|
Post by Rebel on Mar 30, 2011 18:42:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Mar 30, 2011 19:46:34 GMT -5
Of course Nolan ( who is absolutely flawless with his 2 extermely mediocre Batman films) is attached as producer.
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on Mar 30, 2011 21:00:03 GMT -5
I LOVE anything BatMan... I havent seen one thing that's BatMan that I dont love besides "BatMan and Robin" and "Bat Man The Movie (1966)"
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Mar 31, 2011 17:20:25 GMT -5
Nolan apparently has final cut for TDKR and his ending is quite final, so they have no choice but to reboot.
I fully expected this all along though, so count me in as indifferent. There are a lot of directors that I would love to see tackle the material as well.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Mar 31, 2011 23:39:19 GMT -5
Don't really care either way, nothing against Batman movies, just never got into them....for me Batman movies ended when they replaced Mickeal Keaton Amen to that. Keaton was and always will be the best!
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Apr 1, 2011 8:49:33 GMT -5
How can you say that without knowing who might be cast in the role again? That statement reeks of nostalgia over logic.
Since TDKR is the last Nolan Batfilm, his detractors might get their way again, complete with batnipples and plenty of neon.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Apr 1, 2011 15:23:21 GMT -5
They are speaking from what they have seen. You can't sincerely tell me that Bale's throat cancer is epic can you? He even uses that voice with Alfred in the Dark Knight when THEY ARE ALONE as if Alfred doesn't know what he sounds like >_> But you shouldn't auto assume they are going to be Shumacker films, highly condescending. I don't know why you get so bent when somebody doesn't agree with you on this senor
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Apr 1, 2011 15:33:33 GMT -5
You won't even give TDK a chance because some other people didn't like it, and they are in a small minority. Saying that a movie is bad without even watching it is rather lame.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Apr 1, 2011 15:50:39 GMT -5
Why do you always assume that Nolan's films are golden? Why can't you simply just let people like their nostalgic. Jesus Christ everytime there's a Batman thread this always happen...whatever i don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Apr 1, 2011 17:40:05 GMT -5
What am I assuming? The reaction among critics, fans and the general audience is overwhelmingly positive towards Nolan's films, Batman or otherwise. Don't believe me? Go to sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo.
This board seems to be a hub for Burton fans, while most others I am on are very positive towards Nolan.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Apr 1, 2011 18:41:20 GMT -5
Just becuase someone prfers one serie sof films over another doesn't mean you have to act like a dick towards them. Christ why do I even bother posting in these threads for? You're just gonna act like a dickhead towards me and taht's the last thing i need this week...whatever like you give a shit anyway....
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Apr 1, 2011 23:42:38 GMT -5
You won't even give TDK a chance because some other people didn't like it, and they are in a small minority. Saying that a movie is bad without even watching it is rather lame. I have watched it actually I watched it a few weeks ago. I just haven't written a review on here yet. But when I pan that out I'll be sure to copy it on here as well But to say "it made money" "Critics love it" "its oscar material" does not automatically made it perfect. I can name a lot of movies that "made money" "the critics loved it" "its oscar material" and it won't be remembered years from now. I think this year "The Kings Speech" won? Does anybody even know what that movie is about? Because I sure don't. I judge a movie based on 1) It keeps my attention (Dark Knight did for the most part except for some scenes I coudl happily cut out because they added nothing whatsoever) 2) Creativity (some places it was and some places not 3) Acting (Dark Knight had pretty good acting except old throat cancer man) 4) Since this is based on a comic book, I look for a feel hope in the super hero (Since Batman seemed depressed half the time I didn't feel hope but I felt depressed that apparently the bad guys are apparently the only guys!) I just don't know why be defensive. I don't get defensive when somebody disagrees about a movie. I state my case. The other person states their case. We agree to disagree unless a mind gets changed. Booyah. But one thing for sure is just saying a movie is perfect due to "money" "oscar" and "critics" doesn't go far in the horror community anyway (even though this isnt horror) since some great movies are frowned upon by critics anyway
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Apr 2, 2011 0:24:36 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a perfect movie. All of them have mistakes, no matter how small.
When I read your brief criticism, it is good to see that it doesn't completely hinge on how Burton did it before.
Nolan's films are treated like JGTH on here by most people. Jerry Lawler would call it "bizarro world," as most other places praise them. I am pretty much the only active vocal supporter of them.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Apr 2, 2011 0:31:31 GMT -5
You don't nee dto act like a damn douchebag though. You view this fuckin film like it's the greatest thing to ever appear on screen. I don't view Burton's Batman that way. I view it as a fun cheesy movie that I gre wup watching. Just because I like it more give syou no right to treat me like shit over it. I honestly did nothing to you and yet you treat me like garbage.
|
|
|
Post by The Darkness on Apr 6, 2011 19:35:00 GMT -5
Dammit, I'm sick of all these reboots. How the hell do you reboot a series when another version JUST ended? *cough* Spider-Man Just becuase someone prfers one serie sof films over another doesn't mean you have to act like a dick towards them. Christ why do I even bother posting in these threads for? You're just gonna act like a dickhead towards me and taht's the last thing i need this week...whatever like you give a shit anyway.... I didn't think he was being a dick at all. He questioned your opinion rather nicely
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Apr 6, 2011 19:44:35 GMT -5
go check the other threads. you'll see what i mean. Just because i don't like his precious little movie he treats me like crap about it. he uses statistic and " facts" and trie sto shove it down my throat. If he wants to get technical then fine but being an ass about it isn't the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Apr 9, 2011 14:39:16 GMT -5
I didn't think he was being a dick at all. He questioned your opinion rather nicely I find that people don't like established facts when the information presented doesn't suit their personal beliefs. That goes for quite a few situations, not just Batman films.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Apr 9, 2011 15:41:27 GMT -5
Right even though the Dark Knight was more or less a cliche ridden 90 minute episode of Law And Order ( minus the awesomeness of Jerry Orbach, Chris Noth and Jesse L Martin). TDK is a FLAWED movie. Batman 89 is too but I acknowledge the flaws atleast. Lets go over some of these flaws shall we? One, Batman. This wans't batman. This was a cop playing dressup, this character was so uninteresting, so dull and so depressing that I can't root for him. Not to mention he's a hyprocrite when it comes to his own supposed moral code. You think he doens't kill anyone right? Well he killed a fuck load of people that would even put Jason to shame. Batman in 2 movies has so far, blown up an acient monastary filled with 100's of people, crushed cop cars which likely resulted in the deaths of the officers, derailed a monorail which is very likely to have killed people ( like THE DRIVER TAHT WAS KNOCKED OUT BY RA'S AHL- I MEAN LIAM NEESON) and killed Liam Neeson. Oh yeah he also killed some pretentious Jesus Christ runnerup calling himself Harvey Dent. Spekaing of which, this wans't harvey. Harvey Dent had a sevre bipolar disorder and later dissaciative identity disorder brought on by his disfigurement. No DA would EVER side witha criminal. Batman is a criminal, sure he does good things ( yeah right..more on that in a minute) but he should have ordered Jim Gordon (only character i liked due to gary Oldman) to ARREST Batman on the spot. Oh and since this movie is trying to be realitsic i'm gonna point outa fe wthings. One, Batman wouldve been arrested LONG AGO. Two, Joker Scarecrow Ra's etc are TERRORISTS they are. And as such there is a nice little organization called The Department of Homeland security that would have stopped those guys easily. So how can this be realistic when these people would have been stopped within a day or two after committing crimes like the one sthey committed? Speaking of which not one single villain has been intimidating in this series. Not Ra's ( who they got wrong) not Scarecrow( also wrong) Not Two-Face ( MAJOR WRONG) and not even Joker (also wrong...generic is how I would describe this guy actually. just your typical run of the mill " psycho" even though he ISN'T CRAZY but more on that later) . As I stated earlier with batman he is no better than these guys. He murders people, he cuases millions of dollars in damage to property, endagered an entire city becuase he didn't pursue some guy in clown makeup called The Joker who could oh I dunno be a major threat perhaps? ( Please explain to me why he went after the mob an organization that NOBODY CAN EVER REALLY BRING DOWN NOT EVEN HIM!, rather than the dangerous criminal in clown makeup who is supposedly unstable?). Batman would never act like this. Atleast in Tim Burton's film when Joker started toappear he saw the threat and pursued it rather than just going after mindless criminals. Now On with how they got the villains wrong. Here's a list starting with each little one. Scarecrow- Theroectically they got him right for the most part but he really wasn't scary...or even dressed like a scarecrow...and when he was Scarecrow he was FIRED from Arkham Asylum after getting cuaght. There are guards watching Dr. Crane ( and other doctor's as well) so THEY WOULD HAVE EASILY REPORTED HIM! and ona final note it was a crime that this great character, one of the oldest batman villains, was taken a backseat two times in a row. Bullshit Two-Face- Shockingly enough batman Forever got him more accurate. How you may ask? well lets go over it shall we? They got his origin right, they got the fact taht he committs his crimes based around the number 2, they got the fact taht is dual ( like the suits he wears or his hideout) they also got the fact that he flips his coin several times to make decisions, oh and speaking of which they also got it right that HE RELIES ON THE COIN IT'S HIS OBSESSION. Giving him the " Mr. Freeze" backstory in which he isn't really a bad man he's just doing what eh thinks is right was quite possibly the dumbest thing they could have ever done to the character and it was a betrayl of the character. Ona final note Harvey Dent in the comics was bipolar, often having random and violent outbursts of rage. he was also Bruce Wayne's freind ( becuase he funded his entire campaign and supported him as well) but he HATED Batman like any DA would. Whereas here he is a " self righteous" goodie two-shoes ( no pun intended) ass kisser to a vigilante and a douche bag to Bruce Wayne. ( Though I LOVED AAron Eckhart, and yes Batman Forever was a very stupid and goofy movie and I thought it was mediocre at best...like this movie) Ra's Ahl Ghul ( Pronounced Rache Ah Ghoul! not Raz Ah Gull!) Is a middle eastern 700 year old eco terrorist hell bent on wiping out humanity ...NOT A NINJA WHO LIVES IN THE HYMALIAS! When did Ra's ever teach Bruce Wayne...anything? What was the purpose of this? It didn't make any supsense or drama to it. ( like with EVERY VILLAIN IN THIS SERIES!) this like Batman, Scarecrow and two-face wasn't really Ra's Ahl Ghul. Thsi was some guy just calling himself Ra's Ahl Ghul. True I do not like Ra's but atleast I respect him as a villain for the most part. This made no emntion of talia, the immortality, the lazarus and as much as I love Liam Neeson he was a MAJOR miscast here. Final Note, Ra's was more awesome in the 90s cartoon. You wanna see the real Ra's, watch that. and last but not least, The Joker...oh boy. Look i'm just gonna say this now Ldeger deserved tht oscar and his death was tragic and sad and he will be missed. Moving on from that this was just some guy in makeup with a nasty ass scar and wearing purple claling himslef joker. The Joker is a character who is surrounded in mystery and I'm glad they did it here. But he isn't some speech spewing terrorist. The Joker is an unstable freak who does things just for the sake of doing it. This Joker wasn't a spcyhopath. Psycho's act out on impulse, not planning. This guy was totally aware of what he was doing. The fact he uses a knife didn't amke him scary, at any rate it made him...generic. Heath of course wasn't generic the character was. I remember hearing how evil this Joker was and how scary he was...umm...did I not see the same movie as you? Or did I actually just analyze it? I'm goin with the latter here. Joker did nothing special here. Here's what he did. Killed his bank robber partners. Killed a mobster Killed another mobster Killed some guy dressed as Batman Killed some local government officals Blew up an empty building. Okay how exactly was that so bad? Please enlighten me as to what made this cliche of a character. He really wasn't taht intimidating...or even that much fun to watch. Jack Nicholsons Joker was actually The Joker. He was scary, but yet funny. He was scary in the sense that he was unpredictable and made a joke out of death. Some examples are, the partyman scene, the scene where he electrocuted a mobster and talked with his corpse, tried to poison an enitre city with laughing gas ( something Joker WOULD DO) and even died smiling. Ledger was great in thsi movie. Too bad he wasn't playing Joker. The plot of this movie was umm...what was it exactly? Okay so Joker does stuff then there's shock reatcion ( somehow, seriously campy Freddy Krueger was scarier) then there's a 5 minute speech ( more on that in a second) and then more stuff happens. There is no cohesion here. Also since this is a sequel none of th places or events from Begins was mentioned here. like The Narrows, Arkham Asylum, the fear toxin stuff, the monorail attack so on and so forth. Batman 89 had a plot. It wasn't great but it was simple. Batman is a vigilante who has to stop a madman named Joker from posioning everyone in gotham city with his toxic chemicals. Easy enough. ( sound slike one of the early comics imo). I honestly found nothing really memorable here about this film. I wnat to like it i really do but I can't. Also on a final note, just because it won an oscar ( so did Batman 89 for best set design) and was critcally acclaimed ( like Batman 89) and made a ton of money ( like Batman 89...see a pattern emerging here?) doesn't always mean it's great. But unlike Batman 89 which made it's money due to great advertising ( the fucking poster was on the jumbotron in Times Square in NY you don't get any bigger than that!) and an all star cast, TDK made it's money off of a dead man and internet publicity, and the IMAX gimmick ( oooh the movie is on a larger screen OMG IT'S SOOOOO PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EEEK!!!!!!!!!). A majority of people saw this only for Ledger. Not batman. Becuase of Heath's brilliant performance it was so highly regarded. Look I like this concept of realistic superhero films, but you can also make it fun. Iron man for example was both realistic and serious but a blast to watch. If anyone is a fanboy with his head shoved so far up his own ass it's you. Not me. I atleast acknowldge Batman 89's problems but yet I like it. Just because I like it doens't mean you hAve to act like a pretentious ass hole. EDIT I forgot to mention that nolan had originally depcited joker without amkeup and using a chainsaw, and that Scarecrow er I mean Crane was maskless, and was gonna be played by Marylin manson, oh and Two-Face was not gonna be disfigured. TDK isn't as perfect as you think it is. And it took David Goyer ( the co-writer) to get the clown mAkeup ( along with Heath ledger coming up with the design),getting rid of the chainsaw ( seriously WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IS A SUITABLE WEAPON!!!!! ?) and to get the disfigured Two-Face and the Scarecrow mask. If Noaln is sooo accurate then how come he got all the characters wrong? Joker isn't crazy nor funny, two-Face isn't in a mental war with himself ( nor is he dual)Scarecrow isn't scary, Ra's Ahl Ghul isn't a sadui arabian ( well okay I can somewhat understand that what with how the middle east is viewed today) and he isn't an eviromental terrorist. And lastly Batman in this movie isn't the dark brooding and mysterious figure that he's supposed to be. here he is well a boring, whiney hypocrite. Also NOBODY TALKS IN SPEECHES. Seriously, who talks like this? It's quite clear the speeches were made for the trailer. This movie wasn't Batman. It was a standard run of the mill generic cop drama with batamn elements thrown in. That doesn't amke it Batman. Now is this a bad movie? No. Is it a bad Batman movie...well...it's not campy or goofy. I honestly want this concept to work with Batman but at the same time they're gonna have to do it like Iron man did and be unrealistic at the same time. And is that really so bad? My issue with Nolan is taht he made two generic law dramas that had Batman elements thrown in and made a ton of moneya nd now everyone views him as a God pretty much. I mean he is talnted and I want to see his other films like Momento and Inception but his Batman movies were bleh. I really don't see the so called masterpiece that this movie supposedly is. Batman 89 isn't a masterpiece either but it atleast didn't drone on for 90 minutes with endless speeches, forgettable characters, lack of a cohesive plot and a very boring score. The character of Batman was meant to be something like a phantom, a creature of the night. This wasn't that Batman. Now let me tell you the things I liked about this movie and how badly i wnat to look past it's flaws. I liked the little nods like Joker burning the money and the copy cat Batman's. Those were cool to see ( The money burning was from long halloween and the copy cats were from The Dark knight Returns...before Frank Miller sucked) and the little subtle nods to Riddler ( Coleman Reese) Catowman ( the cat joke made by lucious) and Calculator ( Lau). I also loved Batman's costumes in both films. ( Begins slightly more than TDK) I liked Joker's design ( very well done by the amke up artist and the costume artist) and I liked the fact taht jim Gordon didn't start off as Commsioner. I want to like this movie, hell later tonight I'm probably gonna watch it. I LOVE this realistic setting but it was just done...wrong to me. It's hard to explain but it was. Honestly, I can leave my brain at the door and not view this as an actual Batman movie and more of a okay crime drama and find some entertainment and a way to kill 2 hours. If you wnat a serious, emotion conveying Batman that is a great thriller, pick up Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm. A HIGHLY superior film to both TDK and 89.
|
|
|
Post by Xч on Apr 14, 2011 2:18:59 GMT -5
Wow,this again? Seriously people,come on. There are far better things to do than argue online over a batman movie. Go outside,run around the block,get laid. Rest the computer for a while. Enjoy life before its all gone.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Apr 14, 2011 8:20:29 GMT -5
Hey tell that to him, not me.
|
|