Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 275
- 2
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can't argue with that. Many superhero movies I've seen I didn't really care for. But with few allusions The Incredibles manage to conjure up a mythical retro mindspace where all that golden-to-silver age superheroes existed and enmeshes it with some great James Bond villain tropes. Also, a great movie.
I will nominate The Mask of Zorro as a runner-up for similar but not same reasons. (Cape, mask, heroics --- of course its capeshit, but it comes with swords, horses and 19th century California/Mexico landscapes, which makes it better). Not a perfect movie, but I had genuine fun watching it. Many darker movies are objectively notable (the Dark Knight trilogy, Watchmen, Joker) but not really fun.
I notice this with the MCU as well - the best films are the ones that embrace the transparently juvenile nature of the whole endeavour. As a rule, the more childish the film, the better it is.
Iron Man (2008) is basically a fourteen year old boy's fantasy. Tony Stark is rich, awesome, lives in a palace with a bunch of luxury cars, he has a private jet that transforms into a strip club with his own private pole-dancers, and so on. Stark's superpower is engineering, one of the most 'boy' careers around. He goes to all the fanciest parties and has sex with hot women. He makes cool toys and flies around and doesn't do what anyone else tells him. The film is a profoundly adolescent one, and even though the emotional arc of the character is growing up and becoming less of an utter man-child, he still does all the cool man-child stuff.
Likewise if you look at the other most successful MCU films. Guardians of the Galaxy is again a teenage boy's fantasy about being a cool guy. The Avengers is a Joss Whedon film and Whedon's greatest strength has been his inner teenager. The Avengers is about a clubhouse of four awesome dudes who hang out and quip wittily and do really cool stuff together. The most popular Thor film was Ragnarok, the one that dropped all the attempts to be serious or really evoke a heroic epic, and instead just went for adolescent comedy combined with awesome violence. Early on the MCU tried to give each character's cinematic sub-series a unique tone - Iron Man was all about technology and creativity, Captain America had these wistful, serious films about war and intrigue, and Thor was meant to be high fantasy with a Shakespearean edge from the comics, hence Kenneth Branagh. But that didn't take off that well with the superhero film audience, and while, say, this has no place in the serious quasi-Shakespearean fantasy epic, it is undoubtedly something that makes teenage boys cheer. The MCU always does better when it leans into the childishness.
I'd argue that the DC films' biggest problem was trying to take themselves too seriously. Charitably they were trying to differentiate themselves from Marvel, and they were probably chasing the successes of The Dark Knight and Watchmen, but... well, Watchmen was a deconstruction, and as I said, The Dark Knight isn't even really a superhero movie. When DC tried to do a serious, dark Superman it didn't work out. I've not seen Wonder Woman, but Aquaman was the best of the DC films I saw, and I do not think it was a coincidence that Aquaman was the most openly silly.
In fact, I'll go beyond just saying that superhero films do better when they embrace their own childishness. They do better when they realise that superheroes are kind of inherently comedic.
None of these films are straight comedies - not even Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor: Ragnarok. But they all have a lot of comedy elements. It works because, well, superhero comics are funny. They work much better if you embrace that.
That doesn't mean I want Superman or Captain America to gurn and mug at the camera. Superman and Cap are very sincere characters, whose simple goodness and wholesome patriotism are part of their appeal. But that doesn't mean you can't acknowledge the silliness or have comic scenes. The best Superman film is probably still Superman (1978), and it gets plenty of comedy mileage from the contrast between Superman and Clark.
Anyway, The Incredibles was a comedy, and I think that just being a straight comedy works better for superheroes than trying to cut the comedy entirely. Superheroes become miserable when they take themselves too seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link