New Testingstan

Oxymoron wrote:What was your experience with Inglorious Basterd, regarding expectations vs. final product ?

Well it was advertised as a war/action movie and in reality it was about a French girl who wanted revenge.

Isn't the whole point of Batman as a character that he is a tragic figure damned to misery, and that any form of happy ending is for him impossible ?

Oxymoron wrote:Isn't the whole point of Batman as a character that he is a tragic figure damned to misery, and that any form of happy ending is for him impossible ?

Yeah. That's why the movie ends with Batman's death, because Batman has to die for Bruce Wayne to live.

Oxymoron wrote:Isn't the whole point of Batman as a character that he is a tragic figure damned to misery, and that any form of happy ending is for him impossible ?

Sort of. I don't really read superhero comics anymore, but you've sort of got it right. The thing is, in the nolanverse, Batman was never meant to be an ongoing thing. Wayne was always going to stop being Batman once he rid the city of organized crime, which he did at the end of TDK by compromising himself.

Bakustra wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Isn't the whole point of Batman as a character that he is a tragic figure damned to misery, and that any form of happy ending is for him impossible ?

Yeah. That's why the movie ends with Batman's death, because Batman has to die for Bruce Wayne to live.

Except Batman didn't die. At the end Bruce passes the torche to Blake. The bat signal was reassembled as well. Plus who else is going to deal with the escaped prisoners and the likely repeal of the Dent act?

Flagg wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:Man, I don't know why World's End has become the urr example of bad sequels. I'd rather watch it than TDKR or x-men 3 or Spider-man 3.

And TDKR was just a mess. The main issue for me was the way it just didn't seem to follow on from TDK in any logical fashion, the same way TDK came naturally from Batman Begins.

How is that? TDKR shows a broken Wayne and a Gordon who sold his soul for a lie. Because TDK did not have a happy ending. Not even close.

Nothing at the end TDK, really suggested to me that Bruce was done being Batman. In fact the whole 'we're going to hunt him' made me think the opposite that batman was going to continue his crusade against crime while also having to avoid the police who where no genuinely after him.

The whole 'bruce is a cripple' thing, which was impotant for all of five minutes was also out of left field.

Likewise, I don't think anything in TDK, suggested that they were going to use Dent's memory to force through a whole bunch of police state indefinite detention crap. There was talk of preserving Dent's reputation but totally fucking it over by plastering his name all over extreme measures and 'saving gotham'

So yeah, The Dark Knight follows on well with Batman Begin pick up the joker on the escalation theme. The eight year time jump, the retired batman and the saved gotham does not follow so well. And slows the start of the film down with a whole bunch of exposition and explanations that largely become irrelevant when bane shows up. I mean how does any of the bane plot really depend on the time jump? Very little that I could see would be changed if batman had been active.

It's like Batman Begins/TDK was Frank Miller's Year ONe and TDKR was suddenly Dark Knight Returns. You go from young batman just starting his career, to old over the hill batman. Without any really batman in his prime in between.

not sure If I'm making any sense at all but that's my recollections of how I felt when I saw it.

Ah, comic book movies: the end of cinema.

Well the Dent act wasn't indefinite detention, it was denying parole for organized crime members for 10 years or something like that.

I agree that further explanation was required for Wayne being half a cripple and then being able to almost hold his own against Bane within a few days or weeks.

Negative Knub wrote:Ah, comic book movies: the end of cinema.

Meh, better than most novel adaptations.

Flagg wrote:

Bakustra wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Isn't the whole point of Batman as a character that he is a tragic figure damned to misery, and that any form of happy ending is for him impossible ?

Yeah. That's why the movie ends with Batman's death, because Batman has to die for Bruce Wayne to live.

Except Batman didn't die. At the end Bruce passes the torche to Blake. The bat signal was reassembled as well. Plus who else is going to deal with the escaped prisoners and the likely repeal of the Dent act?

Batman's dead. He died carrying the nuke away from Gotham. There's a statue up to him and everything. Sure, he may well come back from the dead, a little shorter, but the Batman, as an identity, died.

Negative Knub wrote:Ah, comic book movies: the end of cinema.

Watch Wes Craven's Swamp Thing and get back to me. Loser.

Tony Stark came into the theater and Tony Starked all over the place

Isn't part of the idea of passing the torch to Blake was that he would try to do what Batman and Gordon couldn't? Part of which had to do with his outrage at all those men, guilty or not, going to jail on a lie?

I remember that being implied. Though I may have also been reading too much into it...

The Spartan wrote:Isn't part of the idea of passing the torch to Blake was that he would try to do what Batman and Gordon couldn't? Part of which had to do with his outrage at all those men, guilty or not, going to jail on a lie?

I remember that being implied. Though I may have also been reading too much into it...

Basically.

Hey Tucker

Don't hurt yourself falling off your high horse, mate

timmy wrote:Hey Tucker

Don't hurt yourself falling off your high horse, mate

Give yourself a hand.

Woah Flagg don't associated me with your brand of arseholery

Hey, Starglider, I know you're here.

How long does it take to write those posts? They're such works of art that I can't imagine you don't go through a draft process.

I love how TEO has gone so far towards the conspiracy fringe that simple incompetence is no longer an available answer in the reason why a government does something. I swear, if 9/11 happened now, TEO would end up as the center of the Truther movement.

RogueIce wrote:

adr wrote:EVERYBODY PARKED IN THE FUCKING FIRE LANE

Should've towed those cars and sent them to the crusher.

apparently nobody even got a ticket.

but i've been thinking about how calm the whole thing was. from supreme court decisions you'd think shouting fire in a crowded theater is some kind of horrible thing that will definitely result in mayhem and death

why didn't that happen? perhaps it is cuz we've all had plenty of fire drills in that very building (with much larger numbers of people too) in the past, so it was pretty mundane


perhaps a group who has never had any fire drills at all would react differently


or maybe the supreme court was just full of shit and ruled that way just to erode the first amendment cuz of their tyrannical agenda (edit: i looked on the internet and there were indeed some major disasters before then so holmes prolly wasn't full of shit, but still it is interesting to see a) if such disasters are in fact less common today or not and b) if so, why? it really wouldn't surprise me if it is the school drills.)

speaking of tyranny in the musical, the prince ordered his guy to go door to door and make everybody try on the slipper. the step sisters said there's nobody else in the house.... so the government official then barged in and searched against their objections

poor cinderella. she seemed like a nice girl but now thx to this marriage, when the revolution comes, she's prolly gonna lose her head

Questor wrote:I love how TEO has gone so far towards the conspiracy fringe that simple incompetence is no longer an available answer in the reason why a government does something.

linka plz 4 us b& ppl

one thing i've been seeing a lot of elsewhere though and want to talk about briefly is the FBI getting a call from the russians an unnamed foreign government to look at the alleged boston bombers back in 2011 or something

a lot of people are going nuts about this saying the fbi should have done more. well my view is that's easy to say now, in retrospect.... but if they did look into the tip and found nothing to substantiate them, what do you really expect them to do at the time? (of course if they didn't investigate the tip, that'd be legitimate criticism, the Russian government is at least as credible as a paid confidential informant, and they take that stuff seriously, but my understanding is they did investigate it)

if there was no evidence of wrongdoing at the time, the fbi did the right thing by backing off. this doesn't mean they willingly turned a blind eye to forward the conspiracy nor does it mean they were incompetent. (again, unless they were incompetent, i don't really know for sure but assuming they did what they said they did)

to say they should have done more is to logically be ok with them harassing all other innocent people and i'm not ok with that.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=158472

No one has even considered that the goal might have been: "Provide people with useful information and help them find jobs, and we just sucked at executing."

No, it's" "Waste the time of the poor for the amusement of the rich because evilol."

Starglider provides some excellent satirical trolling, guess which long term members don't get it.

timmy wrote:Hey Tucker

Don't hurt yourself falling off your high horse, mate

It's not my fault that arthouse > Hollywood.

That's a conditional, not a declarative.

I've seen plenty of horrible arthouse crap. The bad stuff tends to see pretty limited release, I'm just within range of ground zero.

Most independent ventures are limited release because studios won't back them because it's risky and the masses like garbage that sells like hotcakes.

Listen and stfu noob.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononho ... eaderPanel

Negative Knub wrote:Most independent ventures are limited release because studios won't back them because it's risky and the masses like garbage that sells like hotcakes.

Listen and stfu noob.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononho ... eaderPanel

Aaaand where, exactly, is one of the places that those limited releases are likely to be, grasshopper?

And Soderbergh's not exactly the best person to be criticizing mainstream cinema, is he? I like his stuff, but he's not exactly an exclusively arthouse name himself anymore.

A bit more Robert Downey Jr., now than pre-2007.

He has dealings with both Hollywood and independent films. Given his recent experience with his Liberace work, I think he's suitable.