|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 9, 2016 10:37:50 GMT -5
I like the Red Triangle Gang.
Especially at the end when they are genre-savvy enough to realise "yep, I think we're about done here"
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Dec 9, 2016 10:40:20 GMT -5
But funny how it seems like the Nolan movies are already/have already not been holding up. Are we taking out our problems with the direction of the DCCU on them? Just realizing they're not perfect in general?
I know some people who have become more forgiving of even the Schumacher films.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507 
|
Post by Shai on Dec 9, 2016 10:43:25 GMT -5
Ledger was both amazing as Joker and overrated. Yeah, him becoming the end all be all to people was too much, but dude put in an awesome performance. And no, Returns did not have a plot that made sense. It had a buncha threads that didn't tie togeteher at all. It was a mess; an entertaining mess, but an absolute mess. Ledger's was what it was, but best Joker in a world where Mark Hamill's version exists? Nahhhhhhh.... And having seen footage of him doing the voice acting and his facial expressions If they ever actually picked him to be a live action Joker I would not complain one bit. It was a crazy swerve to me as a kid to learn that Luke Skywalker was the Joker. |
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Dec 9, 2016 10:47:37 GMT -5
But funny how it seems like the Nolan movies are already/have already not been holding up. Are we taking out our problems with the direction of the DCCU on them? Just realizing they're not perfect in general? I know some people who have become more forgiving of even the Schumacher films. For me it's that they overplayed them on T.V. when TNT first got the broadcast rights to TDK they played that damn movie every weekend for like six months...watch anything enough and you'll start picking it apart. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 9, 2016 11:43:34 GMT -5
But funny how it seems like the Nolan movies are already/have already not been holding up. Are we taking out our problems with the direction of the DCCU on them? Just realizing they're not perfect in general? I know some people who have become more forgiving of even the Schumacher films. To me Batman Begins holds up better than the other two. Dark Knight is a good movie, but you've got two compelling characters in Joker and Dent and a pretty weak Batman. Rises has serious pacing problems, an extremely unsatisfactory ending, and a very iffy Batman/Bruce Wayne characterisation, at least in the first half of the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Dec 9, 2016 12:18:30 GMT -5
I still really like the Nolan films, and find Oldman as Gordon and Eckhart as Dent/Two Face really compelling.
Really my issue is that (and I know this is an odd complaint) Batman/Bruce is just a little too... stable.
I really got into Burton's films, the DCAU, the comics, and Arkham games because in their own ways they each explore the Wayne's psyche and show a guy struggling on that line between person and vigilante; how he wishes he wouldn't be Batman, yet also somehow has to be him. Someone who eventually stops thinking of himself as Wayne to some degree and just is the Dark Knight.
Norton's Bruce feels very straightlaced; a guy who became a vigilante to clean up Gotham, chose a symbol, and ceased to be that once he felt it wasn't necessary. All very competent and logical, yet not terribly interesting as a character. There's a mask as public Bruce Wayne, and also every indication that the cowl is just as much a mask as well. Nothing wrong with that, and its been that in comics canon at points, but I'm not drawn in as much because Batman just feels like a method rather than part of his personality. Ironically enough given what's said in the first film, some of the most interesting Batman stories to me are ones where he's defined by what he is inside, not just what he does.
Now again, Bruce's arc over the three films makes complete sense, and it is nice to have a canon where he gets the happy ending; its just that it ends up shifting all the interesting psychological drama onto other characters rather than him.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Dec 9, 2016 12:31:42 GMT -5
I still really like the Nolan films, and find Oldman as Gordon and Eckhart as Dent/Two Face really compelling. Really my issue is that (and I know this is an odd complaint) Batman/Bruce is just a little too... stable. I really got into Burton's films, the DCAU, the comics, and Arkham films because in their own ways they each explore the Wayne's psyche and show a guy struggling on that line between person and vigilante; how he wishes he wouldn't be Batman, yet also somehow has to be him. Someone who eventually stops thinking of himself as Wayne at all to some degree just is the Dark Knight. Norton's Bruce feels very straightlaced; a guy who became a vigilante to clean up Gotham, chose a symbol, and ceased to be that once he felt it wasn't necessary. All very competent and logical, yet not terribly interesting as a character. There's a mask as public Bruce Wayne, and also every indication that the cowl is just as much a mask as well. Nothing wrong with that, and its been that in comics canon at points, but I'm not drawn in as much because Batman just feels like a method rather than part of his personality. Ironically enough given what's said in the first film, some of the most interesting Batman stories to me are ones where he's defined by what he is inside, not just what he does. Now again, Bruce's arc over the three films makes complete sense, and it is nice to have a canon where he gets the happy ending; its just that it ends up shifting all the interesting psychological drama onto other characters rather than him. I never thought of this but now that youve said it that is a huge part of what's missing from the Nolan trilogy. Bruce has never been able to just stop being Batman and be normal. Hes tried but he always fails and ends up Bats again. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 9, 2016 12:35:04 GMT -5
Ironically enough given what's said in the first film, some of the most interesting Batman stories to me are ones where he's defined by what he is inside, not just what he does. That's basically what I feel. Bruce is Batman because he simply cannot be anything or anybody else. There's no wanting to be or not be. It's who he is inside. Nolan's Bruce is Batman because he feels pressured into being Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Dec 9, 2016 12:42:45 GMT -5
Ironically enough given what's said in the first film, some of the most interesting Batman stories to me are ones where he's defined by what he is inside, not just what he does. That's basically what I feel. Bruce is Batman because he simply cannot be anything or anybody else. There's no wanting to be or not be. It's who he is inside. Nolan's Bruce is Batman because he feels pressured into being Batman. That scene of him in Mask of the Phantasm pleading at his parent's grave to not be Batman and live a normal life is one of the single best characterizations I've seen of him, because it sums up that internal divide perfectly. Yes he clearly wants to just have a regular existence with someone he loves; a desire to just be helpful civilian Bruce Wayne. However, its a sign of his where his mind is already that feels such immense guilt at wanting out of it, to the point where he's believes his parents would be ashamed of him breaking his promise, even though most depictions of him would suggest they'd understand. I can't see the Nolan Wayne ever getting to that point because his soul isn't haunted by that need to honor the vow as much as it is motivated to clean Gotham. Again, its all a matter of taste; the more tortured and brooding Batman is to some degree a cliche and it is the one I prefer, but I'd totally understand someone who's keen on a different characterization. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 9, 2016 13:46:46 GMT -5
It honestly depends on the mood I'm in which Batman I prefer.
Sometimes you want cheerful public servant Adam West. They only ever mention his parents in the very first episode. The rest of the time, he's a hero because Gotham needs one.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Dec 9, 2016 13:49:20 GMT -5
It honestly depends on the mood I'm in which Batman I prefer. Sometimes you want cheerful public servant Adam West. They only ever mention his parents in the very first episode. The rest of the time, he's a hero because Gotham needs one. Yeah, I can go for either... becasue sometimes you just need some Silver age nonsense like Adam West or Brave and the bold  |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 9, 2016 13:51:49 GMT -5
Right. Sometimees it's cool to see a Caped Crusader that isn't conflicted at all. In fact, he's proud and happy to help out. Gotham needs a judge for their chili cook off? Batman is there!
|
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Dec 16, 2016 20:39:35 GMT -5
Watching this for the first time in a while. The whole "Batman not killing anyone" rule goes out the window.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 17, 2016 1:46:11 GMT -5
If so, it's a lump of coal in my stocking. I can't stand Batman Returns. It's barely a Batman film at all. The title character has minimal screen time, and the villains have all been completely reimagined into weird Tim Burton characters. It's just not any good. The only way to enjoy the movie is to be a much bigger fan of Tim Burton than Batman, which I'm just not.
|
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 17, 2016 3:58:32 GMT -5
Hey, Sky Go has it down as a Christmas movie so it must be one.
(By the way, Die Hard isn't on there so the debate on that is OVER!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 17, 2016 9:28:51 GMT -5
Watching this for the first time in a while. The whole "Batman not killing anyone" rule goes out the window. Rightfully so. I hate that stupid rule. |
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,656
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Dec 17, 2016 9:55:42 GMT -5
I should add that anything can be a christmas movie as long as it's tradition to watch it. Arguing about what and what not is a christmas movie is nonsense. Who cares as long as whoever watches it, enjoys it. This is very true. Look at Star Wars. Since Disney purchased the franchise, they have started position it as a Christmas tradition, not only with the new movies, but when the old movies are on TV. Combine that with the tons of Star Wars Christmas merchandise, I bet the next generation will see Star Wars as "Christmassy" in the same way as Coca Cola, and M & Ms |
|
