The ex-monks argument was based on the fact that Swinton had used Dormammu as a power source for centuries and since she keeps everyone else from doing the same thing it calls everything she says about him into question.
Overall, not a rational movie but certainly no less rational than the absolute majority of hollywood movies.
u/Xtraordinaire [+27] Team Glimglam (49 minutes later)
So... No more dumb than any other big hollywood movie, right?
u/LupoCani [+39] (2 hours later)
Actually, it sort of is worse. Glossing over important questions is Hollywood's M.O. There's magic, but no one thinks to ask the implications for technology, physics and science in general? That's a Tuesday over there.
Strange, however, asks the questions and then proceeds to utterly mess up answering them. Meeting the Ancient One, the typical Hollywood character would have said something about magic not being real, and then been shown magic, and then boggled at how small-minded they were. A rationalist protagonist would have explained how we're made of matter, the idea of a soul is silly, the universe doesn't care, and asked to be proven wrong.
Strange finds the anti-golden mean. He goes off on a rant about the universe being material and uncaring, just as articulate and sensible as a rationalist, but then proceeds to hold on to this idea religously, relenting only after being mentally thrown across the universe and back.
The Ancient One wasn't being aloof or myserious, she was perfectly willing to explain slowly and clearly to a modern, thinking, questioning person. It was the perfect setup for a rational story, where the protagonist doesn't have to wade through swamps of dogma and vaguely-described mechanics. The stage was set for an intelligent conversation in way you rarely, if ever see in movies, and he had to barge in there with a caricature of reason instead of the real thing.
So yes, it is more dumb than most Hollywood movies. Those are just stupid through and through. This one sets the stage perfectly for the rationalist, and then goes out of its way be dumb.
u/tweaker20 [+29] (12 hours later)
I found it totally in character that a desperate, embittered, and hopelessly cynical Strange wouldn't rationally break apart those outlandish ideas, but instead launch straight into a tirade about the uncaring nature of the universe, a worldview which is totally a projection of his own issues and despairs.
u/LupoCani [+18] (a day later)
I never said it was out of character, only that it was actively unpleasant to watch. I suppose you could say that's the point, but when it's unpleasant for reasons the movie proceeds to not care about, I don't think that's very valid.
u/CouteauBleu [+8] We are the Empire. (2 days later)
I think you nailed it.
Dr Strange behaving irrationally in that scene was perfectly consistent with what we'd seen of him so far, but it still annoyed me. Plus, he doesn't actually become more rational after that, he just switches from the "Science" tribe to the "Magic! (with defibrillators and weird wifi passwords)" tribe.
u/CouteauBleu [+11] We are the Empire. (2 hours later)
Yeah, this movie has a lot of moments where you feel something clever and sensible is about to happen, then it slaps you in the face and mocks you for expecting it to be smart.
For instance, in one scene Strange asks the bad guy "If you are really benevolent, why did you kill people?" That was the perfect setup for a brutal utilitarian response, "I'll kill millions of people if it's what I need to destroy Time and Death! They don't matter compared to the billions, the trillions of people I will save!"; instead we get a callback to Dr Strange's earlier nihilism, "I killed them because they don't matter and they're specks of dust in an uncaring universe.", which is really just a convoluted way of saying "I'm evil and and I don't care about killing people" while sneering at utilitarianism.
u/Anderkent [+22] (4 hours later)
Huh? His line was perfect; it communicated the same notion of a sacrifice of a short life to get everyone else the eternal one; but it did it in a witty way referencing earlier dialogue.
I think you're reading way too much into those 'setups'. The movie never even attempts to take itself seriously, and the viewer is expected to pick that up. Hell, the first scene where Strange is operating while being quizzed on random songs is explicitly there to set that tone. All those setups to 'rationalist moments' are just setups for gags.
u/dynarr [+1] (2 days later)
You make it sound like The Comedy for rationalism.
u/CouteauBleu [+14] We are the Empire. (an hour later)
Well, the Captain America movies are mostly okay on that front.
This movie feels like it's actually trying (pretty hard, I might add) to be dumb. So, slightly dumber than your average big H movie.
u/TK17Studios [+21] Author of r!Animorphs: The Reckoning (8 hours later)
Quote from a FB friend: "Does it bother anyone else that when Captain America dropped that aerobridge, that bridge that gets people from the terminal to the plane, on Spider-Man, he was totally probably killing Spidey? Like, Cap hadn't met Spidey before, and had no idea how strong Spidey was. Like, obviously in a few minutes of fighting you can tell Spidey is several times stronger than the average person. That doesn't mean he'll definitely be able to hold up several tons. He's also a kid. Cap didn't know that. Was he guessing Spidey would dodge? This wasn't a justified true belief.
Like, there is a different story where Captain America totally just killed a innocent American teenager, superpowers or no, and he is going to prison. This would be a big freaking deal. This has been bugging me for several months."
u/None [+12] (a day later)
[removed]
u/thecloud2 [+13] (a day later)
Well, I can play devil's advocate for both of those scenes.
Cap vs Spidey: Cap is an extremely skilled martial artist and has just sparred against Spidey for a bit, in addition to (possibly) observing him in action for quite a while (e.g. artfully dodging flying cars). Spidey seems to be physically superior to Cap in agility and maybe in strength, if not skill, and Cap would have known that.
Thor vs Cap's shield: Why would Thor, a literal alien, be bound by Earthling morals? He's clearly from a warrior culture and has no qualms about killing his enemies in battle. And, he is still holding back both vs Cap and vs Iron Man. If he wanted either of them dead, they'd be dead.
u/MugaSofer [+4] (9 days later)
Yeah, given Thor's character arc in his film was "maybe genocide is a bad idea", I think merely trying to kill superheroes for opposing him is a pretty big step up.
u/TK17Studios [+1] Author of r!Animorphs: The Reckoning (a day later)
That's the example I posted on FB, in reply to the above. =)
u/MugaSofer [+2] (9 days later)
I haven't seen Doctor Strange, but the Captain America sequels have a similar weird anti-intellectual bent to what you seem to be describing?
I guess they're more anarchist than anti-intellectual, with the whole "superheroes can't be bound by law because law might hypothetically conflict with doing the most good" theme, but it's certainly very similar.
u/EliezerYudkowsky [+70] Godric Gryffindor (5 hours later)
...beware the temptation of forming an Internet anti-fan club where you all watch things you can hate so that you can hate them together; I wouldn't want /r/rational to turn into that. If you doubt that this is a path that has destroyed countless civilizations whose remains now litter distant galaxies, consider Donald Trump.
u/CouteauBleu [+10] We are the Empire. (20 hours later)
... Does that mean you're not going to write a witty rationalist Dr Strange parody? Well now I am sadness.
But yeah, this is not something I'd do on a regular basis. Dr Strange felt particularly aggravating at time, because the whole Agent Scully "stop taking the plot so seriously and accept that things are magical" theme sometimes felt like the movie was making fun of "me" in a mean way. But even then, I don't actually hate the movie (or only a little). I wouldn't recommend it to people who like rational stories, but I wouldn't think less of someone for liking or anything.
u/RMcD94 [+4] (2 days later)
Interesting how many "anti-fan clubs" there are and yet civilisation hasn't ended. But yes, convince people to not be anti-fan clubs by the threat of civilisation destruction.
u/ddtim [+6] (4 days later)
Hey guys, I've had an idea! First we form an anti-anti-fan club club, then...
u/holomanga [+5] (4 days later)
Eh, anthropic principle.
u/abcd_z [+5] (a day later)
If you doubt that this is a path that has destroyed countless civilizations whose remains now litter distant galaxies, consider Donald Trump.
I really hope you're not literally serious when you say that. It's a combination of hollywood xenobiology (expecting aliens on other planets to have a more-or-less human mentality) and a hefty dose of political bashing (is it honestly realistic to assume that one of the current presidential candidates would literally destroy human civilization?)
u/TennisMaster2 [+17] (a day later)
If you doubt that this is a path that has destroyed countless civilizations whose remains now litter distant galaxies
Generally, when someone starts to speak in a literary fashion, they're speaking with a hefty dose of levity. You should keep this in mind when judging the seriousness of a person's comment in the future.
u/abcd_z [+6] (a day later)
u/TennisMaster2 [+8] (a day later)
That's what I'm pointing out to you. Literary diction is such an indicator which can help you judge intent.
u/abcd_z [+6] (a day later)
Or it can be viewed as somebody who actually believes their own hyperbole. Hence, my statement that I hope he doesn't literally believe that.
u/abcd_z [+3] (a day later)
I find it interesting that while you're arguing that EY isn't being serious, somebody else in this thread is defending his statements, and both are being upvoted.
u/TennisMaster2 [+1] (a day later)
I don't really want to get involved in this. Just wanted to give you a heads up on a social norm of which you might have been unaware.
u/None [+8] (a day later)
How is not realistic to assume that a potential leader of a nation with enough nuclear weapons to easily destroy humanity might, in the right situation, destroy humanity?
u/abcd_z [+7] (a day later)
Hilary Clinton would have the same ability if elected, as does President Obama, as did George W Bush, as did the presidents before him. And yet, he specifically called out Donald Trump as being the probable ender of civilizations. Political bashing.
And I find it interesting that one person in this thread says "he's obviously not being serious" while you defend his statement, and both are being upvoted.
u/brocht [+3] (3 days later)
Well, it is possible to talk about something not really being serious, while believing there is nonetheless a small core of truth in your statements.
u/None [+8] (a day later)
[deleted]
u/fingerboxes [+10] (a day later)
He doesn't seem to take his own advice in regard to Trump.
u/abcd_z [+6] (a day later)
Try to resist getting in those good, solid digs if you can possibly avoid it.
-EY, "Politics is the Mind-Killer"
I agree. Don't feel too bad about the downvotes. EY is the golden boy here and this subreddit doesn't like hearing that the rationality emperor has no clothes (or was at least caught wearing a string-bikini).
u/CouteauBleu [+8] We are the Empire. (2 days later)
EY is the golden boy here and this subreddit doesn't like hearing that the rationality emperor has no clothes
That's a bit mean. I think I see your point, but you're kind of making it an insult and a "Don't worry, some people hate EZ too! Let's hate him together" flag.
u/abcd_z [+3] (2 days later)
I don't give a flip about EY. I strongly dislike blind hero-worship, especially on a subreddit ostensibly dedicated to rational thinking.
u/CouteauBleu [+7] We are the Empire. (2 days later)
Sure, that's not what I meant. You disliking EY or tribal behavior is not something I (or anyone on this subreddit) is going to hold against you. You can like or hate whoever you want, etc.
But you're expressing that dislike in (what I feel is) a very uncivil manner. Like, "was caught wearing a string-bikini" is a pretty mean thing to say about someone who hasn't attacked you at all.
u/abcd_z [+4] (3 days later)
The intent of that line was to imply a situation a little less embarrassing than parading around in public without any clothes (the emperor's new clothes), as well as applying a little bit of humor to the situation.
Now if I had called EY, I don't know, a mouth-breathing moron with more fanboys than common sense, then yes, that would be a direct attack on EY, and your response would be completely justified. But I didn't, and you're overreacting.
EDIT: And again, it's not dislike of a person. I dislike that pointing out that EY is going against his own advice gets downvoted because of peoples' cognitive dissonance. In other words, it's people behaving irrationally on a subreddit devoted to rational thinking.
u/DaystarEld [+1] Pokémon Professor (24 days later)
I think it's pretty possible to avoid the mind-killing aspects of politics and still think Trump is a demonstrably-more-terrible-than-usual potential President. That you seem to think having a negative opinion on Trump means throwing out all cautions against biases in politics seems unfair at best.
u/Anderkent [+19] (4 hours later)
Meh, it's fun. It's not supposed to be rational, it's supposed to have witty gags and explosions. I enjoyed it a lot.
u/RMcD94 [+10] (8 hours later)
You should post this exact comment in every single thread on this subreddit. I mean clearly everyone here, including OP, totally thought this movie was aiming to be rational and I heard there's this one guy who thought Harry Potter was meant to be rational and even wrote a whole fanfic filled with subtle (really hard to notice them) criticisms of how irrational it was!
In fact, there's a whole subreddit dedicated to them and you should probably go tell them how much you enjoyed Harry Potter because they probably didn't know that you did.
u/TennisMaster2 [+19] (8 hours later)
What are you trying to accomplish here?
u/RMcD94 [+5] (8 hours later)
Relief, worked out really well.
u/None [+12] (17 hours later)
[deleted]
u/RMcD94 [+2] (17 hours later)
I didn't comment on what most people enjoyed I'm just saying that no one disputed that people could enjoy non rational material
u/Anderkent [+5] (17 hours later)
Right, it's not like the OP literally says "But SERIOUSLY THIS MOVIE IS THE WORST.".
I think offering a dissenting opinion is valuable, and I'm not sure why you're so offended by it.
u/CouteauBleu [+7] We are the Empire. (20 hours later)
The word "seriously" was a bit of a miscommunication from me (like when people use 'literally' for emphasis). I'm not, like, furious about this movie (once I've taken my pills).
I think if you're on r/rational for the reasons I am, which may or may not be the case, the irrationality of Dr Strange is going to bother you, which might have an impact on you enjoyment of the movie. I don't know why; I did like Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy, so clearly "seriousness" is not the only thing at play, and I feel there's something these movies have (or don't have) that's missing in Dr Strange.
u/Anderkent [+2] (20 hours later)
Right, I'm not in any way saying that your review is out of place. I just feel like having a bit of signal in the comments saying "hey, I also really like rational fiction and it bothers me when a work is irrational and not aware of it, but in this case it didn't bother me because the entire thing is comedic in nature".
So yeah, I have no problem with your post, and the comment chain here is because I was just weirded out by how what I meant as "this seems to be a YMMV thing, rather than 'unwatchable piece of trash' thing" was apparently offensive enough to warrant a sarcastic takedown by /u/RMcD94.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (a day later)
I don't think it contributed anything. I thought I made it clear that his comment could easily be copy pasted on every single critical analysis ever
u/Anderkent [+3] (a day later)
Yes, but it wouldn't be; it would only be copy pasted on those that not everyone agrees with.
u/RMcD94 [-2] (a day later)
I'm sorry but you do understand that 100% of people don't agree on anything? You get that there will always be one person who enjoys a film right?
If you want to point me to a film where 100% of all humans thought it was unenjoyable I'd be curious to see the poll.
u/tokol [+2] The Greater Good (a day later)
Let's pull ourselves out of the pedant hole and do a little steelmanning here, in the spirit of good faith.
Maybe he didn't mean to refer to 100% of the things capable of holding a view when he used the word "everyone". Maybe he actually meant something more along the lines of posts with controversial opinions vs. noncontroversial opinions.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (a day later)
But why wouldn't any single individual who has a problem post the same thing?
Regardless of what "most" people think?
Also regardless of controversial of whether people think the movie should be rational or not I still think it is irrelevant. People should discuss the content of the post not say "It doesn't matter lol I liked it lol who cares lol why bother even making a thread lol it was just for jokes lol". 75% of the top four comments are basically telling the op that he shouldn't have bothered posting in not so many words. The one I've excluded probably could be thrown in there too.
It's just a sorry state when the OP wants a discussion about the rationality present in a movie and the 4 top comments are saying it isn't meant to be rational you fucking retard how could you possibly want something to be rational when it isn't meant to be you idiot.
u/tokol [+5] The Greater Good (a day later)
Okay, I think I can see your frustration here. You want to make /r/rational a better place to post and have discussions. Rereading your posts, do you think you were effective?
u/RMcD94 [+2] (a day later)
Yeah, I think people will think again when posting irrelevant comments in the future.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (18 hours later)
The op never stated that other people didn't enjoy the movie.
u/Anderkent [+9] (18 hours later)
But the implied message is "if you're on r/rational, you won't enjoy this movie". Which is what my short comment was trying to address.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (18 hours later)
Yes saying and I hate it clearly means and you will hate it.
I think if anything all you could stretch the implied line is that people who would only enjoy rational content wouldn't like it. Which your comment doesn't disagree with, you didn't say it was rational just that you liked it
u/TennisMaster2 [+4] (a day later)
It was signaling. "I'm here; I like rational content. And I liked the movie. It's okay to like both." That was the extent of both u/Anderkent's message and intent.
If every comment here had been, "This isn't rational. Negative things," then those who identify strongly with this community (which you shouldn't) would feel some social pressure to also not like or not deem the movie worthy of watching.
Their comment was a gentle reminder that it's okay to dissent.
As an aside, it's not a good idea to tackle someone who says something you think had no value, or should not have been said. Everyone will just look at you oddly and not want to talk to you.
If other people smile and give thumbs up instead of ignoring whatever that person said, then that means what that person said had value to the other people around you. If you disagree, and think they should not value what that person said, again, tackling the person is a bad idea. Rather, clearly explain why you think what they said was not valuable. In doing so, open yourself to and in advance consider compelling arguments that would change your mind. If you're not open to those arguments, then you're trying to fit everyone else in your coin purse and it's really quite stuffy in there so please stop, ow, this hurts, I can't breathe, why are you doing this to us?!
u/RMcD94 [+2] (2 days later)
All 5 of the top comments are signalling then.
Nor am I interested in this subreddit pandering to people who have Edit: not understood the most basic of rationalists tenets about tribalism, nor do I accept that anything about the rationalist community even remotely fosters the idea that there can only be rationalist content and everything else is terrible. If people feel social pressure due to tribalism to not like the movie then I don't care. I'd rather people stick to discussing the topic than signalling. If there comes a point where no one disagrees with a main topic (ie almost of the big names EY, AW, etc posts) then alright people can literally just signal, but still even then people should look at comment number 5 for examples of how to do that, not any of the other four.
As an aside, it's not a good idea to tackle someone who says something you think had no value, or should not have been said. Everyone will just look at you oddly and not want to talk to you.
People don't look at people on the internet.
Rather, clearly explain why you think what they said was not valuable.
You should be telling this to the guy who originally posted, as I mentioned in my first post I was being cathartic after seeing the fiftieth fucking signalling post instead of anything of actual bloody value.
In fact everything below the line is something you should be saying to the signallers.
u/CouteauBleu [+3] We are the Empire. (2 days later)
Reading 5+ comments that are basically variations of "I disagree with the OP" does sting a bit when you are the OP :p
That said, I don't think the several disagreeing comments are out of place. My post was a long and angry message that signaled "DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE". If you think the movie is worth being watched by the people on this subreddit, you might feel that it deserves a strong "this movie is still kinda good" signal, hence the multiple responses.
Aside from that, I agree with TennisMaster2: you could have made your point without being confrontational about it. Of course, um, you're free to communicate however you want. But being less aggressive might have helped you drive your point across. :)
u/RMcD94 [+2] (2 days later)
I do not have a problem with people disagreeing. I have a problem with people being unsubstantive about that disagreement.
u/TennisMaster2 [+1] (2 days later)
Clearly argued, and I see your point. I agree that it would be nice if even in posts in all caps reasoned discourse dominated the comments section.
The difference between simple signaling and what you did is someone is on the ground with a ouchie because you tackled them. If someone jumps around saying, "Look at me! Look at me!" you can just look away or say, "Stop, please. We're having a conversation."
This comment, for example, immediately garnered you my agreement. Much more effective than tackling, and no one has a scrape or bruise from the impact.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (2 days later)
I will agree that as a method to stop signalling my original comment might have been overly scathing. When I get triggered so to speak the rapid descent into sarcasm is difficult to avoid. Something I can improve on.
I've started to notice that people have a much more critical response to vitriolic criticism than I myself have.
u/Anderkent [+2] (2 days later)
To reinforce, if you just replied to my original comment with "your comment isn't very valuable, other people already expressed this sentiment", then I'd be like "yeah, you're probably right, it was low effort and I didn't read other comments before replying".
I guess it's my fault to get kinda tunnel-visioned on your tone; my bad.
u/None [+0] (2 days later)
[deleted]
u/Anderkent [+1] (2 days later)
???
u/TennisMaster2 [+1] (2 days later)
If you grow up with family members and friends tackling you all the time, it's normal. If not, then it's really quite distressing to be tackled seemingly without cause.
u/TK17Studios [+5] Author of r!Animorphs: The Reckoning (2 hours later)
I'm sorry for your loss. Thanks for saving me ten bucks and two hours.
u/Anderkent [+8] (4 hours later)
Did you like Deadpool? If not, you probably won't enjoy this one; if you did I'm pretty sure you will.
u/TK17Studios [+3] Author of r!Animorphs: The Reckoning (8 hours later)
Stopped Deadpool twenty minutes in.
u/TennisMaster2 [+4] (8 hours later)
May I ask why?
u/TK17Studios [+4] Author of r!Animorphs: The Reckoning (8 hours later)
It just didn't seem to be going anywhere? Like, I was looking forward to hijinks and fourth-wall breaking and general Deadpool tomfoolery, but I guess it didn't land with me the way I thought it would. I was just ... bored, twenty minutes in. I didn't hate it. Just didn't feel like continuing to watch.
Something something yet another origin story, something something cookie cutter superhero story? It didn't seem clever.
u/TennisMaster2 [+7] (13 hours later)
Hmm. The appeal is Ryan Reynolds acting well as Deadpool. If this didn't make you want to watch more, then good decision. The style of writing, humor, and acting is all in line with that scene.
u/Magnap [+1] (a day later)
Thanks, seems I'll watching it anyway, despite this review. But at least I know not to expect it to be rational.
u/None [+5] (4 days later)
The anti-rational writing intersected perfectly with a complete rejection of Sanderson's Laws to make this movie painful to watch. The rules of magic weren't internally consistent, and even where there were reliable rules, the characters failed at the most basic applications of what they HAD learned.
Seriously. Why would you RUN around a tilting, tessellating landscape fighting gravity shifts WHEN YOU ARE WEARING AN ITEM THAT ENABLES YOU TO FLY???? One which you have used successfully and apparently instinctively in prior scenes, and which ALSO has independent intelligence and could point out this solution itself? Maybe there's some anti-flying rule in the mirror realm but at no point was that explained or even hinted. Aaaaaaargh.
This is only one example, of course, but it's a really blatant one.
u/Gurkenglas [+1] (4 days later)
Their items effects looked more like Multijump and Feather Fall, respectively.
u/None [+1] (6 days later)
Mmm, Cloak of Levitation appears to be straight-up flying. Regardless, these items should have at LEAST helped A LITTLE with the gravity shifts.
u/The_Magus_199 [+9] Ankh-Morpork City Watch (an hour later)
Wait, huh? I thought that it ended with the world being blown up because some idiot sent the order to nuke Russia, and a bunch of people fighting in the war room...
u/khafra [+28] (2 hours later)
Dr. Strangelove, on the other hand, was a terrifyingly rationalist movie.
u/vakusdrake [+6] (8 hours later)
Doctor Strangelove is kind of like a rationalist tragedy if you think about it.
A catharsis for human idiocy; well actually not so different from a normal tragedy now that I think about it. Except you'know in tone, and the fact the tragedy is on a worldwide scale.
u/TK17Studios [+5] Author of r!Animorphs: The Reckoning (8 hours later)
I've been told that Kubrick repeatedly tried to write a somber, meaningful film about WWIII, and in the end found that he couldn't, and he just had to make it funny (gallows humor).
u/TK17Studios [+4] Author of r!Animorphs: The Reckoning (2 hours later)
"WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE WORLD??"
u/The_Magus_199 [+3] Ankh-Morpork City Watch (2 hours later)
Oh, whoops.
...Really? I'd call it absurdist more than anything...
u/khafra [+12] (14 hours later)
The characters are writ slightly larger than life; but apart from that, they're all responding rationally to their incentives, and even trying to set up more beneficial incentive structures. In a way that just happens to accidentally end all life on earth.
u/eaglejarl [+2] (3 hours later)
The USA release date is the 4th, so I'm guessing you saw it in Hong Kong? I'd be curious to know if there's any differences -- was your version subbed or dubbed?
u/Anderkent [+3] (4 hours later)
It's released in the UK for over a week too
u/eaglejarl [+2] (7 hours later)
Ah, got it. When I went looking for "Doctor Strange release dates" the only ones I saw immediately were HK/USA. Should have kept looking, I suppose.
u/CouteauBleu [+3] We are the Empire. (20 hours later)
France, French dub. I don't think it mattered, the parts that annoyed me most (eternal life is bad and you will be punished for wanting it, the sort of anti-epistemological message) aren't language-dependent.
u/Schuano [+1] (8 hours later)
I saw it in Singapore.
u/eaglejarl [+2] (16 hours later)
Was it subbed or dubbed, or did you see it in English? I'm curious if there might have been translation issues that made it worse.
u/Schuano [+2] (17 hours later)
Singapore is an English speaking country so I saw it with original audio (but not in 3d). There were chinese subtitles.
u/eaglejarl [+2] (18 hours later)
Well, I guess that shoots down that attempt at "benefit of the doubt". :>
I should have realized that actually -- I did know that Singapore was English-speaking, I just didn't promote it to awareness. Thanks for the reminder.
u/ProfessorPhi [+2] (18 hours later)
I don't really go to marvel movies expecting rationality. I usually save them for my flights.
u/FeepingCreature [+2] GCV Literally The Entire Culture (a day later)
If you want relatively rational use of magic and supertech in a comic book verse, may I recommend the fanfic With This Ring (DC Young Justice self-insert)? It has some writing problems, but the main actually approaches magic with the appropriate level of "why are you not applying gains from trade to this?!"
u/CouteauBleu [+5] We are the Empire. (2 days later)
I think WTR dances around the problem without solving it. It doesn't address the fact that Joker's rampages where he kills thousands of people really aren't that bad if all those people go to Heaven afterwards, for instance.
And while it does point out, eg the absurdity of a setting with super advanced technologies that don't spread, it doesn't make the setting any less absurd.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (3 months later)
I hate trite evilness and I have to say the villains were so disappointing. I thought during the speech about how it was immortal that maybe they'd be reasonable because stopping entropy is completely valid but nope they just made it super evil. Why does dom conquer? As a non entropic entity he could control the multiverse without conquering anything. He doesn't even have to wait since he exists outside time.
u/deccan2008 [-1] (12 hours later)
Not sure how spoilerish I should get as most Americans probably hasn't seen this yet, but if this bothers you, please bug out now.
I'm thinking about the part in which Strange decides that the only way to win is to lose, over and over again. Anyone else think that this could possibly be a HPMOR influence?