the real batman. Subscribe to me and add me as a friend to see more funny content!. There' s one Thing we up disining ) trr baut IRDI" "n. Battle whois ? ver gi
x
Click to expand

the real batman

the real batman. Subscribe to me and add me as a friend to see more funny content!. There' s one Thing we up disining ) trr baut IRDI" "n. Battle whois ? ver gi

Subscribe to me and add me as a friend to see more funny content!

There' s one Thing
we up
disining ) trr baut IRDI" "n. Battle
whois ? ver given you
I know what ids . to
Cry and rebuild is life.
we tvc-, like you
I wish Batman was ' We this more (men- pf his
villains are ll arid 1-. rii: tims pf tragic , it
wouldl he we he see him try" he help them * mali: h * he
helps the maple they put Iii danger pei: pf their
I tear up every‘ time I watch this shew. had a had ' tee.
Best version pf Batman- Best version pf Harley".
I prefer Batman whet": he wash' t a
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+993
Views: 35327
Favorited: 142
Submitted: 07/18/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to phanact submit to reddit

Comments(157):

[ 157 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#11 - madcoww (07/19/2014) [-]
"Would you stay with me? I'm scared."

Justice League: Unlimited- Death of Ace
#119 to #11 - mysweetestpoison (07/19/2014) [-]
i didnt liked all the batman stuff as a kid... it seemed boring as **** , etc etc.


but man.. i think i really should give it a chance..
#121 to #11 - mcmental (07/19/2014) [-]
Leave me alone for a while...
#42 to #11 - groovierpoet (07/19/2014) [-]
Those feels..
Those feels..
User avatar #58 to #11 - corsairjoshua (07/19/2014) [-]
God Justice League and Justice League: Unlimited were such fantastic TV shows. I wish cartoons had that kind of emotional strength these days. Quality ******* television
#95 to #58 - anon (07/19/2014) [-]
Just so you know, that was batman beyond, not JL.
User avatar #142 to #95 - corsairjoshua (07/19/2014) [-]
Nah dude this clip is from Justice League: Unlimited. Unless you're not talking about that clip
#112 to #95 - anon (07/19/2014) [-]
still had the same feel to it
#13 to #11 - angelusprimus (07/19/2014) [-]
that one made me cry.
User avatar #92 to #11 - anonywolftroll (07/19/2014) [-]
I don't even know/watch the show and I'm also really not a big fan of superheroes...but damn, that hit me. hard.
User avatar #96 to #11 - rheago (07/19/2014) [-]
I never was a fan of batman, didn't even like him
but now I see him in a whole new light

I like batman now
#102 to #11 - friedgreenpomatoes (07/19/2014) [-]
why do you make me feel these emotions
#53 to #11 - dehfurk (07/19/2014) [-]
The writing in entertainment used to be so amazing
The writing in entertainment used to be so amazing
#67 to #11 - asasqw (07/19/2014) [-]
A kid died. In a kid's show. That never happens. No no its ok there is some cure or magic or... No, she, a child, died.
A kid died. In a kid's show. That never happens. No no its ok there is some cure or magic or... No, she, a child, died.
User avatar #120 to #67 - captnnorway (07/19/2014) [-]
That reminds me Jet died in Avatar ... This day is getting worse and worse
#16 to #11 - tacolishous ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
MFW
MFW
User avatar #93 to #16 - WhiteCrayon (07/19/2014) [-]
Psst, that might be why he named his dog Ace
#15 to #11 - sinclairr (07/19/2014) [-]
no no no no no no no no no not tonight
no no no no no no no no no not tonight
#6 - AnonymousDonor (07/18/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#45 to #6 - romdadon (07/19/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#56 to #6 - gtocforyou (07/19/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#105 to #77 - anon (07/19/2014) [-]
second part
#126 to #105 - brothergrimm ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
too goddamn early for feels....
#43 - fagmastertwotausan (07/19/2014) [-]
Also the best joker
#51 to #43 - wraithguard (07/19/2014) [-]
The nest cartoon version at least.
#52 to #51 - wraithguard (07/19/2014) [-]
best*
User avatar #55 to #43 - mcassio ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
I agree with wraithgaurd, best cartoon version. Heath Ledger was ******* amazing as joker.
#73 to #43 - thecharliesheen (07/19/2014) [-]
I agree. I'm the only ******* person I know who really did NOT like the Heath Ledger version of the Joker at all
Prepare for anal rapage.
#157 to #73 - fagmastertwotausan (07/20/2014) [-]
I think the Ledger version fit in with the tone of the rest of the movie. But I don't think its how the joker should be portrayed.
User avatar #127 to #73 - guardianatreyu (07/19/2014) [-]
Oh thank god, someone who agrees. I hated Heath Ledgers Joker.
User avatar #78 to #73 - willgum ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
Heath Ledger did a good job on focusing on the jokers psychotic/chaotic side but failed in the funny side kind of like how Tobey Maguire played peter Parker very well but sucked as spiderman
User avatar #79 to #78 - thecharliesheen (07/19/2014) [-]
I dunno why I didn't like it, it was well done in a more... serious sense like you said. Maybe because in my opinion, it completely and utterly flunked itself in the role overall in my opinion. They almost made him.. too serious to be taken seriously. Then again, I grew up with the Joker who literally just had NO motive other than to be totally and utterly ******* annoying and crazy and piss on the Batman because he could. Not just be malicious and angry and hateful and making a point.
tl;dr When I was a kid, the Joker HAD no motive and he HAD no point, but in the movie, that's all he had.
People will disagree with me, since I can't say I dislike the Heath Ledger version of the Joker without someone trying to jump my **** , but it's just an opinion.
User avatar #82 to #79 - willgum ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
I understand where your coming from the thing about the joker is he is displayed differently in different types of media for example in most animated and early live action version's of the joker he is as you described without motive or point but in the comics he is displayed mostly as both serious and silly sometimes one or the other but its normally both but it is very difficult to create both aspects in a live action aspect at the same time so most actors choose one or the other
User avatar #84 to #82 - thecharliesheen (07/19/2014) [-]
I think I also became hugely attached to his look and backstory, which the movie completely neglects. Also Harley Quinn. Always ******* loved the Quinn, which the movie also completely neglects It also may or may not have been because of a borderline psycho friend I had who literally became obsessed with the Joker and that she was crazy like he was when really she was just a teenage girl who wanted to be special And because every angsty teenager I know "relates" to the Joker and thinks that they're special ******* snowflakes
User avatar #86 to #84 - willgum ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
well to be fair you shouldn't expect the live action movies to be like the comics but they totally should have at least hinted toward his backstory since it could have developed his character much better for example "the wolverine" was a good standalone movie but it had 3 actual similarities to the comic from what i can remember.
User avatar #88 to #86 - thecharliesheen (07/19/2014) [-]
I don't know why, but it seriously ****** with me. I saw it and went "wait.. what?" Granted, as a kid, I was ******* OBSESSED with Batman. Like we're talking wearing underoos over ******* tights with a black pillowcase tied around my neck and walking around the neighborhood starting fights with neighborhood kids who I had individual villain names for. I think that sort of.. precious obsession followed me into adulthood.
User avatar #90 to #88 - willgum ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
well sorry to hear you didn't like heath's performance but in all fairness most people say it was masterful because he died soon after but i was curious when you say the jokers backstory your refering to the one displayed in "the killing joke" correct?
User avatar #91 to #90 - thecharliesheen (07/19/2014) [-]
I know a couple of his backstories, I would have been content with any one of them, but I personally do like the Killing Joke most of all. I sort of have my own little fancy world where I clash the universes into my own ****** up storyline.
User avatar #122 to #91 - snowshark (07/19/2014) [-]
Personally I really dislike all of the Nolan Batman films. Batman Begins has weak villains, The Dark Knight Rises is a *********** of stupidity with a dumbass name, The Dark Knight is visually marvellous but Batman is more of a parody of Batman than actually being Batman, and all of the films are dragged down by a heavy focus on what the characters are doing instead of who the characters are, which is the point of them in the first place.

E.G: Harvey Dent dies. Why? Because Nolan wanted to make 'his' films, not because he wanted to be true to what Batman is about. Batman is a series which above all else champions violence only as one of many paths to peace. The series is about what it is that drives it's villains to be villains and what it is the heroes do to protect other people from them and to protect them from themselves.

It isn't about the violence. It's about everything else. The Dark Knight came closest to this with the whole boat thing but none of the other films did anything of worth in that sense.

Batman is a series that is meant to make us think about who we are and what it is we value. Do we value permanent peace at the cost of the lives of those who seek to disrupt it? Do we value the lives of others, even with the lingering threat of war and violence? What is evil and how do you really classify it? Even amongst those we consider to be villains can we still see the humanity in them?

The Nolan films never touched on these elements. The villains all died. Yeah, some of them got out in the last film but their influence on the plot was beyond negligible so from a narrative standpoint they died. They ceased being important. The point of Batman is that everyone is important, criminal or not, and that every life, however warped, is not only worth saving, but worth fixing.

The Joker is the epitome of what Batman stands for. He is the most deranged of his villains. The most inhuman. Lacking in empathy or restraint and probably unfixable, and yet he matters.
User avatar #2 - comicexplain ONLINE (07/18/2014) [-]
Batman is who he needs to be at a given time. He still visits Harvey in prison as Batman, moving -one- piece every day at exactly 11:55, so Dent has his brain occupied with tying to beat Batman over a long period of time -without- putting people in danger. Harvey knows he's sick, and is glad for the help.

If people have time, you should read the one-shot "24/7"!
#24 to #2 - ratstroke (07/19/2014) [-]
is the comic called 24/7? cos i cant find it on google, sorry
#4 to #2 - muchname (07/18/2014) [-]
Just out of curiosity, comicexplain, do you like the walking dead by skybound? If so, do you like it to most other comics
I like it because of it's linear timeline honestly.
Negan is best villain IMO
User avatar #5 to #4 - comicexplain ONLINE (07/18/2014) [-]
I've read them! But I like the show a bit better. At least not EVERYONE dies!
#17 to #5 - azraelthemage (07/19/2014) [-]
Bah. Your just upset because anyone at any given time can die.
User avatar #18 to #17 - comicexplain ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
Oh, no. Not upset! I think it's a great comic, for all its parts!
User avatar #12 to #2 - thingexplain (07/19/2014) [-]
I love how Batman is basically in a concentrated ********** of mentally ill people with a theme and a great HR department. And his troubles at any given point are which ones are currently outside the "secure" looney bin.
User avatar #19 - drl ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
batman lives in a city with evil scarecrows
evil blowns
a hulk man on steroids
and evil corporations
i would be a paranoid nut job also
the real question is
why are the rest of the citizens of Gotham not going crazy and saying
**** IT NEW YORK IS SAFER
User avatar #25 to #19 - kerfufflemachtwo (07/19/2014) [-]
New York has Spider-Man and his villains, the Fantastic Four and their villains, and the Avengers and their villains.

I think Canada would be safer.
User avatar #85 to #25 - drl ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
THAT MARVEL YOU STPID CUNT DIFFERENT UNIVERSE
User avatar #37 to #25 - lyiat ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
'Cept Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, and the Avengers don't exist in the same universe as Gotham... so citizens of Gotham wouldn't have that to consider.
#28 to #25 - youxbarstard (07/19/2014) [-]
No the safest place would be New Zealand, because think about how often NZ gets mentioned in either universe.
User avatar #30 to #28 - kerfufflemachtwo (07/19/2014) [-]
Yeah, but that's where Lord of the Rings happened.

It would be amazing, but not safe.
#31 to #30 - youxbarstard (07/19/2014) [-]
***** already come to pass, the days of evil in NZ are gone...for the most part, now it's mostly political issues and poverty in select areas that are effecting us.
User avatar #32 to #31 - kerfufflemachtwo (07/19/2014) [-]
They'll return. Just a matter of time.
#33 to #32 - youxbarstard (07/19/2014) [-]
We'll just knock em the **** out and call it a day.
#111 - beatmasterz (07/19/2014) [-]
I always use this as lifting motivation. ******* inspiring.
#136 to #111 - anon (07/19/2014) [-]
Oh **** ****** that's gfrade A badassery.
#62 - OperativeOpposite (07/19/2014) [-]
Am I the only one bothered by the order of the last few ******* panels?
User avatar #118 to #62 - amsel (07/19/2014) [-]
I was confused as hell too until I watched the video that Atiboy posted in comment #7. Whoever did the screenshots for this comic did an awful job portraying the situation.
User avatar #71 to #62 - malinko (07/19/2014) [-]
no. she gave him a small kiss. then realized she liked it and then smoothers his face with her mouth
#116 - YugiDork (07/19/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#23 - anon (07/19/2014) [-]
I kinda always hoped he did call her though. It's hard not to love this version of Harley.
This Harley > recent versions.
#27 to #23 - youxbarstard (07/19/2014) [-]
I don't know why, but every time I see the new Harley all I can think about is Angelika from rugrats and really ******* annoys me because Harley is one of my favorite characters of all time.
#107 to #23 - sylaz (07/19/2014) [-]
Version of Harley? Are you aware that this IS THE Harley Quinn, the first and original.
#143 to #107 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]
But it's not. This is New 52.
User avatar #74 to #23 - thecharliesheen (07/19/2014) [-]
I believe it's because they turned her into nothing but a fanservice semislut on overdrive.
#124 - travismackie (07/19/2014) [-]
Other than the Arkham series, the Batman Animated Series has to be one of my favorite versions of Batman.

Remember at the end of "Return Of The Joker" when Harley is at the end punishing her grandchildren for being bad? I like tho think that after J died, that Harley took Batman's advise and decided to go straight.
#34 - anon (07/19/2014) [-]
Sorry....but what show is this?   
   
 Like, I know it's Batman, but there are so many different Batman cartoons.
Sorry....but what show is this?

Like, I know it's Batman, but there are so many different Batman cartoons.
User avatar #35 to #34 - Anonomousthirteen (07/19/2014) [-]
What anon said. I need it. TELL ME, DAMN YOU!!
User avatar #36 to #35 - melonman (07/19/2014) [-]
It's "Batman: The Animated Series"
User avatar #38 to #36 - Anonomousthirteen (07/19/2014) [-]
Thank you, good sir!
User avatar #26 - mangobutt ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
Flash was like that in an episode of justice league unlimited.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSQ-h_2WGkw
#64 - zamka ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
Sauce, I like this.
Harley Quinn Kisses Batman Sauce, I like this.
User avatar #114 - kristovsky (07/19/2014) [-]
"I prefer Batman when he isn't an ultra paranoid nutjob"

**** you, /k/ batman is best batman.
User avatar #68 - asasqw (07/19/2014) [-]
General Eiling - Justice League Unlimited When people wonder why we say that late 1990s and early 2000 cartoons had heart it is reasons like this
0
#99 to #68 - RockyTheEvilRock has deleted their comment [-]
#94 to #68 - flyingfisherman (07/19/2014) [-]
I m glad that We got anime now.I do not mean something like dragon ballz but something like Death Note[It does have anime series ,series and 2 movies and 3. movie will be made in america by famous 			****		 so expect some ''cool'' pc effects''cgi'' really soon but I feel like They will 			****		 It badly   
   
gif  related is 1 episode anime   
Kowarekake no orgel try It    
Worst thing that can happen is waster 30minutes of Your life
I m glad that We got anime now.I do not mean something like dragon ballz but something like Death Note[It does have anime series ,series and 2 movies and 3. movie will be made in america by famous **** so expect some ''cool'' pc effects''cgi'' really soon but I feel like They will **** It badly

gif related is 1 episode anime
Kowarekake no orgel try It
Worst thing that can happen is waster 30minutes of Your life
User avatar #125 to #94 - snowshark (07/19/2014) [-]
Y'know, maybe it's not right to rag on DBZ as much as people do. I watched an AMV not long ago and it really brought something home to me as to exactly why DBZ should be valued and that was that DBZ IS shounen. It is the purest that shounen gets and never pretends or attempts to be anything more than that. It doesn't botch it's message like FT and it never tries and fails to be cerebral like Bleach. It never disappoints people the way Naruto does and it is never as stupid as Hitman Reborn got.

It is vanilla shounen at it's heart with all the unnecessary, complicated elements stripped from it. It may not be as freaky as Madoka Magica nor as crisp as Cowboy Bebop nor as poignant as Trigun nor even as heartfelt as One Piece, but it is honest in it's simplicity and really I can't think of anything about the series that I actually hate.

If you have the inclination, give the AMV a look. It's goofy but it's well made and it really gets to the heart of the series.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqnKS7eOQ7c

So I'd say DBZ is as important as Death Note and probably as valuable as well. DBZ does have a lot of heart to it. It's not as clever as Death Note but it doesn't need to be.
#137 to #125 - flyingfisherman (07/19/2014) [-]
I do not listen the beatles just because It is old
I do not watch black n white movies just because they used to be god tier
So I would not enjoy such experience just because It is ''cool''thing to do

As you say yourself DBZ is damn simple without good story and twists because It is just pure shounen
Fights were maybe good back then in years but well... It is not impressive today

I rate anime with simple factors
-Animation[This include looks of characters,cgi,smooth frame rate,fights]
-How interesting and original story is
-Feels

Sadly DBZ does not shine at any part
My opinion is extremely unpopular because:nostalgia maaan
I understand It because sometimes I play gta2 or fallout 2 for nostalgia and instead of that I could play fallout 3 or gta 5
but I just do not go like ''hi buddy you play crysis 3?Why do you not play some gta2 It is fantastic with simple killing,many cool missions,You can turn ppl into hot-dogs!''
All that''omg omg my friend is gonna die I better power up 4 episodes screaming waa'' gets old [and is old]

User avatar #140 to #137 - snowshark (07/19/2014) [-]
I didn't say to like DB. I didn't say to 'watch' DB. In fact it has been -years- since I've watched DB and I don't need to go back to it because I've already seen all of it and it doesn't have much replay value in my opinion. I also don't like it because it's 'cool'. (If I did things because they were cool I wouldn't be on Funnyjunk... heh).

The point I was making is that there is distinct value within the Dragonball Saga, however clumsily that value may be delivered. Unlike shows like Fairy Tail which have next to no value but deliver that value in a very showy and attention-grabbing way, DBZhas a relatively decent amount of value and presents it in a... let's say, staggered way.

The point is:

Animation: The animation is a factor but to me it is the same as graphics in video games. If they convey what needs to be conveyed they're fine for me, if they're good they're a treat. I'm a story guy first and foremost.

Story: The DB story was actually pretty unique and original when it came out... in the manga... in 1984. When we view anything it must be viewed both in modern and contemporary contexts. Just like how that rolling boulder in Indiana Jones is a cliche now but we don't mind seeing it in the original when it was still fresh, DB is the same and quite the pioneer in the genre, including elements such as turncoat villains, time-travel, villains with multiple (this isn't even my final) forms, and some pretty interesting villains.

It ain't One Piece, but that first came out almost fifteen years later, nearing the end of the run of the manga. So let's view this in context. DB is the grandaddy of shounen anime. I'm not saying you should like it, but it has a tremendous amount of value both contemporarily and as a reflection of modern shounen.

Either way, DB is filled with great stuff worth respecting. Have you seen DBZ Abridged? Give an episode a watch. Even if you don't like the series it's funny as all hell.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxSRmLBuL4k
#145 to #140 - flyingfisherman (07/20/2014) [-]
'' DB is the grandaddy of shounen anime ''-> I can not disagree here
I will never say something like ''It was **** in 1970''
''The point I was making is that there is distinct value within the Dragonball Saga, however clumsily that value may be delivered. ''
It is bassicaly same thing with grandaddy so I do not disagree

Yeah I get Your point I used to watch It when I was much younger btw I hate one piece It is for me most overrated anime ever .

'' When we view anything it must be viewed both in modern and contemporary contexts.''
I do not listen beatles because They were popular in 1960 and I would not give advice of listening to this overrated band to no one.
Ofcourse I know that girls used to love that band and It would be good place to date back then. But I would not dare to play beatles songs on my date today.

contemporary context: Stone axe is best tool we got,My leather shirt is freakin amazing!,I invented controled Fire! jezus christ genius oh wait no jezus christ in this year...

I get logic that You use but I just could not find good reason to use It too.
contemporary context is something not very reasonable : fag-pile of wood,gay-happy
You just do not go like ''take that fag'' ''You are gay lulz'' if You do not want someone to punch You but back then It was reasonable use of You need to login to view this link just does not change fact that It is not good idea to use them today.

contemporary context is something You have to think about if You are thinking about the past BUT should not have any effect on Your actions today.
ex:''I will make stone axe and cut this tree'' no You just go to shop and buy one steel axe for 5 dollars

TLDR: My point is that when I reccomend anime to somebody who s not interested in It at all.I do not start with 50 years old anime that is hard to watch for myself .

PIC related most scary anime character ever
User avatar #146 to #145 - snowshark (07/20/2014) [-]
1st Paragraph = Fine with it.
2nd = One Piece is a little overrated but it is also underrated by many. It has more quality to it than most of the fans even know about, Eiichiro Oda ain't Bill Shakespeare.

3rd: You play your date the Beatles and you look like a classy ******** . Or maybe that's just the culture I grew up in. *shrug* Either way, I'll deal with the problems I have with the rest of your post here.

Contemporary context is actually one of the most important factors in the evaluation of something. Whilst it may not be so useful in a practical sense with regards to the pragmatic world of tree-felling it is almost always relevant in the world of art.

It is one thing to 'watch' a performance. It is something else entirely to 'understand' it. Take for example Shakespeare's Richard III. Today we have a great deal of disconnect with Shakespeare's work to get over because it needs to be viewed in regards to it's context. Richard III came out with a main character who is a Plantagenet (i.e: the people the reigning family, the Tudors, just got done violently killing) so the Richard III in the play isn't a true-to-life representation of the Richard III he is meant to be portraying. He is slightly daemonised for the sake of being easier to swallow for the audience, and yet still heavily glorified because of how sinisterly effective he is. You can see elements of Shakey's Richard III in Machiavellian characters from Littlefinger to Frank Underwood.

Therefore to undersand the performance of Frank Underwood you must view it with context as to what informed the performance and to understand that you must understand the context it was delivered in. On top of that, to understand Frank you have to understand Francis Urquhart (i.e: The original British character 'House of Cards (US)' is based on.)

To properly view DB and to properly appreciate it it needs to be viewed whilst being understood. Just like when we hear the Beatles we have to understand... (cont...)
#148 to #146 - flyingfisherman (07/20/2014) [-]
you are aligning fake value to create arguments and I m not quite sure why. ''Rockets can be traced back to the Chinese a container filled with "gun powder" was placed on a arrow and then launched with a bow'' That It was really cool thing in contemporary context does not render It into valuable weapon against nuclear missiles today BUT It sure is granddaddy

There are not many things that can be given fake value but yes art is one of these things where You can do such thing but You can not expect to be taken seriously because It is very subiective value.

Look at modern art someone will piss paint on the paper and ppl are like omg omg true art I would say it is worth 5milions and then They pretend that They UNDERSTAND It[and It may have no meaning what is commonin modern art] ! Then You take something really old like 600years old omg so old 1500milions and for sure We UNDERSTAND It [again maybe just portrait of some guy that paid 2 golds]. But what is It really worth?

I m not going to argue with You over ''fake'' value

It is not logical
User avatar #150 to #148 - snowshark (07/20/2014) [-]
(Then I'll explain how it is logical to you and maybe then you can appreciate it's value. If these next comments don't explain the situation to you it is probably for the best that we leave it at that, but for the sake of courtesy, and perhaps curiosity, please read what follows.)

Well for starters, you don't need to understand how a rocket works to fire it. You just need to know how to fire it. In that case historical context is not important. However if you were tracing the history of rockets it becomes very important. That is, however, beside the point. As I said, context in the pragmatic and practical is not as important as it is in art because practicality is 'what works best in the situation', not 'what worked best before'. It would be helpful if you stopped focussing on that as it is not the focus of the argument.

We are looking at context in terms of artwork and yes artwork is subjective, however you are misunderstanding something fundamental. Unless those people know the historical context of the artwork they can not 'understand' it.

There are a lot of misconceptions about art. Misconceptions like 'Art has no rules' and 'authorial intent doesn't matter'. These spring mostly from a shallow understanding of art but for now we'll focus on the latter as it is relevant.

Authorial intent is part of the understanding of the artwork. You can come up with as many meanings for it as you like and they are important, but what is also important is what the author meant to do by making the artwork. Even if you find completely different values in the artwork to what he intended (i.e. The Room) that doesn't mean the author's intentions are unimportant. As appreciators of art we learn what the art is meant to mean and then we ascribe our own meanings to it, finding our own values in it.

(Cont.)
#152 to #150 - flyingfisherman (07/20/2014) [-]
That is very nice and all but somehow I do not understand how is It related to the original topic anymore .   
   
But ofcourse I will gladly wait for (cont.) where you probably explain yourself   
   
I always read all and try to understand It from every angle but    
 Misconceptions like 'Art has no rules' -> Here I would argue for I m artist and if art would have rules I would never draw at all    
the only rule in art is capacity of imagination i m not covering things like:''I kill you how you gonna do art then'' for oblivious reasons   
'authorial intent doesn't matter' -> Here is that space where you can give ''fake value''   
Authors intent give no value to the art except ''showmans'' like street artist   
basically If I want to sell my painting I need someone Who will value It.    
So It needs to have meaning for him. Lets not forget that OLD art was in most cases ORDER from rich people.    
Leonardo Da Vinci had paintings with ENORMOUS authors intent    
but He did not finish them/He did not get paid etc   
So he draw Dead lynched ppl for money.   
Ppl are like ''It was genius'' like if He did not work hard to accomplish It.   
but now I m offtopic.    
   
Now I did read con2   
 Final product is what does matter to men for men are consumers and consumers give value to the product. Any value that You relate to history of product is indeed fake value''marketing''.For true values are:time spend to create final product,materials,building,lighting   
If I drink coca-cola I do not go to look at who created original coca-cola how long are they doing It how many times they changed recipe .    
I take coca-cola drink coca-cola and say:It is sweet 			****		 I better drink orange juice.   
But Indeed what You write is valuable to me so thank You for Your Insight and time!   
:My original stick animation as reward
That is very nice and all but somehow I do not understand how is It related to the original topic anymore .

But ofcourse I will gladly wait for (cont.) where you probably explain yourself

I always read all and try to understand It from every angle but
Misconceptions like 'Art has no rules' -> Here I would argue for I m artist and if art would have rules I would never draw at all
the only rule in art is capacity of imagination i m not covering things like:''I kill you how you gonna do art then'' for oblivious reasons
'authorial intent doesn't matter' -> Here is that space where you can give ''fake value''
Authors intent give no value to the art except ''showmans'' like street artist
basically If I want to sell my painting I need someone Who will value It.
So It needs to have meaning for him. Lets not forget that OLD art was in most cases ORDER from rich people.
Leonardo Da Vinci had paintings with ENORMOUS authors intent
but He did not finish them/He did not get paid etc
So he draw Dead lynched ppl for money.
Ppl are like ''It was genius'' like if He did not work hard to accomplish It.
but now I m offtopic.

Now I did read con2
Final product is what does matter to men for men are consumers and consumers give value to the product. Any value that You relate to history of product is indeed fake value''marketing''.For true values are:time spend to create final product,materials,building,lighting
If I drink coca-cola I do not go to look at who created original coca-cola how long are they doing It how many times they changed recipe .
I take coca-cola drink coca-cola and say:It is sweet **** I better drink orange juice.
But Indeed what You write is valuable to me so thank You for Your Insight and time!
:My original stick animation as reward
User avatar #153 to #152 - snowshark (07/20/2014) [-]
Art does have rules, the misconceptions come from when people start misunderstanding what these rules apply to. The rules are very different from medium to medium but film has the most obvious ones. These are in relation to things like 'If you want people to like a character they need to empathise with them'. Sort of like how Jar Jar Binks is breaking the rules of film. His intention is not being effectively expressed because of the mistakes made during the process of making the audience like him.

Anyway, that's a side-note.

With regards to what you said outside of that. Please don't take this the wrong way but this question has been ******** at me for a bit. Are you autistic? (I realise the enormous range of mental abnormalities that word accommodates and I'm actually on the spectrum myself)

I don't mean it as an insult, however your focus on pragmatism is... total. I find it very unusual that you value art by it's pricetag. Perhaps this is a language barrier we're running into here but value does mean more than simple practical elements like time and money.

The fact that you even use the phrase 'fake value' tells me a lot about how you view art and I have to say it is the absolute contrast of my own views. By what you're saying you could call Michael Bay Transformers movies more valuable than 'Scott Pilgrim vs the World'. One film made more than the other but one film had much, much, much more artistic vision put in it. For me, that is value.

Money is just a tool that we use to exchange obligation. I want that painting so I am obliged to give you something. I give you money, you are obliged to give me the painting.

However the Mona Lisa has value beyond that. It is intangible and ethereal. It is values such as meaning and skill and technique, things that we may not be able to value the same way we value money, but things that have a worth to them.

Again, don't take this the wrong way, it's just that is a very unusual view to have of art.
#154 to #153 - flyingfisherman (07/20/2014) [-]
I had autism test and i scored like 3% from 100% on other side I m psychopath with very serious empathy issues I love to lie and control ppl . But really hugs are not my problem.   
   
Yes my insight may be different and yes english is not my main languge It is like 4.language that I learned.    
   
Mona Lisa can be called ''just a picture'' and You could wipe Your ass with It.   
But ofcourse It is worth a lot because It does mean something to people=>there is demand . But I simply can not understand such sort of giving value to the things.   
I can say ''He was skilled and It is good art because I can see that skill'' or I m wondering if It is autoportrait or other speculations'' ...but I can not give anything beyond that. And that special something does have something with feels I guess? I can hardly feel anything except pain and I mean It literally.    
Value is indeed all about consumers . In the absence of effective consumer demand, producers would lack one of the key motivations to produce. There would be quite big chance for many great ''paintings'' to never be without ''money'' to support It. It is why I use money as key in valuing of obiect  . I use logic to determine value if You use anything else I call it indeed ''fake'' value .   
While I worked in GEWIS I heard really cool story    
Engineer visited boss and said''if you do this and this you will be 20% more effective''   
Boss asked''how long are you working here''   
ing said''4 years mister''   
instead of gratulations Boss grabbed calculator,inserted some numbers and said in angry voice''If You would tell me this 4 years ago this is how many money would I save''   
Boss clearly did not care about history of his engineer He did care about money for They are important for his job.   
In dreamland You need no money   
In dreamland there is no war    
Back to topic: Yes I value things in money from life of man to art because Money=material=motivation   
Do you think that PPL work for fun? You can show me like 0,1% ppl that do.Others do It to survive
I had autism test and i scored like 3% from 100% on other side I m psychopath with very serious empathy issues I love to lie and control ppl . But really hugs are not my problem.

Yes my insight may be different and yes english is not my main languge It is like 4.language that I learned.

Mona Lisa can be called ''just a picture'' and You could wipe Your ass with It.
But ofcourse It is worth a lot because It does mean something to people=>there is demand . But I simply can not understand such sort of giving value to the things.
I can say ''He was skilled and It is good art because I can see that skill'' or I m wondering if It is autoportrait or other speculations'' ...but I can not give anything beyond that. And that special something does have something with feels I guess? I can hardly feel anything except pain and I mean It literally.
Value is indeed all about consumers . In the absence of effective consumer demand, producers would lack one of the key motivations to produce. There would be quite big chance for many great ''paintings'' to never be without ''money'' to support It. It is why I use money as key in valuing of obiect . I use logic to determine value if You use anything else I call it indeed ''fake'' value .
While I worked in GEWIS I heard really cool story
Engineer visited boss and said''if you do this and this you will be 20% more effective''
Boss asked''how long are you working here''
ing said''4 years mister''
instead of gratulations Boss grabbed calculator,inserted some numbers and said in angry voice''If You would tell me this 4 years ago this is how many money would I save''
Boss clearly did not care about history of his engineer He did care about money for They are important for his job.
In dreamland You need no money
In dreamland there is no war
Back to topic: Yes I value things in money from life of man to art because Money=material=motivation
Do you think that PPL work for fun? You can show me like 0,1% ppl that do.Others do It to survive
User avatar #155 to #154 - snowshark (07/20/2014) [-]
Well, the odd thing is that people in the artistic field tend to do just that, yeah. Take for example van Gogh. He made next to no money with his paintings but he painted anyway because that is what he loved to do. I'm a writer. If I don't make any money with it I'll still write because I love to write. Not anything, I couldn't write just anything, I'm logical about what I write in that I write fantasy that has far more grounding than regular fantasy.

Maybe this is just something you won't be able to access the same way other people do (I know I certainly had issues grasping the notion) but there is more value to art than just the pricetag. Art (and by this I am saying all kinds of art. Books, movies, games, etc) has been one of the most powerful tools of enlightenment in history. it motivates people to create, it contains messages that we decipher, it asks questions in ways more effective and evocative than just asking the questions, it provides humans with insight and experiences they may otherwise never have had.

All of those things are truly valuable. You may not be able to exchange that insight in the same manner that you do money, but that's not what this kind of value is about. It isn't fake, it is incredibly real, perhaps more-so than money. It affects people lives, their views, and their selves in ways that are more valuable than money could ever be.

Yes, a lot of people in the world work so they can survive, but there are also a lot of people out there who survive so they can work. I'm one of them. Maybe you'll never be able to truly access this concept or maybe someday you will find the right angle to grasp it from, but I promise you there is a lot to art beyond the price-tag and that those factors are as valuable, if not more-so, than the price itself.

Either way, I don't think we'll be getting anywhere like this. There's no use in muscling through autism (as my teachers soon learned). Thanks for the chat. It was valuable.
User avatar #156 to #155 - flyingfisherman (07/20/2014) [-]
I agree with big part of what you just mentioned because It is fact that surroundings shape the character of men be it culture[of art],religion,race,friends.

For this is logical .

Just like You say Gogh made next to no money and now he is very valuable It is one of reasons I call It fake value.
Artist is dead:big value added
Art is old:Value added
etc...

btw ask Yourself for whom are You writing
but do It twice once now and once 2 years from now
Lets see if You are not consumer and producer at once.
Sucesfull people tend to be good at being producers of what They do not consume.

Thank you too It was fun and You added 2 words into my vocabulary decipher,immense so I call It good day.

See you!
User avatar #151 to #150 - snowshark (07/20/2014) [-]
(Cont.)
Think of it like this. When you look at 'The Dark Knight' and evaluate it's quality (which you can actually do with films, this is another misconception that opinion is the deciding factor in a film's quality) you have to view it with an understanding of many different contextual elements.

You need to understand the source material that the character of Batman was based on. You need to identify the differences and why those choices to make the changes were made. Not because the changes themselves are terribly important, but because the reasons 'why' the director made the changes are important.

So to understand what changes happened you need to understand the historical context of Batman, the Joker, and Harvey Dent. Then to understand 'why' the changes were made you need to look at the three characters in the comics and then look at how they were portrayed in the movie. You need to look at and evaluate why things are done differently. If it is to do with the restrictions of the medium or if it is to do with directorial intent or if it is to do with a difference in the audience.

That is to say nothing about the 'technical' quality of 'The Dark Knight' as a movie. Context is about the 'why', more than it is the 'what', however if you are to make a fair evaluation of the movie you do need to know these details and how they relate to one another.

That historical context has an immense amount of value in this case because the choices made in the adaptation of the material inform us of what the director wanted out of his version.

It goes further than that too. It is about knowing why 'The Dambusters' is as important a movie as it is. It is understanding the impetus behind 'Citizen Kane' through understanding the person who inspired the character of Kane and what message the movie is making. It is about seeing that boulder in Indiana Jones and understanding how iconic it has become and 'why' it has become so iconic.

It isn't fake. It is very, very real.
User avatar #147 to #146 - snowshark (07/20/2014) [-]
(Cont...) why 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' is one of the most important songs written by the Beatles. I didn't grow up listening to the Beatles and I'm not even in the habit of listening to them, but when that particular song comes on I can appreciate it all the more because I understand the context of what it did, what it influenced, and what influenced it. In fact, so do many people who have never heard it.

We don't love Bohemian Rhapsody just because it is a good song. We love it because of what the singer means to us. Because of what the song did. Because of a number of factors that are contextual and superfluous to the actual artwork.

Context is part of a higher level of appreciating artwork. It is our admiration for van Gogh's artistic vision in the face of overwhelming opposition and our understanding of how important the war films like 'The Great Dictator' were to the people who were making them and those watching them and those parodied within them.

Context is not necessary to enjoy something. In fact, nothing is. You could enjoy something lacking in everything that the industry would consider important and that would be your right, but I personally respect and consume art on a different level to most people which is a choice I make not to distinguish myself as being better than them, merely as having a differing appreciation of the medium.

Hence when we look at Dragonball we look at it with an understanding of its context. Of the things it did first and the things that it inspired. Of the meaning the series holds to so many, both bad and good, and an understanding of the whole picture that is Dragonball, and not just the tiny picture that is the show itself.

The majority of artwork exists outside of the frame. But to see it we are required to invest time and effort into understanding, and that just isn't for everyone. They have their own hobbies and interests. I just hope this sheds some light on a subject you seem not to value, and the importance of it
User avatar #149 to #147 - flyingfisherman (07/20/2014) [-]
Well sorry that I answered before reading cont but in fact I covered your 2. part anyway.
I m not going to argue with You over ''fake'' value just like I said
User avatar #115 to #94 - kolya ONLINE (07/19/2014) [-]
the feels...why...just why
User avatar #39 - linkeron (07/19/2014) [-]
Does the order of the last eight panels confuse anyone else? I didn't see a whole lot of this show.
User avatar #41 to #39 - MoparMan (07/19/2014) [-]
Yeah it's super ****** up
#1 - Claymaster (07/18/2014) [-]
**Claymaster rolled image** don't give me these feels phanact
#139 - futuregohan (07/19/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
[ 157 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)