Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kick [Tushy] 2 Red Band (there is some harsh language, but no gore or nudity) trailer. I still have mixed feelings about the first, but nonetheless, here it is. Jim Carry could be interesting. I thought in the comic the son of the gangster called himseld 'Nemesis', not, well, you can see for yourself.

Trailer

I don't think "ass" is filtered.

EDIT: Nope, it isn't.

I didn't enjoy the Kick-Ass 2 comic nearly as much as I did the first one. I'm still going to see it, but I've ratcheted back my expectations a bit regardless of how good the trailers look.

These movies are so problematic.

 Ahtman wrote:
I thought in the comic the son of the gangster called himseld 'Nemesis', not, well, you can see for yourself.

He was Red Mist in the first one, and I just checked the second one - the one in the trailer is accurate.

That looks really really bad.

Manchu wrote:These movies are so problematic.

Outside of the [reasonable for a comic-based movie] level of suspension of disbelief required.... how so?

Tushy?

Oh Jesus...



We've got a 16 year old girl killing people, but think of the poor innocent children before you say the word "ass".

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:These movies are so problematic.

Outside of the [reasonable for a comic-based movie] level of suspension of disbelief required.... how so?

Comic books obviously entail a lot of violence and I don't object to that. What I object to is the idea that comic books should be about violence. KA falls into the second category.

Why is KA 'about' violence?

Why is a movie called Kick Ass about violence?

I've never seen the film, so I can't attest to its quality (or lack thereof), but even I know 'Kick Ass' is the name of the main character, not some sort of statement of intent.

You're going to need to explain your point Manchu.

Superheroes are super because they have powers. Their names usually reflect this. The protagonist here lives in a world without super powers; the only power available is violence. Hence "Kick Ass" and "Hit Girl." In this story, what makes you super is being violent. As you might imagine, I find the difference between the heroes and villains to be paper thin.

I'm not saying the comics and films are not enjoyable -- just that they are extremely problematic.

Batman doesn't have any super-powers.

More importantly in this conversation, Batman doesn't kill people.

Technically, neither does Kick-ass.

Anyway, I think Mark Millar is kind of a one trick pony. I think he takes plotlines that are very marginal, and adds a ton of really provocative stuff to make it more lurid - I mean, in KA2 there is a point where one of the villains guns down a bunch of like 6 year olds. He just has a lot of really hamfisted techniques for trying to build drama and tension and other thematic elements.

From Wanted to Kick-Ass to Superior, none of these books really were anything special. They're the Kim Kardashian of comic books, only famous for being famous.

Kick Ass the Movie was great! Has anyone here seen it and not liked it?

I cannot comment on the comic book, however.

Totally didn't know that was Jim Carey till the end.

 Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:These movies are so problematic.

Outside of the [reasonable for a comic-based movie] level of suspension of disbelief required.... how so?

Comic books obviously entail a lot of violence and I don't object to that. What I object to is the idea that comic books should be about violence. KA falls into the second category.

And I think you're problem is that you seem to think comic-books should be relegated to a certain format. The medium has made leaps and bounds beyond flying men in capes punching each other. If that's what you're into great, but don't think the medium should be held back. That being said I found both the movie and comics very sub-par. Surely nowhere near Scott Pilgrim.

Manchu wrote:Superheroes are super because they have powers. Their names usually reflect this. The protagonist here lives in a world without super powers; the only power available is violence. Hence "Kick Ass" and "Hit Girl." In this story, what makes you super is being violent. As you might imagine, I find the difference between the heroes and villains to be paper thin.

I'm not saying the comics and films are not enjoyable -- just that they are extremely problematic.

To start with, even if I concede your "what makes you super..." point, I still don't see exactly what's problematic. I think you're gonna hafta spell this one out for me.

Are you upset that there's no black hat / white hat dynamic? Is it the lack of super-powers? (which, by the way, I fail to see how shooting lazers from one's eyes makes violence more acceptable than bullets)

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
If that's what you're into great, but don't think the medium should be held back.

No, I forbid it!

Uh, since when is giving an opinion on a title anywhere close to holding back a medium?

Also, I think you will find my avatar does not feature a man in a cape ...

There's a lot of violence in Judge Dredd stories. I think it's a bit more critical than Mark Millar's glorification of violence.

Ouze has his number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think you're gonna hafta spell this one out for me.

I think at this point you're going to have to spell it out for me. Cuz I'm not seeing anything more than exploitation.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Are you upset that there's no black hat / white hat dynamic? Is it the lack of super-powers?

As I mentioned to DkR, take a look at my avatar.

Oh I agree Millar is hack writer but are you against exploitation of violence in comics because you're against exploitation of violence in general? Or just in comics?

I'm guessing you're against it in general. And as you're opinion on the subject, that I totally respect. Don't agree personally, but I respect that. I just don't personally see him damaging the medium anymore than the myriad Marvel lines with sub-par art and terrible dialogue.

 Manchu wrote:
Superheroes are super because they have powers. Their names usually reflect this. The protagonist here lives in a world without super powers; the only power available is violence. Hence "Kick Ass" and "Hit Girl." In this story, what makes you super is being violent. As you might imagine, I find the difference between the heroes and villains to be paper thin.

I'm not saying the comics and films are not enjoyable -- just that they are extremely problematic.

What makes Kick Ass a hero isn't that he's violent, it's that he decides to stand up to criminals. He does kill a few people at the end, but really, his fighting ability is a little short of a 5 year olds. His 'super hero' ability comes from having fethed up nerve endings, and barely feels pain. He can take a hit, but finds it very difficult landing one.

Hit Girl and Big Daddy kill people because, well, Big Daddy is a very upset individual with an axe to grind against a crime boss. He trains his daughter to be his partner, but the violence aspect of Big Daddy and Hit Girl is as thin as the Punisher (in fact, it's nearly the same origin story!).

It's very violent, but it's not only violent because the characters just up and decide to be violent, well, not anymore than any other comic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
More importantly in this conversation, Batman doesn't kill people.

Batman very much did kill people before the Comic Code Authority - he used guns and killed criminals.

More recently, you much not have watched The Dark Knight. Because he certainly did kill someone. Like, it was a central part of the story.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I just don't personally see him damaging the medium anymore than the myriad Marvel lines with sub-par art and terrible dialogue.

I don't think he's damaging the medium, either. He'd have to be much better than he is to damage the medium. That's where Alan Moore comes in.

 Manchu wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I just don't personally see him damaging the medium anymore than the myriad Marvel lines with sub-par art and terrible dialogue.

I don't think he's damaging the medium, either. He'd have to be much better than he is to damage the medium. That's where Alan Moore comes in.

Now that there is fighting words.

 -Loki- wrote:
More recently, you much not have watched The Dark Knight.

Also, Batman NOT killing people is a central part of his character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:
What makes Kick Ass a hero isn't that he's violent, it's that he decides to stand up to criminals.

Nope. That is explicitly dealt with in the book with Big Daddy. This isn't just about standing up to criminals; it's about taking violence into one's own hands. It's about justifying violence as a personal matter.

 Manchu wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
More recently, you much not have watched The Dark Knight.

Spoiler:

Batman took the same fall as Harvey. The scene, as far as I know, was not about him intending to kill Harvey.

Also, Batman NOT killing people is a central part of his character.

Obviously - but he did kill someone. Also, it's a central part of his post-CCA character. He did kill people, with intention, before then.

Not trying to get into a fight about Batman here though. You also ignored the bulk of my post that was on topic, which is fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
What makes Kick Ass a hero isn't that he's violent, it's that he decides to stand up to criminals.

Nope. That is explicitly dealt with in the book with Big Daddy. This isn't just about standing up to criminals; it's about taking violence into one's own hands. It's about justifying violence as a personal matter.

Yes, that's big Daddy. My comment was specifically about Kick Ass. You know, the character, not the book.

Kick Ass, the character, stands up against criminals - for nothing else than to stop the crime happening.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think you're gonna hafta spell this one out for me.

I think at this point you're going to have to spell it out for me. Cuz I'm not seeing anything more than exploitation.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Are you upset that there's no black hat / white hat dynamic? Is it the lack of super-powers?

As I mentioned to DkR, take a look at my avatar.

That's kinda what's throwing me off... Dredd is exceptionally violent, as it was intended as satire. Is your issue that the outlandish violence in Kick Ass is not satirical, but mere spectacle?

Manchu wrote:Also, Batman NOT killing people is a central part of his character.

Post- comics code. He used to kill people.

...and I think that when a movie makes a Billion dollars worldwide five years ago, you probably don't need the 'spoiler' tag anymore.

Yeah honestly Manchu I'm not getting your argument other than you don't like Kick-Ass and/or exploitation of violence, you never answered.

I'm failing how to see how Kick-Ass is any worse than Punisher really.

 -Loki- wrote:
Also, it's a central part of his post-CCA character.

Batman stopped killing people less than a year after his first appearance. That was 14 years before CCA censorship. So for eleven months out of 74 years, killing was a part -- and mind you not even a central part -- of the character. I can see why you don't want to get into an argument about Batman ...

 -Loki- wrote:
You also ignored the bulk of my post that was on topic, which is fun.

Your initial premise -- that Kick Ass is heroic because he stands up to criminals -- is false. What follows is not worth treating. Yes, I understand he suffered nerve damage. But that's not much of a power unless you are in the first place getting into dangerous physical altercations. You say that KA is no more about the decision to be violent than any other comic because of this. Again, it's simply false. Because there is nothing beyond violence in KA.

The counterpoint is Batman. Batman is about psychological tension. Bruce Wayne's emotional growth was stunted by the trauma of seeing his parents murdered. He is a violent vigilante who justifies his criminal behavior by stopping short of killing. With Batman, the questionable nature of his morality is always present in serious treatments. In KA, the issue is dismissed. The line is obliterated. Nothing is real; everything is permitted. You mentioned the Punisher. Frank Castle has never been a hero. But Millar says his Kid Punishers are. What separates them from the "villains" however is just authorial fiat. That's why I call it exploitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Is your issue that the outlandish violence in Kick Ass is not satirical, but mere spectacle?

That's nicely put.

 azazel the cat wrote:
...and I think that when a movie makes a Billion dollars worldwide five years ago, you probably don't need the 'spoiler' tag anymore

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I'm failing how to see how Kick-Ass is any worse than Punisher really.

First off, I don't really like the Punisher, either. But there is a difference between that property and KA, see above.