Recent posts

#31

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) / Report about superhero films l...

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 09:01

Superhero films can encourage prosocial behavior, new study finds

A new study published in The Journal of Psychology suggests that superhero films, despite often depicting violence, can promote prosocial behavior — actions meant to benefit others, such as sharing or helping. By showing a specific scene from the 2016 film Batman v Superman, the researchers found that viewers who identified with Batman or believed his actions were morally justified were more likely to help others in a subsequent task.

While previous research has shown that prosocial media can encourage helpfulness and cooperation, violent media has typically been associated with increased aggression. Superhero films, a genre with widespread popularity, often mix these two elements. The researchers wanted to explore how these films might affect viewers, particularly in terms of empathy and moral reasoning, which could influence whether viewers engage in prosocial behavior despite the violence on screen.

The study involved two experiments, each with 200 Brazilian participants, who were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group watched a 3-minute and 47-second clip from the movie Batman v Superman, in which Batman fights multiple armed villains to rescue Martha, a captured character. This scene was chosen for its combination of violent action and a clear prosocial motive—saving a life.

In contrast, the control group watched a neutral video that featured colorful shapes forming various patterns. This video, which had no violent or prosocial content, was meant to serve as a baseline for comparison.

After watching the videos, participants were asked to complete a prosocial behavior task. They were told they were helping with another study by distributing pieces of chocolate to future participants who liked the treat. The number of chocolate pieces each participant allocated served as a measure of their prosocial behavior.

The researchers also measured participants' levels of empathy after viewing the videos. To do this, they used a scale that assessed three different types of empathy: affective empathy (sharing another person's emotions), cognitive empathy (understanding another's perspective), and associative empathy (identifying with the character in the video).

In the second experiment, the researchers introduced an additional measure—moral justification. Participants were asked to evaluate whether the violent actions taken by Batman were justified. This was done using a series of statements such as "The main character's actions were necessary" or "It was impossible to deal with this situation in any other way."

In the first study, participants who watched the superhero scene reported higher levels of empathy than those in the control group. More specifically, viewers showed increased associative empathy — they identified more with Batman and his mission to save the hostage. This identification with the hero was the key factor that indirectly boosted prosocial behavior.

While participants in the superhero group didn't give significantly more chocolate than those in the control group overall, the effect of the movie on prosocial behavior was seen through the increase in empathy. This suggests that feeling connected to the hero and understanding their motives could encourage viewers to be more generous and helpful in their real-world actions.

The second study revealed that moral reasoning also played a role in prosocial behavior. Participants who watched the superhero scene were more likely to believe that Batman's violent actions were justified. This belief, in turn, was linked to higher prosocial behavior, as measured by the chocolate allocation task.

Essentially, when participants viewed the hero's actions as morally right, they were more inclined to engage in helpful behavior themselves. The researchers theorized that the portrayal of superheroes as protectors and defenders likely led viewers to accept their violent actions as necessary for the greater good, which then translated into a willingness to help others.

In short, simply watching the superhero scene did not directly cause participants to behave more prosocially. Instead, the participants who empathized with the characters or believed the violent actions were justified were more likely to act in a helpful way afterward.

While the study offers valuable insights into the effects of superhero films, it is not without limitations. One limitation is the use of an online experiment, which may reduce the level of control over participants' environments and behavior. For instance, distractions during the video could have affected participants' responses. Additionally, the study only used a single method of measuring prosocial behavior (the chocolate allocation task), which may not fully capture the complexity of prosocial actions in real-world situations.

Another limitation is the sample size and demographic characteristics. The participants were predominantly young adults from Brazil, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other age groups or cultural contexts. Future research could address this by replicating the study with different age groups and in various cultural settings.

The study, "Superhero Films' Impacts on Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Role of State-Empathy and Violence Justification," was authored by Isabella Leandra Silva Santos and Carlos Eduardo Pimentel.

https://www.psypost.org/superhero-films-can-encourage-prosocial-behavior-new-study-finds/

So basically, those who identified with Batman's actions in the BvS warehouse scene as necessary under the circumstances tend to be more empathetic and likely to help others. Normally I wouldn't think you'd need to organise a psychological study to hypothesise this. If I'm being honest, you can use other superhero films with similar scenes to hypothesise such a theory. On the other hand, it does amuse me that the impression I get from this report - whether it was intended or not - is those who criticise the warehouse scene e.g. "Batman wouldn't do this or that" are likely coming from people who have zero empathy themselves. From what I've seen of the disgusting vitriol towards Snyder over the years, I would not at all be surprised.

#32

Batman (1989) / Batman: Reanimated

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 08:24

I found this fan-made video uploaded less than a week ago by a B89 fan. A very nicely done animated piece that gets the atmosphere and mood of Burton's Gotham City right. I love the attention to detail, from the glimpses of the Joker to the doctor who helped in the tampering of the chemicals at Axis going missing. This pays tribute to the Burtonverse much better than any of the recent comics and films.

Check it out:

#33

Batman: TAS (1992 - 1995) / Re: BTAS 30th Anniversary Thre...

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 08:14

#34

Movies / Re: Recommend a movie

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 08:09

I watched Late Night With the Devil on Netflix. It's set in the Seventies about a late night talk show host who is struggling with the death of his wife and trying to boost ratings for his failing show that he interviews a girl possessed by a demon on live television. The period piece was done extremely well as were the old school-style special effects, and the pacing flows quickly. What makes the film effective is it's presented as a recording of the talk show and displays the episode unraveling into chaos, with the behind-the-scenes drama unfolding in black and white. Very well acted despite a largely unknown cast and great narration by Michael Ironside chronicling the TV host's rise to fame before the infamous episode.

It's better than a lot of horror movies nowadays. Highly recommended.

#35

Finished Runs / Re: Batman in the '70s

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 07:56

Great video analysing and paying tribute to Marshall Rogers for his work on Batman, and the impact that he and Englehart had on Batman comics.

#36

Misc Comics / Re: Happy 75th Anniversary to ...

Last post by thecolorsblend - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 04:37

I always found it telling how quickly Batman rebounded from huge mega storylines like Knightfall and No Man's Land. Yes, you could argue that 1995 and 2000 were... not great years for Batman comics. Not terrible. Not great either tho. But the character found his groove again fairly quickly, all things considered.

Compare that to the Superman titles, which needed a full year to recover from Krisis Of The Krimson Kryptonite (which wasn't a huge storyline by any means except for the final chapter) and arguably never fully recovered from the Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen storylines.

#37

Movies / Re: The Halloween Franchise

Last post by thecolorsblend - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 04:30

Ages ago, I read somebody on reddit claim that Laurie's arc in the Blumhouse films would actually make more sense if it happened in reverse.

Ends shows Laurie determined to live a happy and comfortable life. But then, Michael Myers comes knocking.

Kills shows Laurie sacked out in the hospital recovering from her injuries but convinced she got Michael. She then discovers how mistaken she is.

2018 shows Laurie hiding out in her own isolated compound as she prepares for her final showdown. This time, she snares Myers in a trap and leaves him for dead.

I don't mind the Blumhouse films as they are. But I do think that redditor has a point when he suggests reversing her arc. In retrospect, that might've been the better way to go.

The most I ask of any Halloween sequel is to not make me wish I was watching the original film instead. Most Myers-oriented Halloween sequel have some kind of redeeming quality for me. Something that draws me in. The only real exceptions to that are Halloween 05, Zombie's H2 and, to a lesser degree, either cut of Halloween 06. The rest of the Myers films all have SOMEthing about them that I can enjoy.

For everything else, there's the original.

#38

Movies / Re: The Halloween Franchise

Last post by The Joker - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 03:20

I don't have terribly strong feelings about it. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. It's ok.

Halloween '18 is essentially another of those back-to-basics retreads of Carpenter's movie that we get every ten years or so. I liked it more than Zombie's 2007 film, but not as much as The Return of Michael Myers. I suppose I'd rank it roughly on a par with H20.

My only real issue with it, other than its lack of originality, is that I don't buy into the characterisation of Laurie as a survivalist nut who's dead certain Myers is going to return. If it was the Laurie who'd lived through the events of Halloween II and H20 then I'd have no trouble accepting that characterisation. But if this is meant to be the meek and vulnerable Laurie from the original film, without the events of the sequels to instil the expectation of Myers' inevitable return, then I don't get why she's so sure her one-time assailant is coming back after four decades. I understand that she's got PTSD, but I don't think that's a solid basis for her conviction that a sexagenarian Myers is coming back. Again, if she'd lived through H2 and H20 I'd buy it. But if she's only lived through the original film and has lived a relatively normal life since, then it doesn't quite work for me.

Perfectly understandable, and I would even say it's indicative of Hollywood taking the "different than" route, and since we already had the PTSD-shrouded Laurie in H2O, PTSD-surivalist Laurie would be the next step even if it was a bit of a stretch.

Halloween Kills has a strong opening sequence that effectively captures the look and feel of the early instalments in the series. The storyline about the town vigilantes elevates it above being just another retread, and I like the appearance by the Silver Shamrock masks. It's a solid continuation of the previous film and a decent sequel.

I had some problems with HK, but overall felt it was a solid follow up to H2018. Some choices were a bit clunky, just as they were in H2018, but what the film had in spades was this continued momentum where Michael was arguably at his most vicious, and the town of Haddonfield was gradually succumbing to mania and chaos.

I didn't think Halloween Ends was as terrible as its reputation led me to expect, but maybe that's because I went into it with low expectations. I thought it was ok. I appreciate that they tried to do something different, a la Friday the 13th Part V. But I didn't buy into the central romance, or the way Allyson instantly falls in love with Corey. The bully characters were so stereotypical and one-dimensional they belonged in a Stephen King story. I thought the final showdown was formulaic and unintentionally comical in places. I don't understand why Laurie went through the charade of pretending to kill herself. To lure Corey out? Why? He was coming for her anyway. Did she really need to dial 911? Couldn't she have just faked the telephone conversation if she knew Corey was listening in? That all seemed a bit forced to me. So it definitely has issues and is the weakest entry in the trilogy, but I didn't hate it.

I watched this one again just the other night, and yeah, it's OK. Unfortunately, I can't help but think, every single time, that I just wish everyone involved would have stuck to landing with this trilogy rather than the road ultimately taken. As the crescendo that the previous installments were building up to (Hk's extended ending hammers this home), just winds up discarded and deflated in favor of trying something different. Which just comes across as Blumhouse becoming disinterested in the original direction/story ideas, and decided to try something else, but as a consequence, resulting in HE being incredibly disjointed from the overall cohesion of H2018/HK. Which isn't particularly satisfying.

As a general point, I miss the subtlety of the 1978 film. The most haunting moments from Carpenter's movie were the quieter scenes, like when Laurie sees Michael standing by the washing line looking up at her window, or the final shots of the film playing to the sound of Myers' breathing. There's very little blood in the first movie. It didn't need gore, and that restraint set it apart from other horror franchises of that era. I don't think there need to be any more Michael Myers movies after the recent trilogy. The formula's played out (I just realised the Halloween franchise now has more instalments than the Friday the 13th series!). But if they must make more, then I'd like to see a return to the subtler approach of the 1978 movie.

I've said numerous times that my favourite movie in the Halloween franchise is Season of the Witch. I don't think it's the best entry in the series (that would be the original), but it's my favourite on a purely subjective level. However, if I were to pick a Michael Myers headcanon trilogy, it'd be Halloween '78, Halloween II and The Return of Michael Myers.

I think H4 still has the reigns for the most shocking ending that has come out of the franchise. It's great!

#39

Movies / Re: The Halloween Franchise

Last post by Silver Nemesis - Mon, 4 Nov 2024, 12:18

I watched Halloween Ends on Netflix last week.

I am going to assume that you have seen the Halloween Blumhouse trilogy, Silver.

Care to share your thoughts?

I don't have terribly strong feelings about it. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. It's ok.

Halloween '18 is essentially another of those back-to-basics retreads of Carpenter's movie that we get every ten years or so. I liked it more than Zombie's 2007 film, but not as much as The Return of Michael Myers. I suppose I'd rank it roughly on a par with H20.

My only real issue with it, other than its lack of originality, is that I don't buy into the characterisation of Laurie as a survivalist nut who's dead certain Myers is going to return. If it was the Laurie who'd lived through the events of Halloween II and H20 then I'd have no trouble accepting that characterisation. But if this is meant to be the meek and vulnerable Laurie from the original film, without the events of the sequels to instil the expectation of Myers' inevitable return, then I don't get why she's so sure her one-time assailant is coming back after four decades. I understand that she's got PTSD, but I don't think that's a solid basis for her conviction that a sexagenarian Myers is coming back. Again, if she'd lived through H2 and H20 I'd buy it. But if she's only lived through the original film and has lived a relatively normal life since, then it doesn't quite work for me.

Halloween Kills has a strong opening sequence that effectively captures the look and feel of the early instalments in the series. The storyline about the town vigilantes elevates it above being just another retread, and I like the appearance by the Silver Shamrock masks. It's a solid continuation of the previous film and a decent sequel.

I didn't think Halloween Ends was as terrible as its reputation led me to expect, but maybe that's because I went into it with low expectations. I thought it was ok. I appreciate that they tried to do something different, a la Friday the 13th Part V. But I didn't buy into the central romance, or the way Allyson instantly falls in love with Corey. The bully characters were so stereotypical and one-dimensional they belonged in a Stephen King story. I thought the final showdown was formulaic and unintentionally comical in places. I don't understand why Laurie went through the charade of pretending to kill herself. To lure Corey out? Why? He was coming for her anyway. Did she really need to dial 911? Couldn't she have just faked the telephone conversation if she knew Corey was listening in? That all seemed a bit forced to me. So it definitely has issues and is the weakest entry in the trilogy, but I didn't hate it.

As a general point, I miss the subtlety of the 1978 film. The most haunting moments from Carpenter's movie were the quieter scenes, like when Laurie sees Michael standing by the washing line looking up at her window, or the final shots of the film playing to the sound of Myers' breathing. There's very little blood in the first movie. It didn't need gore, and that restraint set it apart from other horror franchises of that era. I don't think there need to be any more Michael Myers movies after the recent trilogy. The formula's played out (I just realised the Halloween franchise now has more instalments than the Friday the 13th series!). But if they must make more, then I'd like to see a return to the subtler approach of the 1978 movie.

I've said numerous times that my favourite movie in the Halloween franchise is Season of the Witch. I don't think it's the best entry in the series (that would be the original), but it's my favourite on a purely subjective level. However, if I were to pick a Michael Myers headcanon trilogy, it'd be Halloween '78, Halloween II and The Return of Michael Myers.

#40

Movies / Re: Matrix 4 Coming Soon

Last post by The Joker - Sun, 3 Nov 2024, 23:45

1999 article discussing the 'web exclusive' Matrix stories that would debut soon after the success of the original film.