Eh, I only asked because that is fundamentally the dumbest thing I have ever read which is why I asked for "elaboration".
But hey, if you count that:
It's also hilarious to watch the contrasting of Vagabond with anything. It's boneless Bleach. "I won't do it unless I have the resolve and realize the honor in it". Swinging swords while i'm barely invested in the characters. It takes itself too seriously. Why do the fight reactions almost annoy me as much as Kaine's reactions in Kingdom?
as an explanation/elaboration then ok, i guess. I knew nothing about what you thought of Vagabond before and I didn't learn anything after that post. But very cool to know.
Now excuse me while I go and the read the masterpiece known as Vagabond and then scratch my head wondering whatever the hell you were on about lol.
Edit: Let it also be known that Vagabond isn't for meat heads or about fights. I guess the exploration of personal and philosophical ideas at the backdrop of a samurai setting really threw some people off.
Edit: Also for the OP/FT; again, very cool to know. I don't take anyone seriously once they have established as comparing two series seriously. Again, thanks for those in-depth explanations. I went into the post not knowing what you were going to say and came out not knowing what you attempted to say. That is an actual feat though.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Nobody was asking for superhero movies to be artistic or deep. They're movies based on comic books, the only requirement is that they be FUN. I will watch Scorcese for the writing or the cinematography or what have you,
See, you understand the difference. Others don't.
In fact, what you are saying right here is precisely what Martin was talking about albeit approaching it differently.
Marvel movies cannot be considered "cinema" because their very fundamental reason for existing is providing entertainment and making money. These movies aren't some personal or passion-project of their creators. These movies are factory-made manufactured projects that only exist to promote the future movies.
Which is fine and dandy if you enjoy them and all knowing exactly what type of movies they are. But given the backlash against Martin, I'm not sure if people have the level of awareness to realize that they are in fact talking about a popcorn comic book movies. Nothing more.
Pure "cinema" or "true" cinema isn't about just entertainment. They can feature mature content or themes or be the opposite and have more colors or light-heartedness and yet still conveying something deeper for the audience or using creative techniques to craft something truly special. Sam Raimi's Spider-man trilogy or Nolan's Batman trilogy or Logan stand out more than any Marvel movie. Simply because, while the characters are from comic-book, the style and look and feel of the movies reflect the directors. They are driven by the directors, not the demand or corporate heads.
but all I need to do in a superhero movie is cheer for the hero.
Fair-enough. And I agree to a certain point.
My favorite Superhero stuff is when the hero is actually grounded, relatable and someone who I can empathize with.
Coming off from something like Daredevil S3, which for me is by far the single greatest characterization and handling for a comic-book character in a live-action i have ever seen, I just really can't care about any of the comic-book characters in Marvel movies or otherwise. Daredevil S3 is the pinnacle or the peak of live-action Superhero genre and is the closest thing to being "cinema" as the Superhero stuff can get.