‘Superman’ Review: James Gunn’s Reboot Is A Painfully Mediocre, Super Generic Mess Of A Movie - "There are so many characters in this movie we never get a chance to care about any of them... The movie falls into so many superhero genre traps it almost plays like accidental parody. Everything is chaos, but also too neat and tidy. There’s a major calamity that threatens to end the world in the third act, but of course, as with all conflicts of this type, we know the world will not end, so there’s very little tension or suspense. It’s a foregone conclusion that Superman will stop Lex and save the day, and even if that’s always going to be the case with Superman, making the stakes so impossibly huge ultimately makes them feel like no stakes at all. Smaller, more intimate and personal conflicts always work better for this very reason. The structure of the plot falls into a narrative trap we see in all sorts of movies. Events happen and then other events happen. The movie moves from one event to the next not because there are consequences, but because that’s what Gunn needs to have happen to get from point A to point B. When a story progresses because characters make choices that lead to consequences that lead to conflict that lead to more choices that lead to more consequences, we end up caring about the characters and what they do a lot more. We become invested. (Matt Stone and Trey Parker note that the most important thing you can do in script-writing is avoid “and then” between beats. What should happen instead, between every single beat, is either the word ‘therefore’ or ‘but’. In Superman, every beat is connected by “and then” resulting in very little sense of causality or consequence whatsoever). Meanwhile, events constantly transpire that feel forced and unrealistic. When the Daily Planet crew finds real dirt on Lex, they publish the damning article from Mister Terrific’s flying saucer as they escape a collapsing Metropolis. The news breaks everywhere almost instantly, despite world events like the total destruction of Metropolis and the outbreak of a new war also taking place at the exact same time. Perhaps I’m overly familiar with how news cycles work, but you only publish a story like this during the destruction of one of the largest cities in the country if you want to bury it, not if you want the truth out there. And perhaps I’m too familiar with the power of oligarchs, but I don’t see a news article leading to the downfall of Lex Luthor. I just see him spinning it as fake news, lawyering up and getting out of jail free, with his army of monkeys working overtime to change public perception. Of course, you might think this means that Superman is just an example of poptimism the way the Man Of Steel always has been. But Gunn not only overcorrects when it comes to redirecting the dark and gritty Synderverse, he can’t seem to settle on a tone. If this is an upbeat Superman movie, why does it feel so grim and cynical still? If anything, the optimism of Corenswet’s Clark Kent feels wedged into the plot in spite of itself... I loved Guardians of the Galaxy, but where constant snark and Gunn’s sense of humor work so well with Star-Lord and his crew, it feels wildly out-of-place in a Superman movie. Tonally, this movie is all over the place. The fact that you never really get to care about any of these characters the way you did for Rocket or Groot or Gamora or Drax doesn’t help matters. None of this feels like Superman. Superman never feels special. You could replace him with any number of other superheroes in this movie and it would work about the same. Whatever attempts to make this “alien” a stand-in for immigrants ultimately fall flat, a political message inserted without any conviction whatsoever. There is little in the way of conviction here at all. Indeed, the only thing Gunn seems committed to in Superman is the oversaturated aesthetic... There are too many dizzying, wide-angle shots. The CGI is aggressive and overused. Some scenes, like a fight that takes place in an antiproton river in the pocket universe, feel almost more like a cartoon than live-action, and not in a good way."
James Gunn's Superman misunderstands the true nature of the character - "James Gunn’s Superman shies away from the character’s incredible strength. This is a Superman who loses his first fight at the start of the movie and regularly struggles to defeat even minor enemies. (Some sci-fi nonsense like a “proton river” shouldn’t be a problem for the Man of Steel.) Gunn gets around this by making Superman fight a clone of himself, but his clever loophole undercuts one of the character’s most fundamental traits. However, the director’s approach to another core component of Superman’s identity is even more frustrating. Superman is also an alien, and this is where things can sometimes get tricky. In the Superman mythos, being “alien” doesn’t just mean coming from another planet. It means being fundamentally different from human beings — and most importantly, superior to them. Superman is trapped between two worlds, represented by his two sets of parental figures: Jor-El and Lara (his dead Kryptonian parents who sent him to Earth), and Martha and Johnathan Kent (two Kansas farmers who adopted him and taught him to be human). He is both the last son of Krypton, a world that doesn’t exist anymore; and the adopted son of Earth, a world that will always, by its nature, be alien to him. This is the core of Superman’s identity, but it plays out differently depending on who’s telling the story. This duality is central to Gunn’s Superman, but the director makes a surprising choice. He reveals that Kal-El’s parents actually intended for their son to not only protect the Earth, but also subjugate humanity. In the end, Gunn’s hero rejects his alien parents and embraces his adopted human ones in what feels like an outright denial of Kal-El’s status as an alien. Superman himself vocalizes this narrative choice when he confronts Lex Luthor, saying, “That is where you've always been wrong about me, Lex. I am as human as anyone.” Compare that to All-Star Superman, where a dying Superman has a dream-like conversation with his father Jor-El. As Superman laments that he left one labor unfinished, his father answers, “Your work is done. You have shown them the face of the man of tomorrow. You have given them an ideal to aspire to, embodied their highest aspirations. They will race, and stumble, and fall, and crawl, and curse… and finally… they will join you in the sun, Kal-El.” This is perhaps the best and most accurate description of the meaning of Superman ever put to words. And it’s significant that Grant Morrison, who wrote All-Star Superman, entrusts this message to Jor-El, not to Jonathan Kent. Morrison understands that Superman’s status as a symbol of strength, goodness, and hope is inextricably tied to his nature as an alien. Morrison sees his hero as a god capable of inspiring us all, while Gunn chooses to pull Superman down from Mount Olympus and bring him to our level. It makes the character more relatable, but at what cost?"
Meme - "They can be a great people if they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way"
"Watch for the light, listen, and learn."
"Any father can only hope that he is one day humbled by the feats of his son."
"You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards"
"Form a harem"
"You got it, Pops!"
Hose reel cabinets at Bukit Batok HDB block were padlocked to prevent vandalism: Jurong-Clementi Town Council - "Jurong-Clementi Town Council clarified on Thursday (Nov 14) that hose reel cabinets at Block 210A, Bukit Batok Street 21, where a fire erupted on Nov 1, were padlocked due to previous cases of vandalism. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) issued a warning to the town council after its officers were unable to use the fire hose reels when the fire broke out at the block... After breaking one of the padlocks, the SCDF officers found that there was no water supply for the hose reel inside the cabinet. Three casualties were taken to Singapore General Hospital for burn injuries and smoke inhalation due to the fire."
Better to have a white elephant than vandalism
Muslim man on SIA flight served prosciutto, asks if it's pork, allegedly told it's not & ends up eating it - "While on a Singapore Airlines flight to New York, a Muslim business-class passenger was served an unfamiliar dish. The dish was labelled "Grilled Mediterranean Salad with Prosciutto". Unsure what "prosciutto" was, he asked the cabin crew about its contents, and whether it was bacon. They apparently told him that it was not, and safe to eat. Assured, he began eating. But he soon felt uneasy due to the "unfamiliar" taste and texture. The man, a Singapore Permanent Resident (PR) who gave his name as Jey, said that he finally decided to look up the meaning of "prosciutto". He then learnt that it was indeed pork. "I was in complete shock," Jey said, adding that he has been a practising Muslim for over three decades... He has since filed another complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation. Jey clarified that prior to his flight, he had selected the Muslim meal for his refreshment. For his lunch meal service, he selected the "Book the Cook" option, with a nasi briyani main. It came with the prosciutto dish as a fixed appetiser, he said. While he did not select the Muslim meal for this meal service, he highlighted that there was no pork label on the dish."
What an idiot. But of course it's the airline's fault.
Online, some Muslims suggested just not serving pork on airlines. Of course.
Maybe this is why in Malaysia the government always says that Muslims are easily confused.
Hertfordshire news: Council accused of showing 'complete lack of respect' as war graves neglected in favour of encouraging diversity - "Veterans have accused a local council of showing a "complete lack of respect" towards their fallen comrades after they opted to leave the "overgrown" memorials in order to encourage "wildlife and biodiversity"."
Meme - The Bugle Daily: "If Hollywood is going to keep pushing Cynthia Erivo, I already have the perfect role for her! Dhalsim, in the upcoming Street Fighter movie!"
How judges took control of Britain - "Trust in Britain’s legal system is at a low ebb. Two thirds of the public believe that the criminal justice system has become politicised, and that judges make some decisions in line with their personal views rather than the law, according to a survey by pollsters Merlin Strategy. The constant flow of boats across the Channel, meanwhile, appears increasingly to be fuelled by a judicial system which actively works to undermine attempts to remove those arriving from Britain. It is perhaps a measure of the heat of public feeling that Sir Keir Starmer – former director of public prosecutions, Left-wing human rights lawyer – became, briefly, the public face of revolt against the courts. When Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch raised the case of the Palestinian family granted the right to live in the UK even after applying for a scheme designed for Ukrainians, Sir Keir Starmer agreed that the decision was “wrong”, adding that “it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration; it should be the Government who make the policy”. This is an uncontroversial statement of the United Kingdom’s constitutional settlement, or at least it should be. To Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, however, it looked like a challenge. She said that “both the question and the answer were unacceptable”, and that it was “for the Government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary”. Had Sir Keir been in the mood for a real row, he might have answered in turn that it was for the judiciary to visibly respect and protect the sovereignty of Parliament, and the executive authority of the Government. And if he had really wanted to set the cat among the pigeons, he could have answered with a question: who, actually, is running the country? That Britain has a welfare problem is well-established. This year, spending on the personal independence payment (PIP) alone is set to cost £29bn, up £13bn in five years since the pandemic. Attempts to cut it, however, came unstuck in spectacular fashion, with a major row between Sir Keir Starmer and his backbenchers. The strangest part of this is that a great deal of the increase was never intended by the government in the first place. In fact, the introduction of PIP was supposed to cut the number claiming benefits by 600,000, saving £2.5bn. Instead, caseloads and spending soared. Some of this was poor policy design. But some was the result of judicial decisions. In 2016, in the case of MH vs the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, a panel of judges decided that “psychological distress” should be considered when deciding whether applicants should receive additional payments to help with mobility, opening up these funds to a large number of applicants with mental health issues. The government, surprised, introduced regulations to undo this decision, clarifying that its policy was not to make these awards. This resulted in another round of legal action, and in 2017 the High Court ruled that these regulations were also unlawful as they discriminated against the disabled in breach of the convention on human rights, and had not been sufficiently consulted on. The government backed down, and set about backdating claims. A rough estimate for the end result could today be in the region of £1.4bn of spending per year. This is far from the only case, however, where human rights claims have shredded common sense. The same convention which underlay the PIP decision has made our immigration system all but impossible to enforce. Supposedly “exceptional” human rights claims now account for around 30 per cent of deportation cases, triggering Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s plans to crack down on their use. Beyond the Gazan applicants to the Ukraine scheme, one striking example concerned a Nigerian woman who joined a terrorist group banned in Nigeria, but not proscribed in the UK. The judge decided that the woman had joined the organisation specifically “in order to create a claim for asylum”. However, as this had in turn created “a well-founded fear of persecution”, asylum was granted. It was a maddening outcome. It was also in line with a long-running strand of asylum law. In 1996, the European Court of Human Rights held in the case of Chahal vs the United Kingdom that Mr Chahal – “a leading Sikh militant suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism” – could not be deported from Britain as this would give rise to a “real risk” of torture or inhuman treatment in violation of his human rights. In combination with a 2010 Supreme Court decision in the case of HJ and HT vs the Home Secretary – where the court held that persecution which was avoidable with “discretion” was still a bar to deportation – this has given rise to an absurd cottage industry. As one legal figure put it, the goal for many asylum applicants as a result is to “bootstrap” refugee status by deliberately creating a danger to themselves through protest. Travel through London and you will frequently find protests outside the embassies of less than perfectly democratic regimes where would-be asylum seekers try to get themselves to prominent positions where they can claim to have drawn the attention of embassy staff, or have photos taken waving banners to post online and create synthetic risk. The original sin, here, is the way Britain chose to handle the incorporation of human rights into British law. Labour, in 1998, could have proceeded in two ways. It could have stated that the government would identify potential clashes with human rights law, and resolve them. Instead, it effectively chose to hand the entire matter off to the judiciary, creating a duty on every judge to apply the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in effect embedding political values into the legal system."
Separation of powers means that judges have unlimited power
The Mamas & The Papas' banana protest on 'The Ed Sullivan Show' - "The Ed Sullivan Show apparently rarely resorted to relying on playback during its performances but had to every so often due to technical issues. In 1967, when The Mamas & The Papas were due to perform, the band were informed they would have to lip-synch their hit ‘California Dreamin”. This didn’t go down well with the band, who decided that instead of delivering a serious performance at the request of the producers, they would poke fun at the entire idea. In protest, therefore, vocalist Michelle Phillips took a banana on stage and proceeded to chow down during the whole set. At the end of the song, she began to sing into the banana instead of her microphone."
Another Western nation is embracing a sinister crackdown on free speech - "It seems Australia’s headlong rush into nanny-state authoritarianism continues unabated. Following on from its vaunted under-16s social media restriction legislation last year, the Labor government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is extending the ban to YouTube under the guise of “protecting children”... How the legislation is drafted amounts to the creation of a backdoor to controlling the internet, and gives sweeping powers to an unelected bureaucrat – the e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant – to decide what is “reasonable” for platforms to collect and enforce. Inman Grant is the last person to whom any extra power should be given. A US House Judiciary Committee report in June accused her of coordinating with major advertisers and national governments through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) to “silence American speech”, particularly targeting Right-of-centre viewpoints, suggestions that Grant has denied. In a speech given to the World Economic Forum in 2022, Inman Grant asserted: “We’re going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online, from freedom of speech to the freedom […] to be free from online violence.” Challenged about this afterwards, American-born Inman Grant responded dismissively by stating that “the First Amendment doesn’t apply in Australia.” Last year, she tried to institute a worldwide ban of video footage of the terrible stabbing attack on Assyrian Christian Bishop Mari Emmanuel while he was giving a sermon to his congregation in a suburban Sydney church, only backing down after an international outcry. Just a couple of weeks ago, Inman Grant had a significant loss in Australia’s Administrative Review Tribunal, when Canadian man Chris Elston (more commonly known as “Billboard Chris”) successfully stopped her from censoring him on X. Her attempts to impose a $782,500 fine on X for alleged “cyber abuse” were also thrown out. In handing down its decision, the Tribunal delivered a subtle rebuke to Inman Grant, declaring: “The role of the Tribunal is not to assess the merits of what the applicant posted, or to agree or disagree with the views he expressed.” Now, on her recommendation, the Albanese government wants to ban YouTube for kids under 16. This is despite Communications Minister Anika Wells saying back in 2022 that it was a great way to keep her kids entertained. To enforce this ban, the supposed “voluntary” digital ID will not be so voluntary after all. Australians will be asked to upload personal documents, submit facial scans, and hand over sensitive data to unaccountable third parties to prove their age. Thanks to the UK Online Safety Act, we are getting a working demonstration of how, hidden behind the concerns for children’s welfare, there is in fact what could be described as a politicised attempt to radically extend government control over platforms which shape social discourse. The Online Safety Act, designed to supposedly “protect kids from porn by asking them to prove their age”, has been used to censor political discussion by British adults. As noted by the Spectator, the Act “is not being used to shut down Pornhub or xHamster for adolescents, but to silence discussion – or even basic news – about those topics most awkward for the British government: Pakistani rape gangs, illegal immigration, protests about asylum hotels.” Seemingly that is how politicians and bureaucrats view social media – as a place to propagate their politics and manipulate voters. They know that most people under the age of 35 get their information and views not from traditional media, but from social media. Navigating these sites is a matter of parental choice – and parents should not be outsourcing their responsibilities to the government. As it is, the word “parent” isn’t even mentioned once in the Australian social media ban legislation. If the government really was interested in doing something positive to address social media addiction, it would look at tackling the algorithms, which are often designed to get kids addicted. We have no idea how these algorithms work, what content they promote, or how they are impacting young people. This ban is less about online safety for kids and more about online safety for the political and bureaucratic class. An unacceptable dystopia awaits Australia in December."
Brad Bradford✌️ on X - "Public pools closed in 35+ degree heat - because it was “too hot”? Only in Toronto. Families showed up to cool down and were turned away. No warning. No plan. Just locked gates."
Louisiana mom sells breast milk to bodybuilders for one specific reason - "she advertized her breast milk on Facebook for 70 cents an ounce, and that's when this story takes a bizarre twist as bodybuilders starting hitting her up on the platform as the commodity is rich in protein... "I charge a higher rate for a bodybuilder because their grown adults and it's a lifestyle choice they're choosing to explore. "Breast milk isn't a necessity to them; it's a tool they use to up their protein intake.""
Today’s virtue-signalling composers have no idea what ‘political music’ really is - "I don’t want to suggest such composers are insincere. It’s just that there is no risk involved; they can be sure their views will be endorsed by all good, right-thinking people. Their only worry is whether they’ll be nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. Compare their situation with that of Shostakovich. His worry was whether he would actually survive, when so many around him did not. His entire creative life was passed under the boot of Soviet communism, where to stray from the officially approved tone of heroic optimism or casting a critical eye on the Soviet Union could mean years in a penal colony, or worse."
Jessica Ellis on X - "Sometimes I think about how my husband told me once there was a girl in high school who would invite him to sit in her car at lunch and put on music that she’d joke was good make out music and he thought she just really enjoyed music."
A middle-class revolt has rattled Macron and brought France to the boiling point - "the exasperation of the French has been steadily growing as they watch the disintegration of their country: rising crime, rising food costs, rising energy prices, rising immigration. Rising everything, except living standards. Boiling point is approaching. This anger began simmering in a social media meme earlier this year: “It’s Nicolas Who Pays”. The fictional Nicolas is a 30-something in full-time employment who pays exorbitant taxes in order to prop up the rest of the country: Baby Boomers lapping it up on their generous pensions, slackers who prefer benefits to work and migrants milking France’s generous health care. This anger is about to be transferred from social media to the street. A call to bring France to a standstill on September 10 has been gaining momentum in recent weeks. Called “Bloquons tout” [Block everything], the appeal was launched on TikTok on July 14 – France’s National Day – by a citizens’ collective that advocates for a “sovereign France”. It wants a day of “disobedience, boycott, and solidarity”."
Olympic Basketball & The Grateful Dead - "In 1992, the iconic Grateful Dead music band helped sponsor Lithuania’s national basketball team, a talented but financially-strapped squad that went on to win bronze at the Barcelona Olympics. Their story was a magical tale of tie-dyes, basketball glory, and the birth of a new nation... Independent but broke, Lithuania emerged from the fallen heap of the communist empire with no money to support a national basketball team. The 1992 Olympics in Barcelona were looming and players were desperate to make the trip... In an historic sports moment, the Lithuanian darlings accepted their bronze medals wearing the Grateful Dead tie-dyes. The shirts became the hottest must have souvenirs at the Barcelona Games."
Britain losing sight of Christian past, says atheist historian who mocked believers - "Britain is losing sight of Christian history, according to an atheist historian who once mocked believers for worshipping “dead people”. Prof Alice Roberts, an academic, television presenter and author, told BBC History Magazine that Christianity is a “compelling and important part of our culture” and warned that, in an increasingly secular society, “we risk losing part of Christian history”. The 52-year-old, a “confirmed atheist” who is professor of public engagement in science at the University of Birmingham and a patron of Humanists UK, made the comments ahead of the publication of her new book about the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity in the West... She added that there was still a tendency to “obscure” Christianity’s early history and instead treat it as if it appeared “fully formed”, and that claims of the religion’s “radical uniqueness” are “often overstated”. According to the latest available polling by YouGov, almost half of British people (49 per cent) now hold a negative view of the Church of England... The latest findings of the 2021 census show that Christians now account for less than half of England and Wales’ population for the first time in census history... The census data also show that every major religion except for Christianity increased over the 10-year period."
Federal government's spending review is 'flawed' and too narrow: report - "The federal government’s “comprehensive spending review” is too narrow and won’t save enough tax dollars to put Ottawa back on solid footing, a new report will conclude. The report, to be released Thursday by the C.D. Howe Institute, says the Carney government’s spending review will only include about one-third of all federal program spending and is expected to save no more than $22 billion by 2028-29. The think tank says that’s less than half the $50 billion in savings that are needed to return federal government coffers to “a fair and prudent path” that would see Ottawa’s debt-to-GDP ratio stop climbing... “You need some time to evaluate those programs,” said Lester, a former federal government economist, during an interview. “It’s a big job.” Lester recommends expanding the review to cover the missing two-thirds of program spending, imposing a multi-year cap on operating costs to deliver immediate restraint, and then assessing programs through a value-for-money lens. He also calls for transparent goals and clear communication to build public consensus around the various options. The government’s spending review follows years of hefty deficits that have left Ottawa and future generations with mountains of debt. National Post reported last month on an earlier C.D. Howe report that forecasted that the Carney government is poised to post a massive deficit of more than $92 billion during this fiscal year, almost double what was forecast just a few months ago by a non-partisan officer of Parliament... If this fiscal year’s deficit turns out to be as hefty as projected, it would be the second-largest deficit in Canadian history, topped only by the $327.7 billion shortfall from the pandemic year of 2020-21... the federal government’s fiscal situation is unclear because there hasn’t been a budget in well over a year. The government took the highly unusual step this year of waiting until the fall to release its annual budget, more than half-way through the fiscal year."
